Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Rake]

Man I wish there'd be a decent game where after stealing and selling everything you still can't get all the good and worthwhile stuff from vendors.

console commands would fix that

 

[Roguey]

That's his own fault. Receiving feedback doesn't mean he has to agree with it.

How is this the feedback''s fault? What feedback? He alone made the stupid decision to make the spell's D&Dish. He already removed the game's rules far from AD&D, and the complains were minimal. If he had made the decision to follow their vision and have the power's follow his soul based approach, i bet the backers would be supportive in their absolute majority

Do you think developers should ignore the demands of some hardcore fans to keep obsolete or inferior features in the sequel just because it was in the original?

I think developers should try to make a good game. While this means they do have to understand the expectations established by previous titles, they have to be willing to re-evaluate mechanics if they've demonstrably failed or caused problems in the past. I think its most important that they keep the spirit of a franchise/series/world alive. If they can do that while improving a mechanic, they should go for it. If changing mechanics radically alters the feeling of the setting and series, the cost has to be weighed very carefully.

This was pitched as a successor to the IE games, which means it must feel like them. Giving non-spellcasters fantastic soul-based abilities goes against that feel (angry posts against this idea can be found in the earlier pages of this very thread). Josh knows from experience what happens when you fail to meet expectations of how a sequel/successor should play (e.g. the reception to DS3 from Dungeon Siege fans or opinions about Dragon Age: Origins's claims of being a spiritual successor to BG).

 

[Grotesque]

I've always liked it in games when money is very scarce but you have a lot of useful stuff to buy. But because the genre is based on kleptomania (if given the chance with lots of shit to steal), you usually end up with a ton of money and near the end of the game can buy anything you might want. Man I wish there'd be a decent game where after stealing and selling everything you still can't get all the good and worthwhile stuff from vendors.

I hope upgrading the keep will cost a ton of gold and enchanting items will cost expensive materials that you'll also be forced to buy from vendors.
Also tweaking gold/item drops and trade parities will make this game a constant struggle for gathering enough money to buy the basics consumables to face the challenges.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Neither of those will happen because they're not fun and you don't know how to have fun.

 

[Grunker]

Josh Sawyer is the cause of great pains in my behind

 

[Infinitron]

Neither of those will happen because they're not fun and you don't know how to have fun.

That's not even true. Sawyer's often spoken of the need to add serious money sinks to the game. That was sort of the point of adding item durability to the game, for one thing.

When durability was removed, there were lots of arguments on the Obsidian forums between Josh and various grognardy types who felt it was completely normal/"realistic" and FUN for a late game adventuring party to have effectively infinite money.

 

[Roguey]

"I don't have anything to spend money on" is a criticism I can't recall ever applying to me, since I usually spend almost all of it right before entering the endgame area. Having a lot of high quality items and freely using consumables without care is all right imo.

 

[tuluse]

When durability was removed, there were lots of arguments on the Obsidian forums between Josh and various grognardy types who felt it was completely normal/"realistic" and FUN for a late game adventuring party to have effectively infinite money.

Count me among those who think it's fine to have near infinite money late game. As long as it actually is late game and not 1/3 of the way through the game.

Part of the reward structure of finishing the game should include the ability to buy anything and everything by the end of the game. At least in a BG style game. If the game isn't about gaining immense amounts of power in a short time then it might be a different story.

 

[Copper]

I'd prefer if the game had enough confidence in its content being fun to not feel the need to dole out Skinner-box style rewards, but I guess that's not the D&D way.

More seriously, I'd love a game that actually had merchants with agendas or some sort of feedback in the game - who wants to buy swords? The smith of the lord who's planning on taking out his neighbour, or those nasty barbarians - let the player be a proper merchant prince bastard (or just dumb).

 

[Grotesque]

The replay value of a game is also given by the fact that you as a player cannot afford everything in the first playthrough.
Also having vast amounts of money feels like cheating.
The constant money management and being forced in making tough decisions of what to buy having limited resources enhances the gameplay experience.

 

[Jagged Appliance]

Not being able to buy something is a terrible reason to replay an rpg. Would you seriously replay an entire game just to buy a cool sword a couple of hours before the game ends?

 

[Zombra]

Not being able to buy something is a terrible reason to replay an rpg. Would you seriously replay an entire game just to buy a cool sword a couple of hours before the game ends?

If that were the ONLY reason to play the game again? No.

I think they're going to try something called "having other content" in the game as well though.

 

[Jaesun]

Money in RPG's has always been handled terribly. Period. (Well OK, there is probably 1 or 2 that did a decent job of it, but I can't think of any off hand).

Not expecting this to be any different....

 

[Orma]

Fallout New Vegas with Weapon DLC's did a decent job, unique weapons were pretty expensive iirc. (Well expensive unless you use the exploit and get all gold bars from dead money.)

 

[Grotesque]

Not being able to buy something is a terrible reason to replay an rpg. Would you seriously replay an entire game just to buy a cool sword a couple of hours before the game ends?

If that game has items that really play an important role in the game and if Ithought of a character build that would really benefit after certain items when playing the game on hardcore/hardest difficulty, yes, I would replay a game.

 

[Roguey]

Josh keeps doing it:

I wonder how flexible the game will be in terms of essential characters. In New Vegas you could everyone short of the children and two robots, while in BG and PST you would get a game over or Arkanis Gath'd if you killed the wrong man at the wrong time.

We strive to have few/zero essential characters.

 

[Sranchammer]

Man I wish there'd be a decent game where after stealing and selling everything you still can't get all the good and worthwhile stuff from vendors.

console commands would fix that

good game design too.

 

[Abelian]

Not being able to buy something is a terrible reason to replay an rpg. Would you seriously replay an entire game just to buy a cool sword big metal unit a couple of hours before the game ends?

Fixed

Spoiler

I still haven't bothered with the silly pantaloons quest

 

[Volourn]

Same here. It's such a retartet 'quest' to begin with.

 

[Copper]

Josh keeps doing it:

I wonder how flexible the game will be in terms of essential characters. In New Vegas you could everyone short of the children and two robots, while in BG and PST you would get a game over or Arkanis Gath'd if you killed the wrong man at the wrong time.

We strive to have few/zero essential characters.

Well, he has pledged his allegiance to making a murder-simulator worthy of his dark master many times before - every problem to be solved with an axe to the face. I'm pretty sure 'going native' in the first second and trying to wipe out the caravan or just the water-carrier guy won't be supported though.

 

[Volourn]

"I wonder how flexible the game will be in terms of essential characters. In New Vegas you could everyone short of the children and two robots, while in BG and PST you would get a game over or Arkanis Gath'd if you killed the wrong man at the wrong time.
We strive to have few/zero essential characters."

I like how he gives himsefl an outclause. 'few' L0L

 

[Jezal_k23]

Can't hastily make a promise they might be unable to keep.

 

[Volourn]

So, his statement is completely and utterly meaningless drivel.

 

[nikolokolus]

So, his statement is completely and utterly meaningless drivel.

I defer to the resident authority.

 

[Jezal_k23]

So, his statement is completely and utterly meaningless drivel.

It just communicates his intent to have as little essential characters as possible. If not 0, then maybe just a few?

Whether or not it's meaningless to you is based on how much you value what he says/how much you trust him.