Lady Evenstar

Personally, I prefer smaller villages, probably because I like a bit of digestion time between conversations. Too many folks to talk to too close together sends me into overload.

And be flagged "limited to parental duty" when your save is imported into a sequel! It's not that a game couldn't explore this theme, but it's the sort of theme that would need to be central to the game (and its target audience) to be worthwhile.

I love searching out portraits that can express (or inspire) the character of my PC, so definitely old-skool with import of custom portraits here.

I'm confused by the poll's assumptions. I'd like for there to be modding tools, but not because I want to play custom campaigns with friends.

Exactly. I've even played and enjoyed my share of CRPG romances, but I don't want the world/adventure to feel "thin" because resources were skimmed off the top to ensure romances. Maybe, if everything looks on target in winter 2014 they could be added, but I would rather other bases be covered first.

I agree. Having to manage survival needs during a specific quest or other situation could be an interesting challenge. I'm not looking for quotidien micro-management.

I seem to be in the minority in this one. I don't want to see the party immediately restored to full health after combat, but I don't want a punitive game, either. If the process of restoring party health is too tedious, I know I'd reload. One thing I quite like is the use of herbal packs in Betrayal at Krondor that cause health to regenerate more quickly (out of combat). I'd consider really slow natural regeneration to be both most realistic and most interesting, as it makes the stop-and-rest vs. press-forward with/without expending resources to treat the injured decision less obvious.

But the problem of not getting to play the content that could have been included if resources weren't instead used for romances isn't solved ... The question isn't whether romances could possibly be fun. It's whether they would add more to the game (for most players) than alternative uses of dev time. If folks want them, I'd like to hear the sorts of things they'd be willing to sacrifice to get them. Fewer, shallower non-romanceable NPCs? How well you get to know non-romanced party members? A shallower, less-varied environment? Fewer non-romance-related story lines? Less developed combat AI? If you'd like a significant portion of a tight budget spent on romances, what would you recommend cutting to cover their cost? Or are you willing to increase your pledge to fund them?

I don't think it's as simple as that. Including deep romances that would cater to a variety of tastes would require a lot of resources. Sure, romances can be fun, but they would inevitably involve large opportunity costs in a tight-budget game. I think that when citing PS:T it's important to remember that that was a fixed-protagonist game and that while BG II had a variety of romances for straight male characters, it had only Anomen for straight female characters, and nothing at all for gay characters. If romances are a significant feature of the game (i.e. are going to consume significant resources), it's only reasonable for folks to feel that there should be one "appropriate" to their character, with orientation being only the tip of that iceberg. I'd be open to relationships blossoming into romance in a subsequent game, but think it makes most sense in terms of both pacing and budget for this to be a "get acquainted" game with hints that certain NPCs could become closer. I seem to recall reading that surviving NPCs may appear in sequels, so why rush things?

I never play deliberately evil characters, so I'm not much interested in those options, but I'd like a bit of uncertainty as to which choices are in fact good.

I want whatever races form the culture of the world they've developed.

Although 2 is tricky because we don't all want the same things and there are likely options up their sleeves that we won't know we want until we encounter them in-game. It's great that they're listening, but ultimately I think it needs to be "1."

For me it's really a resources issue. Flirtation/hints of romance would be great but basic character development is much more important to me. I don't want really getting to know my party members to be gated by romance. I also don't want romances sucking too many resources away from other aspects of the game. In a new franchise being developed on a limited budget I'm much more concerned about the depth of the world than I am about my character's love life.

Maybe. I'd like to hear what Obsidian has in mind for stats before forming an opinion.

Well, of course, if they received minimum funding, we'd receive less content. Much better that aren't promising more than they're sure they can deliver. Also, I much prefer my Skyrim house to a stronghold. Apparantly, tastes vary.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. Besides, this is Obsidian's turn to show what they can do and to develop a franchise of their own. Of course if any Bioware folks were among the $1K+ donors, they'll get to put a small mark on the game.

I've been playing an older eating/sleeping-required game lately, and I'd say that there needs to be more to the mechanic than the inconvenience/expense of having to run back to an inn to regain full health for it to feel rewarding. "Necessities" that mostly seem to add low-interest filler are better omitted in my opinion. If scarcity is central to the setting or a particular situation managing party supplies could be a meaningful exercise, but in the absence of compelling need I'd rather not be constantly interrupted by notifications that my party is tired or hungry.

The administrative contact listed for the domain is Trent Oster, so I'd say not Obsidian, but possibly interesting. http://www.chromewhois.com/domain/baldursgate.com

You can view blessing and disease effects if you go into your magic menu and view the currently active effects screen (the option at the far right).

From loss of meaning. The Bioware name has value because of the games associated with it. If the name is slapped on games of a different type produced by a different studio, Bioware on the box is no longer a reason for former fans to buy a game. Trying to increase sales of the products of another studio by using the Bioware name seems to me to run real danger of backfiring. If I had a shiny new MMO about to release, I certainly wouldn't want it in any way associated with the screenshot on Game Informer--and creating associations is what brand names do.

I understand wanting to expand your base. What I don't understand is their not being more protective of their brand with TOR and ME 3 due for release shortly.

Hmm... Oblivion will be published next month. When would y'all expect full production to begin on Fallout 4? Likely irrelevant, but I'm still wondering ...

Grats, Obsidian! Well done.

While part of it may be attributable to differences among devs, I think a lot of it is just the price of success. When I joined the Beth boards back in February 2002, they were much more like the Obsidian boards now--a relatively small community where folks knew each other and the devs were much more present. Now you have many more people, lots of them raging and/or indignantly clamoring for this or that. Sadly, the boards no longer support the level of trust needed to foster the sorts of dev interaction more common in the early days. Just too many folks lying in wait to twist words and for whom "we thinking of" later translates into "they lied to us." Todd has said a number of times that the team contains lots of folks that have worked together for a very long time and that that's where he looks for community. He and others have made comments about gaming together. Not sure about whether that includes P&P sessions, but I don't think that you can assume that because things aren't visible from the outside they aren't happening.

Sadly, Kotaku cropped out the boots which were my favorite part of the ensemble. Pointy toes that curl upwards.