Jump to content

Project Eternity?


Mistb0rn

Recommended Posts

On the one hand, Obsidian has turned out a steady stream of disappointments, or rather almost-great games. On the other hand, they've also consistently (and probably reasonably) blamed the business side for making them push out unfinished games.

 

They say all the right words, but I'm still a little bit skeptical about their ability to deliver something great. Good, sure. But they're going for hype that they can only maybe live up to.

 

—Alorael, who still kicked in. He's a sucker for the concept if nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same. It was excellent. I'd certainly call it great.

 

I loved KotOR 2, too! I'm good at ignoring specific flaws if I think the important parts stand up. Sure, the ending was horrifying, but I'm a Mass Effect fan too. It was a very rich, interesting story that looked at the Force in ways that I loved and that nobody else does, always in a rush to make it boring and simple. I'd call it a great game as well. Shoot, if the game was nothing but Kreia, it'd be a great game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say all their games are bad! But many have been disappointing. KotOR2 shows so much potential it doesn't live up to. F:NV is much better about it.

 

—Alorael, who prefers being able to take his time. That said, turn-based or turns with pause are both okay for him. If it's like Baldur's Gate, and they're saying it will be, you can have the game pause for you almost constantly and make it effectively turn-based.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Set of sets of sets of sets
If it's like Baldur's Gate, and they're saying it will be, you can have the game pause for you almost constantly and make it effectively turn-based.

I apologize if this annoys you, but for me playing BG2 even with the pause turn option was extremely confusing. I could never understand when someone was busy doing something (such as casting a spell) or whether he finished doing it and whether it failed or succeeded ; and to top that it always seemed that by the time any of my casters finished casting their first spell the enemy has already dished out three (which lasted four times longer than any of mine), half my group was paralyzed another quarter was held and the rest were charmed.
Having a small carriage capacity didn't help, I will always prefer the old castle of the winds setup for item carrying, a backpack where the number of items that can be stored is dependent on their size and their weight not a set number of slots, and a free hand where you can carry something else if so you wish (and if you're strong enough it's another backpack).
All in all (and again this is only my experience) it was a bad and frustrating experience for me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice idea, and I'm sure a lot of folks are going to be excited. But I prefer games where I can create more than one character, I'm not real thrilled with the Obsidian insistance on force-feeding a story to you, and I prefer pure turn-based combat.

 

Other than that, it looks fine.

 

I'm more excited about Wasteland 2, poisonally.

 

-- Mal

Link to post
Share on other sites

No games really force-feed a story to you. It's not like they've got a gun to your head and make you play the game.

 

Personally I prefer JRPGs to western RPGs because the story is first and foremost the most important part of the game, and everything else (combat, skills training, side quests, minigames, item and artifact collecting, crafting, economic subgames, etc.) are just a means of making the game interactive, challenging, and hopefully, more deeply fun than just the story alone, rather than being the primary draw and the story is a means for the gameplay mechanics.

 

My favorite RPG of all time is Final Fantasy IX, if that's an indicator of my tastes.

 

That said, I'm not AVERSE to western-style RPGs, but the story and (literary) character development has to be extremely engaging. I love the Exile/Avernum series for that reason.

 

I've never played any Obsidian games. I'm not keen on playing Fallout anything because it seems like the story is miserable and depressing, which I imagine is the point of a game set post-nuclear apocalypse.

 

Maybe someday, if and when I have actual money, I'll give some of their more accessible games a shot, as I hear they're very good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: The Almighty Doer of Stuff
Personally I prefer JRPGs to western RPGs because the story is first and foremost the most important part of the game, and everything else (combat, skills training, side quests, minigames, item and artifact collecting, crafting, economic subgames, etc.) are just a means of making the game interactive, challenging, and hopefully, more deeply fun than just the story alone, rather than being the primary draw and the story is a means for the gameplay mechanics.


this is kind of an overgeneralisation: even if we ignore the popularity of old-school western-style dungeon crawlers in Japan, there are plenty of jrpgs where the mechanics rather than the story are the main draw. if i had to draw a distinction between japanese and western rpgs it'd be that jrpg mechanics tend to be more abstract and experimental

Quote:
I've never played any Obsidian games. I'm not keen on playing Fallout anything because it seems like the story is miserable and depressing, which I imagine is the point of a game set post-nuclear apocalypse.


fallout 1 and 2 are basically campy spoofs of '50s-era sci-fi; if they depress you you're taking them way too seriously. the newer fallout games are a little more straight-faced though
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the games Obsidian has made do not appeal to me simply because of the settings. This one, on the other hand, I'm quite excited for.

I wonder if the game creators work better when the only object is to make a good game for the sake of making a good game, rather than to simply meet the goals of some investor?

Either way, I'm going to take part, just don't know by how much. My nations currency is the biggest obstacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Android

I wonder if the game creators work better when the only object is to make a good game for the sake of making a good game, rather than to simply meet the goals of some investor?


Aren't we(well, the backers) the investors?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: meAzuma
Aren't we(well, the backers) the investors?


not really. investors expect to make a profit if the project does well


Translation: People on Kickstarter are suckers with more money than sense.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You hope that if you give them money the developers will make such a cool and popular game that the artifact you get to describe and name will be an awesome status symbol. That's investing, simply with the intermediate steps of getting money from your investment, and using that to buy a sports car, taken out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: meAzuma
Aren't we(well, the backers) the investors?


not really. investors expect to make a profit if the project does well


Translation: People on Kickstarter are suckers with more money than sense.


Not really. I'm getting a preorder of Project Eternity at a discount. I could get into the beta for $25 more if I wanted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Preorders have been a popular way for selling games for years now, and recently it's become popular to give in-game bonuses or out-of-game swag for the preorders. Kickstarter isn't so different.

 

Okay, in some ways it is. With a preorder you have a contract. If they never deliver a game, they don't get your money. Kickstarter has a risk of vaporware, and with new, untested companies it's a substantial risk. Not even maliciously; development of anything is expensive, a big chunk of Kickstarter money often goes to overhead and taxes and such, and sometimes it's not enough. (There have been some fascinating articles on it.)

 

But with a known company, you have an idea of what you're getting. You put down money, you get a game. Yes, it may be awful, but you hope it's not. And even more, you hope that by giving money up-front for a nonexistent, future thing, that thing will be better than it would be without your money. People on Kickstarter may be suckers, but there's another word that's often used synonymously: idealists.

 

—Alorael, who can afford to be an idealist with small amounts of money. He won't toss a few hundred dollars on a future thing, especially since he'd never spend that much money on a game or any other whim purchase, much less one with risk of terrible delivery. For the price of a meal at a nice restaurant he can be starry-eyed and hopeful. Not constantly, but for a good pitch, a fairly reliable pitcher, and something he'd want, he'll pitch in himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

It'd be suspicious if you just appeared out of nowhere to post that, but you're a real member, and this is something genuinely of interest to people here. There's a 90% chance that Jeff is going to play it himself when it comes out. It's fine.

 

—Alorael, who is hugely impressed by that screenshot. If they can keep up that level of art through the game he will be at least a little bit happy even if the plot's derivative and the mechanics are clunky. It also shows what an art budget can accomplish. Maybe Jeff ought to see if he can Kickstart his way into a graphics and sound fund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...