Kuroiryuu

Story. Not to say that gameplay isn't important, but it's not what drew me to the IE games. In fact, I honestly wasn't terribly impressed by that aspect of them (admittedly, it wasn't terrible either, so I didn't feel like I was just slogging through fights to get to the next bit of the story). The writing was--at least in most cases--above par and very enjoyable, and it kept me coming back for more. It's what made them stand out for me. Bottom line: if I want great gameplay, there are plenty of games out there which fit that criterion. For story, not quite so much.

Something about the name "Aumaua" does makes me think of fish-people for some reason, not that I care for the name in the first place. Personally, I have a fondness for playable lizard-folk and would like to see that. But I think I'd be happy with any sort of "beast" race, considering that the option seems to be rather lacking from the other choices at the moment.

Too many in that BG list. Waaay too many. I know it's been a while, but I think I should remember more of those names than I do. There's probably a reason for that. Yeah, ditto to the obvious "quality > quantity" argument that countless others have mentioned. Also, there's another disadvantage to having a large number of characters, and that's interactions between party members. Having deep and established characters is important to me, but I also really like to feel like my party is interconnected and actually have opinions and interactions among themselves, rather than just nervously avoiding eye contact while having dinner around the campfire. This is one of those little touches I liked about Dragon Age. The thing is, when you're adding more potential party members, the number of possible interactions quickly spirals out of control. For instance, three characters have three possible two-way interactions between them (#1 and #2, #2 and #3, and #1 and #3). Adding a fourth gives you six. By the time you get to eight companions, you're at 28. And at fourteen, you're at a whopping 91 two-way interactions. At that point, you might as well just abandon the idea of intra-party dialogue. So yeah, eight's fine for me.

I don't see why you would assume that to be the case. As mentioned above, both BG games allowed any party member to act as leader - they even got smug about it. The PC isn't necessarily the party leader. The player is necessarily leading the party (by controlling where they go and what they do), but from an in-character perspective those instructions need not be soming from the player-created character. Perhaps they're arrived at by consensus. There's simply no reason to assume the PC is the de facto leader unless you would prefer it that way. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I think it would take a lot to do it right and for dubious value. I recall finding the BG system rather immersion-breaking since the lines often just didn't fit whoever was talking. I always used my PC for extraparty conversations as a result. Beyond that, it just didn't feel right to be controlling the mouth of a character that wasn't mine. Maybe if the dialogue was always personalized to the speaker, it wouldn't be that bad, but I'd rather they put effort elsewhere than rewriting scenes eight times. In any case, I understand that the issue is about freedom to play a character in whatever way you want. That's all well and good, but I do think it a bit odd if your own personal avatar in the game--the one sure constant in the tale--is just some guy the others are dragging along. Maybe a compromise would be to have your companions be able to intercede in conversations on your behalf at certain points if you're lacking in conversation ability. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the more party interaction, the merrier.

I think it would be awkward in practice for the PC not to speak for the party unless there's a compelling plot-related reason for some segment. After all, it is your party, as the de facto leader. You're calling the shots, you decide where everyone goes, and you have final say on what gets done... unless your party members object enough to leave. Considering all that, it would feel odd to me to take a back seat when it comes to dealing with others. Your companions have a part in the story, but ultimately you're the center of the universe here. I think it would diminish the game for it to be otherwise.

I think everyone needs to calm down a little and remember something: The people at Obsidian are experienced game designers who have been making awesome games for ages. They obviously have a lot planned already for PE, and while they're open to input from their fans, they're not going to stick random suggestions into PE on a whim. Over 70,000 of us trusted them enough to give them substantial amounts of money for the mere promise of making another great game. I think we can extend that trust to their judgement on what will fit well and what won't. Personally, I'd be perfectly content to wait and let them do their thing, but open discussion is a great idea, at least in theory. The problem is that people get defensive and lash out at each other over disagreements, perhaps fearing that Obsidian will ignore their ideas if they're "shot down" (or pick up undesirable ideas if they aren't). This is perfectly understandable, as it's just human nature to want to protect your investment--both emotional and financial--in PE, but it's also just plain unnecessary and unproductive. In the end, Obsidian are pretty likely to "do what they want" no matter what's posted on the forums here, and what they want is to make a great game. If they see good ideas, they might incorporate them, but they're sure not going to let random community input ruin PE (the forum-goers here are a fraction of the backers, after all). If you think that strongly they shouldn't adopt an idea, it's probably better to offer some constructive criticism to convince them instead of just telling someone to pipe down. And on the flip side, try to take criticism of your own ideas in stride, even if you think someone else is being unconscionably rude.

Planescape: Torment, hands down. Everything else would be a tragic yet bearable loss.

I'm perfectly happy with Baldur's Gate levels. Enough to give us more of a taste of the characters and events, but not so much that it constrains the writing. Ugh. So very, very true.

I think it would be difficult for a name like "Project Eternity" to fit well with the story or setting they seem to have in mind, and they've confirmed it's just a codename anyway. Of course, there are about a billion ways to fit the name "Eternity" into a fantasy game title, so I could definitely see that happening. But don't count on them shoehorning the word in just for the heck of it. In any case, given what we (don't) know about the game, it's probably just a wee bit little early for speculation.

I spent about as much as I could reasonably afford ($165), so I'm satisfied I did my part. As it was, I had to think long and hard about that figure. But given the history of this team, in the end I felt justified in spending quite a bit more than I usually would on a game. I think it's a pretty safe gamble that PE will turn out to be worth the extra money compared to a lot of games I've shelled out fifty to sixty bucks for.

Considering that a good portion of Torment you were battling against past lives of yourself and their actions, the argument could be made that you were both the hero and the villian w/ personal reason to hate. One of the countless reasons I dearly loved that game. Considering that we have many of the same people on board with PE, I don't think we need to fear not having interesting villains.

This actually inspired me to finally raise my own contribution up to the $165 level. I know there tends to be a bump near the end, but I'm amazed that we managed to pull this off. Great effort, everyone!

Presently at $50 + $20 for the expansion. Still mulling over the possibility of moving up to the $165 tier, but $95 extra is a lot for me for a game that isn't even coming out for at least a year and a half. I probably wouldn't use the beta key either (I'd rather just wait for the finished game), and I'm not sure who I'd give a second copy to who isn't already getting it.

Voted 'for' here. While personally I'm more a fan of systems that improve skills based on use (TES games come to mind, though they certainly had their quirks), I'd far prefer to have greater freedom in how to approach an objective than to feel compelled to kill everything in my path like a bloodthirsty psychopath. While combat is fun and all, you shouldn't be punished for approaching a problem in a more diplomatic or stealthy way, if that suits the type of character you're trying to play. Besides, like others have noted, having situations like "survive the ogre attack" are perfectly plausible. Does anyone seriously think that they'd put in encounters where you had to wade through an army of monsters and not get rewarded for it? Have a little faith.

This. What made me fond of the IE games wasn't the mechanics, some of which I honestly found rather lacking at times. It was the world and the characters and the story. So if they can offer more compelling gameplay for PE, that's all well and good in my book. Personally, I'm looking forward to a deep and well-written tale with unique and interesting characters and a vibrant new world. Heck, if they manage to deliver something half as impressive in that regard as Planescape: Torment (which I still consider to be the best cRPG ever by far, story-wise), I'll be more than happy I supported them.