Faerunner

A little late now, but THANK YOU! <3 Shapeshifting was always an ability I loved in theory, but rarely used in practice because it was often poorly implemented in many games. I'm glad that shifting forms will be desirable for this game. ^_^ (Not just something we sigh longingly at, or sigh in frustration in battle. )=

Looks like my original reply didn't go through. Boo. =( Well, just wanted to say I love the idea of companions who are well-written and have opinions and agendas of their own like real people. Yet, who also showcase the themes of the game, as well as exemplify the society and culture around them (and allow us to explore various socio and cultural conditions through our interactions with them and the world around us). I also love the idea of them showing up early because I tend to get attached to early characters very quickly. It all sounds very well-written and believable at the same time. I greatly look forward to these! <3

My God... It's beautiful! Honestly, I love the colors, the lighting, the shadows, the textures, the contrasts, the depth and angles... everything about it is beautiful! If the entire game is going to be this pretty... I don't know. I'll never look at 3D art and animation the same way again. That's how lovely it is. Please keep up the fantastic work. =)

Good grief, people! The game hasn't even come out and you're already talking about modifying it?!

Widen my eyes in horror and hope it gets better. I don't want to be rude, but I'm really not fond of the over-use of zombies and undead in popular media. I know undead are pretty common foes in fantasy games, but they usually at least show up later in the game. Starting off with just being attacked by undead and having to fight our way through is very underwhelming.

A) I haven't played all these games, so I don't know who's the "best." B) "Best" is a subjective term as this is all opinion-based. C) I personally like companions with deep, varied, nuanced, and fun personalities. Characters whose personalities subvert or avert stereotypes so you don't just feel like you're walking around with a textbook example of the character archetype, characters that are memorable and likable on their own merits, characters that contribute positively to the party in both combat and dialogue or story. I'd rather the strong, interesting, funny personalities that are memorable over the better-for-combat characters that are very forgettable.

Not trying to be rude, but this article reeks of elitism and bias. I understand it's opinion-based, but opinion =/= fact, and this article seems to fail to notice the difference. You seem to believe there is a scientific, quantifiable measurement of what makes a "true South Park fan" (a term that always makes my blood run cold), what makes the series truly enjoyable (as though the reasons listed are the reasons everyone should love it), what South Park is "really about" (more than the creators, apparently), and they're all based on your personal opinion. Parker and Stone are the creators of South Park, they've been wanting to create a game that's just like the show for years, and this game is their baby, yet it fails as a South Park game because it doesn't have all the elements that love in the way you want them? I'd also like to point out that video games are a completely different media from television episodes. I've seen a few interviews by Trey and Matt about this game, and they mentioned how unprepared they were by how different it is to write a video game than a tv episode. They had to figure out where everything is in South Park, where is the player's location at any given point, how much time it would take to walk from Point A to Point B in any given quest, what sorts of obstacles you'll run into on the way, etc. (As they said, in the show, if they wanted Stan to go to Kyle's house, they could just cut to Kyle's house. Here, they had to ask, "Where IS Kyle's house? Where does Stan live?!") They also found that it's way different writing enough material to sustain 20+ hours of gameplay versus a 20-minute episode, and revealed they gained a whole new level of respect for video game writers after this experience. Basically, the video game is meant to feel like your favorite episode of South Park, but it's still a video game and it isn't really your favorite episode of South Park. It'll probably have some flaws and failings, but that doesn't mean it fails as a South Park video game.

As someone who actually hadn't played any IE games when I first learned about this game, but started playing them recently (BG and IWD), I honestly don't see what the problem is. I love old school fantasy cRpG's, but before I had only played Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. The games had the classic fantasy "sword and sorcery" cRPG feel I loved, and it had a lot of features I was familiar with from said NWN1+2 games (classes, races, subraces, designs, basic story ideas, etc) but otherwise I didn't see much else it had in common with my old games. After alternating between BG and IWD, I found the similarities much stronger and the features more familiar. While travelling through BG and IWD, I found myself exclaiming, "So THAT'S where that P:E feature came from!" more more often than I did revisiting NWN2 and MotB. Not trying to be rude, but they promised a spiritual successor and seem to be delivering one. They brought back a lot of uniquely IE features. I don't know what the OP was expecting, but this seems to be right on the money.

Agreed. I'd like to emphasis the publisher meddling part. When researching the work behind Obsidian games, I often read about how the designers had a lot of great ideas and designs, worked really hard, and honestly tried to make a quality product, but then the publishers or the copyright holders would rush, hinder, or veto the design process and they would be forced to push out a buggy, sub-par product that they didn't want to make, or were not allowed to fix. Since it's the only one I've played, just look at the difference between NWN2 and MotB. The first was very buggy, bland and linear. Very funny, but also very safe, somewhat forgettable, and obviously rushed to release. Then the expansion came out, and it just exploded in quality writing, characters, aesthetics, graphical design, quest progression, and roleplaying choices that left people questioning if they were made by the same people. When given free reign to design what and how they want, the designers of Black Isle turned Obsidian make fantastic games. Since they have the time, funding, resources and freedom to design the quality game they're passionate about, I have absolute faith that Project Eternity will be a great quality game.

I'm not trying to win any achievements, here. I play RPG's for the interactable story and characters, not the combat. I'll probably play the game on easy while I get used to the game mechanics, then maybe crank it up to normal if combat becomes so easy it's boring. (Which itself seems unlikely as it took me about a year of playing to feel that way about DA:O.) The classes and builds I'm drawn to tend to be difficult to use in combat anyway, so I need all the help I can get.

Jesus, this was one of the best descriptions of the twenty tens that I ever read. Seriously. People will always find SOME reason to complain... no matter how straight-forward the designers or how great the game. I personally see even less point in complaining here than any other game. The developers have been very honest and open about what they plan to create, and how they intend to deliver. They gave a very clear description of what kind of game they want to create in the Kickstarter campaign, and almost every update since has shown us how they're making that promise a reality. Obviously major characters, themes and story points are kept hidden (otherwise why play the game?) and some minor details get switched around here and there (like the loss of durability that I keep reading about), but over-all the message is very clear: they're excited and proud to create the game they promised. It's enough for me.

Wonderful interview. I love concept art and enjoy reading some of what goes into it. Now you've got me all excited for the drakes and godlike. *sigh*

this sounds great. Usually I'm not that into crafting, but this sounds fun. While I'm a little disappointed with the loss of "realistic" crafting animation, I'm glad it doesn't take too much time. That can be such a time-waster in so many games.I also like the idea of items retaining their abilities post-craft, like special swords with elemental boosts retaining said special properties instead of being stripped into a normal sword mid-transformation. Will read and comment on the rest later as I have to go now, but I wanted to let you know I like what I see so far! Please keep up the good work! <3

@PrimeJunta: I think NWN2 OC has a lot going for it on the smaller scale. I think when you just judge it based on its own merits, it has things to admire. I personally still love the dry, witty, sarcastic, sardonic, self-depracating sense of humor. The dialogue is humorous and mostly flows nicely. The characters indeed had their own voices and their interactions with each other were rather realistic (too much at times, what with all the bickering) and memorable (insult exchange at the Flagon, anyone?). The voice-acting was great and I personally think a lot of VAs gave their characters more depth and personality than was written on paper (especially for Sand, Bishop, and Neeshka). The Trial sequence at the start of the second act was genius. The BioWare staff seemed to like it too (unless they thought of it first) since the Trial against Loghain sequence Dragon Age: Origins played out similarly. Learning the difficulties of running a castle was also creative. Once again, the idea was good enough to copy because every time I see DA fans gush about how they'll get to run their own castle in Inquisition, I just think "NWN2 did it first." I also really liked the the ideas it tried to present. Questioning what makes a hero, what makes a villain, and how different are they when you examine their origins and methods more closely? How much it sucks to be a hero in the long run because you live to see your loved ones die, become tired/bitter/scarred, or straight up become a villain in the long run was a very interesting theme to examine in a standard fantasy game. Again, they could have gone into more depth, but if you judge it by its own merit, it was rather good. EDIT: With that said, yeah, it has its problems. Story is simple. Adventures is linear. Battles are mostly repetitive. Quests are mostly "go over there and kill/fetch/rescue." My personal peeve is the characters are mostly standard fantasy stereotypes. A few of them have some variations (like Bishop the hostile ranger), but mostly they're just textbook examples of their D&D archetypes. The game could have gone further with its theme. It's not great and I don't want another game exactly like it, but I think it has great things about it that are worth repeating. (Like that lovely sense of humor.)

Why only 9? Why not 8? Why not 6? Why not 4? My guess is 9 is right for this particular game. It's probably how much they have budgetted in terms of writing, development, and resources. It's probably the best balance at this time between sheer numbers of companions and development of said companions. Don't forget the companions are all purely optional, meaning the staff probably can't pour too many resources into characters that many or most players won't even see; but they also need to give them personality, depth, relevance to the plot (without being required for said plot), etc. Sure, older games let you have 16 companions or so, but I think the story and writing standards are just higher today, and story and writing is a large part of this game anyway. If 9 is the amount that is right for this game, then why knock it? Quality > quantity.

An excellent update! Everything seems to be coming along well! The paladin concept sounds cool, though I confess I'm the wrong person to ask since I don't tend to play paladins, no matter the setting. Nothing wrong with them, I just don't tend to roleplay characters with the personality types required to be holy warriors. I like my characters secular and wild. Which brings me to the Wild Orlan: they're coming along great! I love the concept of people outwardly hairy, savage, beastial, and reclusive. Are they really hostile or is that how most colonial cultures largely see them? I suppose they would have reason to be, though since I suspect most players will be playing colonial races, I would be careful about portraying them as somewhat sympathetic. I don't want the Wild Orlan to be portrayed like the Dalish Elves in Dragon Age, and with their popularity to boot. (It's pretty clear the writers hate the Dalish and want the players to hate them too, so even though the Dalish have legitimate complaints as a displaced minority, the writers go out of their way to portray them as so unsympathetic and unlikable that most players can't help thinking they deserve their misfortune, if not outright bring it on themselves.) I know not everyone is going to like them, but I just don't want them to be unlikable. I can't wait to see how people tend to view the wild orlans and vice-versa. Though the players character won't be from Dyrwood, I also can't wait to see how other characters respond to a wild orlan protagonist. For that matter, putting the two concepts together, I wonder how paladins (the pinnacle of colonial society) and wild orlan (the pinnacle of wild society) get along and how characters from either side will view the protagonist of either (or both) class or race. Please keep us posted! ^^

*sigh* The Smurfette Principle at work. Hopefully there will be more in the wings.

I'm not saying the presence of any love or sex is unrealistic. I simply got the impression that Ulquiorra was implying that men and women can't be friends or love each other without being sexually attracted to each other, or wanting to act on that attraction, which I refuted. I got the impression that it's like that all too common saying: "Men and women can't be friends because the sex would get in the way," which I find this attitude demeaning to both genders. To me, it implies that men are incapable of emotionally bonding with a woman without it being physical, women are incapable of being liked unless they're giving physical pleasure, and vice-versa. Not saying sex can't or shouldn't happen in this game, but I don't agree with the implication that it has to happen because people can't bond without sex. This is something I don't understand either. I would love to have romance and sex too... as long as it's optional for the player character. If some companions flirt or bed each other in a realistic manner, I'm completely fine with it. (In fact, I think it should occur in more games. BioWare has toyed with companions that are not romanced by the PC falling for each other in alternate situations, like DA:O's Alistair and Leliana being rumored to be lovers in an AU DLC and DA2's Isabela and Fenris having a casual fling if the PC never romances either... and the majority of the fanbase flipped their ****. The amount of people who are apauled that their companions dare get involved with anyone but their protagonist - even if their said protagonist doesn't show interest in them - is rather disgusting.) As long as my character doesn't have to show interest or break someone's heart (because I don't like the implication that people have to be physically attracted to others for some arbitrary assumption like "You're hot + all people have a sex drive = let's test it out together"), I don't mind. This, I agree with. Sorry if it seemed like I was saying the opposite. The truth is I've been advocating for optional romance all along. I think it would be prudent to have the option to romance for those who want it (since I think enough people do that it would be worth the time and resources) but also to have the option not to romance for those that don't want it (because I also think enough people don't want it that it shouldn't be required or come with gameplay and roleplay penalties, like losing influence, buffs, items, losing access to parts of companion quests or character arcs like Jack from ME2, etc.)

And you think they're incapable of loving each without wanting to act out their sexual desire with each other? Maybe they're just not attracted to each other. Maybe one or both are gay. Maybe they're just not each other's type. Maybe one/both are already attracted to or in a relationship with someone else but still care very deeply enough about each other to feel love. You think men and women are physically and psychologically incapable of loving each other without also being sexually attracted to each other? It's not possible to care about a friend deeply enough to love them without being in love or in lust? Is that what you're saying? No, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Please read for context. Love is love. Whether you feel romantic or sexual attraction on top of it determines whether it's romantic love, sexual love, or platonic love. My issue is you seem to believe that grown people are incapable of loving each other without wanting sex from each other, which I find fallacious. One fictional character is not the one all-encompassing example of what asexuality is. Please educate yourself on real asexual people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VicXQ7ZAF84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOiPGqQUV2A Actually, 1 to 100 IS the estimated percentage of asexual people. 1% of the population. That may not seem like much, but add it up and it becomes a lot of people very quickly. Walk into a crowd of a few hundred people and odds are a few of them are asexual. Walk into a city of a few hundred thousand and a few hundred of them are asexual. There are over 300 million people in the United States, which means there are over 3 million estimated asexuals in the United States alone. However, even when you leave out asexuality, not everyone wants to jump the first person they get to know. There are people with naturally low sex drives. There are people who are afraid of love or sex (erotophobia), often due to traumatic experiences. There are people who are just not mentally or emotionally in a place where they want it. There may be people who acknowledge that another person is attractive intellectually but just not be interested in them physically. There are so many other factors besides "We're close + I have a sex drive = I want to have sex with you." Again, I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite of that. I said meaningful platonic relationships are harder to pull off than romantic relationships because there are so many stock romantic lines, situations and formulas that are easy to fall into. It's easy to depict two characters as being deeply attached when there's sexual attraction, love at first sight, etc. It's harder to create situations and conversations that make people believably close without resorting to "they were in love" or "sparks were flying in the air." Therefor, I can see why many people feel that more platonic relationships would benefit to the game, though I don't agree with the extreme belief that romance would hurt it. I believe that the belief that "platonic = deep, romantic = shallow" of other posters is just as incorrect as your belief that "two people who care about each other and have sex drives = they must want to have sex with each other." I find both reasoning to be equally incorrect. A romantic relationship can be deep, a platonic relationship can be shallow, and two characters can love or care about each other deeply without wanting to jump into bed with each other.

That's just what I was thinking! xD I hope it comes out this holiday season though, not the one after. =( Wishful thinking, I know, but I'm hoping "some holiday season" like July 4th. True, it would keep it from coming out two or three years from now like I fear, but still keep it from getting drowned out by the competition like you fear. I wouldn't mind it coming out Summer 2014 for that reason. I hope the creators realize this and change their minds again, though we'll just have to wait and see.

That's just what I was thinking! xD I hope it comes out this holiday season though, not the one after. =(

In reality i don't see an option for plationic love unless it's one sided or "child love". Tell me .. can you see 100% platonic love relationshipbeteen two people that have more then 18 years old and both of you know of feeling you have for ech other and you realy "love" one another ? In reality this is domething like sexual frustration (for both genders) so if you love someone .. it whoud be soo strange to make him feel good ? ( and you by the way ) Im only talking about reality now .. i don't want sex scenes in PE ... only a evindence that something like this occurs ... this is not porno It's not possible to befriend or care about someone unless you're sexually attracted to them? How do you function in day-to-day life? Do you have no friends or family (same-gender or otherwise) that you love but aren't sexually attracted to? Do people HAVE to turn you on just for you to want them in your life? Are you incapable of making friends unless you think you can sleep with them? Because that's what platonic love is. Loving someone without it being romantic or sexual. I think emotionally healthy and well-adjusted people are capable of loving others without wanting to sleep with them, which is what many people are advocating on this thread. Having companions the player character can feel believably close or attached to without wanting to jump their bones. I personally can see the merit in it as deep, meaningful relationships are hard to pull off without the crutch of sexual attraction or romance novel lines to fall back on, which are sadly very easy and common for many lazy or untalented writers. Of course, this outcry for "platonic relationships only" is accompanied by the fallacy that "romantic = shallow" and "platonic = deep," as well-written romances can have as much depth as platonic relationships and plenty of platonic relationships in various games are also shallow and poorly written. However, your reasoning is very fallacious and shallow too. You seem to assume that everyone is just horny and looking for a lay. I understand many (or even most) adults have urges, but not everyone does (haven't you ever heard of asexuality?) and not everyone is looking to form attachments to people just for sexual favors.

Oh, I didn't realize. Well, no love lost. I didn't really care if there was a Raisins option (as I don't want to play one, but wouldn't mind it others did), I just wanted to know if it was true. (Probably not, since the hero seems to be the Wild Card that helps whatever group s/he joins rather than arriving part of any group his/herself, but then this is South Park...) Either way, I've seen a few black and white sources saying we can be male or female (like the first preview in the OP), so I'm not worried. I wonder if there would be any RP differences for being a girl though. Like, will some of the boys give you grief for being a girl (as South Park has the realistic "boys versus girls" rivalry going on between the kids through most of the show). Will people take more umbrage with a girl farting in public than a boy? Will people (particularly Cartman) give you more girl-centered insults like "bitch," "whore" and "sl*t" versus "d*ck/weed," "bastard," or "@sshole"? These are what I'm wondering.

Oh cool, so we know there will be female protagonist options. Out of curiosity, where is it semi-confirmed?

I'm sure we will be able to play female protagonists, it's just the promotional material hasn't portrayed it yet. (They probably assume most players will be male and won't care about the female option. Heck, several different gaming websites and magazines have reported on the game and not one of them thought it was important to refer to the protagonist as being both genders, but instead treat the protagonist as only male.)