I actually don't want to see the 2.6m goal's content

[NerdBoner]

I don't have a problem with the Adventurer's Hall, but I think it should be locked until the game has been completed once.

'murica's 'bout freedom sir...democracy's 'bout the right ta choose how ya wanna live yer laife! So you go-on an take yer socialisms on outta here!

[Ink Blot]

I don't have a problem with the Adventurer's Hall, but I think it should be locked until the game has been completed once. It seems like a bit of a waste to have them develop really interesting storied companions only to steal the focus from them a bit with the Adventurer's Hall, but I do like the idea of being able to make a different team a couple of playthroughs down the line when I've grown tired of going through the same old quests of the storied companions.

 

Unless I've missed something about the Adventurer's Hall, I don't see the reason for it to be locked. The devs have described it as a place where you could leave some of the companions to wait for you while you adventure with others. I get the impression it's intended to be like the Sunken Flagon(?) in NWN2 where you could switch out companions depending on who you felt you needed or wanted on any particular quest line. It would also serve as the place where any of your self-created party members would show up in-game.

 

I personally don't have any issues with this planned stretch goal and, in fact, really want to see it. As long as it doesn't negatively impact the story as some people have shown concerns about, I'm good with it (and I honestly don't see how it would have any real effect on the story at all). I certainly don't plan to use the 'create your own party' feature on the first couple runs through the game, but I really want to be able to do this for later runs. Just like I often do in BG and BG2 now.

[Farudan]

Not exactly, IIRC Black Isle was formed shortly after, though a big part from the Fallout team went to it.

I don't know the whole story with Dragon Play and Mark O'Green leading them, but Feargus took over the RPG division in 1996. They decided to build this division after they aquired the D&D licences- That must have been 1995/96, because IIRC SSI lost the rights in 1995.

 

http://web.archive.o.../ptorment.shtml

http://www.joystiq.c...k-isle-studios/

Edited October 8, 2012 by Farudan

[J.E. Sawyer]

One of the reasons we wanted to add the Adventurer's Hall was to allow people to experience all of the various class mechanics if they want to without requiring a companion per class. We put a lot of time into developing our companions and we would rather not link their number directly to the number of classes.

[C2B]

Not exactly, IIRC Black Isle was formed shortly after, though a big part from the Fallout team went to it.

I don't know the whole story with Dragon Play and Mark O'Green leading them, but Feargus took over the RPG division in 1996. They decided to build this division after they aquired the D&D licences- That must have been 1995/96, because IIRC SSI lost the rights in 1995.

 

http://web.archive.o.../ptorment.shtml

http://www.joystiq.c...k-isle-studios/

 

Yeah, but even though it evolved from it, didn't Black Isle count as it's own seperate entity?

 

Could easily be that I'm wrong here.

[Skie Nightfall]

Well, I didn't want the 2.4 goal. Tough luck

[Farudan]

Yeah, but even though it evolved from it, didn't Black Isle count as it's own seperate entity?

 

Could easily be that I'm wrong here.

Can't say for sure, there was some time of transition, I guess. What I can say for sure is, that Feargus is listed as Division Director in the Fallout credits. So at this time it already existed. Interplay marketing also released a brochure around the time of BG2 where they mentioned the important role of Black Isle and how BIS revived the CRPG genre with Fallout. So it seems they didn't seperate that internally. I also think to have read an interview with Feargus where he stated that it was simply because they couldn't agree to a name that Fallout was labeled simply Interplay. Maybe I simply ask him when he's around in the kickstarter comments.

[SqueakyCat]

It's optional so I just don't see the problem. According to a previous thread on this topic, it is not very difficult/costly to add as a feature.

 

There are always going to be features people like more or less than others, but this is optional.

[Amentep]

One of the reasons we wanted to add the Adventurer's Hall was to allow people to experience all of the various class mechanics if they want to without requiring a companion per class. We put a lot of time into developing our companions and we would rather not link their number directly to the number of classes.

 

Makes sense to me. Gives a way to test run a lot of things without having to do it with your PC.

[Umberlin]

This, "an option exists so I have no choice but to use it, despite alternatives within the game that give me exactly what I want" mentality boggles me endlessly.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Umberlin

[harhar!]

Hmm they can make different conversations trigger based on what race/gender/whatever you picked. It all doesn't have to be set in stone for it to

be reflected in dialogue.

 

Sure, if they want to invest that much more time and effort it will be fine. It just seems like a lot of work to me. And oftentimes in RPGs I see that developers don't really consider to do it for that reason.

 

The other reason I gave is less easily observable for us but I can imagine, that devs would sometimes want to create storyelements, that only fit certain types of races/gender/whatever but can't because of the imo meaningless charcustomization. That doesn't need to be a problem though.

Edited October 8, 2012 by harhar!

[DocDoomII]

This, "an option exists so I have no choice but to use it, despite alternatives within the game that give me exactly what I want" mentality boggles me endlessly.

The flesh is weak?

[Umberlin]

Well . . . something like that.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Umberlin

[Fluffle]

I'm okay with: "I do not like it"

 

I'm not okay with "I do not like it hence it should not be ingame" (especially when it is optional)

 

I have seen this so many times before, no matter if it's the bioware forum, the BG:EE forum or here:

People not wanting optional stuff ingame because they are not gonna use it.

 

1) It is optional, you can avoid it

2) The game is not developed just for you, there may be someone out there who likes this optional content. The decision if this someone should get optional content is the developers one, not yours.

3) Concerning the argument: "Only optional stuff for majorities should be added, because the devs could save time if they did not implement options for minorities (and spend that time on other stuff)":

a) Maybe one day you will want to have something implemented that only a few players want (i.e. you may belong to a minority yourself one day concerning an ingame feature).

b) Once again: It is the developers decision: They decide if they can afford the time to add optional content. And what content this may be.

 

Out of a game-developers view: I would really like to know how they see it: Adding a content for a minority that absolutely did not expect it and is grateful for it. Or adding a content for people who believe themselves to be majority and take it for granted that they are being catered to.

[ogrezilla]

It just adds a lot of flexibility to the designers and to us. I am a big fan.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Larkaloke]

It won't in any way negatively effect playing the game with all the NPC companions along, so why would it be a problem? You don't have to do it. I'm not personally all that fond of enchanting and crafting, but I see no reason to complain about that being there -- a lot of people do like it, and I won't have to use it. And who knows, after a while, I might decide I want to try it out.

 

The full party creation is the single goal that I'm interested in the most, myself. I like to replay games many, many times, and even if I play through once or twice with all of the NPC companions, I think it adds a great deal to the replayability of the game to be able to create your own party. I also just like creating the whole party and roleplaying them (I have actually never finished a playthrough of the Baldur's Gate games taking only NPCs, despite playing through the games at least once a year since they came out and setting out to do so once or twice). The ability to do so is something that I've missed a fair amount in recent games.

 

I've never understood why sometimes people get so upset about optional features. I can see being upset if it were something you would be forced to do, but it isn't.

[Merin]

Adventurer Hall is more important to me than pretty much all the rest of the stretch goals combined. Pretty much.

 

I personally am growing a bit sad at the number of threads started about "I don't like this OPTIONAL feature being added to the game, don't include it, give ME more of what I want."

 

There are things in this game (quite a few) that I won't use and won't care about... but I'm not about to go and tell the devs to not include stuff that will make other people have fun just because it's outside of my interest.

 

I'm waiting for a Mac user to create a thread about there shouldn't be PC support.

[Ykalon]

I don't see a problem with the player's hall, however.... having this as a 2.6 million stretch goal, something that is this 'high' on the amount of cash flow coming into this game, is a bit ridiculous. I would have expected something far more grander than a player's hall for a 2.6 million stretch goal, which is more than double the original goal. It's almost like they're asking people to not give them money after the 2.5 million goal. If they want to keep the cash flowing in a good way they should have added something that applied to a higher majority of their player base, instead of something that only makes a small fraction of people go 'yay'. I think they really hurt themselves with this goal, and would have preferred to see something that would add more to the game itself.

 

 

You are forgetting that they are not doing the game just out of kindness, they actually still want to make a profit too.Plus they probably want to finish the game this decade. The more you add the more time you nee and time is money. So for every 100k added to the goal they can't really spend more than say 25% of it on new features.

[Merin]

Well, I didn't want the 2.4 goal. Tough luck

 

I could really do without the 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 goals... and I could do without elves and rogues as well. But, you know, I can accept that the entire game isn't designed precisely towards my own personal interests, tastes and idiosyncrasies.

[Fluffle]

More stretch goals could mean more money and having to add more content. More content means spending more time for creating that content.

At the same time however you can afford to hire more people working for you with the additional money, which would mean less time spending.

 

More content means bigger game and can increase the chance of pleasing a bigger audience, which can mean more customers.

 

On this stuff, we can only speculate.

I do not have insight in the staff of Obsidian Entertainment, nor in their financial situation.

I am not able to tell what the guys at Obsidian Entertainment can do or cannot do with what amount of money.

 

I do not have insight in this company.

 

This is why I would prefer an offcial opinion of somebody working there on this issue than mere speculation.

[Gyges]

I will probably utilize it as well at some point, even if i dont particularly care about it right now. Im just waiting for obsidian to do something drastic to increase the get the final pledges.

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I don't envy the designers. They have to keep thinking of new ways to get people excited so they get more pledges, which means things you measure. Tangible things like classes, regions, factions, races, spells, features, whatever.

 

I personally would just like to see 'at 2.5 million we'll be releasing a more polished game, with more dialogue and more developed characters and story, because we now have resources enough to finish it properly.' I'll take that over adventurer halls and barbarians and necromancers any day of the week.

 

But I guess it doesn't excite potential donors as much, so eh.

[NerdBoner]

I could really do without the 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 goals... and I could do without elves and rogues as well. But, you know, I can accept that the entire game isn't designed precisely towards my own personal interests, tastes and idiosyncrasies.

an rpg without rogues...?

 

>confirmed as a button mashing DudeBro.

Edited October 8, 2012 by NerdBoner

[Haerski]

Didn't PST allow you to leave Morte out anyway, or play solo?

I didn't try, but still found it hard to choose between companions.

 

Even without him you'd still find useless teeth and other useless loot.

It was kind of annoying to play as a wizard and find all these nice axes and stuff,

but not having anyone in the party who could use them.

 

No, I don't think it removes anything from the game if you can make your own team.

I wont, at least on the first playthrough, but it might be something to try on the third.

 

That's assuming the game will be anything like good anyway.

My thoughts exactly. If anything was bad about Torment it was character customization. Every companion just had his/her own special gear which could be used by nobody else. Of course lots of stuff was tied to their backstories, which made up for that little inconvenience completely, but it would have been nice to have some more flexible companion on second or third playthrough. Part of the problem of course lied on Infinity Engine, which didn't lend itself very well for that kind of extremely story driven game.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Haerski

[Amentep]

I could really do without the 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 goals... and I could do without elves and rogues as well. But, you know, I can accept that the entire game isn't designed precisely towards my own personal interests, tastes and idiosyncrasies.

an rpg without rogues...?

 

>confirmed as a button mashing DudeBro.

 

I'm sure he means he could do without pointy haired people wearing cosmetics (elves and rouges).

Edited October 8, 2012 by Amentep