Keldorn

I don't think there are many fast food chains such as McDonalds' in P:E's setting. No food additives either. Plus, you get daily exercise: you hack and slash and carry all kinds of equipment that can weigh over 100 kilo in total -- while running for days and days straight. You'll be fit enough.

This is actually a plausible outcome. Deserts are not always hot, they just lack rainfall. There is plenty of frozen desert in Asia. I can't remember any desert in direct connection to tundra though, as most tundra regions of our world see enough precipitation. To compliment this, Antarctica and the Arctic are considered the two biggest deserts in the world.

I'm really interested in how guns will turn out in Project: Eternity. Since I do not really like steampunk stuff, I think it would be great if they will create these weapons to have magical influences or proportions. It'd make sense, also, since all the IE games implement magical weapons, including summoned weapons. But guns -- they can be much cooler magically enhanced than just a bright glow around their edges. Such as this one Monte Carlo posted, I think it's a great example:

I lol'd

Aye, it is quite sad to see such playground activity on the forums grow on such a daily basis. Before YouTube and memes, forums were more a place of discussion and friendship, other than people trying to get on other people's backs the entire time. It's as if Chris Avellone is the school's teacher and half of his class, filled with children under the age of 12, is yelling: "See, we were right all along! Our God agrees with us!". I thought that most people here would be more mature and would be able to view things from different perspectives, but I guess I was wrong. I guess wisdom does not grow with age. The result of a game funded by kickstarter is provisionally a sad one, indeed. Especially considering the fact that Project: Eternity will never satisfy everbody's needs -- romance yes or no, excluded. If people do not see this, they shouldn't have donated in the beginning.

I'm afraid maybe you're getting ahead of yourself with the wrong ideas.. Or maybe I'm ill-informed. The fact that the stronghold is actually going to be a stronghold in the traditional sense, a keep of sorts, has not been confirmed at all. It is also being speculated that the stronghold will be done as was done in Baldur's Gate II, where a paladin got into an order, a thief got a guild, a druid a grove and only the fighter got a true keep -- de'Arnise Hold. That being said, it is also possible certain classes will share a type of stronghold to reduce the amount of resources required to create one for every class, which would mean that a personalized style is not really necessary. Also, sometimes I feel people tend to forget this game will be isometric. This means that many items, such as paintings, for instance, will hardly be visible because of the angle of the camera. And, depending on the distance of the camera to the character, details may be very limited. I, however, do not require much customization. At least not like The Sims, where I would have to arrange furniture, and definitely not like The Elders Scrolls, where I just buy an extra room full of decoration, every time, with no use at all. If customization would be implemented, I would like it to be somewhat quest-related and seeing the end result being useful for future quests, so that customization or expansion is not experienced as some stupid achievement (in the sense of nowaday gaming).

I think asking for more loot instead of artifacts -- or the other way around, is somewhat strange. First off, what is an artifact? Is, for instance, a D&D 'Longsword +1' already classified as an artifact? In my opinion, it is not. Sure, it is enchanted, but my guess is that it's just a longsword that was either crafted by a very experienced blacksmith, or enchanted by the town's temple. I believe an artifact is an item with very unique features and, if possible, background lore. I always love reading about the origin of a weapon: Where did the item come from? Who was it from? How was it lost? That said, I think it would be nice if artifacts are not too common. 'Masterwork' items, such as those seen in Icewind Dale, are a good substitute for the lower-level artifacts you could encounter. The problem with Icewind Dale, however, was that these masterly crafted items were quite common and were very soon replaced by items that possessed much greater enchantments. I would've liked to see these items to be much more useful.

I understand heroes should be much more rich than peasants, however, carrying 20.000 golden coins is simply too much. Another problem with D&D games, was the fact that shelter and booze also costed several golden coins (up to over 10). Whilst, as you said yourself, a commoner's yearly earning is maybe one golden piece. It's unbelievable inbalanced. Besides, if what you say is true, and one golden coin is a peasants' yearly earning, then 50gp would be sufficient for an enchanted dagger, no? Of course, items would be able to range into the hundreds of golden coins, and it would stay out of a commonor's reach. For instance, a normal, quality dagger could cost several silver; a sublime crafted shield several golden pieces; an enchanted dagger could cost 50gp; a sword 80gp and a rare, enchanted plated armour would be 200gp. It doesn't need to be 10.000 golden coins - nobody walks around with that amount of coins. Also, using copper, silver and gold should not be so confusing if a certain amount of copper coins equals one silver coin and several silver coins equals one golden coin, right? The current coins you use today are also made of different metals, since they differ in value. If 10 copper coins equals one silver coin; and 10 silver coins equals one golden coin, it's plain and simple for anyone and I believe it can bring money to be more interesting in the game.

My personal disappointment on money in most games is that you always need to carry such a lot. Even in cRPG's such as Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale, you sometimes end up walking around with tens of thousands of gold coins. Sure, you can use it for gear, which also sometimes costs tens of thousands of gold, but why such a lot? How big a pouch do you need for such an amount and how much would that even weigh? I can't imagine myself carrying every euro I have (in the bank and on the mortgage and such) in coins of € 1,- each. To add to this problem, other people in the world already think 1 golden piece is a small fortune. You give beggars or children one piece of gold and they act like they can eat for a whole week (maybe they can, since it's gold). Also, people in the city may cheer on a few golden pieces, while a stupid kobold already has tens? That doesn't quite add up. That way, it can look like a sword that costs 20.000 gold to seem equal to a huge mansion. I believe the system Blizzard had implemented in WoW was pretty good. Three types of coins: copper, silver and gold. 100 copper equals 1 silver. 100 silver equals 1 gold (or 10 to 1). Then, creatures you kill will drop money according to their level or status (if they drop anything, at all), along with any items they may carry. These items shouldn't be worth that much, as long as they are not magical. Also, magical items don't need to cost 1000+ gold. If 1 gold is already a small fortune to a commoner, why not make it worth 50g?

It's always frustrating to try and argue on the internet. Heck, it can be frustrating in real life also. Argueing on the internet is sometimes like having an argument with your wife/girlfriend. You or the other always knows best. In the case of our already-beloved Project: Eternity, many people here think his or her opinion will decide the outcome of Obsidian's choices on decisions on the game. However, although they may see our posts from time to time, they are their own team and will decide on their own decisions. Of course, peer pressure may sometimes be involved, but in the case of romance aye or nay, it is impossible to satisfy both needs. Therefore, I believe romance will be a part of Project: Eternity. I understand both opinions on whether or not to include romance in a game. However, my opinion is that romance is a part of roleplaying. As I said in another post which is already lost in eternity, it simply comes to this: If you can get someone to hate you - why not love you? If there will be so many quests revolving around hatred, fighting, solving, pursuing - why not around romance and love? Isn't that also a part of life? Besides, romance and love do not mean sex scenes and prostitution.

People on the sidelines always seem to know best. We have a (in my opinion, great) saying in the Netherlands for these kind op people: "The best skippers are ashore". I, for one, have started practicing kendo over a month ago. It may seem easy when you see it, but believe you me - when you practice it, it is not. I believe this to be also true for those gentlemen in the video practicing their swordplay.

From my understanding of swords, which is mostly based of knowledge gained from Wikipedia, combined with RPG gaming, a good list of swords to use would be: - Daggers: 1H - Long knife: 1H, L: 64-81cm of which blade: 51-68cm (for instance: size of roman swords); - Knightly sword / Arming sword: 1H, L: 91cm of which blade: 74cm; - Longsword / Bastard sword: 1H/2H, L: 120-150cm of which blade: 100-122cm; - Other swords (scimitars, katanas, rapiers and the like) Interestingly enough, the knightly sword is also refered to as the short sword - something a fighter/paladin would never use in D&D gaming; even though it is said in Wikipedia the short sword was the normal single-handed sword during Elizabethan England (1558–1603). Also, concerning two-handed swords, I read that the true two-handed sword, the "zweihänder" or "bidenhänder", was indeed used to deal with pikemen. However, many other two-handed swords, such as the Scottish claymore, were much shorter (in the range of the longsword as seen above) but still only meant for two-handed wielding. Claymores, due to their smaller size compared to the bidenhänder, were actually worn on the back. So although the OP has some good points, many a sword was used for sole two-handed wielding - not only the bidenhänder.

Although I am not very knowledgeable about medieval swords, are the swords in the movie not bastard swords instead of longswords? They look somewhat large - especially their grip. As far as I know, many longswords also have a grip that is only suitable for one hand, isn't that so? That means a longsword sized for both one-handed wielding and two-handed wielding should be a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half-sword)..

I do not really mind both monsters, but I would prefer to see different kind of monsters. Original ideas for monsters are sometimes pretty neat, but I guess there always need to be some base set of monsters; giant spiders, wolves, bears, ogres, trolls, orcs, goblins/kobolds... which means also werewolves and vampires.

I have not said I dislike either one of them - or anything popular, for that matter. I have also enjoyed Lindsey Stirling's songs and sometimes still listen to it. With and without video. But I consider it to be entertaining - not beautiful, not talented. Concerning Malukah, however... I do not like her singing - at all. I find it to be very bland. I simply do not think either one of them is suitable for a fantasy cRPG. Of course, a 'YouTube talent' is welcomed by me if he or she is truly talented. Not just because he or she has ties with a (fantasy) game.

Please don't even make Obsidian consider a 'YouTube talent' such as Malukah. Or Lindsey Stirling, for that matter. The one and only reason these people got popular is because they made covers of songs of something very popular at the time. Oh, and because they're girls and look good. Also, I personally do not really like to hear English vocals in a fantasy RPG. I always love hearing a fantasy language (or latin, ancient greek) since this increases the feeling of an unknown fantasy world.

I tend to start every RPG I play as a human paladin or a fighter. In other playthroughs I would choose rogues and wizards and the like.

I think a game without a level cap does not balance your place in the world. It makes sense that even a very experienced fighter, ranger or even wizard at the end of the game still has at least some difficulty with, for instance, a huge ogre you would meet during the middle of the game.. Even a goblin could be able to dodge your blow - they're still small! I really disliked the Elder Scrolls games in this aspect. After finishing the main storyline you would explore all the caves and do all the quests, but almost every single opponent you encounter is dealt with, with only 2~3 blows! Heck, you could even fell dragons with 3 slashes! So if the game would not include a level cap, I would appreciate enemies to be scaled to your level accordingly. But, in truth, I prefer a level cap.

Oh good, I'm having trouble keeping up with all these topics as it is. It's nice to see these kind of topics sprout out of nowhere, making a bigger mess.

Aye, it is true BG1 really has many characters that I have also forgotten. But concerning BG2, I have certainly played with Aerie, Imoen, Keldorn, Mazzy, Minsc, Nalia, Valygar, Anomen, Jaheira, Yoshimo, Edwin, Sarevok and Viconia. That's 13 already! I would love more characters, but can understand the limit because of the available time. That's why I'm hoping for more characters in the first expansion.

You forgot Mazzy, Edwin (how could you!) and Sarevok (ToB). Ah, thanks. With all the updates and stuff I sometimes get lost in the information. But you're probably right. They will most likely add more characters in due time. Maybe not before the initial release, but later - the first expansion, for instance.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but Baldur's Gate had 25 playable characters and Baldur's Gate II had 17.

Where is it stated there will be only 8 potential companions? I haven't read that anywhere yet. But, to me, 8 companions is very few. Of course, it would be much better to have 14, or maybe even more companions to choose from. However, more characters need more time to work on, and I can understand there is few time left with the stretch goals and all... I fear those stretch goals and the release date of spring 2014 will be too early - I'd rather have them extend it until the summer or fall of 2014, so that the game can be more detailed. More extensive. Better.

Of course it would, since it basically is an RPG! You play as a mercenary, follow a storyline, do quests, gain experience points, have loads of stats.. For me it is very difficult to choose! I have several games in mind that remind me of an amazing experience; the Baldur's Gate trilogy, Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger... Oh wait, don't forget about Pokémon Yellow, or Gold - since that game allowed players to return to that first region. Golden Sun was great, too.

Not only is limited voice acting good for the relatively small budget of Project: Eternity, it also solves the potentially huge problem of bland voice acting (over time). Sure, everything voice acted may seem great at first, but once you've spent several hours in the game, it kind of gets tedious! I was annoyed tremendously by the voice acting in Oblivion, and even - but somewhat less - in Skyrim. Not only because of the repeating dialogue (which is more comfortable to read than to hear), but also because of the repeated use of the same voice actor/actress! I enjoyed the way Baldur's Gate was voice acted.