pl1982

Thanks for the great update. Really liking all the classes revealed today. Paladin sounds very cool, and I love the fact that there are actually paladin orders that are more focused on the 'fanatic' side of being a paladin than on the good/noble side. Priests sound solid as well. Chanters: very cool and interesting; I really like how you implemented it with 'chant dancing' (akin to stance dancing using intricate overlapping mechanics). One thing I just want to mention that I would love is this: it would be very cool if we could actually discover somewhere in the game where those names of the chants originated from, either in some book or journal entry or even in the chant UI itself (akin to a spell description). That would be awesome. For example: 'Blessed Was Wengridh, Quickest of His Tribe'; it would be cool to somewhere actually discover who Wengridh and his tribe were and how this chant came to be. As for the spell effects: I have no problem with the overall look of these, but as some others have mentioned: the animation timing and quality still needs some work. Also: it would be good to actually see at least some sort of indication on the characters themselves that they are buffed (as in IE games); not every single buff needs to do this of course, but some of the 'major' buffs I believe should, even if it is just a little glow above their heads. That's about all the feedback I can muster now; thank you for the update. Really looking forward to the game.

Very happy about the pre-buffing change. That was the one thing that was always lame to me and actually felt cheap. Sadly, it was almost required for quite a few fights in BG/IWD series. So this is very well done, as long as it is balanced of course.

To be honest...I would not mind if the character progression system of PE is 99% akin to D&D3.5E. I personally think D&D third edition (and its extension 3.5) is an amazing system (far better than 2nd Edition). The only thing of D&D I would want changed (which they are doing anyway) is the Vancian system of magic. Other than that: Mr Sawyer and crew can copy D&D third edition all they like! The guys behind third edition knew what they were doing imho (feats, skill system mostly not tied to class, attribute progression system, DC20 & the structure of roll bonuses/penalties, etc.).

The game needs a manual. Period. However, digital is the way to go these days. I love manuals personally and also find great disgust in the lack of manuals these days, especially for complex RPGs...then again that might just be because there are so few complex RPGs these days... Point being, a game like Doom or COD probably doesn't need a manual, but a deep RPG like PE is going to be (hopefully) needs a manual (especially for things like referencing xp tables, progression charts, etc.). However, make no mistake, I believe awesome in game tutorials are a must as well, but with a game like this there will be certain things that I doubt they could cover in game. However, if they somehow incorporated an in-game encyclopaedia (which BIS did to an extent with IWD2) containing all information such as progression mechanics, tables, etc. then perhaps a manual is not needed. So I guess my conclusion would be: it depends on what the developers want to do/can do; if an in-game encyclopaedia can be included without breaking immersion to much then the game probably doesn’t need an external manual, otherwise it does, but from the sheer fact of the complexity of the game an additional source of elaboration on the games mechanics will definitely be needed (i.e. either in game as an encyclopaedia of sorts or as an external PDF document). I also however echo the above poster Eiphel in leaning more towards having all resources available in game (i.e. an in-game complete encyclopaedia would be ideal; akin to CIV4&5).

I actually wholeheartedly agree with the OP. I am not a late backer (backed first day), but "slacker backer" is a bit demeaning in a way for people that support you. And don't fool yourselves into thinking a pre-order, even after the initial KS run, is not supporting the developer. I also vote for a change in the title/name. It might seem a small thing, but imho it's the small things that matter.

I, for one, am glad that durability has been removed. I have never felt that it really adds much more to an RPG than boring mundane maintenance. It serves no purpose other than to irritate in my opinion. Glad it’s not in PE. Some might argue that durability is more "realistic"; to that I have two responses: firstly: I just don't care about "uber realism" (this is a fantasy RPG after all, I don't actually want it to be super realistic because...well reality is mostly mundane and boring crap); secondly: I don't think that in a world where magic exists and especially with the situation of magical equipment that durability would even exist on said equipment; i.e. magic equipment would not degrade in durability, but normal non-magical equipment could degrade; so you can justify the absence of durability in the game (i.e. make it more "realistic") by simply stating that magic prevents magical equipment from degrading in durability. Though of course this does not justify normal equipment not having durability, so for this there are two solutions: 1: the game designers implement a durability degradation for all normal non-magical equipment (you don't even need to make any repair/crafting skills for it, just make items degrade slowly over time to satisfy those that crave "moar realism") and 2: just ignore the stupid irritating mechanic and use your damn imagination. I prefer option 2, so I am glad that Mr. Sawyer and crew made this decision. Thank you.

I, for one, am glad that durability has been removed. I have never felt that it really adds much more to an RPG than boring mundane maintenance. It serves no purpose other than to irritate in my opinion. Glad it’s not in PE. Some might argue that durability is more "realistic"; to that I have two responses: firstly: I just don't care about "uber realism" (this is a fantasy RPG after all, I don't actually want it to be super realistic because...well reality is mostly mundane and boring crap); secondly: I don't think that in a world where magic exists and especially with the situation of magical equipment that durability would even exist on said equipment; i.e. magic equipment would not degrade in durability, but normal non-magical equipment could degrade; so you can justify the absence of durability in the game (i.e. make it more "realistic") by simply stating that magic prevents magical equipment from degrading in durability. Though of course this does not justify normal equipment not having durability, so for this there are two solutions: 1: the game designers implement a durability degradation for all normal non-magical equipment (you don't even need to make any repair/crafting skills for it, just make items degrade slowly over time to satisfy those that crave "moar realism") and 2: just ignore the stupid irritating mechanic and use your damn imagination. I prefer option 2, so I am glad that Mr. Sawyer and crew made this decision. Thank you.

Just so long as it isn't overdone! I actually quite dislike "breaking the fourth wall". It completely breaks immersion for me, and in RPGs immersion to me is everything, especially fantasy RPGs. I have no problem with well-placed humour in the game, but breaking the fourth wall is very difficult to pull off without doing great harm (at least in my eyes) to immersion.

I LOVE what I am seeing. Looking amazing already! Just a quick question though: will we be able to zoom in/out in the final game? I would actually love to be able to zoom in/out; for example during an intimate or intriguing convo I would love to zoom in for the mood or just zoom in to check out the details in the environment/characters.

I see quite a few posts here wishing to pretend that evil is non-existent. Some go so far as stating that "to state a category of evil exists is itself juvenile". I believe this to be an absurd position to take. Yes, evil is NOT a tangible thing, yes it is an idea...but that most certainly does not mean it does not exist...as an idea/concept. I do not wish to turn this into a debate regarding philosophical realism versus idealism (or even rationalism vs. empiricism), but suffice to say that for me when anyone says "do away with evil, there is no evil", that statement is...juvenile and the person uttering it is fooling themselves if they think they can escape the duality of evil and good. Even if evil is just completely subjective, that does not in any logical manner imply it does not exist (this again can form part of a much larger philosophical debate which is not my intention right now however). The fact (or if you then will: the assumption for the sake of this thread) is that moral judgements (i.e. what is simplistically labelled “good” and “evil”) do exist and even if you consider all moral judgments/categories as being on a "spectrum of grey" instead of black and white, well I got news for you: grey is a function of the interaction between black (or “evil” if you prefer) and white (or “good” if you prefer). Also, the question of “what evil is to me” is irrelevant to my request in this thread (in response to one poster asking me to actually define what evil subjectively is to me) as I will extrapolate below. It is quite obvious what is occurring here: some people are conflating the category in which “motivation/goals” falls with the category in which “evil” falls, mistaking these categories to be the same. If my post added to this confusion, I apologize; it was not my intention of conflating these two SEPARATE/DIFFERENT categories. Evil/Good we can say is of the category “morals” whereas “motivation” is of a different category, let’s say “human drives/emotions/impulses”. I was in fact asking that instead of the category “morals” being solely dependent (i.e. a function of) the category “drives/emotions/impulses” (in the context of the video game), I would like the developers to rather bring in a third category, let’s call it “the video game” and make BOTH morals and motivations dependent on this third category. This request and my analysis of the situation depends of course on a specific assumption: that morals and motivations (and thus their categories) depend upon the other, that even though they are NOT THE SAME, they are still co-dependent, i.e. you cannot consider the one without considering the other. Simply put: morals inform motivations and motivations in turn also inform morals. I simply asked that the developers, ensure in the context of the video game, that BOTH morals and motivations are informed by the video game itself. That is all. That is a bit more formal way to express what I requested from the developers. If you do not consider that morals and motivations are of different categories (which to me would be an absurd consideration) and if you do not consider morals and motivations to be co-dependent categories (which is a philosophically more defensible position), then this thread will not be about the above paragraph (i.e. the point/intent) for you and will transform into a philosophical debate regarding “what morals really are” and “what motivations really are”, which was not truly my intent, but hey…I guess it’s an interesting outcome of it.

I have to admit that New Vegas did indeed do a very good job of facilitating a fulfilling "evil" route. I have not played AP or DS3, but yeah, if anything NV is a good example of what the team at Obsidian should be aiming for in terms of depth of interaction and reactivity for an "evil" route. Contrast that with Fallout 3...which is a brilliant example of how not to handle roleplaying (i.e. juvenile, shallow, etc.). PST is indeed also a good example of how to handle fulfilling and deep "evil" routes (driven by in game/narrative motivations, and not solely player motivations).

@Obsidian: Please make playing evil worthwhile, fulfilling & not juvenile! Hi Obsidian, As per the title of the thread, I would greatly appreciate it if playing evil (this is after all a deep roleplaying game) in this game will actually be worthwhile, fulfilling and not juvenile. Let me elaborate: Worthwhile: Most RPGs simply don't reward evil roleplaying; i.e. you always get the best rewards for playing the nice guy; i.e. what I am asking for here is that you actually design the game and quests so that there is actually a good motivation in the game itself to play evil as opposed to merely my motivation as a player to play evil; i.e. that the game itself reacts "positively" to playing evil (just as it should react “positively” to playing good); don't confuse "positive" here with "good", they are in different categories. Moving on: Fulfilling and not Juvenile: Most RPGs treat roleplaying evil in a pathetic shallow fashion (even the Infinity Engine games are guilty of this) and give it only a fraction of the attention of the “good” path. Let me elaborate with an example. You meet an old lady with her cats in a hut (and she is known to love cats) and the "evil" option is usually something like this: slaughter (or torture) the cats in front of the woman and then laugh in her face. I simply ask for "deeper" roleplaying options that are not at the extremes of "save and hug everyone" to "slaughter everyone and urinate on their corpses". I know it is not easy to do and I won't give examples of “deep” roleplaying since that is your job as awesome game designers. I know this point is difficult to easily quantify (hence it can be construed in a very subjective manner), but I honestly feel that in terms of "depth of interaction/roleplaying", the "evil" side is far under-represented compared to the "good" side. I know Obsidian have said that they are going to avoid these "alignment" aspects of D&D, but ultimately the designers are human and it is very easy for them to fall into the same old trap of moral extremes when designing quests, gameplay and story without even realizing it. I.e. don't fool yourselves into thinking that you can easily get away from moral duality just because the game has no clear cut alignment system; the moral duality is built into human nature and "seeps through" into how you design the story, quests, etc. Try and temper the moral duality with a bit more "depth" and complexity, as in the real world, for as I am sure you know: in the real world nice guys do not always finish first and the best things do not always come to the most good, righteous, etc. of beings. That is all, thank you for your time Obsidian. Make PE something special; the series (and most likely any future crowd-funding endeavours of Obsidian regarding old school RPGs) will depend on how awesome PE will be; as they say: first impressions last. -pl1982

I am definitely for it (I made a recent thread requesting this)! However, one must be clear what is meant by "new game +". For me it is solely the ability to export/import my character (or party even) and play through the game again with him/her again (with all his/her gear as well). Ideally exactly like how heart of fury mode was handled in IWD1&2 where there is no new content (just better items). I.e. always same content, just ability to make game harder (and get better loot). That is what I want. They don't even need to spend too much time balancing it; I just like having the option of continuing to improve one character (or even better: and entire party) if I want to (whilst playing through an epic story/adventure). I don't care if it makes the game easy or breaks some challenges, I enjoy it and would really appreciate at the very least the option to export/import, just as the BG & IWD series had.

Hi Obsidian, As the title states, I would very much appreciate an import/export function (new game+) mechanism in the game, just like you had with IWD, IWD2, BG & BG2. I really enjoy playing through the game again with my high level characters and continuously improving them; I know some might say that it takes the challenge away, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Also, the "heart of fury" mode that you planned for PE can be facilitated via this in exactly the same fashion as IWD and IWD2. Something that would also be awesome is the ability to export our PE1 character/s and import them into PE2 with certain key decisions (and perhaps certain items) carrying over. This would in fact be an awesome feature for you to pitch during a PE2 KS campaign, i.e. the ability to import your PE1 character and have this wonderful continuous story of one character (akin to the Mass Effect and BG series). I know that doing an import/export (i.e. a new game +) function would probably entail some reconsiderations of some game systems, but please do consider it. I for one (and I am sure I am not alone in this?) would really appreciate such a feature. Regards, Phil1982

I wish to echo some sentiments already expressed, but also sympathise with Obsidian at how difficult it will be to efficiently implement a different UI from the one shown. As many have mentioned: 16:9 is the standard (and will most likely be the standard for many years to come), please rather go with left and right side interfaces instead of the bottom one (or just allow us to customize the UI) to give us more screen real estate for the actual game world. Many people suggest merely going with an interface on the left side, but they forget about things like dialogue UI and also spells/abilities UI. I suggest that with two side interfaces you can have your heroes (and the options button, pause, inventory, etc.) on the left/right and the abilities/spells on the opposite side. This leaves the problem of the dialogue UI. The dialogue UI I believe should simply be hidden by default (so as to again give as much "real estate" space to the actual game world) and only appear when entering dialogue; the dialogue UI itself can be centred in the screen or appear at the bottom; the manner Fallout1&2 did it will work well here I believe. Something else to consider is using the right click button on the mouse more in the game and implementing more detailed right click menus (i.e. as Torment and Temple of Elemental Evil used extensively); so for example you can have just a left side UI (with characters portraits) and in the game world you right click for spells/abilities; you can right click on the portrait for inventory or character sheet for example. So yeah, that’s another idea and one that I would have no problems with. As for the look of the interface, I quite like it as it is now, but would add (as a few have done already) that greater emphasis should be placed on the portrait borders of the heroes (they are the stars of the show after all) and perhaps a bit more detail in the UI itself (for example BG2 had these "vine" things twisting around the borders of the UI, I loved that, it made the UI feel "organic" and really "worn" and part of the world in a way). I also would prefer a darker blue for that stamina/mana bar. So yeah, that’s my opinion on the UI. I really appreciate you guys actually putting this out there for the community to discuss; this is what crowd-funding is all about: the developer and the fans/backers actually collaborating (to a limit of course) on the game. Keep up the good work.