kanisatha

On this I see it exactly the opposite way. You don't sell when you're on the ropes (if this is an option) because then you have no bargaining leverage whatsoever. You sell when you're at a high-point, because that's when you have leverage to get the most return.

This story has now been picked up by a couple of online sources: https://www.thenerdmag.com/obsidian-entertainment-might-be-acquired-by-microsoft-according-to-a-letter-of-intent/ https://gamestechica.com/2018/08/08/obsidian-entertainment-letter-of-intent-for-an-acquisition-by-microsoft-leaked/ We know Feargus has been openly saying for some time now that he wants to retire. So this story may actually turn out to be true. MS has deep pockets so the owners of Obsidian may see this as a great opportunity to cash out big time. And MS/Xbox could really use an infusion of quality RPGs into their stable of games.

My sentiments exactly. For years now the one thing that's been the foundation of any discussion about BG2 has been that it's a wizard-centric game, and many uber-fans of BG2 have oft stated that the main reason they love BG2 so much is precisely because it is so extremely wizard-centric. So, yeah, people are of course free to argue otherwise, but I have no interest in engaging with any such arguments because to me that feels like arguing with someone who claims the sun orbits the earth.

PoE is more wizard centric than any IE game ever was. Developer(s) found one mechanic to rule them all (similar to cooldowns in other modern RPGs) that is good enough at applying spell effects, and used it to apply all other effects in the game, by using same resource mechanic for everyone too. That level of uniformity is not terrible for pnp games where you need to play fast and all you can do is roll dice, but in a computer game that means that yes, classes mechanically behave the same. Uh right. You actually played Eternity at some point? You realize it is perfectly viable to beat it with no wizard at all? Good luck beating BG2 on any real difficulty level without a wizard. But Eternity, way more wizard focused. Yeah. Exactly. I do always take Aloth with me because I like the character and he's my high mechanics guy, but I never cast spells with him. I always play PoE with virtually no spellcasting and don't bother taking the druid or priest companions with me.

Why? I'm honestly curious and would love to hear your opinion. In my view, BG1 is utter rubbish, because 1) Dialogue options are extremely limited and badly written (no humour, no spark, no consistency, very often no opportunity to say anything sensible). 2) There is far too much aimless wandering around huge maps with almost nothing on them. (There is none of this in BG2, and very little of it in any subsequent CRPGs -- clearly, game developers took notice of this blunder.) 3) The story is all over the place, and while it's not exactly illogical or incoherent, it is not well-written either. 4) There are far too many foolish insta-death opportunities, with basilisks and so on. This is just bad writing, and this was a feature that was rightly removed from essentially all subsequent CRPGs. 5) None of the NPCs are interesting or well-written. Some fair points, but unlike you I don't take points away from BG1 and give points to BG2 for any of these kinds of issues because BG2 got the benefit of being able to "learn" from BG1 which BG1 did not get to have. The main issues for me are that I hate playing in a high level game with high level characters and instead absolutely love starting out as a lowly 1st level character stepping out into a big bad world full of things that can end you quickly if you're not careful. I just love that feeling, in contrast with a lot of people who love the feeling of being super-powerful which for me is just meh and boring. I also love exploring open wilderness area versus wading through urban areas, and while I agree that some of the areas in BG1 are too empty I still prefer wandering around in them than many of the BG2 areas. As for better characters and dialog, I really never quite saw BG2 as being particularly better in those regards than BG1. But the biggest strike against BG2 for me is that it is a wizard-centric game, with almost all battles and all major bosses being (super-powerful) wizards and the best party for the player being a spellcaster-based party. As someone who can't stand spellcaster characters and spellcasting, especially in the context of 2nd edition rules and game mechanics, and who strongly prefers melee characters, BG2 was a tedious chore to get through. And ironically, if you read 2nd edition Forgotten Realms novels, you find that wizards were not that super-powerful and melee characters could often best them even in one-on-one combat, so where did this 'the world revolves around wizards' mentality come from?

By the same coin you can take the entire set of skills of any of the fighter classes and compare them to BG2 and say BG2 doesn't hold a candle to Deadfire. Arguably that's an even more important case since it distributes the complexity and micromanaging more towards all classes and thus all characters, and thus in practice non-caster types are made into active roles opposite to the usual auto-attack bots that they are in the IE games. Even if the depth of the wizard/mage is reduced (I don't see how it is, but let's pretend it is so), it is pretty clearly made up for in other areas. Not sure I agree that this is good though. Spamming the same set of buff + knockdown type skills (just for an example) isn't adding interesting depth. It's an illusion of depth and ultimately more tedious combat. I found myself doing the same thing with Eder roughly every battle in Deadfire, and it was effective, considering I've had zero wipes. But, from a tactical standpoint, it's not any different than "auto-attack bot", it's just more tedious because it requires more clicking. You're not making interesting decisions with those skills. I'll add the interrupt mechanics and fighters' effectiveness at that is substantially more interesting in the BG games. Giving them a role beyond just tank + hit. I've never understood this push by developers and some fans that all the classes need to have actives skills as cool as the mages and priests. You're controlling at least 5-6 units in every combat. I don't want all my units to play the same way. That actually strips strategic depth from the combat. Going back and doing my first run at BG in years, it's striking how much faster and more deadly combat is when compared to Pillars and Deadfire. In Pillars, the weaker status effects and bullet-sponge nature of enemies and your own PC's has created a combat that really drags by contrast. It absolutely matters if you're not someone who only has an interest in playing a spellcaster. Yes fighters and other melee classes should have active abilities because playing wizards and priests is stupid and boring imo. So thank you Obsidian for making a game where, unlike 2e AD&D, playing melee classes is a viable and fun option. Oh, and BG2 is not all it's cracked up to be. Even BG1 is a better game than BG2.

As an older gamer who was very active on the old Black Isle forums, I vaguely recall that the IwD2 base game itself only barely made it into our hands. There was even some brief talk of canceling that game before its release because of the financial woes of the studio. So I highly doubt there ever were any concrete plans for an expansion beyond the usual discussions that would have happened during the base game's development.

I would agree, except that they've already made many hints that this game (Project Indiana) is a AAA-like big budget, open world, multi-platform game, so I just don't see it not being at least DAI-like 3rd person. It is sure to have all those features that will make it a hit on consoles first and foremost, so 3rd person with a party of at least four is the most I can hope for.

I feel sorry for Josh. I think he's doing a great job but he's taking these things too personal. He should just stay clear of it, cause there will always be people complaining about what you have created. Doesn't matter how clear or unclear you've been about things, people will bash away regardless. Hope he takes a break and comes back doing new great stuff. I remember this same situation on the old Black Isle forums way back when. I imagine that's why he doesn't show up on these forums. A pity, because I choose to keep my online footprint to a bare minimum and so am not going to go create accounts in all these other places. Whether I agreed or disagreed with him I always found his ideas to be very interesting.

Interesting. But party-based and 3rd person are not mutually exclusive, are they? NwN2 sorta' did that. I really have no issue with 3rd person or some other non-isometric perspective (though my preference is iso), but not being party-based is the deal-breaker for me, hence my dislike of the Elder Scrolls games and lack of enthusiasm for The Witcher 3 (even though I am aware that game is very highly regarded).

As a related side question, are there sci-fi RPGs available that don't use energy weapons (i.e guns, lasers and the like)? I am very interested in the idea of an Obsidian sci-fi RPG, but I really hate the gameplay mechanics of energy weapons and that's why I end up only playing fantasy themed RPGs.

I just want one QoL improvement: please give me a UI on our ship where I can simultaneously access the inventories and paperdolls of all of my companions and not just those in my current party. PLEASE?!

I'll add a little fuel to the fire by saying I'm one of those people who doesn't consider BG2 to be that great, and have always much preferred BG1 to BG2. I agree with your point. Rose-tinted BG nostalgia is the biggest threat to this awesome CRPG renaissance.

I backed Kingmaker (as I did Deadfire). It's shaped up to be a very good game as best as I can tell. Don't at all understand why one would wish to pit one game against another. By that logic nobody should've made another fantasy RPG since Baldur's Gate and we all should be replaying BG for the two millionth time. Btw, I also do not understand the "it's a small studio I've not heard of so I don't have any expectations that their game will be good" mentality. Many big, well-established studios have deeply disappointed me with their games. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I for one am very glad that gamers back in the late '90s didn't write off the games made by nobody's-ever-heard-of studios by the names of Bioware and Black Isle.

Well, regardless, we are in for changes in scenery soon anyways since the Project Indiana game is very likely to be post-apocalyptic/sci-fi (Obsidian's own Fallout-inspired franchise?), followed by whatever game Sawyer works on next which will definitely not be fantasy per his own expressed preference.

I agree. I believe somewhere in that interview (or some other one) he specifically says he wants to take a year or so to focus on his job as design director for Obsidian while not working on any specific game. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to bail on the company.

Bear in mind that this board is a giant pile of sampling bias. ^Truth.

I agree. If I had not been a backer of the game, then upon hearing that there were going to be three expansions/DLCs hitting in a few months, I would definitely have chosen to wait for some sort of "complete" edition of the game to buy later on. I think a lot of casual gamers like myself would opt to do that because unlike the hardcore gamers we don't feel any pressure to want to play a game as soon as it is released. We don't have that much time to play games, and there are a ton of games available to play. So waiting several months, even a year, to play a game is par for the course for casual gamers.

Not going to get into that controversy but regardless of which side you fall on, SoD is overall actually a pretty solid expansion for BG and well worth the time and money playing. It is not "amazing" or anything like that but it is pretty good.

It can't outsell D:OS2 because it is a single player game and sadly these days multiplayer is the holy grail of digital gaming. I think it will do quite well. I backed the game, and it looks to be really well done. Really looking forward to it.

Right now it seems that WotC has every possible type of game in the works or already released except for a true RPG. It really sucks. Beamdog seemed to be making a new IP true D&D RPG, but even that project now looks to have fallen through.

If player agency is a big part of Larian's approach, then the D:OS games fail badly there as well. A good 80% of my player agency is having the freedom to develop both my PC and my companions in a range of different ways while still retaining their value and effectiveness within the game. These games don't provide for that, and I'd rather have that than lots of interactions with the world (especially when the world reactivity is often fourth-wall-breaking).

Also, many of these games have sold very well on other outlets besides Steam such as GOG, and in the cases of BG/2 EE their own in-house launcher system. Beamdog has mentioned that BG1EE has sold well over a million copies total.

I'm wading through D:OS EE right now myself. It is very difficult for me to find the motivation to finish the game, but I am a completionist who has a hard time quitting something I've started, so I guess I will eventually finish it. The story is trite and silly. Don't care for the "humor". The very limited number of companion options and having two protagonists means you are pretty much locked into one "best" party composition. Many of the spells and abilities are useless/underwhelming, which means they can easily be divided into black-and-white "must-have" versus "don't need" categories, resulting in fixed "best" character builds. Laughable that oil/water/poison barrels are always so very conveniently located including in places where they have no logical reason to be there. Crafting system is a pain. Food items are both far too many and usually useless because of their very short duration. Combat is a mind-numbing chore.

The D&D and Forgotten Realms digital licenses are now completely back under Wizards of the Coast's control. Atari has nothing to do with anything D&D anymore. And WotC has said they will never again repeat the mistake of what they did with Atari in terms of losing their control of the license. An article interviewing Chris Cox (new head of WotC) back in December 2017 (I believe) had him saying that between now and 2023 WotC has plans for over a dozen new digital games using the D&D license. I can't recall the exact details, but their focus appeared to be on mobile platforms and consoles and not the PC.