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

Yeah, he would, since he seems to dig that consolized scrolling inventory

 

Good luck controlling six party members with that bullshit

 

It's going to be awesome when you're proven wrong about that (with the caveat that the stash might be presented in the form of a list, as it was with bags of holding).

 

Which fact?

The part where you called follower automation micromanagement?

The part where you called Dragon Age round-based?

The part where you said IE games were not "strictly" isometric?

The part where you said full-3D games are better?

 

I'm not going to argue with that. I sincerely hope I am (proven wrong).

 

Easy/Normal/Hard mode will have a Death/wound toggle in the menus, Expert mode just force-activate all the toggles.

 

I know he does mean that, and such a mode might be interesting. The problem being that if the game is balanced right it would take out half the fun out of the game, as it won't have the whole strategic resource anymore.

...Unless, i guess, you also keep the health as is.

Mmmmh..... the easiest way to do it would be to increase the variables of the enemies to attack your K.O members, as well as a direct hit to health when the member is K.O.

 

Which would be a pretty sucky mod, as if the game is balanced right it would take half the fun out of the game, looking out for those points of health you cannot regenerate no matter what.

After all, you can heal stamina points.

Basically, it would be noob mod, you would just need to make sure you win the fights, and not really care about the slowly dwindling ressources of your characters.

 

All of them.

 

Sadly, if they did that and still had the same resting restrictions the game already has, it SHOULD be really unbalanced.

At least, if the developers do their job, the game should be balanced for an extreme amount of damage over a quest where you can't heal and many encounters, and as such this mod would -really- unbalance the game.

It depends if the devs make a good job of the balance though.

 

Ok, let's number em off and then I'm done.

1) The part where you called follower automation micromanagement?

Automation is actually the opposite of micromanagement. What you meant is that you can set very detailed automation parameters. Not sure how many people played IE games with full automation on or would consider complicated automation a plus.

2) The part where you called Dragon Age round-based?

It's not.

3) The part where you said IE games were not "strictly" isometric?

I think you're implying that the angle is not technically "isometric," in which case I'm afraid you're a boring person.

4) The part where you said full-3D games are better?

kool.

 

P:E, brining new levels of drama and butthurt to Codex since names like MCA, Tim Cain and Josh Sawyer were slapped on the 'next best cRPG of all time' since Baldur's Gate 1.

 

Technically, 3D games aren't strictly 3D. They're coloured pixels arranged to give the illusion of 3D.

 

Yes.

I am referring to camera manipulation though, and not rendering. Even IE games were 3D rendered and 2D mapped.

 

So I have a question for the PnP crowd who thinks that IE=DnD. If we were back in the 90's and Tim Cain was making Fallout and he said he was going to be making it GURPS based then suddenly it didn't work out, would there be this much butt-hurt?

What I mean to say is that even though he couldn't use GURPS, was the fallout mechanics and gameplay worse for it or better for it? Did it become so terrible that the game was considered popamole?

 

This doesn't make any sense. There was never a Fallout game that used GURPS.

Also, if we told what was happening as Fallout 1 was being made there probably would have been lots of raging for legitimate reasons (outdoorsman, science, repair, gambling, doctor, first aid).

 

Look, its dishonest to think that they could have used D&D as their system even from the start. We were sold this picture of the game being some sort of minimalist approach to IE games. They asked for $1.1mil and didn't have more than 6, was it, classes and a lot of the other stuff came due to stretch goals. The intent was never to build the next BG2. It was a hope that such a thing would be possible in the next iteration if P:E sold well. But they always played it off as the goal being the absolute minimum you'd need to make a half-decent game.

The point is this: I don't know exactly what makes an IE game but it's one of thsoe "when I see it I know" kind of things. I don't think, at this point, that they're sticking to the IE formula exactly, but I don't think that's because they aren't using D&D (2e or 3e).

tuluse Tim Cain had the intention of using GURPS as the Fallout game system. There was a lot of people upset that he couldn't do so. It's been mentioned before. When that fell through the SPECIAL system was put in place.

 

What makes an IE game?

Nothing really.

IE games were essentially some of the Best games labelled as RPGs when they were made. They had good and sensible plots, nice combat (except Escape from tournament Planet) and overall well thought out implementation of mechanics especially an amazing spell system.

They were also 2002. Which is 10 years from this year.

Since then a lot of things have changed. There is better technology, better understanding of what makes good games and more experienced playerbase.

And what we get is dumbing down since then (Except TOEE and blast me, UFO:UE from 2K games) .

 

The way I see things:

Josh Sawyer: "We are adding grappling to the game." -

Josh Sawyer: "We are eliminating dodge from the game."

It's not rocket science. More depth = good, less depth = bad.

Up until now, most of Sawyer's design decisions have fallen in the second category therefore I'm criticizing him. Apologetics can suck it.

 

Ok so we're finally getting somewhere. I agree with you Lord Andre. More depth is moar better. I seriously think that Stamina/Health is more depth. I also think the new glancing/miss is more depth.

Whether the class skills/abilities is doubleplus good is something I don't know. Same with inventory. Inventory smells of less depth but I've heard good arguments that it's more deep.

The point is though, that D&D doesn't suddenly mean the greatest amount of depth a game could possibly have.

 

This almost seems like you're intentionally misinterpreting the criticisms here.

We are not complaining because it's not using a pnp system, we're complaining because Sawyer is making what we consider fundamental changes to a system that he is supposed to be creating a successor of. We expect certain things to be the same or similar.

Speed and randomness of combat is one.

Similarly interesting spell list is another.