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

[Excidium]

Blackguards didn't have documentation because it was made for casual gamers who they thought wouldn't want to know anything about how the game works anyway. They didn't even let you create your own character until they realized what audience their game should actually be targeting.

 

[Grunker]

Blackguards didn't have documentation because it was made for casual gamers

Blackguards is easily the hardest cRPG I've played the last 5 or 6 years. Even on lower difficulties people got their asses handed to them straight up - mostly casual gamers whose only source of legitimate whine was that one of the reasons they kept losing was that they had no idea what anything in the character system meant.

That the documentation-issue had anything to do with casual gamers is in direct opposition to everything else contained within the game.

 

[Roguey]

Blackguards didn't have documentation because it was made for casual gamers who they thought wouldn't want to know anything about how the game works anyway. They didn't even let you create your own character until they realized what audience their game should actually be targeting.

This is at odds with the ~high difficulty~ of the first builds available for the beta testers.

 

[Grunker]

Blackguards didn't have documentation because it was made for casual gamers who they thought wouldn't want to know anything about how the game works anyway. They didn't even let you create your own character until they realized what audience their game should actually be targeting.

This is at odds with the ~high difficulty~ of the first builds available for the beta testers.

Even when they lowered the difficulty, it stayed fairly high compared to most games. Excidium's argument is nonsense.

 

[Excidium]

It has nothing to do with difficulty. Lots of games made for casuals are hella lard, see Binds of Isaac for example.

 

[Grunker]

It has nothing to do with difficulty. Lots of games made for casuals are hella lard, see Binds of Isaac for example.

Are Binding of Isaac's forums filled to the brim with people wanting their money back because the game is too difficult and the documentation too obscure? Does Binding of Isaac have a complex, free-form character system where you can downright make the game impossible to finish if you allocate points in a retarded manner?

 

[Excidium]

I don't know, I don't follow it.

Does Binding of Isaac have a complex, free-form character system

I thought we were talking about Blackguards

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

Generally unimpressed by the mage/wizard spells shown off, and the shit-tier Sawyer's Balanced™ Spell Turning is the icing on the cake. Thumbs down for the mediocre random effect spells and the "Chain Lightning" clones spread throughout classes.

Yeah, this is discussing news from pages back...blame Dark Souls 2 for the delayed kvetching.

 

[Grunker]

I don't know, I don't follow it.

Does Binding of Isaac have a complex, free-form character system

I thought we were talking about Blackguards

You brought up Binding, I didn't. Can you remember any games with complex, fuckupable character systems like Blackguards that was made for and directed to casuals? Your own arguments bite their own tail.

 

[Excidium]

My example of BoA is because you said the game isn't for casuals because it's "hard", which to me has nothing to do with anything. Not providing proper documentation is much more of an evidence of a game made for casuals to me, as you can beat it without knowing what half of your stuff really does.

And I don't know what's fuckable about Blackguards system, I found it p. damn simple. I went through the entire demo and I still don't know what the fuck the red/blue bar does exactly, I just assume it modifies attack/parry ratings.

 

[Grunker]

And I don't know what's fuckable about Blackguards system, I found it p. damn simple.

I don't care what you think is simple or not. The fact of the matter is that if you're dumb enough, you can place your points in a manner that will leave the game more or less unplayable.

Also, simple compared to what? Is this another one of those Excidium-discussions where everything is compared to some hypothetical conception of the terms we're debating, not actual systems in the same category?

 

[Excidium]

Apart from things that requires metagaming (How on earth would somebody know he'd go through almost the entire demo without seeing a greatsword, and that against all RPG tropes all magical weapons would be clubs and axes) You'd have to be actively trying to fuck yourself like spreading points thin or not comparing spells, but I guess there truly are no limits to dumbfuckery.

Also, simple compared to what? Is this another one of those Excidium-discussions where everything is compared to some hypothetical conception of the terms we're debating, not actual systems in the same category?

Boy that took you long enough. Yes, compared to what CRPGs should be in 2014. Walk and attack or cast cookie-cutter spells. Interact or avoid some obvious gimmick. How complex. And that's focusing on the breadth of options in combat which is what the game is praised for. Because the system itself, I have nothing to say about other it's just derivative gamey garbage.

 

[Grunker]

Walk and attack or cast cookie-cutter spells. Interact or avoid some obvious gimmick. How complex.

When did we suddenly start to discuss the combat? We were discussing the character system. Simple compared to what?

 

[Broseph]

Simple compared to what?

compared to his imaginary perfect cRPG

 

[Excidium]

Walk and attack or cast cookie-cutter spells. Interact or avoid some obvious gimmick. How complex.

When did we suddenly start to discuss the combat? We were discussing the character system. Simple compared to what?

Simple compared to p. much everything that has more to it than choosing one or two weapon skills to invest, and only bothering to spend attributes to meet the prequisites of the spells/abilities you want.

Seriously, all this game has to it are simple combat encounters, and the system is entirely designed just to support just that.

 

[Grunker]

Walk and attack or cast cookie-cutter spells. Interact or avoid some obvious gimmick. How complex.

When did we suddenly start to discuss the combat? We were discussing the character system. Simple compared to what?

Simple compared to p. much everything

To what? To what games, Excidium?

The game has like ten attributes, a fairly modular spell system, free form character building and the interplay between attributes and stats/spells is fairly intricate. This is hugely complex compared to anything I remember in recent times - it is hardly an expression of "let's make baby's first RPG for the casuals." Remember how casual players exploded when they looked at the passive skill tree of Path of Exile, and that's pretty simplistic compared to this.

 

[Infinitron]

Blackguards is a casual game

Now that's a shark-jumping moment if I've ever seen one.

 

[uaciaut]

My example of BoA is because you said the game isn't for casuals because it's "hard", which to me has nothing to do with anything. Not providing proper documentation is much more of an evidence of a game made for casuals to me, as you can beat it without knowing what half of your stuff really does.

lol

 

[FeelTheRads]

The fact of the matter is that if you're dumb enough, you can place your points in a manner that will leave the game more or less unplayable.

Doesn't this mean the game is bad? Needs Sawyer, imo.

 

[Grunker]

The fact of the matter is that if you're dumb enough, you can place your points in a manner that will leave the game more or less unplayable.

Doesn't this mean that game is bad? Needs Sawyer, imo.

Almost made a bet with a friend who also lurks here about whether you or Roguey would be the first one to pick that up.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well, I made a bet with a friend that you will weasel out of it. I won. And lost at the same time. See, the bet was with me.

 

[Taxnomore]

I like that each time I'm wondering what you guys have been babbling about for 1100+ pages, I find out it's not about PoE.

 

[Hormalakh]

this thread is a reflection of the codex. it started out being about rpgs then devolved to what it is now. sometimes we still talk about rpgs.

 

[Hormalakh]

LivingOne you've been slacking!

Suburban-Fox, on 21 Mar 2014 - 7:07 PM, said:

It has also been announced that there are four types of skills: learning skills, travelling skills, item skills, and companion skills. Again, little information on specifics so far, but we at least know that there are likely to be a few skills in the game.
------------------------------------
There are not many, honestly. We'd rather have a small number of skills that get a good amount of use than include a bunch of skills that wind up neglected.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65858-too-combat-focused/?view=findpost&p=1432873

Mannock, on 21 Mar 2014 - 5:36 PM, said:

Will the models for shifted form differ between the genders?
--------------------------------------------
No. Druids' forms are costly on their own. Making sex-specific variants would be an even larger investment of time.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65...nership-with-paradox/?view=findpost&p=1432874

Outside of thieves (rangers and bards a little) skills weren't a focus of the IE games until IWD2. Specifically, if you weren't playing those classes, you didn't even have skills. And in IWD2, a lot of them wound up feeling redundant or useless. If our options are to include a huge number of skills to make characters feel diverse (without making good use of them) or to have a small number of skills with heavier use and less per-character diversity, I think it's better to go with the latter.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65858-too-combat-focused/?view=findpost&p=1432883

Nonek, on 21 Mar 2014 - 7:29 PM, said:

To be fair I think any spiritual follow up invoking the names of BG, IWD and Torment has to have a fair bit of melee, and that was a large atrraction for two of those series for me personally, the strike and counter strike of BG2 and the more balanced and gnarly feel of IWD.
--------------------------------------------
And it was something I've tried to consistently call out as one of our three foci for the project: exploration of beautiful environments, a reactive story with equally reactive companions, and party-based tactical combat.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65858-too-combat-focused/?view=findpost&p=1432886

 

[Hormalakh]

Allvaldr, on 21 Mar 2014 - 7:19 PM, said:

In the choice between diversification (2nd ed) and balance (4th ed) I much prefer diversification. Not all classes need to be equal, since D&D as we know is supposed to be a cooperative game.
----------------------------------------------
Equal participation and contribution is a good goal, I think. When "skill stuff" is going on in 2nd/3.X, the non-skill characters (and the people playing them) sit back while the "skill characters" do their thing. When the "combat stuff" is going on in 2nd Ed. (especially) and 3.X, the skill-based characters roll in vain to make puny jabs at the enemy. Rogues seemingly get some nice damage output from Sneak Attack but the fact is that the RAW frequently shut that off when encountering any enemy that is immune to crits (a lot of them). I think it can lead to a boring pace in tabletop gaming especially because half of the party is either literally not participating (the rogues are sneaking now, the fighters are standing around waiting for them to be done) or only marginally participating. There's really not much to "cooperate" on outside of the adventure as a whole. In practice, rogues can sneak, fighters can't. Fighters can do damage to almost everything and take hard hits. Rogues can sort of hit some things hard and cannot be hit hard at all. Wizards can (eventually) do almost everything. Rogues being skill-based characters would be a lot easier to swallow if wizards weren't capable of trivializing many thief skills with even low-level spells (or potions/scrolls made/bought of those spells).



I also don't think a lot of 2nd Ed. classes are particularly diverse. 2nd Ed. rangers are only marginally differentiated from fighters, for example. Most of the diversity came from kits, which could be really wildly varied -- but were also not core.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65870-class-abilities-adnd-vs-dnd4/?view=findpost&p=1432891

Hassat Hunter, on 21 Mar 2014 - 7:52 PM, said:

Regarding skills, same can be said of feats. They weren't even in until IWD2, only profencies. With a party of 6, a lot of skill exclusives are possible.
-------------------------------------------------
Skills almost always require their own distinct subsystems. Conversely, 3.X feats almost always feed into existing systems/subsystems (specifically, combat). Because combat is such a big part of most A/D&D games, it's easy for those elements to get heavy use. Compare that to "Ride" or "Perform" or "Knowledge: ________", which are all skills that either require their own (massive) set of rules and assets to work in a CRPG or necessitate creating custom content with each use (e.g. in dialogue).

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65858-too-combat-focused/?view=findpost&p=1432894

I'm going through all of the submitted items now. Few issues, overall. Thank you to everyone who has submitted their content already. Rose should be getting back to you with any questions or problems soon.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64747-issues-with-npcitem-surveys/?view=findpost&p=1434462

Stun, on 21 Mar 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

After having watched some of these very same Obsidian devs play the old classics like Icewind Dale 2 (Adam) and Arcanum (Avellone), and get their asses kicked in easy encounters. this statement from Sawyer does not have quite the awe inspiring impact it he probably meant it to have.

Besides, Gamers have always been 10000 times better at Games than the devs who created them. We're the ones who discover loopholes, exploits and cheese tactics.
------------------------------------------
I think you have a skewed understanding of gamer and dev capabilities. I didn't intend that statement to be awe-inspiring; many devs are not particularly great at playing games. On the other hand, there are literally millions of players who are also average to bad at playing games. Some devs are much better than the average player, but there are certainly a lot of players who are better than we are. Players outnumber devs by an enormous ratio and eventually many of them wind up putting much more time into playing the finished game.

I also didn't go straight into being a dev. Before I started at Black Isle I had been playing AD&D and other C/RPGs for 14 years (going on 28 now), often in min-max-friendly campaigns. Devs aren't always the best players but that doesn't mean we're all clowns.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65171-crazy-difficult/?view=findpost&p=1434489