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

[Infinitron]

Sylvius the Mad =

 

[Jaesun]

When are we getting Backer Tags on the forums?

 

[Infinitron]

in before Fallout fanrage http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/411616101751878435

In older games don't you think the type of system used,chaotic systems,breakable systems with a sense of humor in mechanical design(think Fallouts) were part of the charm?In a more coherent and restrictive system don't you think something is missed?

Not really. Are you suggesting that we should design an incoherent system? I don't think the sense of humor in Fallout was in the mechanical design, but in the content supporting the mechanical design. E.g. the area design and art, characters, animations, sounds, text descriptions, etc.

If you took a Fallout crit shotgun blast and removed the sound effects, hand-touched sprite "blown out torso" animation/effects, and the text description accompanying it, there really wouldn't be anything humorous about it. It would just be a hit that did a lot of damage.

Late game Fallout 2 is where the limits of the system really started to get pushed. Extended fights with Enclave troopers were typically slugfests where you and the enemies traded single-digit damage until someone (usually you) scored an armor-bypassing critical for triple-digit damage and annihilated the target.

If it weren't for the continuous satisfaction that comes with massive overkill body-melting plasma criticals (which is due to the content supporting it, not the mechanic itself), the combat would have been much less enjoyable.

 

[Hormalakh]

It's funny to me that the casuals and the hardcores are both pissed off at Sawyer for his design choices. The hardcores want more merciless mechanics, the casuals want their cheese tactics still available to them. Everyone's mad. I think this kind of shows that Sawyer's on the right track. If you're pissing everyone off, then you're doing something right.

 

[Kz3r0]

Josh noticed me, he noticed me, me, me, me, me, me, me.

 

[Johannes]

Sawyer has made a few concessions to players already. One is this whole "missing" thing, the others being "lootable everything" (swords armor from every enemy) and finally making turning off [tags] in conversations a toggle-able thing.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/page__st__140#entry1296448

If we design a system that rewards resting every 5', the gamer isn't at fault for using it.

But he also has no right to complain about it. If he doesn't like it, he could not use it.

I'm normally a live and let live sort of guy, but this sort of thing makes me fucking rage. I don't even know how to argue with this bullshit.

which is why Sawyer is making these design choices, I think. The casuals are all about cheese tactics. The non-casuals are about hardcore. Sawyer is trying to find a balance between the two. Put them both on the same playing field and then design challenge on the new field. The casuals will have their belowed "regen" and the hardcores will have difficult battles in the new arena. This is a slight mischaracterization, but I think it's approximately accurate.

How are casuals about cheese tactics? Most likely they never even found them, in a game like BG2. If exploiting the game to its limit is not hardcore, I don't know what's it supposed to mean.

 

[Lancehead]

Cheese tactics - restspamming, savescumming, kiting etc.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

It'll be interesting to see how the different motives have an effect on the compromises the devs make.

It's possible that we've already had an effect by changing Josh's mind about the "no missing" thing. There have been other things as well.

Yeah, that seems distinctly possible, likely even. Sawyer has been pretty consistent about stating that the way players actually react to mechanics is the paramount consideration, so that kind of responsiveness isn't coming out of left field.

I was thinking it will be interesting to see how that kind of responsiveness shapes the final product, especially in comparison to the compromises that would be made to satisfy a publisher. I'm always curious about what the actual effects of publisher interference are, especially on mechanics that affect how user-friendly the games are.

 

[Grunker]

is that he is building a new system from ground up due to the lack of D&D

They don't "lack" D&D. They chose not to use the OGL.

he's trying to make various changes that he believes to be improvements.

I.e. it seems he wants to make his own, new game, instead of an IE-game.

I find that just fine, because I think that's the same as BG2 changing the area exploration design from BG1, or IWD2 implementing 3E rules

Yeah, changing basic fundamentals of the game is the same as changing exploration a bit or implementing an updated rule set. I feel ya.

As long as these changes are (1) sensible and improve gameplay

Fixing shit that ain't broken is why every IE-like since IWDII has failed. Making small updates is why BGII was such a masterpiece.

(2) do not change the fundamentals of an IE spirit or style

You tell me I can't argue what the fundamentals of the IE-games are, and then proceed to judge that you can determine what changes them?

That's why I say it's important for people (not you, in general) to provide their rationale as to why they think health/stamina or no-miss would violate their definition of the IE spirit, and change the fundamentals of how the combat feels

I like health/stamina. No idea why you bring it up. Perhaps you assume me to be part of some "group" without judging my actual arguments?

That's the kind of rationale I have for my opinions, and I think that's the kind of conversation that would be productive to have.

I don't see what kind of conversation we've been having so far, unless a conversation where I provide arguments you don't agree with is the kind of conversation you don't want to have.

Excuse me if I'm critical of a man who has said more or less nothing about how he plans to make his game like the IE-games, but instead insists on inventing everything from the ground up. We paid on the promise that this team would make their vision of re-imagining the IE-games. We didn't pay for Josh to make his dream-game (don't say that you did unless you can point to exactly where in the pitch it was framed as such).

For better or worse, Sawyer agrees with that:

While I do think it would be neat to run a Kickstarter for "MY GAME MY WAY", where I tell you no details and people just have to fund it based on their love of art, that's not what Project Eternity is. It's also not accurate to say this is my dream game. Don't get me wrong -- I really loved working on the IE games and I've played and DMed a ton of campaigns in the Forgotten Realms -- but my dream games are things that would appeal to a much smaller audience than Project Eternity. Project Eternity was pitched as a game made in the spirit of the Infinity Engine games and that is still what we intend to do.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45102026&postcount=8320

Sayin' ain't doin'. What he says here goes completely counter to the statements he's made on the design of the game.

Sawyer has made a few concessions to players already.

I don't want him to make concessions to players. We don't know shit about specific game design stuff when it comes to actually inventing shit, but you don't have to be a cook to tell when the food tastes like shit.

I want him to make concessions to the IE-games.

Sawyer is trying to find a balance between the two.

You what had that balance? THE IE-games. Hence why both the Codex and my consoletard room-mate enjoy them.

 

[Hormalakh]

Hey guys some choice quotes in the Obsidian forums. Many people are raging about Sawyer's deferrence towards the "hardcore crowd."

Thats whats disappointing to me, that all these mechanics are being "fixed" to cater to the .5% of the backers that complain about not being able to control themselves.

Hey, in NWN2 there's even a loadscreen tip of "Save early, save often". I follow that one religiously as I have absolutely no desire to replay the last 45 minutes of the game because of a glitch, distraction, poor AI, or mouse mistake on my part. Perhaps others have unlimited time in which to game, but that's far from my situation and I don't like having to re-take ground. It gets old very quickly and it kills the fun of an encounter.

 

[Infinitron]

Fixing shit that ain't broken

Ah, but what is or ain't broken is a matter of opinion.

What's happened here is that lots of people just didn't care about some of the things that were broken in the IE games, because the games in their totality were high quality enough that it didn't disturb their overall enjoyment. Rest-spamming? Eh, no big deal, the dialogue is awesome. Save scumming? Eh, no big deal, I love this game's music.

But just because the game was good, even very good, doesn't mean things weren't wrong with it. The Codex freely recognizes this fact when discussing even beloved classics like Fallout, Torment and Arcanum. They recognize that these games were awesome but also flawed. Why can't you recognize that's true for Baldur's Gate as well?

I like health/stamina.

You do? Why? That's also an example of "fixing shit that ain't broken".

 

[Grunker]

Ah, but what is or ain't broken is a matter of opinion.

Is the mention of the IE-games enough to rake in over 4 mill? Is the game beloved almost universally by its players? Are you devoted to making a faithful reincarnation of it?

Guess you shouldn't fucking be of the opinion that it is a broken piece of shit then.

I like health/stamina.​

You do? Why? That's also an example of "fixing shit that ain't broken".

It's a small and not very significant change. You know, the small updates I talked about?

 

[Infinitron]

Hey guys some choice quotes in the Obsidian forums. Many people are raging about Sawyer's deferrence towards the "hardcore crowd."

"Why can't you just make this game fun for people who play it right, like us?"

Eh, to be honest, I'm not sure they're that different from some folks posting here.

Guess you shouldn't fucking be of the opinion that it is a broken piece of shit then.

"Piece of shit"? Come on, binary much?

"Torment had bad combat."

"HOW DARE YOU CALL PLANESCAPE TORMENT A BROKEN PIECE OF SHIT!!!1"

 

[Hormalakh]

Yeah they're not that different. It's like I said: he's pissing everyone off. Grunker said that you don't have to be a cook to know food tastes like shit.

The problem is that we haven't tasted the proverbial food to know if it tastes so. We're just going off theory here.

That isn't to say that IE didn't do a lot of things right. But if I were to be honest with myself, there were a lot of things that IE did wrong that I just handwaved away. PS:T is loved despite its combat. BG is loved despite the romances and Gaiderification. IWD is loved despite the lack of a story. This game isn't exactly IE, but maybe it's for the better? It's too early to tell.

 

[Grunker]

"Piece of shit?" Come on.

"Torment had bad combat."

"HOW DARE YOU CALL PLANESCAPE TORMENT A BROKEN PIECE OF SHIT!!!1"

He is changing the combat system, the character system, the inventory system, the item-system and who knows what else fundamentally. Your hyperbole to counter mine doesn't change that.

The problem is that we haven't tasted the proverbial food to know if it tastes so. We're just going off theory here

Seems it's difficult to keep track of my arguments, so I'll number them for future ease-of-use. There's only two:

1) We don't know whether the game will be good or bad.

2) BUT, if he sticks to what he is saying, what he's presented is very different from the IE-games.

Does the food taste like shit? Who knows. Will it taste different than the couse I ordered? I fucking guess so since he's putting fucking curry in my ice cream!

 

[Infinitron]

He is changing the combat system, the character system, the inventory system, the item-system and who knows what else fundamentally.

Well, I don't agree that the changes are fundamental.

 

[Tigranes]

I said it's hopeless to try and find a hard "list of specific things an IE style game must have" that all will agree with, but that we can debate about the general dispositions or stylistics that constitute an IE feel; therefore, it would be good for people to give their own rationale for what constitutes a 'basic fundamental' and why design X conforms with or contravenes it. Which is what I have done in giving my opinion throughout. I also made jabs at people just going OMFG and not much else.

I obviously have no problem if you disagree with my rationale, but instead of explaining why you think, say, the latest miss rules do change the fundamentals of an IE style, you're just (1) telling me, over and over again, that you don't like what Sawyer's doing; (2) saying a bunch of other peripheral things: Are you saying I am treating you as a hivemind? I was always speaking generally, then you come and talk to me as if I was addressing you personally - of course you're going to think that. Are you saying I don't accept people who disagree with me? I think it's pretty evident what I meant by my statement.

Here's the bottom line: I backed P:E because I want a rebirth of IE, just like you. I look at changes, and think, whereas the first no-miss proposal seemed too much at odds with the IE style, the latest compromise seems OK. I look at Sawyer's posts in general, and think, that is an acceptable approach to innovating within boundaries of the IE style. (I already explained why I think this: e.g. why to me, health/stamina, no-miss or stash changes are on par with the kinds of changes BG2 made to BG1's wilderness exploration, or other kinds of IE game changes.) You disagree. Cool. You can ignore me and move on, or you can look at the rationale I provided in earlier posts about what I think of the miss-rules, and argue with me about it.

 

[tuluse]

It seems like most of the criticism about the no misses were more about how it's a shit mechanic than attempting to appeal to a certain crowd.

Spoiler

Yes, I realize I have an earlier post about making sure everyone's special snowflake of a character is viable, but I was mad and venting, not trying to make a real criticism.

 

[Kaldurenik]

I said it's hopeless to try and find a hard "list of specific things an IE style game must have" that all will agree with, but that we can debate about the general dispositions or stylistics that constitute an IE feel; therefore, it would be good for people to give their own rationale for what constitutes a 'basic fundamental' and why design X conforms with or contravenes it. Which is what I have done in giving my opinion throughout. I also made jabs at people just going OMFG and not much else.

I obviously have no problem if you disagree with my rationale, but instead of explaining why you think, say, the latest miss rules do change the fundamentals of an IE style, you're just (1) telling me, over and over again, that you don't like what Sawyer's doing; (2) saying a bunch of other peripheral things: Are you saying I am treating you as a hivemind? I was always speaking generally, then you come and talk to me as if I was addressing you personally - of course you're going to think that. Are you saying I don't accept people who disagree with me? I think it's pretty evident what I meant by my statement.

Here's the bottom line: I backed P:E because I want a rebirth of IE, just like you. I look at changes, and think, whereas the first no-miss proposal seemed too much at odds with the IE style, the latest compromise seems OK. I look at Sawyer's posts in general, and think, that is an acceptable approach to innovating within boundaries of the IE style. (I already explained why I think this: e.g. why to me, health/stamina, no-miss or stash changes are on par with the kinds of changes BG2 made to BG1's wilderness exploration, or other kinds of IE game changes.) You disagree. Cool. You can ignore me and move on, or you can look at the rationale I provided in earlier posts about what I think of the miss-rules, and argue with me about it.

What was the compromise? Anyone that have a quote?

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't know what we're arguing about anymore

 

[roshan]

Ah, but what is or ain't broken is a matter of opinion.

What's happened here is that lots of people just didn't care about some of the things that were broken in the IE games, because the games in their totality were high quality enough that it didn't disturb their overall enjoyment. Rest-spamming? Eh, no big deal, the dialogue is awesome. Save scumming? Eh, no big deal, I love this game's music.

But just because the game was good, even very good, doesn't mean things weren't wrong with it. The Codex freely recognizes this fact when discussing even beloved classics like Fallout, Torment and Arcanum. They recognize that these games were awesome but also flawed. Why can't you recognize that's true for Baldur's Gate as well?

You do? Why? That's also an example of "fixing shit that ain't broken".

Who the fuck ever complained about resting and saving? Why the hell is how others choose to play their games such a big issue now? Why don't designers just create difficult combat encounters and then leave the players to find their way around it? Worst part is that modern game designers turn everything ass backwards. People are resting too much? Let's make combat easy, then implement regeneration, then forced autoresurrection so that they don't need to rest anymore! Problem solved, retards are now happy romancing a Half Orc rape victim!

 

[tuluse]

What was the compromise? Anyone that have a quote?

He said he's thinking about changing it so if you miss by too much, you actually miss, instead of getting a glancing blow. It's somewhere in this thread.

 

[Hormalakh]

What was the compromise? Anyone that have a quote?

He said he's thinking about changing it so if you miss by too much, you actually miss, instead of getting a glancing blow. It's somewhere in this thread.

He's even talked about getting certain class skills to be able to allow changes in the distance between glancing blow and miss too. Something about the fighter being able to glancing blow more often than miss with a certain skill. He's taken the mechanic and is building on it. I think it's turning out to be much better and complex than even D&D has.

 

[Tigranes]

I said it's hopeless to try and find a hard "list of specific things an IE style game must have" that all will agree with, but that we can debate about the general dispositions or stylistics that constitute an IE feel; therefore, it would be good for people to give their own rationale for what constitutes a 'basic fundamental' and why design X conforms with or contravenes it. Which is what I have done in giving my opinion throughout. I also made jabs at people just going OMFG and not much else.

I obviously have no problem if you disagree with my rationale, but instead of explaining why you think, say, the latest miss rules do change the fundamentals of an IE style, you're just (1) telling me, over and over again, that you don't like what Sawyer's doing; (2) saying a bunch of other peripheral things: Are you saying I am treating you as a hivemind? I was always speaking generally, then you come and talk to me as if I was addressing you personally - of course you're going to think that. Are you saying I don't accept people who disagree with me? I think it's pretty evident what I meant by my statement.

Here's the bottom line: I backed P:E because I want a rebirth of IE, just like you. I look at changes, and think, whereas the first no-miss proposal seemed too much at odds with the IE style, the latest compromise seems OK. I look at Sawyer's posts in general, and think, that is an acceptable approach to innovating within boundaries of the IE style. (I already explained why I think this: e.g. why to me, health/stamina, no-miss or stash changes are on par with the kinds of changes BG2 made to BG1's wilderness exploration, or other kinds of IE game changes.) You disagree. Cool. You can ignore me and move on, or you can look at the rationale I provided in earlier posts about what I think of the miss-rules, and argue with me about it.

What was the compromise? Anyone that have a quote?

It was earlier in the thread, but now there is misses, glancing blows, and hits. Hits = the calculation of damage is solely dependent on DT and other secondary processes, so, a 'normal hit'; Glancing Blows = your damage is already scaled down before those processes, e.g. you do 50% damage, which can be further mitigated by DT, etc; Misses = you miss entirely and deal no damage, a 'normal miss'.

My argument is that this represents not a half-way compromise between the IE system and Sawyer's original proposal, but a system that is much closer to the IE system, and makes only a small (and I think, positive) change. The reason is, as I said before, a no-miss system qualitatively changes the intuitive and mathematical basis of combat. The shift from a system where you 'sometimes hit' to a system where you 'always hit' makes the hit/miss calculation qualitatively identical to other systems like DT; e.g. there is no longer any difference between an enemy with 5 DT, and an enemy with 0 DT that you miss against every single time, if your hit damage is 10 and your miss damage is 5. In other words, a dodge character becomes mathematically identical to a block character, which intorduces an obvious poverty to combat variety. In the compromise proposal, this qualitative difference that was present in the IE system is maintained; at the same time, it is actually further variegated through the introduction of glancing blows.

Short version: as far as we understand it, it seems to me that Sawyer's original proposal was a reduction of a key qualitative difference and thus combat / tactical variety; the compromise actually can retain and enhance it.

 

[Infinitron]

Why the hell is how others choose to play their games such a big issue now? Why don't designers just create difficult combat encounters and then leave the players to find their way around it? Worst part is that modern game designers turn everything ass backwards.

I sympathize with you. That kind of simulationist, "this is reality, it may be unfair, deal with it" approach towards game design is not being catered to with this game. On the other hand, I would say that even the original IE games were pretty weaksauce in this regard compared to Fallout, so what can you expect?

Again, hopefully Wasteland 2 will be more to your liking. I'd like to see all the types and subtypes of RPGs represented in this Kickstarter renaissance.