Development Info Obsidian going down to South Park

[Vault Dweller]

:brofist:

For instance, even though Arcanum is in my top 10, I would find it perfectly understandable if someone called Arcanum a barely playable piece of shit because of the right reasons. I liked and endured the game despite all the flaws. Good parts were that good to me. Even ignoring the flaws, the good might not feel that good to somebody else.

The likes of VD would disagree, of course, for such have found the ultimate universal truth and have no qualms about enforcing it to the best of their abilities.

Why talk shit?

Nobody's ever argued that Arcanum was a perfect game. In fact, the consensus always was that it was a very flawed game (bloated character system, numerous balance issues, pretty awful and very disappointing combat systems, tons of filler combat, etc), yet when it comes to dialogue trees and role-playing, the game was second to none.

So, naturally, someone who associates RPG with dungeon crawling and monster killing would be disappointed and find the game all but unplayable. However, if someone likes role-playing (i.e. playing a game in a manner fitting your character and being able to make decisions), there is no reason not to like the game. None whatso-fucking-ever.

 

[Roguey]

I never claimed it as fact. All I claimed was that he wasn't wrong.

But he is wrong. And being dishonest. I remember right after his ragequit over the religious ghouls, he picked New Vegas up again (for some reason a bunch of people praising something means he has to try to like it too, never mind that his standards for whether or not he can enjoy something are extraordinarily different compared to most people's) and started posting about how much he was enjoying it (with caveats). Then a few months later he decided it was shit again.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

:brofist:

For instance, even though Arcanum is in my top 10, I would find it perfectly understandable if someone called Arcanum a barely playable piece of shit because of the right reasons. I liked and endured the game despite all the flaws. Good parts were that good to me. Even ignoring the flaws, the good might not feel that good to somebody else.

The likes of VD would disagree, of course, for such have found the ultimate universal truth and have no qualms about enforcing it to the best of their abilities.

Why talk shit?

Nobody's ever argued that Arcanum was a perfect game. In fact, the consensus always was that it was a very flawed game (bloated character system, numerous balance issues, pretty awful and very disappointing combat systems, tons of filler combat, etc), yet when it comes to dialogue trees and role-playing, the game was second to none.

So, naturally, someone who associates RPG with dungeon crawling and monster killing would be disappointed and find the game all but unplayable. However, if someone likes role-playing (i.e. playing a game in a manner fitting your character and being able to make decisions), there is no reason not to like the game. None whatso-fucking-ever.

villain is feeling uppity today. And, Arcanum is perfect, because the opinions of D&D nerds do not count when we are talking about a 97-04 era RPG. That isn't what they were going for. It wasn't the focus. What they focused on, they did perfectly. Throw the unofficial patch on top of that, and then all you have left is the combat, which is bearable despite all the cry babies saying it isn't.

It's so perfect that you want a mod that cuts out its uninspired parts?

 

[zeitgeist]

villain is feeling uppity today. And, Arcanum is perfect, because the opinions of D&D nerds do not count when we are talking about a 97-04 era RPG. That isn't what they were going for. It wasn't the focus. What they focused on, they did perfectly. Throw the unofficial patch on top of that, and then all you have left is the combat, which is bearable despite all the cry babies saying it isn't.

How would you assess the percentage of time spent on each major activity (such as dialogue navigation, combat, gameworld exploration/navigation, inventory/skill management etc.) the player focuses on while playing the game? Or to put it simply - what does the gameplay mostly consist of?

 

[St. Toxic]

I never claimed it as fact. All I claimed was that he wasn't wrong.

But he is wrong. And being dishonest. I remember right after his ragequit over the religious ghouls, he picked New Vegas up again (for some reason a bunch of people praising something means he has to try to like it too, never mind that his standards for whether or not he can enjoy something are extraordinarily different compared to most people's) and started posting about how much he was enjoying it (with caveats). Then a few months later he decided it was shit again.

Pretty much my own experience with the game. It doesn't exactly scream shit from the moment you boot it up, but give it a few hours and you're down to the brown and smelly layer of turd of which it is made.

And, as has been pointed out, you can't be wrong or dishonest with opinions, unless you don't know or want to share what you actually think.

 

[Roguey]

And, as has been pointed out, you can't be wrong or dishonest with opinions, unless you don't know or want to share what you actually think.

You can't call something "total shit" if there was a lengthy period of time where you enjoyed it because there were obviously some redeeming aspects there that made you enjoy it however brief it may have been. It's hyperbolic and edginess for the sake of edginess.

 

[Kill Do]

:brofist:

For instance, even though Arcanum is in my top 10, I would find it perfectly understandable if someone called Arcanum a barely playable piece of shit because of the right reasons. I liked and endured the game despite all the flaws. Good parts were that good to me. Even ignoring the flaws, the good might not feel that good to somebody else.

The likes of VD would disagree, of course, for such have found the ultimate universal truth and have no qualms about enforcing it to the best of their abilities.

Why talk shit?

Nobody's ever argued that Arcanum was a perfect game. In fact, the consensus always was that it was a very flawed game (bloated character system, numerous balance issues, pretty awful and very disappointing combat systems, tons of filler combat, etc), yet when it comes to dialogue trees and role-playing, the game was second to none.

So, naturally, someone who associates RPG with dungeon crawling and monster killing would be disappointed and find the game all but unplayable. However, if someone likes role-playing (i.e. playing a game in a manner fitting your character and being able to make decisions), there is no reason not to like the game. None whatso-fucking-ever.

No body has ever argued?
WE know people argue. You want argue. For instant, you are not understandable. The right reasons are your flaw. Expand beyond the consensus of one.

So naturally you will associate manners with ultimate universal truth. The likes of VD, what on youtube?

You are disappointing and forum bloat.

When you die the dialog trees will enjoy your nutrients. Numerous roles all played by you.

 

[Shadenuat]

I think Obsidian should make Daria RPG next. They would handle dialogues like...:

1) Irony
2) Irony
3) Sarcasm
4) Sarcasm
5) O_O

...well.

...what? I am trying to stay on topic

 

[St. Toxic]

You can't call something "total shit" if there was a lengthy period of time where you enjoyed it because there were obviously some redeeming aspects there that made you enjoy it however brief it may have been. It's hyperbolic and edginess for the sake of edginess.

What if you fall in love with this beautiful girl and as you're standing at the altar months later she suddenly takes her wig off and it's... Prosper.

It's not impossible for something to spoil the enjoyment you've had previously. A less lulzy example would be a story that hinges one some key plot device that gets completely fucked over towards the ending. Yes, the story was entertaining while it still had the potential to go somewhere, but once you take a giant shit on it, Stephen King style, there's just no way it can be redeemed.

Rpg's are even more complicated because they aren't merely linear narrative (well, it's certainly nice when they aren't) and demand that you probe and explore on your own to figure stuff out. That means there's a learning curve where you're just gathering information on how the game works and how the world operates and that on its own can actually be fun, but once you've got a handle on the situation, and decide that you've been exploring a shit-filled sewer, it isn't fun that you can redeem -- you just feel screwed.

 

[Roguey]

It's not impossible for something to spoil the enjoyment you've had previously. A less lulzy example would be a story that hinges one some key plot device that gets completely fucked over towards the ending. Yes, the story was entertaining while it still had the potential to go somewhere, but once you take a giant shit on it, Stephen King style, there's just no way it can be redeemed.

I've never seen a bad ending turn a story into "total shit." For example, I utterly hated the second part of The Diamond Age but that didn't make the first any less entertaining.

Rpg's are even more complicated because they aren't merely linear narrative (well, it's certainly nice when they aren't) and demand that you probe and explore on your own to figure stuff out. That means there's a learning curve where you're just gathering information on how the game works and how the world operates and that on its own can actually be fun, but once you've got a handle on the situation, and decide that you've been exploring a shit-filled sewer, it isn't fun that you can redeem -- you just feel screwed.

Sounds like a personal problem. Games are about the journey, not the destination anyway.

 

[St. Toxic]

I've never seen a bad ending turn a story into "total shit."

Then you're lucky.

For example, I utterly hated the second part of The Diamond Age but that didn't make the first any less entertaining.

Sounds like a personal problem. Games are about the journey, not the destination anyway.

Well, how much time would you say one needs to spend on a game to give it a fair review?

 

[Mangoose]

Sounds like a personal problem. Games are about the journey, not the destination anyway.

And the journey (of a story) is dependent on all the elements, not just the middle. The ending provides denouement, answers to questions, final character development steps, lessons learned, and more. A good ending can change your entire orientation/perspective and thus change your understanding of the journey that it closes. And so can a bad one.

 

[Roguey]

Well, how much time would you say one needs to spend on a game to give it a fair review?

A case-by-case thing though unless you're getting paid, spending more than a few hours on something you hate from the start is usually a waste of time.

And the journey (of a story) is dependent on all the elements, not just the middle. The ending provides denouement, answers to questions, final character development steps, lessons learned, and more. A good ending can change your entire orientation/perspective and thus change your understanding of the journey that it closes. And so can a bad one.

Playing a game for the story? Particularly the ending? What an odd thing to do. 90% of all games have shit endings because they run out of time or they just don't care since hardly anyone's going to see it (the vast majority of people still never finish them).

 

[St. Toxic]

I guess you laugh at jokes that omit punchlines as well.

 

[Lumpy]

Why talk shit?

Nobody's ever argued that Arcanum was a perfect game. In fact, the consensus always was that it was a very flawed game (bloated character system, numerous balance issues, pretty awful and very disappointing combat systems, tons of filler combat, etc), yet when it comes to dialogue trees and role-playing, the game was second to none.

So, naturally, someone who associates RPG with dungeon crawling and monster killing would be disappointed and find the game all but unplayable. However, if someone likes role-playing (i.e. playing a game in a manner fitting your character and being able to make decisions), there is no reason not to like the game. None whatso-fucking-ever.

Yes, of course there is. I play games for enjoyment. I don't give a shit that 10% of a game is absolutely brilliant, if the other 90% is downright awful.

Especially since dozens of RPGs have got combat right over the history of the genre. Too incompetent to accomplish that? Fine, maybe your talents lie elsewhere. Too dumb to refrain from filling the game with your shitty combat? Well, fuck you then.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Playing games for enjoyment? As of opposite to fucking what, Lumpy? Playing games to suffer for thy art?

The question is "what the fuck do you enjoy?" If you enjoy things that Arcanum did well, is there a reason not to like it?

 

[Lumpy]

Playing games for enjoyment? As of opposite to fucking what, Lumpy? Playing games to suffer for thy art?

Uh, yeah, playing games because you're a game developer, and you might be interested in how a particular game did a particular feature, the overall quality of the game notwithstanding. Like, you know, you.

The question is "what the fuck do you enjoy?" If you enjoy things that Arcanum did well, is there a reason not to like it?

Because I also happen to care about the areas where Arcanum did horribly. Including 'not wasting the player's time with mindbogglingly boring tripe'.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Playing games for enjoyment? As of opposite to fucking what, Lumpy? Playing games to suffer for thy art?

Uh, yeah, playing games because you're a game developer, and you might be interested in how a particular game did a particular feature, the overall quality of the game notwithstanding. Like, you know, you.

I think we can safely rule it out of the context of this conversation. We're talking about players here and their endorsement of games, not developers.

The question is "what the fuck do you enjoy?" If you enjoy things that Arcanum did well, is there a reason not to like it?

Because I also happen to care about the areas where Arcanum did horribly.

Me too. I expected a lot more and was disappointed with the combat system the most. And yet, the dialogues and options - you know, the meat of the game - were superb and could easily carry the game IF one enjoys such things.

I talked to a lot of gamers over the years. Many didn't like Arcanum and were disappointed for one reason or another: crappy combat, crappy animations and brown graphics, balance issues, filler combat, degradable weapons and armor, which forced people to use cheap spares most of the time, etc. Yet every dialogue trees and role-playing nut loved the game, which is why it remained the Codex top 10 RPG for 10 years. Sure as fuck not because people liked combat in the game.

 

[Johannes]

Especially since dozens of RPGs have got combat right over the history of the genre.

Meh, there's really just a handful of RPGs where the combat is fun and good when taken out of context.

What are these dozens of RPGs where combat is significantly better than Arcanums? I never thought Arcanums combat system is too bad by RPG standards, the dungeon design is just to stale most of the time.

 

[Kz3r0]

You can't call something "total shit" if there was a lengthy period of time where you enjoyed it because there were obviously some redeeming aspects there that made you enjoy it however brief it may have been. It's hyperbolic and edginess for the sake of edginess.

Sorry, but you are praising the decline here, meaning throwing in ideas because they are cool, nevermind how implement them in a sensible way.
Half assed endings are the trademark of the amateur or the hack, the best example of it is Lost.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/39031/Analyst_THQ_Could_Run_Out_Of_Cash_By_Q1_2013.php

"We think its cash position may be compromised. The company's debt covenants suggest to us that its line of credit must be repaid to avoid default, and we think that THQ is at risk of running out of cash by the June 2012 quarter."

Run Volition, run for your profits! Find new, sturdy shelter from the coming storm!



Also, while I have your attention, make Red Faction open world again. Also, new engine for the next Saints Row. May want to focus on a new character. Thanks.

 

[Roguey]

Half assed endings are the trademark of the amateur or the hack, the best example of it is Lost.

System Shock 2, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, The Witcher, Bloodlines, et al. were made by amateurs and hacks? Good to know.

 

[commie]

What was wrong with those endings? A shit ending is the PC version of EOB or those in days of yore where you'd get a 'THE END' that kicked you back to the DOS prompt. Maybe the buildup to many of the games you mention promised more than the ending offered but in most of those examples the endings were ok to good. PS:T had a great ending, Witcher had a decent ending, Deus Ex and Bloodlines too. SS2 was a bit derpy but more due to the whole last section being out of character. Haven't finished Arcanum yet so can't comment there.

 

[Kz3r0]

Half assed endings are the trademark of the amateur or the hack, the best example of it is Lost.

System Shock 2, Arcanum, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, The Witcher, Bloodlines, et al. were made by amateurs and hacks? Good to know.

Sorry, trying too hard.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Here's a challenge.

Name me a halfassed ending and I'll explain why that ending is awesome.