Sonntam

Currently? As of v392, 40 Portraits total. Specifically, as a Female Fire Godlike, 1. Yeah, I really hope they take the time to make a whole bunch of extra portraits. There should ideally be at least three per sub-race per gender (so 18 human portraits, 24 Godlike portaits, etc). The problem with portraits like that is that they almost never fit the style of the game. Even almost 15 years later, I can't find a single good custom portrait pack for Baldur's Gate II that fits the Baldur's Gate II style. The same goes for Baldur's Gate - I'd still be willing to kill for the Baldur's Gate II NPC:s in Baldur's Gate's style. Another problem is that for races like orlans or Aumauas you would be hard pressed to find appropriate portraits, unless some friendly artist decides to make more portraits. I personally am holding out right now for hooded portraits that BAdler promised. A fitting portrait for my orlan rogue seems to be too much ask for, apparently...

Yeah, that bothered me too. Especially with all those accents over names, I just have trouble imagining how all that sounds.

Actually, both in the backer beta and in the streams, they can act as meatshields. Not sure if it's a bug though. It's a bug. But I wouldn't mind if the bug persisted even till launch.

I don't know about you, but I pre-ordered the game when I saw I would get a miniature giant space piglet. The linux version helped, but the piglet sealed the deal. Thanks for saying that, because I really had trouble believing anyone would like those pre-order bonuses. I literally burst out in laughter when I first saw what the bonuses were. I couldn't imagine anything more useless to me even if I tried... good to see that at least someone likes that piglet.

Sigh. 1) Exorbitantly high prize. 2) Regional prizing. (Even on GOG which is against that sort of thing, and only does it when publishers stubbornly demand it.) 3) A bajillion different "editions" released simultaneously. (a.k.a. day-one DLC by a new name.) 4) DRM in the Steam version. So much for the "Crowd funding lets us do things differently than greedy-evil-big-publisher controlled projects!" platform the kickstarter ran on, and all the assurances that Paradox coming on board wouldn't change that. 1) The game itself costs only 45 dollars. This Royal Edition has tons of unnecessary stuff like making of documentaries, art-books, almanachs, novels... do you really need that crap? If someone wants that for additional 40 dollars, their choice. I bought artbooks for 30 dollars myself. 3) Day one DLC of a book! Yaaaay! Seriously, I can't imagine why you would care about that. It's not like Obsidian locked content like quests/companion/playable races or anything else of worth. The only real in-game stuff you get are pre-order bonuses which are truly laughable. A ring and space piglet? I can't imagine this being a deal-breaker for anyone except the most hardcore of collectionists. 4) You can buy it on GoG without DRM. What's the problem? And considering how many people ask in General Discussions whether you can buy the game on Steam, instead of website/gog, it's obvious that some people would be really disappointed if Steam was not an option.

That is very comforting to hear! Cowled portraits would indeed be an excellent option.

Flashback to 1984 or thereabouts. Our first ever AD&D session. I was voted DM. We spent an entire Sunday lovingly crafting our characters. Even carefully drew portraits to the best of our ability. Then we set out for Adventure, using some prepared module, don't even remember what. Miraculously the party survives the first encounter with goblins or something. There's a chest. The thief checks for traps. I secretly roll, like, a 3. No traps found. He opens it. "As you open it, a small needle flicks out of the lock and jabs you in the wrist. Roll a saving throw against Poison." It's another 2 or 3. "Uh... well, you're dead I guess. Wanna roll a new character?" That... was not fun. It is also conceivable that at least a part of my aversion for save-or-die mechanics can be traced down to that incident. Young minds are impressionable after all. If you get a plank of wood and set it on the floor to walk on it, it still feels like you're walking on the floor. If you use that same plank of wood to bridge a gap that would surely kill you if you fell, the walk across it wouldn't feel like you're walking on the floor in the same way. The plank is the same, the balance is the same, but the only difference is the thought that "if you take one step to either side you will die" and that changes the experience. I think that playing a game with the intention of having a "magical journey with ups and downs" isn't truly possible unless the chance of defeat is looming around. It's difficult for a lot of people to understand (I've seen countless arguments about how "hardcore" mode in video games is pointless by people who don't understand the concept of danger I'm talking about) and the feeling you get from overcoming obstacles and challenges is the thrill that some of us seek. Baldur's Gate has a million ways to die, and a million ways to succeed. Just like comparing the variables of mortality in real life, it's a fun way to emulate how dangerous and thrilling life might have been in those times. If you consider the concept of dying in anyway to be unfair then that's already overlooking the intent of the game's design. I think main point why it feels so unfair, is how arbitrary it feels. You wouldn't exactly expect to be able to die from looting a chest. It's anticlimatic and boring. Same goes for BG2. You don't necessarily know which enemies to expect, what their resistances are and in which way you should have prepared. This means you have to reload a lot, try to find weaknesses for enemies (which then make the enemy often absolutely trivial) or just google the solution. It doesn't feel like skill to me. More like puzzle solving in adventure games where you just use every item on everything and hope it will let you progress. (Or you google a walkthrough.) I like being able to plan in advance and with BG2 planning in advance means... well, go and read a DnD guidebook.

The only thing I worry about is the Stronghold system. It could easily be too easy too manage or too difficult. Too many events, too little events. Bugs that make your efforts on building up the stronghold go to waste. Strongholds are what I am most looking forward to. Would be a shame if it ended up unpolished. It's one of the things where lack of balance cohld suck all the fun out of it.

I always thought the rationale behind Lawful/Chaotic and Good/Evil interesting. The combinations had very interesting potential. But on the other hand it felt like it made some characters more flat. It's a Chaotic Evil character, everyone beware, there will be no reason whatsoever behind their actions! And if you try to deviate and make the Chaotic Evil character more interesting, you often had to change alignment too. Or sometimes it didn't fit at all. (Like, where would you put Kreia? True Neutral? Chaotic Evil? "We don't really know, she's kinda weird"?) Or the definitions for Neutral characters were always wonky. Do you have to do five bad deeds and five good deeds per day to be Neutral? Does killing someone in self-interest make you evil? Does saving a person just because you like them good? It just feels like Neutral characters can slip into one or the other cathegory (Good/Evil) way too easily. Also, justifications for your actions are ultra important in DnD system. It may work in tabletop games, but games like BG won't ask you "geee, did you help that old man because you are nice or because you want to use him later?". It's just decided that you did a good deed, bham, now you are the good guy. With reputations the system does not work against you. Yes, you may be cruel, but it happens that everyone sees you as a benevolent person. The joke will be on them when you rob them and kill their dog. Equally a person who defines themselves as fair and good, may actually come across as too cruel. Oh woe, the world does not understand that this witch was evil and needed to be killed. But I shall still bring peace and justice to the world, no matter what others may think of me. Reputations really just add more roleplaying potential and make the world more believable. After all, not everyone will know exactly what kind of person you are just from hear and say.

Eh, Neutral Evil isn't really the kind that hunts for sport on principle. But if you RP Neutral Evil strictly, then yeah, there's a lot of quests you shouldn't even consider doing. The principal tenet of Neutral Evil is pretty much selfishness. If there's nothing in it for you, screw it. They don't go out of their way to be evil, but they tend to do evil because it benefits them. Chaotic Evil is the kind that hunts other sentients for sport. Don't most quests offer a reward? Sounds like a pretty good reason to do anything for another human being: you get paid!

Testing and balance is not very interesting to talk about. Most questions about balance etc. are answered in the beta threads. Plus, with all the winter holidays, no surprise the devs are so quiet. I think another update should be coming soon, just give them a couple weeks to get back into work flow.

If I remember correctly, the only two romances that Obsidian did was in Mask of the Betrayer and Alpha Protocol. In both cases, no more than the average romance, so I can understand their continence. To be honest, I'm not sure if they employ someone who would be able to write a good romance. There was also Kotor 2. Relationship with Visas was pretty nice. Atton is pretty close to a romance, even if the protagonist don't reciprocate his feelings. Actually that's even the game that made me reconsider my opinion of Obsidian and their ability to write romances. Really? DLC romances? That is HIGHLY unlikely. In whole game history am not able to give a single case of something like that. MotB is an expansion and one that had romances (no matter how little there was of the actual romance content). Also, I could name you Bioware as an example of a studio that constantly offers new companions and romances in DLCs... but let's not go there. They rarely handle DLCs well. No, not from my side as I wouldn't be able to relate to the party interaction that is required for Romance. I always say Romance is basically between humanoid creatures, so to expect Romance between a Centaur and a human would be unrealistic for me ? Well, people were ecstatic when it came to romances in Mass Effect. Turians are not very human like, but Garrus was still a very popular romance choice. Also, I personally always wanted to romance a batarian and those are pretty ugly, no matter how you look at it. Thats a good idea, they could add Romance through an expansion/ DLC's And effectively test the waters, the only issue may be normally Romance isn't tied to the plot? Yes, romance is often not tied to the plot and I find that personally a disappointment. If you romanced Safiya in MotB the romance was plot relevant and could have (and should have!) allowed to explore more the dichotomy between yourself/Akachi and Safiya/Founder... along the lines of "how can you trust yourself when you are the mask and the mask is you?". How much of the feelings is really yours and how much of it belongs to someone else? Atton "romance" was also relevant to the plot, if only because Atton's main motivation for following a female protagonist was that he had a massive crush on her. Otherwise I could mention Bioware games where often romancing plot critical characters (like Morrigan) would offer perhaps more insight/provide more interesting choices (like following her through the Eluvian).

Pillars of Eternity is the very epitome of playing it safe. The lore of the world itself is pretty classic, with dwarves and elves abound. Also, I would argue that Obsidian has far more experience with dungeons, translations, big worlds, you name it, rather than with romances. Of course they didn't add romances. Romances are generally considered to be high risk and demand a lot of effort (and are easy to screw up). HOWEVER, Obsidian is more known to take risks in DLCs/expansions. In F:NV they played around with gameplay mechanics a lot. Dead Money had wonderful survival gameplay (that could have been not everyone's cup of tea). And so on and so on. While not add a couple romances in expansions, then? Especially if someone from Obsidian says "yes, I really want to write romance for this character, because it will make a lot of sense from plot point of view"? (Chris Avellon, you know we love your tragic and unrequited romances.)

While I generally agree, I see no reason for the game to make that decision for me. In fact, I would find it even more infuriating as to why I can't get a Toggle when the game would already Toggle for me based on landscaping. True. Most of the time running around towns I wish I could go faster. In dungeons it's not much of a problem, because you have to be careful of traps and enemies. Same with wilderness. But towns? Speak to this NPC, do a fetch quest for that merchant, run all the way back and then try to remember where you have to give in the other quest. It's pretty annoying and if I had to walk, it would be absolutely infuriating.

I guess this is the reason why I hope there will be one-night stands (with companions or NPCs), awkward flirting (probably not with companions, but NPCs are alright too) and some marriages (because weddings are hilarious, especially when they are done for plot reasons). I am pretty okay with romances being not a thing in the sense that half companions be romanceable and their romance must have same outline (flirt at beginning, kiss in middle of the game, have sex before the major boss fight at the end). What was done in Kotor 2 with Atton was pretty neat. As a protagonist you are unable to return Atton's feelings, so while Atton is actually trying to romance you as the player, but you are like "I see nothing, hear nothing, go and chart the course for the next planet, Atton". It allows more complexity for Atton and the kind of unrequited, conditionless love is pretty fun to watch, too. I wouldn't mind if player character in PoE was allowed to go Atton route and crush on a companion, without ever getting together. Sort of similar as with Visas (minus the sexual tension) where you just meditate together, sharing a very close and platonic bond. This is what I like the most about romances, to be honest, having your character become very close to a specific character and having the game acknowledge that THIS is the one, mostfavorite companion, would run off into the sunset together, 10/10, may only death do us apart.

I can completely understand not liking the (A)D&D rule set. It's not hard to find people who loved the IE games in spite of them being D&D based (for example). But what I don't understand is this part: These are not rare game qualities. That is to say, if you're just craving a good story and memorable companions/NPCs you don't need to seek out indie/kickstarter games to find them. What PoE brings to the table is the OTHER stuff. The stuff that IS difficult (almost impossible, in fact) to find in today's rpgs... such as the gameplay... a game that plays like a *game* rather than a glorified interactive movie. The tactical party based combat, with its Isometric camera view of the battlefield and its real time with pause. The complex stat-driven character building, And of course the PC oriented controls, etc. It's one thing to have a good story, it's another to have a good story with a lot of choices that influence the world. For example, Bioware games have a lot of choices, but what makes their games good are companions or memorable scenes. The main plot is usually very simple and there is little complexity. Or perhaps let's consider Fallout: New Vegas. Great game, lots of choices that change the world, but in the end it's mainly an open world game, not an RPG with a tight story and a lot of dialogue options that will give you room to RP your character. Mostly the game is about the world, about sightseeing and about changing this place for better or worse. What I really want from Pillars of Eternity is a mix between MotB and Kotor 2. Good personal story with room for roleplay, memorable companions that are heavily involved in the storyline, choices that allow you to shape your story and leaving an impact on the game world. You would think there would be games like that, but unfortunately the game that comes closest to creating such an experience would be Shadowrun: Dragonfall (and Bioware games if you are feeling generous). It's an awfully little selection, if you ask me, even when considering Bioware games.

Generally I think current reputation system could for in favor of a romance system. For example, some characters could be more attracted to "clever" character who always jokes around and that would be reflected in dialogue. Perhaps it would be easier to romance the character. Or otherwise maybe a companion could go: "wow I never thought I would fall for a clown like you, but I guess here we are". I think it would be easier than with appearance, especially since beauty standards can vary a lot (especially with different races like we have in PoE). We don't have only humans here, so maybe aumaua like more asymetrical faces than humans do. What about orlans? Do they maybe like very high set and small noses? And do you really want to track how every race perceives your beauty? At the same time a standardized beauty system may oversimplify things too much. Plus, if face recognition software for beauty became a thing, many people would feel forced go the safe route and take the perfect face from the internet that allows you to gain perfect beauty scores. Since the best part about RPGs for me is to make my own unique character, I would feel very grumpy indeed.

I agree with those points! I prefer less loot, but more meaning behind it. So that every upgrade feels important and cool and not that you change gear after every five quests. A good crafting system would be cool too. DA:I went the right path with letting material determine color of gear, but did not go far enough for my tastes. I also wish there were more accessories... I love earrings, but for some reason those were only an option in old school RPGs.

I like with Steam how the saves can be uploaded online. Since I have a ****ty laptop for myself there is a good gaming PC that my sister and I share with my dad, sometimes I play a game on my laptop and then once I can, I play the game from the PC with better performance. No hassle with copying the saves to another computer and then back again to the laptop. Steam handles that perfectly by itself.

I agree. Best demo would be the very beginning right up to the point you get to the strange machine and [spoilerS] happen. Leaves you on a cliff-hanger, you get a basic idea for writing, for combat and the general feeling of the game.

The next expansion will be founded from the sales. No sales, no expansion. And since many of us want for Obsidian hold their own IP and make content for it... it's not surprising people care.

Seeing the few sidequests alone is enough to excite me. Wonderfully written, surprisingly mundane and realistic. You can imagine all the NPCs going about their daily life with crops and worries thaf come with a farmer's life. At the same time pretty much all of the quests we saw had entertaining plot twists and even rather simple "fetch dragon egg" quest has a couple surprises for you. And it doesn't feel forced, but rather natural. Life is complicated and **** happens sometimes. Adding the high variety of ways to deal with difficult situations is a joy. In conversations you can react in so many ways, even in the simplest quests. It's absolutely mind-blowing.

Fair enough, you do realize that Bioware has tried very hard to improve DA:I on almost all levels ( and I assume that will include Romance ) and it has been receiving mostly favourable reviews? AAA+ games always have good reviews. The more money was put into a game, the higher the review scores. Also, Bioware is not really prone to improving itself. They try to entertain, make entertaining story, entertaining characters... opposed to something really good, really outstanding. Sometimes Bioware succeeds at providing entertainment, but it's no surprise they never become truly amazing. For that one has to reach for the stars and Bioware is pretty comfortable with their level now. Plus, with this many fans this is all they have to do to be financially successful. Provide story, provide choices, provide romances and they're good to go. If you want a high budget story-based RPG you can't be picky, that's just reality. Hell, I myself will buy DA:I and God knows how little love I have for Bioware and their games.

It's nice to see shots from the game, however I almost think too much was shown. Either way, there was nothing spectacular about this trailer. Paradox better do better. If they don't do something as good as their Crusader Kings 2 promotions, which are really the only good promotions I've ever seen them do, I'm going to say that Obsidian never should have partnered with them. Most of the stuff we've been shown comes from the backer beta. The only new things are maybe the dragons, the plant creatures and the Gilded Vale. Pretty little, if you ask me.

The dragons look amazing. Also, they have like 8 separate wings? Looks rather pretty.