moridin84

Branching story arcs? Well if they want to do that they want do it without new game+ anyway, that's how CRPGs roll.

The new game+ normally does not change the story, you just restart the story with all your gear and levels. Similar to the Diablo games and their Normal -> Nightmare -> Hell progression. I don't think this fits very well with most CRPGs because of how successive playthroughs are normally done with different characters. It works with Diablo and JRPGs because your characters "character" is not normally affected by you. Cloud in Final Fantasy VII is exactly the same character no matter how many times you play the game whereas each playthrough of Baldurs Gate or whatever can be done with as different "character"

Hopefully we will get companions that are much more complex than the standard archtypes (self-centred rogue, self-righteous priest, etc). The type of character development you are suggesting for companions feels too heavy-handed for my tastes. Though I might be just nitpicking at this point, you are likely just trying to emphasize your point?

Regardless, no multiplayer is absolute decision made by the developers of the game, arguing about it is pointless. This should be sticked somewhere.

I don't exactly disagree but at the same time... I don't think that companions actually need to be changed by your actions. Characters can be complex and interesting without necessarily being swayed by you. Kaelyn the Dove from NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer is a good example. Ultimately her beliefs are not swayed in the slightest by how you act or what you say to her, her different "endings" mostly relate to the practical consequences of your actions.

I certainly hope not as IE game graphics look like crap by today's standards, and anyone who thinks they don't seriously needs to play a modern game. This game doesn't need to look as good as Sleeping Dogs or Far Cry 3 (two of 2012's most graphically impressive games on PC) but it certainly better look at least as good or better than Diablo Already Looked Dated on Release Day 3. Uhh, you probably aren't going to get much better than Diablo 3. Or rather, I wouldn't consider Diablo 3 to be ugly.

Putting the settings in the application directory is a bad idea, for the reasons explained. I don't really see a problem with putting save games and such in the MyDocuments/<GameName> directory though. Plenty of games do this, including Starcraft II, The Witcher, Just Cause 2. I think it makes sense to put files you want the user to access in the MyDocuments directory and stuff you don't in the AppData directory.

He actually sounds really memorable.

Having characters that some will hate and some will love is a good thing, that's what really makes them "memorable". Not every characters needs to be like that but personally I think that at least two of the 6 companions should be the polarizing kind. People are using Neeska from NWN2 as an example of an "unlike-able" character but I totally love that character, she's my favourite character in the game and if I wanted to replay it, 50% of the reason would be "Neeska". Another example would be Bishop (again from NWN2), I didn't like him and lots of other people didn't but he's actually really popular with some (mostly females I believe) people. Of course, it's no good to make characters that everyone hates either. Making characters with strong but questionable views (Bishop) is obviously a good way to do it, that was probably intentional. I doubt Neeska was intended to be such a polarizing character though, funny how things turn out. Oh and just for reference, I don't normally pick my companions based on "party balance", I generally pick based on who I like though I don't completely ignore party balance. In a game with lots of companions I'll generally rotate what (likeable) companions I take. That's how important the personality of companions are to me.

I don't think trying your appearance to your stats is a good idea. Most games these days (e.g. Guild Wars 2) have the option to change height and width so if you want a skinny wizard or whatever then you can just setup that up on character creation. That said, this is going to be an isometric game so the character might be a bit too small for it to be worth it.

And will you perhaps explain the relevance between the game being isometric and the level of authenticity of weapons? I don't see one. Was anyone somehow asking for a realistic physics simulation of weapons or something like that? Ultimately, we aren't asking for "overly" realistic weapons. We are only asking for reasonably realistic weapons instead of NON-RIDICULOUS weapons that has been the staple. Because the camera distance is quite far you don't really see weapons in much detail.

The problem with that is that people will be frustrated with the inability to run, even if you set the walking speed to the same level of what you were planning the running speed to be. It's a perception thing.

The problem, as I see it, is that this is going to be an isometric game. I don't think having overly 'realistic weapons' really suits that kinda perspective.

I think it would be better to have a run/walk toggle. 95% of the time you'll be running but it's nice to be able to walk if you want. Plus if you are 'sneaking' then you can only walk so you'll have a 'walk mode' regardless. Stamina based running is a bad idea. You just want to get from point A to point B, why add it stamina to punish you for that? It's not like it would make a difference in combat.

*rolls eyes* A bunch of people have responded like this. I think it's a bit of an... 'immature' response.

I never undestood all those complaints about NWN2's camera. All it took was some adjusting in the options. iirc, I used strategy mode, unlocked the camera from being fixed on my character, made sure the camera didn't rotate when moving the cursor to the edge of the screen, and set the scrollerwheel (when pressed) to rotate and change the angle (which went nicely with scrolling for zooming). The camera was pretty bad in NWN2 originally, it was improved after a few patches.

Dragon Age 2's gameplay was AWFUL, and Dragon Age 2 would be painful to play no matter what narrative window dressing they draped over that massive turd. They didn't "focus on gameplay", they focused on making the game as close to Mass Effect but with Magic Because Mass Effect Made More Money. Hah. I was just going to use Dragon Age 2 as an example of why I choose "Gameplay" over "Story". I wanted to play Dragon Age 2 a second time but couldn't because of how horrible the gameplay was.

Oh the boobplate complaints and stuff? Actually I think it's mostly guys who are having a knee-jerk reaction to all excessive pandering in games. I donated to the Indiegogo crowdfunding of Ancient Domains of Mystery. Deep gameplay is way more important than graphics. Gameplay is more important than graphics. That doesn't mean graphics aren't important. It's a matter of style right?

Hmmm, games with "living worlds" are generally sandbox games right? Project Eternity isn't going be one of those so I don't think it is needed.

You don't care about graphics at all? Then you're okay with the game looking like this then? Oh the boobplate complaints and stuff? Actually I think it's mostly guys who are having a knee-jerk reaction to all excessive pandering in games.

I always wanted to do that, but I don't remember any game with this feature((( There was definitely a game which let you do this, I can't remember what it was though.

Wow, I agree totally. I even pledged the same amount.

Indeed.

It's still partially their fault. It's not unreasonable to poke at them every now and then about this. it's only their fault if they're the ones handling the quality assurance. if they aren't, and it's the publisher doing it, then it's on the publisher. Almost every game development company has publishers. I'm sure they all to deal.

It's still partially their fault. It's not unreasonable to poke at them every now and then about this. We have no legal recourse. Even if they just ran off with the money.