Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #22: Q&A with Tim, Cooking?, and Avellone Trolls You!

[Mrowak]

You are the idiot here if you believed that they will make city as big as Athkatla with so many encounters, as well written as Sigil and with the complexity of encounters as in IWD. They have promised nothing of a sort. They promised IE engine style game, that they can build for the budget.

Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are big cities. Spanning multiple large maps with a ton of interiors, characters and quests, big cities are a lot of fun. Like strongholds, they also take a lot of work to do well. We're going to have one big city in Project Eternity [implies that the single city will be like Athlatle or Baldur's Gate]. Would you like two? If you take us on an exciting adventure to $3.5 Million, we will take you on an exciting adventure to another big city.

Design Goals
In putting together our non-combat system, we have made a list of goals for the design of these skills and the rules they need to follow.

• Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.
• Non-combat skills do not use the same resources as combat skills. You don't spend the same stuff for a non-combat skill as you do for combat skills. Some don't use anything at all to use, so you will never find yourself unable to blast an opponent if you get caught sneaking.
• All non-combat skills are useful. If we add lockpicking to the game, we will make sure that there are locks to pick and worthwhile rewards for getting past them.
• All non-combat skills can be used frequently. If you take disarm traps as a skill, you should expect more than two traps in the entire game world. Frequency of application has a large impact on how useful something is.
• Combat can be avoided with non-combat skills. There will often be ways to avoid fighting. Yes, we will have the standard methods of talking your way out of a fight or sneaking around an encounter, but there will be other ways too. Perhaps you can re-sanctify a desecrated cemetery to prevent any further undead from rising, or maybe figuring out a way across a ruined bridge will always avoid the bandits on this side of the river.
• Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count.

We are still in the early design stages, but our plan is for non-combat abilities to make the game as fun and enjoyable outside of combat as it is in the heat of battle.

Add to that all that Tim and Josh said about combat in videos.

All of these will have to be encompassed together in those cities they are creating. This sounds pretty much like Sigil meets Athkatla, meets IWD. How they are going to achieve that, I have no clue, but I sure hope they do.

I do not rule out marketing in the campaign. But I'd prefer facts instead of wishful thinking.

You CAN do more things with a bigger budget, I thought that was clear.

No shit Sherlock. I meant something much more substantial than the obvious marketing bull.

2. I don't give a shit if they will have to change something for a good reason.

And what if the good reason is: "Oh shit! We miscalculated and we don't have enough money to work on combat system for 4 extra months. Guess we'd better release a broken mess." That does sound like a good reason to me... but good for whom?

If you don't have any control over the project don't even bother knowing. What you want is that they would give information in the form of the news, that you can only obeserve but not interact with. Well the plane cashed and all the passengers died. Happy now?

No. The point I am trying to make is that there should have been measures there that would prove to us this won't happen. Budget outline would be nice to have, for one thing.

A measure? And they would have been judged on the basis of their budget by people who:
a) Have no idea what game budget is all about. Have never seen one and have never invested into one.
b) Have no idea about finance and can only express feelings towards it.
c) Can manage to screw a 6 question poll at Obsidian forums.
[/quote]

See what I wrote above.

A lot of stuff the game companies do are not accountable except for salaries and some fixed costs. How do you account for late night brainstorming? Changing the system based upon fan feedback? It would have been few lines with salaries for employees. That: a) give you no info and b) you can't control.

The point is not for me to control their work. The point is that they show me beyond any reasonable doubt they can lead the project to fruition. As it is they have proven that they are ambitious, and nothing else.

Edit: I am out from discussion for now - have stuff to do.

 

[Mrowak]

But the point is largely irrelevant, a company that is private (not publicly-traded) on Kickstarter is never going to give you what you want. That's not just Obsidian and it's not because their assholes, it's just something private groups never do. The marketplace is a savage place.

But they *are* publicly founded - their project is!!

Edit: Ok, now I mean it.

 

[Raygun_elf]

The only alternative is not funding these Kickstarters, and in that case the games would never happen. How Obsidian go about developing the game and how they spend the money is down to their best senses, not ours, and after the KS ends our part in this venture is over, the only thing left would be for Obsidian to make the game and deliver the goods promised with time.

Beyond us giving them the money, backers have no power over how the game turns out, and it's a pointless expenditure of energy to think otherwise. We can only hope and pray (if you're into that) that it will turn out well. But the only alternative is these games never get made, and we stuck with more years of mass-market horrible games. Even Arcanum, with it's broken combat system and bugs, would be worlds better than anything being made these days, we have nowhere to go but up.

But the point is largely irrelevant, a company that is private (not publicly-traded) on Kickstarter is never going to give you what you want. That's not just Obsidian and it's not because their assholes, it's just something private groups never do. The marketplace is a savage place.

But they *are* publicly founded - their project is!!

Edit: Ok, now I mean it.

No, they are privately funded. We are private individuals, and the money for the Kickstarter comes out of our private accounts. It would only be publicly funded if it was funded by the government with tax money or something.

 

[Mrowak]

Beyond us giving them the money, backers have no power over how the game turns out, and it's a pointless expenditure of energy to think otherwise. We can only hope and pray (if you're into that) that it will turn out well.

And that's why the entire Kickstarter system for large ventures is bollocks and is bound to fail if nothing is changed. Let me quote myself from earlier:

I know they are enthusiastic. I do not question their motives. But motivation and goodwill without proper planning often means shit. You may have best intentions in the world, but still fail because the work that you thought would take 2 days, takes 6, or because that due to bad workload management while half of your team slaves their asses having missed the deadline, the other cannot work because they have nothing to work on (and you cannot transfer employess because team A works on art assets and team B are programmers). I really saw and heard of projects failing despite of all the best intentions of the people working on them.

Pledgers should *demand* that the process is transparent and that the know what to do. Else it's the situation with the publishers all over again except we get rid of the middleman. Backers are treated like sheeple and eager to be treated as such (because hurr durr, there's no alternative).

Edit: Ok, I am out for real. See ya.

 

[Infinitron]

(because hurr durr, there's no alternative)

Your "hurr durr" is out of place. This is no joke - there really is no alternative.

Kickstarter isn't the hero Codex deserves, but the one it needs right now.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Everything else is irrelevant. Whether it is the "innovation" that the faggots on RPS like talking about, or your "transparency". Fuck innovation, fuck transparency, give me oldschool RPGs.

Like Project Eternity and IWD3?

Buck: I know that Obsidian Entertainment owns the Icewind Dale franchise assets and that you've approached publishers in the past about the prospect of pursuing Icewind Dale III. Given the success of your Project Eternity Kickstarter, what are the odds that we may yet see an ID3 in the near future, crowd-funded or not? Hypothetically, what direction would you take a third entry in the series?

Feargus: You are correct, we approached Atari a number of times about doing Icewind Dale 3. We hope that with the success of Project Eternity that it might be possible to talk to Hasbro / Wizards of the Coast about those games again. However, our focus right now is Project Eternity. We would not want to start working on something like IWD3 soon, since we don’t want anything to compromise Project Eternity at all. If we were to do IWD3, I think we would continue the focus of what the IWD series was all about – a great dungeon crawling counterpoint to Baldur’s Gate and Torment.​

Old-school!

 

[Jasede]

Dungeon crawling is as old-school as it gets, I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So are RPGs, but the mileage varies.

Daggerfall, Dungeon Master, Realms of Arkania, etc are dungeon crawlers. Icewind Dale is a hack-n-slasher set in brightly colored rooms.

 

[Jasede]

If it had turn-based combat, would you consider it a dungeon crawler then? What if it had the same encounters, but was designed around first-person party-based turn-based exploration with tactical combat in the style of Pool of Radiance?

 

[Infinitron]

Everything else is irrelevant. Whether it is the "innovation" that the faggots on RPS like talking about, or your "transparency". Fuck innovation, fuck transparency, give me oldschool RPGs.

Like Project Eternity and IWD3?

Buck: I know that Obsidian Entertainment owns the Icewind Dale franchise assets and that you've approached publishers in the past about the prospect of pursuing Icewind Dale III. Given the success of your Project Eternity Kickstarter, what are the odds that we may yet see an ID3 in the near future, crowd-funded or not? Hypothetically, what direction would you take a third entry in the series? ​

Feargus: You are correct, we approached Atari a number of times about doing Icewind Dale 3. We hope that with the success of Project Eternity that it might be possible to talk to Hasbro / Wizards of the Coast about those games again. However, our focus right now is Project Eternity. We would not want to start working on something like IWD3 soon, since we don’t want anything to compromise Project Eternity at all. If we were to do IWD3, I think we would continue the focus of what the IWD series was all about – a great dungeon crawling counterpoint to Baldur’s Gate and Torment.​

Old-school!

Once again you forget that not everybody shares your opinion of what RPGs should strive to be. My reaction to that is also YEEEAAAAH, but without irony.

 

[aVENGER]

The sad part is, even if they got the license to make IWD3, they would likely be forced to use the craptastic D&D 4E system.

Personally, I'd prefer a turn-based, IWD/ToEE style RPG using the Pathfinder ruleset.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If it had turn-based combat, would you consider it a dungeon crawler then? What if it had the same encounters, but was designed around first-person party-based turn-based exploration with tactical combat in the style of Pool of Radiance?

It's not what I meant. A dungeon is more than pretty decorations painted around you, no?

 

[TripJack]

I think I'll cancel my eternity pledge and give to grimoire instead.

 

[l3loodAngel]

You are the idiot here if you believed that they will make city as big as Athkatla with so many encounters, as well written as Sigil and with the complexity of encounters as in IWD. They have promised nothing of a sort. They promised IE engine style game, that they can build for the budget.

Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are big cities. Spanning multiple large maps with a ton of interiors, characters and quests, big cities are a lot of fun. Like strongholds, they also take a lot of work to do well. 2. We're going to have one big city in Project Eternity [implies that the single city will be like Athlatle or Baldur's Gate]. 3. Would you like two? If you take us on an exciting adventure to $3.5 Million, we will take you on an exciting adventure to another big city.

1. Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are big cities and they are fun. General statements.
2. They promise you one big city and they will deliver it. But "like" says nothing, nor about the size nor about the quality. NWN 2 as a game was much bigger than MOTB, but was much worse.
3. That's a general question. Would you like two? YES. Now shut the fuck up and take my money.

These are just general statements about the city they are trying to make, it can't say anything about what it will look, feel or actually be.

Design Goals
In putting together our non-combat system, we have made a list of goals for the design of these skills and the rules they need to follow.

• Non-combat skills are gained separately from combat skills. You shouldn't have to choose between Magic Missile and Herbalism. They should be separate types of abilities, and you should spend different points to get each one.
• Non-combat skills do not use the same resources as combat skills. You don't spend the same stuff for a non-combat skill as you do for combat skills. Some don't use anything at all to use, so you will never find yourself unable to blast an opponent if you get caught sneaking.
• All non-combat skills are useful. If we add lockpicking to the game, we will make sure that there are locks to pick and worthwhile rewards for getting past them.
• All non-combat skills can be used frequently. If you take disarm traps as a skill, you should expect more than two traps in the entire game world. Frequency of application has a large impact on how useful something is.
• Combat can be avoided with non-combat skills. There will often be ways to avoid fighting. Yes, we will have the standard methods of talking your way out of a fight or sneaking around an encounter, but there will be other ways too. Perhaps you can re-sanctify a desecrated cemetery to prevent any further undead from rising, or maybe figuring out a way across a ruined bridge will always avoid the bandits on this side of the river.
• Avoiding combat does not lead to less experience gain. You shouldn't go up levels any slower by using your non-combat skills rather than your combat skills. We plan to reward you for your accomplishments, not for your body count.

We are still in the early design stages, but our plan is for non-combat abilities to make the game as fun and enjoyable outside of combat as it is in the heat of battle.

Add to that all that Tim and Josh said about combat in videos.

All of these will have to be encompassed together in those cities they are creating. This sounds pretty much like Sigil meets Athkatla, meets IWD. How they are going to achieve that, I have no clue, but I sure hope they do.

This is what they are aiming at. Did they aim Alpha Protocol to be the best action RPG? I definitely can say yes. Did they achieve that? No. This is where your realism should kick in and would say, but it's impossible to do with their time and budget!

Anyway it sounds more like NWN 2 than Sigil. Sigil ownes a lot to it's setting, writing and quest design. Nothing that is mentioned here or do you think traps and experience gain made Sigil the best city.
Setting is now almost gone with dwarfs and elves as neither of their backgrounds come close to PST races or lore...

I do not rule out marketing in the campaign. But I'd prefer facts instead of wishful thinking.

You CAN do more things with a bigger budget, I thought that was clear.

No shit Sherlock. I meant something much more substantial than the obvious marketing bull.

Let my try explain. What they can do depends on the budget and they can't promise more, because that would be lying. They can't show anything substantial as they don't have it, because they don't have the budget. Is that clear? The budget determines the scope of the project, the man hours people can put into it and the talent they can employ. So giving all the details before the project starts does not work.

2. I don't give a shit if they will have to change something for a good reason.

And what if the good reason is: "Oh shit! We miscalculated and we don't have enough money to work on combat system for 4 extra months. Guess we'd better release a broken mess." That does sound like a good reason to me... but good for whom?

If you don't have any control over the project don't even bother knowing. What you want is that they would give information in the form of the news, that you can only obeserve but not interact with. Well the plane cashed and all the passengers died. Happy now?

No. The point I am trying to make is that there should have been measures there that would prove to us this won't happen. Budget outline would be nice to have, for one thing.

A measure? And they would have been judged on the basis of their budget by people who:
a) Have no idea what game budget is all about. Have never seen one and have never invested into one.
b) Have no idea about finance and can only express feelings towards it.
c) Can manage to screw a 6 question poll at Obsidian forums.

See what I wrote above.

Oh, I see it now, you are an idiot.

A lot of stuff the game companies do are not accountable except for salaries and some fixed costs. How do you account for late night brainstorming? Changing the system based upon fan feedback? It would have been few lines with salaries for employees. That: a) give you no info and b) you can't control.

The point is not for me to control their work. 1. The point is that they show me beyond any reasonable doubt they can lead the project to fruition. As it is they have proven that they are ambitious, and nothing else.

Edit: I am out from discussion for now - have stuff to do.

1. By promising to cut off their testicles is they fail? What can they show you to prove beyond reasonable doubt they are capable, when they don't even have a budget?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Once again you forget that not everybody shares your opinion of what RPGs should strive to be. My reaction to that is also YEEEAAAAH, but without irony.

Being exciting about the IE games's triumphal return is one thing. Calling them old-school RPGs is another.

 

[Infinitron]

Being exciting about the IE games's triumphal return is one thing. Calling them old-school RPGs is another.

Okay, fair point. I should have used a different term.

That said, if they do ever get to make IWD3 they might be forced to make it a multiplatform akshun thing. Though perhaps they're banking on Project Eternity being a success and then being allowed to create a more faithful IWD3 using its engine.

 

[skuphundaku]

Once again you forget that not everybody shares your opinion of what RPGs should strive to be. My reaction to that is also YEEEAAAAH, but without irony.

Being exciting about the IE games's triumphal return is one thing. Calling them old-school RPGs is another.

This whole circle-jerk comes down to the fact that not everyone has the same age, so what may be old-school for some is the new popamole shit for others. This will never change, so get over it. Me, for example, I started gaming with Warcraft 2 and Quake, followed closely by Fallout and then BG1. That's my old-school. Anything older than that is almost unplayable because of, first and foremost, AWFUL interfaces. Many older guys will start screaming "graphics whore", and sometimes they would be right because I find graphics older that those of the games I started with scratch-your-eyes-out-ugly, but that's secondary. What I find most difficult to get over in older games are the shit interfaces.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I think I'll cancel my eternity pledge and give to grimoire instead.

I think you should. By mentally ill, for mentally should the Grimoire sales pitch.

 

[Shadenuat]

Anything older than that is almost unplayable because of, first and foremost, AWFUL interfaces.

Oldies UIs are as varied as they are today. We still have shitty cameras, clipping issues, and now, next-gen horribly adapted console UIs. Some of oldies have great interfaces. For example, Lands of Lore and Star Control are't any harder to get into than Warcraft or BG1.

 

[Mrowak]

stuff

Dude you are bascially confirming every point I made. That their statements are general and say nothing about the project - they are baseless marketing, wishful thinking and *nothing* more. So how about something more substantial, lads? I mean you ask for all that money to fund the project that's going to be out 18 months from now at the soonest. Surely you have something, right? Right?

...

See the reason why I think the campaign was poorly handled? That it did not differ at all from a bunch of Bioware commercials for Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2? That there are lots of promises but nothing to back them up? Except the fact that you are actually giving away money with less confidence in developer's abilities than in case of preoreder of a Bioware game?

Let me remind you that seeing what they did in the campaign (i.e. not content but how it was presented) no sane publisher would fork their money without hard numbers. But suddenly we are asked to give them moneyz for a good word and be happy about it. It's yet again treating consumers like sheeple - which is half of the reason (consumer's side) we have been against publishers to begin with (the other half being how they block developers' efforts).

If this model is to survive it will require some profound changes. As it is, it's fundamentally broken.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Dude you are bascially confirming every point I made. That their statements are general and say nothing about the project - they are baseless marketing, wishful thinking and *nothing* more. So how about something more substantial, lads? I mean you ask for all that money to fund the project that's going to be out 18 months from now at the soonest. Surely you have something, right? Right?

It's your problem if you see BG2, PST and IWD mix. They can't have a budget before KS ends. So it boils down to if you trust them or not. You wanting some concrete proof before they even started working is childish.

See the reason why I think the campaign was poorly handled? That it did not differ at all from a bunch of Bioware commercials for Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2? That there are lots of promises but nothing to back them up? Except the fact that you are actually giving away money with less confidence in developer's abilities than in case of preoreder of a Bioware game?

There is a difference between wanting, but failing to deliver and blatant lying.

Let me remind you that seeing what they did in the campaign (i.e. not content but how it was presented) no sane publisher would fork their money without hard numbers. But suddenly we are asked to give them moneyz for a good word and be happy about it. It's yet again treating consumers like sheeple - which is half of the reason (consumer's side) we have been against publishers to begin with (the other half being how they block developers' efforts).

If this model is to survive it will require some profound changes. As it is, it's fundamentally broken.

I have a feeling about that you go to a publisher with a an approximate number. You can't have that in KS since you don't how much you are going to get. If making BG2 like game would actually cost 4.5 million would it get on funded on KS? So you do what you can with the money people give you. This is more of a charity than a business proposal. I have never seen a business plan of charity organization or a beggar. The question is, did you?

 

[skuphundaku]

Anything older than that is almost unplayable because of, first and foremost, AWFUL interfaces.

Oldies UIs are as varied as they are today. We still have shitty cameras, clipping issues, and now, next-gen horribly adapted console UIs. Some of oldies have great interfaces. For example, Lands of Lore and Star Control are't any harder to get into than Warcraft or BG1.

I'm not saying that ALL oldies (from my point of view) have shitty interfaces, just many, if not most, of them. I agree with you on console UIs, I don't really give a shit about clipping and, as for cameras, I prefer either fully adjustable bird's eye view camera (like AoD, NWN, NWN2 etc.) or first person. I consider the whole 3rd person ("so that you can seeadmire your character") shit stupid console-induced decline. The thing about interfaces is that they shouldn't get in your way. The more you go back in time, the more you have interfaces that get in your way to a greater degree. There are exceptions, but the trend is undeniable. Also, graphics can be seen as part of the interface, in the general sense, because they allow you to sense the game world. If you look at it this way, better graphics that enhance the gameplay are in no way graphic-whoriness but a natural step in the evolution of game interfaces. Holding on to old interfaces, the only reason being that you grew up with them, is understandable but it's also meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I love TB games in perspective projection (be it with one or multiple player-controlled characters) but I hate blobbers with a passion. Why? Because blobbers offer the player a much clumsier interface with the game world, and I'm not enough of a masochist to try to get into them just for old-skool street creds.

 

[Infinitron]

If this model is to survive it will require some profound changes. As it is, it's fundamentally broken.

The model will either produce good games and survive as it is, or cease to exist entirely. None of the "profound changes" you desire will be made, because very few people have any interest in them.

 

[TripJack]

I think you should. By mentally ill, for mentally should the Grimoire sales pitch.

at least grimoire has some actual content to show, it's not just hollow promises and 1 concept art image

Spoiler

 

[Mrowak]

Dude you are bascially confirming every point I made. That their statements are general and say nothing about the project - they are baseless marketing, wishful thinking and *nothing* more. So how about something more substantial, lads? I mean you ask for all that money to fund the project that's going to be out 18 months from now at the soonest. Surely you have something, right? Right?

It's problem if you see BG2, PST and IWD mix. They can't have a budget before KS ends. So it boils down to if you trust them or not. You wanting some concrete proof before they even started working is childish.

They didn't start working before opening the campaign?

So let me summarise: they prepared nothing... but they want money. Dude they are treating as worse than they would treat publishers they are supposedly at odds with.

See the reason why I think the campaign was poorly handled? That it did not differ at all from a bunch of Bioware commercials for Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2? That there are lots of promises but nothing to back them up? Except the fact that you are actually giving away money with less confidence in developer's abilities than in case of preoreder of a Bioware game?

There is a difference between wanting, but failing to deliver and blatant lying.

Or being "economical with truth right" - same applies to Bioware and Obsidian at this point. The point is an actual plan, schedule, outline and vision document would give this endeavour credibility - that they know what they are doing. But there's nothing.

Let me remind you that seeing what they did in the campaign (i.e. not content but how it was presented) no sane publisher would fork their money without hard numbers. But suddenly we are asked to give them moneyz for a good word and be happy about it. It's yet again treating consumers like sheeple - which is half of the reason (consumer's side) we have been against publishers to begin with (the other half being how they block developers' efforts).

If this model is to survive it will require some profound changes. As it is, it's fundamentally broken.

I have a feeling about that you go to a publisher with a an approximate number. You can't have that in KS since you don't how much you are going to get.[/quote]

False. You know the minimum amount. If you know that you can:

Provide "initial plan" - the plan for the minimal sum they are trying to gather. After the campaign is over they can count the moneys and provide the actual schedule.

Ideally every stretch goal should be accounted in the basic plan - the company ought to show how adding 8 level dungeon will change their schedule, how the second city will influence development process, including timelines and expenditure, etc. The numbers - or rather rough estimates - should be ready before the campaign is up and running in order to at least prove that they know what they are getting themselves into.

It's not only about transparency and respect for your audience, but also about making things easier for you. By showing that they have a plan and that they can make it adaptable they prove that they think about such critical issues like scheduling and have the clear vision of what they are trying to accomplish. Contrast this with having some haphazard ideas and then having to blend them somehow together so they work while the clock is ticking.

Apart from that a vision document, such as this one would be in order at the start of the campaign. Hell, you can treat it as a marketing resource by revealing its parts bit by bit.

If making BG2 like game would actually cost 4.5 million would it get on funded on KS? So you do what you can with the money people give you. This is more of a charity than a business proposal. I have never seen a business plan of charity organization or a beggar. The question is, did you?

Regarding charity business plans: Derp

Let me remind you that the purpose of this campaign is purely commercial in nature.

And the issue of the whole thing possibly costing more than $3.5 million - this is exactly the problem I was talking about. They promise mountains but actually have no clue how much it is going to cost. Budget, anyone?