Obsidain why you lie to us?

[Virgil]

DA2 and ME3 are two of BIO's better games. Certainly better than overrated stuff like BG1 or KOTOR.

 

?? DA2 is piece of crap and joke RPG. I loved Origins on higher difficulty level

- awesome tactical combat with awesome magic system

- great, rich world , standard races but with a twist (Elves being worse citizens)

- huge scope

- really great memorable side quests

- a lot of items

 

It was great game minus crappy main plot and somehow cliche companions (with some exceptions) but second part was complete crap, it less complicated, everything was small and backtracking was killing it.

[Leferd]

So here we are two days after the kickstarter launch. Now that I've had time to consider oldmanpaco's arguments, he does make valid points. Yes we don't know much, and some of the stretch goals are bizarre in how they are being presented. However, I'm not even close to considering removing my pledge.

 

But this does underscore that Obsidian may have fumbled a bit. They were obviously scrambling when hey announced their stretch goals, and may have asked for too little with 1.1 million, thereby hindering potential momentum for greater funding.

[The Sharmat]

But this does underscore that Obsidian may have fumbled a bit. They were obviously scrambling when hey announced their stretch goals, and may have asked for too little with 1.1 million, thereby hindering potential momentum for greater funding.

They did fumble, but it's because they had no conception that the game would be funded so quickly.

[oldmanpaco]

I think the best part is him complaining that only PS:T could do limited companions and thus this will fail, when the PS:T dev team are on this project

 

And that was 13 years ago. Can they do it again?

[Posbi]

Quite frankly I'd rather have a few well-developed companions with a limited number of well-developed races rather than have scores of them and have them be basically interchangeable. Secondly, keep the overall budget we know of in mind. Even BG2 did cost around $3.5 to make and that was ten years ago. The average A-list title costs usually around 8-12 million USD nowadays. Even if we assume that Obsidian is able to cut corners by using an existing engine and not being bound by the often absurd demands of publishers there are limits to what they can achieve with the projected budgets of Project Eternity. As such I'd rather have a small, well-made game than no game at all.

 

As for the speed of the funding, it's normal for Kickstarter that new funding drops quite radically after the first few days and only picks up again during the last days of the Kickstarter. I'm rather confident that we'll get more than 2 million.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Posbi

[oldmanpaco]

I think the best thing about this thread is that he spelled Obsidian wrong when it's in caps lock at the top of the page :3

 

Alright kids don't drink and type. I cannot stress this enough.

[oldmanpaco]

Wait, Icewind Dale 2 had 15 companions? Funny, last time I played it had none, you made your own companion characters in the Icewind Dale games. What version of IWD2 were you playing?

 

That was supossed to be NWN2. My bad.

[Tigranes]

NWN2, of course, had a gigantic budget, and a gigantic campaign.

[Leferd]

But this does underscore that Obsidian may have fumbled a bit. They were obviously scrambling when hey announced their stretch goals, and may have asked for too little with 1.1 million, thereby hindering potential momentum for greater funding.

They did fumble, but it's because they had no conception that the game would be funded so quickly.

 

Look at the other high profile kickstarter campaigns: Doublefine, Wasteland, Shadowrun, and Space Annihilation.

 

There is precedent.

 

Plus, Obsidian has to realize that they are much bigger, better known, and with a potentially more rabid following, than all the other companies combined.

 

They should have had this contingency planned out or forecasted.

[Audiocide]

I don't mind a small party size, or most of the other stuff.

 

If this game turns out to be too different from the aforementioned IE games however, I'll be majorly disappointed. I think most people actually pledged to see another BG, IWD, or PS:T. Not another Dragon Age or whatever.

 

I love Obsidian's games, but I wouldn't be going out of my way to fund a project like this if there's going to be XP for passive party members, or other beginner friendly mechanics that kills the mojo of almost any RPG I've played in the last decade.

 

I like rich, deep text in spell explanations, for example. I like complex, tactical battles that go beyond mashing buttons. Some kid threw a fit when I called those sorts of games deep, but that's what I want to play, and that's what I'd pay good money for.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[Streamlock]

To restate what some above have said, having a tight well developed and fleshed out companion group can be much more rewarding and deep then lets say 20 different companions. For instance I would rather have a few more fleshd out companions then 20 fairly shallow ones like Skyrim.

 

The class thing is dependant. If they have the ability to mix/match classes, that can become pretty big pretty fast. Something like Titan's Quest (I know, not an RPG per se', just and example) where you combine a melee class and a cleric/healer class to create a palidan build. Not sure they are going to go that route, but the potential builds grow expenentially at that point. Just to little to go on right now to say for sure.

 

Lastly, I am not sure what people were expecting from a 'deep' RPG with a shoestring budget of 1.1 mil. What were the budgets for PS:T, BGII, Fallout 2 etc.??? Have to have some realistic expectations.

[Gatt9]

 

6) The magic system is going to be stupid. See number 5.

 

Considering the massive amount of misinformation, disinformation, and complete speculation in your post, anything they do will now look like a work of genius in comparison.

[Audiocide]

Lastly, I am not sure what people were expecting from a 'deep' RPG with a shoestring budget of 1.1 mil. What were the budgets for PS:T, BGII, Fallout 2 etc.??? Have to have some realistic expectations.

 

I'm not asking for 11 classes or 20 companions. That's the part I don't care about.

 

What I care about is if the game becomes way too simplified, just like any other recent RPG. It doesn't have to be a 120+ hour game, but I want a deep, immersive game.

 

Fallout 1 had a budget of $3M, I recall Brian Fargo saying. That game was a bit short, but extremely satisfying and replayable. That amount would translate to a bit more today, but Project Eternity is very likely to reach that sort of funding in 30 more days.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[Delterius]

Back when BioWare tried to make a rule system for DA:O they barely made the decent mark. A lot of people I know bitched about it, especially because BioWare couldn't even fully implement what they envisioned for the attributes and whatever, but I never expected much from it so it was enjoyable. The only thing DA:O really excelled at was quest design. Naivelly, I expected a improved system on the next game but nothing else needs to be said.

 

Yes, I'd much prefer more classes and a nice 6 man party (if the correlation between the number of classes and the size of the party can be relied on here) but, then again, the Infinity Engine games were based on previous work of D&D, this is a new IP. This is why I think the comparison to BioWare's DA:O is valid. And I do believe we have a much different design vision in Eternity than even years ago on the Dragon Age project.

 

We haven't seen anything, anything yet. If you had to jump the boat, you should have the moment they cited the Infinity Engine games as inspiration.

 

Am I being apologetic? Well, after reading the BSN DA2 defense squad I can't believe I'm too obnoxious.

 

However, I am no fool. Your criticism is valid and, yes, I surely hope they scrap 'player housing' and go back to strongholds. Except for the magic system. Really? Bitching about it because of the fluff? It may suck but that's jumping the gun.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[l3loodangel]

I canceled my pledge after reading the stretch goals. I'm not normally a hater (as the kids say) but the stink of bioware is all over this project.

 

UNbrofist.

 

I am also disappointed, but to cancel and go to whine in the forums? You are not a man you are drama queen. Real men pack their stuff and go without a sound.

[Any_ILL]

I don't mind a small party size, or most of the other stuff.

 

If this game turns out to be too different from the aforementioned IE games however, I'll be majorly disappointed. I think most people actually pledged to see another BG, IWD, or PS:T. Not another Dragon Age or whatever.

 

I love Obsidian's games, but I wouldn't be going out of my way to fund a project like this if there's going to be XP for passive party members, or other beginner friendly mechanics that kills the mojo of almost any RPG I've played in the last decade.

 

I like rich, deep text in spell explanations, for example. I like complex, tactical battles that go beyond mashing buttons. Some kid threw a fit when I called those sorts of games deep, but that's what I want to play, and that's what I'd pay good money for.

 

Except that there is no connection between "xp for passive member" and an absence of rich tactical battles (per example). No xp for passive member is just an artificial limitation to make you replay the game or chose your companions before you even have enough information/experience to do so correctly. It's not "simplified" because it wasn't even depth to begin with. A tactical and hard to master combat system is depth however so I really want that to happen!!!

 

As for the "house vs stronghold" issue mentionned in the first post, wtf? The only important thing is what fits better in the universe and the story, which is more immersive. It could be a burrow or a mushroom, I don't even care, house is only a word anyway that could include all these things.

I do agree however that the TES way to do it is definitely not the right one in this case!

Edited September 16, 2012 by Any_ILL

[Streamlock]

Lastly, I am not sure what people were expecting from a 'deep' RPG with a shoestring budget of 1.1 mil. What were the budgets for PS:T, BGII, Fallout 2 etc.??? Have to have some realistic expectations.

 

I'm not asking for 11 classes or 20 companions. That's the part I don't care about.

 

What I care about is if the game becomes way too simplified, just like any other recent RPG. It doesn't have to be a 120+ hour game, but I want a deep, immersive game.

 

Fallout 1 had a budget of $3M, I recall Brian Fargo saying. That game was a bit short, but extremely satisfying and replayable. That amount would translate to a bit more today, but Project Eternity is very likely to reach that sort of funding in 30 more days.

 

Can't disagree with you there. Still need to go back and play Fallout 1. Think I saw it on GOG when I was picking up FTL.....Don't know if it will run on Win7 64 bit though. Oh well, off topic.

[Nakia]

First the OP has the right to voice his opinion and he has the right to withdraw his pledge for any reason what so ever. However, the title of the thread is provocative at best and in my opinion untrue. I see no where that Obsidian lied to us. The game itself is in the very early stages of development. The planning stage and they are asking for suggestions and ideas from us.

 

Four or five years ago I read that it took somewhere around 5 mil to develop a game. Devs need salaries to live on, feed, cloth, house themselves and their familys. Equipment costs money. My computer, the tower, alone cost around 1,000 USD. Their is sound to be considered. Someone needs to compose the music. That person will wish to be paid. Clerical staff, bookkeepers, secretaries, accountants, lawyers. I honestly don't think Obsidian expected the initial response they got. So they tried to come up with one they felt was an obtainable amount and geared their initial thinking to that amount. "If we can get 1.1 mil we can do this much" Well they got that in less than two days.

 

Don't hassle them. They need to east, sleep and do other things just like the rest of us. They get headaches, virus and like to watch a TV show just as we do. They are creative people and creative people need time to relax and have fun. Creative people need to toss wild ideas around and laugh. Creative people need space. Once that is done then the work begins.

 

We can help with that creative process but be reasonable. I am not going to get every thing I want. You are not going to get every thing you want. The Devs are not going to be able to do every thing they would like to do.

 

Four pages of arguing over something that is still in embryonic stage is ridiculous. Lets move on to more productive things. Such as, can we please have some innovative monsters" Quests other than "Go fetch the Tablet of Exmora/" Fun companions. Eight possible fun companions is enough for me. Better that then thirty or forty blah companions.

Magic and skill perks? Chances are I won't be happy with anything, not completely.

[Audiocide]

Except that there is no connection between "xp for passive member" and an absence of rich tactical battles (per example). No xp for passive member is just an artificial limitation to make you replay the game or chose your companions before you even have enough information/experience to do so correctly. It's not "simplified" because it wasn't even depth to begin with. A tactical and hard to master combat system is depth however so I really want that to happen!!!

 

XP for a passive party member might help with switching around party members, but if they use an exponential XP system, they will catch up pretty quickly anyway.

 

I think it's pretty unrealistic to have them go from wimp to champion while sitting around and doing nothing. I'm also against having all complanions be at your camp at all times. They aren't helping you, so why are they following you, no questions asked?

 

Actually, it might make more sense to have them passively level up if they're out adventuring by themselves in the meanwhile.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[Delterius]

Actually, it might make more sense to have them passively level up if they're out adventuring by themselves in the meanwhile.

 

Yes, but if that's the case it can't just be left implied. What your inactive party members are doing should tie in with the overall plot.

[Audiocide]

Actually, it might make more sense to have them passively level up if they're out adventuring by themselves in the meanwhile.

 

Yes, but if that's the case it can't just be left implied. What your inactive party members are doing should tie in with the overall plot.

 

Sure. You could refuse someone at the beginning, and if you wanted to recruit him later on, you'd go find him somewhere in the city.

[Any_ILL]

Except that there is no connection between "xp for passive member" and an absence of rich tactical battles (per example). No xp for passive member is just an artificial limitation to make you replay the game or chose your companions before you even have enough information/experience to do so correctly. It's not "simplified" because it wasn't even depth to begin with. A tactical and hard to master combat system is depth however so I really want that to happen!!!

 

XP for a passive party member might help with switching around party members, but if they use an exponential XP system, they will catch up pretty quickly anyway.

 

I think it's pretty unrealistic to have them go from wimp to champion while sitting around and doing nothing. I'm also against having all complanions be at your camp at all times. They aren't helping you, so why are they following you, no questions asked?

 

Actually, it might make more sense to have them passively level up if they're out adventuring by themselves in the meanwhile.

 

Ok I do agree with what you're saying here. An exponential xp system sounds good (and it would be funny to struggle the time to catch up) and more realistic. What I don't want to see is archa

Edited September 16, 2012 by Any_ILL

[Audiocide]

Ok I do agree with what you're saying here. An exponential xp system sounds good (and it would be funny to struggle the time to catch up) and more realistic. What I don't want to see is archa

Edited September 16, 2012 by Audiocide

[The Sharmat]

I really like shared party exp. I generally take companions on quests based on story considerations, which leads to me switching out NPCs frequently instead of sticking to a few optimal members. In the end, the latter actually adds up to LESS tactical choices and diversity, not more; as you'll be combining the same talents over and over throughout a given playthrough.

[Nakia]

A lot of things get implied in a game. Why the assumption that party members staying at you residence are passive? They could be practicing their skills, learning improving. If you go to a trainer do you spend a lot of time actually training? I do like it when there is actual training of some sort. Shooting at a target gives you some XP. Sparing with a partner gives XP. That sort of thing.

 

Tea Parties? Did I hear a mention of those? As a recent arrival from Skyrim I want mead parties! Milk drinkers all of yah.