Jump to content

Pandamaniac

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pandamaniac

  1. I thought that Broken Age was a good game for what the goal was, and the fact we are all upset about how short it was is evidence that the rest of the game was relatively sound. I would expect that the second part will be more complex than the beginning (you can see the puzzles increasing in complexity as the game goes on), and the cost of that type of game is significantly higher than PE will be on a per game-play hour basis. WL2 looks like it is in a good place and getting better (the main complaints are what they expected and are working on) and the amount of content in that game is near the ball-park that PE needs to be in.... while PE had another million. Combined with the updates, the history of Obsidian and the fact this is their baby I fully expect the game to be great.
  2. I would go further. I think that since controlling more than one character is confusing we should only play as the protagonist, pausing should be eliminated since it ruins the flow of the game and abilities should be replaced with real time hack-n-slash/shooting mechanics to reward player skill. That should do it!
  3. Not really necessary, since that tier on KS has the rewards I listed, and they have already stated that KS promises are controlling. The "master list" is available here.
  4. You are good. An order can't be placed without a pledge, and all pledges include at least one digital copy of the game. That, and they have already said that in any conflict between the KS info and the backer-portal, the KS info wins, and they are fixing any inconsistencies. You are entitled to: "$35 Digital Downloadable Soundtrack in MP3 and FLAC. Digital Collector’s Book. Making of Project Eternity Documentary (Download) Digital Downloadable Copy of Project Eternity, DRM free for Windows, Mac, or Linux. Kickstarter only in-game achievement and item. Cooking with Tim - An RPG Themed Cookbook PDF Project Eternity Kickstarter Backer Forum Badge.
  5. I think they can do that because battle is not the focus of Numenera, just like Planescape Torment. They held a vote, but they had pre-ordained turn-based the winner. So there was no danger of the public changing anything.
  6. Not quite. They originally had no preference, and then later on realized that it would be better turn-based. And the point of my original post on this thread was not that they should have gone RTwP, but that they should have said something like "Look guys, we originally said we would vote on the system, but we found out during the developmental process the game would work better if we went turn-based instead of real time with pause because X, Y, and Z. We do want to know why those of you who preferred RTwP have that preference, so we can improve the turn-based system this game needs and we value your input, but at the end of the day the combat isn't nearly as important as the story and choice mechanics, and turn-based will allow us to better fulfill the pillars of the game we laid out in the Kickstarter." In other words, to own their decision. If their internal knowledge meant that the game would be significantly better with turn-based, than they should have just made that call. If not, then they should have held a vote. It seems the former is the case here, and holding the vote after the decision had been made is the only thing that upset me in all of this.
  7. Let's be honest with ourselves.... assuming we have money, we will give it to them. Because the game will be amazing. Although I expect them to wait a few months and put out more PE stuff before starting the KS.
  8. Interesting thought, but that would have been a completely different deal, since RTwP was one of the core promises of PE while it is a sideshow in Torment. Kind of like CoD being a FPS.
  9. I see your point. I would agree that 7267 people prefered Torment be turn-based. 7052 people prefered Torment be real-time with pause 782 people had no stated preference on torment's combat system. My difference is that to the extent ANYONE voted turn-based for any other reason than the merits of the systems in a vacuum [E.X. people voting turn-based because it is inXile's preference] you cannot claim a causal relationship between their system preference and what they voted for in this poll. In a sense, I am more pessimistic about it's value than you are. EDIT: Thank you for responding, it was helpful in letting me see my bias in assuming that the will of inXile was the only outside factor, when there are more than we can possibly know.
  10. I am curious: why does it not mean what I strictly defined it to mean, which was "backers that chose to vote are almost split on whether having the game be RTwP instead of turn-based is more important that allowing inXile to fulfill their creative vision." I cannot think of any other considerations in making the voting choice itself, and narrowly focused the results to only have meaning within the sample of those choosing to vote. EDIT: No, I actually voted RTwP. The (intended) implication is that voters for RTwP decided that their desire for RTwP outweighed the consideration they gave to inXile's preference on that individual issue. I.E. I personally knew that inXile would prefer to have the game be turn-based, but I still thought the game would be more enjoyable with RTwP. Thus I "voted" RTwP. That said, I fully support their right to the final say, and I am not upset that they decided against RTwP. It is important to keep in mind that combat in Torment isn't fundamental to the game, so disagreeing with their combat choice is not equivalent of asking them to abandon reactivity or asking COD to change from being a FPS to an RTS.
  11. These votes can be used to anything, except to say that one system has the preference of another. Just 20% of the backers voted and this is already a very small percentage of who would buy the game on release. This is what I was going for. After taking into account the stated will of inXile, Voters must want a RTwP system more than they want inXile to fulfil their vision in order to make the game. Otherwise voters would either vote for Turn-based or not vote. So the results of the poll show, conclusively, backers that chose to vote are almost split on whether having the game be RTwP instead of turn-based is more important that allowing inXile to fulfill their creative vision. As to the vote being advisory, the threshold was set so high as to make the voting process a pointless exercise in meaningless button pressing in terms of it's potential impact on the game. I would have preferred they stated the game will be turn-based, and then asked for people's concerns about turn-based and incorporated that feedback into the final design.
  12. Double Fine for the budgeting expertise and Subutai for investor relations. But honestly, they will be fine and probably just want another IP/ game to design and build until PE2 can be built from PE's money. Can't blame them for that. Regardless of their reasoning, if it is awesome and well timed (not during the holidays) I will back it, and if it isn't I won't.
  13. No additional pledge? If so, hypothesis is wrong, and I can close the thread. Thanks!
  14. Ok, I have been wondering if there was something wrong with the backer portal, since some people have the Kickstarter icon and others don't, even though they backed during the Kickstarter (like me). I also remember getting the retail package listed on the second page, instead of the Kickstarter package. So here is my hypothesis: Any paypal pledge takes precedence over an existing Kickstarter pledge, and marks your account as not being an Original Kickstarter backer. This makes sense to me, since I pledged via Kickstarter and added additional funds via Paypal before the grace period was over. However, before I submit this formally, I would like to test my hypothesis. If you could, please post if you backed on KS, if you gave money on paypal, both, or were a slacker backer. I am expecting only "KS only" people to have the Kickstarter packages, with Kickstarter & Paypal backers given retail packages along with paypal backers (regardless of the timeliness of their pledge. Example: I backed via Kickstarter and Paypal. I can then see if the icons given match up with my hypothesis (which mean we have found the problem, and can have Obsidian fix it), or if there is another explanation. Thank you! Pandamaniac
  15. That would explain why some people (like me) aren't getting kickstarter icons after pledging, and (like I was before I asked for help) were stuck with retail. I believe, and this is a hypothosis, that anyone who had ANY paypal part to their pledge are being judged as non-kickstarter/original backers, and are getting these (inferior) "retail" pledges.
  16. In update 37: Revealing the Map (For Wasteland 2), it was stated: So I am curious, now that we have the fulfillment site up, how are PE backers supposed to get their copy of Wasteland 1? Or should I ask this on the Wasteland 2 forums?
  17. What's wrong with that? Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic. The vote served a purpose, either there's a high percentage of votes for RTwP, thus InXile goes with the vote because the game is for the backers, or they go with TB because it's easier, better, and cheaper. Did we already know that RTwP wasn't going to get a large majority? No, it's only an educated guess, but in any case the vote serves another purpose, to show those who want RTwP that they're not in the majority. But the vote was a farce. Let's recall how the vote was conducted. First, they told us they really wanted turn-based, making their argument why it was best for the game. This meant that anyone who wanted them to pursue their vision would vote turn-based. Then they let us know the vote was advisory, setting the bar unattainably high. Then they held the vote. You are absolutely correct when you say that "Nobody should have been under the illusion that the design of this game is democratic". But by holding an vote after rigging the election, they implicitly sought to create the illusion that the design of this game is democratic, while avoiding the pitfalls of democracy (results they didn't agree with). That is what disappointed me about the vote.
  18. I actually don't really care that much what combat they chose. If it is a terribly horrific god-awful experience that I rush through to get back to the story, it will be nostalgic because the original's combat was a terribly horrific god-awful experience that I rushed through to get back to the story. If the combat is actually decent/good/great, than it is a marked improvement and I will be grateful. At the end of day only masochists and sensates played PST for the combat, and I assume that will be the case for Torment: Tides of Numenera as well.
  19. From the Update 69 Thread: If something was listed on the Kickstarter for a specific tier, you will get that item. We just need to update our description. In other words, they know there is a problem, and they will make sure we get what we pledged for. /thread
  20. I'm definitely on this boat. Let's see what comes of this first kickstarter project before asking us to throw money at them again. They're already "giving us the option" of paying 20 dollars for an expansion to pillars of eternity. The price for that is the same as the original game, so that is a fairly big undertaking I imagine. And now they want to start a new kickstarter thing? I'm not against backing per se, but I'd like to see what comes of what I backed to begin with before we move on to other things For the record, they allowed people to pledge for the expansion because it was included in some of the higher tiers and people asked to be able to pledge for the expansion. "Due to popular demand and for a limited time, we are offering the ability to add our first expansion pack, due out approximately six months after Project Eternity ships. Any money contributed to add-on the expansion now will be used to make the main game larger. The expansion budget is not being created by money from this Kickstarter." Source
  21. To be honest, I was disappointed that they chose to hold the farcical vote in the first place. They knew there was a turn-based contingent, and they wanted to make the game turn-based (I think the biggest reason was to recycle the Wasteland 2 combat system), and so they held a "non-binding" vote that would needed to have "been skewed hugely in favor of RTwP" in order to be successful. In other words, the outcome was in doubt as much as the presidential election in Azerbaijan (where the "results" were leaked before the vote took place). Sure, they argue that [WL2 combat and Torment] Torment won’t be taking the WL2 turn-based system wholesale. We’ll certainly be paying attention to what people like and don’t like from WL2’s combat, but Torment has different needs anyway. We can use much of the foundation, but one shouldn’t draw conclusions about Torment’s combat from WL2’s as we’ll change quite a bit so that it’s what’s best for Torment. The experience the programmers have from developing WL2’s system is what will be most beneficial. But to me this is disingenuous because of course they will change things (can't have guns, after all), but at the end of the day it is the same style of combat system for the same engine. This isn't to say that they can't make the game turn based: they reserved that right, and they chose to exercise that right. I just wish that they would have taken ownership in their decision and cancelled the vote in the best interest of the game, or just held the vote and made it binding (they managed to skew it enough with their commentary in the update that it won narrowly, so a binding vote would have given them their desired outcome). Doing what they did, hiding their decision behind a veneer of democracy, is simple cowardice.
  22. I would prefer if they at least hold off on the Kickstarter until we have recovered from the holiday season... because if it kicks off soon than it will be much harder to support than if they waited a few months. Each project should be evaluated on it's own merit, but that evaluation is impacted by the disposable income available to us, and right now that isn't very much.
  23. You can upgrade to a higher tier (up to 500) with the credit you have after the first screen.
×
×
  • Create New...