AstralWanderer

Really? Well, Im getting double the performance from my Ramdisk than someone else with a near-identical configuration but running on 64-bit Windows, so 64-bit must stink more then. No, because it is flat addressing - just using a 36-bit address bus rather than just 32. "Not working" is a capability I neither need nor want. Did you even bother looking at the link I posted? If you mean Gilded Vale, then that does work for me. I'd suggest you look at your PoE folder - there should be a subfolder PillarsOfEternity_Data and in that an output_log.txt file. Review that for any reported errors.

That's pretty much how it looks on my system. You have AA elsewhere (the selection circles and the figures) but bladed weapons aren't smoothed out as well. Maybe there's something in the way they're rendered that limits or prevents AA - given that metallic armour shows the same issue (look at the scales on the rightmost figure by the fire), I'd suspect something to do with bloom or light reflection.

Are you using any software that makes automatic online backups of your files? If so, try disabling it (it might be copying PoE tempfiles during a load, preventing PoE from deleting them and holding the game up). If not, look at the folder you installed PoE in - there should be a subfolder PillarsOfEternity_Data and in that should be a (likely large!) output_log.txt file. Review that for anything that could be an error.

Another option for Windows users is SweetFX which can provide SMAA or FXAA anti-aliasing along with several other post-processing options. It does work with Pillars of Eternity (just extract SweetFX into the main PoE folder and amend the SweetFX settings file) but I didn't consider its anti-aliasing much of an improvement over PoE's - however those who can't get PoE's MSAA to work may find it more beneficial.

Sorry, but you're overlooking PAE which allows 32-bit OSes to address up to 64GB (though with a 4GB/process limitation) - compare that to the 16GB limitation of 64-bit Win7 Home Premium. In my case, I've got 18GB (not 24GB, my mistake there) of which 8GB is allocated to a ramdisk and 6GB to a caching utility. Most reported vulnerabilities are application issues (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Adobe Flash/Reader) and can be dealt with by removing the software and using an alternative (Opera/Firefox, VLC Player, Sumatra PDF reader). With XP, you can remove IE and WMP completely and be cured of all past and future issues with them. With Win7/8 you can't. The most secure system is a minimal system where you only have the features you need and with XP (plus the software I note above) you can customise XP to reach that ideal far better than with Win7/8. Furthermore, Win7/8 add a great deal more code which means more scope for future problems. Funny, because my hardware (X5650 Xeon, Gigabyte X58 motherboard, 18GB RAM, 2 x Nvidia 580GTX, 6 128GB Samsung SSD's in RAID 0 plus a few 2-3TB hard disks) works just fine, whereas with Win7/8 I'd lose access to some valued peripherals. But then I guess I have the edge in speaking from experience.

Based on my experience, your system will likely run Pillars OK - your graphics card is probably going to be the limiting factor if it has 512MB GPU RAM (and very much so if it only has 256MB). If so, disabling anti-aliasing (hit ~ to access the console, press Return, type msaa 0 and press Return again) should help. "Upgrading" Windows or changing to Linux is a big step, and may mean considerable cost if you have a lot of legacy hardware or software. XP does need third-party software to secure it, but so do later versions - and Linux (paradoxically) is rather lacking in that department.

A quick update - seems to run pretty well on XP (gotten up to Gilded Vale). Virtual memory usage seems to top out at 1.45GB and GPU memory usage (as measured by MSI Afterburner) tops out at 600MB (running on a 1536MB 580GTX) with a near constant 60fps (even with SweetFX added for post-processing). Whoever put down 8GB in the system requirements must have been completely off their head. Only problem I've encountered is that the savegame system didn't seem too robust. I use Aphar Backup to make copies of savegame files whenever they're updated and PoE seemed to have trouble with it (the Save button not doing anything, autosaves disappearing when the game was restarted - quicksaves always worked OK though) - possibly due to the temporary DotNetZip files being locked as they were backed up. However pausing and restarting Aphar seems to have (at least temporarily) fixed that glitch.

Thanks for the update - I run WinXP on my gaming system (Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, 2 x 580GTX graphics) and was concerned at its omission from the system requirements. As for those wondering why I and others are sticking with WinXP: Lower memory/CPU usage (typically 200-500MB less than Win7); More configurable thanks to XPLite and nLite - Win7 has 7Lite, 8 has nowt; Windows Product Activation can be more easily "managed"; Easier to secure (using software like Process Guard and System Safety Monitor - neither available now but no equivalent exists for Win 7+, nor likely to due to MS' restrictions on kernel modification on 64-bit systems); No GUI disasters like TIFKAM - XP's UI changes are generally a downside compared to Win2K but are almost all optional; Supports old hardware (the Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystick and Microsoft Strategic Commander gamepad won't work on 64-bit systems); No 64-bit stupidity like requiring separate Program Files folders for 32 and 64 bit applications or storing 64-bit code in Windows\System32 while having 32-bit code in Windows\SysWOW64 Some issues are due to (Microsoft's kludgy implementation of) a 64-bit OS, but running (and paying for) a 32-bit version of Win8 seems to be asking for insult on top of injury. A switch to Linux would make more sense but there's very little in the way of application-aware firewall software which I would consider essential for online security (the closest would be TuxGuardian which has not been updated since 2006 and doesn't really offer the security options available from Windows products like Outpost or Look'n'Stop).

Sadly, the DVD is likely to be superfluous whether it is DRM-free or not, given the number of updates that complex RPGs tend to need. Neverwinter Nights 2 took over a year of patching to be truly playable (in part since patches for modders had a tendency to break the included campaign) and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a similar thing from Pillars (in fairness, NWN2 is now probably one of Obsidian's greatest achievements). Alternatively, if you want to make things as easy as possible, you could include a DVD with the most recent GOG version and label it: "Install with this instead".

That's an unknown for now. It would be daft for Paradox to impose DRM on their physical release when DRM-free digital versions are available - but Namco Bandai did exactly that with Witcher 2 and Paradox's "DRM-free to Steam-exclusive" shift doesn't give cause for optimism. However in the worst case (of DRM on the Paradox physical release) you could give your friends a GOG code also so they'd have a DRM-free version along with the physical goodies, though that does mean paying twice.

Fair enough but your question was asked and answered earlier in this thread. Pillars will be made available through GOG so there will be a DRM-free option for the general public. Yes, this issue is important but name-calling does not help anyone's arguments here.

Thanks for that - as long as the general public have the option of DRM-free that's fine with me.

Option (3) would be the best, but it would be a change from Paradox's current Steam-only distribution policy. Obsidian's announcement says that Paradox would be dealing with all distribution, which means it would be solely up to them which stores (physical or digital) could sell copies of Pillars.

For backers yes - my question is whether the general public will have the same choice.

While I understand that Obsidian would rather have a third party handle distribution, my concern is whether Pillars will be made available in a DRM-free format for the general public (e.g. via a DRM-free store like GOG or DotEmu. Paradox used to provide DRM-free physical versions, but their more recent products have been Steam only. If Pillars is made available to non-backers only through Steam, that will result in a similar controversy as with the Shadowrun Returns project (initially promising DRM-free release, switching to Steam-only public release due to licensing issues and only going back to DRM-free after major backer protest). A clarification on a DRM-free public release would be most welcome here.

Shhh!!! You'll have Boo joining in on this thread next.

You can say that lack of 3D means less work for a GPU so the emphasis will be on the CPU instead. And the same applies to smaller screen support too - no extra assets needed, just allow the UI to render at a smaller scale and keep it as configurable (i.e. hideable) as with the IE engines. Intel may be pushing Ultrabooks for all they're worth but that doesn't make them a success (see Analysts slash Ultrabook sales estimate by over 50%). If there is a trend, it is towards more portable appliances. Tablets/smartphones score better here but, lacking a keyboard, are poor for any task requiring text input (at least Obsidian haven't offered touch-friendly controls - those would require significant UI compromises). So neither can replace a small-screen laptop/UMPC for more sophisticated gaming. It shows that it is possible to have a highly scalable UI - being turn based is frankly irrelevant given that (a) PE offers unlimited pause and (b) IE games suffer the same disadvantage re long range attacks at lower resolutions. As long as you can pan the screen, the game remains playable - if a little more challenging. That's a small price to pay for the ability to play PE anywhere. Far Cry 3 is first-person perspective and X-Com uses third-person perspective so both are inappropriate comparisons. Only Magicka can be said to be isometric and that looks like it offers variable view (zoom/rotate) so it will require more GPU horsepower than fixed view isometric - even then its minimum GPU requirements (Geforce 8800/Radeon X1900) are modest by today's standards. So PE should be able to manage with a lower spec GPU and if options like environmental effects (water animation, lighting/shadows) are made optional, there's little reason why it shouldn't be able to run on the lowest class of GPUs. It won't look as pretty, but for those gaming on-the-go, that will likely be a price worth paying. From the statements and screenshots supplied so far, we can tell that PE is going to be fixed view isometric which means if 3D is used at all, it will be for character sprites, environmental and spell effects. If the latter two can be disabled (and I see no reason why they can't be) then the 3D resource requirements will be very modest indeed - unless you can somehow justify using a multi-megabyte texture on a 1-inch high character sprite... Going to the debate on weapon damage, one option to improve piercing weapons could be to offer fighters a Targeted Attack skill, giving them bonuses to bypass armour (by knowing and targeting weak points). Such a skill would, if successfully used, provide a bonus to armour penetration for all weapon types but a greater one for piercing weapons. It would only work on opponents with weak spots so would not help with special/magical enemies (golems, elementals, non-corporeals) but might be the only way to defeat certain enemies (e.g. a magic-resistant construct whose only weakness is a small metal plate covering the gem used to animate it).

Netbook/UMPC GPUs aren't great, true - but for 2D/2.5D games they don't need to be. IE games can be played on UMPCs currently - a good example being GemRB on OpenPandora (and that's with a 4.3-inch 800x480 screen). If the interests of gamers with super hi-res screens merit consideration, then so do those who want to be able to play PE on the move. For 13+ inch screen Ultrabooks, yes but not for those with smaller screens (8-inch or less) which is more practical for on-the-go usage. It's perfectly possible with good UI design. Look at Age of Wonders which can handle resolutions from 640x480 all the way up to 2560x1600 (yes, I've played it at both extremes). It's UI scales up proportionately while the map screen shows a larger area on bigger screens (since fog-of-war is implemented, this doesn't offer an in-game advantage but does lessen the need to scroll about). The challenge here is more about differing aspect ratios, but since PE intends to cover 4:3 through to 16:9 (and I believe multi-monitor also) that's already covered. Given that PE is committed to an isometric viewpoint, its need for 3D acceleration should be limited (IWD/BG2 used OpenGL for optional spell effects) so accommodating UMPC/netbooks should come down to not imposing a minimum resolution and making optional any features requiring more graphics power. That hardly seems to be asking much.

Shame on you - you missed an apostrophe! Time for some grammar lessons with The Simbul...

Great to see such detailed info and developer feedback on the reasons behind it. There are a couple of issues I would like to add though: Graphics/Resolution While there's been lots of discussion about high-end displays, not so much has been said about low-end. The base resolution of 1280x720 does exclude the common netbook 1024x600 screen (as has been pointed out) but also rules out UMPCs with smaller (e.g. 800x480) screens. As long as PE supports the same screen-panning options (with arrow keys) that the Infinity Engine games did, it shouldn't be necessary to impose any resolution minimum - instead scale the UI elements to the available space and show as much of the map as space allows. Playing on low-resolution screens would then be possible, though trickier (retaining the IE options to hide the UI being a great help here). One issue that hasn't been raised so far is in-game movies/cutscenes with a fixed resolution (e.g. original BG1 intro). If PE is going to use these, it'll definitely need multiple formats to cover the resolution range envisaged - if a simpler/cheaper alternative is planned (static picture with voiceover like most of the BG2 intro) then that could be scaled as needed. Inventory The hierarchical system proposed sounds great in principle - as long as "equipment" (the part accessible in combat) allows for some non-weapon items (e.g. wands, oil flasks, holy water, etc) to be available too. The "rest of stash" should have some size/quantity restrictions (to force players to decide on what is worth keeping or not) though these may be increased in-game (by buying a mule or other pack animal - which would then have to be protected in subsequent combats). Class Abilities - Spellcasting To judge from the description given, priests and wizards will not need to choose and memorise spells before casting - making them more like NWN2 sorcerors/favoured souls. If so, then I think that's a great idea - the D&D requirement to memorise spells beforehand penalised creative spell use by limiting casters to "safe" spell choices, almost invariably combat-related. If casters are given a real choice of using a spell slot to open a stuck door, mindread a suspicious NPC or keeping it in reserve for future combat, then the game will be better for it. Pause Restrictions A really bad idea - if players wish to micro-manage then that should be their privilege. And whether they micro-manage or not, they're still going to need pause for toilet/meal breaks so restricting it should be an absolute no-no.

I'm in agreement that this seems really shabby - if those involved really want to start again with a clean slate, they should create their own brand rather than trying to capitalise on the Black Isle name. The Reddit page does include a link showing their current funding and at $2,757 it doesn't look as if too many are falling for this.

Lots of interesting discussion here, but one factor that's not been raised - surprisingly - is fatigue. Combat is tiring and wearing 100+ kgs of armour should make it several times more so. Having a fatigue system (where reaching 0 results in your character being disabled or severely restricted in actions) means those using heavy armour either have to limit themselves to being "one hit wonders" in combat (only being able to attack for the first few rounds) or commit to constantly improving their fatigue levels (via options chosen on level-up, perks, etc). While this would limit sustained combat in heavy armour to higher-level characters, it would still allow heavily-arnoured low-level characters a role as tanks in combat - being able to absorb enemy attacks while other more lightly armoured party members do the damage. Fatigue doesn't make an appearance in most tabletop games because of the extra record keeping it requires. However a computer RPG doesn't have any such constraint, so this option should be well worth considering.

Just knock together a copy of Space Invaders, rename it Project Eternity and sell that for the console crowd....

We do seem to be talking about a similar thing now - but rather than specifying DPI (which most people won't know - how many monitors mention DPI in place of resolution?) I'd suggest listing scaling options (with sample graphics, like a statue, drawn to different scales to show the difference). Defaulting to native resolution will make sense most of the time but there should be an override to allow users to specify a preferred resolution instead (to cover situations like non-EDID displays where native resolution figures can't be determined or emulators/terminal servers where a "virtual" monitor may be in use).

<p> In some ways, you've answered your question - market barely there and not worth the risk (especially with the current economic climate). I have a Dell 30" monitor (3007WFP-HC) with 2560x1600 resolution, so could be considered a likely candidate for a large super hi-res monitor. However I'm more than happy with the image quality and the combination of ClearType (for text) and AA (for games) deals with any visible pixellation. I'd need more than a modest boost in resolution/DPI to consider a monitor/graphics card upgrade (two cards since I use SLI) likely to cost several hundred pounds. The other side of the coin is that display innovation always starts small - OLEDs came to phones/MP3 players first before migrating upwards to laptops and we're seeing the same with "retina" displays. Now fair do's to Apple, they've implemented a new piece of hardware before anyone else (with their top-to-bottom control of software and hardware they're in the best position to) as they did with USB connectivity on the original iMac - and that will likely percolate through to the PC market in time. But the cost will be high and the benefits small, save for those involved in pro image processing. And even Apple have had to start small with this - I doubt we'll be seeing "retina" on an Apple desktop for a year or so yet. As for the comparison between hard discs and solid state storage, I don't know where you got your figures from but the current cost for a 4TB hard drive is currently about £0.046/GB while the largest SSD I could find (1TB) costs £1.70/GB - nearly 50 times the cost. In which case, how does this differ from selectable resolution which most games offer currently? It would indeed be better to stick with resolution as that is a term more familiar to most gamers than DPI - or if in-game scaling is to be offered, just choosing the scaling factor/algorithm. What this seems to come down to is asking for the highest quality renders and using the display's native resolution so the game engine can control upscaling/filtering. That seems like the best approach for current and future PC systems.