Exile2k4

The problem I found with the language in the game wasn't really with any specific name or term, but rather that there was a tendency to use multiple unfamiliar terms in a sentence which inhibited deriving meaning by context. If you have a sentence like "I met dasbasdiyb yesterday and they were upset with you" you can infer that it's probably a person's name, and something of what's going on. If you have a sentence like "dasnkdasun was in a adwiawdih with aindsida in adsuindasnu!" it's harder to pick up what each of these things is, not just because there are four times as many things to learn but because each lacks the contextual cues. Games like this tend to be fairly long, which is great, but I don't really have the free time to learn the range of peoples, places, creatures, gods & phenomena before starting, and for me personally it made parts of the game (particularly the opening) more opaque than engaging.

I thought more could have been done in places with either hallucinations that weren't clearly labelled as hallucinations by the purple lights, or rare instances where the dialogue options are deliberately restricted or your choices overidden. Maybe that would be too irritating in practice to play through, but the Awakened/Watcher curse felt more like a superpower in practice, which didn't really sell it as a motivation for me.

I enjoyed the game overall and I'm glad I backed it, but I was a little disappointed with everything from the start of Act III to the end of the game. The last parts felt rushed and a little threadbare, rather than the narrative picking up pace - I was already slightly disappointed with how few characters there were to interact with in many of the locations in Defiance Bay in Act II, but Twin Elms felt much worse. From reading interviews with the developers it's clear there's a huge amount of thought and writing that's gone into the ideas in the narrative. I think it's great that they try to write a morally grey story, and I find the subjects covered in the game interesting, but they didn't really come across to me strongly enough while I was actually playing, which for me undermines the point. Maybe it's my fault for not doing more background reading before playing the game, but there was too much writing in the style of "a Biawac trapped the Glanfathans in the Engwithan ruins in Eir Glanfath with a Delemgan in St. Waidwen's time!" for my liking, which really slowed my engagement with the story, especially early on. I had a clear idea in my head of what kind of character I wanted to play for my first playthrough, and I was impressed by how many conversation options there were to support that in places, but ultimately the mechanics of what I was doing in the game always felt separate from the overall narrative of the story and the choices I was making. I'm looking forward to any expansions or sequels, hopefully with the experience from making this game and without the pressure to create an entire world-lore from scratch the story will be more engaging in practice as well as in theory.

Love the update, looks great. One question I have - in the update it lists paladins as potentially being dedicated to orders or causes others perceive as bleak or malevolent. Are there plans to reflect this in game? In dialogue options? I love the thought of a game supporting my idea of a character with options that fit the character I want to play, but obviously there's only a fixed amount of work you can do, and the more branching/reactive options the shorter the overall game. Personally I'd love to play a religious zealot, a character whose dogmatic, single minded obsession leads them to do things others might perceive as evil, but with 11 classes/6 races and potentially different takes on each class, I'm not sure how much dialogue options/npc reactions can reflect a player's view of their character.

Thanks for the update, it's always really interesting to read little snippets of the development process and the work you guys are putting into this game. My two penneth on the UI: Personally I don't like it, I could cope with it but I'd much rather see a more modern, streamlined, customisable UI rather than a brick wall of buttons that take up screen space regardless of whether I use hotkeys or not. Obviously there's an element of nostalgia to a project like this, but much as I loved the old IE games when they were released I'm backing this project because I want to see what a game with those values made in 2013/14 looks like, not for the novelty of retro-gaming.

Personally, I'd like to see a general system in place that allowed relevant NPCs to yield when they were losing (lost too many of their allies, lost too much stamina etc.). This could create an interesting way of making things like beserk/frenzied/undead opponents distinctly different than standard NPCs who valued their own lives, and also give the player the moral question of whether to accept their submission or slay them anyway. I realise it's an established trope that works well for TV/film, but I get tired of the idea that humans have a safe and simple on/off switch that can be pressed in a fight. Anaesthetists are paid a lot for a reason. I feel in game terms it often doesn't add much either - the 'pacifist' approach in a game like Deus Ex HR felt mechanically very similar to the killing-everyone approach. I'd be interested to see what Obsidian came up with if they looked at this area and it's something I'd like to see included, but I think it's probably a) a drain of resources that could be better spent somewhere else, and b) something that leads to odd unforseen/tedious problems with the gameplay.

I think it's a really difficult issue - personally I'm hoping that the devs design some of the features of the game so that Ironman is very difficult but still enjoyable, and then I'll enjoy the challenge of that setting. A lot of things which promote constantly saving might be 'realistic' in some way (ie traps that spring out of nowhere and instantly kill you) but they don't really add much to the gameplay experience for me personally. I love the feeling of weight and importance that playing without constantly saving/reloading gives combat, conversations and decisions, but I don't want to restart the game a dozen times for things that I didn't feel were in my control.

I agree with the OP - while hypothetically I can imagine the 'perfect' game having excellently voiced dialogue all the way through, I just don't think it's practical for PE. I actually don't think it's practical to do it well even for a high budget RPG (I felt like it was a weak point in Skyrim). I think it's natural to judge voice acting by the standards you see in films/TV, but those mediums have such a comparitively small amount of dailogue to get 'right' compared to a fully voiced computer game, and your interaction with it is completely different. I realise this is probably a minority view, but I'd even be quite happy if they ditched the small number of characters/lines they normally voice in these games. To me, that just highlights the lack of voice work in the rest of the game.

I think it might be interesting to see how the writers play around with the way magic/psychic abillities/"real" gods realate to one another - where their practitioners/followers believe there power comes from, how they view the world and how they relate to one another.

I'd like Obsidian to include sex and relationships if they feel it fits well/adds to the story, and if they feel they can handle it in a way that's not ridiculous. Something I dislike generally is the way in which violence is so much more acceptable than sex. I was going to vote in your poll but... I realise it must be difficult if English isn't your native language, but why does it not just say "people should look sexy" instead of "women should look sexy"?

I think ultimately it's one of those things which would be nice to have, but it's something that's costs might far outweigh what it adds to the game. It's a shame in a way, because something I'd really like to see in an RPG is more use of lighting as a strategic factor - dungeons/caves etc. being genuinely dark, torches etc. being something that's vital. It seems like a missed opportunity to me in games like Skyrim (I know there are mods which play with the idea), but I guess it would be too irritating to people in a more mainstream game, and too expensive in a game like this.

Personally I'd like to see fairly 'realistic' weapons like this, broadly speaking. The only thing I'd worry about is if you picture these weapons in game, if the characters are around the size in the old IE games, I think all these weapons might end up looking virtually identical, even if the resolution's high. Slightly separate point - while I'd like to see a fair degree of realism/functionality, I'd also like to see something that reflected the limited knowledge of the people in a pseudo-medieval world. I think sometimes we look at weapons and armour from a 21st century/scientific perspective of what "worked" best, and assume all the characters should be doing that, whereas people at the time wouldn't have had such wide access to information. Redundant and downright bad ideas in weapons and armour persisted for very long periods of time after they should in theory have died out, and a large number of people were poorly equipped from whatever they managed to scavenge together.

I think finishing moves would be great if they made them short - essentially the same speed/time duration as a normal hit, except the blow clearly penetrates/decapitates/severs etc. To me, this would give the combat more dynamism than if the characters just whack at each other until one falls over. I'd rather not see any lengthy "cool" finishing moves where one combatant cartwheels over another's head and spends the next ten seconds hacking them to pieces - those can be entertaining the first time, but they become repetitive. I'd love to see detailed character models, great animation etc. in the game, but ultimately I guess it comes down to the resources they have and how much every feature costs them.

I'd really like to see a large range to the armour in game - I'd like to see armour like this being worn by some factions/characters even though it's "obsolete" compared to the cutting edge of arms and armour development at the time. I'd like to see full plate armour be something rare, expensive and valuable, and the best types have to be custom made for the wearer, as opposed to something you find as random loot two hours into the game. I think making plate armour uncommon would give it much more character, and I'd really like to see mismatched battles between well equipped characters and comparably "primitive" hill tribes wielding wood/stone/occasionally iron weapons.

I don't mean to bash the OP, but it's a bit weird when the developers have said their goal is to get it done in 18 months to only have 1 year / 2 years as options. I know a lot of games are delayed for all kinds of reasons, but personally I think this will be done pretty much exactly on schedule. The developers know what they're doing, they know the kind of product they want to make, and there isn't a publisher to suddenly add demands part way through development. I think Obsidian will be determined to get it done very close to their original projection, because they will want to be seen to be honouring their initial pledge with a project like this.

It'd be interesting to see, sure, but I think it would be a bad idea for them to publish figures. I think there's a fine line with projects like this between listening to feedback and ideas from fans vs. having a vast crowd of people who don't understand how a game is made but have very strong opinions nonetheless, and as a group will never be satisfied. Is $30k too little to spend on scenery art? $300k? $900k? I have no idea, and I'd guess the majority of people on here wouldn't either. Any figures they want to publish will be interesting, but overall if you didn't have faith in Obsidian to make the project / weren't willing to accept the risk that whatever you put down for the Kickstarter might not result in the game you want, I don't think you should have backed it.

I think atheists would be fine to have as characters in PE. I find it hard to really imagine what the world would seem like from the point of view of someone in a medieval (or pseudo medieval fantasy) setting, but I imagine the distribution of information would make the world seem like a very different place than it does to me sat here in front of a computer, especially as they've said the game world doesn't feature any printing press. Unless there are literally gods running around performing divine feats all over the landscape, for 99% of the population I'd imagine the existence of gods was as much based on faith as it is in the real world. A similar example would be The Others/wights/dragons in A Song of Ice and Fire - as the reader, we know they exist, but the majority of that world's population believes they don't anymore even if they once did.

Maybe in this hypothetical lost puppy scenario, there could be a range of options like: A "saintly" character returns the puppy and refuses the 20 gold - this could either be looked upon by favourably by the owner, or viewed with suspicion. A "good" character returns the puppy and is rewarded with 20 gold, and the gratitude of the owner / townspeople. An "evil" character returns the puppy, but demands 40 gold, or 20 gold for half the puppy. This might result in the character having more of an immediate material reward, but make him/her unpopular with the owner/townspeople. A psychotic character just kills the puppy. Bonus experience for the objective of vanquishing a difficult foe. Obviously these are all heavily simplified examples. I'm not really sure if I think the two extremes of this range should be balanced with the middle ones, or if they should just be more challenging play options available for the dedicated.

I think it's an interesting area, I agree with the OP to a certain extent, although I wouldn't like to see the game be completely uniform in rewarding morality this way. I've felt too often in games in the past that being "good" isn't a difficult or challenging course, it's felt like the main route the designers planned and has such a range of rewards (exp, money, items etc.) to remove any morality from the question. Something that might be interesting would be if, perhaps as part of playing a member of some religious factions in the game, you were encouraged away from materialism, with perhaps less tangible rewards for giving away money etc. to the poor. I think it'll be interesting to see what Obsidian come up with, I'm looking forward to how they address elements of morality in the game. I think it's good that there's no global sliding 'morality scale', as I think it gives them far more room to play with a more nebulous, nuanced morality.

I'm generally "for" objective based exp Although how well it would work would depend on how well the system was designed, I have a lot of faith in Obsidian to come up with a strong, well implemented system, particularly if the "objectives" extend far beyond completion of main quest line's major elements to minor objectives/side quests. Kill/crafting/lock picking etc. based exp isn't the worst thing in the world, but personally I don't like it because the first playthrough of a game can feel like the developer asking me to guess how much I need to grind to make my numbers the right level to match the enemies'/challenge's numbers, which can feel very arbitrary. People often say it's about personal choice and self restraint, but to me that's only true once you've already played through the game once.

Congratulations guys, really looking forward to following the development of this game & playing it when it's done!

I voted for no level scaling, because I can't stand the system in games like Skyrim whereby you never really have a feel for how tough you are/an enemy is. However, I think what I'd really like to see is a game where the enemies individually stay at a static difficulty, but the encounters get harder (either by having larger numbers of enemies, more dangerous foes or a combination of the two), in a way that's directly tied in to the plot. In an over-simplistic example: if an area of the world featured a hill tribe, perhaps early in the game you might encounter small groups of foragers, whereas later the tribes might be displaced by some plot-related evil, and you might encounter large roaming bands uprooted from their homeland.

Really glad they're either not having raise-dead or making it incredibly rare/maybe plot specific. I think any game where it's something you end up doing every few hours (or even more frequently) really undermines any plot elements in the rest of the game that hinge on death, and more generally just the sense of how the entire fantasy world would work. I think the problem of making a game with a real sense of threat, vs reload spamming or the tedium of having to repeat large sections of the game is a really difficult one, I'm glad that it sounds like they're trying to address it from the start and I'm really interested to see what they come up with.

I've backed this Kickstarter for far more money than I'd generally pay for a game because I'm really interested to see the kind of game Obsidian make without pressure from the publisher. I've loved all of the games I've played that they've listed as being similar to their goal (for some reason I never got around to playing Planescape: Torment, although I plan to over the next few months). I've backed it because I'm confident that it will be a really, really good game, but it's important to note, it could be really, really bad. Either way, I'll feel the money I've donated to the project will be well spent because I'll have enjoyed following it, and I think it's really good to try and shift the current publisher/developer paradigm of how games are made away from the current low risk/mass market approach. Obviously I'd like it if you backed it too, but if you're unsure about the kind of game they're going to make, or you feel that you need a specific element (outside of isometric party-based rpg) to be included otherwise the game will be ruined, I'd strongly suggest not backing it. The game will be released (hopefully...), and Obsidian will need/want people to buy it then - I'm sure there'll be a huge amount of in-depth reviews and forums, so figure out then whether the game's what you want it to be or not. One last thing - not knocking the op, but suggesting something is an "afterthought" because it's part of a stretch goal is just wrong imo. An "afterthought" would be if Obsidian tried to cram it in after having made the rest of the game. They are in the very, very early stages of planning the game, and the stretch goals are just a part of that resource/planning process, arguably crossed with a marketing push to raise as much money for the project as they can, all hopefully to make the best game they can make. So anyway, just back it already...

I think the 3.5M is a good idea - it's a significant content addition for a significant increase in funding, and it's pitched at the level where it's conceivable they'll make it but in no way guaranteed. It creates an interesting "will they/won't they" tension to the last few days - I'll probably up my donation before the Kickstarter closes because a second major city is something I'd love to see happen. If there were a sequence of lesser goals that they ticked off every 100k from now, I'd still feel really positive about the project overall, but less interested in exactly where the Kickstarter finished up on Tuesday.