As more is learned..

[Pshaw]

Seems to me that the only thing they've really been overhauling from the original IE games are the systems, combat, leveling, health/mana, and so on. Which is exactly what I wanted when backing the game since these are the things that bore the life out of my whenever I try to replay them. They were amazing at the time, I can't even imaginge the hours I've clocked in BG2, but they haven't aged well and they need to be updated which is what obsidian is bringing us. Same feel to the world and characters with (hopefully) better gameplay.

[Hormalakh]

i'm happy with the changes and still am as excited about this game as i was on day 1.

[alanschu]

So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low.

Nope!  I actually have very high expectations for this game, relatively speaking.  Obsidian games and I have a definite synergy, and I tend to like what they deliver.  I wouldn't be surprised if this game ends up being one that fits right up there with games like BG2 and PST for myself, in terms of how much I enjoy it.

 

I tend to agree with a lot of Josh's design ideas, looking back at other games.  And the team's writing has always been something I have really enjoyed.  I wouldn't be surprised if this is the game I enjoy most out of the first wave of all the kickstarters, up to and including Torment 2.

[forgottenlor]

So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low. Going of whats in this thread so far (very small sample size I know) it seems the general concencus on what is expected is :

 

 

 

This would be true if Obsidian was promising "less" than say Baldur's Gate. But they aren't. They are promising a huge world with better graphics, a ton of companions, in depth mechanics, story telling et. They are not stripping away a ton of features. In fact they seem to be creating a game with as many or more features. I don't see how getting away from D&D game mechanics is setting the "bar" low.

[Monte Carlo]

Let me be clear on a couple things first. I did not pledge in the Kickstarter. 

 

Sock it to the man. Yeah!

 

 

 

And I will still purchase the game!

 

Oh.

[Ffordesoon]

What are they not doing that's important for an IE-style game? They're making an isometric party-based RTwP cRPG with a high level of reactivity to player actions, a class-based character creation system with a ton of classes that play very differently, deep tactical combat, (presumably) great writing, a rest system, dungeons with puzzles, traps, and combat, a PC-driven narrative with large and small hubs full of quests and secrets, companions who aren't forced on you but all have arcs and quests to unpack if you so desire...

 

I mean, if it's not an IE-style game, it's some sort of super-IE game with all of the benefits and none of the flaws. Just because they've taken out some D&D mechanics that I've never seen any remotely positive argument for beyond "LOL CASUALS" doesn't mean the game as a whole is not clearly taking quite heavily from the IE games. They're just, you know, making a spiritual successor to them, meaning that they are carrying on the games' spirit without feeling unduly beholden to mechanics that have outlived their usefulness and are celebrated only out of nostalgia.

 

Personally, I think that if your only argument in favor of a given mechanic that doesn't rely on pure nostalgia or mismanaged expectations is "I always got by just fine with this system, therefore I'm smart and people who don't like it are dumb," that does not acquit the mechanic. All it does is make you sound like a jerk.

[GhostofAnakin]

This is just my own personal opinion, but what sold me wasn't necessarily the belief they'd be making BG circa 2014 or whatever, but they'd be taking whatever good stuff they'd need from those types of games and carry forward what works for their vision for PE.  If that meant some features/items not being the same as the IE games, so be it.

 

So as a backer, I'm not concerned because I have faith in whatever they end up delivering.

[Faerunner]

As someone who actually hadn't played any IE games when I first learned about this game, but started playing them recently (BG and IWD), I honestly don't see what the problem is. I love old school fantasy cRpG's, but before I had only played Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. The games had the classic fantasy "sword and sorcery" cRPG feel I loved, and it had a lot of features I was familiar with from said NWN1+2 games (classes, races, subraces, designs, basic story ideas, etc) but otherwise I didn't see much else it had in common with my old games. After alternating between BG and IWD, I found the similarities much stronger and the features more familiar. While travelling through BG and IWD, I found myself exclaiming, "So THAT'S where that P:E feature came from!" more more often than I did revisiting NWN2 and MotB.

 

Not trying to be rude, but they promised a spiritual successor and seem to be delivering one. They brought back a lot of uniquely IE features. I don't know what the OP was expecting, but this seems to be right on the money.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low. Going of whats in this thread so far (very small sample size I know) it seems the general concencus on what is expected is :

 

-Isometric

-Party Based

-Fantasy Setting (although i dont equate fantasy with firearms this doesnt seem to bother the majority here either)

-Companions

- RTWP

 

The problem with that is it describes any number of older CRPGs.

 

Like I said I knew it was not going to be DnD . But I DID think it would of been close.

 

 

My expectations are a little more than the basic mechanics and elements of the IE games which you've stated.

 

What my other expectations are:

 

- A mature rated game which is what they've promised.

- Being able to put mature themes and topics into a game that Obsidian have always wanted to do but couldn't due to publisher constraints. (This sounds really awesome)

- A new world and game play to experience but still retaining those basic mechanics and elements of the IE games (which I loved) and it seems to do.

- Expansion pack and other merchandise.

 

I love isometric rpgs. Fallout, Fallout 2, the IE games, and the many spin-offs and similar isometric games that came before and after. We don't know what the system is going to be like. Similar to when Fallout was released with SPECIAL. Nobody knew if it was going to be any good. The good thing is we have a lot of the developers from the Fallout and IE games with Obsidian, Feargus, Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, Scott Everts, Josh Sawyer, Darren Monahan, etc.

 

I have faith that they'll create a game with a new world, new game mechanics and skills, mature themes and still retain the basic gameplay elements of those old games like Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale.

[eimatshya]

Yeah, I don't really get the people who've been grousing about being "misled" or "duped" by Obsidian. During the kickstarter they were very open about their intentions for the game, and they had a ton of updates where they talked about the mechanics they were going for, and it seemed clear to me that they were taking a more modern approach to systems design.

 

I don't know how you could read those updates/watch the videos and not understand that they would not be recreating the IE system. They pretty explicitly talked about things like cooldowns, HP/Stamina, non-combat skills, and objective-based experience.

 

I don't see how you can complain about getting swindled when the devs straight-up said that they were going to be taking a different direction with the mechanics.

 

Personally, I think P:E feels like an I:E game (more than I'd like it too, actually, since I don't like Squad-Based RTwP combat). So far what they've shown us looks like exactly what I expected, and if I could do it again, I would still pledge my $148.

Edited July 25, 2013 by eimatshya

[Keyrock]

Seems to me like Obsidian are taking many of the familiar elements of IE games

 

• Isometric view
• Party-based
• Tactical Combat
• Real-time & pause
• Story driven

And addressing one of the biggest shortcomings of the old IE games by designing a new system from the ground up specifically meant for a video game to replace the D&D system which put significant handicaps of game design in the past.  If that's "setting the bar low", then by all means, Obsidian, set the bar low.

[Ieo]

I don't consider the analogy perfect (although I do agree it likely brought in more money).

 

I had no expectation that the game would be a perfect mirror when they harkened back to the IE days in their pitch.  I was looking at scale and scope of their times.  Explicitly calling the game Torment places a lot more expectations on a game than "I want to make a game inspired by Torment." for someone such as myself.

 

 

 

You agree that name dropping positively influenced the sales but feel its peoples fault for getting sucked in by that practice?

 

Given that "this is not what my imagination told me I was promised" appears to be an epidemic across some online groups, on some level I'd still say yes.  I accept full responsibility that Fargo billing his game "Torment" got my money (and on some level I actually do regret it).

 

 

And that's exactly where I drew the line between PE and the Torment* project. Project Eternity's Kickstarter was very clear to me; the words they used (homage, etc.) with very few and very explicit specifics the game would have to bring back the "feel" (isometric, tactical, party, pause, the guy who wrote PS:T, etc.) meant the underlying mechanics would be different but the content genre, quality, and quantity--the stuff that really matters--would aim to "recapture" that old-school magic formula. I don't believe Obsidian will go wrong with this, especially with backer feedback right here on the forums.

 

 

 

Combat uses a tactical real-time with pause system - positioning your party and coordinating attacks and abilities is one of the keys to success. The world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing. You’ll create your own character and collect companions along the way – taking him or her not just through this story, but, with your continued support, through future adventures. You will engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. …and you'll experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out.

 

Now, I suppose I can see where a few people might've skimmed the PE Kickstarter and thought they were getting a combined mimic, but honestly, I think it would've taken a lot of willful ignorance throughout the one-month Kickstarter campaign with all the videos, updates, and interviews to not understand what Obsidian was really aiming for.

 

In comparison, the Torment blurb was truly name-dropping marketing hype that kept using words like "sequel," which means a whole different thing than "homage," which also means there's far more room for failure. I hate the phrase "spiritual successor." And yes, I retch now at the thought of Dragon Age, though by itself without mentioning BG, it would've been okay; the difference is that Bioware took no feedback about the design of DAO whereas Obsidian has the direct pulse of their fans here and has demonstrated very clearly that they do listen and act. So I'm not worried. PE most likely will redeem the phrase "spiritual successor" for me.

 

As for the OP. I wonder if you actually read/listened to the Kickstarter material, including all the talk about substantial reactive world content and companion content beyond RTWP/iso. You say that describes "any number of older CRPGs" yet list none that specifically competes against those mentioned (BG/IWD/PST) and you cannot say anything then and now comes close to offering all three together. What was "promised" was very specific, and those elements from the ongoing developer updates have not changed.

 

And I'd argue that the bar is actually set very high, especially with the fact that a game combining the three strongest elements from the old IE days cannot get standard industry funding, so we the funders (not you) have pretty high expectations after dropping an average $$$ for vaporware. Having few or simple expectations is hardly the same as setting the bar "low." 

 

 

*I had attributed the Torment project to the wrong folks, oops.

[Gfted1]

Take that how you want it, but what it means is that P:E can be worse or better then the IE games. Kudos to Obsidian for that, because they are taking a huge risk. If the game doesn't deliver, it will stain their image for years to come. Here's to hoping that they deliver.

Agreed, I hope they nail it. They are probably only going to get one bite at this apple and if its poorly received because of too much "vision" and not enough fun...

[Monte Carlo]

As long as it's got Returning Frost Darts, the DNA of the IE games will be sown deep into the essence of P:E.

[Sarex]

 

Take that how you want it, but what it means is that P:E can be worse or better then the IE games. Kudos to Obsidian for that, because they are taking a huge risk. If the game doesn't deliver, it will stain their image for years to come. Here's to hoping that they deliver.

Agreed, I hope they nail it. They are probably only going to get one bite at this apple and if its poorly received because of too much "vision" and not enough fun...

 

 

Tbh, that is my greatest fear.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I understand their desire to form their own intellectual property, but I am somewhat surprised at their choice to conjure up a brand new system. I was hoping that they would use the Pathfinder system for this first iteration. In that way, they could use a proven system which their target audience will appreciate and concentrate on constructing their own world, narrative, etc.

 

To me it would have been more realistic to attempt creating a whole new gameplay system *after* creating a successful CRPG with a mechanic system that not merely appeals to their niche, but to a very broad audience.

[ViolentManatee]

I don't know, I loved both BG and IWD for what they were but was, for example, Arcanum any less fun? It was something different but I still loved every minute of it, same could be said for the first DA from Bioware. Completely different system, which still had the basic frame of old D&D games but with a twist ( in one way or another ). Different doesn't have to mean bad. I feel like people from Obsidian could create an excellent successor if they are allowed to experiment a bit instead of creating a perfect clone of BG ( dont get me wrong, I`d punch a baby and it's mother to get my hands on that but, nevertheless, I feel like I`m willing to forfeit the enjoyment - from the game, not the baby punching - for possibility of something new and fresh, yet still capturing that old D&D spirit I fell for in a first place ).

[SophosTheWise]

I understand their desire to form their own intellectual property, but I am somewhat surprised at their choice to conjure up a brand new system. I was hoping that they would use the Pathfinder system for this first iteration. In that way, they could use a proven system which their target audience will appreciate and concentrate on constructing their own world, narrative, etc.

 

To me it would have been more realistic to attempt creating a whole new gameplay system *after* creating a successful CRPG with a mechanic system that not merely appeals to their niche, but to a very broad audience.

 

I love the Pathfinder system but honestly. it's just not a good system for a computer game. If PE were turn-based, sure, that's a whole other thing. But seeing as it is, I'd say building their own system is a good idea, albeit difficult to achieve.

[Amentep]

 

I understand their desire to form their own intellectual property, but I am somewhat surprised at their choice to conjure up a brand new system. I was hoping that they would use the Pathfinder system for this first iteration. In that way, they could use a proven system which their target audience will appreciate and concentrate on constructing their own world, narrative, etc.

 

To me it would have been more realistic to attempt creating a whole new gameplay system *after* creating a successful CRPG with a mechanic system that not merely appeals to their niche, but to a very broad audience.

 

I love the Pathfinder system but honestly. it's just not a good system for a computer game. If PE were turn-based, sure, that's a whole other thing. But seeing as it is, I'd say building their own system is a good idea, albeit difficult to achieve.

 

 

Wouldn't they have had to license Pathfinder anyway (deducting money from the project)?

[alanschu]

Yes, along with who knows what other strings may be attached in order to get the license.

[Monte Carlo]

starting from scratch is a no-brainer. why are we even talking about PNP systems?

[SophosTheWise]

 

 

I understand their desire to form their own intellectual property, but I am somewhat surprised at their choice to conjure up a brand new system. I was hoping that they would use the Pathfinder system for this first iteration. In that way, they could use a proven system which their target audience will appreciate and concentrate on constructing their own world, narrative, etc.

 

To me it would have been more realistic to attempt creating a whole new gameplay system *after* creating a successful CRPG with a mechanic system that not merely appeals to their niche, but to a very broad audience.

 

I love the Pathfinder system but honestly. it's just not a good system for a computer game. If PE were turn-based, sure, that's a whole other thing. But seeing as it is, I'd say building their own system is a good idea, albeit difficult to achieve.

 

 

Wouldn't they have had to license Pathfinder anyway (deducting money from the project)?

 

 

Of course. But I don't think that's really the point because designing your own system also costs a lot of money.

Still, there is a game that uses the Pathfinder license. Head over to goblinworks.com for info about Pathfinder Online.

Edited July 25, 2013 by SophosTheWise

[alanschu]

 

 

Of course. But I don't think that's really the point because designing your own system also costs a lot of money.

 

Depends on how much work (if any) may have already been done.

 

They may have also just wanted to do it this way, as they can cater the rule system to the setting that they want to create as well.

[SophosTheWise]

 

Of course. But I don't think that's really the point because designing your own system also costs a lot of money.

 

Depends on how much work (if any) may have already been done.

 

They may have also just wanted to do it this way, as they can cater the rule system to the setting that they want to create as well.

 

 

Absolutely, hence why I said that it was not the point. It was poorly phrased. I'm sure that they chose to design their own system because it gives them a lot more freedom, but IF they wanted to license anything I don't think it was the cost that hindered them.

[Monte Carlo]

I've come to the conclusion that shoe-horning a Pen and Paper ruleset into a video game is like making a sofa out of cheesecake: it's feasible and probably quite sweet... but it's also messy and not very good as either a dessert or a piece of furniture.