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

[Grunker]

A bit late to the conversation, but my 2 cents.

I totally agree with the concept that the little quirks about a game are the things that stick with you over time and make a good game great. But I really don't think killing or not killing shopkeepers has anything to do with that. Is something really a quirk if it's just a feature that was included in a 20 year old game that you really like? If PoE were really going to be great and memorable, it would need have its own small eccentricities, not recycled ones from Fallout or whatever other game.

I see where you're going, but I'd like to go further. Quriks are not what make games great and memorable; they're the lovely little details you recall when remembering great and memorable games.

Most games have neat little quirks, even most irredeemably shitty ones.

 

[BLOBERT]

BRO LOLOLLOL WINE BY HE BOX

 

[Apexeon]

BRO LOLOLLOL WINE BY HE BOX

I feel ya bro.

 

[Apexeon]

For example I feel Wasteland 2 is missing out on those little quirks at the moment.
Being all arty the death animations for critical hits in FO are first class.
That and the colours (gritty) brought the brutal nature of the wasteland in Fallout to life.
Remove the Death animations and FO would be a lesser product.

I haven't played Fallout for over 10 years but I still remember the critical hits and Foe's turning into meat chunks.
I also got pissed off in some town and laid waste to it after a quest bugged out (right after I downed a few beers).
The fact that I could have a mental break down in the game and express this blew my mind.
I then finished it off with wine.

 

[Lhynn]

Because the game becomes trivial and boring?

oh, wait, i forgot you think triviality is fun as long as it has a freedom-label stuck on it

Eh, i dont mind an endgame where you actually are a killing machine, youve earned it. Plus usually the direction it takes is more about story than about combat mechanics, youve had the whole get to be challenged, youve had the whole game full of obstacles, now it comes the time to close everything, it comes the time to end it.
It is the story that needs to carry the game at this point. It is obviously not fitting for every game, but i see nothing wrong with it being like that.
Again being a short sighted twat i see.

 

[Rivmusique]

If the gameplay becomes nothing but steam rolling, clearing every encounter without effort, it'd be better off closing that final bit with a slideshow or something. You can show the player's progression by throwing some of the old enemies that were once a threat at them, but something new and challenging should be there too.

 

[Lhynn]

If the gameplay becomes nothing but steam rolling, clearing every encounter without effort, it'd be better off closing that final bit with a slideshow or something. You can show the player's progression by throwing some of the old enemies that were once a threat at them, but something new and challenging should be there too.

something new at pretty much 15 minutes before the end?
do you work at bioware?

all kidding aside, endgame can be whatever you want it to be, theres nothing intrinsically wrong with making it easy. Endgame can work to empower the main character, or to challenge him more than ever before as a final test in his journey, to subvert his power, etc.
The very best part of max payne for me was when he climbed a building wrecking a full team of trained mercs, alone, while their boss freaked out.
If the game has been torturing you and challenging you for the past 40 hours who gives a shit? the problem isnt "easy end game", its "easy game."

Which is why i like what they are doing with AoD, i just wish i had the option of talking if i dont feel like fighting without facing certain failure and risking a game over.

 

[uaciaut]

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.

What was wrong about Gun Runners?

 

[ColCol]

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.

What was wrong about Gun Runners?

Well, for one, the setup. A robot in a booth. It looks like shit. It also looks like the a merchant was just thrown there for the fuck of it. It is like how some rpgs, the developers will just throw a random lone merchant somewhere (like before a final fight) to help the players out, not much thought behind it and it is nice. Yet, Gun runners aren't some random after thought merchant, they are one of the most important merchants in the game and will be visited frequently by players. Then you have the factory which has nothing in it. Now, I don't expect to be able to access all the GR inventory, but I do expect to find something nice. I'm sure this was intentional though.

 

[deuxhero]

(though iirc the gun runners would pick up some of the slack).

Which made story sense. The Gun Runner guy mentioned their energy weapon caravans were attacked (which Cass's quest indicates was the Silver Rush people), which is why they don't carry them. Getting rid of them stops the caravan attacks (presumably the gun runners know who did it, they know Crimson Caravan stole their schematics even if you did it undetected so they have some information network, but can't prove it, but know the Van Graffs were dealt with and use it to restart that trade).

 

[uaciaut]

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.

What was wrong about Gun Runners?

Yet, Gun runners aren't some random after thought merchant, they are one of the most important merchants in the game and will be visited frequently by players. Then you have the factory which has nothing in it.

I definitely agree that Gun Runners is underrepresented throughout the game, especially when you compare it to Silver Rush, i suspect there were time constraints that prevented them from giving them a larger active part in the game (like the GR part of Mclafferty's quest seems to have no effect on your interaction with them although it feels like it's supposed to).

I had no trouble with them being represented as sellers through a fortified kiosk though, having the best security on their vendor actually makes sense given what kind of firepower that robot sells.
On the other hand you have Silver Rush where you can just pick everything up and take it to their bathroom where you can just steal it, and that's supposed to be one of the best guarded vendors around.

 

[Rivmusique]

15 minutes

I was imagining something a bit longer (which is strange, 'endgame' doesn't really suggest a length I suppose). I guess because it's the PoE thread, but the IWD's were on my mind. An example of how I really don't like it, IWD: HoW. That final island is melee creature trash that you just roll through with auto-attacks, nothing interesting to challenge the level/gear/spells you're at, until the final room. Compare to vanilla IWD return to Easthaven, like 4 giants to stomp on, then 2 'boss' fights. So shitty nothing fights to stomp on to show you're all powerful, fair enough (though I'd prefer it was done a different way, maybe a creature that was once a 'boss' now comes as part of group fights. IWD2 kind of does it with the half-dragons). Just keep it quick and don't pack a map or two full of it, it's just padding.

 

[Roguey]

Sales is an indicator of quality now?

That was not the discussion we were having. You said it would cost legitimate players. I provided proof that it did not.

Another thing that I forgot to mention was that Brian Mitsoda spent two hours stuck on a fight in Lower Dorn's Deep because it never occurred to him to buff his characters before combat started. That's clearly not a problem with patience. Josh has/wants to make games his coworkers and fellow game developers are capable of playing. There are more Mitsodas, Avellones, and Brenneckes than there are Sawyers.

New Vegas rocks for a lot of reasons. Its endgame sucks in terms of gameplay however, and so does the Gun Runner shop.

Eh, the endgame wasn't amazing but it wasn't bad either. It's relatively quick, reflects your choices (Khans, Boomers, Remnants, etc) can be stealthed through, and can end with two Avellone-written conversations.

End game balance is a problem that plagues every RPG, and is probably the most consistent problem across all titles and from all developers. Some studios do better than others when it comes to making the end game actually difficult, but most of the time end games are cakewalks.

In New Vegas's case, the overpoweredness of your character was by design. Once again, bad players.

 

[Grunker]

I provided proof that it did not.

No you didn't. You provided proof that the game was good in spite of its flaws, with which I agree. Are you so autistic that games have only two meanings for you; good or bad? New Vegas does a lot of things right. Gun Runners is not one of those things.

Eh, the endgame wasn't amazing but it wasn't bad either. It's relatively quick

In my last playthrough (no mods that affected balance), I spent almost 1/3 of the game an unbeatable, divine, god-like machine of destruction. That's a sucky, sucky, horribly boring endgame from a gameplay-perspective.

In New Vegas's case, the overpoweredness of your character was by design. Once again, bad players.

So on one hand, you claim there's no cost to legitimate players, on the other, you say that the game design was PURPOSEFULLY UNBALANCED, something that must surely have made Sawyer turn in his grave, to favor bad ones?

 

[Crooked Bee]

Neither of you are approaching it from the perspective of Bad Players.

Doesn't Josh balance the game around the Hard difficulty level, though? Doesn't that mean he actually caters to competent players and not bad ones? Judging by his Arcanum LP, MCA will suck at this game no matter what, and so will any other "bad player", unless Josh just makes it click-to-win (and I don't think that's his intention). It's more about making the mechanics transparent - but you will still need to master them and not play like a retard. Or am I understanding his approach wrong?

 

[Infinitron]

It's really not that hard (heh) to make a difficult RPG of this style. Just take off the kiddy gloves and make the enemies hit you HARD, ffs.

You know those tough enemies in the IE games that would walk up to you, whack you once, you'd hear this crunchy sound of armor being punctured, and suddenly your character's portrait would have a huge red rectangle of lost HP on it, making you go FUUUUUUUUUUUU? That's what I'm talking about.

The world needs to be dangerous. Your character's well-being needs to be a scarce resource that must be guarded jealously.

 

[Roguey]

No you didn't. You provided proof that the game was good in spite of its flaws, with which I agree.

"It's a fool's errand, and one that'll cost legitimate players."
"New Vegas had more players than Fallout 3"
/conversation takes a weird turn

New Vegas does a lot of things right. Gun Runners is not one of those things.

I'll defend the Vendortron to the death.

In my last playthrough (no mods that affected balance), I spent almost 1/3 of the game an unbeatable, divine, god-like machine of destruction. That's a sucky, sucky, horribly boring endgame from a gameplay-perspective.

No one's forcing you to hit the level cap or complete all that content in one go. Josh is a proponent of people getting bored of his games and putting them down for good instead of playing them endlessly.

So on one hand, you claim there's no cost to legitimate players, on the other, you say that the game design was PURPOSEFULLY UNBALANCED, something that must surely have made Sawyer turn in his grave, to favor bad ones?

Balance is subjective. To the average Fallout 3 player, base new Vegas is balanced. To the average Josh, JSawyer is balanced.

Doesn't Josh balance the game around the Hard difficulty level, though? Doesn't that mean he actually caters to competent players and not bad ones?

New Vegas was balanced for normal difficulty with hardcore mode enabled. They didn't bother messing with any of the other inherited difficulty settings, except removing the increased XP.

Judging by his Arcanum LP, MCA will suck at this game no matter what, and so will any other "bad player", unless Josh just makes it click-to-win (and I don't think that's his intention). It's more about making the mechanics transparent - but you will still need to master them and not play like a retard. Or am I understanding his approach wrong?

That's more or less correct for this project. He knows the capabilities of the average IE player compared to the average Fallout 3 fan.

 

[Grunker]

"It's a fool's errand, and one that'll cost legitimate players."
"New Vegas had more players than Fallout 3"
/conversation takes a weird turn

Aaaah, I see the issue. Not "cost legitimate players" as in "fewer will play it", as in "the game will be worse for legitimate players because of that decision." Glad we cleared that up. I presume you agree.

I'll defend the Vendortron to the death.

Because in the choice between retards and people who want to experience what the developers wanted them to, you pick retards?

No one's forcing you to hit the level cap or complete all that content in one go. Josh is a proponent of people getting bored of his games and putting them down for good instead of playing them endlessly.

The excuse for a poorly designed late game now is that I played too much content? Are you serious?

Balance is subjective. To the average Fallout 3 player, base new Vegas is balanced. To the average Josh, JSawyer is balanced.

While I haven't played it (I will), none of the solutions introduced in JSawyer fixes the lategame.

Your claim is that balancing the game around bad players have no cost for legitimate players in terms of game quality. Yet you keep confirming that "balance is subjective" and replying to my arguments not with "you're wrong" but with "yeah, ok, but that was made for bad players."

Clearly, there are design decisions that do not benefit legitimate players that are made to compensate for the retardedness of retards. As a primary spokesperson for the association of "people who do not fall apart physically and mentally when they lose in a video game" I feel like it's OK for me to represent the interests of the former.

 

[Infinitron]

Josh is a proponent of people getting bored of his games and putting them down for good instead of playing them endlessly.

Is he? My impression from his whole "games for people who like games" speech from 2012 is that he's thrilled to finally make a game that is balanced for completionists, essentially. "People who like games" are people who don't skip content.

The fact that people can't be expected to actually play the entire game is among the top causes, if not THE top cause, of dumbing down in AAA games today. It makes them impossible to balance. And we all know that Josh loves balance...

 

[Grunker]

And we all know that Josh loves balance...

nono

balance is subjective now haven't you heard

 

[uaciaut]

While I haven't played it (I will), none of the solutions introduced in JSawyer fixes the lategame.

How does changing max-level to 35, quartering starting hp and loweing hp/level not fix the late game? And how do you speak like you know for sure when you haven't even fucking played it? )

You're still strong late-game but fighting droves of elite legionnaires or NCR troopers or Deathclaws that spawn on your ass in LR is no easy task.

Would've liked NPC's to use consumables/drugs too but at least most end-game opponents get natural DR as a stat.

 

[Grunker]

While I haven't played it (I will), none of the solutions introduced in JSawyer fixes the lategame.

How does changing max-level to 35, quartering starting hp and loweing hp/level not fix the late game? And how do you speak like you know for sure when you haven't even fucking played it? )

You're a demi-god way before 35, and at that point HP doesn't matter. Everyone dies in VAT as soon as you see them.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'll lose. We'll see when next I play NV.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

It's really not that hard (heh) to make a difficult RPG of this style. Just take off the kiddy gloves and make the enemies hit you HARD, ffs.

You know those tough enemies in the IE games that would walk up to, whack you once, you'd hear this crunchy sound of armor being punctured, and suddenly your character's portrait would have a huge red rectangle of lost HP on it, making you go FUUUUUUUUUUUU? That's what I'm talking about.

The world needs to be dangerous. Your character's well-being needs to be a scarce resource that must be guarded jealously.

Indeed, it isn't hard (for a competent designer which Josh is), it's a matter of will and the right approach/mindset rather than ability.

Know what is hard though? Designing a game that goes to great lengths to satisfy/not scare away casual players while still retaining decent challenge for the niche that the game was marketed for in the kickstarter campaign. Chances are you'll end with a game that pleases neither side in terms of gameplay mechanics/encounter design and whose enjoyment will have to come from other areas (writing, pretty graphics, interesting world to explore etc.).

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Logans Loophole + steady, rape all the shit with a sniper way before lv30.

riot shotgun+fast shot+stay back+shotgun surgeon start raping deahclaws and cadazors at lv15

theres a uber gattling laser build too.

Also GRA.

FNV is anything but

Roguey is clearly losing his touch.

 

[Infinitron]

It's really not that hard (heh) to make a difficult RPG of this style. Just take off the kiddy gloves and make the enemies hit you HARD, ffs.

You know those tough enemies in the IE games that would walk up to, whack you once, you'd hear this crunchy sound of armor being punctured, and suddenly your character's portrait would have a huge red rectangle of lost HP on it, making you go FUUUUUUUUUUUU? That's what I'm talking about.

The world needs to be dangerous. Your character's well-being needs to be a scarce resource that must be guarded jealously.

Indeed, it isn't hard (for a competent designer which Josh is), it's a matter of will and the right approach/mindset rather than ability.

Know what is hard though? Designing a game that goes to great lengths to satisfy/not scare away casual players while still retaining decent challenge for the niche that the game was marketed for in the kickstarter campaign. Chances are you'll end with a game that pleases neither side in terms of gameplay mechanics/encounter design and whose enjoyment will have to come from other areas (writing, pretty graphics, interesting world to explore etc.).

I think you may have missed the hidden point of my post, which is that there's nothing in Josh's balance-centric design philosophy that precludes the simple existence of enemies that hit you hard.

All of these "Balance? Iz it good or evil?? DISCUSS!" discussions have little to do with actual game difficulty. You don't need hard counter mage duels or thieves who are only good for backstabbing to have difficulty. You only need enemies that hit your guys hard.