Sad Panda

I'm not sure what "wits" in this context would be other than intellect, which is the capacity to perceive how things connect, and further which possibilities are excluded, effectively or conclusively, by the data -- this is exactly what is measured by culture-free IQ tests, such as those of Mensa. Without this capacity you're basically reduced to this: That being said, "common sense and wits" often isn't enough to solve riddles, as they are very commonly culture-sensitive. If you think of the common riddles in English, a lot of them revolve around specific turns of phrase and overlapping designations: The clock has hands, the wind blows, the day breaks, and so on. These riddles make no sense whatsoever unless you're fluent in the language. A lot further tie into local stories, practices and traditions and are as such completely indecipherable to an outsider. High intellect as defined above gives at least a change at solving such riddles even without the cultural context, however, as one can at least exclude some of the more clearly wrong answers -- it wouldn't make sense for a people living in tropical lands to have riddles about snow, for example -- and perhaps even deduce the correct answer by the process of elimination. "[W]hen you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." All this brings us back to my point: While the answer to the riddle may be easily decipherable to the player thanks to their cultural context, there's no reason to expect this would also apply to their character, who inhabits a fantasy world with cultures wildly different from our own -- the answer would be out-of-character knowledge, plain and simple. Likewise, the player being able to see what possibilities logically fit shouldn't automatically translate to their character being able to do the same -- we are, I hope, allowed to play as stupid characters, as well. Conversely, the player may well end up being stumped by the riddle because they lack the necessary cultural context (or, I suppose, because they're just not terribly bright), even though their well-read and sharp character should by all regards be able to figure out the answer. As said, it's player's skills vs. the character's. In an RPG, the outcome should IMO depend more on the latter than the former.

Tend to agree that us backers don't represent the whole of the people who'd potentially be interested in PoE -- just the ones that a) are familiar enough with old IE games to know what exactly was being offered in the kickstarter, and b) are willing to put cash up front. I imagine a lot of the backers are already familiar with Obsidian's other games, as well as their history, making it more convincing to them that the company can actually deliver what it promises -- many others who are interested rather wait and see the final product before purchasing. Meanwhile, there's a whole generation of gamers who have never played the old IE games, and may on casual inspection expect PoE to be a hack-n-slash dungeon crawler, as games dubbed as isometric RPGs have of late been. So far the buzz has mostly been limited to the RPG-enthusiast circles, but once the game is released and word-of-mouth of what it's actually like -- as opposed to pre-release hearsay, which a lot of people quite sensibly pay little heed to -- I'm confident a lot of more casual gamers will pick up PoE, as well. I don't think it will be a smash hit, mind you, but that it will sell at least decently. And as has been pointed out, every bit after the release is net gain that Obsidian can use to fund firther games.

Hmm. Looks like I'll have to backtrack a bit (or a lot, really), since I just crunched the numbers, and looks like the backers who will receive the first expansion for their pledge contributed in total more than $1,000,000 -- significantly more than I had anticipated. As such, spending the left-over money on the expansion is not only justified but downright prudent, as it will ensure that those backers will receive the promised reward. >_>

It is not patronage, it is a commission: The backers have given Obsidian money to make a game, and in return receive the right to partake in the fruits of their labour.There are no legal constraints, but for Obsidian to take the money and use it on a project than other than what it was specifically intended for, and then have the backers pay more if they wish to partake in the fruits of that project -- that definitely doesn't seem right to me. If the expansion and/or DLC were made free to all backers, that would be fine then. Otherwise, it's very difficult for me to see it as anything other than them taking the money and running.

That would IMO be violation of backer trust, though, as would be using the money on non-free DLC -- anything the backers wouldn't have an access to without paying for it, basically. The backers have put the money on this project, specifically, and should reap the full benefits of their investment.

This is actually something I was thinking about myself, and I'd like to take the opportunity to pitch to the devs the idea of using any left-over money (which can't without violating backer trust be used for other projects, since it's something specifically earmarked for PoE) in creating free after-release content. Theres tend to be plenty of cut content left over in large RPGs, and these could be built to conclusion -- or just provide an all-over tweak/polish pack, like the Enhanced Edition in The Witcher games. I myself intent to increase my pledge once that functionality comes online, and it'd be nice to know this would go toward developing the game even after release.

In the kind of game PoE is set to be, I don't know why you couldn't, though. Pausing is problematic in games that rely on button-smashing (in which most RPGs of recent years fall), since it only works to throw other players off their pace, but less so where the player's role is to just make the tactical choices. Paradox games like Europa Universalis have pausing for all players, and I see it as something that could work even in a "real" IE-style multiplayer.

I think your problem here might be that the kind of multiplayer you describe is commonly referred to as "single-player co-op", rather than "multiplayer". This thread has quite an expansive list of single-player RPGs with co-op, though the isometric ones are admittedly mostly hack-n-slash.

Oh, I definitely agree that real people don't usually clearly fall into any D&D alignment, and are Neutral simply on the virtue of not being much anything else. Real people are so boring, though, which is why I rather concentrate on the philosophical underpinnings of the alignments. Characters I create for RPGs always have fairly strong convictions, precisely because such characters are much more interesting to play as, and I suppose I kind of assumed everyone else did that, too. >_>

Tend to disagree. To begin with, I think acting to one's own interest is something more tilted toward Evil, even with the caveat -- a true neutral character recognises no inherent merit in anything, their own wants and needs included. Nature is often portrayed as being neutral, but not because animals would act out of self-interest, but because they act out of instinct: There is no conscious choice to prioritise their own needs. Sentient agents must make this choice: Those who see inherent merit in sefishness are Evil, while those who see inherent merit in selflessness are Good. Someone who acts primarily out of self-interest but adhering to a specific rule set would in my mind be Lawful Evil, not True Neutral. As for the Neutral range: Lawful Neutral: Uphold order for its own sake, heedless of whether it brings harm or good to self or others. The faithful guard dog that would charge to its senseless death on its master's orders. Or: The helmsman who drives the ship onto the rocks because he is forbidden from departing from his course. Chaotic Neutral: Oppose order on principle, heedless of whether this brings harm or good to self or others. The wild animal that bites off its own leg rather than is captured. Or: The farmer who rather sees his crops burned than pays tax for them. True Neutral: Pursue no goal in particular. Uphold order, or fight against it. Act selfishly, or selflessly. The last one up there is what would be usually thought as Chaotic behaviour, but I tend to see that as something more principled: A Chaotic character believes all should be free to act as they please, not just they themselves; that order is inherently undesirable. A True Neutral character doesn't care how others live, as they see no inherent merit in order or lack thereof, nor do they care any great deal how their actions affect others. The distinction to Good and Evil characters is that an Evil character wants to help themselves and doesn't care if it brings harm to others, while a Good character wants to help others and doesn't care if it brings harm to themselves. A Neutral character, meanwhile, can act against their own interest or for it, and likewise against common good or for it.

One of the ways I've realised True Neutrality while roleplaying is what I call the "Karma Mirror" archetype: The character has no beliefs or values of their own, but instead adapt whatever outlook the person they're dealing with adheres to. They lie to the liars, but always tell the truth to the truthful; torture the cruel, but shelter the kind. They don't see any view as being inherently right or wrong, much less try to uphold one. Instead, to them everything is supremely subjective, and they leave it to others to decide the rules of the game. It's a rather interesting character type to play as, I think.

I did touch on this issue, and the answer is: Because that would make it the writers' character, not the player's. My one big gripe with JPRGs is that unlike WRPGs, they usually have a set protagonist the character of which the player doesn't get to choose. The grants the writers a lot more freedom, as they can imbue the PC with any personality they desire and thus sidestep the whole issue of character motivation: If the PC has a personal stake in the story, of course they'll follow through with it. However, this also means that the player is no longer an active (or as active) participant in telling the story; they simply prod it along in the path the writers have chosen.

Ick. I'd rather they keep the über speshul protagonist stuff to a minimum. This isn't a Bioware game. This is how Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment worked, too, though. The case could be made for Fallout, as well: While the PC didn't exactly possess supernatural talents, both the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One were supposedly best of the best among their respective communities; that's why they were chosen for their tasks, after all. I do think there needs to be something special about the protagonist in an RPG, as unlike in a more static narrative, you can't have their status as the lead result from their outlook or resourcefulness without limiting the choices of the player. This is particularly true for low-to-mid-level games which PoE is set to be, since the protagonist doesn't in the start possess even average talents -- it would for example certainly stretch believability that the megadungeon wouldn't have been looted several times over if just anyone could enter and clear it. You can mitigate this problem partially by placing the PC in unique circumstances, but eventually this always raises the question of why they continue to be the lead even after those circumstances have passed: In IWD, your party alone survived and was in the isolated environment the only ones who really could do anything about the calamity they encountered, but among the bustling realms of PoE, why wouldn't your character be returned to their status as a caravan hand or whatever as soon as you're past your first hurdle? If there's some great quest to be accomplished, certainly it'd be better handled by someone more experienced -- unless there's something special about the player character. Another advantage of giving the PC special powers is that this allows one to partially explain away why they go from getting beat up by rats to battling dragons in what is often only a space of some weeks or months -- though this does still usually leave the problem of why your companions are getting strong super fast, too. The Nameless One could be understood to be regaining skills they had learned in the past -- your Wisdom which was the main factor in recalling memories also afforded you with an XP bonus in line with this thinking -- but that didn't explain why Annah or Dak'kon were suddenly getting a lot tougher, too, even though they weren't really doing anything different from before. >_>

"Coming in 2014 for Windows PC, Macintosh OS X, and Linux", says the front page.

It's pure speculation, but I'm thinking the player will by default be an animancer prodigy on the virtue of being a Watcher. Souls have been noted to play a major part in the game, so the player discovering a talent for perceiving and perhaps later manipulating them would make for a natural thread around which to weave the story.

Well, since it's in text, you can always imagine the other "Feel free to browse my wares" to be delivered with icecold intonation, Lephys. The guy probably pissed in that healing potion he's handing you now.

Wow OK, I've not been gone for 10 hours and there's three pages of replies. >_> To address some points raised, then: Well, written ones, obviously. I'd imagine that's how a lot of the narrative will be handled, which is only good, since aside from certain specific aspects like simultaneity and level of focus, writing has a lot more expressive power than cinematics. On that note... To clarify, I used the term “softcore” to imply the devs were censoring themselves to avoid controversy (and, again, perhaps because they were not themselves comfortable going beyond the point they went) -- at the expense of narrative coherence. If there had been no sex scenes in the game at all, that would've been fine, but since there were, it made very little sense for the characters to remain clothed throughout. Likewise, it takes a certain amount of suspension of disbelief that all the boisterous and -- let's say -- adventurous characters in the game would not happen to even once in the course of the story refer to sexual organs or acts by anything but the mildest of euphemisms. As for Witcher's sexual content, the point I was making was that it was thematically appropriate, and more importantly, became the main focus of the game neither for the gamers nor the media, who failed to reduce into giggling simpletons or raging puritans, respectively. I'd like to think that signals we've moved beyond sex in videogames being a novelty item, and instead just another aspect of a realistic (read: “consistent with lore”, to avoid getting into the whole discussion about realism in a fantasy world) narration. Bridging into... This again honestly kind of rubs me the wrong way, precisely because sex in real life isn't even sometimes tasteful. This is, again, one of the points Witcher gets right: When the game takes place in some seedy port town, one would need quite extensive an explanation for why there would not be some unseemly behaviour about, or why the PC couldn't partake in such. Emphasis on “could”, though: Apart from a few scripted scenes with romantic interests, you can certainly play the Witcher games without engaging into any kind of lewdness. The point of an RPG -- IMHO -- is to allow the player to dictate the course of the story, after all. This ties into another issue which has been raised here, namely that of sexual violence, which I feel compelled to address even at the risk of having the thread locked down: To point, I don't approve of rape. I'm not sure why this would even need to be stated, as I don't approve of murder, either, but no one will accuse me of pandering to wannabe serial killers if I suggest that yes, perhaps there should be some depictions of violence -- with blood and all, as opposed to the “softcore” variety -- and the player character might even conceivably kill someone! The player murdering innocent people heinously is basic fodder of cRPGs: The choice should be there, both for those who wish to tell a dark story with a villain instead of a hero, and because there is no merit in choosing good without the possibility of choosing evil. Even tangentially bringing in sex will cause the discussion to grind to halt, however. Topically, George R. R. Martin has opinionated on the double standards around this issue, which provides me with my final bridge: I tend to agree; the sex scenes are often pointless and tacky. I don't think it's really a fair comparison, though, as GoT is a static narrative, whereas videogames -- and RPGs in particular -- are an interactive one. You can't reasonably choose to skip sexually explicit content in a book or a TV show, but you can (or certainly should be able to) do so in a game. I can't really stress this point enough: What I'm advocating is not turning the game into pornography, but rather that the devs would be honest to their chosen setting -- which I am fairly certain is not devoid of sex -- and not pussyfoot around topics for the fear of making people uncomfortable. The point about most videogame writers not having what it takes to depict sex in a way that wouldn't just come off as embarrassing is a valid one. However, this is mostly due to the fact that most videogame writers honestly just aren't very good writers, period. I would not have backed this game if I thought it was going to be some teenage escape fantasy; I backed it because it was pitched by who I consider the best writers in the industry, with a solid track record of creating genuinely insightful and mature stories. I find it dubious they'd falter now simply because of the inclusion of naughty bits. Edit: And before anyone says it, yeah, I figure it's too late to be pushing for any great-big changes in the narrative approach to PoE. It's an interesting enough topic in and of itself, though. >_>

In the recent Red Bull article, it was mentioned that one advantage of PoE being crowd-funded is that there's no pressure for Obsidian to make the game family friendly in order to appeal to as big a chunk of the market as possible, and the article went on to confirm sex will not be treated as any kind of a taboo. One has to wonder, though, will the devs be really pushing the envelope in this regard, or settle for the safer (and perhaps for them as well more comfortable) path of acknowledging sexuality, but stopping short of calling things by their real names or providing graphic depictions? This “high road” of what you might call softcore sexuality wouldn't exactly be anything new to the world of cRPGs -- the Dragon Age series for example hasn't shied away from such matters, even if Bioware does still resort to euphemisms and fully clothed sex scenes. The Witcher has already established that gamers are mature enough to handle this kind of content, I feel it'd be a missed opportunity for Obsidian to not go all out now that they don't have no answer to anyone but the backers. That being said, I'm not suggesting sex and filthy language should be oozing from every crevice of the game, especially since I do recognise that a lot of people are uncomfortable with such. Still, I feel that unless lore is provided for why the people inhabiting the world of PoE are particularly prudish, these things should at least from time to time emerge to the surface, and be there for the player to more fully submerge in should they choose. I'm sure I don't need to go into why it's silly how extremely graphic depictions of death and torture are A-OK, but erects **** are a no-no. So, discuss! And do try to keep it civil, pretty please, as I fear the choice of topic alone is already causing many a mod to hover their cursors above the lock button. >_>

I think this would be something that would realistically depend on just how well the different species are integrated. It's been mentioned that there are dwarves and elves living among humans and they generally adopt the dominant culture, which one would expect to have a mitigating effect to any instinctive racist tendencies. As has been discussed in this thread, humans are hard-wired to regard kin more favourably, but the major caveat to this is that what constitutes "kin" is highly arbitrary, arising for nurture rather than nature. As a rule of thumb, we see as kin those with shared life experiences, though learned values also of course affect this. As an example, a white person who has grown up with other white people might view black people as "the other", something to be feared and hated, unless they have been instilled with a particularly enlightened outlook. Meanwhile, a white person who has grown up with black people would be likely to view them as equal -- again unless they have been instilled with an ideology to the contrary. As a more extreme example, a human who has spend a lot of time with, say, dogs since early childhood would be likely to naturally empathise with them, despite the lack of even a common language. So to recap, widespread prejudise is likely to be directed toward those who are for idelogical reasons seen as inferior (though such ideology can of course be self-motivated; see The White Man's Burden, or antisemitism in feudal Europe) or those who are distant and poorly understood; man always fears the unknown, after all. I doubt the fact that the species couldn't mate with each other would be a major factor, and the absence of "species traitors" might instead work to alleviate tensions -- no one likes those darn elves rolling into town and stealing all our men/women, after all. . Lack of integration, either due to members of a given species keeping to themselves or forced segregation, is a much more likely source of prejudice.

That's really kind of the problem here, though. Obviously, as a crowd-funded game PoE has a bit different status, since there were tens of thousands of people who were willing to shell out money for the concept alone, but the fact still stands that the only reason we really have to expect the game to be good is that the developers have told us so, and every developer tells us so. I'm not saying that Obsidian's not going to deliver what they've promised, but we're really counting our chickens before they've hatched, here: The word-of-mouth isn't based on any of us actually having played the game, but we're instead just passing along what the developers say. That's hype. That being said, I do recognise that there are plenty of successful games that have thrived on actual word-of-mouth alone. But the point is again that games like Minecraft are doing exactly what I'm advocating: Creating a quality product and trusting it to speak for itself, instead of relying on pre-release promotion. I fully expect PoE to be a very high-quality game with large popular appeal, so I don't see why Obsidian wouldn't do the same. As said, I can't help but feel they're helping prop up the whole rotten system by attending E3: Even if they're not themselves selling empty promises at the event, they're in part validating those sold by others.

You just keep telling yourself that. Nothing wrong with wearing a dress, of course. They're quite comfy, especially in the summer.

Wait, you don't honestly believe this? Take as an example Aliens: Colonial Marines. As everyone here by now likely knows, the game was upon a buggy, poorly-designed, lore-breaching and in just general unplayable piece of turd. Pretty much everyone who picked up the game had nothing but bad things to say about it. It got very poor reviews and quickly became a joke among gamers. It debuted as the biggest-selling game on all platforms it was released on in the UK, and went on to be one of the best-sellers of the year. Overall over a million copies have been sold, and the sales figures just keep on climbing as new DLCs are released. Word-of-mouth and negative previews did nothing (and could have done nothing) to stop the pre-order rush, which resulted in what I mentioned in my post: A glowing promise of a heart-poundingly exciting shooter taking place in a beloved sci-fi setting, backed by the gaming press enthusiastically reporting on the polished glimpses the studio had provided on forums like E3, and the expectations of the gamers then taking a life of their own as the hype grew. So why did the game continue to sell even after release? That's because while news of its suckiness reached you and me quickly, you have to appreciate that's because we're the kind of people who write long, detailed dissections of videogames on forums. For most people, the marketing did what it was supposed to: Controlled the public opinion to convince them to buy an inferior product, making the company a nifty bit of profit. Yes, word-of-mouth did help to stem the tide, but it's even now, over a year after the release, long ways from undoing the damage done by the hype. Edit: It has been pointed out to me no more DLCs are being released for Colonial Marines, so that's "continued to grow", then, I suppose. Shrugging and contending that "it's simply the way the world works" will always allow you to be right. That is the way the world works. But if everyone did that, nothing would ever change. >_>

Racism was confirmed in the Red Bull interview: Factions are apparently going to be as major a factor in gameplay as they were in F:NV, so I think we can expect that the player's choices will influence racial relations at least through their interactions with the more xenophobic factions and their counter-forces: Help a (anti-)racist faction gain power, convince them of the error of their ways, ridicule them in public, or wipe them out. That being said, I don't think it impossible the PC's reputation would directly influence how people see their race. If your Orlan character performs enough good deeds for the backwater, narrow-minded human village that previously wanted to toss you right out the gates the minute you walked in, they'll likely come to admit that at least some Orlan are alright, which is, y'know, progress? >_> Edit: Ninja'd! Humans! It's always them causing trouble, isn't it?

Anyways, if Obsidian doesn't include the functionality, it'll likely be modded in, as it was for NWN2. Personally I prefer to look at the appearance as a roleplaying limitation, even if it doesn't actually figure into gameplay. Are you bad enough dude to walk around town in a dress? ^_^

While I agree that Obsidian has delivered everything they promised and backers have no real justification for feeling betrayed in any way, I too tend to question the last bit I quoted up there -- specifically the "need" part. Yes, the buzz does help make sells, but as I see it this is a big reason for the qualitative decline in the game industry over the past two decades. E3 feeds the kind of journalistic sleight-of-hand where impressions of a game rather than the game itself are evaluated, the publications -- which themselves thrive on the hype -- acting as little more than glorified press agents. This encourages studios to invest in glitter over depth; eye-catching details instead of over-all quality. The hype created by the marketing drowns out the word-of-mouth and impartial reviews which, instead of sponsored previews and speculation, long ago used to be game journalism's main focus: What a studio needed to sell a game was for the game to be good enough for gamers and journalists to be able to honestly recommend it to their peers and readers, repectively. Especially with the Internet making passing along such information so much easier, there's absolutely no reason these days couldn't return -- other than that it's not in the interest of the companies who benefit from the current, marketing-driven system. I can't help but feel Obsidian is in part helping keep this beast alive with their mere attendance.