eimatshya

I agree with those who have pointed out that in the Vancian Magic system, wizards are more-or-less worthless the vast majority of the time since they are only able to use their magic a few times per day and battles usually consist of them trying, and failing, to hit an enemy with a 1d4 sling. In contrast a fighter in third edition D&D can power attack with a two handed sword an unlimited number of times per day. In this way, a fighter with 18 strength and a two handed sword can easily exchange -2 to hit for a +4 to damage and deal 2d6+10 damage per hit (or more if he takes a larger penalty to attack). As such, over the course of the day the fighter's total damage will be many times higher than the wizard's unless you stop and sleep every hour or two, which is not fun or immersive. I liked the way Arcanum's system fixed this extreme imbalance. Everyone had a pool of stamina, and when you did something tiring like swinging a sword or casting a spell, you lost an amount of stamina relative to the amount you had exerted yourself. As such, magic users could cast any spell they knew as many times as they wanted at any time, but they had to be careful not to overdo it or they would pass out. Fighters could still attack as much as they wanted, but they too had to worry about not pushing themselves too hard since their stamina was depleting as well.

This. I don't have any particular preference between bizarre settings like Planescape or Dark Sun and more traditional fantasy settings like Forgotten Realms. I think you can tell interesting and engaging stories in either kind of setting. The "new" thing that I would like to see done in a traditional fantasy setting (or any fantasy setting, really) would be to create greater ethnolinguistic diversity. The big problem that I have with fantasy settings in general is that their non-human races are almost always monocultural/monolingual (as though language and culture are passed on genetically or something). This annoys me to no end. Dwarves who live in the Kingdom of Narnik should not have the same language and culture as the Dwarves who live 1000 miles away in Erkhhadn. Within the single "race" (to use the term as it is used in fantasy settings) that we have on Earth, there is an incredible range of diversity. On the Earth, humans speak over FIVE THOUSAND LANGUAGES divided into over 200 families most of which can be further subdivided into smaller sub-families. It sounds like Obsidian may be addressing this problem with Project Eternity, so my big issue seems to be under control. I can't wait to see what they come up with! Oh, and as a non-P:E related aside, here's a neat website by the Max Planck Institute that allows you to see interesting things about the distribution of languages and languages features on Earth (English is the the Indo-European family, sub-family: Germanic): http://wals.info/languoid

I hope they release it when it's ready. If that is spring 2014, then so be it. If that is later, that's OK too.

From what Tim Cain said in update 12, it sounds like they are planning for the classes to dictate combat role, at least to some extent. Still, it would be nice to see some more flexibility in the system.

Even though I'm not a spy, I've decided to join the Obsidian Order and upped my pledge accordingly. Could I be known as "The Obsidian Order's Assigner of Ergativity"? Thanks!

I often enjoy character creation, especially in games like Fallout 1&2 and Arcanum. Really, I'm not that picky, though. I don't particularly like in-game generation like in Fallout 3 and New Vegas because they become mind numbingly tedious on repeated playthroughs, but they don't ruin the game for me. The only way character creation can ruin the game for me is if I am stuck playing a pre-set character that I can't identify with at all. This is the problem I have with the Witcher games. There are things about those games that I really like, but I can't empathize with Geralt at all (or with any of the other characters for that matter). As such, I have never really been able to get into the games. It took me years to finally get all the way through the first game, and I have only managed to get a few hours into the second one.

While I'm not a dog person, I wouldn't object to a dog if it were an optional companion (unlike the dog in DA). That said, if they want to make an animal companion, I would prefer something less banal than a dog (or cat, even though I am a cat person). I agree with those who have suggested something along the lines of Okku from MotB. I think that would feel more appropriate for a fantasy adventure. Dogmeat worked in Fallout 'cause he fit the setting. For fantasy, we should have something a bit more fantastical.

In theory, many of those sound like neat additions to combat. In a turn-based game or game in which you play as a single character, I could see these working, but I'd be a little concerned about them in a RTwP game. You usually don't have a lot of precision when you are trying to monitor six characters in RTwP since when the game is paused, you generally can't tell what everyone is about to do and when it isn't you can't micromanage all six characters at once. As such, it's usually more difficult to be precise about positioning and mobility. At best, you get your characters in the general formation you want, but outside of narrow, enclosed areas, all-out preventing enemies from running around your blockers is pretty much impossible (unless they implement some kind of zone of control mechanic). They are designing a new combat system for this game, though, so perhaps they will be able to come up with something that would be precise and reactive enough to make complicated combat maneuvering a viable option. I have not seen such a thing in the existing RTwP games that I have played, however.

I'm with the other posters who have said that it would depend on how the system was implemented. It could be a fun addition to give adventuring a bit more depth, or it could be a tedious exercise in micromanagement (an especially likely scenario in a party-based game). If they do have food, you should have ways of getting food and water in the wilderness (e.g. survival checks). It would be silly if the ranger who grew up in the wilds had to return to town every few days to buy food. I would prefer if starvation/thirst didn't kill your character but instead imposed penalties of some sort (same with sleep deprivation). That way, you have an incentive to keep your party supplied, but if you run out, it isn't game over (not realistic, but more enjoyable). *EDIT* Oh, and since this is a party-based game, I would prefer eating and drinking to be done automatically. That is, a certain number of times each day, your party's food and water supplies are reduced by one per party member, and each party member's hunger/thirst resets. That way you don't have to individually feed everyone all the time since that would get old really fast. There could still be the option to manually eat and drink stuff by clicking on it, but this should not be necessary for your party members to stay fed (they aren't babies; they should be able to eat on their own).

I played the Baldur's Gate games obsessively back when they came out. As such, I also got IWD and Torment, but I never really got into them at the time. Years later I gave them another chance and found them much more enjoyable (especially Torment which blew my mind once I got into it).

OK, what do you mean by "Beastmen"? Do you mean things like bird-people and ratmen but not cat-people? Hairy wild-men like Enkidu(Epic of Gilgamesh) and Gurgi (Chronicles of Prydain)? men who can take the shape of beasts? something else?

I think the Gnomes in Pathfinder's Golarion setting are pretty distinct from its Dwarves, but then their Gnomes are more similar to fey, meaning they might overlap a bit with your pixie suggestion. This could be neat, too.

Well, this game is supposed to be a spiritual successor of sorts to the IE games, and you could knock people unconscious in those by using unarmed attacks (or at least you could in BG, not sure about the others). As such, being able to deal non-lethal damage to KO opponents, rather than kill them, isn't that big of a request. The expanded ideas in which you can take the people prisoner would be more taxing on Obsidian's resources, but I don't know that it would be entirely unfeasible, depending on how they did it. As for whether it would enhance the gaming experience: yes, for me it would definitely enhance my gaming experience. When I get attacked by someone who I don't necessarily want to kill, it greatly enhances my enjoyment of the game to be able to beat them unconscious, rather than having to stab them to death to keep them from killing me. For example, in BG 1, when you go into that inn in Beregost where that guy picks a fight with you, I never felt right about having my entire party hack this unarmed guy to pieces, so I knock him out with unarmed attacks instead. In Arcanum, when I go to see P. Schyler and Sons and the pompous receptionist won't let me in, depending on what kind of character I'm RPing, I sometimes just beat him up, take the key off his unconscious body, and go in. This brings me to Tale's comment that it is unrealistic for beating someone until they pass out to be safe; while the ToEE system never particularly bothered me, I do understand the argument. I think Arcanum's system works well in this respect. Since unarmed attacks drain both stamina and health, it is possible to drain health faster than stamina. Usually you will be able to KO the person without killing them, but occasionally you will do really well on the HP damage roll and kill them by mistake. Such a system allows you to try and subdue people without killing them, but is not a sure thing. I'd be fine if P:E took this route instead of the ToEE route. But I would like it to be possible to knock people out.

Loving this. Thanks! Great points about the subraces. I hope we can choose some interesting backgrounds for our characters. The dev update that really got me interested in P:E was the one that brought up the issue of diversity. I'm a little burned out on traditional fantasy races, but the big problem with them is that they are almost always monocultures. Giving elves and dwarves the same cultural diversity as humans gives them a chance to be interesting again. I also really hope that linguistic diversity is considered as well. I hate that every race in fantasy games has its own language that all members of that language speak regardless of where they live. It takes absolutely no effort to say that Dwarves from Flindur speak Flinduric and Dwarves from Kazo'aan speak Kazo'aani. It's not like that have to actually make up these languages. But no, they always speak Dwarvish. As if language were genetic or something. So, back on topic, whatever races they do end up including (and from the KS page it now looks like the Godlike will be a sixth race, so I guess there are two unannounced races, not one), I hope they will be divided into diverse cultures, with each culture having its own language (unless it would make sense for it to share one).

I'm not opposed to the idea of such a feature in principle, however I'm not sure that it would fit Project Eternity. P:E sounds like it will be a story driven game with a concentrated narrative. If this is the case, then I think that having your character come down with vampirism would be a distraction that would drag the narrative away from the central conflict (unless the central conflict was about vampires or werewolves, or whatever, but this strikes me as unlikely from what little we know of the game). In a more open story like what we get in the elder scrolls games, such a feature is viable because there is no strong story driving the gameplay. The basic MO is "mess around and dabble in what little story there is when/if it suits your fancy." As such, getting randomly bitten by a werewolf won't derail an Elder Scrolls game's narrative since there isn't much of one to derail. In the kind of the kind of games that Obsidian usually makes, as well as in the old Infinity Engine games that supposedly serve as P:E's core source of inspiration, a complex narrative drives the player's actions, and unless becoming a vampire or werewolf is part of that core narrative, becoming one would just mess up the game's pacing and possibly its plot, as well. I'm also concerned that it would be a labor intensive feature to implement, and there are other things I would rather have them spend their time on.

Sure they do. In a world full of magic, I see nothing odd about strange hybrids cropping up due to curses or magical experiments. Anyway, I'm not really sure what to vote for in the poll, as I'm undecided on what I would want (which is part of the reason why I didn't create a poll for the other thread). As far as something reasonably traditional, I think my preference would be for something like the Dracha from Arcana Evolved (although I'm not a fan of lizardmen, so I didn't vote for that option in the poll): However, as Hideo Kuze pointed out in the other thread, a dragonoid race might be too morphologically similar to demon/human hybrids, which we might be getting through the Godlike. If dragon-people were out, I would maybe like to see some sort of wolf-men/jackal-men. Really, my biggest concern with any race in the game is that it feels natural within the setting. I usually don't feel that medieval Europe themed fantasy woulds should have insect-men or lizard-men in them, but if Obsidian made a world where they did, I would be ok with their inclusion.

Surrendering enemies could be pretty neat, depending on how it was done. Might be a lot of work to implement, though (outside of scripted events that is). OT: I'm not sure about fleeing enemies. Sometimes it would get annoying in the old IE games to have to chase them all down. Maybe if their movement speed was crippled due to serious injury it would be better. In the IE games, they would flit around so fast that it was frustrating to try to hit them with your unresponsive melee attacks. Then again, they are not using the clunky IE system of AD&D rounds, so maybe combatants will be more responsive in P:E.

Even if you didn't have to pay the actors, you would still have to pay for a director and studio time to record. Then there is the task of actually getting all of the recorded lines into the game and testing them to make sure they are working correctly. All of this would be expensive and time consuming. I'm fine with limited voice acting (I'd actually prefer none because I don't really like BG's system of abrupt transitions when recorded dialogue gives way suddenly to text only, but Obsidian's made their decision).

Nice post and polls, OP. I generally don't engage in romances in cRPGs, but I do on occasion. I've seen some game romances that I thought were done well, and also ones that were not so good, but I don't have any objection with them being in the game as long as they are optional. I think of it is another way to develop characters, thereby adding more depth to the world and your interactions with it (although like any element of the story, if they aren't done well, they may have a detrimental, rather than positive, effect). As I've posted in other threads, I think attraction is something that naturally occurs and is especially likely to develop when people spend a lot of time together. As such, I think giving players the opportunity to act on the attractions that may arise between their character and certain NPCs makes perfect sense. How much of a "romance" this may turn into could vary. They don't have to move past the incipient phase, like the romances in PS:T, but if they do, that can be all right, as well. Anyway, I would like to at least have the option since, if not done poorly, romances broaden the range of possible interactions with the characters of the world (a plus in my book). That said, romance should be an option, not something you are railroaded into. You should also be able to cultivate friendships with your followers (or antagonistic relationships if that's more your thing). In the end though, if incorporating decent or better romances would be too labor intensive, I won't lose any sleep over their absence (like I said, I only participate in them sporadically). Alternately, if the writers just don't want to do them, I wouldn't want to force anyone to write something if it will be a miserable experience for them to do so (I know Avellone has stated his dislike of romances in the past).

I agree. It's nice when they give you the option at install.

Also, "furries"? What's this? A romance thread? Catfolk or Shifters wouldn't be "odd", much like the lizardfolk. I also find them interesting and with some potential but as I said, not "odd". Ratkins would be something I'd really want to see but same issue as the others. Or maybe just my perception about them. Mindflayers on the other hand... well, I wouldn't play one even if payed. But it's "odd" enough to be "Ewww". Does that count for Obsidian? Mindflayers would definitely be odd; no arguments there. Not sure that I'd want to play one either, though. I too have never got the whole "furry" reaction to anthropomorphic animals. Maybe I just haven't encountered enough people who are into that kind of thing for my mind to naturally go there. I, personally, wouldn't have any inherent objection to such a race. I've seen some humanoid animal races that I thought were cool and others that didn't interest me. As much as I like cats, I've never really liked races of cat-people (such as the Vah Shir from EQ or the Khajiit from Elder Scrolls). Not sure why not. I've also never really been into lizardmen. I did like the Ratonga ratmen from EQII, and I think something like wolfmen could be cool. I also think the Sibeccai from Arcana Evolved look really neat. Something along those lines might be fun, although it probably wouldn't count as "truly odd." Here's some pictures anyway:

While the Origin stories were easily my favorite part of DA:O, I don't really feel they're necessary. I would be satisfied with a set of text backgrounds that you could select at character creation like in Arcanum (this would also lead to much more freedom of background, assuming there were as many as we got in that game).

I don't necessarily agree that this is a flaw. I like it when you have multiple ways to say the same thing. When dialogue systems distill the options down to the minimal range of choices, I often find myself staring at a set of possible dialogue choices not sure which one to pick because the only option that conveys what I want to say is worded in such a way so as to make me uncomfortable with choosing it (e.g. because the wording is either extremely self-righteous or extremely callous). As such, I find having multiple ways to deliver a response to be very helpful when I'm trying to roleplay a character. To me, the wording of an utterance is as important as its surface message, as word choice conveys so many subtle (or not-so-subtle) connotations that it can fundamentally alter how the message is received. For example, there's a part in KotOR II where you and the "scoundrel" have been waiting around in a room together for a while. Atton, the scoundrel character, has recently learned that your character is a Jedi. If you are playing a female, he will break the silence by hitting on you, saying something like, "So... how long you been a Jedi? Must be hard; no family, no... husband." The game then gives you several dialogue choices: 1. No harder than having to endure your false sympathy while you're staring at my chest. 2. Are you trying to annoy me, or are you just an idiot? 3. [some other option that ignores the fact that he's being skeevy]. Given that the first two options lead to the same result, i.e. calling Atton out on his advances, this conversation could have been reduced to two responses, 3 and an option that combines 1 and 2. I like that the game does not reduce the ways to criticize his behavior to a single option. It gives you both a sarcastic and a much harsher, direct way to do the same thing. Anyway, I've generally enjoyed the dialogue options in Obsidian's games (and PS:T had the best variety of conversation options I've seen in a game), so I'm not worried about the conversation system in P:E.

True, but, at least in the case of the Dracha, there is a difference. Also, medieval European folklore is full of tales about dragons (e.g. Beowulf, St. George and the Dragon, Sigurd and Fafnir), but I don't recall any Medieval European stories about lizardmen (although I'm hardly an expert on the subject). What I'm trying to say is, from the names and apparent focus on traditional fantasy races, it seems like P:E will be set in a Medieval Europe-esque area. As such, Dragonmen would seem more setting appropriate than lizardmen due to the former's deep-rooted association with Medieval Europe. Of course, if the setting will not be heavily based on Medieval Europe, that argument probably goes out the window. You may be right, depending on what their Godlike are like. That Tiefling you posted earlier in the thread did look pretty cool, anything like that would be pretty neat. Also, if the fifth race is truly odd, then dragonoids and lizardmen probably wouldn't fit the bill anyways.