Tuco Benedicto

Just for the record this is still an issue in 2021 and at this point it's pretty obvious it won't be fixed anymore.

Find quality models - rigged, textured, with animations and of the same visual style, then we'll talk about it. Well, thank you for your consultation, but my question was if it's feasible, not when in your opinion that could happen.

Is there any knowledge of how easy it would be to replace characters' models and animations through mods? Not a deal breaker by any means, but they are the only thing I don't find particularly appealing aesthetically in the game and I was wondering what modders could do about it (if they will ever want to, of course).

Sorry if this topic was already argued a lot in the past, but I just checked the last pages and didn't notice anything specifically about my question. So... as the thread title suggests, I was wondering how much do we know about the potential for modding with this game. For instance, while I appreciated a lot of what I played and I love the general art direction of the game, the only thing aesthetically unappealing for me in the beta were characters' models and animations... And I was wondering: let's say some modders decide to revamp/replace them, it would be technically feasible with Unity as core engine?

I would be extremely bothered by the opposite. When it comes to RPGs I like carefully crafted experiences: cleverly designed dungeons, finely tuned and hand-placed loot, well written narrative. NOT generic/randomized/procedurally generated content. The argument is typically "But that would make every game different!". Well, I beg to differ: more often than not that would make any moment of the game feel equally generic. Now, just to be clear: I'm very fond of procedurally generated stuff from a technological stand point and I definitely think there's a place in gaming for it. I just don't think RPGs are that place. It suits better other genres, like... dunno, immersive sims? Roguelikes? Management/building games?

The part where he praises Josh Sawyer and concludes with "That Josh guy knew his sh*t" is fairly hilarious.

A Darklands spiritual successor would be the best possible outcome for me, but I would be glad about everything that isn't fantasy, too.

Taking the new trailer as reference, frankly I would prefer if instead of adding new features or stretch goals they would put some more effort in improving the production value. To be even more specific I found some of the models/animations in the trailer a bit... let's say underwhelming. I know we are talking about a game with a tight budget, but I don't think it's too much to ask from a professional studio like Obsidian to have characters/monsters one-inch-high that can at least match what the RTS genre achieved few years ago. I think there are models even in the first Dawn of War that could still top what we saw today when it comes to animations, and that was before Relic became a big studio.

They are in full development right now, I think the stretch goals' time is over.

As far as I'm concerned it was "worthless" from the start, not just now that they changed it, because durability in a *party*-based game is a bloody stupid idea that doesn't add anything beside an unwanted hindrance in the form of a pointless money sink. Ditching it they didn't "miss a chance for greatness", they just avoided a baffling waste time. But I would almost like to read a supporter of this idea capable of convincing me that durability would improve a RPG of this kind to any extent, because that would be quite an achievement. So far reading this thread that didn't happen. And let me stress that I don't just disagree with the idea in general, I'm even more fiercely against those supposed "issues" it was supposed to address, because 1) they aren't actual issues. 2) what this mechanic would introduce as a trade-off is far worse.

What about at least making an effort to read the last pages instead of making ridiculous claims that were already addressed by Sawyer himself? Also: you may not be familiar with this idea, but design is a iterative process, there's not such a thing as a "vision" that goes untouched and unaltered through the whole development. Sometime you come out with a concept that sounds cool and interesting, but then you test it/argue about it and you realize it just doesn't work as well as you thought at first.

Which is another complete non-issue. A blatant case of solution in search of a problem.

Bingo. Beside, there were a lot of very faulty premises behind the whole concept. For a start, the idea that having a single character capable of using a crafting kill was "a problem to solve" is senseless, when the whole point of party-based games is the subdivision of roles. "But in that way you will need just ONE blacksmith!". Yeah, so? Second, durability can (eventually) work in a game with a single character, but there's virtually no scenario where it doesn't become an annoyance when you have to manage a whole party of fully equipped characters, and the only alternative to having it as an annoying process, is to automatize it a lot, which is going to make it even more pointless and not enjoyable. Just a purposeless money sink. Third, a strictly balanced economy is not that crucial, but even going with the assumption that it is, a constant money sink would probably be the worst possible solution. And frankly what's far more annoying than "having too much money" in these games is often constant inflation. How it is that you start a game in a world where 50 coins sound a lot and you end it considering thousands of coins like peanuts with items pricing around the hundreds of thousands? Incidentally, that's also a problem which isn't solved with durability. Games like Gothic 2 or Risen, on the other hand, didn't have durability or repair and yet managed the economy far better than any Infinity Engine game ever had. In Risen, for instance, you start a game considering 200 coins like a valuable sum, maybe even out of your reach at first, but completely achievable... And you end the game somewhat more rich but still considering those 200 coins a valuable sum (even if easier to gather in the end game). It's more about how you balance loot, rewards and prices than about putting an arbitrary money sink just for the sake of it.

Embarrassing.

I really don't like how these options are worded, because I don't feel it's my place to tell to developers what does and doesn't belong in their games. Let's just say I'm not a fan of durability in RPGs (or at least in this kind of RPG) and I would be happier without it.