agewisdom

I think what we want is an outcome that fits into the storyline or lore of the quest. It could be something unexpected, but there could be some small hints or foreshadowing, so that the PC has some responsibility or guilt over what happened. For instance, if you were to meet Mr. X (an NPC) that's dying and asking for your help, do you rob him of his valuable and leave him to his death or save him? If the PC was just asked to make this decision without any further information, then any delayed consequences may just annoy him. But... if: (a) On his path, he heard rumours about about Mr. X's (the son of a powerful warlord) party being ambushed and Mr. X missing; (b) He notes the NPC is wearing clothes that indicates that he's wealthy; and © His companion cautions him that robbing him would not be a wise action... Then if he proceeds to rob and leave Mr. X to his death may have some nasty consequences in the future. Without any hints, we may get players getting frustrated and complaining... "how was I to know..."

Yes, tricky but has a good pay-off if implemented properly. But definitely should be small in no. to prevent it from getting overly complex. Whilst the Witcher 2 choice was great, I still think the Witcher 1 consequence wasn't all that bad. If you reflect back on what happened, in hindsight, the outcome made sense. Yes, it was bad that the NPC died, but just like in real life, not all outcomes are foreseeable. But I definitely understand that such type of consequence should be kept to a minimum to reduce the annoyance factor.

I'm pretty confident with Obsidian too... But it would be nice if we have more of a "delayed" consequence to prevent players save-scumming to get the best possible outcome on the first play-through.

Agreed. It should be a reasonably predictable outcome and not something ludricious. For instance, giving a coin to the beggar in your example could have the following result much later in the game. The very same beggar could warn you about an ambush set up by a rival adventuring party in a dark alley near where you encountered the beggar in the first place. After all, what goes around, comes around. Fair enough? I like your example on the bandits. Quite a fair outcome and one that makes sense.

Agreed on not making too many quests of this type. In fact, I believe it should be restricted to around maybe say 3 quests but ones than span throughout the game. It should be a major side quest, with appropriate grave consequences. This would avoid diminishing its' impact. A path to redemption huh... , definitely great. At least the PC has some way to make amends for his/her mistakes.

I think why most people are vehemently against level scaling is that we expect enemy NPCs to be of a certain standard when we face them. With level scaling especially Elder Scrolls: Oblivion style, an extremely powerful enemy NPC would be scaled to your level, say Level 2, when everything in-game suggests the enemy NPC should be Level 30 and above. Granted, Obsidian wouldn't do something like that... but even the mention of level scaling triggers shivers down some people's spine, mine included.

This would be a cool stretch goal. Why not allow this ability to be unlocked as part of a main side quest? You could customize your spells as you progress further up in the Wizard's Guild. Your higher rank would allow the Guild to unlock more resources in term of researchers etc. to allow you to create specific customized spells.

Yes, or maybe a card game

Phew... minimal level scaling would be preferable. As long as there are viable alternatives to some of the major battles such as sneaking away, dialog options to resolve conflicts peacefully etc., I see no good reason to AVOID level scaling whilst still allowing for a flexible. non-linear exploration of the areas in PE.

NO! Catering for the console crowd will require substantially more funding to take into account UI issues and other additional development costs. If Obsidian wants to cater for the console crowd, this could be done later, like the Witcher 2 on XBOX after the PC release.

Grey options are the best but it might be a bit difficult since this will be the first game in the Project Eternity setting. Everything is so new, that trying to add ambiguity and layers to the different factions may be a bit confusing. CDRed was very daring in the Witcher 2 by having two alternative paths that were totally different depending on who you decided to side with. I don't expect something so radical in PE but it would be nice if the PC's decision in one or more major quests early in the game would have ripple effects and consequences that would permeate through the latter parts of the game.

Yes, I loved the Elves quest in the Witcher.... "We're just innocent elves smuggling food for our poor children...." and yeah, I got fooled Drats! Couldn't save scum for that one since I didn't have one that went back far enough. It would be good if we had one or 2 chained quest that has some rippling effects as you progress further into the game...

Since choice and consequences is an important cornerstone of great cRPGs, I was wondering whether how many games actually incorporated quests that have delayed consequences that could ripple throughout the gameplay later. I actually love cRPGs where the PC has to make some hard choices near the beginning of the game. A selfless and noble approach may not yield any immediate gratification. However, the PC may get a nice surprise in mid-game when his good deeds gets rewarded in the form of another quest, some cool loot or reputation increase. Conversely, a selfish approach may yield an immediate benefit but might be detrimental in the long term. It may be in the form of someone seeking revenge, a reputation loss as the PC's misbehaviour comes to light. Something like that... It would also prevent save scumming. One nice example that I remember was in the Witcher 1, where your initial decision in the Prologue to allow the elves to smuggle some *food* could have rippling consequences in only Chapter 2. It would be too late to change your decision then unless you're willing load a save game 8 hours earlier... Are there any such examples in other cRPGs? I can't really recollect any...

I have played quite a few cRPGs and have seen this implemented on a limited scale. If my memory serves me, in NWN HOTU and NWN2 Cross Roads keep, we were given a chance to partake in a relatively massive battle with all our companions and other NPCs aligned to us against the enemies. I was hoping that we could see more of these set pieces implemented in Project Eternity. By strategic battles, I mean typically the following: 1. A mid-scale conflict, typically between major factions which will have significant repercussions in gameplay depending on which factions win. 2. The PC and his companions will typically play a pivotal role in the battle. However, since this is a large scale battle, they will only see part of the action depending on what role they want to take. 3. There should be a relatively large amount of fighting between NPCs, probably 30 or more to simulate a mid-scale conflict. A simple example would be storming an powerful enemy stronghold. Instead of the typical adventure where the PC and his companions unbelievably waltz in and commits whole scale massacre of enemy NPCs without blinking, the quest could take the form of: 1. Gathering allies by convincing various faction leaders to volunteer their men towards storming the enemy stronghold. 2. Depending on the attributes of the PC: (a) A PC with high leadership and charisma could take strategic leadership of battle by determining the types of tactics and strategy to be used to strom the stronghold; (b) A PC with thief-like abilities could volunteer to infiltrate the enemy stronghold, scout enemy placements, perform sabotage and open the enemy gates at the appointed time. (c ) A PC with magic skills could summon immensely powerful spells i.e. meteor storms etc..from afar (d) A PC fighter could volunteer as the vanguard and charge the enemy gates. 3. During the battle, the PC may have to work closely with his allies to minimize losses rather than going in all gung-ho. He might have to revise his tactics and/or strategy to ensure the enemy leader does not escape. The enemy may have set traps/ambushes/spells of his own and the PC has to turn the tide of battle, so to speak. One of my pet peeves when playing DA:O was realizing that the PC had no chance to join in the Battle of Ostagar. What a bummer! It would have been fun to wade into battle with my PC and his companions in a free-for-all brawl.

no No NO NOOOOO!!!! I hate achievements! IMHO, they serve no purpose whatsoever!

Yes, since there will be several rival adventuring parties, I think PE will be able to accomodate different flavors of rivals. This should make for a fun time. However, there should be some build up and the rivals should cross swords with the PC a few times. I would hate if they just make an appearance ONCE and lose/die and that's the last we ever see of them.

This is a good idea but could be very tricky to implement. It's quite similar to the reactivity and urgency thread I've seen earlier. The problem with this is, it could (a) snowball into something that's complicated; (b) force the player to get their butts off on certain quests (not a bad thing by itself, but I gather quite a no. of players don't like this).

Yep, I'm pretty sure Obsidian is thinking along the same lines. That's why if they put a large stretch goal, say USD4mil, they might want to delay the target release date. A large stretch goal being something along the lines of a large expansion to the game.

It's fine for Obsidian to have modest goals. The problem is that the current Kickstarter funds seems to be sufficient to cover all those goals. With that, there's really not much incentive for existing donors to up their pledge nor for new donors to donate.

The problem is, I think Obsidian do not want to add additional content to the game. Most of the stretch goals have been about adding companions and improving gameplay. If they're willing to add more content e.g. an expansion sized type of content, they MAY have to delay the game slightly to improve the size of the game. They might have a tightly woven narrative planned out and trying to add more content may add too much fluff to the game. Unfortunately, without adding more content the amount of funding may remain more or less stagnant.

I think Obsidian is planning to allow us to use the same PC and/or companions for future sequels/expansions. If that's the case, the growth of the PC's powers/abilities needs to be curtailed a bit, so that there's room for future development. In any case, it doesn't really make sense for the PC to become too powerful unless the main quest has some plot device or lore/reason to allow for this.

Yeah... Bodhi in BG2. Those were fun-times. You're exactly right! I'd love to get my ass handed to me for charging right into a battle without any preparation or research. If we're rewarded for preparation, better strategy and tactics, the taste of victory would be so much the sweeter Darn auto-correct.... never did know how to turn it off...

I love the Origins stories too, but it's really quite difficult to pull off, convincingly. All the different vignettes still needs to be funneled into a single path later on to make things manageable i.e. such as the Battle of Ostagar for DA:O. After that, gameplay remains largely the same except for some differences here and there. Instead, perhaps we could have class specific quests ala BG2 which is also just as interesting?

If the reason the NPC got powerful is that they've spent the last couple thousand years fighting majorly powerful enemies of their own, then I don't care what my 25 year old PC has been up to the past three years, I expect to die painfully if it's just setting my power against theirs. If they're at all possible to kill, then it should be a major undertaking, requiring outside allies, planning, preparation, and lots of risk. No "oh look, it's another pit fiend, ho hum." Yes, I agree with this. Trying to take down a powerful NPC that's been around for decades should require a meticulous level of: (a) spying/scouting his stronghold in advance; (b) trying to discover his strengths and weaknesses; © research the lore on the NPC and his race in libraries or discussion with knowledgeable NPCs (d) finding ways to sneakily weaken/poison/sabotage etc... (e) trying to gather support amongst different factions to provide distractions/fodder so that a co-ordinated strike team can be established to take out the major NPC. It make more sense and makes for a satisfying battle, I feel.

Well, I think we all have more or less the same grouses. Obsidian needs to tackle things head on, if they want to hit higher funding. I think they have all the funding they need based on the current scope of the game. The only way to get more funding (if that's what they want) is: 1. Have a big stretch goal that is non-related to the game. This could be in the form of a documentary such as Double Fine Adventure which could raising additional funding. Unfortunately, I don't know how this would add to the game; OR 2. Incorporate a major Expansion Pack that they're planning to release subsequent to the Initial Project Eternity release. They might have to delay the release date to 2015, but that's fine so long as they hit the major funding requirement say, USD4mil? Why not go for broke?