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

[tuluse]

some of the said goals are...questionable to say the least.

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

 

[Lhynn]

some of the said goals are...questionable to say the least.

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

Yes.
Btw, why use so many words? people just call it streamlining.

 

[Roguey]

Of all the IE games and their expansions BG2 was the outlier in this regard, so I'm sure he'll have no problem.

Also the most popular.

Taking this to its logical conclusion, Obsidian should fill PoE with romances and obnoxiously-written NPCs. Give the people what they want.

But to requote Josh

I often felt like I shouldn't be designing games for the BG audience because I loathed the NPCs in BG/BG2/TotSC so much.

 

[Nihiliste]

I love BG2 but I do agree that things like contingencies and spell triggers were not to my taste either after fiddling with them on a few play throughs. I never enjoyed spending a lot of time buffing before a battle anyways because it usually didn't make sense in context unless I had specifically scouted an area or had reason to believe something was in the room up ahead. Other than the basics like Stoneskin that it made sense to have on most of the time. At this point I'm willing to wait and see what they come up with combat wise - what I'm really hoping they capture is the feel of the IE games - the specifics of the combat mechanics can be whatever as long as they recreate that. I'm concerned that too many important things will be discarded to the point that they won't be able to though. I have some hope for now though.

 

[Rake]

some of the said goals are...questionable to say the least.

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

No, these are good things. Read my previous posts and you will find the parts i don't like.

 

[Roguey]

i spend so much time watching people struggle to comprehensively understand systems that i wind up asking, "what does this accomplish?" all the time.

Josh ftw, removing unnecessarily complicated aspects that add nothing whenever he can.

 

[hiver]

I believe that Sawyer's conclusion is flawed where I bolded. His conclusion that it is less satisfying is not based on anything that he might have seen in Let's Plays or anything of that sort - it's based on his own prejudices on how he likes playing DnD games. It might be less satisfying to him, but it's been a clear crowd favorite as has been noted both here on the 'dex as well as on Obsidian's own forums. The people loved the mage battles. Yes, it was a combat puzzle, but players liked that sort of puzzle.

I would argue that the reason players loved the BG2 mage duels wasn't because they were puzzles, but because they involved spells and abilities that were conceptually "cool".

It is simply COOL to imagine yourself playing a badass archmage fighting in a mage duel, dispelling your opponent's force fields while struggling to maintain your own, trying to one-up each other until one of you can finally break through and strike the killing blow.

These things would be cool EVEN IF they were not puzzly hard counters. Argue in favor of the coolness aspect, not the puzzle aspect, and maybe in PoE2 you'll get BG2-like mage abilities. Properly balanced, of course.

Thats not cool. Thats just stupid.
I mean, ffs... you have two mages dueling with magic... and all that does is create two fighters who just stand there and slug it out? Whats the point? - What? thats a approximation? an abstraction? Of what?
The strength of the beam?

Thats just horible. The example of abstraction that defeats and devalues what its trying to present. In the worst way possible.


The reason players liked mage duels in BG2 was because they were interesting and diverse.
Period.

Because they were not just based on "cool shit" or being just puzzles.

If they were just cool it would wear out as any other cheap schlock system that was ever created. If they were real puzzles then they would get fucking boring - because you wouldnt be able to do anything until you would figure out the solution to the puzzle.
Like puzzles in bad point and click adventure games. they are either too contrived and almost impossible to figure out without meta knowledge or they are too easy and therefore no puzzles at all.

The mage fights in BG had numerous ways to solve them. As Shadenaut correctly explained.
And you didnt even had to know the exact numbers and mechanics. You could just combine many different approaches. (protection against magic weapons cast? well hit the fucker with ordinary weapons genious - for example)

I still, to this day dont know a single numerical stat of any of that shit. And i played BG2 inside out.

 

[Shadenuat]

I'm pretty sure there is no way to look at the stats of monsters before you summon them in BG which means you have to know what their capabilities are from meta knowledge.

Well since magic system was symmetrical, most of the time shit you could summon was shit you fought yourself, so you'd know if summon is capable or not.
To see all summons stats and how they technically work is actually a rare thing in RPG, usually you just get hit points and a small description.

Still, ingame documentation in BG2 with fixes/Spell Revisions is something which should have been there to begin with. We need to know all the THAC0s.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I thought the reason people like mage duels in BG2 was because the fighter duels were boring. The problem with BG2 wasn't necessarily that the mage duels could have been done better, its that the rest of the classes weren't as interesting to justify comparable focus.

Its the wizard problem, yet again - mid/high level mages were both more powerful AND more interesting to play. Sure you could try and make the game more challenging by trying it without a wizard, but that would make the game more boring - fighters provide zero room for oddball strategies. If you want to challenge a mage, you can do it through 1) spell depletion through attrition or 2) mage duels. Attrition is a frustrating kind of challenge after a while, so mage duels are the only way to provide an interesting challenge to a player who understands the system.

So mage duels can be legitimately really fun, but still demonstrate that the game is flawed. Not because they are a low point, but because there should be other points that are comparably high. Why not try and have gameplay which is as interesting as mage duels for the other classes?

 

[Raapys]

Is someone actually complaining about magic in BG2? Wtf? Can anyone mention even a single game where playing a caster is even close to as interesting or fun as in BG2? Because I would love to play it.

 

[hiver]

fighters provide zero room for oddball strategies.

Only if you play with party of six ordinary fighters all using same weapons.

If you want to challenge a mage, you can do it through 1) spell depletion through attrition or 2) mage duels.

where? in BG2?
i must have played some other game then.

So mage duels can be legitimately really fun, but still demonstrate that the game is flawed.

thats a good way to twist having one decent class - system in the game. The glass is half empty, eh?

Why not try and have gameplay which is as interesting as mage duels for the other classes?

Money, time, limits of DnD, ... enter Josh Sawyer.

 

[Shadenuat]

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

"No useless classes, skills or stats" is just talk.

I don't believe any designer wants his stats, classes or skills to be useless. Even guy who added Gambling to Fallout&Arcanum either had an idea how it can be useful, or some other dudes who designed challenges for a player had to implement them so they would be useful.
Well Toaster Repair being a gimmicky exception maybe.

I don't think one can promote an RPG by saying that everything there will be useful and balanced; it's same as if writer said that his story will be good, cause it will be good.

It makes Sawyer really cool that he actually talks how exactly he will make everyone useful, how he gives us those class descriptions, talks what roles they will have in combat and tests them. Not that he is some sort of inherently better designer than anyone else who can fix what "all other RPGs do wrong". That's what we can judge at least.

 

[Shadenuat]

I thought the reason people like mage duels in BG2 was because the fighter duels were boring.

The reason why people liked mage duels was that they were executed well, they were complex and also looked cool for it's time. I was arguing against Infinitron's "Breach is answer to everything", not against "We want more abilities for other classes".

While BG2 didn't have enough abilities for other classes, I'd also argue that those which they had, were actually enough for a class not only to add to battle, but to even solo the game.
Which is actually an achievement, even if not so big as mage duels.

 

[Aeschylus]

I was arguing against Infinitron's "Breach is answer to everything", not against "We want more abilities for other classes".

You're right, Breach was not the answer to everything. Inquisitors' dispel magic was the answer to everything.

 

[FeelTheRads]

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

At what point is a class, skill or stat considered useless? Do I have to point out again the retards who think that a technologist build in Arcanum is useless because a mage is stronger?
At what point is a system easy enough to understand? How do you quantify that? Sawyer quantifies with it "professional game testers" who are retarded beyond redemption. PROFESHUNAL game testers who just couldn't get IWD.

And why, WHY, should the system be flexible enough to support "these people"? First, it can't be. You either support only them or you don't. And second, is this some sort of ultimate design goal that everything must aspire to? Do you get a hard-on for games which support everybody? I don't get it.

Couldn't disagree more.

Cool. I hope you agree then with minigames replacing character skills. They're all about player input.

I don't disagree in theory but what you described sounds more like Fallout than IE games (in which player input was very important, especially in BG2). For example, if you give a Fallout noob an optimized char with all the right traits & perks that has 150% in Energy weapons, is wielding a Turbo Plasma Rifle and is wearing Power Armor he'll likely tear through Super Mutants with ease. On the other hand, if you give a BG2 noob to play a high level sorcerer with the best spell selection possible he'll still very likely struggle to beat a Dragon even with a party.

That's more because Fallout is way too easy. Although Sawyer will probably say that it's unbearably difficult and unnecessary punishing because you can get the energy weapons skill from the start but you get no energy weapons.

And also because IE games often make use of things that are indeed bullshit, like locking the player in a combat (door locks behind you ZOMG SO DEEP) or instant dispells, or stuff like that.
I'm quite confident that you can have a good selection of spells, skill, items, whatever that can get you through the IE games without much savescumming. Of course, it needs to be coupled with decent characters too, and you need to actually learn how the game works (which I know is an anathema, the game should play you instead), but what the fuck? How are you even supposed to learn the game without failing and retrying?
And if these are not tactics that depend on player input then what the fuck is?

 

[Answermancer]

At what point is a class, skill or stat considered useless? Do I have to point out again the retards who think that a technologist build in Arcanum is useless because a mage is stronger?
At what point is a system easy enough to understand? How do you quantify that? Sawyer quantifies with it "professional game testers" who are retarded beyond redemption. PROFESHUNAL game testers who just couldn't get IWD.

Classes and skills are generally called useless when they are traps for players who don't have prior experience with the system. Especially if the system is full of such traps. When they are so greatly sub-par compared to everything else that they'll make it much more difficult for a player to complete the game than if they'd chosen differently.

Of course, it needs to be coupled with decent characters too, and you need to actually learn how the game works (which I know is an anathema, the game should play you instead), but what the fuck? How are you even supposed to learn the game without failing and retrying?

Learning how things work during the game is fine and should be encouraged, and it can be made easier even for novices if the system doesn't contain a lot of unintuitive traps, and if in-game documentation is good (something that games are much better at these days with complex games having much better tool-tips that explain how mechanics work, etc.).

Why should someone have to fail and restart at basic character creation a bunch of times because they weren't familiar with the system ahead of time? Wouldn't it be better if they learned the complexities of the systems in the game by playing characters that are designed to be at least viable, even if created by someone with no prior experience, though certainly not all equally good? Then they can play the game and learn and develop their characters as they level with newfound understanding of the systems, instead of having to start over or have an extremely difficult experience their first time playing.

If it can be done, it benefits anyone playing in a system for the first time, not just RPG novices.

 

[Copper]

There is a huge problem with the idea of 'learning to play your build well' as the solution to all the woes of character traps that cuts right to the heart of what Sawyer is trying to achieve, and I'd be very impressed if Roguey can argue against it convincingly. What if playing your build well isn't fun?

Josh may enjoy playing a 4th ed Warden, but I thought Defender play is the most boring, banal experience I've ever had in a RPG, sub level 1 AD+D wizard play in fact. Am I wrong to dislike that, too lame to go with the flow? Different people like different styles and intensities of play. Of course, this is a single player controlling a party game, not a co-op experience, but there is still no real answer to becoming bored with how certain builds play. Assuming the signature NPCs have all been stated and possibly have a few levels, you have to play to the strengths of largely pre-built characters, further reducing your ability to customise the experience toward one you may find more enjoyable without missing out on story content. Will every talent or ability suit every build? It seems unlikely to be the case.

Without being able to respec at will, players can always trap themselves in builds which are tedious or require brute force to play in a way that they find personally appealing.

 

[tuluse]

No useless classes, skills or stats, and an easy to understand system are questionable goals?

"No useless classes, skills or stats" is just talk.

Another person might say "goal". How can a goal be anything but talk until it's completed?

I don't believe any designer wants his stats, classes or skills to be useless. Even guy who added Gambling to Fallout&Arcanum either had an idea how it can be useful, or some other dudes who designed challenges for a player had to implement them so they would be useful.
Well Toaster Repair being a gimmicky exception maybe.

There is a difference between an intentional goal and just hoping things work out. I'm pretty sure for Fallout and Arcanum they thought of potential skills that could be fun or interestig and threw them in without thinking about how they'll implement them or what would balance them.

I don't think one can promote an RPG by saying that everything there will be useful and balanced; it's same as if writer said that his story will be good, cause it will be good.

This would only apply if you could write a good story by doing math. Notice that "every skill will be equally interesting" is not a stated design goal.

 

[tuluse]

There is a huge problem with the idea of 'learning to play your build well' as the solution to all the woes of character traps that cuts right to the heart of what Sawyer is trying to achieve, and I'd be very impressed if Roguey can argue against it convincingly. What if playing your build well isn't fun?

Josh may enjoy playing a 4th ed Warden, but I thought Defender play is the most boring, banal experience I've ever had in a RPG, sub level 1 AD+D wizard play in fact. Am I wrong to dislike that, too lame to go with the flow? Different people like different styles and intensities of play. Of course, this is a single player controlling a party game, not a co-op experience, but there is still no real answer to becoming bored with how certain builds play. Assuming the signature NPCs have all been stated and possibly have a few levels, you have to play to the strengths of largely pre-built characters, further reducing your ability to customise the experience toward one you may find more enjoyable without missing out on story content. Will every talent or ability suit every build? It seems unlikely to be the case.

Without being able to respec at will, players can always trap themselves in builds which are tedious or require brute force to play in a way that they find personally appealing.

You can start picking different abilities and feats as you level. However, yes at a certain point you would just have to start a new game.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I thought the reason people like mage duels in BG2 was because the fighter duels were boring.

The reason why people liked mage duels was that they were executed well, they were complex and also looked cool for it's time. I was arguing against Infinitron's "Breach is answer to everything", not against "We want more abilities for other classes".

While BG2 didn't have enough abilities for other classes, I'd also argue that those which they had, were actually enough for a class not only to add to battle, but to even solo the game.
Which is actually an achievement, even if not so big as mage duels.

Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to make it seem like I was responding directly to you with that point. I was thinking more generally about the way in which the importance of mage duels in BG2 was a double edged sword. One the one hand well implemented mage duels are the best way to make an interesting, challenging RTwP cRPG using AD&D rules. On the other hand, the prominence of mage duels meant that the normal party comp (excluding challenge oriented comps) necessarily limited your party composition and really focused your thinking on maximizing your wizard power at the expense of other character classes. But that's a flaw that comes inevitably from using D&D, not a flaw in the BG2 implementation of D&D. So the majority of strategic thinking about character building and encounter preparation is focused on your wizard's spell book at the expense of thinking about the sum total of your party's abilities.

So while I don't agree that "breach is the answer to everything", I do think the prominence of mage duels is tied up so tightly with the wizard dominance of D&D power that trying to recreate a similar experience could come at the expense of having a variety of viable party compositions. Mage duels happen because a wizard's magical defenses are more effective against a non-wizard's attacks than a non-wizard defenses are against the wizard's attacks. If you do have that power imbalance, then you limit the reasonable party comp to always including at least one (and often more) wizards. If you don't have that power imbalance, its not a mage duel, it's a battle of your party against a wizard.

But maybe this is semantics? I hear mage duel and I think wizard on wizard action. Maybe when other people say "mage duel" they mean a particular kind of encounter, regardless of whether its the wizard's spells or the whole party's abilities?

 

[aleph]

Harg Harfardarssen: just a dumb question... have you ever finished BG2 and with what party composition?

 

[Somberlain]

It's so long since I've played without SCS, that I can't really remember, but don't vanilla mages use any notable spell protections? Because Breach isn't answer to everything, if you first got to disable spell shield, spell immunity, spell deflection, spell turning, spell trap etc., before it works.

 

[hiver]

Maybe when other people say "mage duel" they mean a particular kind of encounter, regardless of whether its the wizard's spells or the whole party's abilities?

Fighting against a mage, or any group with a mage. Since it is a party based game. Also a smaller engagement of mage vs mage, 1 on 1 - within a larger group fight, usually and most often executed as your mage dispelling various protections of enemy mage, or interrupting his spells so that your other classes can reach, inflict damage or kill enemy mage.

Which is a role where warrior classes (rangers, rogues, etc) are vary handy.

 

[Answermancer]

or interrupting his spells so that your other classes can reach, inflict damage or kill enemy mage

Seems like PoE should be good in this regard at least then, since they have a dedicated Interrupt stat now and one of the primary attributes affects it. So it will be possible to build characters that specialize in that even.

 

[hiver]

Im expecting the combat gameplay to be decent or possibly quite good. Better then IWD at any case.

I am kinda worried that magic will be too simplified and streamlined affair, since that almost always happens when magic is concentrated on combat, basically being just another kind of weapon, but i guess will see better when wizard update comes along.
havent seen or i have missed that dedicated interrupt stat.

have any link or more info on it?