Crosmando

It was probably a small publisher who is desperate for cash to keep them going, so they had nothing to lose. I can't see a big publisher risking doing this when Kickstarter projects are mostly small change compared to what they deal with.

It's not really a matter of principle, I just find it unwieldy and unneccessary to have to run Valve's personal social client just to play a game I purchased with my own money. It's more "compact" and simple just to have an GOG installer file that you can copy and back-up as many times as you want, install it as many times as you want on any number of computers. What I find even funnier are the steam fanboys who seem to love Valve for making Half-Life 2, but don't seem to realize that Valve hasn't released a single-player game (what made them famous in the first place) in years.

That's the vibe I'm getting.. I mean, don't you guys play AAA games too? I know I do and these games have DRM in one form or another. Its hard to avoid DRM unless you stick to indie games or something. I generally don't play AAA games at all, because apart from a few they're all "cinematic" rubbish. The only "AAA" games I've played in last few years were Drakensang and Drakensang River of Time, as they were both based on a pen & paper RPG, and recently Dark Souls, which surprisingly for an action-RPG I actually like it. Oh and Mount & Blade, but I think that's an indie game. Before that I'd have to go back to Neverwinter Nights 2, KotOR 2, and Vampire Bloodlines, but I purchased those on disc when they came out (and later digitally on steam).

I listed the benefit. The slave is an inventory carry.

I have no problem with RTwP, as long as it doesn't feel like an MMO with pause, ie the combat should be swift and lethal, when you could spend a few minutes when you pause, intricately giving commands to your party, so when you unpause you manage to win the fight in a few quick blows, or if you made ONE mistake your entire party gets butchered in a few seconds. No boring auto-attack MMO crap. Also, just a suggestion, what about an auto-pause system so when you get into a combat it automatically pauses.

Kickstarter = Free media coverage generated by actual fans, not bribery of video game review sites. No wonder they are jealous.

I generally don't like factions much in RPG's, mostly because they feel like they give too much "control" to the player over the world (given that you're a single person +5~ companions), and seem to cross into strategy game territory somewhat.

Philippe Charron wouldn't be bad, I liked the Disciples 2 music

Tolkien didn't invent Elves or Dwarves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6kk%C3%A1lfar_and_Lj%C3%B3s%C3%A1lfar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_dwarves

Now before I'm attacked, I'm not saying this to be hurr durr or so edgy I cut you, but in terms of actually dealing with slavery (and racism, as they go together) as a moral issue, why not make it a gameplay feature. It would make sense that any "half-breed" races (half-elf, half-dwarf) would be descriminated against, and D&D also had "sub-races", so why not have a gameplay feature of being able to purchase a personal slave (or call it servant if it's too controversial). - Costs a high number of gold coins from a slaver trader to purchase. - Behaves in the same manner as a companion, but does not count toward total companions (represented with a smaller portrait in corner of PC's portrait). - Does not fight, has no combat abilities of any kind. - Has an inventory the same as a companion. - If you recruit a companion who is morally adverse to slavery (or purchase a slave when an anti-slavery companion is already in your party), you suffer a penalty of some kind, this penalty is stackable if more than one companion is anti-slavery. - There are two ways to get rid of an existing slave. 1) You may change your moral stance on slavery and free your slave which will relieve the penalty, this will give you an extra bonus from those anti-slavery companions because they now see you in a better light for your action. 2) You can sell your slave to a merchant without changing your moral stance on the issue, meaning the penalties will go away but no bonus. - You can engage in dialogues with your slave, but will not make interjections or banter. Each one will have their own unique story and background that you may discover by talking to them, and even quests that can be uncovered by talking. It's one thing reading text in an RPG explaining some philosophical concept or moral theme, but it could also be practically shown in the game. It would also add realism, as medieval-ish societies didn't have 2012 morality, so it would challenge the player to think.

Go for the DRM Boo

Aerie is far more annoying. But Aerie will eventually sleep with you if you put up with her annoyance. Indeed, she will also love you so much she'll give birth to your child in 30 days flat! (30 minutes game-time that is)

Aerie is far more annoying.

I wouldn't really like to see a good/evil alignment system, simply because it's arbitrary and feels like the game is forcing it's concept of what is good or evil on the player. Actions should have consequences, consequences that change how people in the world react to you, certain NPCs/villages/factions may come to hate or love you based on your actions, but you're only "good" or "evil" in the eyes of those people, not in the eyes of some universal morality system. It should be possible to be viewed as as Saint by some and the Devil himself by others, at the same time, depending on your choices.

But what would a companion do if you killed them, and then resurrected them? "Oh hey, you just killed me, but you brought me back so it's all good, let's go kill some orcs!"