Ganrich

Film Noir would be cool. They could mix in a horror aspect, and come out with something like The Dresden Files meets Cthulhu. I would fund that all day long.

Mad Max INNNNN SPPAAAACCCEEEEE "Two days ago I saw a frigate that could haul that lander. You wanna get outta here? Talk to me."

You seem to be missing the fact that Valve's Official Controller makes it a non-issue. The point of the touch pads are to make games like this playable on the living room. It has been stated by valve themselves, and myself and others in this very thread. Why design the game for controllers that aren't being sold with steam machines?

People already paid for this game to be mouse driven. They paid Obsidian to make this game in the IE image. Which means... Mouse and keyboard. The steam controller can play "Papers, Please", and that is a mouse driven game. Maybe, it could play an IE inspired game that has very heavy UI like Pillars of Eternity. Sorry, that the SHIELD can't be supported, though. Maybe SHIELD 2.0 will be a Valve Controller instead of the Xbox-esque one.

I would love a RPG that is steampunk meets the Wild West. Something like Arcanum with cowboy hats, shoot outs, and Sergio Leone inspired music. That is probably just me though.

Pretty much this, but I feel I will love 2077 to death. I like a good aRPG now and again, and CDPR are great IMHO. If this is a project with MCA as the lead, and is a completely original idea... I would be equally excited as long as it isn't another fantasy IP (although I could be swayed I am sure).

SteamOS is going to be downloadable Friday when they send out the beta units... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamuniverse#announcements/detail/1930088300965516570 So, since Pillars of Eternity will support linux, and Steam Machines/SteamOS are linux compatible platforms for TVs, and the controller should solve the control scheme issues for the most part... You may get your wish in a roundabout way. You might just not have it available for PS4 particularly. I think the only caveat would be reading the text at a great distance, but it is what it is. Otherwise, I agree with many here. This is a PC game funded by PC gamers, and although I want everyone to enjoy the game... I don't know many people that don't have a cheap PC lying around to play this, and many people I know have a laptop that can plug into the Tv if living room gaming is their preference.

IMHO, InXile's success with Torment came from a few things they did. 1). They launched the KS during the USA tax return season. (I spent 315 on Torment for that reason) 2). They KS spanned 3 or more paycheck periods for many people. 3). They built hype for a few months prior. 4). They showed a really impressive video for Wasteland 2. If Obsidian wants to do the same then I am fine with it though. I would aim for a March/April campaign though. I am impressed enough with PEs video to fund another campaign to keep the writers/artists at work on new IPs for Obsidian. I want obsidian to stay around, and they have had some rough times the past few years. So ensuring that they have their own IPs to keep them around is a good investment as far as I am concerned. In other words, "Take my money!" PS. I am also excited to get original IPs from them since all their games since founding obsidian (save AP) have been licensed products.

As I stated earlier in this thread I was in the RTwP camp, but I am fine with TB. I have enough TB games coming down the pipe that I would have enjoyed another RTwP game, but I am happy to get a game in PSTs spirit that is set in the 9th world. I really like the PnP setting and rules.

Although, I agree that PC on TV is a minority... I think supporting it is wise for a few reasons. PE will be on linux, which makes it compatible with SteamOS, and the Steam Controller will make play viable from the couch (if it is as click friendly as the IE games). Now, I am not saying Steam Machines will fly off the shelves or anything, but supporting TVs preemptively might be wise. As John Carmack has said "It is never wise to bet against Valve." I am planning on tossing SteamOS on some older hardware when it launches, and would love to play PE on the couch here and there. I don't want to have to squint.

It's because he cares.

The original KS said that combat type would be determined later. They said it would be between TB, RTwP, and phase based IIRC. My only negative outlook on this is that they should have flat out gone with TB as that is what they wanted. I think many pledged that may not have otherwise and to me that is a bit off putting. I would like RTwP myself, because PE is the only other game using that type of combat, it (EDIT: Torment) is a successor to a RTwP game, and TB games are much more frequent at the moment. I like both styles and would like variety. However, going from PnP to RTwP has many issues which the IE games had and similar issues would plague TToN. Either way I am excited, but I love RTwP games and miss them dearly.

Great update. This is making me debate playing a melee character on my first play through. I "missed" your updates Josh. Lol. Still laughing at that opening joke.

I think my favorite quote was: "Raised by Elves, my ass! That's not gonna happen." It gave me a good laugh. Thanks Chris this was thouroughly enjoyable. Hope you enjoy the game.

Saying that the old system is "broken at best" doesn't mean it can't be fixed in P:E. If lockpicking and disarming traps was part of an objective, would that change a player's behaviour? Seriously, no single character can excel at every skill or playstyle in the game. That's why you spread the load across your party so everyone has a chance to shine. Award XP for all skill checks that overcome non-trivial threats or gain non-trivial items/lore. I've said it so many times in this thread. Well, every party can disarm traps as long as they have 1 character in there party out of 6 with that skill. This issue isn't present in games where there is no party. However, there aren't many games without a party that implement traps. The issue still remains that a character that focuses on combat can still obtain the XP from traps where the stealthy character is forced into combat to get comat XP. The traps are likely going to be in both players way, both will have to deal with it, and more than likely both will see XP from traps. It means by end game the combat character will still be sitting on more total xp than the stealth character. That is the fundamental issue. I am not against another solution, mind you. Trap disarming isn't the answer. Especially since every play style would likely have to deal with traps, and most likely get that XP.

Unfortunately, giving XP for disarming traps is broken at best in a party based game (see baldurs gate). All it means is players will ensure they have a rogue to deal with them. Combat XP gives combat characters XP. Trap XP give "all" characters XP. This means combat characters get both combat and trap xp, and sneaky characters get trap only. It still leaves a gap between the 2 play styles in terms of XP. The only way to fix this is to only give XP to the player if PC disarms the trap. Which could work, but I can't recall it having been implemented that way before. However I could just be having memory issues. You could also make all the rogue-like npcs bad at traps, but that is no fun, and leads to issues like BG2 had with crappy thieves. Also, a stealth character being forced to find all the traps in the dungeon to get their XP sounds about as fun as watching paint dry. To each thei own, I guess. I would play a stealth character as a pseudo combat oriented character nine times out of ten, though. Where objective XP lets the sneaky character avoid some scenarios to get the objective done their way. Trap XP just forces them to deal with an arbitrary issue while completing said quests. It doesn't work as well for that play style, all in all.

I am in the camp of objective XP only should be fine. I do understand why others are opposed to it though. I have seen the argument that the stealthy or diplomatic characters don't have the same risks as the combat characters would. In some situations this could be the case, but in many it could also be the farthest thing from the truth. Also, people are worried about people skipping all combat since XP isn't going to be rewarded there thus going through the game faster etc etc, and I understand this worry as well. Using Lephys's 10 bandit example: Fighter chooses to to cut to the chase and just kill the ten bandits. Death upon failure. While Xp, loot, and possible renown/reputation/faction stuff upon success. Rogue attempts to sneak by bandits.... PRISON BREAK!!!!! Failure leads to combat because Johnny bandit # 1 heard that twig break, and that puts the rogue where the fighter started. Except the rogue isn't John Rambo, and he was just caught with his pants down. He is now stuck fighting the bandit group and is much less equipped for front line fighting, and thus he is in more danger on failure than the fighter would be. Success at stealth means more or less what the fighter got save some loot maybe, unless he used the poison method. Diplomat character attempts to strike a deal with the bandits. He makes an offer that the bandits can't refuse. Wrong. The leader of the bandit group is furious at your attempt and you are in the same shoes now that the rogue would be in. This example can be easier depending on class. A paladin would have an easier time failing (and fighting his/her way out) than a bard, for instance. However, failure results in combat. Success results in similar rewards to the rogues prison break attempt. Failure in the second 2 cases results in combat regardless, and possibly puts players of those play styles in MORE danger than the fighter. I call that pretty fair, all in all. It isn't perfect, but nothing is. I know there are definitely examples where the system doesn't work perfectly, and I hope OEI has the foresight to avoid these scenarios. I think a system that sometimes shows flaws is better than a combat xp system that always has a flaw of leaving other playstyles at a disadvantage. I have faith in Obsidian, myself. I know this isn't set in stone yet, as well. If it needs to change... it will be changed. I think Sawyer has said it would, in fact, change if it didn't work out. I like the idea because it increases replayability, for me, at least. 3 different ways to play the game. I am still open to change my mind, but this is where I am on the subject at the moment. I think the only thing I will miss is the lucky level up right before, or during, a boss fight in a big dungeon. I think I can make due, though.

I don't think it is so much that sandbox and something like IE games don't mix, but that the consumers expectations are different. I have never bought a TES game expecting the pinnacle of story telling, but freedom to explore and find those tidbits of lore and story. Just as the IE games were more about story telling in a more direct, typical, and dramatic fashion, but that isn't do say that you couldn't do an IE game with the open world paradigm. I just don't think you would compete with Bethesda on that front in a top down game. I feel the 3d graphics and long draw distances make TES exploration what they are. I am definitely not wanting that model here. At least not at the sacrifice of a gripping tale. As I have said, I want some exploration (More than PST and IWDs, and preferably a bit more than BG2), but I am ok with it being somewhat minimized if the story is rock solid. Of which I have no doubt the devs will put a lot into said story. PS: If exploration was minimized almost completely and we got something as enthralling as PST... I would still be happy. I am pretty malleable, I guess. lol

Crossing my fingers for baldurs gate 1 type of open world. Not as expansive as fallout or TES but more so than the other IE games. This is one of those issues that I am waiting to hear more on. If they go more story focused then I am ok with it being more like PST or MoTB, though. It just depends.

I agree on final bosses. BG is harder for sure. I do think standard encounters are harder in IWD. I also agree that baldurs gate has a much better story. Different strokes, I guess. Edit: My second play throughs are usually on the hardest difficulty. It had been a while since I played my IE games, and my IWD2, and first run through of BG1 were both on normal. However, my second bg1 go is on hardcore.

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn. Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair. It was more difficult. I find BGs combat less tactical. You really need to position well in many IWD scenarios. I could Zerg most BG enemy layouts save some encounters and boss fights. I think, because the IWD series was linear they could hand craft encounters better. Also, I rarely use potions and scrolls in The BG games, but burn through them in IWD games at times. Admittedly I haven't played IWD1 or BG2 in a few years. However, I am just wrapping up my second play through of BGEE, and I just beat IWD2 over Xmas. You do get zerged in IWD games though. I would rather be zerged than be the zerger. IWD combat uses those zergs to force you to position a bit more. Some tips if you do give IWD a go again: use potions, use scrolls, I tend to have 3 party members focus 1 target while the other 3 focuse another (this changes in some scenarios, but early on in IWD2 it really helps), and get slings/bows/xbows for your casters. Fireball scrolls and Molotov ****tail like potions are really helpful. Not having archers makes the games much harder IMHO. Even a mage with a sling can do some damage when his spells are dry. There are times where you need to use everything you can, and that is especially true on a first play through. Also, I think enemy placement is more interesting in IWD2. You could have archers up on a ridge while meleers kept you from running up to them immediately. Oh, IWD2 has it so you will pull an entire area of enemies if you are spotted. So you can't pull the cheesy tactic of face pulling and fighting 1 at a time. They can and do call out to one another. This is something I do like. I can't remember if the first IWD did this. Also, I haven't used that mod on BG2, and I might do it when I start it up here soon. I am talking about the base version of the games. The only mods I used on my IWD2 play through recently was the high res mod. IWD was a combat simulator, PS: T was the interactive book, and BG was 2nd best in both cases. Albeit, I think BG has one of the best heroes journey type stories in a video game, but i like the deep personal stories like PST.

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote. BG2 forcing you to chase after Imoen sucked. BG2 had one decent thief NPC, named Yoshimo, and everyone else was MC or DC which meant they weren't as good being thieves as Yoshimo. I would extrapolate that thought, but those who have played it know what I am getting at. Also, i find many characters meh in many ways as well, personality wise that is. Edwin being my favorite, and I understand the Minsc love and appreciate him as well. Dialogue in PS: T was far superior. Story in PS: T was far superior. Combat in the IWD games were much better. The only thing the bg series did the best was exploration and open world, but BG2 sacrificed that lamb to direct the character down a story arc. The IE games were great but not perfect. BG2 wasn't perfect either. I don't think that means that JE is incapable of making a better game in that vein either. Regardless of what games he prefers. He is a lover of RPGs and has been an important part of a few great ones. JE seemed to be talking more about BG2 than the whole of the IE game list. He is also talking about what game he loved the most. I actually like FO 1 and 2 more than BG2 as well. I do like BG1 more than the FO series though. I also like the combat in the IWD series more than BG1 and 2, and I love PS: T's story above all the other games I mention. If JE can deliver IWD level combat (or greater), Avalon can get close to PS: T on the story, dialogue, and characters, while they get a world as open as fallout or BG1.... I would be insanely happy. I know it is a tall order, but there it is.

I grew to hate Carth Onasi. He was well written, had a good voice actor, etc. however, I really hate Him after a play through or 2. Tired of hearing him whine and complain, and if you are evil it is unbearable. Don't get me wrong, I want companions to voice their opinions, but Carth being the guy you get out of the gate and whom you are kind of stuck with for a large chunk of game irritated me. The first companion needs to be slightly less weighted toward good or evil IMHO. Otherwise, I can see some of the issues with other companions mentioned above.

I understand what you are saying, Faerunner, and I agree with most of it. I feel that the "abilities' like darkness for drow are dependent on the story, and in NWN2 they didn't quite fit. However, I always felt that those underdark races were there for persistent worlds, and mod content. They were there none the less though. I also feel that the predisposition each race has had is a hold out from older schools of thought, and they feel very limiting. It is almost as if Tolkien's voice is still echoing deeply in games today, and perhaps it is time to move away from those models of races. Give them a bit of variety, if you will. I had an idea on this topic. Perhaps, each race could get different bonuses depending on the class they select. Example 1 (warrior class): Elves get a bonus to hit (and perhaps damage) with long swords if they select the Fighter/Warrior class, Dwarves get the same bonus for Hammers for selecting the same, where Aumaua (being larger than humans) get that bonus to a 2 handed weapon type, etc. Example 2 (Wizard): This one is a bit easier IMHO. Give each race a bonus to a different school of magic. Perhaps, Humans are better at evocation and necromancy, where elves get a bonus to Divination/enchantment, and so on. Example 3 (Rogue): Perhaps, since the rogue has always been a non-combat skill monger, each race has a disposition to certain skills if they select rogue as a class. Where Orlans get a bonus to hide/sneak, Humans get a bonus to Bluff, Elves get a bonus to tumble etc. Example 4 (Priest): This one would be similar to mages, and you could go a step further (if priests are similar to clerics in being capable melee characters) by allowing each race to dictate how melee oriented the Priest would be (of course Deity would also be a factor). So a Dwarf or Aumaua Priest would be more melee oriented than an Elf or Orlan Priest. So basically, you get a racial bonus toward the class of your choosing. I would still like Backgrounds to play a part to further allow for some customization, myself. Anyway, it was just an idea I had.