1774 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

I hope they can keep a healthy distance between themselves and fan requests. This is their project - we donate in the faith they'll do it right. After DA2 and ME3, I'm more than a little disgusted with the negative effects of catering to fan feedback. As for the music - solid stuff, familiar high fantasy style but still good.

[Gatt9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

FTR I loathe the Vancian magic system. Frankly, I pledged to Obsidian so they could make the game they want to make, and if they want to have cooldowns, let them have cooldowns. I trust them implicitly to deliver a great RPG.


My empathy to Mr. Sawyer valiantly fighting the good fight though

On that note...

The comments Mr. Sawyer made indicates he's choosing Cooldowns,  not because he feels it's a better mechanic,  but because he feels Players will "Reload or Rest Spam".

This becomes a completely different issue.  This makes it a mechanic being designed around a behavior of some players,  rather than for a design reason that yields a better experience.

This is how we ended up with: 

- Pokemon characters (They don't die,  just get knocked unconcious),  because some players didn't want to have to resurrect.
-Random magic items like Deck of Many Things or Wand of Wonder,  or even Wild Magic,  not being implemented.
-Point-buy because some people complained that they didn't want to keep hitting the Roll button,  because they want nothing less than 18's.

Then over the years the slippery slope got us:
-Automatic hits,  because some players didn't understand or want to understand what a "To hit" roll does.
-Full voice over's and much smaller dialogue,  Because some people didn't want to read.

Ultimately it's given us Skyrim,  where Ability scores are removed,  because all of the "Complaints" have resulted in mechanic after mechanic being removed until even the fundamental basis of RPG no longer does anything.

If Obsidian wants to do Cooldowns because they feel they can make a better game out of it,  I'll support them 110%,  even though I think they're a horrible mechanic.  I'll stick by what I've said for years,  do something because you think it'll make a better game,  not because a Suit said you should do it,  or because some number of people who hate RPG mechanics keep buying RPG's and complaining.

But designing around what a subset of players will do in order to avoid playing by the rules isn't always good game design.  Over the years,  all it's really done is remove alot of the qualities that define RPG's.

[Laotar]

The music just sold me. Pledge made!

[Joy Divison]

Gatt9 wrote...

On that note...

The comments Mr. Sawyer made indicates he's choosing Cooldowns,  not because he feels it's a better mechanic,  but because he feels Players will "Reload or Rest Spam".

This becomes a completely different issue.  This makes it a mechanic being designed around a behavior of some players,  rather than for a design reason that yields a better experience.

This is how we ended up with: 

- Pokemon characters (They don't die,  just get knocked unconcious),  because some players didn't want to have to resurrect.
-Random magic items like Deck of Many Things or Wand of Wonder,  or even Wild Magic,  not being implemented.
-Point-buy because some people complained that they didn't want to keep hitting the Roll button,  because they want nothing less than 18's.

Then over the years the slippery slope got us:
-Automatic hits,  because some players didn't understand or want to understand what a "To hit" roll does.
-Full voice over's and much smaller dialogue,  Because some people didn't want to read.

Ultimately it's given us Skyrim,  where Ability scores are removed,  because all of the "Complaints" have resulted in mechanic after mechanic being removed until even the fundamental basis of RPG no longer does anything.

If Obsidian wants to do Cooldowns because they feel they can make a better game out of it,  I'll support them 110%,  even though I think they're a horrible mechanic.  I'll stick by what I've said for years,  do something because you think it'll make a better game,  not because a Suit said you should do it,  or because some number of people who hate RPG mechanics keep buying RPG's and complaining.

But designing around what a subset of players will do in order to avoid playing by the rules isn't always good game design.  Over the years,  all it's really done is remove alot of the qualities that define RPG's.

To be fair...

I think the designers have to go with the lowest common denominator with CRPGs, that is, that way most games are actually played on tables.

Table-top games are typically designed wither with the rules being a GUIDE for the DM to follow, rather than a strict ruleset to be followed.  I've got into enough arguments with DMs who lived by the allmighty "rule 0" which means the abjudication of the DM trumps rules as written to get the vibe that most gamers prefer the game to flow according to how they feel the story should play out as opposed to what the rules/dice would dictate.  In short story/fun > rules.

That can't happen in cRPGs because the story is already written (i.e. it can't adjust) and all rules must be strictly implemented and followed in order for a game to work.  This is fundamentally at odds with how most tabletop games are played.  DMs fudge dice rolls so that for 95% of their adventuring life PCs are "Pokeman" characters who can't suffer a meaningless death, present the PC or party with a quest to undo a nasty card drawn from the Deck of Many Things, and have house rules to mitigate the fighter who rolls a 1 for their hit points (or alternatively, present weaker opponents).  Point being, the CRPGs try to anticipate the forgivable game most DMs run through their mechanics.  Death is meaningless in CRPGs because in most roleplaying games, the PC can't die because the DM doesn't let it happen unless it is deemed a "heroic" death or the PC does something incredibly stupid.

I guess what I am saying is CRPGs cater to this style not because they are streamlining mechanics, but it is a reasonably accurate simulation of how most tabletop RPGs are actually played.

[Yrkoon]

But the whole point of Project eternity is to recapture the magic of those old school IE games. None of those games had cooldowns. And while they did INDEED try to emulate table-top, and failed to fully capture its mechanics and feel, they managed to create a new type of feel that kept RPG fans addicted for years.

MY question to Sawyer: What is your true vision for this game? Do you want to make a spiritual successor that reminds us of Planescape Torment and BG2 at the same time? Or do you really want to create a modern-type RPG that simply uses the old school ISO camera? If it's the latter then Jesus.... why Name-drop the IE games in every single damn video and interview about this game?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 octobre 2012 - 02:47 .

[wsandista]

Yrkoon wrote...

But the whole point of Project eternity is to recapture the magic of those old school IE games. None of those games had cooldowns. And while they did INDEED try to emulate table-top, and failed to fully capture its mechanics and feel, they managed to create a new type of feel that kept RPG fans addicted for years.

MY question to Sawyer: What is your true vision for this game? Do you want to make a spiritual successor that reminds us of Planescape Torment and BG2 at the same time? Or do you really want to create a modern-type RPG that simply uses the old school ISO camera? If it's the latter then Jesus.... why Name-drop the IE games in every single damn video and interview about this game?

This.

Vancian casting allows a different(and better IMO) type of class balance than with cooldown based abilities. With vancian casting, it is possible to have caster classes with insanely powerful spells(especially when compared to warrior or rogue characters abilities), but after their spells are used up for the day, they are pretty much useless.

I much prefer that kind of balancing, where every class-type has certain strengths and weaknesses, than the kind where every class must be equal.

[Joy Divison]

Yrkoon wrote...

But the whole point of Project eternity is to recapture the magic of those old school IE games. None of those games had cooldowns. And while they did INDEED try to emulate table-top, and failed to fully capture its mechanics and feel, they managed to create a new type of feel that kept RPG fans addicted for years.

MY question to Sawyer: What is your true vision for this game? Do you want to make a spiritual successor that reminds us of Planescape Torment and BG2 at the same time? Or do you really want to create a modern-type RPG that simply uses the old school ISO camera? If it's the latter then Jesus.... why Name-drop the IE games in every single damn video and interview about this game?

Well let me ask you this.  When the Cleric had no more healing spells and the magic user began attacking with her dagger, what did your adventuring party do?

[Giggles_Manically]

Yes because having to wait eight hours after every single fight is truly what makes a cRPG great.
Mages really are not fun to play early game, and take forever to get fun.

Where as the other classes are kicking ass from level 1.
Just because they changed something does not mean the entire product sucks.

But then again gamers as a whole have this seeming ability to predict a product will stink based off one tiny things YEARS before release.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I like spell selection and having limited slots to work with. The issue here is in the regeneration and how the slots are allocated. In PnP games, it's easier to work with as you have a GM who's got a hand in ensuring things don't (or do) get out of hand. Whereas in video games, prior implementation just results in rest spamming.

There should just be natural regeneration of spells/abilities that vary on the specific spell/ability, the current state of the character and any other important aspects like a character's natural abilities or perks.

It essentially works as a form of cooldown since it's measured in real time instead of game time and addresses the issue of rest spamming.

So, say, every 5 minutes, you regain 1 use of spell X.

I am of course assuming that spell slots and limited usage of spells still applies. If we have unlimited usage of spells, it will be hard to design cooldowns as anything other than WoW or Dragon Age-esque. That would be bitterly disappointing.

As for people complaining about the spells per day routine we see in VC, tie the spell slots to a resource like mana or something to do with the soul(s). Don't give it a numerical hardcap per level or anything, only limit it to what is capable of the character. So if the character wants to cast 100 magic missiles but is unable to find space for anything else, let 'em. Give each spell and ability a different value, with weaker spells being the least resource intensive and the stronger ones most intensive.

That way, you can plan a suite of spells and abilities that rely entirely on the character.

That's probably what I'd like to see, assuming we have cooldowns and a non-Vancian way of spell selection.

Opinion may/will change in time, but that's how I feel atm.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 03 octobre 2012 - 03:29 .

[wsandista]

Joy Divison wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

But the whole point of Project eternity is to recapture the magic of those old school IE games. None of those games had cooldowns. And while they did INDEED try to emulate table-top, and failed to fully capture its mechanics and feel, they managed to create a new type of feel that kept RPG fans addicted for years.

MY question to Sawyer: What is your true vision for this game? Do you want to make a spiritual successor that reminds us of Planescape Torment and BG2 at the same time? Or do you really want to create a modern-type RPG that simply uses the old school ISO camera? If it's the latter then Jesus.... why Name-drop the IE games in every single damn video and interview about this game?

Well let me ask you this.  When the Cleric had no more healing spells and the magic user began attacking with her dagger, what did your adventuring party do?

Cross my fingers. Although I was never in that situation due to anal micromanagement of spells.

[bussinrounds]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yes because having to wait eight hours after every single fight is truly what makes a cRPG great.
Mages really are not fun to play early game, and take forever to get fun.

  If you were playing it like that, you were abusing the broken rest function and doing it wrong.

   It's a PARTY BASED GAME.  You're not just 'playing a mage', you're controlling an entire party.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

There was also a really good idea posted in how to handle resting without abuse using Dark Souls as a template.

This is an interesting question but the basis of the "experience of walking back" being redundant assumes that the campsite and encounters are poorly placed via inept level design. The final point that everything is killed between you and the campsite lends me to believe you aren't thinking creatively about how to solve this at all, which is not encouraging.

I'm going to use the example of quite simply the best old school feeling game that has been released in recent years, Dark Souls, as an example of how to do this right. Before you go on to say "this is an action game, not a cRPG" please be aware that the entire concept of the bonfires in DS is based upon PnP concepts of resting at only safe locations so it is entirely valid. The only thing that changes is the level and encounter design when going from aRPG to cRPG. DS also uses a memorization system of magic so that makes it even more relevant.

Let me just say now right off the bat, Dark Souls handled resting perfectly in my opinion. Let's take a close look at how it works:

Players can rest at bonfires, recharging their resources and memorizing new spells

Bonfires are placed strategically throughout levels to avoid abuse

Using bonfires comes at a cost - all the monsters in the area revive

The third point here, is key. Turn resting into something that affects the game experience. For instance, time passes while resting and SOME monsters come back. Perhaps there are certain areas where super rare monsters only appear after resting at a campsite. You can mix this up with a day night cycle to really get some cool random stuff happening.

DS also does something with magic that makes the player really think about when and how they are going to use spells. You get a certain number of uses of a particular magic. It's excellent as it encourages the player to really think about conserving certain spells for tough situations. Of course, you do not have to think about any kind of conservation when there are cool downs involved. You just wait and go onto the next encounter.

The point is, that by focusing on the potentially boring experience of walking back to a campsite you are throwing a red herring into the discussion. Quite simply - you are focusing on the wrong thing. The innate gameplay benefits that having a system that encourages thought, strategic planning, and conservation while promoting real tension far outweigh the chance that walking back to a campsite is going to be slightly tedious.

[Joy Divison]

wsandista wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Well let me ask you this.  When the Cleric had no more healing spells and the magic user began attacking with her dagger, what did your adventuring party do?

Cross my fingers. Although I was never in that situation due to anal micromanagement of spells.

So you were attacking with a dagger in spite of having spells available?  That's not exactly a selling point for VC.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 03 octobre 2012 - 03:46 .

[bussinrounds]

Yea, sometimes you have to hold back a little and not be able to have every character do something AWESOME every friggin second.

[slimgrin]

CrustyBot wrote...

There was also a really good idea posted in how to handle resting without abuse using Dark Souls as a template.

This is an interesting question but the basis of the "experience of walking back" being redundant assumes that the campsite and encounters are poorly placed via inept level design. The final point that everything is killed between you and the campsite lends me to believe you aren't thinking creatively about how to solve this at all, which is not encouraging.

I'm going to use the example of quite simply the best old school feeling game that has been released in recent years, Dark Souls, as an example of how to do this right. Before you go on to say "this is an action game, not a cRPG" please be aware that the entire concept of the bonfires in DS is based upon PnP concepts of resting at only safe locations so it is entirely valid. The only thing that changes is the level and encounter design when going from aRPG to cRPG. DS also uses a memorization system of magic so that makes it even more relevant.

Let me just say now right off the bat, Dark Souls handled resting perfectly in my opinion. Let's take a close look at how it works:

Players can rest at bonfires, recharging their resources and memorizing new spells

Bonfires are placed strategically throughout levels to avoid abuse

Using bonfires comes at a cost - all the monsters in the area revive

The third point here, is key. Turn resting into something that affects the game experience. For instance, time passes while resting and SOME monsters come back. Perhaps there are certain areas where super rare monsters only appear after resting at a campsite. You can mix this up with a day night cycle to really get some cool random stuff happening.

DS also does something with magic that makes the player really think about when and how they are going to use spells. You get a certain number of uses of a particular magic. It's excellent as it encourages the player to really think about conserving certain spells for tough situations. Of course, you do not have to think about any kind of conservation when there are cool downs involved. You just wait and go onto the next encounter.


The point is, that by focusing on the potentially boring experience of walking back to a campsite you are throwing a red herring into the discussion. Quite simply - you are focusing on the wrong thing. The innate gameplay benefits that having a system that encourages thought, strategic planning, and conservation while promoting real tension far outweigh the chance that walking back to a campsite is going to be slightly tedious.

That sounds positively action-gamey.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yrkoon wrote...

But the whole point of Project eternity is to recapture the magic of those old school IE games. None of those games had cooldowns. And while they did INDEED try to emulate table-top, and failed to fully capture its mechanics and feel, they managed to create a new type of feel that kept RPG fans addicted for years.

MY question to Sawyer: What is your true vision for this game? Do you want to make a spiritual successor that reminds us of Planescape Torment and BG2 at the same time? Or do you really want to create a modern-type RPG that simply uses the old school ISO camera? If it's the latter then Jesus.... why Name-drop the IE games in every single damn video and interview about this game?

Considering I found the magic balance system of D&D to be a negative for the IE games, I consider the existence of cooldowns to not be part of the magic of the old school IE games.

Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of reasons why people like those old games.  My favourite of the bunch, Planescape: Torment, frankly just had ****** poor combat and I typically opted to Annah stealth my way through the focused combat areas (oh goad Baator....).

I love tactical combat.  IWD games and BG games were fun, although a game like JA2 is what really takes the cake for Tactical Combat.   Even then, I often found myself getting to a point with games like IWD and BG1/2 where my spell selection ended up becoming pretty formulaic unless I had metaknowledge of upcoming.  I.E. these spells are the most versatile and hence I'll just take another one of the same when a new spell slot opens up.

While I don't have any intrinsic love/hate for AD&D in general (although in retrospect, martial classes sure were quite passive to play in the IE games), there are actually people that love the IE in spite of not liking the AD&D ruleset.  The rules were abstracted out enough, for them, to not detract enough from some of the other fantastic elements.  There's also those (I was in this camp in large part) that frankly didn't have any PnP experience with the games.  I loosely had seen AD&D style rules in some of the Gold Box games (though I played most of them after Baldur's Gate), but many of the mechanics I had to learn and wrap my head around.


I noticed the same thing with Wasteland 2 and it's one thing I find actually quite interesting.  Fargo (Sawyer) will go and say he wants to make a game akin to the old Wasteland (Infinity Engine).  What it seems many people do is go "Yes!  I loved those games" and then tend to assume there's some sort of consensus between all the people that would love those types of games.  In other words, they all loved those games for the same reasons.  As we're seeing with both games, that just isn't the case.

I have often seen claims around the internet (not just BSN) that the IE games appealed mostly to fans of AD&D, it certainly hasn't been the case in my experience simply because in my experience most people that I know and love the IE games have simply never played any sort of PnP games.  They're video gamers first and foremost.  And the IE games are pretty darned fun video games.


So I've always disagreed with the idea that some have that there was a consensus for what it was that made the IE games awesome.  This is why people that loved BG2 can love a game like DAO, ME, or even DA2, and feel it still gives them that same feeling, while there are others that love BG2 that feel games especially like ME and DA2 to be complete atrocities in comparison.  Both these groups love the IE games though, and many of them have probably even pledged support via the kickstarter.

IMO there isn't even really consensus between the IE games for what it is that those deliver.  The Icewind Dale games are my least favourite, though IMO they have the best combat.  Torment is by far my favourite, which has pretty poor combat.  BG is kind of a mix, though I prefer BG2 because it had less "random wandering" and a much stronger narrative (and a fantastic villain!).  BG2 also added in interesting characters that would actually talk with you and holy crap, these romances are pretty cool too.  I remember tons of threads of people debating whether Jaheira, Viconia, or Aerie was the best romance story (Jaheira was btw ), as well as lamentations (rightly so IMO) from people that felt women got the shaft as Anomen was pretty crap.

Icewind Dale focused around creating a full party from scratch.  Baldur's Gate had a protagonist, with a wealth of options for joinable party members.  Torment had much less companions, but zonkers were they interesting and well written!


So what exactly *is* "the magic of the IE games?"  It's true that AD&D is consistent between them (well technically IWD2 was 3rd edition), but is that really what the consensus loved about it?  If it was a different ruleset would they not have been as good?  I mean, for me the only magic style in BG2 that I didn't think had some pretty silly, artificial, and arbitrary rule mechanics was the Sorcerer.  Which I'm guessing many of the bigger fans of AD&D style magic would adamantly disagree with me about.  Yes, this is probably because I was more used to a game like Ultima for its magic system (resource usage, with both mana and reagents being required to cast spells).  This idea that I could "know" a spell but would need to "memorize it" was such a foreign and weird concept for me.  I was able to suspend my disbelief a little bit more for Clerics when I learned that their spells were granted to them by a deity (i.e. a source that allows me to mentally explain away the arbitrary requirement).

I have often said that the only real way BioWare could make a game that satisfied the largest proponents of the "old school" gamer crowd that loved their earlier games would have been to pretty much rerelease BG1/2 with pretty much no changes, because I always felt that different types of people loved the games for different reasons.


What I love about Obsidian as a developer (and going back to their Black Isle roots), is more about the improved player agency and reactivity.  And not just reactivity in terms of player choices, but even character builds.  My attributes made a more obvious difference in the narrative of PST than they did in BG2.  I have huge amount of faith in Avellone, Sawyer, and even Cain, to be able to deliver a type of game experience that will be pretty damned fun.  It'll be in the vein of the IE games, in that it'll be a larger party where the player has full control with more tactical combat, in an isometric perspective.  There will be party members that (especially based on Obsidian's history) will be interesting and well written, and it'll all synergize together into something that is pretty much greater than the sum of its parts.  The finer details are a lot more variable to me, because I've seen people like Sawyer talk a lot about game mechanics and I've seen how methodical he can be, and Tim Cain has shown he has quite the attention to detail for coming up with interesting rule systems.  Enough for me to let them make the game that they want to make because by working on something that one wants to work on that passion and enthusiasm is more likely to take hold.


It sucks for the people that feel that, to them, the details of the combat rule systems for the IE games is what they love so much about those types of games.  For some it'll probably be a deal breaker and unfortunately for Obsidian they may even dial back or outright cancel their pledges.  I definitely don't want them to change their mind on the issue, however, because in that sense they've just replaced a big name publisher with fans that are now acting in place of the publisher.  I do feel that they have a responsibility to make a game that they feel encompasses what it is they love about the IE games from a high level (otherwise people lose faith in Kickstarter type model), but at the same time maybe this is the limitation of a kickstarter type of project?  THe idea of a large scale consensus for what makes a game great is very, very difficult to come by IMO.



Anyways, wall of text point of time so I'll stop things here (I'm also getting tired).  I still think the game will be great and fun, but if you have concerns that you're no longer comfortable contributing, then I would thank Obsidian for sharing the details so you can make a more informed decision and make any adjustments you feel are necessary.  You'll still be able to pick up the game after release when more information is available and hopefully it's a great one.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 03 octobre 2012 - 04:32 .

[Joy Divison]

bussinrounds wrote...

Yea, sometimes you have to hold back a little and not be able to have every character do something AWESOME every friggin second.

Let's drop the idiotic DA2 marketing and examine what you are saying...

Now let's look at my handy dandy AD&D attack matrix table for magic users.  At level 7 against a common subteranean opponent, say an otyugh (AC 3) with my +1 dagger, I'll need to roll a 15 to hit and contribute 1d4+1 damage.  That's assuming I want to stroll my robes and pointy hat into melee.  More likely I'll throw a (non-magic) dart and need a 16 to hit for 1d3 damage.  This is level 7...that's just two levels before the Player's Handbook says PCs become renowned enough to be included amongst the aristocracy, build strongholds, attract men at arms, and collect tariffs from the peasantry.

That is not "holding back a little."  I agree with the traditional mechanic that magic using characters should have limited resources and be forced to think about when to use a given spell, but something is seriously wrong when for much of the magic user's actual PC playing career, she's throwing darts.  That's just dumb.

That is why whenever the magic user was out of spells, the party set up camp or headed back to town if they were able.

[Haplose]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Whats wrong with a simple magic bar?
You cast as often as you want and if you run out magic you can't cast spells.
Big spells cost more, little spells cost less.
You can make it so you can only recharge at certain points, hence forcing you be careful with how much magic you use.

Signed. It's a cleaner system then the whole memorization thingy (although it still allows you to have a pool of "prepared/learned" spells). And it's already tested - it works excellent in, for example, Dungeons and Dragons Online.

[Fast Jimmy]

Overall great post, Allen. But I have to point out...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I remember tons of threads of people debating whether Jaheira, Viconia, or Aerie was the best romance story (Jaheira was btw ), 

https://encrypted-tb...7brVUJwiTAD4FgN
That's the problem with Neutrals... you never know where you stand. D@*n them and their neutrality!

[bussinrounds]

Joy Divison wrote...

bussinrounds wrote...

Yea, sometimes you have to hold back a little and not be able to have every character do something AWESOME every friggin second.

 I agree with the traditional mechanic that magic using characters should have limited resources and be forced to think about when to use a given spell, but something is seriously wrong when for much of the magic user's actual PC playing career, she's throwing darts.  That's just dumb.

That is why whenever the magic user was out of spells, the party set up camp or headed back to town if they were able.

   I agree and we're pretty much on the same page here.  I'm not saying that they should use the exact AD&D system anyway (as obviously they're not) , I'm just very much against a quick cooldown system found in alot of these newer games, that's all.  

Modifié par bussinrounds, 03 octobre 2012 - 05:06 .

[Joy Divison]

Fair enough. I think we all are basically looking for some ideal system where the magic users will typically make a magic based attack, but have limited uses of their best spells.

I don't like cooldowns because it never struck me as logical why a wizard could not cast fireball two rounds in a row.

I don't like vancian because it is ill-suited for CRPGs - it ruins the replayability because you'll always know what spells you need after the first run through and CRPGs have much more combat than tabletop RPGs.

3.5 DnD was getting toward a system I like with the sorcerer, warlock, and especially the later books which allowed magic using characters to select feats for spells they'd always be able to use, but then, well, we got 4E.

[Cyberarmy]

Sawyer stated this in a CD thread;


"Why would you be able to instawin by spamming? A theoretical 12th level wizard in PE will probably have about the same number of 5th level spell slots as an equivalent wizard in D&D. Let's say that's 2 or 3. In IWD, you could cast Hold Monster your two or three times in a row and then you'd be done casting 5th level spells for the fight. It would work the same way in PE. The main mechanical difference that I'm considering is when/how you regain your 5th level spells following the fight. "

[Sister Goldring]

Call me a sycophant if you want but I'm with Allan on this. I think the premise of the kickstarter in this case is really 'Do you trust Obsidian to make a great classic RPG'?

So while I think it's great that people are so passionate about elements they like and equally as decided about what they don't want to see in the game, when it comes to the crunch regardless of my personal preferences I absolutely trust that the good folks at Obsidian are going to use their years of professional experience to craft the very best game they can. Even maybe take some systems I'm not particularly keen on and tweak them into something great.

Well, that's just how I feel about it anyway. 

Modifié par Sister Goldring, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:25 .

[Cyberarmy]

If you are a sycophant than im one too
Obsidian did great jobs with RPGs (even DS3 is a good game but not a DS game) They only have some bug problems and weird/hard to use gameplay mechanics which generally caused by deadlines of publishers.

Now they are free of that system somehow and i really dont think they will crate a game inferior than their previous games. Not having a doubt, we will get another timeless classic.

People just want to game satisfy every indiviual idea. Which is impossible.