Jump to content

Stretch Goals?  

2,052 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like Obsidian to release new stretch goals to go along with the opening of the Backer Portal?

    • I would love new stretch goals.
      1591
    • No, I would prefer if Obsidian did not introduce new stretch goals.
      458


Recommended Posts

My non-expert opinion: If there will be additional Stretchgoals put this extra content in a post release free DLC or the expansion. None of it should be critical to the game itself so why delay everything for some bonus stuff?

 

By that same token, a bunch of the stuff that's already on the "to be included/finished before release" isn't "critical" to the game itself, and therefore is simply delaying the game past some prior release date.

 

I mean, it's completely understandable to not want further delay. Don't get me wrong. I just don't see adhering so strictly to a "well, let's just say if it's not really critical, it's probably unnecessary and shouldn't be added to the game" condition and calling it a day as being a very good idea.

 

It's about cost-benefit. If they were to do stretch goals for this stuff, that implies that there would be certain additional-funding conditions that would need to be met for them to even BEGIN shooting for the extra content. Thus, most of the extra time of extra content could be mitigated by the use of that funding to procure extra manpower. I mean, if you suddenly have 2 environment artists instead of 1 (for example... I'm well aware they have more than 1 environment artist), then you're going to get 16 man-hours of environment art out of an 8-hour work day, instead of 8.

 

So, like Josh said, adding stuff would require a little extra design time. But it's not like all the grunt work would just be tacked onto the end of the current production timeline. "Okay, once we've gotten the game to where it WOULD'VE been finished for release, let's start working on additional environments and companions! 8D!"

 

So, back to cost-benefit, if the game takes 2 more weeks to iron out all the extra design stuff, for 3 more months' worth of environment and companion work to be added to the game (extra-funding-hired workers, churning out the stuffs after designs are ironed out, alongside current workers), then I'm all for it.

 

Beyond that, there's nought left but preference. If you just plain don't want the game to be delayed any longer than it has to be, regardless of reasons or benefit (doesn't matter if the game were 1000% better, even), then that's a perfectly understandable desire. The line has to be drawn SOMEwhere, and maybe some people just want it to remain drawn where it is, on principle. That's fine. But, as far as all the worries over their delaying the game for minimal additions that won't really benefit the game much, I just don't think that's the case. It might've been in the Update 69 thread, but I think Brandon (or Adam?) already stated, in reference to this "Do you want more Stretch Goals?" question, that, if it was going to significantly delay the game's release (beyond just a wee, tiny extra bit of design ironing out...ing...?), they wouldn't even be considering it as an option.

 

Basically, this isn't a poll about taking all the expansion development and mashing it into the current game's development timeline. It's a poll about things they would've liked to do already with the current game, but had to draw the line pretty much solely due to budget constraints. Again, why they're petitioning to do stretch goals, and not just "Hey, do you want us to tack more stuff onto the end of the timeline?"


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather they put any extra time/resources into the existing companions. Instead of designing new characters, double the number of quests involving the existing ones. They could make this a stretch goal with creative wording. I don't need or want a companion of every class, but I do want a lot of companion specific content.

 

More wilderness areas is a fine idea for a stretch. I just hope this doesn't mean they're short on money and need to keep promising more stuff to keep the project running.

 

edit: how do I get my badge to show up? I already logged in and confirmed my pledge...

Edited by SunBroSolaire
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's how I think an episodical release of Eternity could work, if it has 3 Acts:

 

- Release Date: Release only Act 1 Complete

- Week 2, release 1/3 of Act 2

- Week 4, release 2/3 of Act 2

- Week 6, release 3/3 of Act 2, Act 2 Complete

- Week 8, release 1/3 of Act 3

- Week 10, release 2/3 of Act 3

- Week 12, release 3/3 of Act 3 Act 3 Complete

Are you being sarcastic? That's got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. The industry is already suffering from the horrible disease of micro-transaction gaming. The hopelessly tragic practice of publishers and devs milking us dry with bare-boned games that need a billion DLCs to make the experience feel whole. Yet you want them to expand on that nickel and diming garbage by denying us the ability to get even the BASE game all at once?

 

Go away, please.

 

And, PS:

Additionally, they could make the Mega-Dungeon smaller (12 levels) and put 3 of those levels into Wilderness creation instead.

No. they couldn't. We earned a 15 level mega dungeon. Not a 12 level mega dungeon. And they're finished with it anyway, so this is a moot non-point/suggestion from you.

 

First Quote: No, not being sarcastic, and I'm not saying "I want". I'm looking at how many areas they can make with their own numbers they've given us and I'm considering what sort of method they'd use for "more wilderness areas". Because "more areas" is either going to be "more areas expansion post-release" (DLC) or it's going to be "game is released later because more areas", the episodical is a middle ground (and btw, it worked very well for Telltale's Walking Dead). There is a third option and that'd be "scrap some Old Stretch Goals cus they take too much time and implement New Stretch Goals instead"-method, which is exactly what I'm talking about with the Mega-Dungeon.

 

EDIT: Outsourcing would allow more areas to be complete quicker of course, more manpower but more expensive too (no?).

 

Second Quote: Of course they could. I'm not saying that they should, but they definitely could. I don't say I want it either, but it is still a method regardless. I'm still looking at possibilities, analysing, and considering "How" exactly Obsidian would deliver these "extra areas" to us in the best possible way. It takes 13 man days (that's 17 days) to create an area. 2 Areas is a little bit over 1 Month. So the Mega-Dungeon is a development of a lil bit over 7 months in itself. Where did they say it was complete?

Edited by Osvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Quote: No, not being sarcastic, and I'm not saying "I want". I'm looking at how many areas they can make with their own numbers they've given us and I'm considering what sort of method they'd use for "more wilderness areas". Because "more areas" is either going to be "more areas expansion post-release" (DLC) or it's going to be "game is released later because more areas", the episodical is a middle ground (and btw, it worked very well for Telltale's Walking Dead). There is a third option and that'd be "scrap some Old Stretch Goals cus they take too much time and implement New Stretch Goals instead"-method, which is exactly what I'm talking about with the Mega-Dungeon.

What?? You suggested a staggered episode-release formula whereas we do not get a complete game on day one. Instead, we get a piece of a game on day one, followed by another piece every couple of weeks for 3 f**king months. Good God. NO. No Illusion of "cost-saving" justifies that. And I neither have the time, nor the sanity to delve into the 10,000 obvious other reasons why such a model would destroy Pillars of Eternity outright, as well as any other semi open-ended, exploration-based game. I'll just say... No Thanks. Please go play your little walking dead game, in all its pieces, and leave Eternity, unfractured, for the rest of us.

 

 

Second Quote: Of course they could. I'm not saying that they should, but they definitely could. I don't say I want it either, but it is still a method regardless.

No. it isn't. They've completed work on the mega dungeon already. Your suggestion that they break their promises and then scrap part of the hard work they've already done in order to create more wilderness areas to offer us as a stretch goal is (almost) as nonsensical, unviable, and financially ass-backwards as your other suggestions.

 

Can we put a lid on the alternative brainstorming excercises now? It's off topic anyway. The devs aren't asking for budget restructuring suggestions.

 

 

Where did they say it was complete?

Right here. At 13:49

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know how many wilderness areas there are, and can we make a reasonable assumption as to whether more would be beneficial? Currently it doesn't seem to me that way. For all I know, the game currently has exactly the amount of wilderness areas it needs.

 

As for companions, I think I'm fine with the number that we have right now. Which I don't know exactly but I think it's around 10, maybe less? Since there's the Adventurer's Hall, I don't think I need more for replayability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First Quote: No, not being sarcastic, and I'm not saying "I want". I'm looking at how many areas they can make with their own numbers they've given us and I'm considering what sort of method they'd use for "more wilderness areas". Because "more areas" is either going to be "more areas expansion post-release" (DLC) or it's going to be "game is released later because more areas", the episodical is a middle ground (and btw, it worked very well for Telltale's Walking Dead). There is a third option and that'd be "scrap some Old Stretch Goals cus they take too much time and implement New Stretch Goals instead"-method, which is exactly what I'm talking about with the Mega-Dungeon.

 

What?? You suggested a staggered episode-release formula whereas we do not get a complete game on day one. Instead, we get a piece of a game on day one, followed by another piece every couple of weeks for 3 f**king months. Good God. NO. No Illusion of "cost-saving" justifies that. And I neither have the time, nor the sanity to delve into the 10,000 obvious other reasons why such a model would destroy Pillars of Eternity outright, as well as any other semi open-ended, exploration-based game. I'll just say... No Thanks. Please go play your little walking dead game, in all its pieces, and leave Eternity, unfractured, for the rest of us.

 

 

Second Quote: Of course they could. I'm not saying that they should, but they definitely could. I don't say I want it either, but it is still a method regardless.

No. it isn't. They've completed work on the mega dungeon already. Your suggestion that they scrap part of the hard work they've already done in order to create more wilderness areas to offer us as a stretch goal is (almost) as nonsensical, unviable, and financially ass-backwards as your other suggestions.

 

Can we put a lid on the alternative brainstorming excercises now? It's off topic anyway. The devs aren't asking for budget restructuring suggestions.

I'm not asking them to do it ffs, I'm just throwing out ideas cus I'm concerned. I'm passionate about this project too Stun, and I want it to succeed as much as any other who comes to this board/community.

 

I want the full game, but if there's going to be talk about add-ons mid-development I begin to wonder whether we'll get a full game or if we'll get expansions laid out on us post-release, or if it'll kick the development time back even further* I am also considering Obsidian and their employment in all of this as well, an Episodical Release could be beneficial for Obsidian as a Company and the people working there. But I agree, an episodical release for an RPG could be devastating too on many many levels (It could ruin reputations, which in turn could lead to a problematic future and more)... I just haven't seen it done (ever).

 

You also didn't answer my question in the "Second Quote" either. How do we know that the mega dungeon is complete? It's a question Stun, it doesn't bite. I'm curious, and it makes me very excited to know that it is, if it is. But I'm only going on your word here, so indulge me in this insight please :)

 

* I have said that I don't mind it if Obsidian takes their time with the game too, and this still stands. But I can't help to I also wonder if there are possibilities or other methods to add more wilderness areas in other ways that do not include a "release date = later".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just throwing out ideas

Ideas that none of us here support. Ideas that even you admit you don't support. LOL

 

Conclusion: Pointless discussion is pointless.

 

 

Back on topic.

 

Do we know how many wilderness areas there are, and can we make a reasonable assumption as to whether more would be beneficial? Currently it doesn't seem to me that way. For all I know, the game currently has exactly the amount of wilderness areas it needs.

I think I saw Josh somewhere citing BG1 and BG2 as benchmarks - saying that Eternity currently has about as many as BG2, but that Ideally, he'd like to see the number of wilderness areas be somewhere in between what BG1 had and what BG2 had.

 

As for the Beneficial question... I guess that's completely up to the individual player or developer to define such a thing. Me personally, I think a number in between BG1 and BG2 would be fantastic. One of the very few Legitimate criticisms of BG2 was that it was really lacking wilderness areas. I hope PE has more of them. If for no reason but to balance out the vast urban exploration that we're going to get (2 big cities but hardly any wilderness? No. lets not neglect the wilds).

Edited by Stun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ideas that none of us here support. Ideas that even you admit you don't support. LOL

 

Conclusion: Pointless discussion is pointless.

I don't support it as the correct choice, but it is a choice that I would support if Obsidian would choose to do it. Call me a fan boy or whatnot, but in reality I'm more of a "Curious George" because I'd want to see how it would actually be recieved. You know, when it is released and not in a fictional discussion. Why? Because I've never seen it be done before, thus the curiosity. The reason is probably because no one dares (most likely). It is still a method.

 

Also, an analysis is not a proper analysis if the analyst can't see two sides of "the coin" (so to speak). Here you go, it's actually a very insightful read and research in analysis ;) I've only gotten to Chapter 8, but I suddenly get an urge to re-read the entire thing anyways.

 

Thanks for this brief discussion Stun :)

 

EDIT: I am also not trying to reconstruct anyone's budget or planning. What I am trying to find out is where is Obsidian right now in their development in terms of how many areas they have in total and how many areas they might have at the end of the development. I want to understand why Obsidian wants more wilderness areas.. well, I think I know why but I want to document it as well for the community.

 

Read this as I hope it'll give more insight into exactly what I'm talking about here. The numbers they have given us do not add up to the scope-projection of the game (Baldur's Gate II size). That is, of course, if they do not outsource (Which I think they are doing? But I don't know how to analyse or count that and haven't done any research on the matter either).

Edited by Osvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of more wilderness areas, but I think I'd rather see it done as part of an official expansion or DLC. I'm worried that new stretch goals would distract the team from getting the core game right.

 

I'm also banking on the fact that Pillars of Eternity's core engine will be a woethy successor to the Infinity Engine, and we can expect great expansions and sequels for years to come!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i keep an eye on Project Eternity since this spring, and i missed the kickstarter, but there is my first post. I didn't read all 17 pages, and i'm not sure this comment will be noticed by the dev team but...

 

One feature i think is really important in a game like Project Eternity or Baldur's Gate is the companions. I mean, replayability relies much on this aspect. If i need to make the same party each game i try, it would be boring quite fast. I really think we need choices. Various wizards to pick, or warriors, priests-like... Part overlap of the NPC abilities is not a really big deal. As an example, for a ranger in BG2, i sometimes pick Minsc, and sometimes Valygar. Just refreshing beeing allowed to change

 

The other point was wilderness areas. I don't really understand what is a "wilderness area" for you. Because for me there was very few in BG2, and a huge amount in BG1. For me Thetyr Forest is wilderness while Arnise Keep is not. But well, i just hope PE won't be as dungeon diving as IWD, because while quite fun, it was boring over time. So, yes, wilderness areas and not combat oriented places in such areas would be really good.

 

A final note to say that i like the game, the art and all this stuff until now. Even if i'm not agree with all the features, the overall sounds nice. So, i voted YES, because wilderness and companions are, for me, the very core of a BG like game.

 

Thanks for all the stuff until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First post of a longtime lurker.

I've voted yes: definitely more wilderness areas (please, make them meaningful and big like those in Baldur's Gate 1) and more reactive and fleshed out companions (quality over quantity, here).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to guess and appoximate of how much time it takes for Obsidian to create an area but... I have no clue. So how much time does it approximately take for an area to finish? Luckily for me Brandon talks about it in this Update: this is how long it takes for a small area. About 13 man days (according to Brandon in that thread). Man days I presume are days that Obsidian is working (no weekends in other words), so that's 2 weeks and a half week of development for a small area.

NB: 'Man days' is like 'Man hours' - it's the total time spent multiplied by the number of people who work on it.

 

So, for example, if 5 people work on something for 1 hour, then that's 5 man-hours.

Similarly, if 4 people work on something for 3 days, then that's 12 man-days.

 

---

 

Definitely against an episodic release idea - wouldn't mind extra areas and companions being part of an expansion pack (TOTSC style) rather than the first release, but if they get the money for it and it only delays things a short while then I'm for doing it with the main game.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know how many wilderness areas there are, and can we make a reasonable assumption as to whether more would be beneficial? Currently it doesn't seem to me that way. For all I know, the game currently has exactly the amount of wilderness areas it needs.

 

As for companions, I think I'm fine with the number that we have right now. Which I don't know exactly but I think it's around 10, maybe less? Since there's the Adventurer's Hall, I don't think I need more for replayability.

 

I think only the dev team can really answer that question objectively. I'm certainly open to the possibility that the game could benefit from more wilderness areas. As it's sort of like more quests, or more foes, or more weapon variety, or more locked things to unlock with the lockpicking skill. The lore calls for an awful lot of world, and the game certainly isn't going to represent every single traversable bit of terrain in the whole world. And yet, exploring that world is a part of the game. Granted, not every inch, but where can you really just draw the line and say "Yep, that's exactly how much area we should have to interact with, and have things occur in. Any less would be problematic, and any more would be problematic, u_u"?

 

So, with my limited knowledge, I have to trust the devs' judgement in even considering "more wilderness areas" a feasible thing to potentially stretch-goal towards.

 

As for companions, I could've sworn they specifically stated that 3 more companions would allow them to have one for every class in the game. That's not so much for replayability (although it would obviously offer it, I suppose, what with only being able to have 5 at any given time in your party), as is it, first and foremost, for first-playthrough variety. There won't be 3 classes that you can ONLY fill with your PC or a lifeless Adventurer's Hall Drone. There will be 3 more personality-ripe companions who actually affect your playthrough. One for each class. I think that's not an unreasonable goal.

 

If these things are only going to be done once new stretch goals are met, and are only going to tack a couple of weeks or so onto the production timeline, then I'm all for them. If they're going to cost months, then I'm not for them. Or, if they were just considering doing this stuff without specifically meeting new funding stretch goals, I'd immediately say "no." But more funds = more manpower = more stuff in almost the same amount of time.

 

And it doesn't seem like they just drew random additional content out of a hat. "More robots... annnnnd... more cheese items! Let's do it!" So, I'm all for it, given the circumstances and planning under which it will be executed.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe ppl voted yes:( yeah let's add more stretch goals and let's release the game in bloody 2016! did they ran out of money already? if not than just save all those ideas for the add ons :) the game is already huge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry :(

 

I voted yes because... I'm greedy :(

 

Cannot get enough of awesomeness even if it means I have to wait longer

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would gladly take a slight delay in the development to get more companions (or maybe added as free DLC).  The number of companions we have right now is a little too small for my tastes, and I'm pretty sure many others agree.

 

But overall, I see nothing wrong with additional stretch goals, just as long as they don't slow down development heavily.  Perhaps any additional stretch goals that are met could be added to DLC or expansions?

 

Too small (few) number of companions? 

 

I pity the fools who never played PS:T.

 

I say no to additional super-late stretch goals and burdening the already EXTREMELY HIGH expectations we have for the base game. This requires polish first. We're already expecting significant textual-RP content. 

 

Save the everything else for proper retail sequels, because that's the entire point of a franchise, eh?

  • Like 3

The KS Collector's Edition does not include the Collector's Book.

Which game hook brought you to Project Eternity and interests you the most?

PE will not have co-op/multiplayer, console, or tablet support (sources): [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Write your own romance mods because there won't be any in PE.

"But what is an evil? Is it like water or like a hedgehog or night or lumpy?" -(Digger)

"Most o' you wanderers are but a quarter moon away from lunacy at the best o' times." -Alvanhendar (Baldur's Gate 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would gladly take a slight delay in the development to get more companions (or maybe added as free DLC).  The number of companions we have right now is a little too small for my tastes, and I'm pretty sure many others agree.

 

But overall, I see nothing wrong with additional stretch goals, just as long as they don't slow down development heavily.  Perhaps any additional stretch goals that are met could be added to DLC or expansions?

 

Too small (few) number of companions? 

 

I pity the fools who never played PS:T.

 

 

I certainly think the number they have is small at the moment, considering (according to Josh Sawyer) they are aiming for a BG2 like experience (moreso than a Torment and Icewind Dale). One of the strengths of BG2 was, of course, it's variety of different characters with a wide range of personality.  I do know this is going to be somewhat difficult ATM since they want to make PoE companions more reactive than the BG2 one's.

Edited by Bill Gates' Son

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Too small (few) number of companions? 

 

I pity the fools who never played PS:T.

 

I say no to additional super-late stretch goals and burdening the already EXTREMELY HIGH expectations we have for the base game. This requires polish first. We're already expecting significant textual-RP content. 

 

Save the everything else for proper retail sequels, because that's the entire point of a franchise, eh?

 

 

 

You have a point. PST companions were awesome. But the matter is i played 10X more times BG than PST. And the amount of possible companions was one reason for it. Because i think one of the biggest problem of the best game ever (PST) was its lack of replayability. More companions help to change the party you gather for different playthrough. I mean, once you've played 5 times with Fall from Grace, you may just want to try another priest in your party... No? BG1 had 25 companions and BG2 had 16. BG1 ones were not as developped as the ones of BG2. But to tell the truth, even with 16 i've always felt BG2 lacks companions. (yeah, i'm greedy, and i don't ask for so many in PE anyway)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want more natural caves to explore and loot. Also more wilderness areas, yeah. That would be nice. Companions can come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe ppl voted yes:( yeah let's add more stretch goals and let's release the game in bloody 2016! did they ran out of money already? if not than just save all those ideas for the add ons :) the game is already huge.

it's not and that's the whole point, in an interview they already said they are worried that people will compare it to BG2 (which IS huge) in terms of length, which means it will probably be less than that. The extra stretch goal is to try to even it up a bit in size in terms of content (not map areas)

 

I think the delay will probably be about 2-3 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if getting the game "on time" is a good thing, it doesn't guarantee quality just because it gets released on schedule (we've all seen that with any number of games from various developers).  Isn't half of the benefit of no publisher that the developer doesn't have someone standing over them telling them to release now or no monies?

 

I think most people here would be happy for Obsidian to polish the game to the level of something they considered acceptable even if it meant delaying a few months.    We could get more areas, more NPC's AND an even more polished game BECAUSE the game is delayed with added stretch goals (as far as I was aware the idea was for these stretch goals not to greatly impact the release anyway, extra money means extra resources not just more time tacked on so people already on the project can add stuff to the end of their list of things to do).

 

Of course what will happen will be that people will blame the stretch goals for the delays, then blame Obsidian for the stretch goals, then blame each other for wanting more, then blame themselves for pledging, then whine about it incessantly on the forums.

 

I've waited 10 years for something like the old IE games to come along, a delay of 2, 3 or 6 months is not going to cause me to go into whine mode and cry like a baby all over the internet.  I want a good game, I'm willing to wait for it, stretch goals or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...