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

[Infinitron]

What Hormalakh and tuluse said.

It's kind of funny that it's easier for RPGs to support the logical implications of mass murder than of minor delinquency.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

What Hormalakh and tuluse said.

It's kind of funny that it's easier for RPGs to support the logical implications of mass murder than of minor delinquency.

Yeah, usually the consequences of a failed pickpocket and flat out murdering a bunch of innocent people is the same (town turns hostile). I always got a chuckle out of your loving foster father(who's ready to lay down his life for you) electrocuting your ass if you try to pickpocket him (and fail) in BG.

 

[Rake]

limiting player's freedom in the way that IE games didn't.

How so? I don't remember being able to loot the STORES of murdered shopkeepers in any of the IE games. What Chaotic Heretic wants is a feature taken straight from Arcanum. Nothing wrong with him liking Fallout and Arcanum more than BG2, but Obsidian isn't obliged to make the game more like those games when they promished an IE experience.

 

[Krash]

Decado

What blobbert said. Decades old games have much more features and player agency cause it was just passionate people making the games they want to play. And you can feel that charm.

Now ith inXile and Obsidian KSers are bent on designing a optimum product for the audience, with decisions/features just a list of checkboxes.

You're really trying sooo hard




If inXile and Obsidian wanted optimum product, then you know maybe they wouldn't be making RPGs?

Sawyer is pretty damn obviously passionate, ffs he even does things his fanbase doesn't want him to do because he thinks it will improve the game.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

How so? I don't remember being able to loot the STORES of murdered shopkeepers in any of the IE games. What Chaotic Heretic wants is a feature taken straight from Arcanum. Nothing wrong with him liking Fallout and Arcanum more than BG2, but Obsidian isn't obliged to make the game more like those games when they promished an IE experience.

Sure but I was responding to JC (not Chaotic_Heretic) and his point about what would the option to kill shopkeepers (which was featured in IE games) add to the game, not whether you could loot the stuff they selled afterwards.

 

[Surf Solar]

The goons with nothing worth stealing in the older games had really no good reason to get pickpocketed, and the goons who you'd want to pickpocket and "attach a bomb" to, you can do that in this system just as well.

So? Why not let the player decide on which useless goons he wants to waste time or not? Why does the developer have to decide where the player is supposed to have fun and where not?

 

[kris]

Why is being able to kill everyone and anything so important? In PnP sessions, sure shit might go wrong and you may end up killing someone you had not expected too. What does being able to kill everyone and anything achieve? OMG IMMURSHUN?

It doesn't add anything to the game, so it is just retarded immurshun. Funny that the codex always mocks others when they talk about immersion in other games, but when they do it...oh no, that is serious business.

Well, this really was something that came up with some "newer" (old now!) games that had main quests that would be broken if people in this quest-chain died and therefore was made unkillable. It is from that the "codex" got this into a pet-peeve if I understant it correctly. So the real reason many had an aversion for it was because the main quest was built in a stupid way. A linear one were plot wait for PC to talk with person A->B->C. sure there was and is a few people who claimed it is important to be able to kill everyone in a village just because, but the ones that really do that in the game or so few that they can be ignored. Not to forget that they do that after they are tired of the game.

good choice of avatar

 

[Roguey]

the funny thing is that josh hasn't really said anything about killing shopkeepers and stealing their loot. that's coming out of their ass.

I am 100% certain you won't be able to kill shopkeepers and steal all their loot. Much like BG2 and the IWDs, some of the best items will be available for sale. Getting a bunch of powerful items for free is stupid.

Yeah, but Codex wants immersion to come from a well designed world and great amount of reactivity in the game (think of Deus Ex for example in which most C&C is cosmetic but NPCs reacting to many of the random stuff you do is one of the things people love about the game) while for your average modern gamer it probably means a lot of scripted events viewed from the 1st person perspective (with a bunch of QTE thrown in as well) and shiny graphics.

Funny you should cite Deus Ex, considering that people who sold you items in that game were either immortal or wouldn't drop what they had for sale after you killed them. If you could kill them and get everything they had, why would you ever buy anything from them?

Much like the "I want to bash/blow up locks" debate, this is another case of disingenuity where the people demanding this feature really just want to get powerful items but don't want to pay them.

 

[sea]

Simple explanation: magic - a merchant's items area tied to the merchant's life force and the instant he dies, the items are burned to ash. You could even be clever and have the same type of magic factor into a quest somehow (like a political extremist who puts the same spell on a hostage to prevent you from killing him). Easy peasy.

 

[Roguey]

With the grimoire example, Josh said he wasn't interested in devoting resources to explaining abstract game concepts. Weird architecture, yes.

 

[SCO]

sperg bullshit is a resource now?

 

[Roguey]

Any writing in the game is a resource. They have better things to write about than "why store inventories disappear when you kill the shopkeeper" especially since no one gave a damn when it came to the other IE games.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

If inXile and Obsidian wanted optimum product, then you know maybe they wouldn't be making RPGs?

Optimum for them. No publisher buttrape, get paid fully funded in advance by nostalgia
They tried that for years. Remember how Obsidian got buttfucked by Bethesda in FNV?
And inXile had Hunted the Demons Forge and thaose iphone casuals.
Didn’t work out too well for them did it?

Sawyer is pretty damn obviously passionate, ffs he even does things his fanbase doesn't want him to do because he thinks it will improve the game.

Sawyer is an aspie robot who uas sacrificed his emotions for the quest to achieve

 

[Decado]

Now ith inXile and Obsidian KSers are bent on designing a optimum product for the audience, with decisions/features just a list of checkboxes.

I think this is the problem, right here. Certain people seem unable to credit a development studio (any development studio!) with a desire to make a good game. These people think every development studio is out to fuck them, every time, all the time. I'm always forced to wonder if these people have worked a day in their lives on a creative project, or know what it is like to be on a creative team, or know what it is like to work passionately in a field you really like.

But it is this kind of silly, paranoid shit that ends up painting Josh Sawyer -- easily one of the best CRPG minds of his day, at least as far as conceptualizing is concerned -- as some kind of industry stooge or sell out. It is completely fucking ridiculous. And all because he's not making FO1 with swords. It is laughably idiotic. You are perfectly free to disagree with his design decisions, but to claim they are coming from a love of money or a desire to fuck over Codex posters just demonstrates what I pointed out earlier: a complete lack of self-awareness, and an unrealistic view of your place in the universe.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

...Josh Sawyer -- easily one of the best CRPG minds of his day...

sup Roguey.

 

[Decado]

Nah.

 

[Zed]

And all because he's not making FO1 with swords.

Oh man, I'd like that.

No update this week. Last update feels like more than a week ago. Oh maaan.

 

[Decado]

And all because he's not making FO1 with swords.

Oh man, I'd like that.

I would too.

 

[aleph]

Simple explanation: magic - a merchant's items area tied to the merchant's life force and the instant he dies, the items are burned to ash. You could even be clever and have the same type of magic factor into a quest somehow (like a political extremist who puts the same spell on a hostage to prevent you from killing him). Easy peasy.

Isn't this one these "solutions" that explain one thing and but introduce dozens of new issues? Like, can this magic be neutralized by the player. If not, why not, is this types of magic so much more powerful than any other type in the section? If this magic is common, would not everyone who guards some thing super important (quest items!) use it? If not it is not common, how come every merchant has access to it? And so on...

Well, maybe one should not make up bullshit excuses for game mechanics that break the setting and are actually only included for gameplay reasons. Either design setting and gameplay together in an coherent manner, or just be frank about it and explain the player why there is a clash between setting and gameplay. Maybe it is there for a good reason.

 

[Roguey]

JES posted up a storm.

Attacks will result in impact animations using our Interrupt/Concentration system, which means that sometimes they will play and sometimes they won't depending on the attack being used and the stats of the attacker/defender. However, every time a character gets hit it will always play a particle effect (blood, flames, sparks, etc.).

How very Dragon Age.

Our general approach to the stealth system is to use the current implementation unless it proves to be too simple in the long run. Other than time, there's nothing that prevents us from adding on elements like cones of sight and other tidbits, but we are, after all, replacing a system where failure and success came down to a die roll. It is extremely easy to make a stealth system that is overwhelming in complexity, so we're starting with something that is basic but feels like a solid starting point.

Always Right.

Rogues in PoE qualify for Sneak Attacks in a large number of circumstances now, almost all of them being conditions on the target (e.g. Flanked, Prone, etc.). In the case of Flanked, the rogue doesn't even have to be one of the characters doing the flanking. Many of the other conditions are ones that rogues gain the ability to inflict. At higher levels, they gain additional bonuses if their targets are suffering from two or more of the qualifying conditions. So if there's a Flanked target that gets knocked Prone, the rogue gains even higher damage bonuses.

I don't quite understand the deal with rogues not having to be the one doing the flanking--does that mean playtesting proved Grunker right all along and he decided to abandon the whole positioning aspect of backstabs? Before he gets smug about that I'll have to remind you that I predicted Josh would change it if playtesting proved it Not-Fun.

We don't have any plans to make FF a toggle. Our approach with difficulty is to add or remove enemies to change the tactical considerations of encounters and to hide or reveal information based on user preferences. FF is just a part of how some spells work and I don't think it's a good idea to make that something the player can toggle. It changes the values of those spells too much, IMO.
...
When FF gets turned off, the effectiveness of all spells that could have FF goes up significantly. If a subset of AoEs are to be markedly powerful compared to alternatives, FF (or some equivalent) should exist as a drawback. This allows the player to choose between using powerful friend-or-foe AoEs, less powerful foe-only AoEs, and powerful targeted spells. When FF gets turned off, that middle category largely becomes obsolete and even the targeted spells logically get bumped down a peg.
...
Yeah, FF is definitely a deciding factor when I'm picking a spell to cast. There are a few foe-only ones that don't quite pack as heavy a punch as the friend-or-foes, but they are the tactically safe option.

I like this explanation of why FF can't be a toggle better than David Gaider's "Players will turn it off/on without knowing what it does and get mad forgetting they can change it back."

And all because he's not making FO1 with swords.

Oh man, I'd like that.

I would too.

It was called Arcanum and it wasn't received as well.

 

[Visperas]

Well, I wasn't talking about PoE specifically or where should Obsidian spend their budget (yeah, I know which thread I am but c'mon).In my opinion, the more choices you have in a RPG the better and if there's true consecuences to your choices, that's just great. To tell the truth I don't really care if merchants are unkillable in PoE since I'm not the kind of player to go down that route but I can apreciate a game that let's you do it and throws some solid consecuences at you because of it.

 

[Grunker]

the more choices you have in a RPG the better

No. Fuck off. Here's why.

Reactivity demands resources, and lots of them. You people started this discussion with a demand for killable merchants that dropped their inventory. Then when countered with the completely game-breaking effect, your rebuttal was that the killing demands consequences. And thus the fan-dreaming of endless budgets crept on.

 

[Roguey]

As has been stated before, you probably will be able to kill all merchants. You just won't be able to take the things found in the shop user interface.

New Vegas had a similar deal. There was an exception when it came to all the items that existed in the world in the Silver Rush but that's because wiping those people out required effort/creativity and would permanently remove a consistent source of energy weapons (though iirc the gun runners would pick up some of the slack).

 

[Grunker]

Silver Rush

God, I loved how that was done. It is pretty amusing that one of RPG history's best merchants (Silver Rush) and worst murchants (Gun Runners) existed side by side.

 

[Roguey]

The Gun Runners' Vendortron kiosk is a great example of Josh protecting players from themselves. It'll always be there for you.