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

[Hormalakh]

One of the reasons that was given for the return to isometric perspective was one given by Josh Sawyer. I don't have the direct quote now, but he basically said that when playing a 6 member party RPG, having a wider and broader line of sight helps to make the game more tactically interesting. If I'm not mistaken he also said something about it being easier to set up tactical positions and to see where party members are during combat.

If you have an isometric perspective, the combat becomes much more interesting and relaying commands to your party members can be more tactical.

 

[Aeschylus]

One of the reasons that was given for the return to isometric perspective was one given by Josh Sawyer. I don't have the direct quote now, but he basically said that when playing a 6 member party RPG, having a wider and broader line of sight helps to make the game more tactically interesting. If I'm not mistaken he also said something about it being easier to set up tactical positions and to see where party members are during combat.

If you have an isometric perspective, the combat becomes much more interesting and relaying commands to your party members can be more tactical.

You do not need Josh Sawyer to tell you this. One look at the clusterfuck that is party control with an OTS camera in Dragon Age 2 will tell you all you need to know about why party-based games should be isometric.

 

[Surf Solar]

One of the reasons that was given for the return to isometric perspective was one given by Josh Sawyer. I don't have the direct quote now, but he basically said that when playing a 6 member party RPG, having a wider and broader line of sight helps to make the game more tactically interesting. If I'm not mistaken he also said something about it being easier to set up tactical positions and to see where party members are during combat.

If you have an isometric perspective, the combat becomes much more interesting and relaying commands to your party members can be more tactical.

You do not need Josh Sawyer to tell you this. One look at the clusterfuck that is party control with an OTS camera in Dragon Age 2 will tell you all you need to know about why party-based games should be isometric.

Wasteland 2 disagrees.

 

[Lancehead]

Pre-rendered backgrounds mean they're already modeled in 3D. Only thing is you can't rotate the camera. So, I don't have any complaints as long as they get the zoom level right.

 

[Kem0sabe]

I haven´t played a single 3D RPG that even comes close to the quality of the old 2D isometric rpg´s of old.

3D almost always implies higher production values in certain areas like cinematics and voiceovers with the problems those imply to other areas like conversation depth and putting control into the player´s hands.

You trade quality for spectacle on most cases and that tradeoff is not something RPG´s should be saddled with.

 

[Lancehead]

The divide is not really in 2D vs 3D as much as it is in perspectives; isometric vs third or first person.

 

[Roguey]

So how do Bioware games not fall under your above problem Roguey? Leaving aside that pop culture in our times is defined by that self-referentiality. And I hardly think Ghost in the Shell quoting Zizek and Heidegger at every turn is any better.

I was talking about Bioware, not Obsidian. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

I've only seen the 1995 Ghost in the Shell movie but it brought up some interesting things to think about so it's a good movie. I don't see a problem with repackaging ideas in a more accessible medium for those who would otherwise not be exposed to said ideas.

 

[Hormalakh]

Will non-combat skills be restricted by class? I like to play warriors and characters good with diplomacy/speech/persuade skills. Few games let players do both at once and I was wondering if PE would be different.

They won't be class-restricted, but some classes will have more of an advantage with certain skills.

http://4ms.me/10cE6wd

 

[Infinitron]

Will non-combat skills be restricted by class? I like to play warriors and characters good with diplomacy/speech/persuade skills. Few games let players do both at once and I was wondering if PE would be different.

They won't be class-restricted, but some classes will have more of an advantage with certain skills.

http://4ms.me/10cE6wd

So basically, some equivalent of D&D 3E's concept of class and cross-class skills. This is what I was expecting.

 

[suejak]

The divide is not really in 2D vs 3D as much as it is in perspectives; isometric vs third or first person.

Or fixed camera vs rotatable camera.

Personally, I hate rotatable cameras like in NWN and NWN2.

 

[Hormalakh]

A slightly more "controversial" formspring answer.

What are some of the incentives to using a lighter armor type in PE? Is it just an encumbrance thing? Is will your movement speed be affected even if you have the strength to carry heavy armor?

You will attack, cast spells, and perform most other actions (not including standard movement) more quickly. A character in the heaviest armor will likely have somewhere in the range of a 30% speed (again, not movement) penalty to his or her actions. In the time it takes an unarmored character to complete a given action 10 times, a character in the heaviest armor will have completed the same action 7 times (roughly).

We are using this trade-off because it seems to pose a more interesting problem for players than a combat vs. non-combat trade (e.g. protection vs. carry weight or non-combat skill use) and it's not as mathematically straightforward as a damage avoidance vs. damage reduction model (i.e. dodging vs. absorbing hits).

Characters that stay away from the front lines (e.g. traditional long-range wizards and archery-focused rangers) may tend to wear less armor because they are not subjected to as many attacks. Some front-line combatants may wear light armor with the strategy that dealing damage more quickly will make up for their relative lack of protection.

 

[Emily]

That is fucking retarded on so many levels

 

[Hormalakh]

That is fucking retarded on so many levels

Give me one.

 

[suejak]

That sounds fine. If he balances the speed-vs-armour thing well enough, it's a great tradeoff.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm, I commented on that. It seems he's implying that heavy armor will have no negative effect on your ability to dodge blows (as opposed to absorbing them)?

 

[Emily]

That is fucking retarded on so many levels

Give me one.

Characters that stay away from the front lines (e.g. traditional long-range wizards and archery-focused rangers) may tend to wear less armor because they are not subjected to as many attacks.

lol so you make dps wizards and archers cause why not

Some front-line combatants may wear light armor with the strategy that dealing damage more quickly will make up for their relative lack of protection.

Wrong unless the game is trivially easy, there is no reason why not to take heaviest armor front, and dps chars in the back.
So you will have tank,healer,dps

 

[Infinitron]

Wrong unless the game is trivially easy, there is no reason why not to take heaviest armor front

lol AD&D 2E

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Armor_check_penalty

 

[tuluse]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[suejak]

You've never heard of a dps warrior?

...to speak to you in your own WOW language.

 

[Emily]

Wrong unless the game is trivially easy, there is no reason why not to take heaviest armor front

lol AD&D 2E

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Armor_check_penalty

so you are saying that is pretty stupid as well? if so i agree. There was no reason why not to take the heaviest armor there either.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Hormalakh]

I don't think dodge will be playing a factor because he's trying to make the armor question answer two different things. With dodge/damage threshold they both have to do with damage reduction. So really, it's not much of a question because both armors are ultimately doing the same thing.

With his proposal different armors answer different questions. I have to agree with tuluse and say that it's perfectly reasonable. This isn't D&D (as I and most everyone else here has sadly/gladly realized) and the game won't play the same in every regard.

 

[Emily]

You've never heard of a dps warrior?

...to speak to you in your own WOW language.

dps warrior is fine, but there must be a tank that can agro for it to work.
Again it just means dps,tank,healer. Dps can be mage/warrior/offensive priest/thief anything really

 

[suejak]

Is there aggro in this game?

 

[Infinitron]

I don't think dodge will be playing a factor because he's trying to make the armor question answer two different things. With dodge/damage threshold they both have to do with damage reduction. So really, it's not much of a question because both armors are ultimately doing the same thing.

With his proposal different armors answer different questions. I have to agree with tuluse and say that it's perfectly reasonable. This isn't D&D (as I and most everyone else here has sadly/gladly realized) and the game won't play the same in every regard.

If there's really no penalty to dexterity caused by heavy armor, and by extension no penalty to dodging hits, then that means that heavier armor can only improve your ability to dodge.

After all, dodging isn't something that can be "slowed down" by wearing heavy armor. Either you dodge or you don't dodge.

Unless, that is, they do something cool, like making dodging a "real time" event, that can only happen a set number of times per interval, depending on your armor's heaviness.

So if you're up against a lightly armored opponent, he may actually hit you too quickly for you to dodge all of his blows, even if your AC is numerically high enough to dodge them.

Is there aggro in this game?

Not that we're aware of.