coffeetable
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by coffeetable
-
-
On a slightly different point, does ANYONE from Obsidian ever reply to these messages? Or is this just some sort of backer echo chamber?
They post a lott. Here's a dev tracker courtesy of someone over on SA whose name I forget. Best thing to do is subscribe to the RSS feed.
-
With the character screen, the records column doesn't seem to be near as important as the rest of the information displayed. Something like a minimal inventory screen would make better use of the space, so you could instantly see how different loadouts affected your stats.
-
5
-
-
it's been said before that they're aiming for a low-level D&D progression & adventure. the black hound's plot summary is probably a useful approximation.
-
Even so, there are two things we know a lot of you have asked for: more wilderness areas and more companions. We would like to ask the community if you would be interested in new stretch goals to fund additional development.
Even so, there are two things we know a lot of you have asked for: more wilderness areas and more companions.
more wilderness areas and more companions.
That's what the stretch goals are. There's no variation in them. Exactly those. To reinforce the point:
It's for two very specific things: ... more wilderness areas and more companions.We've never talked internally about just "adding stuff". It's always been about two things: wilderness areas and companions (and no more than 3). If we were just making "a game", I wouldn't suggest adding these things, but we're not making "a game", we're making something we proposed as an heir to established traditions. I think adding a modest number of wilderness areas and companions would make the game feel more Baldur's Gate-y (in a good way), and that's worth discussing.
-
1
-
-
Indeed. In fact, logic would dictate that creating a game like BG2 would actually be much cheaper today than what it cost to make it in 1999-2000 (which was about $5-6 million IIRC)
The BG2 postmortem quotes the original BG at 90 man-years of labour. The Double Fine documentary pegged a developer-year at ~$150k. So BG would cost - before factoring in modern development efficiencies like "not making your own engine" and "actual bug tracking" - $13.5 million in today's money.
I've never seen any figures for BG2, but considering the scope of the two games and the fact that environment art is the bottleneck, I'd be surprised if it were that much cheaper.
-
A modern desktop CPU is about a thousand times more powerful than a CPU from 2000.
Pathfinding shouldn't be a problem.
-
edit: now that i think about it, if strength mitigates encumbrance, and encumbrance mitigates attack speed, then more strength = faster attack speed = more damage. which is realistic in a lot of ways.
That actually sounds like a great idea. It buffs up Strength a bit (and you can tune the degree to which Strength mitigates encumbrance, so it can be easily balanced), which otherwise seems a bit lacking, and it makes Strength especially relevant to heavy-armour builds, which feels very natural.
Who mentioned anything about items having weight, eh?
-
Are you going to be making certain weapons have strength or intelligence limits before being able to be used?
I've got a bad record with predictions recently, but I'd be surprised if this were the case because it generates serious frustration if you fall 1 point short of a cool item. What I'd be less surprised about is items that are always usable, but suffer some penalty if you fall short on a certain stat. Take STR in Fallout: New Vegas, for example: you can use any weapon while having any amount of strength, but if you have less than the minimum STR specified, you'll suffer accuracy penalties.
-
1
-
-
Items aside, that law dump is fantastic, especially the bits about other parts of the world.
-
Would the mods consider making a forum for people to chat about their character & item ideas? More importantly, so they can see the distribution of items & NPCs already suggested, allowing them to distinguish their own.
By the way, is there a tradeoff for suggesting a very powerful item over a reasonable one? Will people be much less likely to see it?
-
you linked the thread from the codex looking for support
here i am. supporting you.
-
karkarov's mockup is great, sensuki is wrong, gas thread ban op
-
1
-
-
I'm curious to know which companion classes we'll be missing if you stick to just the current 8 companions.
We've seen artwork for:
Eder: rogue
Feathered chick: paladin (by the look of her at least?)
Cadegund: priest
Forton: monk
Sagani: ranger
Aloth: wizard (by the looks of him)
Orlan dude: cipher
Green chick: druid (again, by the looks of her)
which means that - if these are, in fact, are all companions - chanter/barbarian/fighter are without companions.
-
Requoting for a new page:
So will adding additional content make the game take longer to get released?
Probably a bit, mostly for companions rather than wilderness environments. Additional content does take additional time to make, but not dramatically, not at the scale we're thinking about.
E: Personally, I think more wilderness areas would feel really cool and I believe players would enjoy them. I also would like for players to have every character class represented by a companion. Right now we're 3 short. We don't want to go buckwild on this stuff, but we do think it would feel better with those additions. If we thought it would fundamentally make the game worse, we wouldn't even be asking.
Would adding companions at this 'late stage' not limit the degree to which they'd be able to be tied into the story? There's no point doing it if they were going to be obviously subpar versus the initial envisaged ones.
No, actually. While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning). We ignore them completely as far as the crit path design of the game is concerned because they are all optional. Developing them later allows us to be much more reactive to the final designs of quests and areas.
I just have bad memories of NWN2 where they did the 'one-of-each-class' thing and it ended up really suffering as a result.
That's why they would have to be backed to be done at all. MotB and PS:T were not games that emphasized tactical combat. PE is, which is why I think there's a more compelling motivation to actually have all classes represented. While the difference between 8 and 11 companions is not trivial, it's nothing like the 26 in BG or 17 in BG2.
You're creating a false dichotomy here. Do you think the OEI devs would be so eager to add new companions if they thought they'd compromise the quality of the first eight?
I don't want to give a false impression: certainly we debate (and continue to debate) the idea of adding more companions. They really can't be done at all without additional funding, which is the bottom line. The question isn't "Would you like more companions at the cost of the quality of current companions?" The question is, "Would you like more companions at the cost of $$$$$$ which would be necessary to make them good companions?"
What we do when a publisher isn't breathing down our neck is make a game where a release date is not the primary motivating factor for saying we're done.
I get what you're saying, but I know too well that falling short can be as damaging as being spread too thin. The first expansion I worked on was Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter. It was a modest expansion with a small number of areas and a small number of quests. It was pretty stable when it was released, but it felt short, and cramped, and not fitting with the precedent established by Baldur's Gate, Tales of the Sword Coast, and Icewind Dale.
We've never talked internally about just "adding stuff". It's always been about two things: wilderness areas and companions (and no more than 3). If we were just making "a game", I wouldn't suggest adding these things, but we're not making "a game", we're making something we proposed as an heir to established traditions. I think adding a modest number of wilderness areas and companions would make the game feel more Baldur's Gate-y (in a good way), and that's worth discussing.
-
Already got you covered!
I agree the gauntlet mouse cursors were a definite part of the IE feels™. Might be a while before we release anything with functioning UI however.
Just postin to say the logo (which I understand you did) looks great.
-
Requotin' for a new page:
More crosspostin' from SA (new ones at the bottom):
So will adding additional content make the game take longer to get released?
Probably a bit, mostly for companions rather than wilderness environments. Additional content does take additional time to make, but not dramatically, not at the scale we're thinking about.
E: Personally, I think more wilderness areas would feel really cool and I believe players would enjoy them. I also would like for players to have every character class represented by a companion. Right now we're 3 short. We don't want to go buckwild on this stuff, but we do think it would feel better with those additions. If we thought it would fundamentally make the game worse, we wouldn't even be asking.Would adding companions at this 'late stage' not limit the degree to which they'd be able to be tied into the story? There's no point doing it if they were going to be obviously subpar versus the initial envisaged ones.
No, actually. While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning). We ignore them completely as far as the crit path design of the game is concerned because they are all optional. Developing them later allows us to be much more reactive to the final designs of quests and areas.
I just have bad memories of NWN2 where they did the 'one-of-each-class' thing and it ended up really suffering as a result.
That's why they would have to be backed to be done at all. MotB and PS:T were not games that emphasized tactical combat. PE is, which is why I think there's a more compelling motivation to actually have all classes represented. While the difference between 8 and 11 companions is not trivial, it's nothing like the 26 in BG or 17 in BG2.
You're creating a false dichotomy here. Do you think the OEI devs would be so eager to add new companions if they thought they'd compromise the quality of the first eight?
I don't want to give a false impression: certainly we debate (and continue to debate) the idea of adding more companions. They really can't be done at all without additional funding, which is the bottom line. The question isn't "Would you like more companions at the cost of the quality of current companions?" The question is, "Would you like more companions at the cost of $$$$$$ which would be necessary to make them good companions?"
What we do when a publisher isn't breathing down our neck is make a game where a release date is not the primary motivating factor for saying we're done.
I get what you're saying, but I know too well that falling short can be as damaging as being spread too thin. The first expansion I worked on was Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter. It was a modest expansion with a small number of areas and a small number of quests. It was pretty stable when it was released, but it felt short, and cramped, and not fitting with the precedent established by Baldur's Gate, Tales of the Sword Coast, and Icewind Dale.
We've never talked internally about just "adding stuff". It's always been about two things: wilderness areas and companions (and no more than 3). If we were just making "a game", I wouldn't suggest adding these things, but we're not making "a game", we're making something we proposed as an heir to established traditions. I think adding a modest number of wilderness areas and companions would make the game feel more Baldur's Gate-y (in a good way), and that's worth discussing.
Someone do me a favour and requote these on every other page or so, so new people will see them. -
@ Sensuki, thanks for the quotes.
I voted no, but could change my mind depending on future clarification, and would likely contribute for the additional content/ stretch goal.
Although I think Josh Sawyer's intent is great, I'm a bit wary of adding additional companions at this point. Of course, it could still be early enough in the process to make sure that they are integrated properly, but changing scope in this aspect of design would seem to be fairly tricky (though I have no real idea as I'm not in game development).
Did you see this bit?
No, actually. While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning).
I think someone on the first page mentioned: can we vote for getting fewer things overall and have the game come out faster? Because that's what I would vote for as well. There is always room for expansions and DLC and user mods and whatever. The core game just needs to have a solid foundation on which to build.
I'd agree except this is a spiritual successor to the IE games. One of the defining qualities of those games was their massive scope, and if PE falls short in that department it'll cause a lot of disappointment.
(which is rightly why the dev team is so nervous about it)
-
1
-
-
More crosspostin' from SA (new ones at the bottom):
So will adding additional content make the game take longer to get released?
Probably a bit, mostly for companions rather than wilderness environments. Additional content does take additional time to make, but not dramatically, not at the scale we're thinking about.
E: Personally, I think more wilderness areas would feel really cool and I believe players would enjoy them. I also would like for players to have every character class represented by a companion. Right now we're 3 short. We don't want to go buckwild on this stuff, but we do think it would feel better with those additions. If we thought it would fundamentally make the game worse, we wouldn't even be asking.
Would adding companions at this 'late stage' not limit the degree to which they'd be able to be tied into the story? There's no point doing it if they were going to be obviously subpar versus the initial envisaged ones.
No, actually. While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning). We ignore them completely as far as the crit path design of the game is concerned because they are all optional. Developing them later allows us to be much more reactive to the final designs of quests and areas.
I just have bad memories of NWN2 where they did the 'one-of-each-class' thing and it ended up really suffering as a result.
That's why they would have to be backed to be done at all. MotB and PS:T were not games that emphasized tactical combat. PE is, which is why I think there's a more compelling motivation to actually have all classes represented. While the difference between 8 and 11 companions is not trivial, it's nothing like the 26 in BG or 17 in BG2.
You're creating a false dichotomy here. Do you think the OEI devs would be so eager to add new companions if they thought they'd compromise the quality of the first eight?
I don't want to give a false impression: certainly we debate (and continue to debate) the idea of adding more companions. They really can't be done at all without additional funding, which is the bottom line. The question isn't "Would you like more companions at the cost of the quality of current companions?" The question is, "Would you like more companions at the cost of $$$$$$ which would be necessary to make them good companions?"
What we do when a publisher isn't breathing down our neck is make a game where a release date is not the primary motivating factor for saying we're done.
I get what you're saying, but I know too well that falling short can be as damaging as being spread too thin. The first expansion I worked on was Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter. It was a modest expansion with a small number of areas and a small number of quests. It was pretty stable when it was released, but it felt short, and cramped, and not fitting with the precedent established by Baldur's Gate, Tales of the Sword Coast, and Icewind Dale.
We've never talked internally about just "adding stuff". It's always been about two things: wilderness areas and companions (and no more than 3). If we were just making "a game", I wouldn't suggest adding these things, but we're not making "a game", we're making something we proposed as an heir to established traditions. I think adding a modest number of wilderness areas and companions would make the game feel more Baldur's Gate-y (in a good way), and that's worth discussing.
Someone do me a favour and requote these on every other page or so, so new people will see them.
-
8
-
-
There's been no information on the expansion pack whatsoever. If you pledge for it, you're doing so as an article of faith really. If you're not sure whether you'd like it, don't pay for it yet
-
1
-
-
Crosspostin' from SA:
So will adding additional content make the game take longer to get released?
Probably a bit, mostly for companions rather than wilderness environments. Additional content does take additional time to make, but not dramatically, not at the scale we're thinking about.E: Personally, I think more wilderness areas would feel really cool and I believe players would enjoy them. I also would like for players to have every character class represented by a companion. Right now we're 3 short. We don't want to go buckwild on this stuff, but we do think it would feel better with those additions. If we thought it would fundamentally make the game worse, we wouldn't even be asking.Would adding companions at this 'late stage' not limit the degree to which they'd be able to be tied into the story? There's no point doing it if they were going to be obviously subpar versus the initial envisaged ones.
No, actually. While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning). We ignore them completely as far as the crit path design of the game is concerned because they are all optional. Developing them later allows us to be much more reactive to the final designs of quests and areas.
-
17
-
-
Also, I couldn't care less about wilderness areas. They suffer from a very low content : effort ratio. More companions though I'd love to see.
-
Would the stretch goals be content brought forward from the expansion pack(s), or stuff we wouldn't see at all otherwise?
-
1
-
-
for PE to mirror star citizen's funding model, they'd have to start selling in-game items for real money.
-
Just remember, Team Eternity... If you go ahead and decide the update's NOT going to be ready, then circumstances surprisingly allow it to be ready by tomorrow, do NOT change your mind and actually present it. Stick to your initial estimate, because if you don't, you'll have lied. And not-lying is far more important than whether or not people get a pleasant update.
unironically agree
No romances confirmed
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted