Company News Feargus Urquhart talks Pillars of Eternity 2 at Polygon

[l3loodAngel]

Zehir was awesome.

Compared to MOTB or just AAAWESOME?

Why would anyone want that? Zehir was garbage compared to MOTB.

Think of it as an Icewind Dale-with-a-greater-scope stand-alone expansion pack.

The game was even weaker than IWD imo in almost all departments. I completely don't get it.

 

[Athelas]

Plus, why settle when you can play IWD in the glorious NWN2 engine?

http://www.nexusmods.com/neverwinter2/mods/31/?

 

[Jaesun]

Zehir was awesome.

Compared to MOTB or just AAAWESOME?

My party of Bards running through the realms kicking major ass, it was AWESOME! Also the dialogue mechanic was well done. Shame Obsidian hasn't used that again.

 

[Dorateen]

I agree. Pillars of Eternity really dropped the ball failing to use the party chat mechanic. Elements like the static image adventure encounters could have been tailored for that.

But that was part of Tony Evans Obsidian, not Sawyer Obsidian who needed to go bioware-lite in order to raise money.

 

[Athelas]

I agree. Pillars of Eternity really dropped the ball failing to use the party chat mechanic. Elements like the static image adventure encounters could have been tailored for that.

Uh, you can all use your party member's attributes/skills in those scripted interactions.

 

[Dorateen]

I agree. Pillars of Eternity really dropped the ball failing to use the party chat mechanic. Elements like the static image adventure encounters could have been tailored for that.

Uh, you can all use your party member's attributes/skills in those scripted interactions.

No kidding. That's why I picked that aspect of PoE to illustrate how party chat conversations could have worked. However, the Pillars interactions are still not the same function as the party chat mechanic, which would only display a dialogue option when the character who had the skill or attribute required was selected. The point is, Obsidian should have extended this concept to all conversations. The very idea of only one Main PC initiating talks and participating in conversations, outside of scripted interactions, is the antithesis of a party-based adventure and contrary to the spirit of PnP role-playing games.

 

[Athelas]

You only role-play your own character in PnP (unless you have no friends to play with, I guess).

 

[Infinitron]

Dorateen If it's PnP analogies you want, I suppose you can think of the companions in games like these as DM-controlled characters?

 

[Jaesun]

But that was part of Tony Evans Obsidian, not Sawyer Obsidian who needed to go bioware-lite in order to raise money.

That is Feargus, not Sawyer. Feargus' job is to keep Obsidian in business.

 

[Dorateen]

Dorateen If it's PnP analogies you want, I suppose you can think of the companions in games like these as DM-controlled characters?

And that is exactly the contention I have with this design. In tabletop RPGs, those DM-controlled characters are called Non Player Characters... the true definition of NPCs. They are not full fledged party members. It is fine for NPCs to join the adventuring party. But for the party to be solely comprised of one player character and the rest are the DM's (read developer, for the cRPG analogy)? That's ludicrous. It is the equivalent of you and your gaming group going to the DM's home, and he invites you in but says the rest of your buddies have to leave. You'll be playing with his companions.

The Gold Box games, and others, got it right. Bioware got it wrong.

 

[Roguey]

I agree. Pillars of Eternity really dropped the ball failing to use the party chat mechanic.

Not at all, considering that doesn't work at all when you have companions with strong pre-determined personalities.

The cohorts you could pick up in SozzySoZ were barely characters. There's room enough in the genre for all sorts of approaches, it's ridiculous to say one shouldn't be done.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

There's room enough in the genre for all sorts of approaches, it's ridiculous to say one shouldn't be done.

 

[cruelio]

I agree. Pillars of Eternity really dropped the ball failing to use the party chat mechanic.

Not at all, considering that doesn't work at all when you have companions with strong pre-determined personalities.

The cohorts you could pick up in SozzySoZ were barely characters. There's room enough in the genre for all sorts of approaches, it's ridiculous to say one shouldn't be done.

The game is also intended to be a spiritual successor to the BG series, where you party members almost never had agency outside of a few things like some of them refusing to fight for Bodhi.

 

[ksaun]

Zehir was awesome.

Compared to MOTB or just AAAWESOME?

Why would anyone want that? Zehir was garbage compared to MOTB.

Think of it as an Icewind Dale-with-a-greater-scope stand-alone expansion pack.

The game was even weaker than IWD imo in almost all departments. I completely don't get it.

Historically, second expansions to CRPGs sell significantly fewer units than first expansions of CRPGs. Therefore, it is smart business for publishers to invest significantly less $ into their development. One might infer that this was the case for SoZ when compared to MotB.

Given its resource constraints, I felt that if SoZ tried to be the same type of game that MotB was, then it would fall far short of MotB's quality bar. I wanted the game to have a better chance at delivering an interesting and memorable experience. This was a big part of why we took SoZ in a different direction. It was a risk to do this, but I preferred the possibility of something innovative to the certainty of mediocrity (relative to our own high standards, which we rarely attain). It's to the credit of people like Tony Evans and Nathaniel Chapman that it came together as well as it did -- they did a great job developing the vision for the game and then executing on it. If you dislike the overall direction we took with SoZ, that was due to me (with Feargus's guidance) attempting to navigate marketing realities, not anyone on the team failing to deliver.

 

[tuluse]

The game is also intended to be a spiritual successor to the BG series, where you party members almost never had agency outside of a few things like some of them refusing to fight for Bodhi.

They also couldn't talk for you in BG, so what's your point?

Edit: I know you could start dialog with any of your characters, but your companions didn't have a voice of their own. For all intents and purposes it was still the MC talking. Though you might get the charisma bonus of whoever you selected to talk, not sure.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Given its resource constraints, I felt that if SoZ tried to be the same type of game that MotB was, then it would fall far short of MotB's quality bar. I wanted the game to have a better chance at delivering an interesting and memorable experience. This was a big part of why we took SoZ in a different direction. It was a risk to do this, but I preferred the possibility of something innovative to the certainty of mediocrity (relative to our own high standards, which we rarely attain). It's to the credit of people like Tony Evans and Nathaniel Chapman that it came together as well as it did -- they did a great job developing the vision for the game and then executing on it. If you dislike the overall direction we took with SoZ, that was due to me (with Feargus's guidance) attempting to navigate marketing realities, not anyone on the team failing to deliver.

That explains a lot. Basically the game had very tight budget and thus was somewhat weaker. I get it.
My intention was never to bash SOZ. However, MOTB was a better game and it puzzles me that people want a somewhat weaker product.

 

[Dorateen]

If you dislike the overall direction we took with SoZ, that was due to me (with Feargus's guidance) attempting to navigate marketing realities, not anyone on the team failing to deliver.

Thank you for bringing a bleeding system back to D&D.

 

[Keldryn]

And that is exactly the contention I have with this design. In tabletop RPGs, those DM-controlled characters are called Non Player Characters... the true definition of NPCs. They are not full fledged party members. It is fine for NPCs to join the adventuring party. But for the party to be solely comprised of one player character and the rest are the DM's (read developer, for the cRPG analogy)? That's ludicrous.

You're looking at it as the computer game taking on only the role of the DM, with the player taking on the role of all of the players. In games like PoE, Baldur's Gate, Ultima VII, etc, the computer takes on the role of the DM as well as that of the other players.

In tabletop RPGs, each player typically plays a single character. In small gaming groups, players sometimes play more than one character at a time, but it's generally pretty clear who that player's primary character is, and who are essentially the henchmen.

It is the equivalent of you and your gaming group going to the DM's home, and he invites you in but says the rest of your buddies have to leave. You'll be playing with his companions.

As a player in a tabletop RPG, you don't get to create or control the other players' characters either, so I fail to see any meaningful difference here. You can discuss with the other players to determine what the group will do, and you can interact with the NPCs to influence how the DM plays them, but both the NPCs and the other PCs have their own agendas and will frequently do something that you don't want them to do.

The Gold Box games, and others, got it right. Bioware got it wrong.

The model where you create a party of 4-6 characters on your own and make all the decisions for each one of them is not representative of the typical tabletop RPG experience. The model where you create and control single character and have characters created by someone else (and who won't always do what you want them to do) join you feels like a much closer approximation to the tabletop RPG experience, at least in my opinion. Without getting into multiplayer games, of course.

And of course, I'm looking at it from the perspective of one human player taking on the role of a single player from a tabletop RPG. From this perspective, games like Fallout, Knights of the Old Republic, Ultima VII, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate, etc, got it right.

If you're looking at it in terms of that one human player assuming the role of 4-6 players in a tabletop RPG, then yes, the Gold Box games, Wizardry, The Bard's Tale, Might & Magic, Icewind Dale, etc, got it right.

Both approaches are valid, and each one is probably better suited for certain styles of gameplay.

 

[Dorateen]

In games like PoE, Baldur's Gate, Ultima VII, etc, the computer takes on the role of the DM as well as that of the other players.

Games like PoE and Bladur's Gate have the option available for the player to create the full party, which I certainly intend to take advantage of.

 

[Keldryn]

Games like PoE and Bladur's Gate have the option available for the player to create the full party, which I certainly intend to take advantage of.

I know they do, but I would feel like I'm missing out on the full experience by not using the recruited characters. This behaviour must not continue. Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways. I would miss out on some side quests and some fun interactions (moreso in BG2 than BG1). Plus, at least in the BG games, the recruited characters often have unique abilities that aren't available to player-created characters (or at least unavailable until much higher levels). So I feel like I have more meaningful decisions to make when determining which companions to bring with me, because none of them are really optimal (compared to a character I would create on my own). For example, I would never create a Cleric with Strength 10 and Constitution 8, so Viconia's low Strength and hit points are a serious liability, but that drow magic resistance is incredibly useful and powerful. Giving her the Gauntlets of Ogre Power and decent armor become a top priority, which means that an actual front-line Fighter with a 17 or 18/01-50 Strength doesn't get that extra +2 to hit and +3/+5 to damage.

And I couldn't imagine playing Knights of the Old Republic without being called "meatbag."