No console release, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a tablet version. I bet a lot of these developers are going to be watching the Baldur's Gate rerelease very closely.
As far as motivation and characterization? Not really. Her big twist is that she was really evil the whole time! Gasp! Darth beTRAYAr. She wants to kill the Force because she got kicked out of the club for being evil.
She has a super detailed back story, and she's well written, but complex? Not really. She's as straightforward as Nihilus and Scion, just way more haughty about it.
Except it wasn't a twist. It was never supposed to be a twist. She tells you from the very beginning not to trust anyone, including her. You actually gain influence with her when you say that you won't trust her and that you'll use her as a tool. They actually show you how she tricks and manipulates everyone.
This is what she says when you ask her about her past:
“What do you wish to hear? That I once believed in the code of the Jedi? That I felt the call of the Sith, that perhaps, once, I held the galaxy by its throat? That for every good work that I did, I brought equal harm upon the galaxy? That perhaps the greatest of the Sith Lords knew of evil, they learned from me?“
And she didn't want to kill the Force, she wanted to destroy all the dogma surrounding the Force and have people see it for what it was.
Heh, it is a twist, because she puts on these airs of being ex-Jedi/Sith. "I once", "I felt", "once, I held", all past tense. It's a twist because she's really still an evil-to-the-core, mustache-twirling Sith.
And, yeah, she wants to destroy the Force. That's the whole reason for her interactions with the Exile. "The death of the Force." To exploit the wound in the Force to create a galaxy lacking the Force altogether.
One of Kreia's main traits, that she frequently points out, is that she might be lying through her teeth the entire time or could be being completely honest with you. You can't say what her goals were because the only person with whom you discuss those goals is Kreia herself. There are theories that Kreia wanted to rebuild the Jedi Order, or simply get petty revenge on the old one for forcing her out, or to show them the error of their ways in the hopes that they'd see her point, or all of these or none of these. Kreia's whole thing is being utterly indecipherable and completely open to interpretation even up to the very end of the game, and that point is drilled into your head every 5 minutes throughout the game.
As to her turning being a twist, it really wasn't. As soon as you get a bit of influence with her super-early in the game they show her in full Darth Traya get-up getting the tar beaten out of her as Sion and Nihilus force her out of their cool kids club. When she does turn (if she did turn), after time and time again saying to the player 'You really shouldn't trust anyone, especially me', Atton himself says to the Exile 'Come on, like you didn't see that one coming' or words to that effect.
Scorchy's LP goes over a lot of this stuff in a really interesting way and ya'll should give it a read.
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
battle.net: lankyplonker#1923
psn: lankyplonker
0
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Cool, thanks. Those restrictions do make sense, especially that density of text one. I know I have problems with that on my TV sometimes. All stuff that could be overcome, but it would definitely be the lowest of the low in terms of priority for those guys
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Cool, thanks. Those restrictions do make sense, especially that density of text one. I know I have problems with that on my TV sometimes. All stuff that could be overcome, but it would definitely be the lowest of the low in terms of priority for those guys
Doubly so since they're going partially VA'ed
And Even though Obsidian is a well known name, I'm not sure they're going to do that much better than double fine or wasteland 2
As far as motivation and characterization? Not really. Her big twist is that she was really evil the whole time! Gasp! Darth beTRAYAr. She wants to kill the Force because she got kicked out of the club for being evil.
She has a super detailed back story, and she's well written, but complex? Not really. She's as straightforward as Nihilus and Scion, just way more haughty about it.
Except it wasn't a twist. It was never supposed to be a twist. She tells you from the very beginning not to trust anyone, including her. You actually gain influence with her when you say that you won't trust her and that you'll use her as a tool. They actually show you how she tricks and manipulates everyone.
This is what she says when you ask her about her past:
“What do you wish to hear? That I once believed in the code of the Jedi? That I felt the call of the Sith, that perhaps, once, I held the galaxy by its throat? That for every good work that I did, I brought equal harm upon the galaxy? That perhaps the greatest of the Sith Lords knew of evil, they learned from me?“
And she didn't want to kill the Force, she wanted to destroy all the dogma surrounding the Force and have people see it for what it was.
Heh, it is a twist, because she puts on these airs of being ex-Jedi/Sith. "I once", "I felt", "once, I held", all past tense. It's a twist because she's really still an evil-to-the-core, mustache-twirling Sith.
And, yeah, she wants to destroy the Force. That's the whole reason for her interactions with the Exile. "The death of the Force." To exploit the wound in the Force to create a galaxy lacking the Force altogether.
Except she's actually shown to be deceptive and manipulative throughout the entire game.
And if she really wanted to destroy the Force in the way that she described, why didn't she actually try to kill the Exile? Why did she have the Exile go through Sion and fight her instead of just activating the Mass Shadow Generator?
The whole theme of the character is that she works through indirect means and tries to convince others of a point of view through lies and deception.
“Direct action is not always the best way. It is a far greater victory to make another see through your eyes than to close theirs forever.”
“Manipulation is done through propelling events… or selected ones into motion. It is done through teaching, through example, and through conviction. And the greatest of victories are not manipulations at all but simply awakening others… to the truth of what you believe. Of hearing it echoed around you, in life.”
None of her actions are supposed to be direct or obvious. All through the game, she manipulates and deceives people, tricking people into advancing goals that are not what she stated. So why would you think that she was being completely honest about her plan to destroy the Force?
If you use Ammon Jerro as a companion, he will begin to regret a lot of the decisions he has made and depending on your dialogue choices, he'll either remain determined that all those sacrifices were necessary or realize that he brought on a lot of the trouble upon himself due to his harsh ways.
True, but that's with the Guiding Hand of the Player. Prior to that point, dude seemed like an unstoppable, tyrannical monster. Typical antagonist material.
Except he only seemed like an unstoppable, tyrannical monster because you were mistaking him for the King of Shadows. You only fight him once before you go into his sanctum, most of the other conflicts in the game were with the Gith, the Luskans, and the King of Shadows.
He entreaties demons, devils, and the githyanki in a bid for power. Ammon makes a literal deal with a devil when he goes to Hell looking for allies. He thought nothing of the suffering of innocents, and he murders his granddaughter in a blind rage. Dude was evil.
You do know that he was making deals with demons and devils in order to fight a godlike shadow being that destroyed one of the most powerful empires in the history of Faerun, don't you?
KingofMadCows on
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
kaliyama on
0
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
Kriea's the best. You feel like you're cheating yourself if she's not in your party.
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
As much as I like the classic inventory management with all the epic weapons getting their own short stories once examined, the inventory management of ME1 was one of the most annoying things about that game because it was all boring number crunching without any of the fluff.
0
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
That's right, thanks Brock's. Or Mullet? What do I say?? Density isn't always better from a design perspective, but the textual density is why it wouldn't make it to a console.
0
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
That's right, thanks Brock's. Or Mullet? What do I say?? Density isn't always better from a design perspective, but the textual density is why it wouldn't make it to a console.
Mr. Mullet, singular. Just along for the ride. New Vegas also had less text in your dialog tree, though you never got a longer spoken line to compensation.
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
As much as I like the classic inventory management with all the epic weapons getting their own short stories once examined, the inventory management of ME1 was one of the most annoying things about that game because it was all boring number crunching without any of the fluff.
Oh, but ME2 and 3 did have fluff for your weapons, armor and upgrades. It wasn't Planescape style short stories, exceptions granted, but it did go a long way towards grounding the universe.
On another note, how big do we think the party will be? Six? Do we want complex moves for every party member, or will fighters just have the option of dying slowly?
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
Actuaaaaaaalllyyyyy.... ME1 didn't have interrupts, so punching Khalisah al-Jilani was a dialogue choice. Not even a red text renegade choice!
Project Update #3: Game Basics - Your Party, Your Characters, and Races, Update #3
Posted by Obsidian Entertainment
We've hit our first stretch goal and surpassed $1.5 million! Thank you to everyone who has made this all possible. And now, some info...
Project Eternity is still early in development and we are still working on many of the cultures, factions, and ethnic groups of the world and debating many of the system concepts. However, there are certain fundamental things we want to let you know about the game and the setting for Project Eternity.
Your Party
The maximum party size is the player's main character (PC) and up to five companions for a total of six characters. This does not preclude the addition of temporary characters in special circumstances. Companions are never forced on the player. Players can explore the entire world and its story on their own if they so choose. We feel companions are excellent sounding boards for the player's (and other companions') actions, but the story is ultimately about the player's personal conflict among the larger social and political complexities of the world.
Formations
A key element of the classic party-based tactical combat that we are developing is the use of party formations. As in the good ol' games, you can arrange your party in a large number of set formations. You can also construct your own formations if you want to get fancy. When moving companions, you have the ability to rotate formations for more precise positioning.
Character Creation
At a minimum, players will be able to specify their main character's name, sex, class, race (including subrace), culture, traits, ability scores, portrait, and the fundamental starting options of his or her class (gear, skills, and talents). We have not worked out customization details of character avatars, but we believe those are important and will be updating on these specifics in the future.
That's all for today's update. We'll have more information on the world and systems in the near future. Please give us your feedback and thank you for all of the ideas and support you've given so far!
Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
0
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
I would expect that this game will never see a console release. They've been pretty clear in their pitch video that they're not interested in making the gameplay sacrifices necessary to facilitate controller support.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
Actuaaaaaaalllyyyyy.... ME1 didn't have interrupts, so punching Khalisah al-Jilani was a dialogue choice. Not even a red text renegade choice!
Edit: "It's time to shut you up!" What'd you expect? A formal letter of complaint? "I bet your mother is disapointed in the type of person you are, if she's not already dead"? Actually, that last bit...
Edit 2: Really excited to see what races and cultures you can be. Hope they include a fair number of generic portraits.
Regarding mature themes, I'd actually suggest they're not inherently complex, nor do they mandate that characters be morally gray or deceptive. KotOR 2 and Planescape are good go-to examples for complexity, but it can be something a lot more down-to-earth; something like learning to accept one's limitations, or the reality that there are some things beyond your ability to change. It can be the understanding that killing all your enemies doesn't make your problems go away, and sometimes even makes them worse. It can be indelible mistakes, things you never quite live down and your only option is to soldier on as best you can, because people need you in the here and now. Or it can simply reflect a world that is sometimes ugly, sometimes beautiful, but always much, much bigger than any one person.
It's a pretty broad term, is what I'm getting at, and there are lots of ways to make something sound grown-up without making it about morality. It being a fantasy game, I admit I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking, but at least with Obsidian I trust they'll put some serious thought into it.
More updates from Obsidian
Your Party
The maximum party size is the player's main character (PC) and up to five companions for a total of six characters. This does not preclude the addition of temporary characters in special circumstances. Companions are never forced on the player. Players can explore the entire world and its story on their own if they so choose. We feel companions are excellent sounding boards for the player's (and other companions') actions, but the story is ultimately about the player's personal conflict among the larger social and political complexities of the world.
I like companions, but man is it going to be nice to have them be optional. I'm really tired of the trend to shoehorn companions into every possible game. I think I'm going to have a pull a Cartman and freeze myself until this comes out.
More updates from Obsidian
Your Party
The maximum party size is the player's main character (PC) and up to five companions for a total of six characters. This does not preclude the addition of temporary characters in special circumstances. Companions are never forced on the player. Players can explore the entire world and its story on their own if they so choose. We feel companions are excellent sounding boards for the player's (and other companions') actions, but the story is ultimately about the player's personal conflict among the larger social and political complexities of the world.
I like companions, but man is it going to be nice to have them be optional. I'm really tired of the trend to shoehorn companions into every possible game. I think I'm going to have a pull a Cartman and freeze myself until this comes out.
This, very much this. Part of why I go back through BG2 so much is you can't cram every character into one party. I love me some Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but everybody not in your party is content to chill out at camp/on the Normandy until you need them for something specific. I miss being responsible for balancing the team, and going back through major events with a completely different setup.
Man, I wanna go on a media blackout for this once the pledge clears, but I just can't. I must know more.
i liked motb's companions a lot because they were low maintenance
3 slots for companions and having 4 was kinda shitty, but it was p. easy to max out influence with everyone and be bros with everyone
much more enjoyable than nwn2 where you had to babysit a bunch of sociopaths who hated each other and if you wanted to see everyone's special content you had to game the influence system
Also Feargus is currently in the comment section of the kickstarter again answering questions.
Edit: Update #3 sounds like its going to be a spiritual sequel to more than just the infinity engine games. Especially the plot hook sounds very Arcumy.
C2B on
0
BrocksMulletInto the sunrise, on a jet-ski. Natch.Registered Userregular
edited September 2012
Nice, sounds like we're getting a lot of races to be. I want to be an angry squid-tree, which is a thing I just made up.
I wish they'd be a little more forthcoming with the basic lore of the world. They've clearly been working on this thing for a while now, Chris Avellone was asking for ideas all the way back in February. They should have a lot more information.
I wish they'd be a little more forthcoming with the basic lore of the world. They've clearly been working on this thing for a while now, Chris Avellone was asking for ideas all the way back in February. They should have a lot more information.
I'd actually like going in and discovering things as I go. I mean there's something to be said for knowing about a world going in (Forgotten Realms, Planescape, etc) but one of the things I LOVED about the first Mass Effect was discovering the massive history and backstory they wove in, and not just checking off references to things I already knew about. (Which isn't bad, I mean PS:T was amazing, and I kinda knew Lots about the Planescape setting when it came out.)
But they are trying to get this project funded and relying entirely on the reputation of their developers isn't going to be enough for a lot of potential backers.
I'm particularly interested in getting to define my character's culture. It was a neat gimmick in Dragon Age: Origins, but that game didn't do too much with it. We'll see how Project Eternity fares.
The races and classes of Project Eternity are still in flux, because more will be developed if stretch goals are reached. "We are creating a range that encompasses the recognisable (e.g. humans, elves, dwarves), the out-of-the-ordinary (e.g. the so-called 'godlike') and the truly odd (?!)," Josh Sawyer detailed. "Races and sub-races differ from each other culturally, but the races also have different physiological factors that can contribute to friction and confusion between them."
Cain told me Obsidian plans to have unique traits for races "so that playing an elf doesn't feel like playing a human, even if they are both the same class".
Sawyer continued: "Within even the recognisable races (including humans), we are creating a variety of ethnic subtypes and nationalities. This world's races did not all spring forth from the same place, and millennia of independent development have resulted in distinctive and unconnected groups. For example, the dwarf ranger [concept art - posted in this article] is originally from a southern boreal region that is quite different from the temperate homes of her distant kin to the north.
"Additionally, Project Eternity's world contains some isolated races and ethnicities, but transoceanic exploration and cultural cohabitation have heavily mixed many racial and ethnic groups over time. This mixing is not always... peaceful. At times it has degenerated into genocide and long-standing prejudices are ingrained in many cultures."
...
Oh, and Project Eternity "will have guns", Cain told me, "but we are not going into their details right now".
It looks like this is going to be Arcanum with out the jankiness and characters with depth.
That translates to being the best RPG ever.
0
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
I wish they'd be a little more forthcoming with the basic lore of the world. They've clearly been working on this thing for a while now, Chris Avellone was asking for ideas all the way back in February. They should have a lot more information.
I'd actually like going in and discovering things as I go. I mean there's something to be said for knowing about a world going in (Forgotten Realms, Planescape, etc) but one of the things I LOVED about the first Mass Effect was discovering the massive history and backstory they wove in, and not just checking off references to things I already knew about. (Which isn't bad, I mean PS:T was amazing, and I kinda knew Lots about the Planescape setting when it came out.)
I personally enjoyed reading the first ME novel and the history pamphlet that came with the collector's edition, and then playing the game. I liked being familiar with the setting and some of the major players and then settling into my role.
It not using Onyx makes me fear a little for the game. It's an engine specifically made for Obsidian RPG's for easier and better implentation.
@Evol It's a spiritual successor to pretty much every game of that era.
Edit:
"I like turn-based combat too," Cain remarked, when I told him I'd rather have that. "I like the tactics involved in the precise movement, orientation and use of abilities. But it can tend to be slow with a large party of character. Real-time-with-pause is faster and can feel more engaging, but I have found the abilities to be harder to use well. One reason for that is because many RTWP RPGs were made based on paper-and-pencil games that used turns, and their abilities were made for opponents that were not moving. I feel that RTWP can be an excellent combat model if the abilities are designed with respect to that model, and not converted from another system."
We will be doing an update on the technology of P:E, but in brief, the firearms of this world are relatively recent inventions and equivalent to the single-shot wheellock weapons found in 16th century Europe. Their use is uncommon and for specific purposes
Posts
One of Kreia's main traits, that she frequently points out, is that she might be lying through her teeth the entire time or could be being completely honest with you. You can't say what her goals were because the only person with whom you discuss those goals is Kreia herself. There are theories that Kreia wanted to rebuild the Jedi Order, or simply get petty revenge on the old one for forcing her out, or to show them the error of their ways in the hopes that they'd see her point, or all of these or none of these. Kreia's whole thing is being utterly indecipherable and completely open to interpretation even up to the very end of the game, and that point is drilled into your head every 5 minutes throughout the game.
As to her turning being a twist, it really wasn't. As soon as you get a bit of influence with her super-early in the game they show her in full Darth Traya get-up getting the tar beaten out of her as Sion and Nihilus force her out of their cool kids club. When she does turn (if she did turn), after time and time again saying to the player 'You really shouldn't trust anyone, especially me', Atton himself says to the Exile 'Come on, like you didn't see that one coming' or words to that effect.
Scorchy's LP goes over a lot of this stuff in a really interesting way and ya'll should give it a read.
While I don't expect to see this hit consoles either, comments like this confuse me a little. Maybe it's just a lack of understanding on my part. If this games interface even remotely resembles BG etc, then its really just a point and click game. On PC you move the mouse, click to select, hit space to pause during combat. On Xbox (for example) you could use left stick to move the cursor, X to select and B to pause in combat. What sacrifices would need to be made?
psn: lankyplonker
it's one of the best thing on the entire internet, i can't recommend it enough
Platform restrictions mean that they would not be able to emulate pointer controls. They'd also be under pressure to cram things like dialog options and mid-combat choices into radial menus. Furthermore, in order to accommodate users on SD monitors or from long viewing distances, they'd have to reduce the density of text.
Cool, thanks. Those restrictions do make sense, especially that density of text one. I know I have problems with that on my TV sometimes. All stuff that could be overcome, but it would definitely be the lowest of the low in terms of priority for those guys
psn: lankyplonker
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
And Even though Obsidian is a well known name, I'm not sure they're going to do that much better than double fine or wasteland 2
Except she's actually shown to be deceptive and manipulative throughout the entire game.
And if she really wanted to destroy the Force in the way that she described, why didn't she actually try to kill the Exile? Why did she have the Exile go through Sion and fight her instead of just activating the Mass Shadow Generator?
The whole theme of the character is that she works through indirect means and tries to convince others of a point of view through lies and deception.
“Direct action is not always the best way. It is a far greater victory to make another see through your eyes than to close theirs forever.”
“Manipulation is done through propelling events… or selected ones into motion. It is done through teaching, through example, and through conviction. And the greatest of victories are not manipulations at all but simply awakening others… to the truth of what you believe. Of hearing it echoed around you, in life.”
None of her actions are supposed to be direct or obvious. All through the game, she manipulates and deceives people, tricking people into advancing goals that are not what she stated. So why would you think that she was being completely honest about her plan to destroy the Force?
You do know that he was making deals with demons and devils in order to fight a godlike shadow being that destroyed one of the most powerful empires in the history of Faerun, don't you?
Compare Baldur's Gate, where you could choose different dialog options and see what they said before you selected it, with Mass Effect, where the renegade option can vary from "quietly surly" to "punch reporter", and the only way to find out is to press the button.
Or, compare inventory management in the Diablo games or Baldur's Gate with Mass Effect 2 or 3. ME1 was a lot more menu intensive with guns and armor and I assume that was because the developers came from a PC development background where RPGers have more powerful input and display tools and can handle information-dense menus a lot better than somebody with an XBOX controller and a 32" CRT TV.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
To be fair, punching the reporter is a renegade interupt, which any sensible person knows is the "Shit Gets Real" button.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
That's right, thanks Brock's. Or Mullet? What do I say?? Density isn't always better from a design perspective, but the textual density is why it wouldn't make it to a console.
Mr. Mullet, singular. Just along for the ride. New Vegas also had less text in your dialog tree, though you never got a longer spoken line to compensation.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Oh, but ME2 and 3 did have fluff for your weapons, armor and upgrades. It wasn't Planescape style short stories, exceptions granted, but it did go a long way towards grounding the universe.
On another note, how big do we think the party will be? Six? Do we want complex moves for every party member, or will fighters just have the option of dying slowly?
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
Actuaaaaaaalllyyyyy.... ME1 didn't have interrupts, so punching Khalisah al-Jilani was a dialogue choice. Not even a red text renegade choice!
Posted by Obsidian Entertainment
We've hit our first stretch goal and surpassed $1.5 million! Thank you to everyone who has made this all possible. And now, some info...
Project Eternity is still early in development and we are still working on many of the cultures, factions, and ethnic groups of the world and debating many of the system concepts. However, there are certain fundamental things we want to let you know about the game and the setting for Project Eternity.
Your Party
The maximum party size is the player's main character (PC) and up to five companions for a total of six characters. This does not preclude the addition of temporary characters in special circumstances. Companions are never forced on the player. Players can explore the entire world and its story on their own if they so choose. We feel companions are excellent sounding boards for the player's (and other companions') actions, but the story is ultimately about the player's personal conflict among the larger social and political complexities of the world.
Formations
A key element of the classic party-based tactical combat that we are developing is the use of party formations. As in the good ol' games, you can arrange your party in a large number of set formations. You can also construct your own formations if you want to get fancy. When moving companions, you have the ability to rotate formations for more precise positioning.
Character Creation
At a minimum, players will be able to specify their main character's name, sex, class, race (including subrace), culture, traits, ability scores, portrait, and the fundamental starting options of his or her class (gear, skills, and talents). We have not worked out customization details of character avatars, but we believe those are important and will be updating on these specifics in the future.
For the full run-down, please see the rest of the text on the Obsidian forums here:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60221-update-3-game-basics-your-party-your-characters-and-races/
That's all for today's update. We'll have more information on the world and systems in the near future. Please give us your feedback and thank you for all of the ideas and support you've given so far!
To be fair, they were asking for it.
Edit: "It's time to shut you up!" What'd you expect? A formal letter of complaint? "I bet your mother is disapointed in the type of person you are, if she's not already dead"? Actually, that last bit...
Edit 2: Really excited to see what races and cultures you can be. Hope they include a fair number of generic portraits.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
It's a pretty broad term, is what I'm getting at, and there are lots of ways to make something sound grown-up without making it about morality. It being a fantasy game, I admit I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking, but at least with Obsidian I trust they'll put some serious thought into it.
I like companions, but man is it going to be nice to have them be optional. I'm really tired of the trend to shoehorn companions into every possible game. I think I'm going to have a pull a Cartman and freeze myself until this comes out.
This, very much this. Part of why I go back through BG2 so much is you can't cram every character into one party. I love me some Dragon Age and Mass Effect, but everybody not in your party is content to chill out at camp/on the Normandy until you need them for something specific. I miss being responsible for balancing the team, and going back through major events with a completely different setup.
Man, I wanna go on a media blackout for this once the pledge clears, but I just can't. I must know more.
3 slots for companions and having 4 was kinda shitty, but it was p. easy to max out influence with everyone and be bros with everyone
much more enjoyable than nwn2 where you had to babysit a bunch of sociopaths who hated each other and if you wanted to see everyone's special content you had to game the influence system
Also youtube links to the update videos
Edit: Update #3 sounds like its going to be a spiritual sequel to more than just the infinity engine games. Especially the plot hook sounds very Arcumy.
Steam: BrocksMullet http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197972421669/
I'd actually like going in and discovering things as I go. I mean there's something to be said for knowing about a world going in (Forgotten Realms, Planescape, etc) but one of the things I LOVED about the first Mass Effect was discovering the massive history and backstory they wove in, and not just checking off references to things I already knew about. (Which isn't bad, I mean PS:T was amazing, and I kinda knew Lots about the Planescape setting when it came out.)
Also: it will not be using the Dungeon Siege III engine.
I'm particularly interested in getting to define my character's culture. It was a neat gimmick in Dragon Age: Origins, but that game didn't do too much with it. We'll see how Project Eternity fares.
It looks like this is going to be Arcanum with out the jankiness and characters with depth.
That translates to being the best RPG ever.
I personally enjoyed reading the first ME novel and the history pamphlet that came with the collector's edition, and then playing the game. I liked being familiar with the setting and some of the major players and then settling into my role.
Steam Support is the worst. Seriously, the worst
It not using Onyx makes me fear a little for the game. It's an engine specifically made for Obsidian RPG's for easier and better implentation.
@Evol It's a spiritual successor to pretty much every game of that era.
Edit:
Tim Cain just needs to be part of every rpg ever.
Retroactive
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA