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

[Jaesun]

I already know that, doesn't make him any less of a faggot.

And what is it that you exactly know about him? Please enlighten me.

 

[Sensuki]

I reserve the right to call anyone a faggot who I don't like and anyone I don't like who's taste in games I also don't like.

 

[Hormalakh]

you are the epitome of class, Sensuki... calling another mod a faggot to a mod in a different site who might take offense to that.

and then to double down by implying that being gay is somehow something that should offend someone.

WAY TO GO!

--------------------

As for Roguey, he/she has actually mad e quite a few very thoughtful and informative posts in this thread, believe it or not.

...we need an update this tuesday!

 

[Infinitron]

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?search/28212732/&q=faggot&o=date&c[user][0]=1761

 

[Hormalakh]

Don't be a fag infinitron

that's like niggers saying nigga.

 

[FeelTheRads]

WAY TO GO!

Do you even visit the Codex?

We don't need another stalwart defender of the offended, btw.

 

[Roguey]

western developers just straight up have no idea how to make rpg combat compelling, whether turn based or real time or some mixture of the two

the overwhelming majority of RPG developers i talk to have minimal interest in designing interesting combat mechanics and/or content and it is unfortunate.

table flip gif

 

[Zeriel]

The overwhelming majority of "RPG developers" work for companies whose prime goal is making lots of money/shareholder value. Of course their primary interest is in broadening their audience, not making good games.

 

[Sensuki]

When you think about it Josh kinda tries to do half/half

 

[DraQ]

the overwhelming majority of RPG developers i talk to have minimal interest in designing interesting combat mechanics and/or content and it is unfortunate.

Then what the bloody fuck do they *DO*?

 

[ZagorTeNej]

When you think about it Josh kinda tries to do half/half

You know what they say about sitting on two chairs.

 

[tuluse]

Then what the bloody fuck they *DO*?

I think he means combat content, not all content. So I'm guessing writing NPCs and thinking of ways to stretch the game out because RPG players are by and large obsessed with number of hours the game lasts.

 

[DraQ]

Developers are hambureger helpers?

 

[Infinitron]

Also, creating combat that feels superficially "visceral" AKA awesome button.

 

[DraQ]

superficially "visceral"

Which is contradiction in terms.

Maybe that's why awesome buttons never actually feel awesome.

 

[Sensuki]

goddamn nazi infiltrator

Ich kan nichts sehen, halt hammerzeit!

 

[Space Satan]

Well, some developers have bright ideas, such as:
1. Dead Space is too scary and, thus, some people would not like it.
2. Ergo - make it brighter and add coop. Also add microtransactions to a single-player game.
3. PROFIT!!!!

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Developers are hambureger helpers?

I was thinking more like 'Troika.'

 

[Grunker]

Also, creating combat that feels superficially "visceral" AKA awesome button.

Eh? I would think his comments are mostly aimed at his own peers. It's no secret that he (rightfully) dislikes many RPGs for their lack of focus on how they actually play, mechanically. I would think he is talking just as much (if not more) about Tim Cain and Troika as BioWare or whatever.

 

[tuluse]

Eh? I would think his comments are mostly aimed at his own peers. It's no secret that he (rightfully) dislikes many RPGs for their lack of focus on how they actually play, mechanically. I would think he is talking just as much (if not more) about Tim Cain and Troika as BioWare or whatever.

I don't know, various quotes by Tim Cain show that he does care about making fun games, he's just not good at the mechanical side of things.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764

When asked to talk about Fallout's combat system, Tim Cain has noted "I think the strength of Fallout's combat system is that it was easy to understand and use, but still complex enough to give you many options on how to fight. Turn-based combat gives you more time to think of battle tactics, so combat feels richer - and a lot of people responded to that." (ref) Additionally, Tim explained "It also showed how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat." (ref) Feargus Urquhart later added "If you want to exactly represent GURPs, D&D or most other PnP RPGs then you have to go turn based, which was the decision for Fallout when it was GURPs." (ref)

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8416

The full quote was “I think if you’re not trying to make a work of art that is fun, and accessible, I don’t think you should try. You should worry less about the art, and more about how enjoyable it is." I was speaking directly to game developers who care more about form over function, who would rather have their game look good than be fun to play. These are the people who would remove a compelling game feature because they could not make the art look perfect. That's so opposite to my way of thinking that it took me a long time to even realize there were developers like that.

I care more about a game being fun than being beautiful, because no matter how good you look, people will move on to the next pretty thing and forget about you. If you make a fun game, people will remember that. And a fun game needs to be accessible, by which I mean that game had to present its rules clearly and then follow them. Don't give me a gun and then force me into dialogs. Don't let me stealth and then put in a boss who can see hiding creatures 100% of the time. Don't give me the power of flight and then force me into an underground dungeon. To me, a fun and accessible game teaches the player how to play it, lets them choose their own way through it, and then reward them for it.

The end of this quote is positively Sawyer-esque, and shows he does understand the problems Arcanum had.

 

[Zed]

hey guyz








update tomorrow?

 

[Grunker]

Eh? I would think his comments are mostly aimed at his own peers. It's no secret that he (rightfully) dislikes many RPGs for their lack of focus on how they actually play, mechanically. I would think he is talking just as much (if not more) about Tim Cain and Troika as BioWare or whatever.

I don't know, various quotes by Tim Cain show that he does care about making fun games, he's just not good at the mechanical side of things.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764

When asked to talk about Fallout's combat system, Tim Cain has noted "I think the strength of Fallout's combat system is that it was easy to understand and use, but still complex enough to give you many options on how to fight. Turn-based combat gives you more time to think of battle tactics, so combat feels richer - and a lot of people responded to that." (ref) Additionally, Tim explained "It also showed how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat." (ref) Feargus Urquhart later added "If you want to exactly represent GURPs, D&D or most other PnP RPGs then you have to go turn based, which was the decision for Fallout when it was GURPs." (ref)

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=8416

The full quote was “I think if you’re not trying to make a work of art that is fun, and accessible, I don’t think you should try. You should worry less about the art, and more about how enjoyable it is." I was speaking directly to game developers who care more about form over function, who would rather have their game look good than be fun to play. These are the people who would remove a compelling game feature because they could not make the art look perfect. That's so opposite to my way of thinking that it took me a long time to even realize there were developers like that.

I care more about a game being fun than being beautiful, because no matter how good you look, people will move on to the next pretty thing and forget about you. If you make a fun game, people will remember that. And a fun game needs to be accessible, by which I mean that game had to present its rules clearly and then follow them. Don't give me a gun and then force me into dialogs. Don't let me stealth and then put in a boss who can see hiding creatures 100% of the time. Don't give me the power of flight and then force me into an underground dungeon. To me, a fun and accessible game teaches the player how to play it, lets them choose their own way through it, and then reward them for it.

The end of this quote is positively Sawyer-esque, and shows he does understand the problems Arcanum had.

Talk is cheap.

Beyond that, Cain was just an example. I specifically recall Josh mentioning RPGs under one roof as object for his criticism about how designers fail to focus on gameplay.

 

[tuluse]

Talk is cheap.

the overwhelming majority of RPG developers i talk to have minimal interest in designing interesting combat mechanics and/or content and it is unfortunate.

According to Josh, most RPG developers don't even *talk* about making games fun.

Beyond that, Cain was just an example. I specifically recall Josh mentioning RPGs under one roof as object for his criticism about how designers fail to focus on gameplay.

I do wish to back off slightly. I think Cain does focus on making his games fun, but it's a different approach from Sawyer.
Cain's idea of fun: the player always has multiple real choices for how to handle the current situation
Sawyer's idea of fun: the choices presented to the player are actually fun to do

 

[Excidium]

the overwhelming majority of RPG developers i talk to have minimal interest in designing interesting combat mechanics and/or content and it is unfortunate.

Then what the bloody fuck do they *DO*?

uninteresting combat mechanics and/or content

 

[DraQ]

Talk is cheap.

Beyond that, Cain was just an example. I specifically recall Josh mentioning RPGs under one roof as object for his criticism about how designers fail to focus on gameplay.

OTOH when designers *do* focus on the gameplay, they do it completely ass-backwards, by trying to tailor it to completely arbitrary, abstract systems concocted with utter disregard for what they are meant to represent.

Case in point - Derpus Ex: IW and grorious universal ammo.