New stretch goals for companions and wilderness areas?

[Keltair]

I voted for more wilderness, since BG1 was my favorite Infinity Engine game for just this reason.  I think being able to take off into wide open places and discover small situations, caves, and encounters did wonders for the atmosphere, making the world feel more realized and placing greater emphasis on how small your party was in the scope of things.

 

While I thought the engine and gameplay upgrades for BG2 were great and the stroyline was stronger, I was actually disappointed that there was nowhere to go exploring, just 5 or so maps outside of the city. 

 

Of course I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is, and new companions is a huge plus too.  Only concern would be timing - will this delay the launch substantially, or would new funds allow people to be pulled of other projects to the eternity team?

[Abel]

Obs said that the delay would be short. Hard to figure out how much time, but i guess few weeks is the scope. Furthermore, the "released when done" seems to be the better way to craft a game to me.

[AndreaColombo]

the "released when done" seems to be the better way to craft a game to me.

 

Absolutely agreed.

 

I really hope there will be a way to upgrade pledges or at least add some stuff on.

 

You may write to Obsidian's support and they would update your (finalized) pledge for you.

[Alc Cides]

I voted no. My point is until now PO is still a promise. Yes, this is one of the best kickstarter projects out there, the details in the advance is great and I can see the project looks on track but I always think you can have both: quantity and quality.

You can say: but we've more developers, more people they can handle the job but the truth is the project get more complex. Every companion is going to affect the previus ones, some interactions aren't posible, some situations so the posibility of problems increases. The same for the new areas affecting the world so I prefer you deliver a smaller but better experience.

[Lephys]

You can say: but we've more developers, more people they can handle the job but the truth is the project get more complex. Every companion is going to affect the previus ones, some interactions aren't posible, some situations so the posibility of problems increases. The same for the new areas affecting the world so I prefer you deliver a smaller but better experience.

 

That's not quite as complex as you make it out to be. I mean, once you've got THAT much of a game designed, you can look and see what you DON'T have, and go from there. Same as with an expansion. Not having your entire game fully "manufactured" yet, so to speak, probably reduces the complication of working additional stuff in, if anything, since you can already modify things that remain unfinished before they're actually finished, instead of doing the initial work to finish them, then choosing between UNdoing that work to change them to allow for the new stuff or just limiting the new stuff to the unmalleable, fully complete already-in-place stuff.

 

Example: I think they said somewhere recently that, while they've already got the concepts fully hashed out for all the companions, they haven't actually written any of the companions yet. Thus, if they were to add 3 more companions to have one for every class, it would be a LOT easier to work them in now, before they've gone and already written a bunch of other ones that might clash with new ones, than to wait until later and try to work them in after 8 companions are already written and done.

 

Clarification: I'm not saying "Everything's just plain easier, and there's no additional workload/complication at all." But, you're making it seem like the state of the project can never ever have a positive effect on the ease of adding new stuff.

 

Also, I trust them to not just be arbitrarily adding in stuff at random. They'll be adding in more wilderness areas where they think something might be a little lacking in the grand scheme of things, or companions in the same way (as in how they'd kinda like to have one for each class, and nothing more than that. Not just some arbitrary additional number of companions.)

[Silverfox]

 

You can say: but we've more developers, more people they can handle the job but the truth is the project get more complex. Every companion is going to affect the previus ones, some interactions aren't posible, some situations so the posibility of problems increases. The same for the new areas affecting the world so I prefer you deliver a smaller but better experience.

 

That's not quite as complex as you make it out to be. I mean, once you've got THAT much of a game designed, you can look and see what you DON'T have, and go from there. Same as with an expansion. Not having your entire game fully "manufactured" yet, so to speak, probably reduces the complication of working additional stuff in, if anything, since you can already modify things that remain unfinished before they're actually finished, instead of doing the initial work to finish them, then choosing between UNdoing that work to change them to allow for the new stuff or just limiting the new stuff to the unmalleable, fully complete already-in-place stuff.

It would be great to hear one of the devs on this subject. I've never been part of a software team that has released so while I can't say how easy/difficult it is, i do believe its harder that what those on the outside think - and I include myself in that group.

 

I was part of the beta-testing team for a great game and there was a huge amount of work just doing the bug testing. Example: You're running along a stream (in the water) and your footfalls produce puffs of dust. Not a critical bug in any sense of the word, and if it was released in that state it would reflect poorly on the team.

[Abel]

Totally agree with Lephys. And i think Obs said that they would not have done this poll if there were any chance for the game to be worse doing it and adding stretch goals. So, it's a safe thing. Don't know where i read this, maybe along this topic.

 

And like Lephys said, it's far easier and faster to add this content now than after (as an expansion for example).

[sesobebo]

an order of wilderness areas for me, please!

 

8 well written companions is plenty enough for me; fewer-than-BG2 wilds on the other hand...

[LuccA]

Is there any information about companion's interaction? Will it be huge like in BG2?

Because, if so, adding, let's say, 4 companions would mean adding lot's of dialogs with different character combinations (don't wanna do the maths right now, xD) with every possible party formation etc. It is a huge work and it would take time I guess, specially if those added characters had importance in the story. 

 

Characters are the reason I love RPG though, I'm all in favor of adding more NPCs, if they're meaningful and not shallow, which I doubt coming from this team.

 

Wilderness areas are the reason I love BG1, the birds chanting, the unexpected encounters. Would love to have that feeling in an CRPG again. What would be of the LotR movies without the walking.at.a.straight.line.on.a.mountain.peak scenes??? I'm all in favor of adding a nice music for the wilderness moments too, xD.  

[EDarkness]

My feeling on this is that I'd rather see the game first, then worry about stretch goals.  More stuff is generally good, but at the same time getting the current product done and out the door would be best.  Save the extra stuff for DLC or expansions.

[Co0n]

Another IMHO by me:

 

I dont need 1 Companion for every available class. I prefer to have diversity in terms of behavior and characteristics.

in BG1 I could chose many thiefs, mages and warriors, what made them different was their personality and some minor changes in skill and attributes. Loved it.

 

And there is nether enough wilderness to exlore.

Firewine Bridge, Ulcaster etc. was an awesome experience when I stumbled upon it the first time

[Corivar]

I would be fine with more of both, however I lean towards the wilderness areas as I am more interested in exploring. There never seem to be enough wilderness areas, ruined temples, forgotten tombs, etc and always leave me wanting more.

 

The teaser looked awesome, and although I'm very eager to get my hands on the game, I am also content to wait for a completed and well polished product.

I want this game to do well, and would love to see other publishers kicking themselves for not throwing money at this from the start.

[Abel]

oh yeah! I would love to see some publishers bubblering because games like Wasteland 2 are a succes. "Whaaat?? But it's unfair... WE own the money!  WE deserve to own even more!..." Freaking coward idiots.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Abel

[JadedWolf]

oh yeah! I would love to see some publishers bubblering because games like Wasteland 2 are a succes. "Whaaat?? But it's unfair... WE own the money!  WE deserve to own even more!..." Freaking coward idiots.

 

I think you might be posting in the wrong thread...

[Lephys]

I think you might be posting in the wrong thread...

Erm, I think he was saying that in direct response to:

 

I want this game to do well, and would love to see other publishers kicking themselves for not throwing money at this from the start.

*shrug*. 8P

 

Also...

 

It would be great to hear one of the devs on this subject. I've never been part of a software team that has released so while I can't say how easy/difficult it is, i do believe its harder that what those on the outside think - and I include myself in that group.

 

I was part of the beta-testing team for a great game and there was a huge amount of work just doing the bug testing. Example: You're running along a stream (in the water) and your footfalls produce puffs of dust. Not a critical bug in any sense of the word, and if it was released in that state it would reflect poorly on the team.

We are in full agreement on the greatness of hearing from a dev. But, my point is not "No, you're wrong about difficulties, and there would only be easies!". I'm simply emphasizing the observation of factors that seem to be overlooked when deciding "See, this would be really tough and would delay things a lot." In other words, I don't claim to know exactly how much of an impact these beneficial factors will have on delay duration, in the exact same capacity that neither of us really has any idea exactly how much the negative factors will boost the delay.

 

I'm simply pointing out things for consideration, not saying "and therefore no delay! 8D!"

 

I love analysis, but there's just not much point in assuming one way or the other. And, I definitely wouldn't scoff at a developer coming in and explaining, with all their first hand knowledge, what factors fit in where, and how much they affect things.

 

TL;DR version:

 

I'm curious to know an accurate assessment of the delay we'd be looking at and what leads to it and what doesn't, but I can't say "there probably wouldn't be any delay" any more than I can say "there probably would be a huge delay," nor can anyone else, really, I don't think...

[Tsuga C]

So long as QA doesn't suffer and the release date isn't pushed back more than one quarter, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing another couple of companions and wilderness areas.  "More" is generally only a negative when it interferes with or detracts from what is already present.

[okkoko]

i would like if there where added some bizarre weird comical content

[CENIC]

I'd add more money to my current pledge for the extra 3 companions alone... having a plot-integrated companion for every class is a must for me.

[Reever]

I ultimately decided to vote that I'd love some more stretch goals. If they decide to go for it and there are enough people backing it, everyone profits. If not, then...bad luck. Or it'll come as DLC/expansion later on.

[Lephys]

My favorite thing about this thread thus far:

 

- Obsidian makes internal design decisions with the money they've already got, leading to the game being released later than it could be had they made other decisions instead = totally fine. If the game comes out in 2015, but that's just based on no extra stretch goals, that's totally fine, because the game isn't actually "delayed."

- Obsidian actually consults with us on design decisions they'd like to make, but don't want to do without additional funds = OUTRAGE!

 

So, in short, more work on the game with the same amount of resources... acceptable. More work on the game only if additional resource goals are met? HOW DARE THEY?!

[rjshae]

It's pretty obvious at this point that there is going to be a kickstarter; about the only reason they wouldn't is if the poll came back negative. I'll be interesting to see how well they do for a couple of reasons. The first is that nobody has really come back to kickstarter  for a big double-scoop helping like this. The second is that they don't even have an example of live game play comparable to the first Wasteland 2 demo.

[Lephys]

*shrug*. Additional stretch goals just means more funding collection. Not necessarily through Kickstarter.

[rjshae]

*shrug*. Additional stretch goals just means more funding collection. Not necessarily through Kickstarter.

 

They'll likely need the type of focus and attention that a Kickstarter can serve, unless there's a better method?

[Lephys]

They'll likely need the type of focus and attention that a Kickstarter can serve, unless there's a better method?

I'm not saying they can't use another Kickstarter project to do it. But, if you look at the game Starbound, they seem to be using the same type of tiered-pledge setup, but aren't using Kickstarter (they're just accepting payment through various options at their site -- such as Paypal -- and keeping track of their pledge total, with stretch goals and all).

 

I wouldn't really say some other method is better, but rather that a separate Kickstarter might be a bit overboard if there's a simpler way to do it.

 

Also, the Torment Kickstarter ended, but they were very close to the Stronghold stretch goal, so they basically just said "Even though the Kickstarter is over, the stretch goal is still in effect" for another week or so. They just accepted more pledges through not-Kickstarter, and if they met the goal, they met the goal. Since they've got a backer portal now, they could easily just say "Hey, here's where we're at, and if people want to pledge more and/or new people want to buy stuff that haven't, and we reach this point, we'll add in wilderness areas and/or companion characters."

 

I'm sure that, either way, the funds pledged are going to go towards the project. As long as people know that up front, it's not a big deal, really. Of course, it's up to them, I suppose. They could go either way. But, even in the initial Kickstarter campaign, all the pledged funds that exceeded the last met stretch goal but fell short of the next one weren't refunded or anything. They're just goals for the total to "stretch" to. Not minimums to accept funding. So, even though adding stretch goals this late is unorthodox, I just didn't figure they'd need to launch a separate campaign for supplemental content to an existing, in-production game that already had its own Kickstarter campaign. *shrug*

 

And in way too many words, that's just my thinking on the matter, for what it's worth (or isn't, perhaps, ).

[Cubiq]

It's pretty obvious at this point that there is going to be a kickstarter; about the only reason they wouldn't is if the poll came back negative.

Although it does have a 77% "yes" rate, this is only from the hard core fan base, that regularly come to the forums to check for updates. Only about 1,700 ppl voted here, while the initial kickstarter had 73,986 backers.