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

[SophosTheWise]

mass effect "fanning out"

lul

if only devs would take a less uncompromizing stand towards accessibility.

yeah, that's what we need

more accessibility

What are you on about? The RPG genre is all but in the water because every single developer and their mom watered the genre down until it was indestinguishable from other genres.

It's a paradigm, as I've said a million times before. Why does my friend have fun sitting up all night nerding away at GURPS complexity but once I ask him if he's played The Witcher fucking 2 he tells me he doesn't want to bother with such complex games?

Because it's a fucking paradigm, because people don't even think about or try out this kind of shit, it's ruled out beforehand. No amount of accessibility is going to help that, it will only make the problem worse as the paradigm is reinforced.

I'm not sure about that. The problem is not the complexity itself, but the way it's presented. Especially older games tend to overwhelm the player with stats, skills and numbers without saying a word about their meaning. That can be very frustrating if you'd really like to get into a game. Accessability means explaining things, explaining why a sorcerer needs charisma instead of wisdom, explain what a bullrush does, explain how a good build is achieved. Probably most of us got into gaming and RPGs by having someone explain it. Times have changed, people don't have the same attention-spans as before, they have more games they want to play.

Don't cater to the casuals by watering down the game, but cater to them by explaining how and why things work. And best do it ingame and not via manual. I love colored manuals, but ain't nobody got time fo dat anymore.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Okay, Jim the Dinosaur, what did you mean by "less uncompromising stance" towards accessibility. What's the compromise?

Jim apparantly thinks that Josh thinks that developers have not been making their games accessible enough. So the "uncompromising stance" is developers refusing to make their games accessible.

Who those developers are I don't have a clue.

Maybe I should've used the past tense. I get the feeling from reading that interview on Character creation that Sawyer thinks most gamers would be put off these days when looking at the FO's or Arcanum's, or whatever's character creation screen: his point, I think, would be that any complexity is better introduced gradually than straight off the bat. Same with the example you named: hold the player's hand the first minutes of gameplay to ease him in.

 

[Infinitron]

Okay, Jim the Dinosaur, what did you mean by "less uncompromising stance" towards accessibility. What's the compromise?

Jim apparantly thinks that Josh thinks that developers have not been making their games accessible enough. So the "uncompromising stance" is developers refusing to make their games accessible.

Who those developers are I don't have a clue.

Maybe I should've used the past tense. I get the feeling from reading that interview on Character creation that Sawyer thinks most gamers would be put off these days when looking at the FO's or Arcanum's, or whatever's character creation screen: his point, I think, would be that any complexity is better introduced gradually than straight off the bat. Same with the example you named: hold the player's hand the first minutes of gameplay to ease him in.

Oh. Well there's nothing profound about that. Every single retard designer repeats the "EASY 2 LEARN, HARD 2 MASTER" mantra these days. The problem, as I said, is that they don't follow through. The games are easy and they remain easy.

 

[MMXI]

Okay, Jim the Dinosaur, what did you mean by "less uncompromising stance" towards accessibility. What's the compromise?

Jim apparantly thinks that Josh thinks that developers have not been making their games accessible enough. So the "uncompromising stance" is developers refusing to make their games accessible.

Who those developers are I don't have a clue.

Maybe I should've used the past tense. I get the feeling from reading that interview on Character creation that Sawyer thinks most gamers would be put off these days when looking at the FO's or Arcanum's, or whatever's character creation screen: his point, I think, would be that any complexity is better introduced gradually than straight off the bat. Same with the example you named: hold the player's hand the first minutes of gameplay to ease him in.

The problem with this is that it's annoying for those who want complexity straight away. Even dumb players who like a simple start may not appreciate it on replays. When you know the rules inside out you'll want to start tuning your characters as soon as possible and not 5 hours into the game. Fuck this. Just add some sort of auto-levelling option at the start of the game that gradually fades out as the game progresses. That way I can turn it off every time, while dumb players can keep it ticked for their first play through.

 

[Grunker]

Don't cater to the casuals by watering down the game, but cater to them by explaining how and why things work.

If this was all Sawyer said there would be no issue. If you'd read my posts you'd know that no one beats the drum of documentation harder than me. Sawyer isn't talking about documentation, but about gradual complexity. As in, not only do you have to explain how things work, they have to work in very simple ways at first.

That, I have issues with.

 

[hiver]

The second you start to worry about what a casual gamer needs or how will they react to the game skill setup - you stop worrying about how to make a good game.
This gets you onto a crooked path that informs all of the game and pushes it into the path of false "accessibility" where any solution you can come up with is decline.

Its not surprising to hear such philosophy from someone working in Obsidian. After all, they have been a mass market studio since their beginning. That is their target audience.

I'm not sure about that. The problem is not the complexity itself, but the way it's presented.

Correct.

Especially older games tend to overwhelm the player with stats, skills and numbers without saying a word about their meaning.

Correct.

Whats worse is the very notion that "saying the word" is the best solution. It is not.
The best solution would be to show - not tell. Through the first opening area of the game. (specific stand alone tutorial is less optimal because it take the player out of the game - since it is not the game)

Another problem is inflation of almost useless stats - that are represented as equal to all other at the very start of the game - usually through CCS in which there is no hint as to what skills are actually worthy and represented in gameplay in sufficient quantity - opposed to those who are just there as flavors.

Probably most of us got into gaming and RPGs by having someone explain it.

Not me. I learned by doing. (havent even been able to figure out the help button is in Fallouts, let alone a manual)

Times have changed, people don't have the same attention-spans as before, they have more games they want to play.

This is, again - worrying about casual players and then twisting the game design to accommodate for it.

Don't cater to the casuals by watering down the game, but cater to them by explaining how and why things work. And best do it ingame and not via manual. I love colored manuals, but ain't nobody got time fo dat anymore.

Correct. Show - dont tell. Though a good manual can exist beside this - in order to explain many details that cannot be all forced into an opening "tutorial" act since that can become way too long and big - depending on amount of complexity.
Biggest problem with manuals is that a player usually doesnt even know there is one - buried somewhere in the installation directory - since nothing tells the player there is one at all.
Easily corrected with a manual popup at the start of the game.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Oh. Well there's nothing profound about that. Every single retard designer repeats the "EASY 2 LEARN, HARD 2 MASTER" mantra these days. The problem, as I said, is that they don't follow through. The games are easy and they remain easy.

Might not be profound, but like he said in his qualified praise of the Mass Effect character system, the consequences are pretty serious if you like "proper" crpg's: there's no way of making character creation more accessible without also dumbing it down.

 

[The Great Deceiver]

Don't cater to the casuals by watering down the game, but cater to them by explaining how and why things work.

If this was all Sawyer said there would be no issue. If you'd read my posts you'd know that no one beats the drum of documentation harder than me. Sawyer isn't talking about documentation, but about gradual complexity. As in, not only do you have to explain how things work, they have to work in very simple ways at first.

That, I have issues with.

You could argue that it's a pointless exercise anyway - they are, after all, making a game for a very niche audience. One which largely appreciates the complexity.

For an instance, I like being overwhelmed with various character creation options (Realms of Arkania ahoy!) - even if I end up with a substandard party the first time around. Refining party composition, skill choices etc. with added replays is half the fun for me.

I think Josh's biggest flaw is actually his pursuit of perfection - he apparently sets out to make both the casual and more experienced players happy. The end result is rather predictable.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh. Well there's nothing profound about that. Every single retard designer repeats the "EASY 2 LEARN, HARD 2 MASTER" mantra these days. The problem, as I said, is that they don't follow through. The games are easy and they remain easy.

Might not be profound, but like he said in his qualified praise of the Mass Effect character system, the consequences are pretty serious if you like "proper" crpg's: there's no way of making character creation more accessible without also dumbing it down.

You know, it strikes me that character creation in a single PC tactical combat game doesn't matter that much anyway. 5/6th of your party is being handed to you pregenerated. There's your "dumbing down".

 

[hiver]

Oh. Well there's nothing profound about that. Every single retard designer repeats the "EASY 2 LEARN, HARD 2 MASTER" mantra these days. The problem, as I said, is that they don't follow through. The games are easy and they remain easy.

Might not be profound, but like he said in his qualified praise of the Mass Effect character system, the consequences are pretty serious if you like "proper" crpg's: there's no way of making character creation more accessible without also dumbing it down.

Not true.

 

[Lancehead]

The Mass Effect one he's pretty clear why he likes it: eases in casual players gently by not confronting them with lots of options in the beginning, but slowly fanning out (never played the game, so wouldn't know if that's true, but accessibility seems a genuine obsession for Sawyer so wouldn't be surprised if this concept really influenced him).

Oblivion he doesn't have an argument for.

No, he specifically said he'd have liked more depth and choice to ME's chargen. He seems to consider choices in chargen in Oblivion to be about right.

 

[Gozma]

Just have a premade party? Do it like the old Might and Magic games where the premade party is the default and you have to manually swap them out to go into the whole character creation deal. That's all you need to let little kids and so on mess around in the game without having to climb mount character creation. Plus if you are like me and don't care anymore you can play the default party and expect the game to be balanced for it rather than some gimmick synergistic build the designers weren't aware of.

 

[tuluse]

I'm curious how Sawyer is going to "solve" skills not being worth investing in if you've avoided them for 1/2 the game.

How you do resolve either high level of points not being worth it, or low-medium level of points not giving enough of an advantage late game?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Just have a premade party? Do it like the old Might and Magic games where the premade party is the default and you have to manually swap them out to go into the whole character creation deal. That's all you need to let little kids and so on mess around in the game without having to climb mount character creation. Plus if you are like me and don't care anymore you can play the default party and expect the game to be balanced for it rather than some gimmick synergistic build the designers weren't aware of.

I think the problem with that is that you learn a lot about what you're able to do in a crpg through character creation. You'd be a lot less prepared for the FO's if you just took one of the premade characters. I'm as disinclined towards reading manuals as most COD-kiddies, so without reading all the different stat and skill descriptions in character creation I'd have little idea what to do. So to remove much of the hurdle in getting acquainted with crpgs it makes more sense to amalgamate as many stats as possible, and preferably introduce them gradually through level up.

No, he specifically said he'd have liked more depth and choice to ME's chargen. He seems to consider choices in chargen in Oblivion to be about right.

Yeah, more choice than just gender and some other stuff, which isn't that much to ask. The basic argument is he likes how it goes from simple to relatively complex, that he prefers crpg's in general to be more complex than ME should speak for itself.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm curious how Sawyer is going to "solve" skills not being worth investing in if you've avoided them for 1/2 the game.

How you do resolve either high level of points not being worth it, or low-medium level of points not giving enough of an advantage late game?

Interesting question.

Assuming you consider this a problem, you can solve it either on the system end or the content end.

System end - grant larger and larger amounts of skill points as a character levels up, with skill ranks taking increasingly large amounts of points to upgrade as they grow higher. This would allow you catch up in a low-ranked skill relatively quickly at high levels. This is kind of what The Witcher did.

Content end - make sure there are plenty of low difficulty skill checks interspersed throughout the game, not just at the beginning. That way even the late game dilettante gets his skill points' worth.

 

[tuluse]

It seems like he considers it a problem "it's not worth investing in shotguns when assault rifles is nearly maxed out".

 

[hiver]

All the problems with useless skills, be it in whole game or middle or end - come from there being no specific gameplay for specific skills.

If shotguns were especially valuable against specific types of enemies - who are (for some reason) "resistant" to assault rifles - then there would be a reason to invest in them during any part of the game.

 

[Lancehead]

I'm curious how Sawyer is going to "solve" skills not being worth investing in if you've avoided them for 1/2 the game.

How you do resolve either high level of points not being worth it, or low-medium level of points not giving enough of an advantage late game?

Interesting question.

Assuming you consider this a problem, you can solve it either on the system end or the content end.

System end - grant larger and larger amounts of skill points as a character levels up, with skill ranks taking increasingly large amounts of points to upgrade as they grow higher. This would allow you catch up in a low-ranked skill relatively quickly at high levels. This is kind of what The Witcher did.

Content end - make sure there are plenty of low difficulty skill checks interspersed throughout the game, not just at the beginning. That way even the late game dilettante gets his skill points' worth.

Actually his criticism of ME's skill progression is that there's no weighting. If upgrading a skill is increasingly costly, then the player may look to invest in some other skill. Now if you combine that with one of Sawyer's beliefs--that skills should be useful throughout the game (what you suggest as 'content end')--then hypothetically there shouldn't much problem.

No, he specifically said he'd have liked more depth and choice to ME's chargen. He seems to consider choices in chargen in Oblivion to be about right.

Yeah, more choice than just gender and some other stuff, which isn't that much to ask. The basic argument is he likes how it goes from simple to relatively complex, that he prefers crpg's in general to be more complex than ME should speak for itself.

Yeah, it just seemed like the debate focussed somewhat on Sawyer trying to cater to casuals based on him seemingly preferring ME's chargen.

 

[Infinitron]

It seems like he considers it a problem "it's not worth investing in shotguns when assault rifles is nearly maxed out".

Well yeah, for weapons skills you can solve that by grouping different weapons together under one skill, although of course that's not a complete solution - what if you decide you want the other skill? But maybe it's good enough.

It's an unavoidable issue in RPG systems - since the game is finite, by choosing to invest in one skill, you're involuntarily also choosing to make other skills less worthwhile. Ultimately the designer just needs to decide what sort of things he wants the player to be able to do over the course of the game, and design accordingly.

 

[Lhynn]

All the problems with useless skills, be it in whole game or middle or end - come from there being no specific gameplay for specific skills.

If shotguns were especially valuable against specific types of enemies - who are (for some reason) "resistant" to assault rifles - then there would be a reason to invest in them during any part of the game.

Yes, i agree, we need more zombies.

 

[Ninjerk]

All the problems with useless skills, be it in whole game or middle or end - come from there being no specific gameplay for specific skills.

If shotguns were especially valuable against specific types of enemies - who are (for some reason) "resistant" to assault rifles - then there would be a reason to invest in them during any part of the game.

Shotguns would benefit from non-lethal playstyles if the right ammunition were implemented, whereas assault rifles pretty much have "kill soft thing" ammo or "kill hard thing" ammo. I think this is a slippery slope that leads to too much depth for casuals.

 

[tuluse]

Actually his criticism of ME's skill progression is that there's no weighting. If upgrading a skill is increasingly costly, then the player may look to invest in some other skill. Now if you combine that with one of Sawyer's beliefs--that skills should be useful throughout the game (what you suggest as 'content end')--then hypothetically there shouldn't much problem.

I have yet to see a game which properly balanced weighting against usefulness. Either they get too expensive to be an efficient use of skill points at high levels, or low-mid amounts of skill points invested are useless.

But maybe Josh has figured it out.

 

[Gozma]

I think skill checks work a lot better when they are very simulation-bound, like making every LockCo door lock the same difficulty in the whole gameworld whether it's in the starting area or the endgame. The "gamey" version where stuff in the endgame is uniformly 255 skill checks to reward people that have mechanically maxed whatever skill at every opportunity is asking too much of a lightweight mechanic. Late combats can be mechanically harder because more shit is going on and more insight is required from a player that has been learning the system the whole game. You didn't learn shit by putting more points in motorcycle repair.

 

[Infinitron]

The "gamey" version where stuff in the endgame is uniformly 255 skill checks to reward people that have mechanically maxed whatever skill at every opportunity

Even from a "gamey" perspective that's not necessarily good design.

 

[Lhynn]

Its a form of level scaling and should burn in hell.
The only excuse to increase difficulty should come from a narrative standpoint and should be apropiate according to that same standpoint to make your own gameworld a coherent place.

Easier encounters at first should come from the fact that your character is starting small and not attracting a lot of attention, not just because hes level 1. In the same way, if you are level 1 and fighting impossible odds the difficulty shouldnt scale down, instead it should focus more on avoiding those encounters and building up the tension for when you are finally able to face them head on.