anek

Then couldn't they also use that to adjust the character's position while walking over uneven terrain? Right now, the character crossing the stream looks like he's walking on an invisible, flat bridge.

Note that the animated environments from Torment were created at the same time as the Eternity one, using the same engine, with the same people working together. InXile are cooperating with Obsidian, they didn't have to do any of the pre-production, they're simply leveraging the work that Obsidian has already done. Because of this, both games are going to have pretty much exactly the same graphical quality (it's down to the artists of either team when creating the areas, since they are using the same tools). I don't think they're cooperating that closely. At least not yet. If I remember correctly, Brian Fargo said at the end of the kickstarter that his artists/interns experimented on their own over the weekend to find a way to produce those animated scenes in Unity. Also, I think they said that they were produced without assistance from programmers, and that once programmers will come in (during pre-production) and improve the dynamic lighting it will be more realistic.

I don't like this either. Well in the actual game you won't see the day/night cycle fast-forward like that, so it will be much less noticeable what changes and what doesn't. While having the shadows change would be nice attention to detail, it's not really necessary.

The BG2 intro combined 2D drawings with some blending/panning animation quite effectively:

I hope that with regards to moving the party through confined spaces, it didn't capture the IE feeling too closely...

They are already 83% there (2.89 mil / 3.5 mil)... Well, inXile claims that this will not interfere with Avellone's work on Project Eternity. Let's hold them accountable to that!

What does a new video streaming codec have to do with Project Eternity's data size? PE's data will consist of pre-rendered background images, 3D models and textures for characters, etc. All of that will presumably be compressed using appropriate image/texture/data compression technology. Video streaming is something else entirely.

George answers this concern on Formspring: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/434424012253185870

Doesn't the fact that it's concept art imply that it does not show the final style?

Did Fargo or his team claim that it is, somewhere? In the interview linked by the OP, only the intro text added by the magazine calls the game a sequel, not Fargo himself. On the game's official website, the About page introduces it as: "Torment: Tides of Numenera™ continues the thematic legacy of the critically acclaimed Planescape: Torment™." This is not fundamentally different from how Project Eternity is introduced on its own website: "Miss classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment? So do we! Introducing Obsidian's PROJECT ETERNITY." Both play on the nostalgia of existing fan bases. So what? The main difference is that for Torment they're actually adopting a part of the original name, but I don't see why that's such a big deal. It's not called "Planescape: Torment II", it's called "Torment: Tides of Numenera". This, I think, makes it pretty clear that there are strong thematic ties to PST, but it is not a sequel but rather a separate game in a different setting. What's this got to do with Obsidian?

Well, if they actually manage to make a game that feels a lot like PST and appeals to the same fanbase, that's not a bad thing right? I think it's too early to pass judgment on this game, either way.

Have of ever played one of the Infinity Engine games? Blocking wasn't a problem there. First of all it didn't occur all that often, as the maps were intelligently designed for the static isometric usecase from the ground up. And when characters did get (partially) obscured behind objects, the blocked parts would shine through using semi-transparency / dithering / silhouette-highlighting. You'd get used to it pretty quickly. I, for one, didn't feel like it reduced the fun of playing those games in any way. What *would* have killed the fun, though, would be having to rotate the camera all the time to play the game. This happens in all games that support camera rotation - the engine and map designers take this feature into account and stop worrying about blocking - so for the users, constantly managing the camera becomes a mandatory chore. It takes attention away from the actual combat and world exploration, messes with your sense of direction, etc. All this just because it's more "modern"? No thanks.

Sawyer answered here: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/432792143375920971

Don't forget that PE will be a computer game, not pen & paper. Things that might have been too "rules heavy" and "slow" for P&P, might very well work great when the computer takes care of evaluating all the rules for a particular action in a fraction of a second.

I really hope they won't include any artificial convenience indicators for area effects - neither in this case, nor in the case of AoE spell placement etc. This is an RPG, not an RTS game or a CAD program. For example, in the IE games I always found it a lot of fun to try to place Fireballs in such a way that they would hit all visible melee enemies at once, but not hit my own front-line melee fighters. It wouldn't always work out, so there was a risk involved - but when it did work as intended, it felt really satisfying. A circle indicating the exact area that would be affected on release of the spell, would have negated much of the risk and fun and immersion (and sense of achievement for becoming better over time at placing the spells). I think the same would be true if a circle would show where exactly your characters can move without being engaged or disengaged. Combat isn't something sterile and precise comparable to placing objects in a CAD program, it is messy and bloody and often unpredictable. An RPG should reflect that.