Chrononaut

It's being designed as a game where failure comes from failing to master the game's content rather than its systems. You don't lose a battle because you picked the wrong stats to improve. You lose a battle because you didn't use the right tactics and abilities. It's a different paradigm than the "system mastery" school of RPGs. It sounds more like "player skill trumps character skill" to me, ie the antithesis of a cRPG.

Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system. Yes, this sounds wonderful exactly as long as you're in a phase of your life when you can afford dumping hours into familiarizing yourself with the system instead of playing the mother****ing game. For anybody else who doesn't have nearly unlimited free time, it's a lot less attractive. Wow. I guess saying "U Mad?" Would be appropriate here. No really, I've never heard the "LOL ive got better things to be doin with mai time LOL nerd I have only a limited time to play gaymes so please design games for me to play em casually", no really completely unique, never heard it before. You might want to throw in something like "I have a girlfriend" to spice it up though. Also, saying that it's "just a game" is quite immature. Perhaps instead of asking developers to downscale a game to the lowest common denominator (ie those who only have time to play games casually), instead try and upscale yourself to the game.

A hardcore gamer isn't the guy who restarts the game ten times to create the perfect munchkin build. A hardcore gamer is the guy who ironmans the game with the first character he rolls up. A well-designed game should cater to the latter at least as much as to the former. Says who? That sounds like the competitive gamer who does that. I always restart cRPG's multiple times to try out multiple character types before I settle on one. Sounds to me like PE is being designed as a system which stops players from failing. And most modern gamers who play "old-school" RPGs always then go and blame the system if they fail, instead of trying to master the system.

I don't think you understand what roleplaying is. And no it's not "a game where you play a role". I'm a strong believer in traditional cRPGs which require up-front planning in chargen, and then the gameplay is about reinforcing or playing the role you created in chargen, the role of character progression in-game not being to change the role of your character but to reinforce it, you roll a dumb brute, you play like a dumb brute, you pick up thief, the thief does thief-ly stuff. Especially in a party-based cRPG I personally believe "role-playing" is about every party member having a role, and the team having to work together each one having their role; their strengths and weaknesses. If you make an intelligent and smart character, that means sacrificing his ability in combat strength, stuff like that. Character progression in my opinion should not be the place to change your character, if you didn't end up liking the character you rolled the quit the game and try something else until you find a character type that works with the play-style you wanted. That's the traditional idea of a cRPG, try something and if it doesn't work try something else. Sawyer's weird idea is basically an unrealistic silly concept that characters can swap roles in-game be masters of all trades, and classes are just static buffs and don't restrict anything. I think PE's system is shaping up to be flexible yes, but not in a good way. I think it looks linear and discourages replayability. A self-reinforcing character system is interesting because it means characters are forced to play to their strengths to survive, it's also cool because at any time you can just reroll a new character and start a new game with a completely different character which the world and content interacts completely different with because of their different stats. I think PE's system is downright being designed for casual gamers who are amongst those who normally rage-quit D&D computer games and then blame the gameplay system instead of themselves if they make a crappy character (a fighter with low STR, derp) or they don't plan their character at generation.

The difference is that PE was sold to us as a successor to Infinity Engine games, four of which used AD&D 2E and the other using 3E. If not a D&D style system, what else is an "IE-like" game about? Would you say the only thing Obsidian meant by "IE-like" is isometric perspective? That's it? They namedropped BG, PST and IWD and yet the only influence this game seems to be taking from those games is completely cosmetic? If I knew OE was going to run in the completely opposite direction the second the KS ended, and make decision after decision which did nothing but distance themselves from making a computer ruleset which emulated D&D, instead of a system which draws it's gameplay influences from MMOs, MOBAs and RTSs, if I knew that now I would have never contributed. I find it completely dishonest that OE are just going about developing a game which from all updates about it's mechanics will play nothing like BG or IWD (it's not even round-based where each character as a "turn" of six-seconds FFS!), they are just keeping the cosmetic trappings of IE while making a party-based Diablo. It's a bit different say from InXile making Wasteland 2 and using THE EXACT SAME ruleset which tweaks in order to be loyal to the fans.

Because, you know, the Strength stat might not exist at all. So the reason why the Barbarian deals a lot of damage is that he has a high Soul Power stat or something. Sounds ridiculous. I'd expect that in a weekly action anime. Well FNV is a First-person shooter, so the reason for that probably had more to do with the removing graphics/animations dissonance, if you aim a gun at point blank at an enemy you expect to hit, as oppose to something like Morrowind combat. FNV had little way to visually represent a character being unskilled with a gun (ie like being unskilled with certain weapons in Fallout 1/2). This isn't a problem in isometric/abstracted RPGs. Well, that is a bad idea and a cop-out for not allowing the player to decide and customize, or rather to make a trade-off in points to which weapon a character is skilled with (and thus what he is not skilled/trained with). I don't like much like any of the proposed systems because they are less about advantages and disadvantages and more about advantages and SUPER advantages.

Well, keep in mind that many of the class abilities and talents will actually be passive, ie, not so different from upgrading a numerical stat or skill. Well, stuff like the Barbarians' wild charge thing, or the wound resource for Monk, seem to be very clicky

It makes zero sense that a character can wield a two-handed longsword effectively in battle or be able to accurately aim a longbow, without any training at all using those weapons, purely based on their physical attributes. Why should I be able to make a Barbarian with high STR who is able to pick up a sword and wield it like a swashbuckling master just because he's got some big muscles? Also from the POV of pure mechanics having specialization points in weapons gained by level is more interactive than static benefits.

If the talents/feats can't themselves be leveled or upgraded, and are just a static percentile bonus that scales to whatever attack or save you character makes, that would make for a very boring character generation and progression, that's why I said that they should be used to complement an existing system not BE ONE. I actually dislike the idea of "special abilities" acting as ultimate determiner in battle too, because well it doesn't sound very RPG-ish to me, more like a clicky/twitchy thing which is more about the player skill in clicking it it off at the right time and place in battle, and less about than the stats of your character. Less Baldur's Gate, more League of Legends or Warcraft III.

Says who? Different system, different rules. It's been very clear to me that Project Eternity is being designed with talents, skills and special abilities as the core of the system, the main differentiator between characters. Okay, "not supposed to" meaning "it's a bad decision to have it work that way". I'm a firm believer in "more stuff is better" when it comes to chargen and leveling. The more choices you give the player the better. Perhaps MMO was a bad comparison, it sounds more like how heroes in Warcraft III work. Especially if certain attributes will give your character a % chance to do something like a critical attack or block damage.

1) You're assuming the game will have an "Agility" score. It probably won't. 2) You can customize your character with talents and class abilities, not just attribute scores. I made a thread about this here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64157-josh-sawyer-reveals-some-information-about-project-eternitys-attribute-scores/ Static feats and talents are not supposed to replace basic attributes, they are supposed to complement them and add to customization and more choice for the player. And those talents/feats are most likely going to be static benefits, probably with no ability to "build" upon them and upgrade them, say like upgrading skill in Poleaxe, Long Sword, Dagger, or any weapon you want your character to specialize in. The overall motivation seems to be to make it impossible to mess up character generation/development and make it easy to switch to different types of weapons without needing any defined skill or training with that weapon to wield it effectively. But in so doing it removes a crapload of choice for the player. It also makes no sense from the point-of-view of basic common sense, a character being strong or agile may help them in wielding certain weapons more effectively, but why should passive attributes and talents be the only determinant of how well your char wields a weapon? Where is the training?!

So what is the problem with that method aside from association with Asian MMORPGs? The most obvious being that is removes most planning from chargen, makes it impossible to make/customize a character specialized in specific weapons. I mean why should a character who has say a high Agility score be able to wield a Long Sword or a Spear with equal proficiency.

This crap is pulled straight out of your garden variety Asian MMORPG, RIP in piece Project Eternity

Inventory baby with Aerie was the most embarrassingly bad moment in the history of RPGs. I'm sure it was Gaider who thought it up.

That's why the graphics choice for PE is so good. Even if the game has bugs in quests at least we won't have to deal with the horror story of a Neverwinter Nights 2-style rotating camera, or our graphics card trying to burn down our house for using AA because of bad optimization.

Trees look like sprites, surprised they aren't using 3d models for them.

Again, "tedious" is a completely nonobjective way to criticize a game mechanic. What is "tedious" to one person is challenging, and interesting, to another. It's completely based on personal preference. I've noted that when younger more casual gamers do pseudo-criticisms of older RPG's, the buzzword is always "tedious" or "annoying" with no explanation given. It's not surprising of course, we're dealing with the MMO and Diablo III generation after all, the modus-operandi of RPG design in 2013 is POWER FANTASY.

Well I don't have a particular view on durability/crafting because they weren't IE mechanics. I just think that J.Sawyer's design approach is flawed and will probably result in a crapload of skills and mechanics being streamlined or removed from the game. This skill/mechanic is hard to balance and ~according to my research of watching people play computer games~ people don't use it much. Therefore = Remove it. I see it as an inevitable result of trying to make skills or attributes have too broad an effect in the game. If you give yourself the task of trying to tie a skill like crafting into every other part of the game's system, instead of giving it a specific usage, then according to that philosophy the chances are it'll get removed are very high. I would much rather a traditional "adventure game" approach to skills, as in specific skills that have specific uses. ie use "skill" on "item", get "result". That's the only way PE will be a large amount of skills, trying to give skills multiple uses and tied them into other game systems will lead to a streamlining of the whole game, a whole lot less total number of skills with a more broad use. I hope you guys like MMO's because all I've read seems to indicate a very build-centric approach.

Whoa bro calm down lmao. No, I just find it thoroughly uncomfortable how OE seem to take "fan" input and pressure so seriously. As if some overly active forum-members with an agenda can influence a game which many, many more will have to end up playing. I think a better way would just be to not ask for any backer input, but just make the game based on the specifications outlined in the Kickstarter pitch, and then say "here, download game" when it's done.

There are an enormous number of features/systems that people have complained about that I have not changed because I believed (and still believe) the game would ultimately be more enjoyable as-designed. I always listen to/read what people have to say, but I only rarely make changes based on what they say. I don't think anyone would benefit from me ignoring all of the points that people put forward. Woah, developer reply. If I might ask, are their plans to make any craft-able items exclusive to crafting, as in they cannot be purchased from vendors or dropped as loot?

Absolutely ridiculous way to design a game. Whiny bitches on a forum which in no way constitute a majority of KS backers or cRPG players in general can make designers change something because they think it's "annoying" or "tedious". Coming up Next on Project: Eternity - Reading what NPC's have to say and your quest journal is "not fun", quest compass inbound. Hopefully they'll be something left of the character system before the game ships, before all the features get voted out by morons.

I don't see much creativity here, really. Just whining that a game feature is too "tedious" and "annoying", and that as a result it must be removed.

Well, it was a stretch goal, they can't really just not do it. And what's the point of making a poll about a game feature anyway? It's pretty inappropriate to pressure developers in this way, nor should PE be designed in such a way.

Who would you even have a poll for game features anyway, what is this, design by democracy? The main thing that could ruin the game is listening to backers too much.

Ultima Underworld style weapon breakage would be better