Great, as one of the backers I'm waiting for its release.

Well, everyone likes different things. It is superior to you, but not for me for example. I like real time in games where I control only one character, like in Witcher 3. But I would never play a team/squad based game in pure RT. I like to consider my choices and orders for every party member. Turn based is the best for this, but I'm OK with the RTwP too.

Well, il wishlist it, and will probably buy it even if i havent played the first game yet. Have way too many games to play in my backlog and other stuff to do. Im starting to wonder if im going to finnish my backlog in my lifetime. It seams i now have more games than i can ever play.

In that case, is it also a good idea to have 458 games wishlisted? ;)

From someone who has 144 games wishlisted, 8 games backlogged but over 50 GOG freebies left untouched, I'm probably not one to talk ;)

Not really. I was tired when writing this, but what I meant to say is that either Real Time or Turn Based is superior to RTwP. Only reason why RTwP exists, is because it was necessary to make D&D playable in RT. If they kept the game turn based, there would be no need for this nonsense. I mean, because of desire for real time combat they butchered D&D mechanics in Neverwinter Nights series.

Meanwhile, real time combat isn't bad in RPG (provided it's made competently) and even in Dialbo-like titles it has element of skill, while still remaining engaging (if you are into it of course). It can even work for party based RPG-s, provided they are action focused and not strategy oriented. RPG-s aren't really suited for RTS micro.

How soon is now? :P

It's a bit pointless to say "soon" without a specific date. If "soon" is next year nobody is taking you seriously anymore for such PR stunts.
It's annoying to get triggered months before the "soon" esp. if you are one of the backer anyways.

Probably not, but i cant help myself.
maybe il try to stop when i reach 500 games owned and 500 games wishlisted :p

The thing is, to me, that adding an element of skill makes the game no longer qualify as an RPG to me.
A few things:

1. Undertale actually doesn't qualify as an RPG by my definition; during the enemy's turn, whether the enemy's attack hits (and how many times it hits) is clearly dependent on the player's ability to dodge the attacks, not the character's.

2. Ultima IV really feels more like an adventure/RPG hybrid, with puzzles that worj completely outside the RPG mechanics (and are adventure game style; in other words, they're scripted rather than rule-based). Wizardry 4 is also a sort of adventure/RPG hybrid (though leaning more towards adventure than Ultima 4).

3. It should be "its" (no apostrophe), not "it's". ("it's" = "it is" which doesn't make sense in that context.)

In general, I think people have been using the tern RPG too broadly, using it to refer to action games with growth systems, as well as calling things that are really characteristic of other genres (like cutscenes and dialog trees) RPG elements. If you take the stats and combat out of an RPG, and you still have a game left, you can't really call it an RPG, but there are still choices to be made and areas to explore, and possibly cutscenes to watch.

Outside of academia genre is the vaguest of things and generally used to bind a group together by engaging in the eternal arguments over its definition. Well its like that in academia as well but they at least get paid. People should just accept that genre is vague and bordering on meaningless and define the games they like by pointing to games that exemplify the qualities they value.

It's not just the word "genre", but other gaming terms also have the same problem.

Look at P2W or Pay to Win as an example, people usually define what P2W is on their own terms. Having had a few discussions on the subject, some people define it by "having to pay real money in order to get the necessary equipment to beat the game for you".There's a toned down definition were some people say "P2W is paying money to get the equipment needed to progress further into the game" Others define it as "paying real money to gain advantage over other players", some define it as "having to pay real money in order to have a chance at competing". Then there are some whiny entitled shitheads who if you read between the lines define P2W as "not being able to have the same gear as paying players without spending money". When talking about what is and isn't P2W, it can get real messy as everyone seems to have their own idea on what it is.

A while back, I was also corrected for using "action oriented" on the forums here. I said something to the effect of "Icewind Dale 2 is an action oriented game". By that, I meant the game focuses more on combat but a few GOGers pointed out to me saying "action oriented" implied IWD2 was an ARPG which isn't what I intended at all.

Take DRM the term is accepted as a bad word so folks that are 100% okay with it still take great umbrage if you apply it to a game they like, and try to redefine it away.
Natural language is imprecise and communicating online in a text format with strangers increases the likelihood that folks will misinterpret what you write. But arguing that we need tight unshifting definitions is like saying we should all be doing matrix mathematics on a daily basis it isn't going to happen, regardless of its merit. We just need to focus less on the word and more on the practical side of things not that there is a fix all but arguing over definitions is not something I see any merit in.

Anyway with regards to the game, I assume that the announcement is for in dev given that the game is yet to put out the backer beta. The reason I'm confused is I'd have thought that would be mentioned. I did ask during the funding and they said they would look into GOG for the pre-release builds. A "Coming Soon" for the ability to preorder the final release while Steam actually gets the early access would be a little unpleasant.

Indeed, this is some lame PR stunt. It is neither "soon" (a timescope roughly under 4 weeks in my book) nor the final release version afaik.

It'd be a good time for a GOG Connect for the first game, wouldn't it? I have played the first one on Steam but didn't finish it. I'd like start playing it again but I want it on GOG. It's currently too expensive, even when it's on a sale.

How would this remotely be qualified as a 'PR stunt'? I fail to see how there would be any PR benefit out of announcing the game is coming soon? (And agreed that this 'soon' must have a broad definition).

Doubt that will happen. Paradox doesn't seem to be the type of publisher that would want to give away the game on GOG when they can charge you for it.

I don't think so.
In the past, only basic versions of the games were given through GOG Connect (becuase Steam's API is not recognizing DLC or something...) and there's no upgrade paths for Pillars of Eternity here.