Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Interview with Josh Sawyer at Hardbloxx

Western

Arcane
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
5,934
Location
Australia
Codex 2012 Codex 2014 Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Yeah, Obsidian have the most experienced RPG devs around, people who worked for +20 making RPGs, their lead design arrogantly piss on every other system out there, and the reason why PoE sucks is because it uses a new engine... I see now.

Oh, and Codexers are fucking stupid, they can't differentiate content from system. Or maybe Obisidan devs are fuckign stupid, since apparently they designed the system one way, then filled it with content another way! Regardless, Emperor's New Clothes guys, only intelligent people see how cool PoE's system are.

How can you get more apologist than this? Maybe by endlessly white-knighting the game without even playing it. Seriously man, WTF?

I thought Obsidian were whining about how a lot of their staff hadn't made this sort of game before, If that's the case it would explain a lot.

Hilariously, the systems would have been better (and they probably would have saved time) if they just adapted Pathfinder or some open source 3.5 edition rule set.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
It's not just itemization (which is excellent for a low level campaign), BG1 already had well designed party-vs-party encounters, lethal mages (from the 1st level onwards thanks to spells like Horror and Mirror Image), nasty status effects (poison, web, hold, charm etc.), party members that could come to blows (Harpers vs Zhentarim) and leave/attack if you jerk them around, a very well designed big city bustling with life (Baldur's Gate obviously) etc. It was a solid foundation to build upon.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,831
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
That's the point, BG needed to improve its content and expand its system. PoE needs to improve its content and CHANGE its system.

Which they won't do. Their target audience are people that don't care about systems which is evident by the interview content. There are some Codexers that care about and really like PE's systems, but those people aren't really part of the target audience, just collateral benefits. This is not a project of passion for any of the 'main devs', so it's not going to get project of passion level of input on the design side. There is passion there about doing a good job for the company and pleasing the goons and journos, but beyond that most of the designers etc would probably rather be working on something else (like a turn-based game).
 

Jedi Exile

Arcanum
Patron
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
1,179
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Their target audience are people that don't care about systems which is evident by the interview content.

Well, he wasn't giving the interview to the Codex, so it's only natural that systems weren't the main subject of discussion.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
Who would ask for a Shadowrun Returns DLC when they couldn't get the OC right? Good thing we didn't have to.
A lot of what was improved and changed in Dragonfall came from consumer feedback/backlash, such as the save system.

Saying "hey, the save system sucked, improve it!" is very different from saying "hey, the stronghold you did sucked, do 11 of those".
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did. You're reading stuff that isn't there, and nitpicking like an SJW, finding flaws in every single comma.

I liked the game and haven't posted one tenth as much about it as you have. I don't get it, are you obsessed or something? Why does all the haters feel like posting a fucking novella in every thread?
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
Sadly, posts like I quoted above is the norm with the haters. Josh can't make a statement like "I don't like X" without the haters taking it as a personal slight. On the codex, of all things. The Codex, which is fucking funded on people straight-talking and not hiding their preferences, these "codexers" become totally butthurt if Josh states a preference of his, no matter how inoffensive.

Then, much like SJWs, game journos and other idiots, they start whining about how Josh doesn't "respect his userbase" or how he is too "offensive" and other shit. And as mentioned you never write less than half a novellette about it. In short, you're being hysterical women on your periods, in addition to acting anti-codexian.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,735
Sadly, posts like I quoted above is the norm with the haters. Josh can't make a statement like "I don't like X" without the haters taking it as a personal slight. On the codex, of all things. The Codex, which is fucking funded on people straight-talking and not hiding their preferences, these "codexers" become totally butthurt if Josh states a preference of his, no matter how inoffensive.

Seems to me that people are straight-talking in return, making their preferences clear. It seems strange to consider criticism of devs "anti-codexian" or remark on there being more critical posts than fanboy posts about a given game (and there are actually plenty of fanboy posts about this one). On the codex, of all things.
 

Volrath

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
4,299
It's not just itemization (which is excellent for a low level campaign), BG1 already had well designed party-vs-party encounters, lethal mages (from the 1st level onwards thanks to spells like Horror and Mirror Image), nasty status effects (poison, web, hold, charm etc.), party members that could come to blows (Harpers vs Zhentarim) and leave/attack if you jerk them around, a very well designed big city bustling with life (Baldur's Gate obviously) etc. It was a solid foundation to build upon.
Those rose tinted goggles man, I want them. Baldur's Gate 1 was a fucking piece of shit.
 

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,499
Actually, I think what he may be saying is that his idea of a dream RPG wouldn't be popular with people - eg, a turn-based, statless, classless RPG set in medieval Prussia with woodcut-like graphics.
I'd like to see that. Reminds me Serpent in Staglands, still unplayable after 7 patches.:negative:

It's already been patched to version 10, and it plays just fine...
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,310
Location
Terra da Garoa
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did.
Request to add depth =/= Request to make 11 strongholds. You should at least try to understand the context of a conversation before butting in to say bullshit like how criticizing a developer is now "anti-codexian".
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Those rose tinted goggles man, I want them. Baldur's Gate 1 was a fucking piece of shit.

Not the point I was making (stop sucking Obsidian dick for a moment and pay attention), it wasn't regarding whether BG1 is a good game or not but that it was a solid foundation for the sequel. Most of the things BG2 was lauded for where already there in a weaker/undeveloped form in BG1.

Now with PoE on the other hand, many of its aspects would need to be overhauled or cut (itemization/crafting, separation of combat and non-combat state, engagement system, stealth system etc.) for the sequel to be such an improvement from a gameplay perspective otherwise you'll get same shit in a different package and higher numbers.
 

Hegel

Arcane
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
3,274
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did. You're reading stuff that isn't there, and nitpicking like an SJW, finding flaws in every single comma.

I liked the game and haven't posted one tenth as much about it as you have. I don't get it, are you obsessed or something? Why does all the haters feel like posting a fucking novella in every thread?
Sadly, posts like I quoted above is the norm with the haters. Josh can't make a statement like "I don't like X" without the haters taking it as a personal slight. On the codex, of all things. The Codex, which is fucking funded on people straight-talking and not hiding their preferences, these "codexers" become totally butthurt if Josh states a preference of his, no matter how inoffensive.

Then, much like SJWs, game journos and other idiots, they start whining about how Josh doesn't "respect his userbase" or how he is too "offensive" and other shit. And as mentioned you never write less than half a novellette about it. In short, you're being hysterical women on your periods, in addition to acting anti-codexian.

(regarding crpg rulesets) "Pretty much all games get it wrong."
"Honestly, I think it's really sad that RPGs essentially get a pass on having fundamentally junk core gameplay. And yes, I do consider combat to be a core gameplay element of most RPGs."
"An awesome game with a crappy ruleset would be a better game if it had a better ruleset. Again, why grit your teeth and accept fundamentally dumb systems and their dumb adaptations into different media when such things clearly could be designed and executed better?"
"'Designer off in the clouds' generally only works out when the designer has a very solid technical understanding and focuses heavily on both gameplay mechanics and player experience. Most designers really couldn't give two shits about either."



:mca: :lol:
 
Unwanted

Irenaeus II

Unwanted
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
3,251
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Desespero
Nice interview, it seems Sawyer has acknowledged most of the flaws that were raised at the game by the fans. I don't consider them flaws, since the lack of party AI, shallow depth of the stronghold content, reduced combat challenge in the late game don't particularly bother me. However, I'm interested in knowing what he thinks was wrong about the pacing of the first Act, considering I have played it with six different characters already and find it very well paced for a variety of builds/personalities.

On the discussion of MCA's participation in PoE: as much as I liked Durance and GM, the other companions are very fun to play with. Their quest, dialogues, archetypes were really appealing to me, since they were very well designed and integrated with the lore of the game. As for the future of the company without MCA, I hope they get passionate guys to continue working on conventional cRPGs. I'm fairly sure Avallone's head wasn't on conventional cRPGs anymore. The way he played Arcanum was a brutal shock to me and speaks poorly of his interest in cRPGs.

Overall, I'm happy that Sawyer promises the PoE system and setting will be built on for next games, since they both are a lot of fun to play with. Can't wait to see the expansion, hope it adds a lot of good gameplay and well written content. I'll definitely throw huge bucks in their direction if they continue to provide me with high level entertainment.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
3,213
Location
Vostroya
It's not just itemization (which is excellent for a low level campaign), BG1 already had well designed party-vs-party encounters, lethal mages (from the 1st level onwards thanks to spells like Horror and Mirror Image), nasty status effects (poison, web, hold, charm etc.), party members that could come to blows (Harpers vs Zhentarim) and leave/attack if you jerk them around, a very well designed big city bustling with life (Baldur's Gate obviously) etc. It was a solid foundation to build upon.
Those rose tinted goggles man, I want them. Baldur's Gate 1 was a fucking piece of shit.
It's all in perspective, mate. I thought that BG1&2 were mediocre upon release (I blame playing Fallout 1&2 earlier than BG), never even finished the second one and its expansions. But prior to playing PoE I decided to replay them (with mods), and, well. Funny thing happened. They are actually better than I remember them. Granted, in many aspects its due to mods, both AI and items-related, also some added quests are decent (most fanmade companions are shit though). Probably the trick was also in that I went into replays with severely lowered expectations.

Oh well, it all had a negative side too - after replaying BG it become way harder for me to overlook all that flaws which PoE has.
 

Crescent Hawk

Cipher
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
664
PoE has a better story than Dragonfall. I agree with people saying the setting could be better, but the amount of hate its receiving is not because the game is bad, its because its just "okay". I dont know if they plan on building from here on, but I also think they would actually prefer to make a turn based game.
 

lurker3000

Arcane
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
1,714
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did.
Request to add depth =/= Request to make 11 strongholds. You should at least try to understand the context of a conversation before butting in to say bullshit like how criticizing a developer is now "anti-codexian".

I always feel like people get the BG2 stronghold system mixed up with the modded version. When Balderdash (or who ever it was) made that patch that let you do all the strongholds during a play-through they all sort of blended together. Some of the individual strongholds were pretty lame (Cleric) some were annoying (Thieves) some were short (Druids) but taken as a whole they added up to the illusion of a good system. Its also part of the reason there feels like there is so much stuff to do in Act 2 - people were always telling you to run off to this stronghold or that.

Also remember that the only stronghold quest worth doing from a reward standpoint was the Paladins one. Nothing about any of the other ones is memorable besides some mid-level loot and a little xp.
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,310
Location
Terra da Garoa
You see, that's the soulless viewpoint that comes with Sawyerism, the utter lack of understanding of what is fun.

The thing that PoE lacks the most is that feeling of accomplishment, of progression, of conquest. The sense of adventure. Yes, some of BGII's strongholds were short, but it had SIX of those. And its castle already was much more interesting and fleshed out than PoE's entire stronghold system. How fucking awesome it's to find a planar sphere, kill the mage who rules ad it take it for yourself? To be leader of a thieves guild? To challenge the leader of a druid grove? To be accepted into The Order Of The Most Sacred Heart?

Those are adventures, they are cool stuff people like to do. They are FUN.

In comparison, PoE gives you a castle (cool!) then devolve it into a shitty money-sink mini-game. On BGII I'm arguing with merchants, solving love triangles and defending my fort from an evil baron. On PoE I pay XXX money to get a YYY bonus and raise my reputatioin level in 5, so that I get more defense slots against random invaders that have neither name nor purpose. That's not an adventure, that's a Facebook social game. It's fucking Clash of Clans on my RPG.
 

Crescent Hawk

Cipher
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
664
I dont think its only the first act that lame in PoE, the game seem a mix of interesting fantasy stuff, with some really weird and ugly stuff. They should have been more original with the races and world, nobody would try to compare it to forgotten realms anyway.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did.
Request to add depth =/= Request to make 11 strongholds. You should at least try to understand the context of a conversation before butting in to say bullshit like how criticizing a developer is now "anti-codexian".

Read it again then:

Josh: It is a quest hub (for bounties), but even in our original design, it was supposed to be an optional system, not required outside of the first part of the critical path. I do think that the content in the stronghold fell short of what we wanted in terms of depth, which is the most common complaint I’ve seen from players. If we have a stronghold (or strongholds) in a future game, it’s something we are going to focus on improving.

So. He agrees the system needs more depth, and says he hopes to add more in the future.

But, what you're nitpicking on is that he wrote "(or strongholds)" right? See this is SJW level nitpickery. You have already decided that these two words have meant he doesn't intend to add depth, just add more strongholds instead of one. What do you base this on? Certainly not his words. They don't outline the point further, and thinking that's what he meant isn't close to a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote. But you have decided it's true and used that argument several times already.

This is so typical of the anti-sawyer brigade, I see this kind of dishonesty/superbutthurt in every thread, often over similarly bullshit causes. Even the smallest sentence fragment can throw you off balance, because you are a bunch of whiny, whiny little bitches.

Sadly, posts like I quoted above is the norm with the haters. Josh can't make a statement like "I don't like X" without the haters taking it as a personal slight. On the codex, of all things. The Codex, which is fucking funded on people straight-talking and not hiding their preferences, these "codexers" become totally butthurt if Josh states a preference of his, no matter how inoffensive.

Seems to me that people are straight-talking in return, making their preferences clear. It seems strange to consider criticism of devs "anti-codexian" or remark on there being more critical posts than fanboy posts about a given game (and there are actually plenty of fanboy posts about this one). On the codex, of all things.

No one considers criticism anti-codexian. It's the extreme butthurt about it that is anti-codexian. And the way you always whine about him not respecting your feelz and your gamez. And getting hysterical over sentence fragments/dishonest citations, like above.


That said. I just hope you will stay away from the expansion, so that we can have something resembling sane debate over it. But then who am I kidding, we all know you will buy it and play it to it's conclusion, then proceed to spend 3-4 times as much time writing angry posts about it, as you have spent playing it.
 
Weasel
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
1,865,735
No one considers criticism anti-codexian. It's the extreme butthurt about it that is anti-codexian. And the way you always whine about him not respecting your feelz and your gamez. And getting hysterical over sentence fragments/dishonest citations, like above.

That said. I just hope you will stay away from the expansion, so that we can have something resembling sane debate over it. But then who am I kidding, we all know you will buy it and play it to it's conclusion, then proceed to spend 3-4 times as much time writing angry posts about it, as you have spent playing it.

Ok, I think I've got it. I'm the "butthurt" one around here and I should stay away from the expansion so I don't spoil the debate. I wouldn't want to be anti-codexian so I'm happy to oblige.
:salute:
 

felipepepe

Codex's Heretic
Patron
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
17,310
Location
Terra da Garoa
This is a tremendously stupid and whiny post. Josh explicitly says in this interview that they will focus on adding more depth to the stronghold, because player feedback said they weren't satisfied with it. It is exactly the same as what you claim to want, and which Shadowrun did.
Request to add depth =/= Request to make 11 strongholds. You should at least try to understand the context of a conversation before butting in to say bullshit like how criticizing a developer is now "anti-codexian".

Read it again then:

Josh: It is a quest hub (for bounties), but even in our original design, it was supposed to be an optional system, not required outside of the first part of the critical path. I do think that the content in the stronghold fell short of what we wanted in terms of depth, which is the most common complaint I’ve seen from players. If we have a stronghold (or strongholds) in a future game, it’s something we are going to focus on improving.

So. He agrees the system needs more depth, and says he hopes to add more in the future.

But, what you're nitpicking on is that he wrote "(or strongholds)" right? See this is SJW level nitpickery. You have already decided that these two words have meant he doesn't intend to add depth, just add more strongholds instead of one. What do you base this on? Certainly not his words. They don't outline the point further, and thinking that's what he meant isn't close to a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote. But you have decided it's true and used that argument several times already.

This is so typical of the anti-sawyer brigade, I see this kind of dishonesty/superbutthurt in every thread, often over similarly bullshit causes. Even the smallest sentence fragment can throw you off balance, because you are a bunch of whiny, whiny little bitches.
You're an idiot:
If we have a stronghold (or strongholds) in a future game
Hmmm.
In fact, if I were a BG2 fanatic, I'd start a "PoE2 demands" thread on the Obsidian forums right now, asking for multiple strongholds, asking for mage duels, etc.
Infinitron was the one who began this whole "multiple stronghold" talk, I was only replying to him that it makes no sense to add multiple of those when you can't even do one right.

But please, don't let reason get in the way of your pulsating butthurt. Clearly I'm the one here who's deciding what other people's words mean and whining like a little bitch. What kind of anti-codexer comes to an interview thread to debate said interview anyway? Really composed people come to talk bullshit about other's criticism instead.
 

Crescent Hawk

Cipher
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
664
I have no idea why are you both arguing, Josh said they would try to improve the rather lame stronghold we got in PoE. Thats it. Damn you dont get this kind of passion discussing the faults of DIvOS.
 

Gay-Lussac

Arcane
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
7,563
Location
Your mom
Nevermind me, trying to out-edge the Kool Kids.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom