Lady Evenstar

I'm really pleased to see the separation of combat and non-combat skills. Non-separation might lead to meaningful choices in a lone-protagonist game. In party-based games it too often means min-maxing the adventuring members of the group and leaving the crafters in camp to be utilized during rest periods. I've even seen fair numbers of posts recommending that players leave that weak rogue in camp and make a second pass through dungeons if they really want to see what was in those chests. Yech!!!!! I much prefer a system in which every character pulls their weight in combat and contributes out-of-combat skills to the group. For one thing, it leaves me free to explore things like the game's crafting system worrying only whether the implementation is fun, not whether it's "worth it" compared to making a character a more competent fighter.

I despise timed quests and having to be careful who I talk to in order to avoid triggering them before I'm ready. Perhaps it's because I tend to play classes that start out weak, but I see it as perfectly rational not to tackle a task until a character feels ready. It may be urgent, but if the only person in the world capable of taking care of it is still having trouble with rats and wolves, surely it's best that the hero work on their skills a bit rather than rush in and be slaughtered by opponents who are too strong. I don't favor, but could tolerate, a scoring system like that used in Might & Magic that gave bragging rights to those less obsessed with getting their bearings before charging ahead, but I want an adventure I can enjoy at my own pace,

I think role-playing is kind of like acting. You can either interpret a pre-existing character or improvise your own. The definition doesn't require one or the other. In computer games the player usually has some, but not complete, control of who their character is.

Actually, I disagree. In a big-budget game programming a mechanic primarily for modder use is fine. Perhaps the OP could just add an option to his poll along the lines of: I don't believe romances would divert significant resources from other content. That would give folks an opportunity to express that opinion while still asking about priorities.

It would also leave your imported character free to discover love with a character who doesn't appear in the first game. I find the number of posts on the Bethesda boards by folks asking for divorce to be implemented because their character rushed into marriage to be hilarious. I actually proposed something very similar to what you suggest a couple days ago. I'd also cite DA 2 as an example of a game where other content was sacrificed due to limited resources and a romances-first outlook.

Also, it would inevitably be more gated story, which is fine if what remains after subtracting the amount of romance-specific content for characters not romanced in a particular playthrough is adequate, but not if it isn't.

I'd also point out that PS:T was a single-protagonist game. Of course a single, dev-defined character is going to have a more fleshed out background than a player-generated character--at least as far as the game is able to recognize. One can argue whether you prefer to play a pre-defined main character or a player-customized one, but it's just silly to argue that because something was done with Geralt or TNO that it's reasonable to expect it in a fundamentally different kind of game--and vice versa. Both pre-definition and customization come with a set of trade-offs.

Odd that the Valygar romance had to be dropped from BG2 for lack of resources if the resources to fit even those text-based romances into the story were trivial ... I also agree with The Sharmat that if folks want to discuss their preference that swords, some spells, some trees, or companions be omitted that would be fine.

I don't object to the game including a transgender character or a genderless race if that suits the setting, but I'm rather counting on being able to play a female elf--who is female. I'd also say that posts are confirming my preference that a low-budget game focus first on gameplay, world, and story and that romance/sexuality and other "special" features take a back seat to those. If there are extra resources, or those issues come up in the context of the world they've created or the story they want to tell, great, but I'm leery of checklists of features (whether its representation of specific sexual situations, e.g. in my case having a much younger spouse, hiring talented outsiders to perform tasks that talented staffers could perform, more voice acting, or world animation) that would siphon resources away from those fundamentals before they are adequately secured. I'd much rather that the game imply that all romance occurs between people of similar age than that the world feel thin, the plot short, or the gameplay dull or imbalanced.

I would also like all classes to have out-of-combat utility--and for that to be balanced separately from combat prowess. Every class should feel useful in combat, and every class should contribute something useful to the party community. This needn't be an alternative way to do everything another class can do, but could also be a matter of complementary skills, e.g. tying professions to class so that if you want a blacksmith you need a fighter.

I'll I always use pre-made companions when available, but I can imagine folks wanting to optimize their party, particularly if they're experimenting with different group sizes.

<laughs> You remind me of my first trip to Europe and how let down I was to see ground made of dirt with green grass and ordinary-looking trees. Somehow my teenage self was expecting something more different. Also, I fine with dwarves and elves. How many novels have been written about humans, yet writers keep producing new ones?

I think it's fine for folks to kill companions. I also think that it's fine for them to discover that doing so has limited the endings available in their game.

I always like to see opportunities given to talented folks in-house and liked the pitch music very much. Obviously, music for a game would vary by location and situation. Not all of it would sound "epic." I also prefer that it not have so much "bite" that it's distracting. It should enhance gameplay, not compete with it for attention.

If the $140 donors don't produce enough testers, Obsidian can always invite more. I think it's premature to worry.

So long as the game doesn't interrupt me to tell me about what I've done,they can sometimes be mildly interesting, but I wouldn't miss them if they weren't there.

I want to be able to save whenever I'm interrupted (usually by an elderly dog that needs to be carried outside). I'm not looking for punitive, but I do want to have to pay attention to tooltips, conversational clues, and environmental signals. Since the game was promoted as being reminiscent of the IE games, I'm expecting approximately their degree of difficulty.

I like his portraits very much, but does Obsidian have a portrait artist in-house whose portraits we'd love once we saw them? It's not that I wouldn't enjoy Justin portraits, but I don't like the idea of elbowing aside someone internal who might be looking forward to the assignment.

Religion and politics may be pivotal within the game's setting, but not real world politics or religions. A fantasy setting allows us to look at issues more hypothetically. For better or worse, sex/sexual orientation are different because games generally feature real world sexes.

I'm fine with gay and lesbian party members. What I'm not fine with is the majority of the women in the party being "lesbians" and the majority of the men being "hetero-sexuals" because I play a female character. Player-sexual orientation is an abomination.

I'm pretty flexible about the mechanics of the magic system. My only concerns are that low level mages be viable and that mages' power be in proportion to any special limitations placed on them. If other classes are roughly equal to mages in power, use of their special attacks should be similarly exhausting and require similar wind-up time. Casting mage armor shouldn't significantly deplete the mages resources unless use of armor is balanced in some other way.

I'm pretty happy with the stretch goals other than the Linux/Mac version ones and having those may help more people to experience the IP. I understand what you're saying about it being more motivating to contribute toward more specific goals, but I'm actually pleased to see them being cautious about what they promise. Things can change during development and not having to deal with "You promised us X" if X proves ill-advised is a good thing. As written the goals are basically "We can do more of everything if the budget is less tight."

Thank you so much for proving me wrong! I couldn't be more thrilled about Project Eternity and will happily consume a hearty portion of humble pie. :D

Certainly in D&D a young warrior has a much easier time than a 1D4 wizard trying to decide when to cast his once-a-day Magic Missile. That said, your suggestion that warriors should peak in power earlier than wizards means that wizards would continue to grow stronger after other classes have peaked. That doesn't sound to me like much fun for the players who get to watch wizards continue to grow stronger while their swordswinger runs in place. I also think that if you assign wizards major limitations not shared by other classes, you need to make them significantly more powerful than characters of those classes. If a wizard get less armor, has to memorize spells in advance (please, no), and places his soul at risk when he uses his abilities, he needs to be compensated by being made significantly more powerful. Personally, I'd rather heap fewer disadvantages on the wizard, but allow other classes comparable power.

on the subject of player-sexual NPCs ... just yetch. I don't want NPCs with the edges rubbed off so that they stand ready to accommodate me, whoever I may be. It means shallower characters and less diversity in my parties. For most our sexuality is a significant part of who we are and to disregard that seems to me the opposite of a mature approach to content.