Lady Evenstar

I can't recall having respecced a character in a single-player game (except by reloading an earlier save), but I think that frequent patching does change things a bit. If abilities are changed in ways that make your character unfun or ineffective, you can restart, respec, or play through consequences that you didn't really choose. Similarly, should the player be penalized for "choosing" a broken stat or ability that doesn't actually do what the tooltip promised, e.g. encountering the dexterity bug in DAO? And, some folks just like to play around with builds. Even if a feature is "cheap" in the context of an RP playthrough, it could be worth including to support other playstyles. Even if I'm personally uncomfortable with respeccing, I can see reasons to offer it (and conditions under which I might resort to it).

Not really. Our plan has been for my husband and me to split the copies, one using the physical discs, one playing the digital copy. Getting a box without discs would be a tease.

Probably discs for me, and GOG or Steam for my husband, as he prefers.

I liked the party overview screens in Might and Magic so I'm sure I'd like them in PoE, as well. What I'd like even more is to see a side-by-side listing of naked and equipped stats for the character whose sheet I'm consulting. Perhaps the game already this ...

I've been surprised by the lack of Larian love in this discussion of kickstarted RPGs. As for Obsidian, I'm cautiously optimistic that they've not exhausted too many resources darting down too many rabbit holes. Mostly I worry that they'll indulge quirkiness and the "make normal really hard" crowd at the expense of wider enjoyability. And that they may have over-priomised content and features. I'm sure, though, that I will find things in Pillars of Eternity to please me.

While visions of Obsidian staff stuffing boxes in the basement of their office building have their charm, the partnership sounds like a good idea, both now and looking to the future. Although it would be fun to open one's box and find one of those little slips of paper that identify the person who made or packaged your order. We could then compare who packaged each of our orders and which devs appeared to be most efficient at the task. :D

So glad to hear folks who've played the game say they've enjoyed it. I've only played 6-8 so I may be in for a rude awakening but I'm really looking forward to MMX--enough that I may be willing to install UPlay, which is saying quite a lot in my world!

I tend to think of party micro-management as the essence of IE games so I'm glad to hear that's an option. Minimal party AI is fine as long as my direct instructions always override anything the AI directs them to do. It was so annoying in DA:O that that wasn't the case. I'd tell Leliana "go there" and halfway to her destination the AI would kick in and she'd head somewhere else.

Interesting and a bit disappointing. I was hoping not to use any hired companions. I can see folks wanting to use more on subsequent playthroughs to experiment with group composition, but for me companion chat is a significant source of enjoyment in Infinity Engine games. I hope it won't also mean that I'll feel the need to play particular classes based on when specific companions compatible with my alignment will become available.

Please, please, please don't implement mechanics that promote reliance on walkthroughs. If consequences feel random, you have no basis for chosing.

I thought Oblivion's ending was complete and utter crap. You end up being some random errand boy/girl to a sad noble that barely bothers to get out of bed in the morning but does some cool stuff and turns into a gigantic statue at the very end in order to get all the credit....oh and you're a nobody, did I mention that? I played Skyrim for a bit and there was nothing wrong with the game itself but I ended up just abandoning it....largely because Oblivion's ending was complete and utter crap....so I figured why even bother with this crap anymore? Different folks, I guess. Martin was always buried in a pile of books, researching daedric magic, when I visited Skyruler Temple. I'm not sure why you thought he was idle. I saw us a partners. He figured out what we needed to do. My character did the field work. I thought he did a good job of portraying what it means to have non-transferable responsibility. He was fairly ascetic in his personal habits, but I never saw him as "sad." As for being a nobody, post-Morrowind the forums were full of players who claimed to be tired of being the chosen one.They wanted to play an ordinary person. Bethesda listened. Then folks like you complained that they were a "nobody." The lesson here seems to be: don't listen to fans. They disagree among themselves and are quick to complain if you give them what the noisiest ask for. Personally, I'm fine playing either as hero or hero's assistant. Sorry, you didn't enjoy Oblivion or Skyrim more.

The game ending that has probably engaged me most is the ending of Oblivion. Martin, with your character's help, removes the immediate threat, but after the denouement my character wandered the Imperial City stunned by feelings of personal loss and (rightly) apprehensive of what the 4th Era might bring.

I'm not eager to support another game until I've played PE, but then again I've not heard their pitch.

But it's not your only choice. You can continue on with that injured party member. Alternatively, you could have prepared yourself better before the encounter and/or made better tactical decisions during said encounter. In 99% of every other game you would just chug a potion/cast heal and continue on. Fun! So you suggest that the game be easy enough that continuing on with injured party members would be a viable choice and that tactics should be available that would allow you to defeat encounters without your party taking any injuries? If not, how are the choices you offer meaningful ones? And, yes, in this case the approach taken by the 99% sounds more fun than the lack of choice available in Project Eternity. When remedies are available the player can be presented with a variety of choices. Do I use the relatively inexpensive but slow-acting herbal pack that may suffice if I'm careful not to bite off more than I can chew before it's had time to work? Do I have the caster expend mana that they may need later in order to heal a party member now? Do I use the high-cost instant-heal potion and risk not having it when i may need it more? How is the Project Eternity approach more interesting/fun? The Infinity Engine games had healing spells but healers were limited in how many they could memorize so you were always weighing who to heal and for how much. Similarly, you needed to ration available potions--and decide how much inventory space you wanted to devote to them. Again, how in your opinion will fewer choices make the game more fun? There are two resources for combat, health and stamina IIRC. From what I understand stamina acts more akin to HP in the D&D setting, it goes down quickly and recovers naturally but can be recovered by potions. Health is a smaller pool and is harder to take down but harder to get back up without resting too. Also, IIRC some character will favor fighting injured (like the Monk). But all of this is preliminary information and they've said before its subject to change as they test it for "fun". So healing will be available for routine injuries? It's only when characters experience near death that you'll need to go back to town? That doesn't sound nearly as onerous. I'm also glad to hear that they intend to test the system for enjoyability. I always worry with Obsidian that they'll be seduced by the "righteousness" of their ideas and pay insufficient attention to how the player experiences them. :D

But it's not your only choice. You can continue on with that injured party member. Alternatively, you could have prepared yourself better before the encounter and/or made better tactical decisions during said encounter. In 99% of every other game you would just chug a potion/cast heal and continue on. Fun! So you suggest that the game be easy enough that continuing on with injured party members would be a viable choice and that tactics should be available that would allow you to defeat encounters without your party taking any injuries? If not, how are the choices you offer meaningful ones? And, yes, in this case the approach taken by the 99% sounds more fun than the lack of choice available in Project Eternity. When remedies are available the player can be presented with a variety of choices. Do I use the relatively inexpensive but slow-acting herbal pack that may suffice if I'm careful not to bite off more than I can chew before it's had time to work? Do I have the caster expend mana that they may need later in order to heal a party member now? Do I use the high-cost instant-heal potion and risk not having it when i may need it more? How is the Project Eternity approach more interesting/fun? The Infinity Engine games had healing spells but healers were limited in how many they could memorize so you were always weighing who to heal and for how much. Similarly, you needed to ration available potions--and decide how much inventory space you wanted to devote to them. Again, how in your opinion will fewer choices make the game more fun?

So if a party member gets injured, you need to trudge back to town or a campsite to rest because you lack other healing choices? Or reload ... Because limiting the player to a single choice is deep gameplay? I could understand preferring herbal/medicinal remedies to magical ones, but inflicting one-size-fits-all punitive tedium on the player after every difficult battle just sounds like poor design. There must be something I'm missing, at least I hope so.

Are you saying that these "features" have been added to Project Eternity? Ewww ... I supported a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. If Project Eternity lacks comparable latitude to play it in a way I find enjoyable it will be the last Obsidian game I buy/support.

I think multiclassing makes sense when you have fewer, more basic, classes/archetypes. Project Eternity includes enough classes that I see little benefit in the extra work of balancing potential multiclasses. I'd rather development time were spent on other things.

I'd like to play Project Eternity first, as well as hear details concerning the new project. I have a lot of Obsidian games that I've bought but only played briefly.

I've only completed VI and VII, so I can't speak for the series as a whole, but I think of Might & Magic as an RPG/strategy hybrid rather than as a true RPG. You can play the games simply as open world adventures, but you do get a score at the end based on the efficiency of your play, so if you want a high score you need to keep close track of transit and other schedules and give thought to whether you really want to clear whole areas or only what you need to clear. Of course there may be interesting fountains and obelisks in areas you choose not to clear ... I really enjoy adventuring against the ticking clock, but the games are definitely more about strategic choices than subtle moral ones and character development is about skills and stats, not dialogue choices. I'm currently playing MM VIII and don't enjoy it as much. There are definitely OP classes (dragons!) and the opportunity to trade characters that you pick up early for more developed ones really undermines the point of the game for me. That said, in MM VIII I've been picking up everyone I could and stashing them as mules in the Adventurer's Inn while basically playing with my starter party.

I probably knew less than you about D&D and didn't need to know more. It was all in the delicious spiral-bound manuals that shipped IE game boxes. The main thing I worry about is that the game will be too punitive. The Infinity Engine games offered the player a lot of latitude to settle on a playstyle that was enjoyable for them. It would be awfully easy to root out the fun along with opportunities for degenerate behavior.

Yeah, romance should be one of the very last things to be worked on. Romances are low priority for me also, but given the limited number of companions, I can see why you might want to flag a character as a potential romance early in the development process rather than re-purpose an existing character. Characters can be designed to be fun both as romances and as non-romanced party members. If you don't plan ahead for romances, you're liable to get ... Anomen, whom many women found unsatisfactory as the sole love interest for female characters in BG II.

I disagree. Objectifying those with whom we disagree--and subsequently feeling entitled to mistreat them--are human, not first world, issues. Even when it's just words, "grow a thicker skin" translates into a community where we're putting energy into deflecting ugliness that could be put to more constructive purposes--like QA or better gun balance. As for threats of real world violence, obvious jokes aside, there need to be consequences, because if there aren't folks think they're OK. You know, because it's the Internet.

I'd disagree. The fallacy that he used, was in the first line: Go to The Mary Sue and start a topic like this, and you'll get more opinion from women. As for the ratio, I don't actually know what the demographics are. Most may not "care" in the same way that I can still playthrough NWN despite Aribeth's armor. I'd agree that most don't care... enough to bother posting about it. Because most don't care to post about anything at all. Does their lack of concern about being active internet users immediately imply that they aren't concerned about anything else? I'd disagree. I'd say there's also a large element of "is it useful to discuss this topic with these people" that needs to be factored in ... I ask myself are these folks genuinely seeking to understand or are they mostly looking to vent and score points. That said, obviously, different women are going to feel differently about most any issue complex enough to merit discussion and context matters.

Wasn't there some point where you could get D3 for free when preordering some WoW expansion or somesuch (or get a lot of game time when buying D3, much more than the game price) either way that surely would inflate those numbers "slightly" with a lot of "sales" that aren't (or not really anyway). It was 12 months of game time in wow(and maybe the panda expansion). Not the expansion but an in-game pet and possibly some other things. My husband and I bought the time, but never downloaded D3--even though we were entitled to--because it didn't interest us. No idea how many folks did the same or whether Blizzard counts us as D3 purchasers. It's not quite the same as counting copies bundled with new PCs or video cards as purchased copies, but not totally different either in my opinion.