Pshaw

Well supposedly the game will be possible to complete through dialogue and stealth. That said when it comes to class videos combat will be focus as the things that serpeate the classes are (generally speaking) combat abilities more than anything else. If I remember correctly PE will have both a combat and non-combat tree/stats and I'd imagine the latter is shared between all classes to give all classes an equal opportunity to play through the game in somebody's chosen play style. That way you wouldn't be forced to say, make a rogue, in order to beat the game through stealth and dialogue. I admit that there's a lot of PE info floating around from the kickstarter and since so it's possible my memory is completely off by now but this is the impression I have about how the non-combat play styles are being handled.

I agree with it the thought behind this but you also need to be careful in the execution of this. If you have the NPCs do their own thing too often then you'll just end up either needing to make blank slate NPCs or give in to the whims of your party which would take control away from how the player wishes to play the game. Which at least in my book is a bad thing. So I think this is more a flavor type of situation where a few disagreements between NPCs or NPCs and the PC go a long way but used too often it loses it's impact. Still NPCs going against the PC or other NPCs isn't unheard of in any case. If I remember correctly there are more than a handful of NPC interactions in BG that cause them to fight each other. Keldorn v Anomen, Keldorn v Viconia, Korgan v Aerie, Edwin and Minsc, and a few others. Haer'Dalis would fight you in duel if you were romancing Aerie as well. Ignus, I'm pretty sure there might have at least 1 other, would attack you at the end of PS:T if you were too good. That's not to mention all the various ways you can get party memebers to just up and leave the party in various IE games or even in the DA series. So yeah I think most NPCs should have a trigger/treshold that would cause them to leave the party. I think a few NPC v NPC or NPC v PC is a nice touch as well. But going overboard will actually make them less unique in my eyes and make the game itself less enjoyable. So while I'd like to see a tiny bit more of this sort of thing I'd rather it just continue on as it has been in past rather than see it get used too often.

I'd say 20-ish if you're just looking to beat it 40-50-ish if you're looking to really beat just about everything and maybe a bit longer if you're going to every last tiny thing and read everything you come across. Really I'm more interested in how much replay a game has than it's over all length. You can beat FTL in an hour or 2 but it's got near unlimited replay value. I'm just hoping there is enough mutually exclusive content that I'll be enticed to play through 3-4 times.

For me it comes down mostly to believability. Their motivations, both past and pretense, need to make sense to me in the context of their personality. I just need to feel like, 'Hey this character could be the sort of person that would really exist in a setting like this.' This doesn't mean every character needs to be sympathetic or anything like that. In truth too many tragic pasts and that's why I'm evil now gets tired really fast. It's ok to just be 1 dimensionally evil or good so long as it's consistent. Granted what is good, what is cheesy or what is too cliche or acceptably cliche is really subjective. Minsc is a fine example, most people love him, I found him to be annoying.

The elder scrolls and fallout 3 are pretty much randomly/procedurally maps then they go back in and just add points of interest manually. You can't really do that well in a game like PE where each environment and room needs to be hand drawn. I'd rather have a smaller game with unique ares than say Daggerfall as Death Machine Miyagi mentioned or Dragon Age 2's awful recycling of the same bland hallways and alleys.

I gotta say it's a bit of a let down, I like romances in my RPGs and tend to feel that it makes a character feel a tad more realistic when such things are included. That said I'm not holding out for any fan modded romances either. As much as modded content can be wonderful I've yet to see any original NPCs really be a worthwhile addition to a game. So I'll chalk this one one up to oh well and hope for some romance options in future rpgs.

I love class quests, I've always enjoyed them in just about every game that's had them. That said they do waste a lot of resources considering many people will not play through the game with every class. So then you're making content that some (most likely large) percentage of the player base will never see. So while I love them on a project with such a tight budget I'd rather see them making quests that every class can complete. If you're going to be excluded from a quest line I thin it should be because of choices you made once the game started not based on what you pick at the character creation screen. For class, race, gender, flavor I think lots of reactive text where relevant in the world is good enough to add immersion and make you feel as if the game is reacting to your chosen character. Doing for quests for some priests as a goodly priest? Maybe dialogue should reflect that they feel like they can trust you with this sort of task since you're a fellow man/woman of faith. Same priest being sent out to stop a criminal? Maybe the marshal or what-have-you should express that he doesn't think a softhearted priest can handle this sort of thing and remain skeptical of your abilities. However maybe if you have a reputation for doing various evil murderous things their reactions would be swapped despite your choice in class. The Marshall could react to you by saying things along the lines of 'well you do have a reputation for this sort of dirty work' and the priests could be apprensive about trusting one who has sunk so low. Regardless in the quick examples above you still get the quest regardless but you still get to feel like the game is taking your class into account somehow. Granted it still uses resources to do that sort of thing but I'd wager that writing up more reactive text is easier/less intensive than writing up entire class specific quest lines.

Considering the budget and the team I think quality of quantity is where this game is trying to land.

The way I always wished addiction would occur in games as follows: When addicted to a substance your character would be unable to trade, sell, or drop it. If you came across it in a dungeon or something you'd instantly pick it up and if needed would drop an item to keep it. If you came across an NPC who was selling it you'd buy it instantly and sell items you had in your inventory if you needed gold to afford it. If you had a quest where one of the reward options would be the substance in question you'd be forced to take that option. If you went too long without using it you'd get a negative debuff to stats or exp gain. Some areas (vault city-ish) would be harder to access with contraband on you if you had any. Becoming an addict would be permanent short of a quest chain of some sort a-la the Jet cure in Fallout 2. Now to make up for these draw backs I'd like them to have some sort of in game benefit. Either combat related or even worked into the game where you might gain some sort of underworld reputation for using drugs in public places and the like. Also since these are somewhat extreme levels of addiction in terms of what your character would be doing I don't think getting the 'addict' status should be a simple matter. I mean sure, having a small chance to become a complete addict after the first use is a nice touch, but otherwise you should have to use it quite a bit before these game play changes start to take effect.

Like Metabot has already said FTL, there a kickstarter success story if ever there was one. Also while I find myself enjoying hearthstone a bit more than SolForge considering my time played in Solfore is at over 100 hours while it's still in Beta that's a success in my book any day. Banner saga seems amazing, though I admit that I haven't played it just yet. I was too broke to back it when it was being kickstarted. Shadowrun returns wasn't amazing. That said while I never backed it personally I never got the impression that the packaged campaign was never really intended to be the main product. Rather that it was always intended to be driven by community content and the campaign was merely giving you examples of what you could do. Even then they got some things right that I would love to see in future crpgs. Such as the temporary NPCs that only join you for missions that they personally care about. Far more realistic than the typical rpg of, 'oh you helped me with this one thing? The world will end if you fail? Well I suppose I best tag along with you even if you do things that constantly conflict with my personal morals and beliefs!' So I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is hope for PoE and even if it doesn't live up to every expectation I'll be glad for what we do get which would have been better than the nothing we would have gotten otherwise. Beyond my own enjoyment what I really want from PoE and Wasteland2 is success, hopefully success big enough that we will continue to get plenty of good crpgs in the future both from kickstarter, indie developers, and yes even publisher backed big time AAA studios.

For me it mostly isn't an issue, I will play and enjoy PoE thoroughly (I assume) even if I can't do it all in a handful of really long gaming sessions like I would have back in my school days. Still... A: The scope of the game should be fairly large for a game like this. Anything less than 40 hours (assuming a pretty complete play through) I feel won't be a properly fleshed out world for an RPG. So long as the game has a beginning and an ending the length can be as long as it wants to be. It's only completely open games like MMOs, and sandbox type games like say Don't Starve, Starbound, Minecraft, DayZ that I feel like I can't fit into my schedule simply because I feel that an hour invested into those games gets you little to nothing accomplished in the grand scheme of an endless game. B: So long as the difficulty is more based on skill/tactics and not RNG I'm fine with things being difficult. If it takes me 4-5 times to down a tricky boss or section I'm alright with that. Just like I'm ok turning down the difficulty if for some reason I can't push through on normal. It's just intensely frustrating to be totally at the whim of RNG in a game. Damage ranges will always be a part of that, as will hit/miss streaks, but getting 1 shot for instance is just a coin toss of success/failure.

I can relate to this. I love games of all kinds to the point where I buy many games because I love the idea or concept of the game but never find myself actually playing them. Not because they're bad games, but because I feel that the amount of time I need to invest into them in order to progress significantly is just too much with everything else I've got going on in my life. Where as I can complete a level of an action game, play a handful of games of hearthstone or magic, bang out a section of the map in a metroidvania, play a few round of death matchin a shooter, and so on pretty easily. So as much as I love Don't Starve or Starbound I can't really give myself the time required to sit and play these games nonstop in order to feel like I've accomplished enough. I also can't keep up on my skills in a game like starcraft 2 or dota 2 enough to be good enough to have a good time while playing them as I tend to have a slightly hardcore mentality about games and being bad at them bothers me. So generally speaking I've been steering clear of anything that's too open world/crafting focused, MMOs, or anything that requires constant practice in order to keep your level of play up. That said, I'm not worried about PoE even a little bit. When I find a good game with an interesting story I will brush aside all my other hobbies, let the TV shows pile up, ignore books and other games until whatever game I'm currently sucked into is completed. I steal little hours here and there, leave it paused and open so I can pick up where I left off even if it's just for 20minutes or so. I think this is largely because unlike the games I'm trying to avoid PoE will have an end. It's not a sand box experience that goes on as long as I play it. So if it takes me a few weeks to play through it properly rather than the marathon sessions of 3-4 days I would have done in college, so beat it. I'll get it done and see everything at a slightly slower pace but I'll still see it.

90% of the games I play are single player only or single player focused so I'm not sure this is as big of a problem as it's made out to be. Yes some games have a multiplayer/online component added in that don't really need it. Still so long as they single player experience is still enjoyable I don't really mind the developers trying to get more longevity or mass appeal out of their game. If I get tomb raider or a naughty dog game I know that I'm primarily getting a single player game and the addition of multiplayer doesn't really detract from what happened in single player. Heck I even have a friend who seems to log in to play ME3 multiplayer at least once a week for the last 6 months, not my cup of tea but clearly some people enjoy it. In truth while there are few games that I can think of off the top of my head that the addition of multiplayer somehow lessened the single player experience. Where as there are plenty of high quality single player only games releasing every year. The only genre I feel that would have a legitimate complaint in this department is the FPS genre as their single player campaigns are largely a complete joke. However those genres are all about the multiplayer experience in the first place much like rpgs are (not counting mmos) generally about the single player one. So a stunted single player campaign in an FPS doesn't bother me much like a stunted multiplayer element in an rpg doesn't bother me.

I say they do whatever they have to do in order to make the progression in this game feel complete. If that means they need to exhaust the normal array of high-level sterotypical fantasy creatures then so be it. This is their world so they can always invent stronger enemies beyond what we are used to seeing if they need them for future expansions/sequels. If we fight dragons and litches and so forth at the end of PoE who's to say that's the top tier of enemies at all.

I really like more simple tracks even in my epic games, I'd love to see something along the lines of Diablo 1-2 (Matt Uelmen), The Last of Us (Gustavo Santaolalla), or Dear Esther (Jessica Curry). You don't really need whole sweeping epics composed to drive home emotion. In truth more than half the time when movies or games use them it reminds me of the cheesy tension music just before something jumps out and I feel like I'm being beat over the head with how I'm supposed to feel more than actually feeling it. Granted I admit that all of these composers are making music for games that have a bit more of an isolated feeling than PoE is likely to have. Even so I prefer a more subtle background music to sweeping orchestral pieces. However if obsidian decides that big classical numbers are what fits best with the tone they're trying to set who am I to argue? Gustavo Santaolalla - The Last of Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssLAf5akbfU Matt Uelmen - Roger and Me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO-jtK_5wJc Jessica Curry - Standing Stones http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfeT0YJeYkQ

What game is that? The only one I can think of is Path of Exile which, at least in my opinion isn't going to have any staying power. I mean you could just call it Pillars or continue calling it PE I suppose. Still at least on these forums I'm not sure there is a need to worry too much about people being confused about which game you mean when you say PoE

Generally the themes you mentioned are considered to be 'mature' when talking about the content of movies, books, or games. Slavery, sex, violence, racism, torture, are all fair game in a mature rated/themed game. That doesn't mean that all depictions of these topics have been handled in a mature why by games claiming to be mature. I find that a lot of the time they're simply added for the sake of being dark, edgy and titillating rather than bringing any sort of actually maturity to the title they're in. Still I have faith that the PoE team will handle these topics in a subtle manner in order to make the world a more realistic and setting rather than one filled with nothing but good thoughts, heroic deeds, and swarms of bloodthirsty monsters.

I don't recall hearing much about party AI (though I hope for some amount of customizable party behavior) but seeing as you should be able to solo the game, albiet with difficulty. So if the idea of controlling your companions seems like a hassle for you you can always try that route.

I guess it depends on what you want companion characters for. I'll probably never take an adventure's guild companion unless I completely hate the pre-made characters (unlikely) because the reason I enjoy having a companion at all isn't so much the niche they fill gameplay wise but because of their dialogue and interactions with the world and with my PC. I've never really had a modded in companion in any RPG in the past that I've enjoyed over the ones that available but I assume that there are people out there less picky than me that still want the dialogue, backstories, and recations from fully designed NPCs and don't mind them being added in after the fact. The number of companion mods I've seen around for skyrim would certainly speak to that. As for it being possible... I want to say yes? I admit I haven't followed the modding news very closely but I feel like the answer for modding PoE was something along the lines of, 'it can be done but it won't be easy.'

While I'm ok with either RtwP or TB I disagre with this a bit. I mean you couldn't have Fallout 2's combat system hold up if you just let it be RtwP. The whole thing is based around action points for movement or attacking and it just wouldn't translate without tearing down the whole combat system. Personally I was very happy with Torment becoming a TB game as I find their combat systems stand up to the test of time a bit better than RtwP. Also there are just too few true TB games out there for my tastes. :-p

I'm always up for more companions being added to the game so long as they're worthwhile. I'm also not opposed to implementing in the way you suggest in the slightest. However I get the feeling that the companions in this game are going to have a lot of depth. They're going to take a lot of man hours and money to create which generally means they're not the sort of thing you just want to have players be able to miss out on because of a few wrong choices. A bit of gear or a slightly differing outcome? Sure those things aren't all that time/cost intensive so we can have multiple outcomes to situations. Missing a fully fleshed out NPC is a big chunk of development time that players will be missing out on. Personally I don't mind it because I'm a completionist but I do understand the desire to not allocate a fair amount of time and money to something that maybe only 60% of players might find.

Just filled out the survey for the Obsidian Order if titles are still going out I'd like... Farceur of the Obsidian Order

Mine is missing also

It's just an issue of the control scheme not working well on controllers and there being limited developement funds. If you think that it doesn't cost money to add controller support you're mistaken. Otherwise so many games that are both console and PC releases would have control schemes that were less clunky on PC. Skyrim at launch and Borderlands both spring to mind as games with clunky menu navigation as a reasult of not having keyboard and mouse support added properly. I never played Dragon Age on a console but I'm pretty sure friendly fire on spells it turned off entirely to prevent you from blowing up your own party members as they recgonize how annoying it is to aim spells with a targeting redical mid combat with a controller. So rather than make a poor controller set up in favor of a keyboard and mouse (or vice versa) they simply chose to ignore the fromer. Which in truth is fine as they never intended this game to be a console game to begin with and like many other PC games it chooses to eschew controller support when they know it won't fit with the gameplay style at all.

Really I can't see too much good coming out of unpaid voice actors short of professionals volunteering to work for free. I'm voting no on this one because without quality voice acting I'd really rather have no voice acting at all as bad voice acting really detracts from the experience. If pros wanted to do it for free, well, that'd be a different story.