kanisatha

Ah, so I'm supposed to be happy about a game that I will hate and not play just because it will be a game you will like? Yeah no. I'd rather have the PoE series end up dead than turned into a D:OS clone. Besides, why stop at making it TB because it will be more popular? By that logic Obs should go even further and turn the game into an MMO shooter, because that will surely make it a whole heck of a lot more popular. Also, show me the evidence that RTwP games "don't make money." PoE1 made a good amount of money for Obs. And furthermore, there is no evidence that TB is what made the D:OS games popular. My reading of those games tells me that cooperative multiplayer is what made those games popular, and having TB combat was merely a necessary artifact of having coop multiplayer.

That's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine, as I am also entitled to my feelings. I despice TB combat and find it to be vastly inferior to RTwP in every conceivable way, and will not play and be very angry with a TB PoE3. A TB PoE Tactics game I won't care about, so long as it is not represented as PoE3.

Well this is what horrifies me. I can live with a PoE3 built as a RTwP game with a TB option, but would hate and be, as an early backer of PoE1, angry with a decision to go TB as the default. If Obs wants to make a TB game in the PoE world, then they should go and do that with a completely new game and not alienate and throw under the bus the original PoE fans by fundamentally changing the core characteristics of the PoE games - isometric, party-based, and RTwP.

I also liked Enterprise which, alongside DS9, were my favorite ST series. Never understood all the complaints about Enterprise; seemed rather nittpicky. And yes, many TNG episodes were lousy and Picard routinely annoyed the heck out of me.

Fair enough. I liked DA3, and by contrast have hated the Elder Scrolls games. I abandoned Skyrim at about the halfway point and have never gone back to it.

A very interesting ... and sad read. I was so looking forward to DA4. I still hope it eventually turns out good as a single-player game, but if it is an MP game with SP as a secondary afterthought I can't see myself buying it.

I'm on the "It's CDPR or Larian" bandwagon. Both have talked about their yet to be revealed RPG as using an existing well-known IP that is new for them, so D&D would be a very likely fit. Also, Larian's denial was that they were not working on BG3, which could very well just be semantics because it is very likely a new game set in the Realms and BG-esque, but NOT named BG3. However, CDPR bought a whole bunch of additional office space and hired an addtional 150 or so new personnel recently, which would fit with a huge AAA new game which is exactly what the current WotC boss has been wanting for a new D&D game. So either of these studios is a very good and likely possibility, though my personal preference would be for CDPR.

Yup. Was extremely pissed when they killed Jadzia off. My crush too.

To be fair to RAS, the Dark Elf Trilogy was quite good, imo, truly made you feel the suffering of someone who doesn't want to be who he was raised to be and who doesn't belong anywhere, both under ground as well as on the surface. It was the series of novels that introduced me to the Realms and to D&D novels.

They said on their discord that next update will be really soon. They are also responding to questions on their forum.

That's the smart way to do it. You don't piss off the superfans of your game and you actually get them to buy the game when it's released. Rest of the crown will most likely gladly wait a year or two for sales anyways. Weird though, that even Ubisoft is turning to Epic Store, since they have their own store. Epic must be paying a lot to get someone like Ubisoft to ditch thier own store. Sorry but I don't see how this is any sort of compromise. You still don't get the game for a year. What meaningful difference does having it as a preorder make?

Can't find anywhere whether this is the new game (Project Gustav) they've been working on. Very likely not, and hope not, since this seems to be largely the work of another studio that Larian has contracted.

I gotta admit, I'm much more forgiving of these types of issues if the game has a great story and sidequest design. For instance, especially in RPGs, combat ranks way down on my list of me caring if it's good or not. It's probably why I'm so forgiving of the Witcher 3's faults. The things it did well are the things I look for most in RPGs. Couldn't agree more. So long as combat isn't frustrating to the point of pulling my hair out I don't really care about it one way or the other. Combat is my least liked part of an RPG too. Also, yes, filler combat is especially loathsome, not just in TW3 but RPGs generally. I don't understand why wild animals, even if they're wolves and bears, should automatically and aggressively attack you. Just plain silly and annoying.

Ok, fair enough. And yes, I also don't buy that Obsidian was entirely uninvolved in all of this.

source? https://twitter.com/VtM_Bloodlines/status/1108948381127204865 well that effing stupid, there was ton of melee combat, I can't imagine good melee in FP. WTF? Thanks, @ShadySands. Yeah I agree it really sucks. On the game's website they say "mostly" first person though the camera will pull back to third person for a few of the melee animations, which makes it all the more stupid that they didn't just include a full-on third person option. I guess in today's high end graphics games, it's just too much of an extra cost for devs to include multiple camera positions.

This actually looks really good. Too bad that it too, like TOW, is only in first-person so it's out for me.

Been binge-watching Miami Vice commercial-free on Starsz. As a product of the 80s I love that show, cheese and all.

Non Disclosure Agreement. They can't say **** publicly about this until the NDA runs out. Would Microsoft ever agree on such transfer of games? I seriously doubt that. Aside from just plain NDA considerations, it's bad business to publicly disparage your business partners. That's a quick way to turn needless drama into needless drama with a lawsuit attached. And as far as Microsoft goes, it does look like they already did throw their weight around. If they didn't intervene, TOW would likely be a true Epic exclusive, and not have a simultaneous PC release on the Microsoft Store. Well, they don't have to disparage anyone. Couldn't Obsidian just say something like: "This was entirely a Private Division decision as the publisher of the game, and we had nothing to do with it. Please refer all questions to Private Division."

I don't understand why I should give Obsidian's upper management the benefit of the doubt. Yes there's no evidence they supported this; but equally there's no evidence they didn't. So it's a matter of how each of us subjectively chooses to see things, isn't it? I love the Obsidian devs. But I do harbor concerns about Obsidian's upper management (and no, it isn't because of Avellone's crazy and silly rants).

Do you have an example of where that behavior actually ruined a crowdfunding game? Usually crowdfunded games fail because the developers get too ambitious or have poor business skills, and thus run out of funds. I agree with your point, actually, but don't necessarily get mad over a crowdfunded project gone south for this sort of reason because I accept that crowdfunding is, by definition, a gamble. As for examples, it's hard to say because what qualifies as "ruined" or a "failure" is inherently subjective, and my taste in games is extremely narrow and so I have not backed that many games. But, I would offer two recent inXile games as my main examples: the constant drumbeat of certain people demanding that T:ToN be TB; and similarly, that BT4 not provide save anywhere anytime (which thankfully inXile overturned after the game's release).

https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/02/03/rumor-is-a-sequel-to-jade-empire-in-the-works

Larian has "Project Gustav" in the works and, during a recent Internet spasm about a possible BG3, confirmed they're NOT working on a D&D game.

My main problem with crowdfunded games is on the backer side rather than the developer side. Though a minority, far too many backers have an entitled mentality and the view that only their preferences for the game must be taken into account and any deviation from 100% of their preferences means the developer is a liar and a cheat and evil ... or something. I'm really tired of these 'the universe revolves around me' backers and would rather have developers be truly independent, from both publishers and crowds. But I understand that that's a very difficult road to follow.

That's not how competition works. EGS wasn't making their platforms better, they are just throwing money away to get market share, and they will get these money back when they get enought market share, from the consumers. It's not competition they want, it's monoploly. Yep, it's the equivalent of dumping in international trade. You dump your (inferior) product on to the market at below market prices to drive your competiton out of business so you can then have a monopoly for yourself. For this to be a viable strategy you have to have very deep pockets or someone else bankrolling/subsidizing you so you can survive your own dumping - which Epic/Tencent has.

That's speculation. Yes Private Division has an exclusivity deal with Epic, but that does not mean Obs wasn't also ok, even enthusiastic, about going with Epic. Obs's tweet about the deal comes across rather glowingly.