anameforobsidian

Yes, those pesky concerns like rent and food. People buying games have to pay rent and food. I'm not saying that I know the optimal price, but that argument cuts both ways.

This point can't be stressed enough for criticism of faux-medieval works. The decision to keep questionable elements was made by a person working right now. Also, why do we insist on certain medieval aspects out of realism, like rape, without including all medieval aspects like rampant spousal abuse? I didn't pick up pedophilic undertones, but Merrill displays typical signs of preadolescence, like larger eyes, smaller frame, and vulnerability so it can certainly be read that way. Also, in-game-age isn't a great determinant of pedophilia. The Asura from Guild Wars 2 are a perfect example of this: If anyone wanted to have sex with that (even simulated) I would have no problem calling them a pedophile.

Might is not the same thing as strength. I assume it means strength of soul.

In this update it looks like a full creature: https://eternity.obsidian.net/news/update-72-death-godlike-and-expected-ship-date Or are you saying that they will be player specific forms not creatures regularly existing in the game. They will be player specific forms, not creatures in the game. I'm almost positive that I've read that in the dev comments.

There's no evidence of this. Yes, if everyone bought a game payed higher prices it would be better for people who make the games, but there is no evidence that everyone who buys at steam sale price would buy it at full price.

The forms are not going to be direct transitions into creatures. It's going to be spirit animal type thing, getting a cat's head an all that.

I don't think that's too much to ask for, and it does create a great deal of verisimilitude.

There were a metric crapton of different endings, since you would interact with each character differently based on your relationship with them and thus they would have different goals. Hell, the choice to take down the arms-dealer or not in the first mission changed the outcome of the ending. Yes, it only had two main endings, but FNV only had 4 main endings.

- Dungeon Runners aren't fun. - RTwP is frequently smarter than turn based combat - The original campaign of NWN2 was better than any of Bioware's campaigns - Item Durability and crafting should have been left in the game. - Hard counters occasionally make for fun combat. - min-maxers are annoying to listen to - Skyrim is an open-world shooter that masquerades as an RPG

I never did get a response about in game romance being fairly coercive since the player controls all the variables and can force characters to do what the player wants.

If they don't feel like they can do it right and are afraid it will be the exact same failure. There's a reason no one ever released a virtual boy competitor; sometimes an idea is either bad, too hard to implement, or the people who could make it don't want to. As for the last one, it's very rare to get good content from someone who does not enjoy the content they are making.

I prefer floating text for ambient sound (as a separate option), rather than text on the bottom of the screen. I'm not hearing impaired, but family members are, so I use CC for everything out of habit and comfort.

Uh no, they aren't supporting modding at all. The game is being made with Unity, which means you can use Unity to mod it. Just like any other game made with Unity. But per their own interviews they are not doing anything to assist actual modders or making any kind of tool to make modding easier. Read the more recent interviews. Also no PC game is "mod unfriendly", any game can be modded even games that are designed not to be. It is just a matter of how much work the modder has to put in to do it. I don't think you can use Unity to decompile code. Yes, it's put together in Unity, but it ships as an exe with resources. That's asking for far too much. Their internal tools give them a substantial advantage over other companies (there's a reason Obsidian kicks the crap out of other companies when it comes to reactivity, and it's not just the talent of their writing staff), and would be marketable products in their own right. Public funding shouldn't mean you have to give away your kitchen sink. And they've already said they are trying to make the file types as open as possible, so that's the best they can do. They never promised to make a spiritual successor to NWN.

"Supporters of romance," "promancers," "anti-romance propaganda," the case for romance in a game as made by "science?" It's a good thing this thread isn't ridiculous at all. That said, I'm fairly against romances in games. The all-powerful agency of the player character combined with the traditional male-power fantasy trip makes game romances fairly rapey. In a game romance the player decides to pursue the romance, then they enter into a set of situations that they almost entirely control, if the "right" responses are selected (and can easily be researched ahead of time) the game / npc rewards the character with a sex scene. That's a power-differential that's far more reminiscent of mind-control porn than an equal relationship between partners. It can be even more sinister than the Witcher's sex cards, because it can make the player feel good about behaving appropriately in a situation in which they have complete control. There's also the problem of romances furthering nice guy and girl syndrome. The player character will do something that's completely appropriate within the context of the scene, like helping a character find their father or giving a gift that a character will like, and being offered sex in exchange. The whole "I give you ten rings and kill your mother, and then we have sex" mechanic reeks of prostitution.

They have higher single target damage, but I don't see the problem with that. Casters have higher AoE damage. That's more a translation of 4e, and in my opinion 4e did casting really well.

I agree mostly with this topic, but think that it is the kind of thing best left to an expansion or sequel. A different character model for each would be difficult, and as sheer utility goes, only missing head, feet, or rings would probably offer enough utility to avoid missing armor.

Fallout only has its current level of fame because of Fallout 3, and that has nothing to do with modding. Here are publications that rank an (or several) Infinity Engine game higher than Fallout 1 or 2. PCgamer, IGN, Gameinformer, G4TV, metacritic. That's a pretty strong sign of consensus, of the cultural impact and longevity, if not the actual quality of the game.

Or their dialogue creator. They've bragged several times about how awesome it is, and I doubt the share it (although they could probably make quite a bit of money selling it as a 3rd party tool).

And yet the IE games have the same longevity and level of affection as Fallout.

I'll repost something I just put in the update thread. The death godlike are the first thing I've seen that makes me want in game romance. It could be the greatest subversion of RPG romance ever. Player: Take off the helmet-thing. Deathlike: I'm scared. Player: I know. But I love you the way you really are. Deathlike: But this helmet-thing is who I am.... Player: Trust me. Deathlike: (Takes off helmet-thing. In place of her eye are mouths with tentacles coming out, trying to lick the player. A vaguely pus-like fluid covers them.) Player: (Makes a fortitude check not to vomit.) Player: (rolls a 1.) Player: (vomits into eye-sockets.) Deathlike: (Purulent tentacles eat vomit.) Game: var_deathlikeromance = 0;

I'm disappointed by the stretch-goal decision, but I'm sure they know what's best for the development process. I loved the update, loved the art. The death godlike are the first thing I've seen that makes me want in game romance. It could be the greatest subversion of RPG romance ever. Player: Take off the helmet-thing. Deathlike: I'm scared. Player: I know. But I love you the way you really are. Deathlike: But this helmet-thing is who I am.... Player: Trust me. Deathlike: (Takes off helmet-thing. In place of her eye are mouths with tentacles coming out, trying to lick the player. A vaguely pus-like fluid covers them.) Player: (Makes a fortitude check not to vomit.) Player: (rolls a 1.) Player: (vomits into eye-sockets.) Game: var_deathlikeromance = 0;

I see it differently. I enjoy making a distinct character, and the role-playing part for me is in dialogue and reactivity. The idea that the world is responding to me, or what my character says and does, is something I greatly enjoy. That's the premise on which I backed, btw. It's a significant part of the reason I backed too. I don't want just an RPG, I want a good one. That requires reactivity. When it comes to the definitions though, I'm pretty sure the history behind it is relatively clear. A lot of VNs have reactivity in the story and dialogue, but I wouldn't call them RPGs.

That's not even including the massive positioning advantage summons give the mage who uses them. Low level summons could be used to block and trap enemies without caring a whit about their armor/defenses/or abilities. A favorite tactic of mine was to use wish to summon a bunny swarm, and then frantically start casting / using ranged attacks while the enemy was plowing through a field of bunnies.

It's important to point out that role-playing in an RPG is not the same definition as role-playing in a play. It originally meant the character has a role, a defined set of tasks/responsibilities/capabilities within the party. As story started to matter more, the two became conflated, but in the sense of RPG it could be seen broadly as a build (and many peoples' characters were so bound by archetypes that they were the same). I do not see choice and consequence as necessary for an RPG, other than build choice, because there are plenty of dungeon runners that are widely acknowledged as RPGs without it. However, it is the hallmark of a good RPG. If you think this is just making arbitrary distinctions, that doesn't match the actual origins remember that D&D terminology is anything but precise. In a dungeon, my characters go down a level so they can fight monsters which will help them go up a level, which will let them go down even more levels.

One other question, I'm holding off on finalizing my "purchase" until I know what extra stretchgoals are available. I'd like to add the expansion if more stretchgoals are available, but I won't if they aren't. So, what should I do?