New stretch goals for companions and wilderness areas?

[Iakus]

I'm not sure how to vote on this.

 

On one hand, even though this looks ike it's already going to be a huge game, additional content would be great.

 

On the other hand, I  wouldn't want additional content to be rushed, or cause delays. 

 

Would these aditional stretch goals be in the original game, or subsequent downloads/dlcs/expansions?

[Cribbian]

If the team can manage the extra content then sure.

[JWestfall]

Based on what I gleaned from this thread, it sounds as though Josh wants this to, and believes it can, happen - just needs the funding to make it so.  However, I understand people's reservations, especially this late in the game.

 

That said, I voted yes mostly out of self-interested greed and curiosity.  I'm only human.

[Eleasar]

The positive outweighs the negative with stretch-goals it seems. 

 

What I want:

A Demi-Lich-style boss like Kangaxx who kicks ***. Wait, why not Kangaxx himself?

[Graham]

By the way, will we be able to pledge more money? I came too late and missed the kickstarter, so I couldn't pledge for a physical box (maybe collectors edition). I'd gladly correct this mistake.

[Sir Chaox]

To those complaining, IMO, they wouldn't have even offered this unless they wanted to do this themselves and needed the extra funding to do so. I would gladly help them fund some additional content, if this is what they want. If they are just doing it for us and every goal they were shooting for is already being met, then forget it; I'd rather we not postpone the game for subpar content.

[Lephys]

You know what? Just to be unique, I'm going to say that I ONLY want extra stretch goals if they're going to delay the game. My only goal is to delay the game for the sake of delaying the game. If it gets a bit better as a side effect, then so be it.

 

/jest

[LadyCrimson]

By the way, will we be able to pledge more money? I came too late and missed the kickstarter, so I couldn't pledge for a physical box (maybe collectors edition). I'd gladly correct this mistake.

I believe logging into the backer site and doing its thing gives folk the option to pledge more/get some of those things as "add-ons."

[JFSOCC]

Hard to find quests and areas which you can easily miss, for explorers

[mansoba]

I think taking the time to add more well polished content would be a good thing. Why not expand this game as much as we can? That being said, maybe some things should be saved for an expansion so that we do get to play the game sometime in the near future. I'd also be down for getting some stretch goals that will be applied to an expansion instead of the main game.

[BBBD]

I kind of just assumed this was a poll to see if we like the idea of more stretch goals.

If there was interest then stretch goals and all the details everyone is asking for would be worked out in detail. After this we would be voting with our $$ as to whether or not we like said stretch goals.

[Thrasher91604]

Hmm, yes, that's a reasonable assumption now that I re-read the original request.

 

Given that interpretation being true, I'd say "no" to more stretch goals. Start a new kickstarter expansion instead.

 

Focus on finishing and getting out the door what's already on the table for the current kickstarter, unless Obsidian thinks baselined exploration and companions are insufficient.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Thrasher91604

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'd be interested to know how Obsidian will implement these new stretch goals through funding. Presumably, it will be on their own website and new and existing customers will be able to pledge additional funds through the backer site. 

[Gumbercules]

I'm curious to know which companion classes we'll be missing if you stick to just the current 8 companions.

[Histrion]

Shut up. Juste take our money

 

I think we all (or quite all) understand that a good game must bring you money, and not only satisfaction of seeing us play. No. Seriously. if the game's as good as it seems to be, and brings back the Baldur's Gate feelings... Make the universe larger, the background deeper, the story more epic than ever, and I'll pay again without a doubt.

 

But, in the same time, pleeeeease don't make it some DLC-like piece of crap selling items and or small additional quests or maps. Please don't spoil the game with bad marketing (like so much games those past few years :'( ). I'm already quite not sure I like the fact that you chose to sell beta keys for money. Don't go that way. 

[Lord Wafflebum]

I'm in favor assuming that development time is not significantly increased. I would like to echo what others have said about companions who would have more interactivity/backstories and/or class related quests as optimal stretch goals.

 

I'm indifferent on increased wilderness areas. While I would like a larger game, I would also be just as happy to see more areas to explore in an expansion pack that you guys have always done very well with. I often enjoy your DLC even more than the base game (Dead Money and Old World Blues being exceptional examples from recent memory).

 

So yes, I would at a minimum be curious as to what you offered for stretch goals, but I would ask that you also give us an approximation for each stretch goal as to how much longer funding that goal would increase development time.

[Gyges]

More reactivity, deeper stories and secret areas.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Gyges

[DeadManINC84]

Hey if they are good then go for it I would be down it looks very good from the Video they just put out.

[DaWu]

making the game bigger? shut up and take my money!

[stkaye]

I'm a definite 'yes' - I think additional stretch goals for wilderness areas and extra NPCs is a great idea.

 

Some reasons:

1. I don't care how long it takes. I'm sure I'm just as excited to play PoE as anyone else here, but the whole beauty of the kickstarter funding model is that it should reduce the kinds of pressures and constraints that make developers feel rushed. Take all the time you need. Make it the best game you can. Let us know if there's something specific you need more money for, and we'll see what we can do. 
2. Additional NPCs would substantially increase the replayability of the game - and that's one of the truly great things about BG2, after all. If a successful stretch goal makes a full campaign replay something appealing, then that stretch goal has essentially doubled the value of the game. Definitely worth it.
3. I love a good wilderness area. I'm a sucker for BG1 in this sense, and while I adored BG2, I thought it didn't compare to the first game in terms of a sense of exploration and discovery. I know for sure that Obsidian will get wildernesses right - give them themes, little moments of story and context and character, visual interest and atmosphere. 
4. It will justify me using the backer portal to buy some of the stuff that I really want but can't quite bring myself to spend money on at this stage!

So - yes, go for it!

[coffeetable]

Requoting for a new page:

 

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.

[coffeetable]

I'm curious to know which companion classes we'll be missing if you stick to just the current 8 companions.

We've seen artwork for:

 

Eder: rogue

Feathered chick: paladin (by the look of her at least?)

Cadegund: priest

Forton: monk

Sagani: ranger

Aloth: wizard (by the looks of him)

Orlan dude: cipher

Green chick: druid (again, by the looks of her)

 

which means that - if these are, in fact, are all companions - chanter/barbarian/fighter are without companions.

Edited December 12, 2013 by coffeetable

[Gumbercules]

 

I'm curious to know which companion classes we'll be missing if you stick to just the current 8 companions.

We've seen artwork for:

 

Eder: rogue

Feathered chick: paladin (by the look of her at least?)

Cadegund: priest

Forton: monk

Sagani: ranger

Aloth: wizard (by the looks of him)

Orlan dude: cipher

Green chick: druid (again, by the looks of her)

 

which means that - if these are, in fact, are all companions - chanter/barbarian/fighter are without companions.

 

 

I think I remember someone saying that not all the characters shown so far would necessarily be companions. Plus you listed eight potential companions without any of them being an aumaua, which seems unlikely.

[Raithe]

Hm. I appreciate the idea of more things in the game. But I think I'd generally prefer the focus be on what we have now, then save further "stretch" goals as it were for future DLC/Expansion packs to add serious details to the world and other stories.  Maybe have some more thought to how those future things will fit into the game as it is.

[Bryy]

I do find the very existance of this thread interesting. Typically, at this point in production Scope Creep is the big impending threat. But here, we apparently have the opposite going on: A developer proposing to expand the already existing scope of the game.

 

Feature Creep is not something that exists only in a publisher-bred game. It exists in all projects: book, game, move, etc.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Bryy