jarpie

It all depends how they do it imo, level scaling like Oblivion is stupid beyond the belief but well done level scaling can work at least well enough. Level scaling in the style of "If player is lvl 10 then he will have X amount of monsters Y but if he's level 20 then there's gonna be X amount of monsters Y and X amount of monsters Z is much better.

Interesting, both DFA and WL2 had a spike in backers around day 16-19. This happened when WL2 announced their Obsidian parthership and DFA announced new goodies. I wonder if PE will manage to get a mid-spike like that too. There's apparently going to be some announcement/update when PE hits 50k pledges so might be something what will get surges like that.

Japanese game developers are of course going to play Western games, but that doesn't mean that they're successful to normal consumers. I'm sure Western developers are more likely to have Japanese imports. Wizardry? You had to go back to the 1980's to give an example. Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim are a good argument that Japanese people don't like Western RPGs, because these games are not like Western RPGs, they're shallow sandboxes with pretty graphics, Bethesda does these games well, better than anyone else, but they're not even close to being the type of game Project Eternity will be, Bethesda is god-awful at most of the things that make Western RPGs great. Bethesda games do not do nearly as well in Japan as they do in North America or Europe. VGCharts says that Japan makes up under 4% of total sales of Skyrim. More importantly Japan does not have a PC gaming market, Bethesda games were sold to them on consoles, and so was Wizardry. Due to differences in popular hardware in the 1980's PC gaming never got traction in Japan. This is very much spot on, couldn't have put any better.

(a) it would require work (b) Turn-Based is as dead as disco (it really is) and (c ) they said they wanted to recapture the spirit of the IE games which were RTwP. I hope to partially accomodate TB fans they can put in enough autopause options as possible, but creating two parallel systems doesn't make much sense to me. Turn-based isn't dead, there are several (more and less) indie games coming which are turn-based like Wasteland 2. That said, I won't mind RTwP.

Big no from me to dork elfs, I can barely tolerate elfs and dork elfs are even more annoying.

I don't think it's worth adding those translations, asian tastes are completely different than western ones and there are so few potential pledgers and customers in asia that there's no sense adding those translations with the budget Project Eternity will have.

CRPGs are popular in europe, especially central europe and I'm a bit surprised that after revealing the stretchgoal for translations there wasnt surge of pledgers. CRPGs are also quite popular in Finland and other scandinavian countries but fortunately we dont need translations.

I wouldn't want -any- voice acting on this one, would take too much from the budget, and if they do, just a first line or so from dialogue with -unknown- but good voiceactors. Anyone who' has at least some name would probably take too much.

Ultima-games did the gipsy thing ever since Ultima 4, it was somewhat decent system and suited the game. Not sure will it work in Project Eternity but it all depends how they do the game.

Query - if this isn't a game for you it, the wrong game as you say... did you donate to it? Why - to just support Obsidian? And whether you donated or not (especially if you hadn't, but it's not that important) - if it's isn't for you, why are you advocating for changes to it? This forum is not restricted only for fans of this game. Of course he has right to voice his opinion as much as any of us do. What's the point coming to the forum to demand things which are not gonna happen, especially if you're not gonna pledge/buy the game. For example I'm not going to the BSN and demand Bioware to make Dragon Age 3 turn-based, isometric which uses 2D backgrounds and remove the romances.

You are asking the wrong question. Noone here is arguing for first- or third person view. What I am arguing for is that they will use 3D instead of 2D backgrounds. Still isometric! Still static camera! I don't even need a zoom function, although it would be nice. If you render a 3D world, you can do a lot more things than in a 2D painted world. For example, it is much easier to implement day-and-night cycles. It is much easier to implement physics (try making a 2D object tumble..). It is much easier to implement shadows, hills, running water, animated doors, destructible environments, etc. The list can be made a lot longer. But let's take an example: imagine firing off a fireball in the middle of a forest.. at night. Imagine seeing the orcs you hit ragdoll around, hitting trees and shrubbery as they tumble around from the force of the blast. Imagine seeing the trees closest to the impact center catch fire and light up the night. Imagine seeing the trees closest to ground zero actually fall outwards and break from the power of your magic. Imagine seeing the surviving orcs run screaming and burning between the trees, casting long shadows before they fall over and perish. Now imagine the same scene in 2D. Sure, none of the 3D scenario was in Planescape: Torment. None of it is needed for a better role-playing experience. But I still want it in my game. If you are looking for ragdolls, you're looking at the wrong game. With the budget of 3-4 million max. do you really think they should be wasting that on unnecessary fluff like 3D and ragdolls? Physics engines to license probably costs quite a bit too.

Exactly. And when in future we have those 4k monitors you are going to play BG in a box about the size of stamp in the middle of your screen? I don't think this is going anywhere. I have stated my opinion and I have nothing more to say on this matter. Didn't you see the picture I put? As you complained that BG with 800x600 resolution gets stretched out and distorted, I tried to show that it can be scaled up to fill the screen vertically, keep the image undistorted and fill the sides with black as 800x600 is in 4:3 and the monitor is 16:9/16:10. As Project Eternity will most probably support both 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions (as 1920x1080 and 1920x1200) it can be scaled to fill the future monitors (for example resolution 4096x3072 which is 16:9) without black bars.

No, I mean distortion which occurs when monitor scales non-native resolution Image to monitors native resolution. Do you understand? If my monitors y Axis has 1080 pixels and BG has only 600, monitor has to "stretch" those pixels so the image fits my monitors y axis, which is going to result as distortions in the final Image I get on my screen. I'm not talking about black boxes. Those don't bother me at all. BTW, I think this conversation is drifting off the point here. At least Nvidia's drivers has "Adjust desktop size and position" settings where you can choose "Scaling" and "Aspect ratio" which keeps the aspect ratio of the resolution intact and fills the rest with black bars, "Fullscreen" fills the screen with the full image and distorts the image and "No scaling" in which it doesnt scale the resolution and fills the rest with the black around the screen if the resolution is smaller than the resolution of the monitor. Example:

Trust me, it's coming and there is a difference (also see Edit above), the easiest way to make sure yourself is simply go to an exhibition that have some of those 4K/8K displays around and see the difference yourself. The point is, when you look at your PC screen or at the TV do you have the same visual experience as when you look outside a window and the answer so far is no The human eye generally can recognize details up to 300ppi (obviously depending on distance away and visual acuity. 1080p on a 60" television is only 36ppi, but since you don't know any better and you're sitting so far away it will seem somewhat fine. Even 4k (3840x2160) on a 21" monitor is only around 210ppi and 8k (7680x4320) on a 30" is about 300ppi, it all depends on the distance, size and usage of the thing. But especially for phones,tablets and PC monitors that you likely have right in front of your face it makes a lot of sense and it'll come naturally for TV broadcasts too. Fun fact, IBM already had monitors with a resolution of 3840x2400 in 2001: http://www-03.ibm.co...elease/1180.wss but they ceased producing them as they exited the hardware market and sold most of their manufacturing capabilities to companies like Lenovo. In the past 10 years most manufacturers were in a race to the bottom to create the cheapest possible product for the largest market possible, but especially the mobile and tablet market in the last few years has brought some change. Anyway, that's why it would be nice if this time around they rendered/produced their backgrounds at at least 4K, it shouldn't be that much of a problem for 3D models and hand painted stuff so it'll be somewhat more future-proof than the Infinity Engine games, which we have to zoom out a lot to look good. (It's always easy to downscale something, adding detail ain't possible) I can't imagine that films would look that much better as 4k vs. 2k since imo they already have enough detail...some people even wrongly claim that they can't seen difference between dvd vs. blu-ray but that's discussion for different topic. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually render/produce the backgrounds in 4k since it's always better to downscale than make for the maxium resolution (as 2k in this case). The future monitors should be good enough to scale the lower resolutions well enough as I dont think there will be larger monitors than 24" or 28" as it's pretty much maxium what people can use when used as a normal desk.

It's actually Jarpie. Of course they are somewhat blocky but it doesn't really matter because nowdays with the widescreen mod they're not even that big. What ugly distortion? do you mean when old games which are in 4:3 resolution are scaled to the 16:9 or 16:10 monitor? Some monitors have the setting where it leaves black bars on the sides and centers the image but you're probably gonna say "But oh noes! Can't stand those black bars! teh horror!". And btw. only Half-Life bought from Steam has the patch which lets you use higher resolutions, and you can't update game which is installed from the CDs. Someone can probably correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't display drivers nowdays have scaling where it leaves black bars on the sides if some game is 4:3 and viewed with 16:9/10 monitor?

That's bs, there will be 4k (3840x2160) and likely 8k (7680x4320) monitors and television in 10-20 years time depending on adoption and how technology goes on, the standards have been largely finalized as "Ultra High Definition": http://en.wikipedia....tion_television and there are working cameras for such content already, in fact the BBC had an 8k test broadcast of the Olympic games earlier this year. The largest problem at that point is bandwidth and storage. Some Apple displays are already using 2880x1800 in their "retina" displays at only 15" and there's very much more of that to expect in the next few years (along with adoption of OLED technology), this is a nice article: http://www.pcgamer.c...makes-me-angry/ This is certainly a point of contention with 2D/pre-rendered graphics. As I am a film buff I am fairly early adopter of plasma televisions and bluray players, and as I've watched lot of films from the bluray, I'm convinced enough that any resolution larger than 1920x1080 would need at least 60" display to make big enough difference vs. 1080p. The difference between resolutions when certain threshold has been passed gets smaller, one of the few things where huge resolutions comes into play are pictures taken by DSLR cameras.

There could be at least on certain places where you could ask opinions from the companions, or in certain discussions you could ask them to handle the discussion.

Half-Life was released '98 and it's still very much playable. Actually I think it's still pretty good looking in it's own way. I would even go so far to say it has aged better than BG or PS:T when it comes to graphics, because it still has endless resolution options and you can even add filters like AA or Anistropic, which in the time of release were unheard of, but still make game look much better today. With BG you are stuck with tiny 800x600 resolution unless you use mods. Can you tell us what resolutions are we using in 10 years and how we ensure PE will still support them? You definitively can create timeless 3D art. 2D on the other hand might not be as timeless as you make it sound like. EDIT: But, I still want to say that whatever developers choose to do I'm sure I'll be fine with it. They know what they are doing. HAHA OW WOW! The old 3D looks just so fugly. Well done 2D looks still good even if it was done in the late 90s, all the AA and AF etc wont help the fact that Half-Life models are so low-res that they still look blocky as hell. Coming to resolutions, nowdays the most big monitors are about 24" and works with resolution 1920x1080 or 1920x1200, and as I have been using computers, televisions etc for all my life, any considerably bigger resolution would need quite a bit larger monitor. If we're to use resolution double that (3840x2400) you'd need monitor which is almost double the 24". I have to agree on what you said that how we can know what kind of resolutions we have in ten years...unless I'm wrong they can write the code what picks the resolution from the graphics/display drivers and game can use any resolution they tell that display supports.

For those who are saying "Why wear plate armour with the gun" I just can say this; guns like that were slow to reload and they had to be reloaded after every shot so she most probably will shoot once and then switch for the hammer and melee, or just save the gun for the special circumstances (like shooting at the wizards). Guns were used with metal armors for a bit before they became powerful enough to get through the metal, and I'd guess it's the same in the world of Project Eternity. Also, they can just make the triggerguard big enough so that glove can fit into it, and not a whole finger has to be plated with metal, just the top has to be so fingers can bend more.

They are like The Borg...they want to assimilate everything so that there's nothing more than the games they love to "play"..."Resistance is futile, we will add your complexity and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your games will adapt to service us."

Finally someone who has some understanding of the way business and companies work. Actually this only describes one model for how business works. Many creative firms do quite well servicing a niche market. In fact, many of these companies can be incredibly profitable. I have no idea how wide a market Obsidian wants to appeal to with this game. It could be very likely that if they can fund this game with Kickstarter and sell another 100,000 copies upon release, a reasonable profit could be made; enough to pay for the next installment and really nice fruitcakes come bonus time. In fact, the case Ogrezilla makes may not be realistically possible. It could lead Obsidian down the notorious path of designing a game with, "something of everyone." This is usually the worst mistake that any creative company can make; not only because that game doesn't exist, but also because the pursuit of such a mythical creature will only disenfranchise their core audience. that is why you see so much opposition to certain ideas that make the plea for wider appeal. Exactly this, and when you try to cater for both niche and mainstream audiences the end product is missmash of mutually exclusive ideas and leaves everyone disappointed. From what I've gathered what Obsidian devs have said, they are not looking to make game what would get Sim-loving "I want to skip hard parts/gameplay/etc" audiences but those who yearns for the proper crpgs.

You're right. I feel for all of the poor people who open the thread and see all of the comments against their will. I'm really not seeing what I'm assuming are the bad ones. I know the culprits, and they are on /ignore. It makes reading the thread REALLY easy. Everyone who disagrees with you?

I'm not trying to push for romances in this particular game. (Although seeing as the devs have already confirmed that the PC's background and character will not be predefined, but can be defined by the players and their imagination, I don't see how it could not fit in the game if the player is so inclined.) What I'm arguing against, is the close-minded prejudice against game romances as "yay we had sex" Steam-achievement, rather than as a well-thought-out optional part of NPC dialog-trees and action-consequence scripts that is fundamentally intertwined with character development and friendship and gives a game depth and makes it 'come to life' better. As I said before: "Like Monte Carlo said, the problem with romances is that writing a single NPC Companion takes couple months, and if you do one romance (for example if you play male-character and have romanceable female companion), then people would demand romances for female -> male, male -> male, female -> female and that's basicly six months of writing and takes basicly four companions, and even if you dont romance the said characters their interactions/dialogue/etc will be limited because writing time and resources were spend on writing romances of what only a portion would play. The budget for this game will be limited already so Obsidian has to look and think where they put it and get as much as possible out of it. IMHO it's better to concentrate on maybe on a bit fewer things than to spread too thin." So in short; if say like they have certain amount of time and words per companion set, they would be wasting probably half if not more of those words for romance which less players would actually play, instead of having all the resourced words and time for non-romantic relationship. We're not talking just about one companion but four out of seven. All players could enjoy the friendship-like content but romance-content could be enjoyed only those who likes them and IMHO it would waste of already limited resources.

Well, duh, not everyone will like every NPC personality. In that case simply "role-play" what you would do in real life, and ignore that NPC or tell him/her to shut up. I myself had little tolerance for the immature/whining NPCs in BG2, but quite enjoyed getting to know the (on the surface) "hostile" ones. If none of the NPCs who have a friendship/romance scripted in a particular game grow on you (or on the presonality of the character you're playing), then so what. Thats the beauty of role-playing: Everyone will experience the story differently, based on their inclinations and choices. But what makes you think that there could not be any NPC that you (or your PC) would actually like to get to know and spend conversation time with? I wrote in another thread that I'd like a proper blokemanship with PC and one of the companions in style of "Hey, lets go grab a beer and reminesence of old times". I don't think any (or at least vast majority) of us who are against romances saying same about friendships or friendship-like relationships so don't put words to our mouths.

Like Monte Carlo said, the problem with romances is that writing a single NPC Companion takes couple months, and if you do one romance (for example if you play male-character and have romanceable female companion), then people would demand romances for female -> male, male -> male, female -> female and that's basicly six months of writing and takes basicly four companions, and even if you dont romance the said characters their interactions/dialogue/etc will be limited because writing time and resources were spend on writing romances of what only a portion would play. The budget for this game will be limited already so Obsidian has to look and think where they put it and get as much as possible out of it. IMHO it's better to concentrate on maybe on a bit fewer things than to spread too thin.