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

[Mrowak]

did you expect anything else? it's fucking MCA, after all

It's also Obsidian. Let's not forget about NWN2 and AP, ok? The mechanics there were the very opposite of what he is talking about here.

Well, NWN2 had (for most of its development) a lead that isn't at Obsidian anymore. (Now at Bethesda, before at Bioware)

Which did not prevent them from doing the exact same thing in MotB and SoZ.

And these are the EXACT mechanics of AP. There's no insta-win button and you can mix things up. You can argue about the implentation, but I have a hard time seeing how it's the very opposite.

I don't get that impression. The problem with AP was that you couldn't really know where you were heading on the get-go, but once you figured out how the character reacts to a particular stance you could just stick to it - so yeah, it was pretty insta win. The only thing I liked abut it was the way influence you gained through conversation affected the story and gameplay. Other than that, the system was shit.

 

[Shadenuat]

Tags are a shitty, lazy mechanic for devs that cannot into dialogue. And companion-suck-up-meters are plain shit. Just sayin'.

and the second was with Ulysses. If you kept spamming the Speech button and choosing the first option without really listening to what they were saying, you'd end up screwing yourself. <...> But in Project: Eternity, I definitely want to do this. People who don't care about dialogue shouldn't take Speech skills anyway - those that do should have fun exploring the conversation and seeing what they can take away from it.

Good. Good.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

I don't get that impression. The problem with AP was that you couldn't really know where you were heading on the get-go, but once you figured out how the character reacts to a particular stance you could just stick to it - so yeah, it was pretty insta win.

How was it insta-win? It entirly depends on what outcome you wanted. Or you could mix it up and have again a different result. Influence wasn't the only thing that changed how things turned out (It actually didn't seem to matter all that much. May be wrong here.). Granted, that was mostly visible only on a few charachters. Marburg, for example with fighting him early/convincing him to betray Halbech/all the ways Marburg vs Parker plays out/......

That said, I somewhat agree. But AP isn't really the opposite here. All of Obsidian's other games are more negative.

 

[Jarpie]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61606-feature-request-replay-that-last-battle/

So much decline in this topic.

Edit: whops, cannot into reading, they just want to record battles.

 

[Mrowak]

I don't get that impression. The problem with AP was that you couldn't really know where you were heading on the get-go, but once you figured out how the character reacts to a particular stance you could just stick to it - so yeah, it was pretty insta win.

How was it insta-win? It entirly depends on what outcome you wanted. Or you could mix it up and have again a different result. Influence wasn't the only thing that changed how things turned out (It actually didn't seem to matter all that much. May be wrong here.). Granted, that was mostly visible only on a few charachters. Marburg, for example with fighting him early/convincing him to betray Halbech/all the ways Marburg vs Parker plays out/......

Look at it this way: in AP you can treat all the stances like captions without any text - so instead of "[Bluff] I wasn't there" you get just [Bluff] - which is the very opposite of what Chris was arguing for i.e. "I wasn't there" or "[Bluff] I wasn't there" and "[Bluff] I have no idea whay you are talking about".

It's a simplistic example but it illustrates how shallow conversations are in AP (you didn't have to read text - because there wasn't any), and how interesting they may be in PE (you've got to read to achieve optimal results).

 

[IronicNeurotic]

I honestly didn't read that out of his responses. He even mentions actual skill options two times (although somewhat contridactory (In 1 he talks about skill options not in relation to choice and in 2 he does as a way to misguide)

What we'd rather do is have attributes and skills open up a range of new information that allows you to make a more informed decision about a choice rather than gate you to a solution.

If you kept spamming the Speech button and choosing the first option without really listening to what they were saying, you'd end up screwing yourself. The reason I don't feel good about that is because that wasn't the precedent set with other conversations, so I don't know if I'd do it again if I had the chance.
But in Project: Eternity, I definitely want to do this.People who don't care about dialogue shouldn't take Speech skills anyway - those that do should have fun exploring the conversation and seeing what they can take away from it.

It's way too early to say how the system will work anyway, it's going to be interesting to say the least.

 

[Mrowak]

I honestly didn't read that out of his responses. He even mentions actual skill options two times (although somewhat contridactory (In 1 he talks about skill options not in relation to choice and in 2 he does as a way to misguide)

What we'd rather do is have attributes and skills open up a range of new information that allows you to make a more informed decision about a choice rather than gate you to a solution.

If you kept spamming the Speech button and choosing the first option without really listening to what they were saying, you'd end up screwing yourself. The reason I don't feel good about that is because that wasn't the precedent set with other conversations, so I don't know if I'd do it again if I had the chance.
But in Project: Eternity, I definitely want to do this.People who don't care about dialogue shouldn't take Speech skills anyway - those that do should have fun exploring the conversation and seeing what they can take away from it.

It's way too early to say how the system will work anyway, it's going to be interesting to say the least.

In either case, if he provides player with greater control over dialogues, iand make it consequential it's good news. AP system did not allow that control - it actually discuoraged it e.g. in the conversations with Marburg you had only two options be Professional or Suave, and you had to stick to them all the time, so the flow of conversation was static. I hope that this won't apply to PE, based on the owrds from the quote above:

We are tying responses to attributes, but what we want to avoid in the mechanics is using attributes as "insta-win" buttons (for example, often in previous RPG titles, using the Skill option often is the instant win for quest solutions). What we'd rather do is have attributes and skills open up a range of new information that allows you to make a more informed decision about a choice rather than gate you to a solution.
This may sound complicated, but it's like the Empathy skill in Fallout 1 and 2 - it would only tell you if the person you were talking to would react positively or negatively to your dialogue option, but that didn't mean it was the right option to choose in every situation, and som

This impiles something greater than just clicking through [Bluff] all the time, but some actual process which requires thinking on your part.

 

[Blaine]

When I actually play a game, I'll know whether or not its dialog system is any good, but as far as how to design such a system I don't know jack about shit. One thing I do know is that this sort of thing is full-on retard:

VILLAGER: "This is the only gun I've got, stranger who just barged into my home! I need it to protect my family. I won't let it go for any price, and that's final!"

PROTAGONIST: [Charm] "But I really, really need it."

VILLAGER: [Success] "Okay, I guess you're right. Here's the gun, and as a bonus I'll let you fuck my sister."

 

[Jarpie]

When I actually play a game, I'll know whether or not its dialog system is any good, but as far as how to design such a system I don't know jack about shit. One thing I do know is that this sort of thing is full-on retard:

VILLAGER: "This is the only gun I've got, stranger who just barged into my home! I need it to protect my family. I won't let it go for any price, and that's final!"

PROTAGONIST: [Charm] "But I really, really need it."

VILLAGER: [Success] "Okay, I guess you're right. Here's the gun, and as a bonus I'll let you fuck my sister."

That's the Bethesda-style, not Obsidian.

 

[J_C]

VILLAGER: "This is the only gun I've got, stranger who just barged into my home! I need it to protect my family. I won't let it go for any price, and that's final!"

PROTAGONIST: [Charm] "But I really, really need it."

VILLAGER: [Success] "Okay, I guess you're right. Here's the gun, and as a bonus I'll let you fuck my sister daughter."

Fixed.

 

[evdk]

VILLAGER: "This is the only gun I've got, stranger who just barged into my home! I need it to protect my family. I won't let it go for any price, and that's final!"

PROTAGONIST: [Charm] "But I really, really need it."

VILLAGER: [Success] "Okay, I guess you're right. Here's the gun, and as a bonus I'll let you fuck my sister daughter."

Fixed.

Does it matter? They're both probably just his sloppy seconds.

 

[SwiftCrack]

I asked this in Reddit during Kickstarter campaign

If you are going to put social skills such as speech, diplomacy, persuasion, intimidate or something similar to those, would they be tied to the classes like in D&D 3E/3,5E or free for all classes?

And MCA replied with:

We are tying responses to attributes, but what we want to avoid in the mechanics is using attributes as "insta-win" buttons (for example, often in previous RPG titles, using the Skill option often is the instant win for quest solutions). What we'd rather do is have attributes and skills open up a range of new information that allows you to make a more informed decision about a choice rather than gate you to a solution.
This may sound complicated, but it's like the Empathy skill in Fallout 1 and 2 - it would only tell you if the person you were talking to would react positively or negatively to your dialogue option, but that didn't mean it was the right option to choose in every situation, and som

Someone asked continuation with:

Right, sometimes in New Vegas the speech (or speak?) skill did feel like an instant win button.

MCA:

Chris Avellone glances furitively around:
Yeah, there were two points where it broke convention because I felt it needed to - one was with Lanius, and the second was with Ulysses. If you kept spamming the Speech button and choosing the first option without really listening to what they were saying, you'd end up screwing yourself. The reason I don't feel good about that is because that wasn't the precedent set with other conversations, so I don't know if I'd do it again if I had the chance.
But in Project: Eternity, I definitely want to do this. People who don't care about dialogue shouldn't take Speech skills anyway - those that do should have fun exploring the conversation and seeing what they can take away from it.

Also someone else asked about his first reply:

This is really good to hear, that aspect of skills has always bugged me. What about people simply acting differently if you have a high skill in (for example) intimidate? Rather than giving you specific "intimidate" dialog choices the NPCs just react to you as though you are intimidating.

And MCA replied:

Chris Avellone thinks:
We sometimes would assume auto-reactions based on perks and traits, although we feel it's more fair to a player to choose when and where they want to flex their mental muscles. Even someone with Terrifying Presence may not be having a terrifying day or want to role-play that at the moment.
Race reactions and more obivous elements (like in Fallout, people would react to what you were wearing), I feel clicks more with a player and is fine.

 

[villain of the story]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61606-feature-request-replay-that-last-battle/

So much decline in this topic.

Edit: whops, cannot into reading, they just want to record battles.

I would appreciate such a feature. Reminds me of old NASCAR games where you could replay your tracks. I've always wanted the same feature for combat in games.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Would be good for LPs too, if you could export them as video files.

 

[evdk]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62...is-a-better-choice/page__st__100#entry1265807

Must not swear. Must not get banned.

 

[Shadenuat]

Must not swear. Must not get banned.

That thread is a like a piece of shit rolling down a mountain of shit. It just becomes bigger and bigger piece of shit.

There's already someone defending biowarian emoticons.
Still, the diplomed genius who is afraid for people who are't into reading never will be topped in my list.

 

[evdk]

Certified genius AND a former college athlete. Plus he is surprised I know what Mensa is :D

 

[Volourn]

"There's already someone defending biowarian emoticons."

Eh. They're not that horrible. It's just another way of letting the player know what the dialogue choice he's selecting means. And, idiots like the Codex are the reason why BIO decided toa dd them in the first place so stop bitchin' about it. THEY DID IT FOUR DUMBAZZ!

 

[Surf Solar]

Tried again registering there. Still no activation email.
Feels like knocking on heavens door, just that no one opens for me.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Holy shit that is amazing. Link?

GODDAMN FUCKING NINJA PIECE OF SHIT.

 

[bminorkey]

Holy shit that is amazing. Link?

GODDAMN FUCKING NINJA PIECE OF SHIT.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62...-is-a-better-choice/page__st__80#entry1265638

 

[bminorkey]

but for me to not have an indication of where my character get his confidence/knowledge from, is just an utter retarded big bang kamehameha x100.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Tried again registering there. Still no activation email.
Feels like knocking on heavens door, just that no one opens for me.

PM Tigranes.

 

[Jasede]

Is Gromnir Volourn?

 

[Jaesun]

Is Gromnir Volourn?

Oh gawd. No. He is also one of us Ancient Ones from the BIS forums.