New stretch goals for companions and wilderness areas?

[StromIV]

Until I see the estimate on how much the stretch goal will cost, is it planned to be released as part of the game, paid DLC, free DLC to backers, time estimate on it, and more information in general on what they plan on doing, I am going with no.  

[Sheikh]

If completing additional stretch goals means more development time that you can allow yourselves then yes, otherwise quality over quantity.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Sheikh

[Thumister]

The character animations are all alpha.

Wow - I thought they looked great!   I was really impressed by how cool the dynamic lighting and water effects looked vs. [for example] Baldur's Gate.  If that's the alpha animation...

[Ailantan]

I voted yes, but i think new streach goals can go into first expansion for the game, it always mean more wildeness areas, more companions and such. On other hand it's better to introduce new companions as ealry in game as possible, as i tend to like companions more if they are with me from beggining. 

 

So more areas ---> Expansion

More companions ---> Pillars of Eternity

 

We have big dungeon area in basic game, and i fondly remember Watcher Tower from Baldur's Gate 2.

[kwinchel]

I missed out on the chance to donate during the original Kickstarter campaign, so I'd love for the new stretch goals to be made so that I could get in on the action. I agree with the sentiments of this thread, though, that it would be helpful to know what the opportunity costs of the current iteration would be (so that we could weigh the gains and losses of having the stretch goals). Thanks!

[Thumister]

I voted yes.  If we're missing 3 companions and you need another stretch goal or 2 to round them out, then let's get them funded!  I also enjoy the dungeon crawl as much as the next person, but what really caught me off guard in Baldur's Gate was the outdoor exploration which I thought was great.  I'd be happy to see additional stretch goals to fund more outdoor areas.  The worst thing that happens is that the community feels like it's not worth it and it doesn't get funded - no?  I'm really intrigued by the idea that crowdsourcing the funding to the game can allow you to fully realize your artistic vision, rather than having to deliver something half-baked because the studio needed you to "just ship it".  Not taking advantage of the crowdsourcing aspect to fully realize the game - even if there is some additional delay in the delivery date - seems like a missed opportunity to me.

 

Do we have to have previously funded a goal to fund one of the new stretch goals?  Of if someone missed out on the funding the first time around, will they still be able to participate?

[Sensuki]

I was probably one of the first people to be cautious about this update, but after reading some of J.E. Sawyer's posts over at Something Awful and having a think on it I am in favor of the new stretch goals.

 

Here are the quotes

 

We have scaled our scope to our budget, which includes animation and everything else.

 

The current wilderness area scope (specifically) is a little under BG2. The exact number by which it would increase would likely depend on funding. The goal isn't to turn it into BG1, but to hit that mid-point between the two BGs, so there's good exploration with solid content density.

What we do when a publisher isn't breathing down our neck is make a game where a release date is not the primary motivating factor for saying we're done.

 

I get what you're saying, but I know too well that falling short can be as damaging as being spread too thin. The first expansion I worked on was Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter. It was a modest expansion with a small number of areas and a small number of quests. It was pretty stable when it was released, but it felt short, and cramped, and not fitting with the precedent established by Baldur's Gate, Tales of the Sword Coast, and Icewind Dale.

 

We've never talked internally about just "adding stuff". It's always been about two things: wilderness areas and companions (and no more than 3). If we were just making "a game", I wouldn't suggest adding these things, but we're not making "a game", we're making something we proposed as an heir to established traditions. I think adding a modest number of wilderness areas and companions would make the game feel more Baldur's Gate-y (in a good way), and that's worth discussing.

The Environment Art creation for wilderness areas is outsourced to an outsourcing company, so more Wilderness areas would only take up some Level Designer time and paint over time, rather than the (very very time consuming Environment Art time).

 

More companions would MOST LIKELY mean they bring on another writer from within the company? Perhaps one that did companions in F:NV. I am not sure about this though, one of the devs would have to correct me.

 

11 companions between Eric, Chris and Josh seems like a lot of work. Would they give one or two to Carrie Patel? or would they bring on another writer?

[Matrixvingian]

With the backer portal already suggesting an expansion pack in the works perhaps the further funding would go into the main module already purchased?

There's the potential for all the hard work spent in world building manifesting in POE courtesy of the stretch goals.

I'm hoping there's even more transparency in the stretch goals. For instance if the money is going towards hiring more talent to polish the main game while simultaneously being folded into the broader goals of the expansion pack don't hesitate to let us know!

For a personal stretch goal let me holler for MORE MUSIC! It isn't the cheapest but it could add a lot to battle if certain named foes have their own overall theme to show that particular battle is truly pivotal.

[Mico Selva]

More wilderness areas sounds nice, I'd really like that.

 

Anything to make the game more like Baldur's Gate and less like IceWind Dale, basically. ;-)

[logrus]

What I'd really like to see in PoE is Morrowind-style class guilds - class-specific quests using tour skills, access to services/equipment and meaningful requirements related to character attributes/skills as a quest prerequisites (no like in Skyrim where orc barbarian wielding two-handed axe can become arch-mage after casting one simple spell in the very beginning of the questline).

[LadyCrimson]

Thanks for those quotes/info, Sensuki. It sounds (just from those quotes) like Sawyer is pretty interested in having more goals/expanding the game, to make sure it doesn't feel "cramped" etc.  Which I can understand.

 

I was not personally expecting P.E. to be a long game to begin with...but one that would still be dense and fleshed out for its size/length. Not everything has to be epic-sized or whatever in order to be very satisfying or feel like a proper heir to a tradition. But if they feel like adding these things would help ensure the main game won't feel cramped/short to players, I guess I'd be in favor of it. 

[Cubiq]

If you can make a better game with more content by me donating some more money, yeah i'm game.

I think it's going to get delayed anyway so i'm not really bothered about the release date.

[Tamerlane]

I was initially opposed to the idea, but having read more on their plans, I've warmed to it. Get John Gonzalez (the guy who wrote the Survivalist Diaries in Honest Hearts) back to write for the new companions and I'll fund it all myself.

[Sedrefilos]

I believe we must first see what kind of stretch goals you have in mind, no?

[Lostbrain]

Why not, but only if you are sure you can respect the previous stretch goal. So... I said yes.

[BruceVC]

I will put down a shed-load of cash if they include a chainmail bikini.

 

100 % agree, but I don't necessarily want chainmail bikini's but I agree with the sentiment

 

I am an avid fan and backer of PE but I'll increase my pledge if there is a guarantee of Romance options. Yes my money is that easily parted from me

[Unfaced]

I voted for yes, but only because I love this stuff :D and hope this kind of decision is only valid for the expansion and not the core game itself

[skelleton]

Considering how well it went for Star Citizen, to have Stretch Goals after the campaign was over, I would love Seeing some for pillars of Eternity.

[DrAlexander]

I think I'll go with no new stretch goals. Not that I don't want them. More wilderness to explore would be nice. It's just that they have too many consequences (as stated throughout this thread).

 

This vote doesn't really matter. If you decide to add them it will be up to the backers to vote with their wallets.

Anyway, how much more money are you expecting to get? Also, how much will be enough for the added content?

[Cubiq]

Oh yeah one thing i would like to know, will the money from pledge rewards be included in the stretch goals, or will this be funded with only donations? If you add a stretch goal and i bought a beta key after, will that get funded?

Edited December 11, 2013 by Cubiq

[Niwamaxou]

I would prefer no new new stretch goals. Focus on the game as it is, deliver it, make us drool in rpg awesomness and then, talk about new things. But please don't wander and cooked a half baked game

[Humanoid]

I want stretch goals which progressively remove wilderness areas from the game as they are reached. Screw the wilderness.

 

 

 

*runs and hides*

[Messier-31]

My vote goes for no new stretch goals. I think that developers should focus on the game as it is and leave some more interesting things for the future, like expansions.

[kapuski]

As so many have said before me, focus on delivering the game on time (read: as soon as possible) and in quality shape. I'm not going to say no to more content, but I would still like to play the game sometime next year. I'm running out of cRPG's to play.

[BruceVC]

I want stretch goals which progressively remove wilderness areas from the game as they are reached. Screw the wilderness.

 

 

 

*runs and hides*

  Good one