Shevek

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show. If equity is the issue, then Dragon Age: Origins has the right concept. Two straight pairings and two wild cards. Not quite fair, but reasonable given the demographics. Well, need I say more? Romances = bad.

Some minor stuff, like a key ring, is ok but that should function like "bag" for keys (and it should take inventory space). It should, similarly, have limited space. A scroll case for papers would also work... oh wait, BG2 already had those... Ultimately though, I dislike dumbed down inventory systems. A separate quest inventory makes no sense at all. The way I see it, if you want a book in your stronghold library, get it and place it on the shelves yourself just like you could in BG2. Edit: I would add that there is something positive to be said about handling individual letters or books or keys as individual items. Placing these in drawer ot box or something somewhere and being able to go to that place and retrieve said goods gives me a sense of being part of the world in a very immersive way.

You are mixing issues. No one is arguing for or against character recruitment and the analogy you make is deeply flawed. 1) My argument is such: Games with romancable NPCs typically must have more than one romancable npcs to react to player sex choice and sexual reference choice (the one exception to this is games where they make the PC for you - like Torment). This leads to a significant perspective shift into how the player then views the party. The player soon makes a mental note of npcs as "sexable" and "nonsexable." This has little to do with people crying over why you couldn't recruit Drizzt. 2) If anything, NPC availability is reflective of developer intent to accomodate PC creation. In other words, devs tend to make enough npcs of varying classes to accomodate player's of any class. If romances are included, then the same philosophy leads to the issue described above. Umm, I don't quite know what you are saying there. But, Cain said thats how he wants low int to work EXTENSIVELY so... Give me a real argument and I might. Actually, no. Building friendships and rivalries is NOT the same as trying to find your next hot date. One could argue that one would NEED to build trust between party members to triumph. One cannot argue that you must attempt to bed every female in your party in order to defeat the dragon in the next room.

This is a big reason why romances do not work. Equity. Soon, all npcs must be bangable because the player must have equitable choices. Frankly, I hope OE avoids this pitfall entirely. If not, the entire slate of npcs will be little more than contestants on some fantasy dating game show.

I like the idea of post game because they could travel to a completely new place and take part in a totally different story. Moreover, they can have the xpac serve as a bridge between the sequel and the original if this is done in this way. Also, PE already sound outrageously huge. 2 main cities, a 15 level dungeon, bg1 like expore zones, etc.. Adding more to that may not be the best move.

Epic beard guy must lose epic beard.

Perhaps people should just continue to post in the thread for as long as they like. Then, when the thread gets too long, you close it. Done. This thread is fairly pointless, anyways. Devs probably already have their minds made up on this stuff. Avellone has stated he likes romances that end badly. Sawyer hates them from what I hear. Cain... heck, he's had hookers in his games, I guess. Chances are if people want to really want to exploit some innocent whiny Elf girl (Aerie), manipulate a griveing widow (Jaheira), bed a loose skank (Viconia), or if they want to see softporn sex scenes reflecting various sexual preferences (DA, ME, etc), they may need to look elsewhere. Just install BG2 again if you must have more romance. There are so many mods out there. You can have sex with your sister or make it so you can have sexual relations with multiple party members. However, since these mods are so popular, perhaps PE should include the same plot devices in its game, right?

Its a Warlord. Deal with it.

Rogue most likely. Game already has several warrior npcs and no rogues announced yet.

A few things: 1. This is a fantasy ADVENTURE roleplaying game. Notice the word ADVENTURE. Images of women AND men should be idealized in an adventure. This is not Project:Paying My Taxes or Project:Eating Cheetos. It is Project:Eternity. You will be a group of exceptional people. Even your wimpy Wizard should be built fairly well. The guy travels for days carrying at least 40lbs of gear, walking through mud, dodging arrows and climbing cliff faces. It makes plenty of sense for these folks to have good builds. Ultimately, not everyone is made for the adventuring life. Which of these two belongs on an adventure and which should probably stay home? 2. The only way to correctly do as you say is to allow folks to select different physical builds. Putting in a bunch of different physical builds is HARD to do well, though. You have go through all different models and edit animations frame by frame to reduce clipping of armor pieces, etc. Frankly, I would rather they focus time and energy on more varied armor pieces on one physical build than on much fewer armor pieces iterated over several physical builds. 3. This a medieval fantasy. While I concur that it should be grounded in reality, I do not believe that people in that world should be portrayed as people in our world. The US has a massive obesity rate. I doubt people of medieval times had the same rates of obesity as folks today. Sure there were some (BG1/2 had overweight npcs, etc) but they should not be as prevalent. 4. As far as ugliness, etc. Who cares? They can be Plain Janes but they have to be built well. I suggest looking at Game of Thrones. That buff knight lady from last season comes to mind. Not too attractive but very athletically built. I do agree that women do not need to be overly top heavy, though. You certainly don't need DD's to slay a dragon.

Obsidian really painted themselves into a corner with some of this stuff. I just dunno how they can pull a side dungeon this huge, two cities, exploratory zones like BG1 (I remember I heard that somewhere), 11 classes, 8 companions, multiple factions, normal and idiot dialogue, interesting yet untested combat mechanics, a brand new custom system/world/lore, crafting, mod support and...I just don't remember, its so much. They do have some rockstars on this but, man... I mean, jeez, I know they got 4.1 million but they will need to have a huge team on this. I forsee a separate mini-team just for that nutty dungeon. I would argue this is like 2.5 games in 1. The dungeon is basically IWD (without the xpacs) and the rest of the game is a bigger BG2/Tormet/Whatever Hybrid.

I think Sawyer is on the right track. For this to work, Health damage should drain slowly and only be recouped at rest. Moreover, rest would need to be very limited. Still, this system could turn out very well.

On the KS comments section people tend to be fairly respectful to OE folks. Why? Well, as a backer, you know Obsidian will have access to your name and address at some point. Honestly, any future things like that should focus on stripping away anonymity. That may not eliminate the stupidness but it should reduce it.

Hehe

I have to agree. Some of that stupidness was cringe worthy. Suggestion: Please figure out a way only to let backers see/particapte in those feeds. Restrict this by email and have all comments show the person's actual name. If they get out of line, perma ban them from future events. The best way to end that kind of stuff is to take away anonymity.

Why not? Because that would limit the kind of character content you can experience with a given PC. Since many people feel strongly about romances, this would not go well. Clearly, the only solution here is to make the romanceable companion from a changeling-like race (godlike subrace?). If the NPC can change gender at the player's will, all combinations are covered! Universal Romance? Haha

There are MANY problems with party romances. Perhaps the biggest is equity. See, you can't have just ONE romanceable NPC. You have to have AT LEAST 2. One guy. One girl. You also have to open it up to straight folks and LGBT folks. Now, what about different races? What if you make a shorty or an halforc or something? Do you have to throw in some loving for them too? Pretty soon, 4+ of the party are shaggable and the player starts to look to NPCs not as companions but as potential sexual objects. That COMPLETELY subverts the party dynamic. Soon, all the party is a den of possible conquests and the game really does feel like a fantasy porno with the player looking slyly to see who he can conquer. Frankly, the further OE stays away from this foolishness the better.

Again. Nope. Romances are a story telling device they are not THE story telling device. There can be rivalries, friendships, relatives, and so on. These are all story telling devices NOT features. Perhaps to relationship dynamic that should be explored more is, oh I dunno, fellow adventurers. Instead of playing a game of blind date with your party maybe they should explore the dynamics of a group of people struggling to survive against insumountable odds not of people struggling to fight insurmountable hormones. Maybe its just me in my playthrough, but I didn't see tons of oppurtunities to have hot loving with Ignus or get kinky with Morte. Again, I am talking about party romances. I disagree. Frankly, if you guys are out killing things and bathing in blood and sweat that does not necessarily lead to candlelit dinners and long walks on the beach. Again, DISAGREE. Romances do not ADD. They are a story telling choice . You can add to the relationship the player has with his party in other ways. I would argue that ensuring the player has sufficient intercourse options actually DETRACTS from suspension of disbelief and takes away from immersiveness.

Here is my two cents on this foolishness. 1. Romance story arcs are not required in all stories. Moreover, adding a romance story arc does not improve a story or a game. This is not a "feature." It is a plot device. 2. Having romancable party npcs has some significant downsides. Having romancable party members tends to degenerate into the player looking at every party member as a potential sexual conquest. So, we have 8 npcs and the player approaches conversations with his 8 cohorts attempting to find out who he can get naked. Hmm, does that monk dig elves? How about the wizard? Does he swing both ways? Hey, maybe if I make eyes at the dwarf, she'll bend over and show me some skin. Man, instead of an adventure, what do you get? Video game porno. 3. You can have romance OUTSIDE of party npcs that players can be free to explore or ignore and have it never come up in party dialogue or ruin someone's play experience. 4. Obsidian is not Bioware and should not be expected to have gratutious sex scenes or ridiculous dating sim mechanics. I know many IE folks love their romances (there was even an incestual Imoen romance that was quite popular if memory serves) but that does not mean that all of us want to be able to get every elf, halfling or whatever into the sack.

1. 500K copies... Man, that would be a healthy chunk of change for OE. I am not sure even that much is really necessary though for PE to be a success. 200K copies would mean $4.9 million coming in (assuming a unit cost of $35 and like 30% of revenue going to distributors - just a guesstimate). I mean, if OE gets $4.9 million in straight up profit (before taxes) after all costs have been paid for, isn't that a resounding success for a company of OE's size? How much would they get in a publisher deal, I wonder? If they do get 500K copies sold (which they should after all the buzz us early adopters will generate), thats over 12 million in profit. Crazy. 2. I do NOT believe critics matter in this equation. I have to disagree very sharply on that point. The gaming press mattered during the KS campaign to help generate buzz. Now that is done and the emphasis will shift to how we, the early adopters, react to their product.

So far, PE is offering some interesting and exciting changes to accepted rpg mechanics. Here are two I find interesting. 1. Hitpoints are now a two tiered system: stamina and health. This attempts to offer the benefits of regenerating health in stemming rest based save scumming while attempting to maintain a system that allows for attrition. Curative spells are largely gone as well. 2. Spells are now based on a mix of regenerating spell point system with higher level spells requiring rest to regain. In other words, all wizards are sorcerors who regen spell points on the mid and low level spells while still having to rest for the "big guns." Spell "sets" can be swapped at a cooldown cost. What I see here is an attempt to take the benefits of more modern systems and marry them to the virtues of older implementations of said systems. Frankly, I love this. Sure, how rest is handled in this game is very important to the viability of all this. Still, this is exciting stuff. When Avellone was interviewed by RPS, the interviewer seemed overly negative. To RPS, PE seemed to be simply a return to simpler times and nothing but a child of nostalgia. When I look at changes like those above, however, I see something different. PE has the potential to move the genre forward in some significant ways. It can maintain deep, strategic gameplay while also minimizing tedium and annoyance. Can a rpg maintain the importance of rest and attrition while avoiding abuse of the rest or save/load? Can one keep the strategic planning of 2e dnd while avoiding the constance hassle of constantly memming/resting for a series of spells to take down necessary spell protections/etc? Few mainstream games ask these questions because the answers do not matter to their bottom line. I was once told its not what you do but why you do it. I think there is truth in this. The PE team is not trying to hit a metacritic score. They are not trying to hit an ESRB rating. They are not trying to ensure they land on Walmart shelves. They are trying to make a great rpg for US. I think that vision will be evident in the final product. I also think they may well impact the industry as a whole. How awesome would that be? Maybe that is why I (we?) donated to this thing. What do you guys think? Will PE change how other cRPGs are made in the future? Or is this the last hoorah for real party based cRPGs?

I am curious how big each level will be. I am having a hard time imagining a dungeon with levels as big as say Watcher's Keep that is this deep. That would be, almost, it's own separate game just by itself.

Who says all class combinations should be able to do the same thing or do things at the same speed? A pureclass mage or cleric has the advantage of getting access to high level spells at earlier levels and therefore have different options available earlier. That is their benefit. They tend to have a higher caster level too (not to mention generally better saves and chances to get stuff to land). This means single class characters get their spells at max levels faster. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with that Sarevok fight (though I do wonder if that guy removed the xp cap). He played will, used his scrolls, item swapped as needed, and so on. That is a player playing well. I will say there is a balance issue in ToB's high level play. However, look at the ENTIRE experience prior to ToB - beginning at BG1 (89k), to BG1 w/ TotSC (161k XP) to BG2 (2.95 mil). Prior to around clvl ~20, this all works out very well. Yes, balance breaks down in BG2:ToB because players reach levels that are god like (the cap is a whopping 8 mil). Well, surprise surprise, most game systems break down after a certain point and givng players the powers of demigods is generally when that starts to happen (other game systems that break down is things like, oh, I dunno, armor, saves, and so on). 3E has the same issue only worse. I would argue 3E multiclassing is grossly unbalanced at post 20 levels since players can simply splash another PrC to synergize even more broken abilities in their builds.

1. I doubt stat rolling will be in PE. Chances are they will go point buy. Also god stats made single characters op too. 2. I do not understand your question. There was no xp penalty for mc in 2e. There were other penalties. Your saves, thac0, hp and spell level tended to be lackluster but acceptable. 3. You are mixing issues and muddying the discussion. Stick to mc issues. 4. You are ignoring some of the nuances of the 2e system. See, early on, you could achieve similar levels in you mc as a single class because the single class fighter has not got many profs or gotten many attacks per round and cleric has very few spells. Once you hit level 7 or 8, the xp table ramp up. The 2e system was very elegant in this way. When you compare characters, do not compare their levels. Look at their saves, spells, ho thac0, attacks per round, etc. It actually works out very well.

Great. Lets just agree to ignore eachother then. For ONE multiclass that was exclusive to ONE race. That is not true of ALL multiclasses. Therefore, by this reasoning, you would admit 2E multiclassing was NOT overpowered in IWD:HoW?