Terror K

The next few stretch goals will be absolutely crucial - and they don't have much time left, they need to announce them before the current one is reached. A set of enticing goals could result in a spike of pledges. Surprise us, Obsidian! I think the inclusion of a Toolset would be a nice stretch goal option. Or perhaps guarantee of at least one Expansion Pack being released about year after the game releases.

Congrats on hitting the $2,000,000 mark! Well deserved. Here's hoping it's the tip of the iceberg.

I'd like something closer to the DA:O style of UI myself (but definitely NOT like the generic DA2 one). A mix of DA:O and Baldur's Gate 2 would be nice.

Thanks for adding me, though I notice my title isn't quite right. It was supposed to be "Plain, Simple Tailor of the Obsidian Order" and not just "Simple Tailor of the Obsidian Order." Normally it wouldn't be a big deal, but the double DS9 reference is kind of lost a bit otherwise. If it could be fixed I'd be very happy (or if it's because you can't have a "," in the tile, then "Plain Simple Tailor..." without it would be fine).

I'd prefer to be ordinary, and if there is a reason that my character is special, it is due to circumstances early in the game and happening to be in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time rather than to fulfill any prophecies or anything like that. The whole "Chosen One" thing isn't bad per se, but it is just WAAAAY too overdone now. Something a bit more down to Earth that allows me to say who my character is rather than be told who they are would be a nice change.

I personally find it rather disheartening that #2 is winning. This is something I'd prefer to see gone, tbh, and closer to the Dragon Age model. Playing BG2 again earlier this year, I found having to backtrack and even remember where you left somebody more an annoyance than anything else. Especially when you trek all the way to a location, discover that the person who has the spell you want isn't with you, then have to go all the way back, then remember where you left or sent them, then physically find them, usually running across more enemies along the way, etc.

I like a villain who is not only brilliant, but you can see his point of view, and it even makes sense to you from certain perspective as to why he/she/it is doing it.

I have to say... I LOOOOOOOOVE the sound of this. This sounds like the type of thing I've been wanting from an RPG for years now.

Okay, I've joined The Obsidian Order of Eternity too. If possible, may I be known as "Plain, Simple Tailor of the Obsidian Order"

Mate, if you remember having a good time playing the original Sword of Fargoal (another "remake" kickstarter), then you can join the dinosaur club, which I'm myself a member of. What I resent is the idea that all games have to conform to current norms, rather than diversify and cater to a variety of tastes. It's not like people who prefer FPP/TPP crpgs/action rpgs are actually starved for games that caters to their tastes I started with the Gold Box SSI AD&D titles, the early Bards Tales, Ultima, the Might & Magic titles, Wizardry, etc. on the C64 and Amiga mostly. But then age wise, I'm still in my 20's (just). I definitely agree with you. That's one of my biggest complaints: that the one audience is getting catered to and games are getting homogenised into this samey brown mush of hybrid titles rather than having clearly defined genres and games made for different audiences any more. Syndicate being rebooted into another gritty FPS to add to the overstacked pile was a good recent non-RPG example of what's wrong with the gaming industry lately. Too much catering to the mainstream masses, not enough variety and making the games the way they should be made. RPGs these days in most cases are little more than cinematic, story-driven action games with a little more character customisation and an XP system. And it's leaving the RPG fan with very little in the way of proper, deep, tactical RPGs of any decent scope or complexity. But all that said, I still prefer the more freeform camera of NWN, DAO, The Witcher, etc. over the stuck-in-isometric birds eye view model. I just do. I'm not going to think any less of Project Eternity for being this way, but it's just a fact and a preference. To me, the perfect RPG would basically be the guts of BG2 mixed with the presentation and style of Dragon Age: Origins. I know I'm likely never going to see this perfect RPG, but... a man can dream.

Yes, but similarly, not every aspect of the game needs to be stuck about 15 years in the past. I mean... the way some people talk it's more like they just want a whole new expansion-like campaign of Baldur's Gate 2, Icewind Dale or Planescape: Torment with nothing new or fresh and every single damn element to be exactly the way it was back then, even the ones that sucked. Again, I don't expect Project Eternity to go 3D at all, but the amount of stubborn pretentiousness that sometimes pops up if the game even dare think about using even one single RPG convention from the last 10 years is astounding. I loved the classic titles too, but come on... they weren't infallible and they didn't do absolutely everything perfect and not every new concept from the last decade equals "dumbing down" just because it's new and just because, admittedly, a hell of a lot of them do. And what concerns me is the fact that if RPG fans so quickly shoot down things that aren't dumbing down such as a more freeform camera, what other aspects are also going to be shot down without a chance that also aren't dumbed down aspects just because the classics didn't have them and new titles did? And keep in mind, this is coming from somebody who has been accused of being a dinosaur RPG elitist on other game forums lately for lambasting the direction the gaming industry as a whole has been taking, and especially when it comes to RPGs, particularly with BioWare. I just think game aspects should be judged on their own and not simply what decade they were from and what other games had them or didn't have them.

I have to say, I find it rather disheartening that there's so many people who seem to think absolutely everything the old IE games did was better, and that absolutely everything that newer RPGs have done is "dumbing down" especially when there's no real argument or logical reasoning behind it. I largely agree that most newer conventions in RPGs these days aren't as good, and that there has been a massive amount of dumbing down and pandering to the mainstream masses in general. That's actually why BioWare are now dead to me as a company. But I think it's awfully close-minded and unrealistically stubborn to say that there have been no advancements and no growth at all and no changes for the better over time. One of these is the camera. I certain agree that the camera shouldn't be forced and close to the character in first-person or third person like the TES games, KotOR, Dragon Age 2, etc. in a good fantasy RPG, but technology has moved on and nor do I think we should just be reduced to small sprites with a limited isometric view. The way to go, IMO, should be the likes of NWN, Dragon Age: Origins and The Witcher, where you can choose how to have the camera and change it on the fly. I loved that about these games because I could alternate depending on circumstances, and while I largely pulled it out to an isometric view during combat anyway, I could also zoom in close if I chose to. And in Dragon Age: Origins where I could actually design my characters' face, it had more meaning to me than this tiny, incredible vague looking sprite with only skin and hair colour to differentiate them from anybody else beyond my portrait. Now, I'm not saying that Project Eternity has to adhere to this, or that it should. What I'm saying is that even if a good deal of modern changes to RPGs have been bad ones and dumbing down of the genre, not all of them have. If Baldur's Gate was made in the NWN2 or Dragon Age: Origins engine with all of the gameplay perfectly intact but had the addition of being 3D, players not being limited to an isometric camera and players being able to actually create their characters' faces, then it would lose absolutely no depth and complexity at all and would not be dumbed down in any sense of the term. In fact, it would have additional depth and complexity, and that's the exact opposite of dumbing down. It's actually hypocritical and ironic to call it "dumbing down" in these circumstances. It seems to me that all too often the term "dumbing down" is being used here to just mean "modern convention" and that's it, and that too many people use it to apply to features of more modern RPGs that it shouldn't merely because other factors of these RPGs largely have been dumbed down. I miss the RPGs of old like BG2, IWD, Fallout 1&2, etc. as much as anybody, but there are some things that have been done better over time, and not all of these newer conventions automatically make something "dumbed down." Taking away the isometric view entirely would be a case of dumbing down, but giving players more control and freedom over the camera is not so long as that ability remains intact.

It depends on the story I guess, as well as the game design. What I would definitely like to see is the possibility of our saves and characters being kept and possibly being taken into the sequel if they do one, porting over not only our level and gear, but our choices from the original game. Kind of like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, except with choices that... y'know... ACTUALLY MATTER.

I liked BG1 maps too. About the only thing I felt BG1 did better than BG2 actually. It made the locations feel more real, meant for more exploring and discovering things yourself rather than entering an area and generally knowing what was there before finding it and that there will always be some major point of interest. Discovery seemed more rewarding with BG1 I found.

I'd like a mix personally. Some good-sized expansion packs, and perhaps a few extra smaller pieces of content now and then. Usually stuff that wouldn't warrant an entire expansion pack, but isn't just more of the same than we already have. Stuff that's small, but significant and original, and adds to the game world. For example, if running a guild or business wasn't in the base game, then perhaps a DLC could add such things.

Thinking about it, I personally wouldn't mind a system that was basically along the lines of the BG2 one, but instead of death your companions (and even PC) would go into a sort of "Critical Condition" instead. They'd be perhaps out of things until the encounter was ended, and then would need at least some kind of a healing potion or spell to revive, and on top of that couldn't fully heal, instead only being able to heal by so many HP or a certain percentage of their total HP (for example, maybe only up to a 1/4 of their total HP, rounded down). It would be up to the player to get them to a Temple, hospital, etc. within a certain time frame (for example, maybe 24 hours) and if the character in Critical Condition is reduced to 0 HP again while in that state, then they would die. On top of that, perhaps while at the Temple or hospital, they would require a certain time period to heal up, meaning players couldn't use them during that time (for example, maybe they'd be out of commission for 5 days, and/or perhaps the player needs to pay gold if they want them sooner than that). This would force the player to seek alternate companions while the injured one is recuperating. I think a system along these lines would work better. It's still punishing, but not too much so, and means the player isn't faced with death as often, but still pays the price, and also has to work hard to keep companions from actually dying further without it being too much of a kick in the crotch. On top of that, perhaps there would still be insta-death circumstances that would bypass the Critical Condition state, such as the enemy scoring a Critical Hit on the attack that reduced the character to 0 HP or if certain rare conditions are met during the fight, such as certain spell combos or spells reacting to certain factors based on the target.

From what I've read I think Obsidian are largely on the right track as far as my own tastes go. There's some things I don't know about yet that I'd like in the game that may or may not be because it just hasn't been mentioned, but what I've heard so far is pretty damn good. About the only thing I'd have personally liked is a more free-form camera so the game was more akin to NWN2 and Dragon Age: Origins rather than purely isometric, but it's a fairly minor quibble.

Well... I personally play RPGs more for the story, characters, choices and dialogue than I do for the combat, so I admit that I'm biased in that regard. That said, I like a challenge, and good tactical combat that rewards for playing well and punishes for playing poorly. I just happen to think that death was too often and easy an outcome during the likes of BG and IWD and didn't always come from poor playing, because sometimes you didn't know what you were getting involved in until it was already too late. There's punishing and then there's just being frustrating, annoying and tedious due to things being grossly unfair or merely too punishing. And then the game makes you just jump through too many hoops and have to do a lot of things just to get back to normal, which becomes a chore. In cases like that, it's not like you're generally failing or losing anyway, you're just going through tedious, repetitive motions to succeed that, IMO, ruin the enjoyment of the game. I play games to have fun, not to repeatedly be lugging my friends' corpses to temples to keep resurrecting them. I'm generally against the dumbing down of the RPG genre lately, but some factors deserve to go. Not every aspect of the classic isometric RPGs like BG, IWD, Fallout 1 & 2 and PS:T were good ones, and I'm of the belief that the way player and companion death was generally handled was one of these. I certainly don't think it should be handled in the "simply get up and everything is fine" manner most modern games use, but nor should it be as punishing as the classic titles either.

To be perfectly honest and blunt, I think perma-death for you and your companions is one of those factors that should be left in the past. I do think there should be penalties for a character going down, but if whenever a companion dies I either reload anyway or have to just waste time and effort carting their remains to someplace to get resurrected, I don't see the point. It just becomes an annoyance and inconvenience. I'm all for a strong RPG that has depth and tactics, but this is just one of those few things I think the more modern RPG has actually improved. Failure when your entirely party is down should equal death of course and equal failure, but I think merely dropping to unconscious or disabled is the better route personally. Either that or make death mean more than just "health = 0" and that's it. After all, in most P&P RPGs it takes more than that. You usually have to drop down a certain amount beneath 0 on the "killing" blow or have a certain damage threshold beaten, etc. for character death. If an enemy does a critical when you're incredibly low on health, then perhaps fine, but overall I just thought most of these old games were too punishing in the death department. Especially when there are so many ways to die in those games, and all it can take sometimes is wandering into one area unprepared where you suddenly come across a very strong monster with nasty abilities after just dealing with one-hit-kill plebeians prior to that.

I chose "Yes, but only during specific conflict-driven scenes as part of the narrative." I don't like the concept of companions dying in general combat, it's actually one of the newer RPG elements I prefer. Many would say it's one of many "dumbed down" features, but I personally think it was one of the few good factors to come out of more modern RPGs. I've come to prefer the incapacitated model rather than the death model, especially in the likes of Baldur's Gate when you can suddenly come across something that can level-drain your companions out of nowhere to the point of death in only a few seconds sometimes. Personally, I liked Dragon Age: Origins' wound system. It gave you incentive to keep companions alive, while still punishing you for mistakes, but not too much so.

To be honest (and I know this is a personal thing) but I'm getting really sick of zombies lately. Seems that every third game these days have zombies in it in some form, or things that act pretty much exactly like them, and that half of those titles are almost entirely revolved around zombies. If I want zombies I'll play a zombie game like L4D, Dead Rising 2, Dead Island, etc. and at the moment, I think there's more than enough of them and don't want to play them. Almost every fantasy game has them in some form though, so I'll be surprised if they aren't in Eternity. Still... I'd prefer them in far more limited numbers than most games if possible.

Very important. The world would feel fake and forced if everything revolved around the main story and plot entirely, and we'd end up with Pokemon Syndrome.

I know I'm probably a minority here, but I personally found the best middle-ground was the likes of NWN2 and Dragon Age: Origins. To me the perfect RPG would be somewhere between these. Dragon Age: Origins was almost perfect, IMO, but lacked depth and challenge in certain areas, such as not having things like level-drain, enemies taking control of your party characters and using them against you, some of the more advanced traps and deeper spells, curses... stuff like that. And more varied enemies that encompass these things. It also lacked in the player freedom department, such as being able to become head of a guild, etc. but that's less a gameplay factor than it is a content one. And for me, most of the annoying factors from BG1 were rectified in BG2 (such as the game automatically unpausing when going to the inventory screen and my characters getting slaughtered because I couldn't see what was happening and time was still advancing). There are some factors I just find annoying rather than challenging though, largely because I think it's too easy for them to occur. I've never been a fan of complete character death in combat for instance, and in games it happens to my companions I usually reload to before the combat section.

Why? It's the story and depth which matter. What if none of writers would feel any of their characters fit into romance with your PC? We can't dictate to writers what they write, you know. Maybe noone of them want their cute Aerie to be ****d by your chaotic-good half-orc barbarian because they feel she has other place in the story. Is it about choice of actions for your PC? Well, what if everyone says "no"? Is it automatically makes story "bad" and "unrealistic"? What I meant is that I don't think cutting the PC out of the equation entirely is a good idea, since the game is supposed to revolve around your character, and it would be unrealistic and silly to have everybody else able to express these emotions and not you. I'd find it highly unrealistic that if your character is the main hero of this universe that nobody would be interested in you, and why would you suddenly lose the ability to show an interest in others? It's not realistic, and puts an unnecessary and pointless restriction on the player. For the second point, I actually agree... to a degree. I don't think every time you create a character they should be able to romance every companion. The problem with too many romances in RPGs is that they tend to either almost be the PC forcing themselves on the romance interest until they reciprocate, or they just ignore the issue entirely (i.e. when a player can only romance characters of the opposite gender). So there's either no chance or even attempt because the game shuts you out of even trying, or the romance possibility is pretty much a given with the right choices and enough persuading. BG2 thankfully was an exception to a degree with alignment and certain actions possibly dooming a romance depending on the character involved, but that was about it. While I agree that the latter should be present under certain circumstances, I believe the former should never exist*, and that romances should depend just as much on the one you are trying to get involved with as it does with your character. Everything should be dynamic and realistic. If you don't pursue somebody directly in any manner, then they shouldn't generally try and return romantic intentions. However, if you do enough things that would garner their favour even ignoring direct romantic advances, then perhaps they could approach you if these factors make you interesting to them. But if you're constantly doing things that they hate, or you're generally not interesting to them because they don't like your race, gender, alignment, factions you've sided with, other friends of yours, the way you treat certain other races or factions they like, etc. then it should become harder and harder to pursue a romance with them, and even be impossible under certain circumstances. So, yes... certain circumstances should cut romances off, and stop the player from being able to pursue them. But this too should be based of circumstances and not every character a player makes should be shut out of every romance. For romances to work, the characters at least need to be able to work as partners, and the ease or difficulty of this should depend on all the factors that make up both the PC's character and the character who is the romance option, varying with everything from bedding them in a few days because things click between the characters perfectly, to no chance in hell if your character was the last person in the known universe. * And by this I don't mean pulling a DA2 and making every romance candidate bisexual, but at least giving the opportunity for the player to try their luck anyway. If a player wants to try and have their male PC flirt with another male PC who is very much straight, they should be still given the choice to do so, even if it results in inevitable failure.

To be honest, I've wanted to see that happen in a game. Not the whole inability to romance anybody yourself, but to have companions involved in romances independent of you. Whether it's inevitable or you need to have certain conditions met (i.e. you have to tool around with two particular companions often to get them to connect and form a romance) or you need to have rejected or ignored them yourself first, etc. However it was done, I think that would add more personality and dynamic to the characters and game as a whole. One of the very, very few things I actually liked about Dragon Age 2* was trying to flirt with Aveline, but her being completely ignorant of your advances and not even interested because she was into a guard she worked with. I don't think it would work cutting the PC out of the equation entirely personally, but if certain characters just weren't interested in the PC no matter what, but were into some other potential companion (or even recurring NPC) then I'd be all for it. In fact, I'd welcome it. Especially if it's done in a matter that happens if there's no way the companion would be interested in the PC based on the way they've been designed (e.g. a straight male character would not be interested in a male PC, so may get involved with another female companion. However, if the player is female, that might throw a spanner in the works). *Let me stress again... VERY few things. Horrid game as a whole!