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

[evdk]

His best book, IMO, is The City and The City, which is not Bas-Lag.

Word.

PS The Scar is the best Bas Lag book and you have no taste.

 

[Murk]

I may re-read it as its been a while but I just got sick of how awesome the awesome characters were portrayed. The description of Uther Doul jumping from the airship to the fight between the... uhh... fuck... the peopel who use their scabs as armor, those guys. It was basically a drawn out scene of a super hero jumping down in super hero pose and it induced eye-rolling on the infinity-thousand level. I liked the subterfuge, I liked the protagonist, and I liked the general idea but there's just something about his overly anti-government/pro-socialist views that just doesn't jive with me. The way the government is always hated when they aren't doing full on tyrannical shit on a regular basis just leaves me with a "wait, why do I hate the Milita again?".

 

[Gakkone]

Did you ever play Fallout?

No

 

[Infinitron]

Are you available for purchase independently of PE?

GZiets
Yes, I am currently 50% off on Good Old Games as part of the “Classic Obsidian Developers” bundle. To receive the full discounted price, you’ll also need to purchase Brian Mitsoda, Anthony Davis, and Justin Cherry.

 

[Alex]

From my perceptive, and I think this is an Obsidian thing overall, is we want people to feel as though they have control over their character. Not just mechanically, but also who they are in the story. Their personality and how they portray themselves is not only something they can express, but that the game reacts to in a believable manner. I think Alpha Protocol excelled at this. You can play the game as a huge jackass, you can be very professional, you can be chill, you can be flirty, you can do all these things, and there are trade-offs for all of it. There’s a lot of relationships to navigate and they’re all influenced by the kind of person you’re playing as and the things you do. That’s very important to me in an RPG. Even if you’re playing a character that’s rather predefined like Michael Thorton is in Alpha Protocol you get to decide who he is. And that’s something we try to put into our games as much as possible. It’s really about choice and consequence and how it plays out. There are plenty of games that have loot, or advancement systems, or cool writing, but they’re not RPGs. It isn’t common to see a game where you’re not just playing a game that allows you to be something different mechanically, but you’re able to be a different person and the story reacts to that.

You can impregnate my sister anytime J.E. Sawyer.

Is Sawyer kidding here? I hated Alpha Protocol exactly because it did the opposite of that. Rather than letting the player choose what to do in each situation, AP gave you 3 little choices that fitted in with the story they had in mind. Michael Thorton is who Obsidian decided who he was, and if you don't like any of the options they decided for you, then that is too bad. The whole thing felt like Obsidian was trying to make a "cinematic" game with still some choice in it. From having your control taken when you try to stealthily knock out that guy in the bridge at the end of the first part, to not simply being able to tell to the annoying characters to go screw themselves, the game never allows you to portray yourself or express yourself in any meaningful way.

 

[villain of the story]

.

And I have absolutely no inclination to support shit like that. I've had enough Crap Time with Pause and fucking elves to last several fucking lives, even if it is otherwise a brilliant game.

so first day pirate then?

Nah. I'm not a traitor. I own all Obsidian titles to date. Even Alpha Popamole ( $2 Steam Sale )

 

[DalekFlay]

Is Sawyer kidding here? I hated Alpha Protocol exactly because it did the opposite of that. Rather than letting the player choose what to do in each situation, AP gave you 3 little choices that fitted in with the story they had in mind. Michael Thorton is who Obsidian decided who he was, and if you don't like any of the options they decided for you, then that is too bad. The whole thing felt like Obsidian was trying to make a "cinematic" game with still some choice in it. From having your control taken when you try to stealthily knock out that guy in the bridge at the end of the first part, to not simply being able to tell to the annoying characters to go screw themselves, the game never allows you to portray yourself or express yourself in any meaningful way.

He's saying you could be smarmy asshole or pro assassin and it changes things in the game, which is true and was neat. It also saves so often you can't really scum that shit.

It is a cinematic action RPG though, you can't change that much. I don't think he meant it on that scale though.

 

[J_C]

From my perceptive, and I think this is an Obsidian thing overall, is we want people to feel as though they have control over their character. Not just mechanically, but also who they are in the story. Their personality and how they portray themselves is not only something they can express, but that the game reacts to in a believable manner. I think Alpha Protocol excelled at this. You can play the game as a huge jackass, you can be very professional, you can be chill, you can be flirty, you can do all these things, and there are trade-offs for all of it. There’s a lot of relationships to navigate and they’re all influenced by the kind of person you’re playing as and the things you do. That’s very important to me in an RPG. Even if you’re playing a character that’s rather predefined like Michael Thorton is in Alpha Protocol you get to decide who he is. And that’s something we try to put into our games as much as possible. It’s really about choice and consequence and how it plays out. There are plenty of games that have loot, or advancement systems, or cool writing, but they’re not RPGs. It isn’t common to see a game where you’re not just playing a game that allows you to be something different mechanically, but you’re able to be a different person and the story reacts to that.

You can impregnate my sister anytime J.E. Sawyer.

Is Sawyer kidding here? I hated Alpha Protocol exactly because it did the opposite of that. Rather than letting the player choose what to do in each situation, AP gave you 3 little choices that fitted in with the story they had in mind. Michael Thorton is who Obsidian decided who he was, and if you don't like any of the options they decided for you, then that is too bad. The whole thing felt like Obsidian was trying to make a "cinematic" game with still some choice in it. From having your control taken when you try to stealthily knock out that guy in the bridge at the end of the first part, to not simply being able to tell to the annoying characters to go screw themselves, the game never allows you to portray yourself or express yourself in any meaningful way.

And it was awesome. AWESOME!

 

[Alex]

And it was awesome. AWESOME!

Alpha Protocol was indeed awesome though. It was the only game I know that managed to match all three games from Troika! Its combat was as fun as Arcanum's, its level of player control and open endedness of the main plot matched Vampire:The Masquerade and its cool story and setting were as creative as TOEE's. M:

 

[hoverdog]

Did you ever play Fallout?

No

Delio confirmed for Cynic

 

[FeelTheRads]

Alpha Protocol was indeed awesome though. It was the only game I know that managed to match all three games from Troika! Its combat was as fun as Arcanum's, its level of player control and open endedness of the main plot matched Vampire:The Masquerade and its cool story and setting were as creative as TOEE's. M:

 

[J_C]

From my perceptive, and I think this is an Obsidian thing overall, is we want people to feel as though they have control over their character. Not just mechanically, but also who they are in the story. Their personality and how they portray themselves is not only something they can express, but that the game reacts to in a believable manner. I think Alpha Protocol excelled at this. You can play the game as a huge jackass, you can be very professional, you can be chill, you can be flirty, you can do all these things, and there are trade-offs for all of it. There’s a lot of relationships to navigate and they’re all influenced by the kind of person you’re playing as and the things you do. That’s very important to me in an RPG. Even if you’re playing a character that’s rather predefined like Michael Thorton is in Alpha Protocol you get to decide who he is. And that’s something we try to put into our games as much as possible. It’s really about choice and consequence and how it plays out. There are plenty of games that have loot, or advancement systems, or cool writing, but they’re not RPGs. It isn’t common to see a game where you’re not just playing a game that allows you to be something different mechanically, but you’re able to be a different person and the story reacts to that.

You can impregnate my sister anytime J.E. Sawyer.

Is Sawyer kidding here? I hated Alpha Protocol exactly because it did the opposite of that. Rather than letting the player choose what to do in each situation, AP gave you 3 little choices that fitted in with the story they had in mind. Michael Thorton is who Obsidian decided who he was, and if you don't like any of the options they decided for you, then that is too bad. The whole thing felt like Obsidian was trying to make a "cinematic" game with still some choice in it. From having your control taken when you try to stealthily knock out that guy in the bridge at the end of the first part, to not simply being able to tell to the annoying characters to go screw themselves, the game never allows you to portray yourself or express yourself in any meaningful way.

And it was awesome. AWESOME!

J_C for this and this thread alone you are now my sworn enemy.

Don't you get it? The game could have been much better with its C&C combined with better dialogue options and combat (consolized?). That game's potential was fucked up just because it was not delivered well. Stop supporting its bad points you idiot.

I know. It could have been better. That's why it is just simply awesome. It could have been OMGTHISISTHEBESTGAMEEVER, but in its current form, it is simply awesome!

 

[Jarpie]

I had no control over the situation with Aerith in Final Fantasy VII. To be perfectly honest I shed a tear when that happened in that game. I didn’t know it was coming, maybe I was just naive at the time. It was my first RPG.

interviewer came across as a bro, maybe he's secret codexian

Except for that

 

[Cynic]

Did you ever play Fallout?

No

Delio confirmed for Cynic

Fuck you for thinking I gave a shit about Aerith dying, that shit hurts bro.

 

[Alex]

Is Sawyer kidding here? I hated Alpha Protocol exactly because it did the opposite of that. Rather than letting the player choose what to do in each situation, AP gave you 3 little choices that fitted in with the story they had in mind. Michael Thorton is who Obsidian decided who he was, and if you don't like any of the options they decided for you, then that is too bad. The whole thing felt like Obsidian was trying to make a "cinematic" game with still some choice in it. From having your control taken when you try to stealthily knock out that guy in the bridge at the end of the first part, to not simply being able to tell to the annoying characters to go screw themselves, the game never allows you to portray yourself or express yourself in any meaningful way.

He's saying you could be smarmy asshole or pro assassin and it changes things in the game, which is true and was neat. It also saves so often you can't really scum that shit.

It is a cinematic action RPG though, you can't change that much. I don't think he meant it on that scale though.

On a more serious note, I do get it. I think their attempt at trying to make something interactive out of the "cinematic" crazy that was sweeping publishers at the time was at least an attempt at making the best out of a bad situation, and I guess the game could be considered an interesting experiment. Still, as far as I am concerned, it was a failed one and they should stay the hell away from timed conversations, protagonists with defined personalities, cinematic gameplay and everything else they tried on that game, except perhaps a bit of the C&C design.

 

[Gakkone]

AP didn't let me play the kind of character I wanted because it arbitrarily stripped me of my abilities to sneak past enemies where I wanted to, instead forcing me into stupid scripted shooting scenes. The game could've used the "Deus Ex" treatment in that regard.

 

[Infinitron]

Josh: I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

Some people think it’s a cliche phrase, but when I was at Interplay the model of Interplay was, “By gamers, for gamers.” And some people are like, “Well that’s every game.” But no, it really isn’t.

Del: Yeah, no, it really isn’t.

Josh: There are people that focus on making games for people that hate games. And… well, that’s ok, but I’m not not interested in doing that. I want to make games for people that love games. People that really enjoy them and playing them. I’m not not trying to make a game for people that do not enjoy the challenge of them of the idea of them. So it’s interesting when you get into these genres that are kind more enthusiast or ‘hard-core’ genres like RPGs and you’ve gotta be careful how much you’re appealing to people that don’t like RPGs. It’s like, “Well… they don’t like them. They don’t like any of them or anything about them.”

 

[SwiftCrack]

Josh: I think it comes down to–in a lot of cases–that instead of people listening to criticism they just know there is criticism and then they decide independent of it that they’re going to change some stuff. So like you said, you made a modest impact, you really struck home with some people that really liked the game, and maybe the execution needed some work. So why not just make the execution of what you were going for so that the next one is totally awesome and those things that people loved about it is now even better. Then if there’s stuff that’s janky about it, yeah change the janky stuff, but not if it’s something that those people that loved the game really liked. Just make it better. I think there’s where things go wrong. People look at something and go, “Ok, so we have this core of people that love the game and this other group that fundamentally hates it, so let’s make it a different game.” And it’s like, “Well… no. They hate the game. They didn’t like anything about it. You’re not going to win those people over. They don’t even like the idea of what you’re making.”

Some people think it’s a cliche phrase, but when I was at Interplay the model of Interplay was, “By gamers, for gamers.” And some people are like, “Well that’s every game.” But no, it really isn’t.

Del: Yeah, no, it really isn’t.

Josh: There are people that focus on making games for people that hate games. And… well, that’s ok, but I’m not not interested in doing that. I want to make games for people that love games. People that really enjoy them and playing them. I’m not not trying to make a game for people that do not enjoy the challenge of them of the idea of them. So it’s interesting when you get into these genres that are kind more enthusiast or ‘hard-core’ genres like RPGs and you’ve gotta be careful how much you’re appealing to people that don’t like RPGs. It’s like, “Well… they don’t like them. They don’t like any of them or anything about them.”

There are also people that hate games and focus on making games for people that hate games.

 

[tuluse]

There are also people that hate games and focus on making games for people that hate games.

Hamburger Hepler

 

[SwiftCrack]

You don't say

 

[Roguey]

GYP is 4chan-affiliated shit, Josh loses -5 influence points with me. Lot of good long answers though.

Now on a completely unrelated topic that's somehow been overlooked: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...s-rewards-and-more/page__st__160#entry1232448

Of course the balancing of classes is subject to change, but this is what Josh and I discussed last night. In a nutshell: Party Buffs/Centered AOE DPS/Self Healing/Good Martial Ability.

Party buffs will be the Paladin's commands. The centered AOE DPS will most likely take the form of a soul-based, short-range (or centered) AOE, and the ability to heal himself/herself. This is above and beyond the Paladin's martial skill, which will be good, but not as good as the Fighter or the Barbarian. Of course, the player will be able to tailor their Paladin to suit their playstyle should they wish to enhance/specialize certain aspects of the class.

Nailed it again.

 

[Infinitron]

GYP is 4chan-affiliated shit, Josh loses -5 influence points with me. Lot of good long answers though.

Now on a completely unrelated topic that's somehow been overlooked: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...s-rewards-and-more/page__st__160#entry1232448

Of course the balancing of classes is subject to change, but this is what Josh and I discussed last night. In a nutshell: Party Buffs/Centered AOE DPS/Self Healing/Good Martial Ability.

Party buffs will be the Paladin's commands. The centered AOE DPS will most likely take the form of a soul-based, short-range (or centered) AOE, and the ability to heal himself/herself. This is above and beyond the Paladin's martial skill, which will be good, but not as good as the Fighter or the Barbarian. Of course, the player will be able to tailor their Paladin to suit their playstyle should they wish to enhance/specialize certain aspects of the class.

Nailed it again.

Responded.

 

[Infinitron]

Wait a minute, what the fuck is a "centered AOE DPS" anyway? What does that even mean?

 

[tuluse]

GYP is 4chan-affiliated shit, Josh loses -5 influence points with me. Lot of good long answers though.

Now on a completely unrelated topic that's somehow been overlooked: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...s-rewards-and-more/page__st__160#entry1232448

Of course the balancing of classes is subject to change, but this is what Josh and I discussed last night. In a nutshell: Party Buffs/Centered AOE DPS/Self Healing/Good Martial Ability.

Party buffs will be the Paladin's commands. The centered AOE DPS will most likely take the form of a soul-based, short-range (or centered) AOE, and the ability to heal himself/herself. This is above and beyond the Paladin's martial skill, which will be good, but not as good as the Fighter or the Barbarian. Of course, the player will be able to tailor their Paladin to suit their playstyle should they wish to enhance/specialize certain aspects of the class.

Nailed it again.

For someone who is against stereotyping of women, you sure do like to lump whole communities into one bin.

Most of 4chan is no worse than the codex really.

 

[Infinitron]

Delterius replied to my post:

If I may add as a example: such as designing combat over steady damage thus inflating health pools and creating fake depht, which sounds counter intuitive given your dual hitpoint system.

I think Bobby Null is just using the term "DPS" out of habit.

Most of 4chan is no worse than the codex really.

I don't think Roguey would consider that much of a defense.