moridin84

I think that Wasteland 2 will support this. I don't think that Project Eternity will be open-ended enough to allow it.

I've only been following a few kickstarters but from what I've seen Wasteland 2 is definitely the best. They already have release date and I don't think they've cut any features. How many updates they are releasing is a different thing. Project Eternity seems to be pretty high up as well.

So... like the shields in Magika?

In software development, the first 90% of the project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time. I think that if they don't have it "90%" done by June next year they won't hit the Winter 2014 deadline. And I'm assuming those started testing at least a few months before that mark. If it takes them until 2018 (or even 2016) to make the game then it probably won't be a good game. The development dragging out too long is almost as bad as it being cut short.

As people have stated, this is how the leveling system actually works. And it's pretty common in older RPGs that you only get skills every other level. This has been changed in later RPGs and you normally get skills every level (even WoW changed from to this). This is because getting skills every level is actually more rewarding and makes the game more exciting.

Hmm I guess it's fine to have a delay. The problem is that if you keep thinking that, things will spiral out of control. I understand this as a software developer myself. If you give me two weeks to do it I'll get it done it two weeks, if you give up three weeks to do that same thing I'll get it done in three weeks. I'd just use that extra week to add things here and there.

Why does it have to be a chokepoint though? it's a supernatural event, it could happen anywhere, say it's a demon wandering the earth or something, does it matter where you meet him? it could just be at or near the exit of whichever area you chose to start at nothing kills replayability like a chokepoint As I understand it, the game is going to be full of "chokepoints". Essentially Act 1 / Act 2 / Act 3 type things. This is probably the best way to handle RPGs which aren't open ended.

Yeah I dunno how beta testing will work considering the way to test an RPG is to actually play through the game. Which would go through the story. With an RTS you can just keep to the skirmish / multiplayer modes.

If by "location" you mean like... city or area, then yeah. But, you could still start in different spots. Although it's possible, I wouldn't assume that the very start of the game is LITERALLY your character witnessing a supernatural event, kind of like how the start of the Lord of the Rings isn't Frodo setting out for Mt. Doom. You could start in different parts of the outskirts of a city, or even different parts of a city, itself, and have different prologue "companions," and different interactions with the very same NPCs within that city, even, and STILL end up witnessing the very same event that every character in every playthrough witnesses to kickstart (pun alarm) the main portion of the narrative storyline. The witnessing of the supernatural event is like a chokepoint between areas. Plenty of factors before AND after it can be totally different. In fact, what might even be pretty interesting is if all the backgrounds are in some way affiliated with the starting city/area, and they're all "there" no matter what. In other words, if you COULD be a farmer entering the town for the day to sell his crops, or you COULD be a mercenary brought into town to help the militia with something, then, as the mercenary, you actually can bump into the farmer (who, now, simply isn't you, and therefore doesn't end up witnessing the supernatural event), and vice versa. If that farmer is Cedric's nephew, from the Salnor farm, then, even if YOU don't choose that background, an NPC who is Cedric's nephew from the Salnor farm could be wandering around town, between the gate and the market. Personally I'm assuming that the "earth shattering event" will be after a short prologue. And I assume that when people are talking about "different locations" then they are talking DA:Origins style. What you are suggesting could work, with just the first 30 minutes being a bit different but with the rest of the game being largely unaffected. It sounds kind of neat actually and wouldn't even take that much time and effort.

I'm going to play on normal initially. And maybe play hard later on. I've played hard difficulty for quite a few RPGs and regretted it. Not because it was "too hard" or anything. The combat just wasn't very fun for those games, at least on normal difficulty it's easy enough that you can just breeze through it and not have to pay much attention. We'll see how Project Eternity ends up being.

Umm If I recall correctly the start of the game is going to have the player character witness an "earth shattering event", I think that a single starting location is almost required for that. For the background trait stuff... I can see it as a bit of "fluff" similar to how it was done in NWN2 or Mass Effect rather than anything important. Actually... does anyone know if the main character is going to have a defined background similar to Planescape Torment or NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer? As opposed to a "blank slate" character. If the main character is going to be a defined background then this thread isn't really relevant.

Yeah, I'm concerned about this too. So concerned that this topic was actually my first post on these forums late last year Well from what I've gathered they have a serious bug tracking platform these days which they used with Dungeon Siege 3. And they do know what a bad reputation they have for buggy games. I'm sure they are going to avoid it if they can.

I don't think that romances (for this game) should be too complicated. It should not involve stats or gaining affection points. I think the 'relationship' should be built up naturally via story events, choices and dialogue. The best way to think about how a relationship should work is to look at novels where a main character had multiple possible love interests. Daenerys in A Song of Fire and Ice for example. The overall plot probably wouldn't change depending on who should she picks, but, at the same time, the story would be a little different (being general to avoid spoilers here). Isn't that how it should work in a game? Also, I don't think the game should have a huge number of love interests, one or at most two for each gender. This means you can concentrate on them rather having to spread things out. And another thing, I'm not really sure how serious the relationships need to be. I thought the Neeska/Elayne/MC love triangle quite fun for example, despite being completely related to anything actually important (and this was before I realized how much of the bickering was due to rivalry after playing through the game as a female character, hah).

There is a difference between viable and equal. In Bioware RPGs I tend to pick my party members based on who I want to hang out with rather than party composition. This makes the game harder when I want to hang out with two rogues and a mage while being a mage myself. I think that's fine, as long as it's viable I don't need to be a just as strong as a party with a tank.

Oh god. This thread is still going?

Bikini armour is obviously too far but I think women should get more "feminine" armour. Fanservice isn't the only reason that women's armour tends to be different from males (e.g. Mass Effect). It's also because women (the ones playing the game) actually like looking "feminine" and because it makes them visually "interesting".

I'm thinking mechanically. Most damage a Jedi does comes from melee, the force abilities they use are normally ancillary.

Just out of curiosity... how often does a Jedi force throw his/her Lightsaber? It's quite rare I think? It happens once or twice in the movies and while it's in most game where you play a Jedi it's normally useless. Exactly, that's the point I am trying to make. A Jedi can be seen as a Wizard who fights close-combat most of the time, with the ability to throw their sabers at a distance. They are still close-combat oriented first and foremost. What I am flirting with is: Could the Grimoire function as a primitive fantasy/magical medieval (close-combat) Lightsaber for a "type of" Wizard? Additional, stand-alone thought: A Yoda... err.. an Orlan melee Wizard would be awesome to roll with ;D A Jedi is closer to a Paladin than a Wizard.

Just out of curiosity... how often does a Jedi force throw his/her Lightsaber? It's quite rare I think? It happens once or twice in the movies and while it's in most game where you play a Jedi it's normally useless.

Isn't it the same thing?

Being able to throw swords at people from a distance isn't going to make anyone feel like a melee/warrior wizard.

I think a "summoned sword" is just a spell. Technically it fits the criteria of "wizard with a sword" but it wouldn't make me feel like a "wizard with a sword".

Well if you need to switch colours then you can do it easily, you just need to change the SELECTION_COLOUR_ENEMY resource. This value will be stored in a single file so it's easy to change.

perhaps you were kidding, but that's just not how stretch goals work at all. The idea that the amount of money between stretch goals is literally the cost of the following stretch goal is not correct, not sure why so many people seem to think this... All money is supposed to go into making a better game (more writers and coders, better quality assurance, and of course once all that has been fulfilled, peoples' pay going up); adding a stronghold to PE, for example, didn't cost 200k, just as hiring George Ziets likely didn't cost exactly 100k. They totally don't increase people's pay after these goals are reached. I'm not sure on what basis you're assuming this, but it seems likely enough that they can't plan expenditures out down to the penny (not to mention the amount left aside for patches, etc.), and that any extra isn't just going to be thrown out and will therefore end up in the pockets of the devs. I don't see anything wrong with this, but it seems like a pretty obvious possibility; so I'm not seeing what makes you so sure that extra money won't be added to the pay of the devs... Because it's a job? When you are hired by a company you agree to work for a wage, they aren't going to give you more money just because they have more money, that would be silly.

I don't know exactly how they would do it but if it was me I wouldn't have the selection colour as variable. I would have the colour as a "resource", called SELECTION_COLOUR_ENEMY or something. Other resources would be STANDARD_BUTTON (an image), INVENTORY_WINDOW_BORDER or MENU_BACKGROUND_COLOUR. The difference between a resource and a configuration variable is that resources are defined when you build the application exe whereas a configuration variable has to be dynamically picked from a settings file.