Cantousent

This is probably the most damning thing I can say about the project so far, but I think most of the stretch goals so far are small ball. "Shell out a bit more cash and we'll make another playable race!" See, the thing is, the stuff I think I'll like most is exactly that stuff that I think would be better left to the design team's discretion. My one consolation is that I think the stretch goals represent what they think will make for a better game. At least I hope so. I hope that the stretch goals aren't just meant to appeal to potential buyers but also represent the best judgment of the devs. That's what I want most, an unfettered design team limited only by time, funding, and their own imaginations. I don't want them to be beholden to the whims of internet clamoring. I'm not against your topic, |3lood. I just don't know if the design team can entirely quantify the benefit of additional funding in stretch goals. With that said, I do think some stretch goals are entirely practical. Language and Mac support make sense as a way to broaden the base, for example.

Yeah, I'd like more barter and less coinage myself.

There should be a limit, and that limit should be decided by the setting. Even so, there are some players who will go out of their way to scrounge every bent piece of copper they can because they've got a cash fetish. I just don't want to end up worrying about making extra trips because of the money in addition to everything else. Maybe Obsidz could find a way to make it less burdensome, but why not just forget it as an issue and put their resources to things like art, level design, and characters?

No weight, no how. I don't think that giving money a weight attribute will do anything to improve what I see are the mains points about the role playing game. Yes, it's more realistic, but we don't need to scrounge for toilet paper, worry about getting deathly ill from not washing our hands before we eat, or any number of things that could lend realism. No weight for gold.

I don't know... I've already bought in, but I'm going to get at least two different games for friends and maybe three as gifts. I think they'll appreciate being part of the project on the one hand and on the other they'll get a cool game a couple years hence. One of them, in particular, will appreciate the digital soundtrack. I just need to figure out how to put their name on the purchase. I think I should have just have purchased at the next teir. I think it includes three digital downloads, but what's done is done.

Yeah, I actually agree with this. I don't know if every single one needs to be included, but having these things rear their heads isn't a bad idea. Along the same lines, I think some of the adherents might just sound like ignorant bastards, but some of them will have convincing arguments. In real life, there have been people who could make really good arguments for really bad policy. Also, I would like the 'isms' presented to, maybe, depending on how it works into the story, to show how wide-spread and mutable they are. For example, having lived for some time in the pacific and Asia, I can say that judging someone by how light or dark his skin is wasn't created by white Europeans. There has been skin color/tone based discrimination for a long long time. I don't know, but putting viable arguments in the mouths of wide-spread beliefs sounds like a dose of realism we don't normally encounter in these games. I'm with nonek on that count.

I'm sure you don't want 'Everything' related to psychology and metaphysics. I mean, they can't throw in everything considered to be 'mature' content. I don't mind folks using the term 'mature' per se, but you have folks wanting all sorts of crazy things to play a major part in the game. The devs have to use some discretion in including mature themes if they want to treat any of those themes with maturity.

Taking a gander at your previous posts, I would say that you're a troll. Since this board is quite permissive of trolling, that's all well and good. Nothing like having someone pretend to be something in order to stir up trouble, but I happen to be Catholic in real life. Even church going. So, when you stir up anti-Catholic bigotry with your trolling, I guess I'll just try to provide a counter-example. Pretending you're not a troll for a sec, let me respond. First of all, having attended Mass all over the country (and a few outside), I can attest to the fact that Catholics haven't traditionally been super hostile to homosexuality. In fact, even the hierarchy hasn't been particularly vocal about it. Yes, it's taught to be bad, but there hasn't been a particular emphasis on it in most mainstream Catholic parishes. More in some regions, of course, and less in others, but gay marriage (which is a separate issue) rates much higher and abortion astronomically higher. Even so, being a Catholic, whether you like homosexuality or not, there exists homosexuality in the world. Why wouldn't the game address the issue in an effort to seek realism? It wouldn't be any more oppressive than living in a world in which homosexuality exists, right? There's no oppresion. For my part, I don't want to see homosexuality play a major role in the game, but not because I worry about of fear it. I just think there are more entertaining themes for me personally. I won't begrudge the game treating the issue as long as it treats it maturely. There's that mature word again.

Great point, Matthew. Part and parcel of having someone being able to speak for the party is that he or she need not speak from ten feet in front of them. The spokesman could be in the middle of the group. It's *always* chapped my hide that the mechanics change where folks are standing during conversations and put people in places they would never stand given the duration of the conversation. If I see possible combat coming with the other group, I'm going to position my group better. Fighters will step forward. Clerics and mages will step behind them. Rogues and rangers will seek better places for flanking.

I think Tale's idea isn't bad and, in fact, it could work out in dialogue very well. The interlocutors can either break conversation or address concerns over buffing. In fact, if dialogue is more dynamic, some party members can buff while the party spokesman keeps talking. If the other guys start to buff, there could be options for the party to buff up at the same time while the spokesman asks something like "why do I get the feeling you're getting ready for a fight?" In some conversations, buffing could be a path to intimidation. [The mage throws stoneskin on the entire party.] The Spokesman says, "We'd like to handle this peaceably, but we *are* prepared to defend ourselves." Romances should be entirely avoidable without intrusion on the gameplay. I don't mind them per se. I disagree that BG did them best. The best romances was between TNO and Annah in PS:T. I think romances work best by implication. If folks really want overt romances, then I think the devs should put in lots of ways for those romances to screw (sorry about the pun) the PC. Hell hath no fury like an NPC scorned! Hell, if they're going to stick romances in our faces, give them real consequences. lol

Otherwise I am sure there would be plenty of people telling new players to choose X party combination because it has the best mix of stats/races/gender/whatever to get the best options every conversation. With all due respect, Rab, folks will do just that no matter what. First of all, that's what people do. Second of all, some folks will ask incessantly about on forums like these. Finally, there *will* be ideal party builds no matter how careful the devs are to provide balance. Allowing for people to use their party compositions in ways they find more fun is simply good, although I do agree that it will have to be a committed design decision. As a side note, I saw Elidar's name and thought I'd gone into a time warp. I thought I was seeing Eldar post, which would have been quite odd.

I actually laughed out loud when I read "I doubt it's ever happened that two people have debated the abortion issue and one of them ended up saying 'you were right, I was wrong.'" I doubt it also, LK. I think a gritty atmosphere can be introduced into some areas of the game for effect, but expecting them to be central to the main character's story would make for a pretty psychotic experience. I don't doubt a talented writer could deal with them properly, but any single one or two of them would have to be the point of the experience to make it worth while to treat them and I'm sure that Obsidz would like to sell the game. Even taking into account the obvious sarcasm in the thread, which is funny, I think a lot of folks actually want to have a kitchen sink approach to 'mature' themes. Kind of scary, but I would be curious to see the devs pull it off. I would be angry as hell for Obsidz to try it on this project, though.

Necrophilia Most of those really aren't mature. Either they're prurient or puerile in nature. Really, it doesn't matter if they have tons of 'mature' themes as long as they treat the themes they do have maturely. I think it's more important that they don't fall into the usual clap trap of 'that mean ol' business is pissing off the tree huggerz."

I think my general idea didn't get much traction from most folks, but if you follow the thread, I think it actually takes your example from DA:O and runs with it as a system for rewarding RP throughout the game. The thing to remember is that the system I'm describing isn't mean as a straight-jacket. It assumes that they won't put in fifteen different options for any particular dialogue but it can tailor dialogue to the character. With that said, I don't mean to intrude on your topic. I just had a similar thought a while back and I'd like to support what I think is your general idea. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/59862-choice-and-consequence-long-winded/?do=findComment&comment=1182469

I don't think ESO has that particular symbol trademarked. Maybe the Norse do? I don't know where it originated or how old it is, but it's a lot older than Bethsoft. On the other hand, it's not like I care if they change it. I mean, naming the endeavor 'Project Eternity' is a little on the nose, but okay. Having the symbol for eternity seems a little over the top.

As a DM, I rarely take coinage weight into account. ...But, then again, I'm pretty stingy with loot. Most of my players in the campaigns I've run would hear the description of survival horror and think there were a lot of peculiar similarities. Computer games aren't pen and paper games. I know you were responding to someone specifically and I cut that out. I'm not being tricky, I'm just saying that I think things can get bogged down too easily in computer games. As a DM, you can teach the players the ins and outs of how you run the campaign. Players know whether they should fret a little over dragging every bit of loot away. You can have them do things in game time in an expedited manner. You can eat chips and joke during the lull while folks decide whether to head back to town or not. In a computer game, that's real life time that I honestly believe most folks will simply resent taking. That's why moola always gets the quick and dirty no weight treatment. In some games, nothing has weight or even dimensions. It's simply items on a list. I want something a little more robust for inventory, but I don't want it to be absolutely soul grindingly boring to deal with it either. ...And what about something non standard? Different types of currency for different realms? I ran a campaign once where the characters could find black weightless tokens (They were interplanar so they had shape and hardness but not weight). Anyhow, there were machines left over from an extinct empire that took the tokens. The players never knew what they would get, but I kept track of their conversations they'd been having and I ran the machines as being able to take images and make them reality so that the players would get things along the lines of what the characters desired. Never too terribly powerful, but then again nothing in my campaigns is until at least level ten. After they got into the twelve to thirteen levels range, I upped the power significantly. I run pretty meager in terms of items, but you have to reward players somehow. Anyhow, to get back to topic, something like those tokens or pieces of some exotic metal or anything like it could add a different dimension to the game. I don't know that it's worth it to the devs, but it's an idea.

This is where I repeat my mantra about putting good arguments in the mouths of the NPCs. Make a real question as to which side is right and which is wrong. Want to include stereotypes? Sure! Include them whenever it suits your artistic vision. Don't just throw them out like asphalt in a pothole. Don't lean on them like a crutch. Give us real characters who believe in what they say and say it well. Give us characters who are so compelling in telling us what we don't believe that we almost believe it. Dostoyevsky feared that the anti-religious argument he put in the mouth of Ivan was so good he could not adequately answer it. Give us Ivan! Where are the Shylocks of computer games? Where are the Raskolnikovs? Where is Oedipus Tyrannos? Where is Satan saying, "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heav'n?" I think contemporary issues are perfectly legit and timely, but any issue can serve if the design team can refrain from creating characters all but sporting the words 'bad guy' on their forehead. ...And I'm going to hold forth for just a bit more on this issue. Compelling characters, whether a well placed stereotype or a complex villain, will carry the day. As long as they don't interupt gameplay and create a wall of text, compelling and adult characters will carry the day and leave the player wanting more. I understand the complications of the medium. I understand the constraints of the publisher. I understand the nature of the consumer. ...But I also know that there is a market out there for such characters. I believe fervently it is already there, waiting for someone to tap it.

If they've already decided to include the more or less standard fantasy races, they should continue that design. If they're just pulling our legs about it, it's a misguided and stupid ploy. We should be more or less secure in what we read unless it's clearly a joke. ...And even then, when it's probably worth it, there will still be people who take it seriously and will complain. It won't matter to a good story whether Obsidz includes elves and dwarves or were-rats and wraiths as player characters. I, for one, am glad to have elves and dwarves as a part of a robust world full of exotic species, races, cultures, and customs.

I think one of the most common beefs with PS:T is the lack of freedom in terms of the PC. Two things from my perspective: First of all, I'm willing to forgo a novel character if others feel so strongly about it and, second of all, having thrown in the towel on the first issue, being able to customize my character to the nitty gritty would be quite nice.

Glad to hear that I wasn't misremembering entirely. We need to get Sammael in here to get a reminder of the details... I was actually responding to you when I wrote that, forgetting that things move so quickly nowadays around here. Sammael had saved tons and tons of Jefferson (I think it was Jefferson) related stuff at one point. I think the Black Hound idea was pretty awesome. It was, like some of the folks here have posted, much more personal than so called 'epic' in nature, which meant that you were addressing personal concerns. Those concerns touched on the lives of other people, of course, but it was much more introspective in nature. Awesome sauce

Folks, it doesn't matter how big your elf is, just how you use it. Come on, just because there are elves and dwarves doesn't mean they've sold out. It means they're using something traditional to put the traditionalists among us at ease but I. have. no. doubt. they'll use those elves and dwarves in a novel and entertaining way. I, for one, like the use of elves and dwarves precisely for that reason.

I instantly thought of the Black Hound myself.

I remember fighting with Vis all the time as a mod. God rest his soul. I imagine I'll be gifting one of the $35-65 teirs to a couple of friends. I don't think they'll make us pledge for it, but I'd be willing to have that pledge go to a Vis rememberance character, although I have to admit that I miss Phosphor much more and we never found out what happened to him. EDIT: okay, I guess things just happened too quickly. Kudos to Sawyer, but also to Hurlie who's always been kind of the conscience of this joint.

You wouldn't even need to set it before-hand in every case. In some cases, you could even just give dialogue options. For example, one option is, "Yorrick over there negotiates all things between heaven and earth for me. [nods to Yorrick] Talk to him about it." Then you could enter a three way conversation with your companion. Some cases would be easier that way. Others might not. Just a thought.

Something I think would be kind of nice is if the player can put someone other than the PC in the 'party spokesman' role. I think that might be useful in a couple of different ways. For example, the most obvious is that the npc has a higher social/leadership attribute than the PC. For example, my mage, with a charisma of eight, lacks people skills while my cleric, with a charisma of seventeen is used to dealing with people much more often. Another siuation is dealing with particular groups. For example, my Paladin, while only a charisma of fifteen, has a nobility trait and therefore deals with nobles with exhuberant felicity. Finally, at least of things that spring to mind immediately, my elvish mage, while quite dour, might deal with other dour-assed elves better that my friendly priest.