Enoch

So, normal PDT close-of-business was a half-hour ago. Wasn't there supposed to have been an update today?

Why is that lousy ? They might worry about the US deciding to go and kill these "extremists", even if it's not that likely, they might expect it. And no one wants to be bombed or have cruise missiles zipping around (that'd be a bit funny though, given their whining about NATO not bombing enough against Gaddafi) You're wrong on this one. Libyans hate the militias because they go around performing vigilante law such as killings, Sharia law, and they fight in the streets at night with heavy weapons. People don't like the militias. The militias are extremists (of the same form as the Taliban and Al Qaeda). The Libyans drove the militias out because they're scared of THE MILITIAS, not because they're scared of US drones. That's part of it. The other part is that much of the politics in Libya is essentially tribalism. It's not as if there's one "al Qaeda" faction and one "anti-al-Qeada" faction. It's that there are dozens of large clan-type groups, each of which have their rivalries, their bases of influence, their alliances, and their ties to foreign powers. Al Qaeda-type groups are, in some respects, an escape valve, in that muslim extremist groups are the largest and most influential non-clannish groups, and often the only option that many people can go to if they're not happy with how things are being run in their hometown. Thus, the leadership of these clans is often very much opposed to al Qaeda groups, first because it's a threat to their power, and second because opposing the extremists helps to curry favor with the U.S. and its allies. Of course, this is also the dynamic that has led to the U.S. and other Western powers (and, before 1991, Eastern powers, too) propping up many dicatorial regimes in the region over the last century. We find a clan leader who we think we can live with, and who is opposed to the factions that we want opposed (which up until 1979 was communism, and after that muslim extremism), and we help that guy secure and maintain control of the country. (I'd love to say that we've figured out a better way to do things, but then I look at Hamid Karzai.) Despite the flag-waving for the cameras, there really isn't much in the way of ground-level nationalism. The Libyans decided that most of them didn't want one particular clan leader around anymore (Qaddafi), but that hasn't coalesced into much drive to do "what's right for the country." More "what's right for my extended family," with a minority of "what's right under the guidance of my local imam." Even in countries that do have some strong nationalist sentiment, like Egypt and Pakistan, most of it tends to reside in the other major non-islamist, non-clan-based organization: the military. (Which, of course, spawns its own problems.)

I second this. Highly. A subforum and then maybe ONE locked sticky thread on the main discussion page pointing to the official subsection to shepherd people to the right place. I'd suggest un-pinning old Update threads after a day or two, as the information gets consolidated into the "Known Information" thread.

I think traps are OK... where it makes sense that somebody would construct and install a hidden trap. The question the becomes whether the gameworld would support enough instances of this happening to make trap detection/removal a viable, balanced skill for PCs/NPCs to invest in. D&D-type games have often put the cart before the horse, in this respect-- you see a lot of traps because the developers want to justify investment in the skill, rather than because it makes to do so sense in the context of the gameworld. That said, detecting and disarming traps doesn't often make for an especially deep or fun gameplay experience. If the presence of a trap merely feels like punishment for not investing sufficient resources into a skill, I don't think the developers have done their job very well. (See: most of Durlag's Tower.) If a trap is instead part of an overall interesting encounter design, though, it can help. (I'm thinking of that IWD2 map with the drums, here.)

The thing I always found appealing about D&D-type magic is how oddly specific it was. "Burning hands" has a specific range, intensity, duration, casting time, and material/verbal/somatic components, and there is no other spell in the book that simulates this effect with any variation of these factors. It's the short-range fire spell at level 1, and there is no level 2-9 short-range fire spell that parellels it. I like that because it conveys the sense that magic is not truly understood in any kind of systematic way. Wizards have this one recipe that they know creates short-range magical fire, but they're at a loss as to why it does so and which things in that recipe to change in order to alter the properties of that fire. Magic being something that is fundamentally mysterious (and possibly unknowable to mere mortals) is rather appealing. You don't get that same kind of sense with a system that has gradiated levels of the same effect. As to whether these effects are powered by memorization or some mana pool, I have no strong preference.

Backers should check their email-- I just got Update #4.

You do realize that Baldur's Gate worked this way, right? (It wasn't a perfect mirror, but I recall many characters scrounging about for XP with Imoen so that they could make it to level 2 before going and meeting Khalid & Jahiera, so that they would be higher level when they joined up. Wasn't always easy for a multi-class.)

Glad to hear that I wasn't misremembering entirely. We need to get Sammael in here to get a reminder of the details...

It's funny how this sounds like one of those "generic plot starters" from that "every Bioware game has the same plot" thing. I don't mean to imply that Obsidian redoes the same thing over and over, it's just this is so generic sounding, like it could describe a bunch of different games. I mean, it's not like they've done this hook before - wait a second, that's the plot to Mask of the Betrayer! And KotOR 2! And Fallout: New Vegas! Obsidian you hacks! It actually sounds quite similar to the descriptions of how Black Isle's cancelled BG3 ("The Black Hound") was going to kick off. (Caveat: This is from memory of a Long Time Ago.)

Well, KotOR2 did use this kind of expository device far more heavily (and on more plot-central subjects) than any other game I can think of, but it's not something that is totally unique to that game. Go read the dialogue response options that you get the first time you talk to Imoen in BG1, for example.

The appeal of magic in a medieval-type setting is that it captures something of the wonder with which pre-scientific peoples viewed the world. Everything was a little bit mysterious, and they came up with what we would now call "supernatural" explanations to resolve a lot of those mysteries. It's fun to imagine being in that situation and some of those supernatural explanations being actually true. But my core appeal would be this: Preserve the Mystery. Magic is interesting because it is unknown to the audience playing the game. Keep it like that. Sure, sketch out the general flavor of what each type of spellcaster can accomplish, and give us detailed descriptions on those lower-level abilities that would be common knowledge in the gameworld. One of the worst things about D&D RPGs is how intimately everybody knows all the details about what all the spells do, how powerful you have to be to cast them, etc., etc. (And, in turn, the way that Torment bucked that trend and went with mostly-custom spells was one of the things I loved about that game.)

One could argue that the optimal Kickstarter management policy is to let information out gradually over the course of the funding period. That way each new bit of pertinent info gets the project another trip to the frontpage of the pertinent blogs, forums, news sites, etc.

It has its plusses and minuses. The main advantage being that you avoid tedious talk-at-the-player exposition. You show rather than tell. Plus, a pure "blank slate" character can strain verisimilitude, depending on the setting and backstory. (I.e., you either go with some amnesiac or "new guy in a foreign environment" cliche, or you have some rather forehead-smacking "Dude who grew up in Candlekeep asking who Oghma is" moments) The primary disadvantage is that it takes the player out of the moment-- you're involved in a dialogue, thinking through how you're going to handle it, and the game throws you new information that changes the way you think about your own character in the middle of a conversation. (I personally rather liked that element of KotOR2, but I'm probably more easily impressed by narrative cleverness than most gamers are.)

Picking nits, but I'd argue that the Enclave in FO2 counts as an "ancient evil." Put into fantasy terms, they're the remnants of an empire whose war destroyed the world 2 centuries ago.

I'll dissent as a matter of personal taste here. When games (or films) try to scare me, it gets me stressed out, which makes me more resentful than respectful. I've enjoyed a few horror-ish pieces, but only in spite of their horror elements. (E.g., Alien and The Shining were good enough for me to forgive them for their horrory-ness.)

All I know is that the cash they rake in should not be weightless!

I'd argue that the "1 PC + joinable-NPCs" party setup plays more into Obsidian's strengths as a studio. When you're desiging the entire party, non-partymember interactions (most of which tends to be combat) and overall plotting have to be enough to carry the game and hold the player's interest. And joinable-NPC interactions have long been one of things that Obsidian-folks tend to do better than most.

I never had a problem with Peragus, but Citadel Station was pretty awful.

I very much doubt this as well. Additionally, with the 6-8 joinable-NPC count that the stretch goals have given us, allowing jNPCs to die permanently could very quickly put the player into a situtation where he or she can't field a full party. Also, I agree with others who have posted their dislike of viable resurrection as a matter of developing the gameworld. It's just such an extreme change from the Human Condition As We Know It, it can't help but make the setting and characters less relateable to the player.

I first registered when I was playing Torment for the first time, and I bought that (I think) in January of 2000-- shortly after getting back to campus for the 2nd semester of my Junior year of college. Probably closer to a lurker than a habitual poster, though.

This question is silly. It's purely a dog-whistle for traditionalists who want to vent about the way certain games publishers have used post-launch content over the last decade or so. The term "expansion pack" is meaningless, apart from the nostalgia-trigger-- do you think that you're going to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a box with a disc in it for $35? The only game that still works like that anymore is WoW. It's way to early to be talking about this kind of thing, but the core principle for post-launch content remains the same as it was in 1997: Fans will be happy if you make good content and offer it at a fair price.

Just blue-sky thinking here, but wouldn't it be neat if there were some sort of countervailing mechanic that served as a disincentive to rest? Not talking "spirit meter" territory, but it'd be kinda cool if there were an area of magical/mystical abilities that actually peak in effectiveness when you've gone a long while without sleeping. "Well, we're pretty beat up and should probably camp for the night, but that's going to bring our Psionicist (or whatever) back to his 'groggy early morning' state, and we used up all of our espresso supplies three days ago." (Or perhaps Barbarians just can't get up the urge to Rage properly until after they've had lunch... and ripped off a couple of limbs.)

I think I'd be on board with that.

Most of my experience with a threat mechanic has been in DA:O, so, to the extent that said game is atypical, this may be off-base. But it infuriated me in that game. The game didn't support formation-based tactics much at all (probably because they're tough to pull off with a gamepad), but they wanted to give the players a means to protect the 'squishier' folks in the party. Thus, a 'threat mechanic.' Which worked as an invisible variable that exerted mind control on every opponent the party faced. Everything, from the most disciplined combat veterans, to packs of wolves, to mindless undead and constructs had their tactical decisions driven by this gamey mechanic rather than (AI simulated) rational (or irrational) thought. It smashed any illusion that our opponents were anything other than AI algorithms. A pure "taunt" ability to redirect the focus of an enemy has a little bit of verisimilitude, I guess. But the chance of success should probably be quite low in most situations, and it shouldn't work at all on any enemy who lacks the capacity to understand whatever means of communication is used to convey the taunt. But, most importantly, as gamepad support probably isn't going to be a major concern, there really isn't much reason not to use tactical positioning as the primary means of controlling which characters end up going toe-to-claw with the enemy.

The whole thing depends of the question of "What is a Hit Point?" If Hit Points represent an actual percentage of physical damage, then most of the comments here make some sense. But there also should be almost no opportunities to increase one's Hit Points over the course of the game-- people just don't get that much more resilient simply by punching a lot of goblins and rescuing a lot of kittens. If Hit Points instead represent some kind of abstract "Hero Mojo," however, any manner of regeneration systems can then be employed. Potions may not make the most sense, but some other "gamey" device can be employed to make the use of consumables and magical abilities (whether the regeneration they grant is immediate or gradual) in the midst of combat into an interesting tactical decision.