My thoughts on project Eternity

[Quadrone]

Unless these proposed features are changed, I won't be purchasing this game.

 

Holy ****, if it isn't my most hated sentence on any game forum ever! Why do these come up over and over?

How important do you think you are? Unless you evidently have a considerable portion of the community behind you, no one cares!

I'm literally sitting here and raging at this self-important, underhanded attempt at extortion.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

Unless these proposed features are changed, I won't be purchasing this game.

 

Holy ****, if it isn't my most hated sentence on any game forum ever! Why do these come up over and over?

How important do you think you are? Unless you evidently have a considerable portion of the community behind you, no one cares!

I'm literally sitting here and raging at this self-important, underhanded attempt at extortion.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Quadrone]

 

 

Unless these proposed features are changed, I won't be purchasing this game.

 

Holy ****, if it isn't my most hated sentence on any game forum ever! Why do these come up over and over?

How important do you think you are? Unless you evidently have a considerable portion of the community behind you, no one cares!

I'm literally sitting here and raging at this self-important, underhanded attempt at extortion.

 

duty_calls.png

I just can't help myself.

[Gfted1]

 

 

 

Unless these proposed features are changed, I won't be purchasing this game.

 

Holy ****, if it isn't my most hated sentence on any game forum ever! Why do these come up over and over?

How important do you think you are? Unless you evidently have a considerable portion of the community behind you, no one cares!

I'm literally sitting here and raging at this self-important, underhanded attempt at extortion.

 

duty_calls.png

I just can't help myself.

 

 

Youre not alone. Many posters on this forum cant help themselves from pushing the rest button either.

[Valsuelm]

 

The game won't have too much in common with the BG series, because the lead designer Mr. Josh Sawyer did not like them.

 

It is quite amusing that he has to design a successor to a series of games that he hates. I'm sure the backers won't mind, because all 80,000 of them didn't like Baldur's Gate either.......

 

No exp for kills. If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring. It doesn't have to be a lot of exp, but there must be some, otherwise, what's the point?

The game is also a spiritual successor to commandos (a game that Sawyer loves), so it was necessary. No combat xp.

 

Reading that link was depressing and disappointing.

 

By far and away the best games of those mentioned in the Kickstarter video were BG 1, 2, and PST.

 

Those are the games mentioned that got me to back PE. While some of the other games mentioned were pretty good (I never played ToEE or Arcanum), I'd not have backed PE if it was only inspired by them. BG1&2 and PST were oodles better in so many ways than the IWD series in my opinion.

 

No combat XP is a bad idea.... is there really not going to be combat XP? I haven't read where they said that was the case yet. Though I'm pretty sure the things the OP is upset about aren't actually going to be in the game (or are they?.. .if so that's bad, one especially being bethesda style level scaling).

 

Had I known Sawyer's opinion of Baldur's Gate and that he'd be lead designer of PE I honestly likely would not have backed PE.

 

I've never agreed with him on his opinions of 2nd edition vs. 3rd (while there were some improvements in 3rd, overall I think 2nd (or even 1st) edition is a far better game than 3rd edition AD&D), and think IWD2 probably would have been a better game had they stuck to 2nd edition...

 

I'm not going to say I regret it yet, but my excitement for PE has just diminished a great deal. The upside is that we still may have a great story....

 

Hopefully the OP's concerns don't really amount to much.

 

Name dropping Baldur's Gate in the PE Kickstarter vid and having it lead designed by a guy who doesn't like those games was a bit misleading on Obsidian's part. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here....

Edited January 28, 2013 by Valsuelm

[LadyCrimson]

I think people often fear the initial idea of something/change more than the actual end result/reality of what that idea turns out to be during actual gameplay. eg, sometimes it's hard to envision a change until you see it working, and thus we fear it until we can see it working.

 

I have no idea if the ideas Sawyer/others are coming up will end up being something I'll like, but to me that's the point. I'm willing to try them to find out.

[JFSOCC]

I hadn't read that either. I loved the high quest density of Baldurs Gate 2 in Athkatla, I did not, however like that they were all dumped on me at the same time with a journal that made it problematic to keep track of them.

 

Other than that, I can see Sawyer's points. (it is too long ago for me to remember the specific dialogue, but I don't remember disliking it)

[locomotron]

 

 

The game won't have too much in common with the BG series, because the lead designer Mr. Josh Sawyer did not like them.

 

It is quite amusing that he has to design a successor to a series of games that he hates. I'm sure the backers won't mind, because all 80,000 of them didn't like Baldur's Gate either.......

 

No exp for kills. If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring. It doesn't have to be a lot of exp, but there must be some, otherwise, what's the point?

The game is also a spiritual successor to commandos (a game that Sawyer loves), so it was necessary. No combat xp.

 

Reading that link was depressing and disappointing.

 

By far and away the best games of those mentioned in the Kickstarter video were BG 1, 2, and PST.

 

Those are the games mentioned that got me to back PE. While some of the other games mentioned were pretty good (I never played ToEE or Arcanum), I'd not have backed PE if it was only inspired by them. BG1&2 and PST were oodles better in so many ways than the IWD series in my opinion.

 

No combat XP is a bad idea.... is there really not going to be combat XP? I haven't read where they said that was the case yet. Though I'm pretty sure the things the OP is upset about aren't actually going to be in the game (or are they?.. .if so that's bad, one especially being bethesda style level scaling).

 

Had I known Sawyer's opinion of Baldur's Gate and that he'd be lead designer of PE I honestly likely would not have backed PE.

 

I've never agreed with him on his opinions of 2nd edition vs. 3rd (while there were some improvements in 3rd, overall I think 2nd (or even 1st) edition is a far better game than 3rd edition AD&D), and think IWD2 probably would have been a better game had they stuck to 2nd edition...

 

I'm not going to say I regret it yet, but my excitement for PE has just diminished a great deal. The upside is that we still may have a great story....

 

Hopefully the OP's concerns don't really amount to much.

 

Name dropping Baldur's Gate in the PE Kickstarter vid and having it lead designed by a guy who doesn't like those games was a bit misleading on Obsidian's part. I hope I'm misunderstanding something here....

 

I do think that is quite disheartening to read indeed, as they specifically mentioned the Baldur's Gate series in the kickstarter, and have been referencing to it quite a bit.

 

I doubt many people know his stance on BG, and how this might affect the finished product, it might turn sour as backing avid fans of BG find out the game is nothing like it.(semi-freeroaming world, tons of quests in a high fantasy world)

 

I was under the impression it was a spiritual successor to games such as BG, IWD, ToEE and PS:T.

 

I am not a big fan of IWD, as I felt the world was empty compared to BG and a very shallow dungeon crawler.

I may have to adjust my hype-o-meter.

 

All of this might be moot as they might still draw lots of inspiration from the BG series' strengths, but I'm not too glad about reading that.

 

I do trust Obsidian to make a high quality CRPG worthy to stand amongst the great titles of the 90s, though, so I will still definitely play it, but I guess my expectations were slightly warped by hearing/reading the words Baldur's Gate in the kickstarter video/post.

 

I don't agree with OP's complaints, as they seem like a kneejerk reaction to some newer game mechanics being introduced.

Edited January 28, 2013 by locomotron

[Ganrich]

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote. BG2 forcing you to chase after Imoen sucked. BG2 had one decent thief NPC, named Yoshimo, and everyone else was MC or DC which meant they weren't as good being thieves as Yoshimo. I would extrapolate that thought, but those who have played it know what I am getting at. Also, i find many characters meh in many ways as well, personality wise that is. Edwin being my favorite, and I understand the Minsc love and appreciate him as well.

 

Dialogue in PS: T was far superior. Story in PS: T was far superior. Combat in the IWD games were much better. The only thing the bg series did the best was exploration and open world, but BG2 sacrificed that lamb to direct the character down a story arc.

 

The IE games were great but not perfect. BG2 wasn't perfect either. I don't think that means that JE is incapable of making a better game in that vein either. Regardless of what games he prefers. He is a lover of RPGs and has been an important part of a few great ones.

 

JE seemed to be talking more about BG2 than the whole of the IE game list. He is also talking about what game he loved the most. I actually like FO 1 and 2 more than BG2 as well. I do like BG1 more than the FO series though. I also like the combat in the IWD series more than BG1 and 2, and I love PS: T's story above all the other games I mention. If JE can deliver IWD level combat (or greater), Avalon can get close to PS: T on the story, dialogue, and characters, while they get a world as open as fallout or BG1.... I would be insanely happy. I know it is a tall order, but there it is.

[locomotron]

 

Dialogue in PS: T was far superior. Story in PS: T was far superior. Combat in the IWD games were much better. The only thing the bg series did the best was exploration and open world, but BG2 sacrificed that lamb to direct the character down a story arc.

 

 

 

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn.

Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair.

[Helm]

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

 

But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates.

[locomotron]

 

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

 

But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates.

 

For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not.

And you can excel in every field of skill.

 

I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG.

Edited January 28, 2013 by locomotron

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Dialogue in PS: T was far superior. Story in PS: T was far superior. Combat in the IWD games were much better. The only thing the bg series did the best was exploration and open world, but BG2 sacrificed that lamb to direct the character down a story arc.

 

 

 

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn.

Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair.

 

I actually just did a full play through of IWD a month ago. It's not a bad game, but it's not a great game. I do not think it's superior to BG1 or BG2 in any great way in regards to combat. No doubt there were a few tweaks to the engine as it came after the other two, but really, there's nothing substantially different imo.

 

I think it has that reputation of having superior combat as that's the focus of the game, as the story isn't as deep as BG's. It's got some great battles but they aren't anything better than what BG or BG2 had in my opinion. I don't think the difficulty was all that different from the BG games. If anything it was easier overall. The final fight in IWD was significantly easier than the final fight in BG1 for example. I beat the guy on the second attempt, and was really surprised I did. The most fun fight and the toughest imo in IWD is the one where you fight a whole lotta undead in a room with possessed priests in Dorn's Deep. There were more tough fights in BG1 and BG2.

 

I generally play these games on 'hardcore D&D' mode.

 

 

edit: I really don't like the new quoting mechanism on the forums... anyone know of a way to switch it back to the older format?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Helm]

 

 

 

 

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

 

But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates.

 

 

 

For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not.

And you can excel in every field of skill.

 

I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG.

 

 

Yeah Syrim is a horrible RPG... and the game itself is just mediocre.

 

But at least you are rewarded for combat in Skyrim, which will make it superior to PE in that respect. A horrible RPG will have a mechanic that is superior to the one found in PE.

hehe. Funny how that works.

 

I do not think it's superior to BG1 or BG2 in any great way in regards to combat.

I agree.

[Helm]

edit: I really don't like the new quoting mechanism on the forums... anyone know of a way to switch it back to the older format?

Click the button on the top left of the toolbar in the editor. It is called "BBCode Mode" and looks like a light switch.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can see some of what JE is saying in that quote.

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

 

But he loves Skyrim! (just check his twitter feed, lol) So maybe he should apply for a job @ Bethesda instead of trying to make a spiritual successor to a game that he hates.

For real? skyrim might be a decent game, but I thought it was an absymal RPG, with little to no C&C and most importantly; no consequences to character choices; you can be guildmaster of every guild at the same time, rival or not.

And you can excel in every field of skill.

 

I doubt PE will be like skyrim, but I fail to see the merrits of that game as a proper CRPG.

 

 

Oh god.... make me slump more in my chair why don't you.

 

Oblivion and Skyrim are so amazingly overrated. The best part of Oblivion was the intro and it's scenery was absolutely amazing (I'm generally not one swayed by graphics but it was a beautiful game). Gameplay wise it frankly sucked as the game went on as it all scaled, so nothing was ever tough. The open world was cool but as open as it was so much of it was the same. That and it had a lot of bugs, one of which broke the game for me and I gave up checking to see if Bethesda finally fixed it after about 6 months and never picked up the game again. Skyrim was worse.... and I didn't bother playing too far into it.

 

I realize a lot of people like these games, and Bethesda has a great marketing department. But to me they represent almost everything I don't want in an RPG. I'd hate to think they're inspiring much of anything other than 'we don't want to do that' in regards to PE.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Ganrich]

 

 

Dialogue in PS: T was far superior. Story in PS: T was far superior. Combat in the IWD games were much better. The only thing the bg series did the best was exploration and open world, but BG2 sacrificed that lamb to direct the character down a story arc.

 

 

 

Care to elaborate why you think the combat in IWD is superior to that of BG2? currently giving IWD another shot as I hadn't finished it before and I find the combat quite tedious and frustrating, with enemies swarming you at every turn.

Could be because my last playthrough of BG2 was with the SCSII mod, increasing difficulty a fair bit without feeling unfair.

It was more difficult. I find BGs combat less tactical. You really need to position well in many IWD scenarios. I could Zerg most BG enemy layouts save some encounters and boss fights. I think, because the IWD series was linear they could hand craft encounters better. Also, I rarely use potions and scrolls in The BG games, but burn through them in IWD games at times.

 

Admittedly I haven't played IWD1 or BG2 in a few years. However, I am just wrapping up my second play through of BGEE, and I just beat IWD2 over Xmas.

 

You do get zerged in IWD games though. I would rather be zerged than be the zerger. IWD combat uses those zergs to force you to position a bit more. Some tips if you do give IWD a go again: use potions, use scrolls, I tend to have 3 party members focus 1 target while the other 3 focuse another (this changes in some scenarios, but early on in IWD2 it really helps), and get slings/bows/xbows for your casters. Fireball scrolls and Molotov ****tail like potions are really helpful. Not having archers makes the games much harder IMHO. Even a mage with a sling can do some damage when his spells are dry. There are times where you need to use everything you can, and that is especially true on a first play through.

 

Also, I think enemy placement is more interesting in IWD2. You could have archers up on a ridge while meleers kept you from running up to them immediately.

 

Oh, IWD2 has it so you will pull an entire area of enemies if you are spotted. So you can't pull the cheesy tactic of face pulling and fighting 1 at a time. They can and do call out to one another. This is something I do like. I can't remember if the first IWD did this.

 

Also, I haven't used that mod on BG2, and I might do it when I start it up here soon. I am talking about the base version of the games. The only mods I used on my IWD2 play through recently was the high res mod.

 

IWD was a combat simulator, PS: T was the interactive book, and BG was 2nd best in both cases. Albeit, I think BG has one of the best heroes journey type stories in a video game, but i like the deep personal stories like PST.

[Ganrich]

The final fight in IWD was significantly easier than the final fight in BG1 for example. I beat the guy on the second attempt, and was really surprised I did.

 

I agree on final bosses. BG is harder for sure. I do think standard encounters are harder in IWD. I also agree that baldurs gate has a much better story.

 

Different strokes, I guess.

 

Edit: My second play throughs are usually on the hardest difficulty. It had been a while since I played my IE games, and my IWD2, and first run through of BG1 were both on normal. However, my second bg1 go is on hardcore.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Ganrich

[locomotron]

 

 

snip

Yeah Syrim is a horrible RPG... and the game itself is just mediocre.

 

But at least you are rewarded for combat in Skyrim, which will make it

superior to PE in that respect. A horrible RPG will have a mechanic that

is superior to the one found in PE.

hehe. Funny how that works.

 

It depends on how the experience system will end up working out, but I do agree that not learning anything(getting experience) from combat is a tad strange, I'd much prefer a hybrid between objective based exp and encounter exp(getting experience per encounter, wether you bypassed it or fought your way through it.).

 

snip

 

Thanks for the quick response!

Currently in the second proper dungeon, and it might be that my party setup is less than optimal, I have 3 frontline fighters, and 3 casters, I'm not a big fan of ranged characters so all the ranged that I do have are the casters and their slings.

 

I'm not sure what it is, but I'm having a hard time enjoying myself with almost every encounter being more guys than I have myself, and them hitting more accurately and harder than my frontline fighters(Paladin, Fighter 3/cleric, Multiclass thief).

 

I'm not looking forward to having to replay everything up to the point I am now.

[Stun]

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Stun

[Stun]

 

edit: I really don't like the new quoting mechanism on the forums... anyone know of a way to switch it back to the older format?

Click the button on the top left of the toolbar in the editor. It is called "BBCode Mode" and looks like a light switch.

neat! Thanks.

[Lephys]

Yeah, it is a simple solution.

 

The backers that feel deceived and lied to can (and will) sell their licenses.

AKA "I don't like the game I don't even have all the details on and like to assume lots of things about."

 

That's a pretty big dilemma. They should probably just scrap the project. That would fix it. You wouldn't have anything to suffer such grief over. *dusts off hands* u_u

Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

Actually, he was referencing specific aspects of BG2's systems that he didn't like. So "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about it," in that context (you know, that thing you find so bothersome as to ignore it completely), it probably meant "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it."

 

If he hated BG2 as hard as you're implying, he'd make a completely different genre of game. It wouldn't have combat, or levels, or NPCs, or dialogue, etc.

 

The fact that P:E is still utilizing pretty much the entire backbone of the IE games is a testament to this. But, you know, the overdramatization of every little change is always an option, too, I suppose.

 

"Wait... quests are going to entail different things than in the IE games?! Health won't be determined by the same balancing equations? WE'RE NOT USING THE EXACT D&D RULESET ANYMORE?! How in the hell are we going to represent things? With some other form of MATH?! AAGGGHHHH! *facepalm*"

 

Edited January 29, 2013 by Lephys

[GrinningReaper659]

 

Yeah, it is a simple solution.

 

The backers that feel deceived and lied to can (and will) sell their licenses.

AKA "I don't like the game I don't even have all the details on and like to assume lots of things about."

 

That's a pretty big dilemma. They should probably just scrap the project. That would fix it. You wouldn't have anything to suffer such grief over. *dusts off hands* u_u

>Yeah, Josh Sawyer said in a nice way that he hates Baldur's Gate 2.

Actually, he was referencing specific aspects of BG2's systems that he didn't like. So "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about it," in that context (you know, that thing you find so bothersome as to ignore it completely), it probably meant "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it."

 

If he hated BG2 as hard as you're implying, he'd make a completely different genre of game. It wouldn't have combat, or levels, or NPCs, or dialogue, etc.

 

The fact that P:E is still utilizing pretty much the entire backbone of the IE games is a testament to this. But, you know, the overdramatization of every little change is always an option, too, I suppose.

 

"Wait... quests are going to entail different things than in the IE games?! Health won't be determined by the same balancing equations? WE'RE NOT USING THE EXACT D&D RULESET ANYMORE?! How in the hell are we going to represent things? With some other form of MATH?! AAGGGHHHH! *facepalm*"

 

 

@Lephys

Actually, in that post, Sawyer was listing specific things that he didn't like about BG2, and then decided to make a more generalized statement that there wasn't much that he did like about it. It was a long time ago. I'm sure he meant what he said, although he may have changed his mind over the years.

 

Your decision to translate "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about [bG2]" into "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it." doesn't change the fact that he actually did say the first thing. It wasn't out of context as it was an independent statement summarizing his feelings about BG2, so your arbitrary decision to change it into something he didn't say is a reach (to say the least).

 

Does this single statement by Sawyer make me regret backing P:E? Absolutely not. Like I said, it was a long time ago that he felt this way, perhaps he's had a change of heart over the years. Is it a bit disturbing? I'd say so, yeah. I certainly hope that he isn't intentionally pretending to like a game that he despises for the sake of pandering to people that he knows are willing to throw their money at anything related in any way to BG (I tend to think that this isn't the case, but who knows).

[uaciaut]

I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the "no xp for combat" part. XP is one part of the game and it doesn't, in any way, make or break it. If you want to play something that focuses on combat and how your "XP" progresses from it you can go back to Dungeon Siege and play it as much as you like to. Meanwhile i'm playing Vampre the Masquerade: Bloodlines for the nth time and i'm still wondering how can i be so attached to a game that gives no direct XP compensation for killing an opponent in combat; protip: it's because it's a great game anyway and the XP mechanic doesn't really break it in any way.

 

And how the hell does it make sense to MISS a ****ing dragon? How the hell do people's brains work that way? The AC mechanic in BG2 was decent because even if damage was heavily randomized, having 6 characters that were hitting the same target effectively meant more hit opportunities and thus more chances for the fights to work as intended; basically unless you were fighting an opponent who was really overpowering you (like rushing to firkaag) the hit/miss factors were telling of your party's strength relative to your enemies'.
Now someone came with a better mechanic to portray this in DT and now that they're implementing it everyone's screaming because they can't miss while trying to hit something the size of a ****ing house.

 

And the cherry on top was the cooldowns bawwing. Basically bawwwwing that you can't be arsed to wait or plan your battles around SOME cooldowns because all you want to do is hit the rest button and go straight into the next fight. Don't worry i'm sure there will be an easy difficulty level for people like you.

 

Anyway, again, you don't like the mechanics and think the game is all about how you get the xp, how often you miss and cooldowns and think games like planescape and bg and iwd were all about that, then don't buy it.

Edited January 29, 2013 by uaciaut

[Stun]

Does this single statement by Sawyer make me regret backing P:E? Absolutely not. Like I said, it was a long time ago that he felt this way, perhaps he's had a change of heart over the years. Is it a bit disturbing? I'd say so, yeah. I certainly hope that he isn't intentionally pretending to like a game that he despises for the sake of pandering to people that he knows are willing to throw their money at anything related in any way to BG (I tend to think that this isn't the case, but who knows).

Also... even if Sawyer comes here tomorrow and clarifies that he hates BG2, it doesn't necessarily mean anything for PE itself, does it? I would hope not. The whole point of a kickstarter is to make a game that the Fans/Backers want. And I'm pretty sure a professional like Sawyer can still do a great job working on a few game elements that he doesn't love in order to reach that goal.

 

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but Sawyer isn't the head honcho of this project anyway, Feargus is. And Feargus himself has repeatedy said he wants PE to be a game that reminds us of BG. And I doubt his input is going to just be swept aside here.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Stun