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

[Spectacle]

Dungeon crawlers are not RPGs.

In before mondblut
M:

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Not a terrible idea. The PC is usually the babby who gets lectured on by everyone else in the world, even though he's also usually more capable than them all. It's nice when he gets to teach and explain things to other characters.

No. Dragon Age did that and it sucked. Everyone was looking up to you, ready to break down in crying if you didn't nurtured them. Fuck that shit.

FNV did it right: characters were mature individuals who only occasionally asked you for your ideas.

Uh...cool, but I didn't say you should be the one dispensing all the advice in the world.

 

[Blaine]

Cannot into originality http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61911-dd-bestiary/#entry1260834

I refer to this as the "Garfield Effect"—the Sunday morning newspaper comic "Garfield" being one of the worst offenders in terms of rehashing the same tired characters and ideas decade after decade. The reason stale old comics like Garfield continue to thrive is that mentally lazy, incurious people are comforted by familiarity and feel threatened by the unfamiliar. They want to see the same unchallenging characters and predictable situations week after week, year after year. Casual gamers such as the fellow you've quoted are cut from the exact same cloth.

"Calvin and Hobbes" is among the finest newspaper comics ever created because it was imaginative, original and explored some uncomfortable real-life issues—which was quite daring for a newspaper comic back then, especially one partially aimed at children. More importantly though, when Bill Watterson ran out of ideas for Calvin and Hobbes and felt he couldn't take the series any further, he put the series to rest, apologized to fans, and moved on with his life. He also never gave his permission to license Calvin and Hobbes toys and tchochkes, which he thought would cheapen the identity of his characters.

Needless to say, I consider Bill Watterson a wise man and an example all creative men and women should aspire to emulate.

Personally, I have never understood people who want the same stuff rehashed for them year after year. In my view, part of the magic of the original Fallout (just throwing out an example) was that the world was an enigma. You had very little idea what sort of people, creatures, locations and items to expect. That's what fantasy and science fiction are supposed to be about—new and strange worlds that challenge readers, viewers and players. Yet in the 21st century, people demand the same old familiar fantasy and science fiction tropes they've always known.

I don't claim to be a genius or a renaissance man (in fact I assure you I am not one), but I'm extremely fortunate to be endlessly curious and adventurous. I pity people who aren't.

 

[mondblut]

Dungeon crawlers are not RPGs.

fixed.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

The best RPGs are the non-dungeon crawlers, where instead of hacking thousands of monsters to death in boring tunnels, you use skill rolls, conversation choices and story progression to play the game. Fallout and Planescape Torment are RPGs in my view. The Wizardry series aren't. Fortunately, the Obsidian developers have worked on good RPGs before (discounting IWD, which I think was Diablo with prettier landscapes). They know what to do.

 

[evdk]

They are both RPGs, stop being faggots.

 

[Jasede]

I believe the ultimate RPG would combine dungeon-crawling and ToEE/KotC gameplay with an Obsidian-level story (the good ones, as in MotB, Kotor 2 and PS:T - and don't argue, you're wrong).

There's nobody here who could dislike that game. The combat-fags love KotC-combat, the story-fags love Obsidian-stories. It'd be the Jesus of RPGs. Eternity could have been that Jesus if it wasn't made by Obsidian (they suck at mechanics, sorry) and was TB.

I'll still love it, though. Unlike some here I can enjoy everything: combatfaggotry, storyfaggotry, wanderlustfaggotry, lorefaggotry, JRPGfaggotry. I combine every single RPG preference into one supreme being that has cast off limitations of genres or styles. I am the ubermensch of RPG players! Join me and you'll have far more games to enjoy. (Or not. When you're like me and don't care about genre, only quality, most games seem like total shit. I mean 99.8% of games are terrible to me. They're just that bad.)

 

[Jaesun]

I if it wasn't made by Obsidian (they suck at mechanics, sorry)

What mechanics are you speaking about exactly?

 

[almondblight]

I refer to this as the "Garfield Effect"—the Sunday morning newspaper comic "Garfield" being one of the worst offenders in terms of rehashing the same tired characters and ideas decade after decade.

Garfield's actually somewhat amusing if you cover up his thought balloons.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I if it wasn't made by Obsidian (they suck at mechanics, sorry)

What mechanics are you speaking about exactly?

Every kind of mechanics; YES; even dialogue mechanics of F:NV and AP is flawed.

 

[Jasede]

I if it wasn't made by Obsidian (they suck at mechanics, sorry)

What mechanics are you speaking about exactly?

Combat mechanics and encounter placement. But maybe I'm just being knee-jerk. Let's break it down.

PS:T:
Combat in inconsequential, forgettable and boring- even though it was pretty exciting in IWD and BG 2. In the struggle to make the game a masterpiece of storytelling they overlooked combat enjoyment.

NWN 2:
Combat is inconsequential, forgettable and boring. It feels like there is less control than in BG 2. Mage-battles do not exist and would be boring anyway: no Timestop, no sequencers, no pre-set spell combos.

MotB (so far, still ACT 2):
Combat is... a lot more fun than in NWN 2. Encounters seem more thoughtful and are surprisingly challenging. Even though the combat system still feels off (due to the NWN 2 engine) the encounter design so far makes it far more tolerable.

KOTOR 2:
Combat is inconsequential and boring and much too easy. It feels like something they only added to make the game longer or because an "RPG has to have combat". It'd have almost been better without any combat.


So maybe I picked my words poorly but what I meant is that their track record in making fun combat is somewhat spotty. I feel that they have the potential (IWD, MotB) to make fun encounters but often don't, perhaps due to lack of time or due to not fully grasping how important satisfying combat can be to the RPG experience (PS:T, Kotor 2, which are great due to the writing but would have been far better if the combat weren't so tacked on).

Sorry if I express myself poorly. And I'm not sure the influence "mechanic" is a good thing- but I do like what they did, or tried to do in MotB. Sort of. But the game would be wonderful regardless.

 

[tuluse]

Well he's (partially) right on this account. Not every RPG needs C&C. Dungeon Crawlers are about the combat and exploration, you don't need to necessarily dilute it with storyfaggotry and C&C. Of course having C&C won't remove from the experience either as long as the other design goals are met without compromising too much from the vision. In a game like PE I'd say C&C is more essential though.

Dungeon crawlers are not RPGs.

I would argue the opposite that Dungeon Crawlers have C&C. Not in the story because the story doesn't matter. Every battle you fight you're making choices are there are consequences to what happens. This is why regen health sucks because it removes consequence from the choices you make in battle.

A dungeon crawler has C&C in what matters to it, combat.

PS:T doesn't have C&C in combat (immortal), but does in what matters to it, the story.

Saying you don't want any C&C means you want nothing you do in the game to affect what is going to happen, which means you want to play an adventure game. Set story, set encounters with only one resolution, set character, the only choice is to continue or not, and the only consequence is being able to play more.

 

[Mexican Max Hardcore]

I if it wasn't made by Obsidian (they suck at mechanics, sorry)

What mechanics are you speaking about exactly?

While I think he is being a bit harsh by saying Obsidian "sucks at mechanics", I can recount a couple of very rough edges on their mechanics.

Their item crafting feature in NWN2 and KotOR2 allows for such powerful weapons that they make unique items feel worthless. BioWare's BG2 had a much more simplistic system for crafting weapons at Cromwell's Forge, but it works much better. To build the Crom Faeyr, you have to find four special objects, each of which there is only piece throughout the world. To build the ultimate magical sword of your dreams in NWN2, you really just have to count on all the random pieces of loot that fall on you now and then. Which brings me to my second point...

Their randomized loot scaled by level is not well done either. In KotOR2, there was a random chance that killing some lowlife Sith thug would cause "Darth Malak's Lightsaber" to fall. Or that a boar-like animal on some planet would be carrying some component you need to repair your droid. Ideally, the developers should find a fixed place for quest-related objects and rare high level weapons and armour, so that you have to make a hard search for them as opposed to just running a lottery machine every time you fight an enemy. At least Wizardry and early TES randomize almost everything, so they're consistent, as opposed to the half randomized, half fixed style of Obsidian games.

All these aside, there is the basic "lack of control" element. While Obsidian dramatically improved the party AI options in latter versions of NWN2, there used to be a lot of headache involved just to tell the game, "I want to completely control the party my way." Yet, there is always only limited or partial control over everything - never complete 100% control like the IE games. Same with KotOR 2. One of the worst nightmares of Obsidian mechanics was when Bao'Dur and Kreia rushed to get themselves killed at enemy turrets and blow themselves up on mines on Telos' surface and on Telos' military base, all because the party members don't wait for your orders to attack and do so automatically.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, it's Matt.

 

[bminorkey]

So, that quest is pretty much a playable NTR hentai.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61913-pc-as-a-fathermother-figure/

Not a terrible idea. The PC is usually the babby who gets lectured on by everyone else in the world, even though he's also usually more capable than them all. It's nice when he gets to teach and explain things to other characters.

No. Dragon Age did that and it sucked. Everyone was looking up to you, ready to break down in crying if you didn't nurtured them. Fuck that shit.

FNV did it right: characters were mature individuals who only occasionally asked you for your ideas.

Your reason for rejecting the idea is a Bioware game did it and it sucked (surprise surprise)?

Also I don't think F:NV's characters had enough of a personality to be called individuals. (In theory, I agree that's what companions should be, though).

 

[Murk]

Our new favourite novelist Merin about single-player RPGs:

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

What. The. Fuck.

I. How. I.

I give up. I just, fucking give up.

 

[Jarpie]

Our new favourite novelist Merin about single-player RPGs:

And this is what makes cRPGs so compelling to those of us who DO role-play our characters and prefer LESS game reactivity to our characters. The more the game is coded to give reactions, the more limited your choices as a player are. But if you imagine what is happening in the gutters, then the story truly becomes yours.

What. The. Fuck.

I. How. I.

I give up. I just, fucking give up.

Oh you haven't even seen the worst...
I wrote:

What about the writer wanting to show several potential motivations for the player character to choose from and building up the character they have written or do you think you are better coming up with them than MCA for his character, for example?

and Sylvius the Mad (The name is really really fitting):

It's not his character. It's my character. It has to be my character. I need to know everything about my character's state of mind from the very first instance he steps into the game world so that I can correctly interpret events from his point of view.

That's what roleplaying is: perceiving the world through someone else's eyes. We can't do that without full control over that character's perspective.

and...
Me:

I'll give you an example; You choose to do something to the Companion A, later Companion B pulls you to the side and asks why did you do it and game gives you several options for the motivation, and depending on what you choose, it affects your relationship with the Companion B but also potentially Companion B's relationship with Companion A. See now?

and him:

That the PC claims a specific motivation doesn't necessarily make that the PC's actual motivation.

The PC can lie. The PC can always lie. We don't need a [LIE] tag on a dialogue option to speak falsely.

 

[Infinitron]

Sylvius basically wants to play "Half Life: The RPG" with Gordon Freeman PCs.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Cannot into originality http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61911-dd-bestiary/#entry1260834

I would like to see monsters that are familiar in name and appearance. Whether familiar because of nods to real-world source material or because they're staple fantasy fiction (yes, D&D) creatures.

<snip>

It takes much more time to build in the player's mind a concept that is completely new with no reference points to existing knowledge. Player's have limited time and limited mental resources to dedicate to learning "new" monsters. A few new monsters are cool but populating your game completely without using existing monsters is wasteful, foolish, and harmful to player's ability to fully enjoy the game.

Yeah, if you have to wonder what monsters and races are in fantasy and don't automatically know every nuance of their abilities at a glance, it's really not very fantastical anymore. It's too bad the Forgotten Realms license is tied up. I guess we'll have to settle for yowlbears, misplacer beasts and spider worshipping frow elves. I hope this won't unnecessarily obfuscate the intent of the truly fantastic bestiary from the bulk of the playerbase.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Sylvius basically wants to play "Half Life: The RPG" with Gordon Freeman PCs.

Actually, I get the impression that he wants to play tabletop RPGs except on his computer with an adventure tailored to his specific mindset at any given time.

 

[tuluse]

The obvious answer to this "problem" is just not making the PC justify his actions. Fallout never took you to a scripted scene where you were forced to lay out your motivations and bare your heart. This wouldn't work for PS:T which was clearly about motivation, but outside of special cases there is not real reason to make the PC gives his motivations. Just use actions for reactivity.

 

[Volourn]

"I think lot of people are getting more and less mistaken wibe of the Project Eternity - They seem to think that it'll be more like The Witcher or "Bioware" over the top style, or then something like Fallout 1 or 2 which were over the top in their own way, and even Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had pretty exaggerated story/plot.

The impression I get from the interviews I've read and especially from the interview with MCA after the Kickstarter that they want to do something what's more like Arcanum or PS:T from the mood-standpoint."

Yeah, because PST and Arcanum didn't have over the top stories and had subdued moods/plots.

You know.. that is PST with its amnesiac ugly immortal who is still attractive to others and has the power to destroy souls.

Then there'sm Arcanum where you only happen to have a villain who wants to basnish the world to the void so it no longer exists or something silly like that.

Yeah. VERY SUBTLE AND SUBDUED.

ARE YOU ON FUKKIN' CRACK?!?

 

[Jasede]

The best dialogue mechanic moments in MotB and NWN 2: OC are when MCA/Ziets/Sawyer break the skillcheck mechanic in NWN 2. Examples are when you fail a check, but a companion chimes in, or when instead of [Success!] or [Failure!] you are met with [?]. Or when you lose influence, then branch into a path where you can get more than you lost that'd otherwise have been impossible to access. Or when you can lie into someone's face and gain influence both with them and the evil companion who takes pleasure in your deception.

 

[Captain Shrek]

"I think lot of people are getting more and less mistaken wibe of the Project Eternity - They seem to think that it'll be more like The Witcher or "Bioware" over the top style, or then something like Fallout 1 or 2 which were over the top in their own way, and even Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had pretty exaggerated story/plot.

The impression I get from the interviews I've read and especially from the interview with MCA after the Kickstarter that they want to do something what's more like Arcanum or PS:T from the mood-standpoint."

Yeah, because PST and Arcanum didn't have over the top stories and had subdued moods/plots.

You know.. that is PST with its amnesiac ugly immortal who is still attractive to others and has the power to destroy souls.

Then there'sm Arcanum where you only happen to have a villain who wants to basnish the world to the void so it no longer exists or something silly like that.

Yeah. VERY SUBTLE AND SUBDUED.

ARE YOU ON FUKKIN' CRACK?!?

 

[Jarpie]

"I think lot of people are getting more and less mistaken wibe of the Project Eternity - They seem to think that it'll be more like The Witcher or "Bioware" over the top style, or then something like Fallout 1 or 2 which were over the top in their own way, and even Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 had pretty exaggerated story/plot.

The impression I get from the interviews I've read and especially from the interview with MCA after the Kickstarter that they want to do something what's more like Arcanum or PS:T from the mood-standpoint."

Yeah, because PST and Arcanum didn't have over the top stories and had subdued moods/plots.

You know.. that is PST with its amnesiac ugly immortal who is still attractive to others and has the power to destroy souls.

Then there'sm Arcanum where you only happen to have a villain who wants to basnish the world to the void so it no longer exists or something silly like that.

Yeah. VERY SUBTLE AND SUBDUED.

ARE YOU ON FUKKIN' CRACK?!?

You idiot, there's a difference how the story, characters and the game as a whole is presented, but I'm not surprised Bioware fanboy doesn't see the difference.