anek

Modders don't need a "toolset", nor a "dedicated content website". They can come up with that themselves. What they need, is a very flexible engine design and data file structure that makes it possible to freely add maps/entities/scripts/tables and override existing ones.

I like this idea. Birds haven't really been done that much as in-game pets, but I think it would work really well. When the party gets into combat, it could just fly up to a safe distance and circle the area from above, and when the fighting is over it returns to the shoulder of its owner.

@OP: This just in: New Project Eternity update confirms that the reason for the brokenness of souls in the game world is LGTB discrimination and patriarchy, and the central storyline revolves around the player's quest to bring feminism and homosexual/transgender pride to the realms, in order to restore the integrity of souls and bring about peace and love everywhere! The amount of power that the player character and companions can leverage from their souls (e.g. for spell-casting, and all other cool abilities), depends on their enlightenment stat. Making dialog or quest decisions that conform to traditional gender roles for the player's gender will decrease the stat, while choosing progressive and politically correct paths will increase it. During the course of the story, the player character will complete a gay romance and have gay sex at least 5 times (the game cannot be completed without it), and various side-quests involve convincing NPCs to discard their evil "traditional values", or establishing female quotas for town councils and guilds, etc. The promised mega-dungeon will only be unlocked for female players, in order to counterbalance the historic tendency of discrimination against them in video games. And instead of a final boss battle, the game will conclude with a quiz in which the player will have to recite (from memory) quotes from the communist manifesto which had been previously presented throughout the game. Oh, and everyone will be black. So, that should clear things up for you and your buddies at that renowned haven of intellectual exchange of ideas (4chan) from whence you came...

Yeah, but I don't think they've really said much about that (except - I think - that it will be reminiscent of the IE games but improved), and it's also not something that is easy to put in words. Maybe they don't know themselves yet - I guess first they'll design the story and world and everything, then they come up with a list of maps/areas that they need to implement and what needs to be on them, and then they have their designers start to play around with how the graphics for those areas (and the characters/entities in them) could look. But maybe they already have specific ideas/plans, who knows? Anyways, the choice of 2D pre-rendered backgrounds means that they will have pretty much unlimited artistic freedom, and with the modern graphics design tools at their hands I expect they can make them look a lot more detailed and realistic than what the old IE games had. Or, at the very least, higher-resolution. Edit: Ah, I guess that's kind of an independent question from the graphics style used for background + entities...

Here's a short overview of the graphics style and technology used in some of the existing cPRG's that are often mentioned on the forum, followed by what we know (or can assume) so far about what Project Eternity will use. Maybe this can help clear up some confusion... BG, BG2, IWD, IWD2, PS:T, Fallout, ToEE, ... camera: projection/viewpoint: isometric (diagonal top-down) rotating: no zooming: no graphics: background (terrain/structures): 2D images (pre-rendered from high-quality 3D, and retouched by hand) animated objects (fountains/machines/...): 2D animations (pre-rendered "flipbooks") environmental effects (light & shadows, rain, ...): 2D effects (using various tricks like blending pre-rendered light-maps) spells: 2D animations (pre-rendered "flipbooks") characters: 2D animations (pre-rendered "flipbooks") NWN, DA:O, KotOR, ME, Fallout:NV, ... camera: projection/viewpoint: perspective (one or more of: first-person, follow, diagonal top-down, manual, ...) rotating: yes zooming: yes graphics: everything: 3D terrain & models & animations/effects (real-time rendered on the user's graphics card) Project Eternity camera: projection/viewpoint: isometric (diagonal top-down) rotating: no zooming: ? graphics: background (terrain/structures): 2D images (pre-rendered from high-quality 3D, and retouched by hand) animated objects (fountains/machines/...): 2D (pre-rendered "flipbooks") and/or 3D animations (case-by-case decision) environmental effects (light & shadows, rain, ...): 3D effects (blended together with the 2D graphics) spells: 3D animations/effects characters: 3D models Note that this is merely based on what I have heard so far from developer posts & interviews, so no warranty on the correctness of the above information. If you see a mistake or have something to add, post a reply. A comment from one of the developers, as to whether I interpreted their statements correctly, would of course be appreciated as well.

This could be clarified some more. It does explain the graphics of the Infinity Engine games pretty well, but the statement that PE will use "the same style [...] though the technology used will be different" leaves a lot open to interpretation - e.g. readers could think PE might use live rendered 3D terrain as the technology for backgrounds, but in a way that will look similar to the IE games in that it is from an isometric perspective and similar visual "style". Which is of course not the case, as Obsidian has explained in the meantime, e.g. in this statement by Josh: "what we're doing is using pre-rendered 2D backgrounds with probably some 2D flipbook animations in the background, but also 3D characters and 3D animated environments and props when necessary, and trying to blend the lighting and shadows together." (from http://www.gamasutra...ant_to_make.php) At the very least, the phrase "pre-rendered backgrounds" should be added to the aforementioned part of this FAQ - maybe even the whole quote (it's pretty concise).

But it's not the same thing. If you reload, you'll have an advantage (you'll know exactly what the encounter is going to be, and can prepare well), but you're still gonna have to actually confront it again, and win. This can actually be quite an educative experience for new players, because it really forces you to try all options that the game provides, which you might not have tried so far, to push the outcome of the battle to your favor. For example, buff spells are something new players tend to blatantly disregard (a spell description of "+2 attack bonus for 6 rounds" just doesn't sound as exciting as "Fireball"), until they are confronted with a fight they simply can not win without them. If on the other hand everyone automatically resurrects / regains full health after the fight, you get to move on without having actually properly won the fight even once. So no, I don't think auto-resurrection/regeneration is simply a shortcut for the traditional save+reload mechanic. It dumbs combat down to a whole different level.

That's why there should have been a forth option in the poll: "Yes, but only as a high stretch-goal." That way, it could help to actually bring more money into PE.

But that is exactly what you described. Not any more than describing a high-level fighter doing 30 points of damage with a single critical hit with his sword, would be calling for fighters as being super-powered. I was giving a descriptive example. I never said that such feats should always succeed, nor that they be viable at low levels, nor that they should be implemented/animated in any spectacular or histrionic way. My description actually fits the 3rd edition D&D Monk pretty well (as implemented e.g. in IWD2) - did those seem super-powered or "extreme" to you? I'm in favor of monks as unarmed martial arts fighter that can be embedded into the world of PE and fleshed out in any way that makes sense in that context, without needing to draw on any particular real-world stereotypes.

@Aedelric nonsense? extreme? antics? stereotype? Martial arts like kung fu are very real, not just comic/action movie tropes. Well-trained martial arts practitioners in the real world can indeed perform quite amazing feats, so should that not all the more be possible in a fantasy world where they can additionally tap the raw power of souls to focus and enhance their actions? About "undermining" other classes, for a well-designed game I think it is desirable that every class is to some extent "undermined" by at least one other class. The all time popular rock-paper-scissors is based on that very principle, and, in more nuanced ways, so are most "advanced" games where you can choose between some sort of "classes". I never called for making Monks invincible or super-powered. E.g. a traditional fighter should not have to feel intimidated by the Monk's ability perform amazing feats like evading Fireballs, because he can perform some amazing feats himself - maybe not when it comes to magic evasion, but e.g. when it comes to skillfully fending off multiple monsters at the same time with his sword. I really don't see how in a fantasy world in which some people might be able to do things like "Time Stop" or "Finger of Death", allowing others to perform some basic martial-arts feats (which are well possible in the real world) would be silly or "extreme".

Hm, true, to some extent. But having the ability to throw yourself in the air, pull yourself around mid-air and immediately roll to the side when landing on the ground - so as to evade the effects of a simultaneous Fireball and Lightning Bolt invocation - seems slightly more credible with an unarmed martial arts fighter, than a Paladin wearing full-plate armor and wielding a two-handed sword... And the themes of meditation, spiritual reflection and self-perfection associated with Monks can also explain things like innate magic resistance pretty well.

@Waywocket If I'm not mistaken, Unity's Linux support is also pretty new, so who knows what things will be like in 2014 when PE gets released. (Note that Obsidian has announced that they will be using version 4 of Unity, which is not even available yet.)

That's what they were in the D&D v3 rules... very good mage killers, distinguished from "normal" fighter by four main features: Powerful unarmed attack Excellent unarmed AC Improved evasion feat that allowed them to usually avoid area effect damage from spells such as fireball Excellent magic resistance (at least at higher levels) And I think a "mage killer" class should really exist in any RPG that has powerful magic users, so for those wondering why there should be a Monk class rather than adding Paladin/Bard/Witch/Lawyer/Janitor/whatever classes first, I'd say that's why.

Haven't Obsidian stated somewhere that classes won't be as restrictive when it comes to combat and non-combat abilities, as they were in D&D? Meaning the class gives the general direction, but you still have a lot of freedom for how to develop the character. With that in mind, what Paladin features exactly do the Paladin fans think cannot be accomplished by starting with a fighter, and simply specializing and role-playing him/her as something similar to a D&D Paladin? What is it that would require a separate class from the start?

This is the only 'weapon' a Monk needs ...

I don't think it's such a clear-cut choice. I'd much prefer good plot + good world over great plot + mediocre world. Remember BG2? A large and very important part of it was chapter 2 (in and around Athkatla), with tons of side quests and exploration that didn't really advance the plot at all (except that it served to gather enough gold and experience to move on to chapter 3). In fact, during some of the longer side-quests of chapter 2, I pretty much forgot about the whole over-arching storyline, and didn't miss it either, because good old world exploration and dungeon crawling is enjoyable in itself if the game world is well designed.

Well, it shouldn't. But that's not an argument against friendly fire, that's an argument against adding stupid party AI to the game. Party AI should either be useful, smart and unobtrusive, or not exist at all. In the InfinityEngine games, I always completely disabled party AI and managed everything myself ("auto-pause when finished casting a spell" and "auto-pause when target is dead" came in very handy) and I never found friendly fire to be an annoyance - just a tactical aspect of combat to consider and plan for.

Who's to say their punches can't be more than just normal real-world punches? I'm sure they'll be tapping the power of souls to 'enhance' them... Look at the middle character in the painting from the kickstarter page - that seems to be a monk, no? Also, a good part of my InfinityEngine nostalgia is related to memories of my Monk char landing a well placed hit with his fist or foot against an already wounded powerful foe, causing the screen to shake and the foe to shatter into chunks of flesh. I don't care about realism - don't take that away from me!

Exactly. You might not know what in particular lies ahead, but you can make a decision based on the fight currently at hand - do I need to cast these high-level spells right now in order to not wear out my fighters, or can I handle it without those spells and save them for later? Over time, as you get a "feeling" for the game and the range of difficulty of the encounters you face, this does become a strategic consideration. E.g. if you are at the very beginning of a dungeon, your fighters are all healthy, healing potions are in ample supply, and the current encounter is only of medium difficulty, you know you should not use those high-level spells just yet even if it would be tempting. This is what I fear might be lost if the Vancian system is replaced with an after-battle cooldown. But maybe Obsidian will figure out other ways to provide that incentive for conservation and strategic application of spell usage, even without the Vancian system? I guess I'll just have to trust them...

I do tend to hoard them too, but the situation which Josh described - finding yourself ill prepared for the challenges you're facing (in terms of spell selection) - is exactly the time when I do use up potions and wands and limited-charge items, in order to compensate. They do make a big difference.

Nothing, which is why I usually don't do it. In those games (Infinity Engine), you almost never *need* a specific choice of spells memorized in order to finish a dungeon. Not with a party of 6 that includes some fighter types as well as multiple divine and arcane casters. Sure, if you knew what exactly will come ahead you could choose a very specific selection of spells that would make things easier, but your normal 'dungeon spell selection' will get you through it as well. Also, you usually do have some clues as to what expect beforehand (like, a pack of wolves has been turned undead by an evil entity whose dungeon you're now entering with the intent of tracking him down - chances are you'll be fighting lots more undead inside the dungeon). The spell system rewards you for learning to make rough guesses on what to expect based on the limited clues.

I still prefer the (including the quiet part starting at 0:52). Although maybe it's just the nostalgia? I guess I'll have to wait till I can actually play PE, and "feel" the music in combination with actually playing the game, before I can judge.

Why no .mp3 download? .wav file sizes are so big...

Something like this was done in BG2, in the Drow city in the Underdark. Non-Drow were killed on sight or enslaved, and even if your party entered disguised as Drow, you would get treated like crap for not being from around here, and even more so if your main character was male. PS: It was, imo, one of the best parts of the game - it kept my heart racing for the entire time I was in the city... They really made you feel that you were totally at the whim of the higher-ranking members in that matriarchical social structure, and every decision and every dialog choice had to be weighed carefully in order to not "fall from grace".