the proctophantasmist

I think the mouse wheel is a better idea, especially with the "click to select spell then click on target" , IE style way of doing things (which is better than radial menu anyway, especially for AOE abilities) . Mouse wheel functionality would be contextual (would change once you've selected an AOE spell), but you could always get the original function through a modifier, i.e. ctrl+mouse wheel. You would have two different interfaces for targeting and size of AOE, faster and less error prone than putting everything on mouse movement and click I think. Of course all this would work much better in a TB game :-D

I think the question is: does the decaying mechanic fits PE? And for now, I'd lean towards no. Decaying mechanics make sense, both gameplay-wise and thematically, in a "survival", gritty RPG. That doesn't seem to be PE. I'd welcome a few dungeons where you'd get that feeling of scarce resources and having to fight for survival, if it is not at the heart of the game, such a global design choice seems out of place. Now if we were in a low magic setting, playing a down on her luck adventurer, trying to scrap a little money by risking her life at the border of civilization it would be fine. As you mention in that case the game could afford making "survival" mechanics a central part of gameplay. Here not so much, from what I have read. And thematically and story wise the same problem occur: how is it gonna look at the end of the game, when having looted an ancient treasure of inestimable worth you are gonna spend a fair amount of it sharpening your +15 sword of destruction? Because as far as I can see, if it is gonna work as a money sink until the end of the game, the cost of it will have to follow the curve of the protagonist's wealth. It will feel silly. As of now this feels like it was tacked on the game, with little regard for consistency. I'd much prefer Obsidian found money sinks that brought something to the game, from a mechanical point of view and story wise. As was mentioned multiple times, paying to get access to some quest, or to have some sort of effect in game is fine, and can be well done (think spending money to mount an expedition, or founding an orphanage in one of the cities, whatever…). Outlandish prices for things coming from faraway regions are fine too. And so are low selling prices for the player. Those who would make the big bucks would be the merchants, not the adventurous individual. Think of the spice trade (or cocaine): the enormous money involved came from its remote origins and the number of times it changed hands. If PE has adventurers looking for hidden treasures in dangerous dungeons, then it should have an army of merchant with caravans, exclusive access to the customers, guild rules, assassin enforcers, etc, making the real money from that trade. Some players will find ways to accumulate money nevertheless, always looking for the best price, spending little etc. But it will be their choice and probably because they enjoy it. No problem there.

There are plenty of articles right now on the internet about Project Eternity in Spanish, German, French… From the demographics on an English only forum, you infer that all the Internet is in English? Don't you think your argument is slightly flawed? It doesn't take the same competency in English to play through a text heavy game, to discuss a game on English boards, and to click on two buttons to make a donation. One thing right now slowing European funders is the absence of a paypal option. Kickstarter is in dollars, and Europeans pay high conversion fees to their bank when giving there (I'm among them).

Yes, that's great. Still would like to see that kicking it forward icon though, it's as much about publicizing crowd funding ethics as the actual backing I think.

I like this, give us an original take on a mostly useless weapon in CRPGs (when implemented). And from your description seems like a perfect weapon for a small band.

Narration in CRPG is generally extremely linear (yes you might be able to choose the order of the event, but they unfold chronologically, the narration itself is linear, even if the game is not) and almost totally main character centered, I get why. As a rule of thumb you should avoid anything that might make the players feel they are less connected to the (main) characters they are playing. But it is a little disappointing to me, it lacks flavour and variety. Even something like temporarily controlling one of your companions or a team of companions when they are away from your character apparently sets some people teeth on edge. The paradox is that games in order to escape this linearity have used out of gameplay narrations . Cutscenes of course (all the IE games had them). IWD had a frame story, but minimal, not a playable one, just enough to sew the story together. I think that is a shame Dream sequence, death mechanism (think going to hell) can be, and have been used to toy with that linearity (Planescape of course comes to mind). I've never played in a precognitive dream for instance, could be fun. Variation and repetition and what not. Flash backs seems like a perfect mechanism, they actually give you more control over your character. Obsidian has done that a little if I recall correctly. Imagine meeting one of your future companions, or arch-enemy, starting a conversation and discover that you actually met before… and play through the recollection. Your action in the flash back having consequences when you come back to the present. Maybe hiding something in a flashback, that you then know where to look for in the present. Or, I don't know, having the option to mention that you are arachnophobic in a dialog with a companion. Then being confronted by a huge spider, taken back to the event in your childhood that triggered the phobia, actually do something significant for the rest of the story there (that might or might not have anything to do with any spider, but resulting for the short term in malus , or not, for your present day combat with the monster), etc. OK this example is stupid and needlessly convoluted. Anyway what do you think?

Interesting, king of like action queues ranging over the multiple characters of your party. Or triggers, from the completion of one character's action to an other starting something. I don't know how practical this would be but it is interesting. It is also pretty close to having some kind of system to describe and trigger combinations, like you have in team sports, but more of an on the fly thing (which might actually work better). Reminds me of some discussions we had at the start of DA:O development. Let's be nuts: an approach that would combine the two might be the most efficient: ie build a tactic before hand: « Warrior will retreat, and when she is clear, Sorceror will cast fireball on pursuers ». Then during combat, select the combination then the exact places where the warrior will retreat, and where the Sorceror will cast the fireball. Again maybe not to everyone's taste, but I would enjoy some kind of option like that I think. To me the biggest advantage the IE games had over say DA:O, or even more so NWN2, was the ease with which you could switch from one character to an other when giving orders. This is a point where isometric games shine, no change of perspective, everything can be fluid. And it is related to the previous point: look for anything that can make the player more efficient and precise when controlling her/his group. Agreed about the ruleset, though, if I understand you correctly, I feel that the problem with active skills and cooldowns are attenuated if it is easier to switch from one character to the other, and as a consequence have less meddlesome AI. After all, one off abilities with a set duration usually work quite well, because in this case the AI never interrupts the ability. It's a fine line between less meddlesome AI, and having your warrior getting massacred because he didn't switch from range to melee though. About AoE spells maybe, the player should be able to decide weather the effect will be instantaneous (i.e fireball, casting time and target selection is an other problem), triggered (trap like), and/or lasting. Considering the challenges of realtime tactics the flexibility might add to the game.

Will you people stop using that argument! I'm a French speaking Linux user, I'm gonna harm myself if you continue, I feel like the ugly duckling.

Dan, as far as inflammatory posts goes, yours are very polite, thank you for that. But, really, do you expect any Linux user to agree with you? Yes, that is your whole point. I could answer "just design the game for the freer/cheaper/better OS and call it a day." The only difference is that I would be pissing off the majority instead of a minority. OK, you expect us to surrender to your wisdom, I even understand your arguments, it so happens that I have other priorities. . Hum, no, I'd really like to see Linuxes overtake Windows, but I don't think it will take Eternity for it to happen. I want to play this game on the OS I use everyday. I even have practical reasons for that: Debian is on a ssd, while Windows is on an old drive. I might want to keep some stuff open while playing, like for instance the servers that run on my box. If moding is possible, I would very much like to be able to do it on Linux, with a suitable environment. Also, I don't like to reboot. And yes I feel that every piece of software that comes to Linux is a victory for the good guys. Unless it comes with a DRM Relax, depending on the choice of the engine a Linux version can be a relatively simple thing, Obsidian wouldn't have put it in the stretch goals if they thought it was impractical. Plus, they think (with solid evidence) that it will bring more funding to the project, so why aren't you be happy: the Linux version will bring more content for you.

Damn! I never thought of that! You are right! So it is settled then? Shall we go for a Linux only game? After all, it is free (and it is free), and you can install it on any computer, so it shouldn't make any difference to you.

There has been a number of extensive mods for the IE games (independent campaigns, major add-ons

As the stretch goals are reached and the project expands, Obs will need more people to work on it, so this is not an either/or situation. George wouldn't be a feature, but an asset on this project, not the same column .

It's been launched three days ago, and then there was the week-end. Be patient, obviously we will now more in the coming days. As for paypal, it cannot be set-up before the project reaches its initial goal on Kickstarter, otherwise it would break the all or nothing model

Exactly, which is why the paypal option only gets added once the project is fully funded on kickstarter.

Yes, they add everything together. At least every project before them did, and it wouldn't make sense otherwise.