New stretch goals for companions and wilderness areas?

[martix]

Totally. If you can get the funding, go for it!

I mean, look at what SC is doing. No reason it wouldn't work for you guys.

 

Content is king, therefore cram as much in there as possible.

 

P.S. Congrats on the name. I have a feeling the old PE is gonna stick around however.

P.P.S. Shame on you if you don't know what SC means. Go back them up.

Edited December 11, 2013 by martix

[NoTorious]

If this was just a matter of money i would give it to u. I like the idea of having more companions and more areas cause i though from the beginning its far to less companions ,but it will probardly significant delay release so my vote is no, no and no.

 

Deliver what u promised first and lets talk later about new stuff later.

[Jarmo]

Nope, don't want anything more.

Anything to add now would be fluff, unless the goals are like "better companion banter" or "less bugs" or "redesign the dungeons we're not happy with".

New companions, additional areas, whatever, those will just add bloat to the game.

 

Finish the game, ship, patch, go for the sequel.

[Jarmo]

Unless... "Romanceable Companions"

Because who wouldn't go for the awesome?!

[Juhnimius]

More stuff is nice but i indeed hope that they are included in expansion so main game does not get rushed or bushed further.

[Kissamies]

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

AND make it as effective as a full suit of chainmail.

 

Hmm, more wilderness could be an excuse for me to get that Obsidian T-shirt.

[Simonosaurus]

Who would not like a better game and more stuff in it ?

But you can go on forever with this idea and never see the end, because for many people, there's always something to add, it's never enough.

There's a time you have to stop filling your plate and eat what's already on it.

 

I know we are only talking about a few more areas and companions, but I don't like the idea of a new stretch goal after all this time, just because "we want moar"... of course we do, we always do...

 

So I would prefer that Obsidian finishes what was planned initially... and when the game is released, then you can think about a solid add-on, financed with sold copies of PoE and maybe a new KS campaign.

[Hassat Hunter]

Some people say 'the wilderness is outsourced, so they just spend money, not time'...

But the shown outsourced areas where definitely the least interersting or good looking of the bunch. So the question is, do we really WANT that quantity improvement, if it's a definitive quality decreasement from the other areas?

 

And yes, content creep should be avoided in any case.

[Cubiq]

 

Who would not like a better game and more stuff in it ?

But you can go on forever with this idea and never see the end, because for many people, there's always something to add, it's never enough.

There's a time you have to stop filling your plate and eat what's already on it.

 

I know we are only talking about a few more areas and companions, but I don't like the idea of a new stretch goal after all this time, just because "we want moar"... of course we do, we always do...

 

So I would prefer that Obsidian finishes what was planned initially... and when the game is released, then you can think about a solid add-on, financed with sold copies of PoE and maybe a new KS campaign.

I kind of wish they did a really good job with first release, because it's all about initial reaction with gamers. I think that if they polish the game with DLCs later it won't have as good reviews at the start, and that means a lot in gaming industry, since most reviews stay on websites for ever and every new player would see it when checking it out and all they would see is a lower grade.

I've been guilty of such act many times.

 

And if it improves the outlook of this types of games, i'm all for it

Edited December 11, 2013 by Cubiq

[eimatshya]

Like many of the other posters, my initial response was, "no new stretch goals; just polish what you have." After reading through this thread, and especially the quotes from SA, I think I'm cautiously going to vote for more stretch goals and trust Obsidian not to stretch themselves thin on companion writing (while a large cast of companions is good in some ways, it also can lead to them feeling shallow and unreactive; this was a problem in the BG games but not in PS:T with its small, focused set of companions). 

[yaniv]

I Iike to know more about the game designers thoughts. Do you think that you need to add more wilderness/companions in order to make the game complete but you don't have the budget to do that, or is it for satisfying backers request?

I also would like to know, if possible, what is the current ratio between wilderness activity to town activity?
 

[twincast]

I mean, look at what SC is doing. No reason it wouldn't work for you guys.

 

Well, they had a working pledge system of their own and with it kept the hype going right past the bells ringing for their KS campaign, which helped significantly in them more than bucking the trend of post-campaign pledges being meager dribblings, so I wouldn't expect Obsidian to double their budget within a month or anything, but the timing seems as great as it will ever get to be to reignite people's passion for another million or so.

 

Edit: Plus all the ship selling, of course, which can't be translated over to PoE at all.

Edited December 11, 2013 by twincast

[Kore]

What I really want are noob friendly, intuitive mod development tools and ways of easily sharing them on the site. Mods are now a massive part of the BG community, but writing them requires skills that most players don't have, or even if it is relatively easy it's not intuitive to get into. I would be very surprised if mods didn't become a big part of Eternity, so it would be great to embrace them from the word go. 

 

As a by product of this we would get all the wilderness areas and companions that a lot of people are craving due to mod authors creating them themselves. Sure a lot will be rubbish, but look at Gavin, Solaufein or a lot of other characters, they have become canon in a lot of mod users minds. For every crap mod there will be a great one, and the easier it is to make mods the more we will have to choose from.

TL;DR I would do bad things to innocents for proper mod tool kit (It's worth pointing the NWN one was ok, but not intuitive to use)

[Rabain]

I'm even more convinced now that we need those extra wilderness areas.  After JE's comment in one of the interviews about aiming for a size between BG2 and BG1 I'm stoked for that.

 

BG1 had a lot of fluff wilderness areas but without those areas in the early game the game would not have been half as good in my opinion.  Once you got through Cloakwood and into BG city most of the areas were plot relevant.  That was one of the things I missed in BG2.  Irenicus dungeon felt really cramped and just got worse with each succesive playthrough, requiring a mod to skip it because it was so long and repetitive.  Athkatla gave you a lot of options once you were outside even if they were mostly restricted to the city.  I would have liked a few more wilderness areas in BG2 around the city and Trademeet.

 

One of the interviews also said the mega dungeon would be the kind of place we would have to visit and leave and come back to simply because of the scale of difficulty over several levels.  What I wouldn't like is to have to go back out and do half of the main story to level up and then backtrack (sidetrack) to the mega dungeon for some more levels, I'd rather have random wilderness or other minor dungeons to do instead.  Maybe its just me but that would make the world so much bigger rather than feeling like being forced forward and then back in order to see the whole of the dungeon.

 

I'm loathe to mention DAO here but when I played that I always felt it could have been 100 times better if there was more random adventuring to do, a lot of that came in DLC but by then for me it was way to late.  The lack of choices in that regard really hurt the replayability of that game for me.  If with the options of different origins once you were past that and out into the world it was pretty much the same.  Add a half dozen wilderness areas to DAO and for me it would be a very different game (better).

[Veenox]

I'm not too fond of DLC, so if we have the possiblity to get a better game from the start, I'm up for it.

 

More companions is always good.

[Posbi]

I'm loathe to mention DAO here but when I played that I always felt it could have been 100 times better if there was more random adventuring to do, a lot of that came in DLC but by then for me it was way to late.  The lack of choices in that regard really hurt the replayability of that game for me.  If with the options of different origins once you were past that and out into the world it was pretty much the same.  Add a half dozen wilderness areas to DAO and for me it would be a very different game (better).

Yes, DAO was incredibly cramped. Given the size of the ingame map I would have expected something like twice the locations or more rather than what the final game (plus DLCs) ended up offering.

[Kamos]

I tend toward saying yes, but before I commit, I need to read a very good explanation of what you are planning, and how it affects what you have already planned. I understand that, perhaps, you're looking for ways to secure additional funding, while offering to expand on areas that would be cheap to develop (I'm assuming that adding a new feature is more costly than adding new content, especially so something like a wilderness area, which can theoretically be outsourced). If this is the case, I'd also be more inclined to help if you were straightforward about it.

 

I do not think feature / content creep at this stage is a good idea, or a good sign (though I'd otherwise be the "simulate everything!" / "moar features!" guy). At this point, my preference would be for a small number of meaningful additions, or improvements to what is already there. So, a new companion, and expanded reactivity are welcome; a new hack-n-slash wilderness area, not so much. A new meaningful wilderness area, perhaps. Again, I need to read a good explanation of what you plan.

[coffeetable]

More crosspostin' from SA (new ones at the bottom):

 

 

So will adding additional content make the game take longer to get released?

Probably a bit, mostly for companions rather than wilderness environments.  Additional content does take additional time to make, but not dramatically, not at the scale we're thinking about.

 

E: Personally, I think more wilderness areas would feel really cool and I believe players would enjoy them.  I also would like for players to have every character class represented by a companion.  Right now we're 3 short.  We don't want to go buckwild on this stuff, but we do think it would feel better with those additions.  If we thought it would fundamentally make the game worse, we wouldn't even be asking.

 

Would adding companions at this 'late stage' not limit the degree to which they'd be able to be tied into the story? There's no point doing it if they were going to be obviously subpar versus the initial envisaged ones.

No, actually.  While we do design our companions relatively early in development, we don't write them until we get closer to the end (e.g. I just started writing the first companion literally this morning).  We ignore them completely as far as the crit path design of the game is concerned because they are all optional.  Developing them later allows us to be much more reactive to the final designs of quests and areas.

 

I just have bad memories of NWN2 where they did the 'one-of-each-class' thing and it ended up really suffering as a result.

That's why they would have to be backed to be done at all.  MotB and PS:T were not games that emphasized tactical combat.  PE is, which is why I think there's a more compelling motivation to actually have all classes represented.  While the difference between 8 and 11 companions is not trivial, it's nothing like the 26 in BG or 17 in BG2.

 

 

You're creating a false dichotomy here. Do you think the OEI devs would be so eager to add new companions if they thought they'd compromise the quality of the first eight?

I don't want to give a false impression: certainly we debate (and continue to debate) the idea of adding more companions. They really can't be done at all without additional funding, which is the bottom line. The question isn't "Would you like more companions at the cost of the quality of current companions?" The question is, "Would you like more companions at the cost of $$$$$$ which would be necessary to make them good companions?"

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.

Someone do me a favour and requote these on every other page or so, so new people will see them.

[JFSOCC]

I'm curious who would write the new companions. I know they got Patrick Rothfuss for Torment:ToN, it'd be cool if he could write one here as well.

[Arkenian]

You know, I find it hard to decide what to vote on this.  I like the idea, from a theoretical perspective, of a good balance between BG1 and BG2 on wilderness areas.  Although I think BG2 mostly did okay . . . the nice thing about BG2 in wilderness was that rather than have a lot of them, I remember them as being fairly large areas that you had to traverse to get to a specific goal, as opposed to BG1 where we were just exploring.   And here's the thing....  BG1 came out a long time ago, I am older now, and frankly, while I play games to entertain myself, I want the entertainment density pretty high.  When I replay BG1, its enough of a slog that I find myself planning out path efficiency questions to do most content efficiently.  Not sure this is good for a game overall where I am now.  That's just a note to 'more is not always better'.

And the other thing is that I totally echo those who say delays don't seem worth it for more content.   So I guess I'm leaning towards no.  On the other hand . . . more content properly applied (and you seem to have a pretty good plan.  A little wilderness is not a bad thing and gives it some feel)  well, how can I say no to that?  So I guess I'm gonna equivocate on the vote until I hear more.

[Kaldurenik]

Sure why not? Aslong as you get the founding for it and aslong as no other area get less quality because of this.

No i dont care if you have to delay the game for it. The main reason is that i would rather have a high quality game then a rushed mess where the quality is lower.

 

If you think you can do it... go for it.

[Bishibosh]

Ditto on the chainmail bikini.  I really want more stretch goals just to be able to back the project for the first time, and hopefully make the game as big as BG2 with some of my money used to patch issues that have jumped into production.

 

Stretch Goals

-Chris Avellone really plays Arcanum whilst reading a walkthrough and cursing Tim Cain

-More Outdoor areas

-Chainmail bikini

-Better enemy AI

-Extra balancing (i.e. Obsidian plays their game before we do)

 

If they add a chainmail bikini I hope they do something comical with it like the quest in the Borderlands 2 DLC. Or make some reference to the art for Alias on the cover of Curse of the Azure Bonds for those who remember that story.

[yaniv]

Although I'm not a big fan of symmetric design (i.e. companion for each class, quest for each companion, etc.), I vote for the new stretch goals and I will chip in in order to let the designers add the "missing parts".

[Wintersong]

Who doesn't want more if it's good?

 

But to a point, having delays because of them... well, no. I don't need the game to be uber expansive. I don't mind them being added later. There is an expansion planned so I would find ok to have extra content added to the base game at the same time as the expansion or some time before it. Just no exclusive stuff, ok? Any addition should reach every player that buys the game (supported on Kickstarter, buy on release day, buy on Steam sales...).

 

I hope that there is no chainmail bikini. If something as stupid should be in, make it a chainmail mankini. A horde of muscled, sweating barbarians on chainmail mankinis would be fitting.

[Simonosaurus]

 

 

Who would not like a better game and more stuff in it ?

But you can go on forever with this idea and never see the end, because for many people, there's always something to add, it's never enough.

There's a time you have to stop filling your plate and eat what's already on it.

 

I know we are only talking about a few more areas and companions, but I don't like the idea of a new stretch goal after all this time, just because "we want moar"... of course we do, we always do...

 

So I would prefer that Obsidian finishes what was planned initially... and when the game is released, then you can think about a solid add-on, financed with sold copies of PoE and maybe a new KS campaign.

I kind of wish they did a really good job with first release, because it's all about initial reaction with gamers. I think that if they polish the game with DLCs later it won't have as good reviews at the start, and that means a lot in gaming industry, since most reviews stay on websites for ever and every new player would see it when checking it out and all they would see is a lower grade.

I've been guilty of such act many times.

 

And if it improves the outlook of this types of games, i'm all for it

 

Yes, the game has to be polished before it's release, i totally agree with that. And i'm against DLCs (little content sold at high price for what it's worth)... i only talked about "solid add-on" (strong content, reasonnable price)

 

But for me, there is a difference between polishing the game and adding stuff. For me, "polishing" means finish and correct what was planned.

And quantity doesn't always mean quality. I don't say that more companions and areas is not a good thing, of course it is, but i don't think that it is so important and that it will have a significant impact on the overall quality of the game and therefore on the reviews when the game is released.

The game can be very good and polished without this stretch goal. If not, then the problem would be more than just missing areas and companions.

 

 

That being said, I have not voted yet. I wait for Obsidian to be more specific about all of this.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Simonosaurus