Come August I'm gonna go nuts. PE beta will release on the 18th of Aug, Wasteland 2 at the end of Aug, Risen 3 also at the end of the month. Not to mention I'm still playing D:OS and probably gonna go on a 2nd or 3rd playthrough.
RPG Awesomeness Overload!!!

Well, inXile also abandoned the old Planescape setting for use in Torment because the owners weren't interested in license it...

That and by their own admission InXile did not push very hard to get the D&D Planescape license, because they already had their eye on Numenera and didn't want all the restrictions that would come from licensing from WotC/Hasbro.

I mean, PST and the Nameless One's story was told, I don't think there would be much use going back to Sigil if the themes and gameplay style of a Torment game can be created in another equally weird and strange setting.

Again, licensing issues. With respect to D&D, Atari owned the rights to publish all computer related D&D games. Not sure who those rights reverted to, but I believe it went to Hasbro eventually. But for a while that was in dispute and nothing could be done with the D&D license. So yeah, it did, in essence. all come down to money. That's the way of things. It's also the reason IE-style CRPGs haven't been made for a long time and many of these developers have gone the Kickstarter route: publishers didn't want to invest in that type of game because they didn't feel it would be profitable enough.

Again, I love the D&D rules (especially 2nd edition), but I can't wait to get my hands on some of these games (PoE, Torment, Wasteland2). Sounds like you've made up your mind that you're not going to like any of them. That's too bad, because to me PoE looks like it's shaping up to be a fantastic game. I also bought a hard copy of the Numenera rule book and it looks like it will be a damned interesting setting. These games aren't just about the combat anyway. Hell, in PoE you won't usually get XP for killing monsters.

I sincerely have got more excited for Divinity: Original Sin gameplay mechanics than Pillars of Eternity.

The later seems a little bit dull, in my opinion.

D:OS has definitely set the high bar for stuff like combat and elemental and environmental interactivity. But what's shown in that POE video is level 1 low level combat between 2 fighters. Would surely be alot more featuring a higher level party with spellcasters.

I'll confess that I had somewhat lost interest in this game--in particular it looked as though it hewed too closely to its D&D roots for my liking--but that video on Giant Bomb has rather changed my mind: the gameplay, the beautiful backdrops, the lovely UIs, the use of book-like text and illustrations for "cutscenes" (no, I'm not employing irony there: I mean that), the promise of character interaction in the vein of Baldur's Gate--it all looks both lovely and a lot of fun! ^_^

I still think that it's a bit of a pity that they didn't innovate a bit more with the classes: I've seen the D&D-style class selection enough times to be a little tired of them, I feel. Nevertheless, the setting does seem interesting.

One thing that I rather liked was the described flexibility of the statistic system: that one could theoretically make a high-intelligence fighter, or a clumsy rogue, in part because each statistic has some applicability to each class (for example, they mentioned intelligence affecting area-of-effect, and thus certain of the fighter's abilities, if I recall correctly).

I strongly disagree with you: not all fans will necessarily want more complexity. I'm very much a fan of the Baldur's Gate games, and while I don't think that I would have minded a similar level of complexity, I really don't want more, and I'm happy to have less.

However, I'm not saying that you're wrong to want more complexity: you like what you like. Instead I'm arguing that your second point is just as subjective as your third, even amongst fans of the original games.

Further, what constitutes the "spirit" of a game (or other work) might differ from person to person: for me, as someone who loved the Baldur's Gate games (the second in particular), what I recall fondly is the exploration, story and character-writing. I'm really glad that companion interaction looks very familiar in Pillars of Eternity.

The combat in Baldur's Gate was decent--I'm rather a fan of real-time-with-pause tactical combat (if I recall correctly, the combat was technically turn-based, being based on D&D mechanics, but the effect as presented gave the impression of real-time gameplay)--but for me it was rather bogged down by being stuck with the D&D system, which, personally, I find somewhat horrible.

(I find the D&D system especially horrible as a person who prefers to play as an arcane magic-user. >_<; )

Personally, I might have preferred that the creators of Pillars of Eternity had moved further from D&D-style mechanics--their sticking close to those was one of the things that put me a little off of the game at first, as I recall. However, having seen the game in action, I do like what I've seen of the combat in Pillars of Eternity well enough.

For myself, I disagree with the implication that simplification is necessarily dumbing down: I think that a system may start off overcomplicated, and simplification then lead to a more intuitive, more fun experience. I think that different systems just appeal to different people: the things that you love about a given system may be cause for dislike by another, and vice versa; what makes it better for you might make it worse for someone else.

For myself, the D&D system used in Baldur's Gate feels overcomplicated for what it does. (I don't claim to know much about the later editions; I think that I found the version used in Neverwinter Nights to be perhaps a little better, but I suspect that this was in part due to streamlining for the video game version.)

First of all, sorry for replying to you directly and thereby "spamming" you : I'm on an iPad and if I start a new post I can't read your post as I am making my reply, meaning that I have to remember everything you said without being able to look.

I have to say that I disagree with your opinions, however ! The idea that D&D rules (2nd edition in particular) can be simplified without pretty much destroying the gameplay of those games which used them is usually based on the opinions of gamers who never took the trouble to understood the rules properly in the first place because they were either too lazy or found it too difficult to do so. It is worth putting a bit of extra effort into learning the game mechanics of more complex game systems. It took me over a week to learn how to play Civ4 but I'm glad that I took the trouble. In respect of the IE games, which use D&D rules, I strongly believe that most people who didn't enjoy them never really understood how to play them in the first place. Publishers / developers, realising that most PC gamers no longer have enough patience to actually make an effort to learn anything remotely demanding, decided to simplify these rules and hence we now have more simplified RPGs which try to make up for their simplicity in other ways.

Neverwinter Nights, as far as I remember, uses 3rd edition D&D rules - the same rules as are used in Icewind Dale 2. Whilst this ruleset - based on my limited experience - is not as good as the 2nd edition it still isn't really "dumbed down" yet. The differences between Icewind Dale 2 and Neverwinter Nights are due to other factors : party size (6v3 ?), superior writing (IWD2), superior atmosphere (in IWD2), terrible camera angles and all-round inferior engine NWN). There was nothing particularly wrong with the combat in NWN except that 2nd edition rules are superior to 3rd edition rules and the fact that you could only have so many party members, but in every other respect Icewind Dale 2 wins by a mile, even if the critics might disagree - but I don't bother listening to the critics since the transition from IWD2 to NWN. This was one of the two great watersheds in PC gaming imo, the other one being the release of Half Life 2 and the introduction df Steam ... PC gaming hasn't been the same since these two events.

I'm all for a variety of games but what I can't accept is the death of the PC game as I used to know it. There is no doubt at all that, as the industry has grown bigger (too big for its boots perhaps), it has pandered more and more to the majority opinion, in order to make bigger sales.

All I can say to this is that this game was Kickstarted precisely because it doesn't appeal to a bigger audience. The Kickstarter route is the only way it had a hope of being made.
This is exactly what I'd encourage you to do. I felt previously that perhaps you'd jumped to conclusions about the game, but if you're keeping your mind open and follow the updates/development of it, then closer to release I feel you'll have a good idea whether or not this one will appeal to you at all. If it doesn't, then fair enough. But hopefully you'll see something that will make you say "Woah, this thing really looks good". For myself, I'm very confident this will be a fantastic game.

Not at all! To be honest, I wasn't aware that the use of the "reply" function was frowned on in the etiquette of this forum (I'll confess that I'm not enormously active here), and the notification doesn't bother me at all (I presume that the notification is what you mean by "spamming"). ^_^

... You realise that you just called me either stupid or lazy, right? :P

In all fairness, I've had relatively limited experience with D&D outside of video games; I think that I once signed up for a forum-RP that used D&D, but our DM disappeared and the game died.

I also haven't played any of the Icewind Dale games: from what I've read, they focus more heavily on combat than even Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights do, and remove the party dynamics (that is to say, the various personalities and their interactions); since the story and party dynamics (even within the two-person party of the original (that is, the original 3D) Neverwinter Nights) are two of my favourite aspects of those RPGs, Icewind Dale looks like a significant step down to me.

I think that I understood the rules well enough (at least those that weren't run entirely in the background), and yet I still enjoyed the games in spite of their use of the D&D ruleset, rather than because of it.

(I had a similar experience--albeit for different reasons--with Anachronox: as a matter of personal preference, I simply don't much enjoy the style of combat that they used there, but the rest of the game made it worth playing through that.)

Ultimately, that's the thing: it's a matter of preference. I don't think that I like the D&D ruleset less than you because I don't understand it, but simply because it's not as congenial to me as it is to you: our minds are different, our preferences are different, and so how we respond to various systems may differ.

Note that I'm not against complexity in and of itself: a deep, interesting system can be enjoyable. But what makes a system enjoyable to me might make it poor to you, and vice versa.

Is it? What about someone who simply dislikes complexity in a game? Or a game the mechanics of which are more complex than there's good reason for them to be?

For an example of the latter, let's imagine a simple game (I'm keeping it simple to make the point more clearly); an on-rails shooter should do. It's on PC, so a simple version of the gameplay might be "click on a character to shoot them; when you run out of bullets, click on a section of the bottom of the screen to reload; shoot enemies, avoid shooting hostages".

Now, what if shooting involved the following: first, click on a gun icon at the top-left to bring up your gun. Then place the cursor over the hammer, and click-and-drag the hammer back. Press the right mouse button to fire: this brings up a dialogue that prompts you for the coefficients to the trajectory equation of your bullet (allowing you to specify direction and distance). Double-click the "done" button when you've entered the appropriate values.

That's rather more complex--is it worth learning how to do that in order to play an on-rails shooter? The original might well be improved by some addition of complexity--a powerup system and more than one weapon, perhaps--but I do think that what I described just above went somewhat overboard.

Has Josh mentioned how long the game will be? Hopefully as long as BG2 which means I'll take 2 months to complete it.

Not in terms of hours, but he said that PoE will have about 150 maps, compared to 80 in the first Icewind Dale, and 200 in Baldur's Gate 2. I.e. it apparently won't be as massive as BG 2, but almost double the size of IWD, which wasn't a short game to begin with.

I'd think that about 80 hours of gameplay should be in the cards.

This definitely looks better and better. Next year it's so far....:(