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

[Broseph]

Josh Sawyer doesn't want to work contrary to human behavior; instead he wishes to accommodate it while preserving the feeling for which he's striving. This is called making a good game. Making a bad game would be slapping them and saying "No! Play this game my way or get out!"

 

[evdk]

All of your ideas discourage picking up everything, which is contrary to what most players actually want to do (pick up everything and sell it).

I also want to pick up and sell everything, I just enjoy not being able to even more. You gotta make some hard choices at what to keep and what to leave behind, which is good.

Josh Sawyer doesn't want to work contrary to human behavior; instead he wishes to accommodate it while preserving the feeling for which he's striving. This is called making a good game. Making a bad game would be slapping them and saying "No! Play this game my way or get out!"

Ironically the best games have been made utilizing approach number two.

 

[tuluse]

Something Awful and YCS disagree and so do I. And hell since I'm already on this topic

How about making stuff not stay put for long after you leave location? How about introducing constant funds sink, like consumables, that simply makes just travelling back and forth cost you more than you get from selling rusty crap in bulk? How about making items less resaleable, both due to degradation (as was already mentioned) and lack of demand?

Designers, Y U SO DUMB?

All of your ideas discourage picking up everything, which is contrary to what most players actually want to do (pick up everything and sell it). Josh Sawyer doesn't want to work contrary to human behavior; instead he wishes to accommodate it while preserving the feeling for which he's striving. This is called making a good game. Making a bad game would be slapping them and saying "No! Play this game my way or get out!"

Sometimes forcing players to do something they think they don't want to do creates a more interesting situation and in the end the appreciate it.

 

[Roguey]

most players actually want to do

This is called making a good game

Holy Jesus, what a delusion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

What's the delusion? Believing that most players want to gather up everything and sell it? Because the playtesters and LPs he's seen have shown that's not a delusion. That making a game that works with someone's desires instead of against them isn't making a good game? That's odd considering it's the job of a game designer to create something that people enjoy.

 

[Broseph]

Sometimes forcing players to do something they think they don't want to do creates a more interesting situation and in the end the appreciate it.

I think both philosophies have some merit to them. Working around typical human behavior doesn't automatically equate to popamole. There are valid reasons why people play the way they do in games, and if Sawyer thinks he can address that while staying true to his vision, more power to him.

 

[Roguey]

Sometimes forcing players to do something they think they don't want to do creates a more interesting situation and in the end the appreciate it.

None of his scenarios sound interesting. Now deciding whether something should go to the top of the pack or in a stash, that's interesting.

 

[Aeschylus]

Sometimes forcing players to do something they think they don't want to do creates a more interesting situation and in the end the appreciate it.

None of his scenarios sound interesting. Now deciding whether something should go to the top of the pack or in a stash, that's interesting.

Interesting? Not really. Like all forms of inventory management, it sounds like tedious (but ultimately necessary, for this type of game) busy-work. The best anyone has ever done re: inventory management is to make it not infuriating. That's all I'd really hope for from P:E. Other things are vastly more important.

 

[Grunker]

most players actually want to do

This is called making a good game

Holy Jesus, what a delusion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

What's the delusion?

Thinking that game-design is about making people able to do exactly what they want whenever they want to. The logical conclusion to that philosophy is the awesome-button.

Lack of constraints on the player might be the main reason of the decline. It is the banner under which such abominations as the misconception of the term 'streamline' and simplification walk. The flag waved by those who enjoy dumbing down video games and held high by the proponents of simplicity and lower difficulties.

 

[Roguey]

Interesting? Not really. Like all forms of inventory management, it sounds like tedious (but ultimately necessary, for this type of game) busy-work. The best anyone has ever done re: inventory management is to make it not infuriating. That's all I'd really hope for from P:E. Other things are vastly more important.

It adds strategic consideration for items which is more than any IE game with a bag of holding can say.

 

[Roguey]

Thinking that game-design is about making people able to do exactly what they want whenever they want to. The logical conclusion to that philosophy is the awesome-button.

"while preserving the feeling for which he's striving"
Don't misrepresent what I'm saying.

 

[Infinitron]

most players actually want to do

This is called making a good game

Holy Jesus, what a delusion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

What's the delusion?

Thinking that game-design is about making people able to do exactly what they want whenever they want to. The logical conclusion to that philosophy is the awesome-button.

I think what Roguey means is that good game design needs to work with people's basic instincts with regards to certain things instead of trying to suppress those instincts. It's not about literally letting them do whatever they want.

 

[evdk]

Interesting? Not really. Like all forms of inventory management, it sounds like tedious (but ultimately necessary, for this type of game) busy-work. The best anyone has ever done re: inventory management is to make it not infuriating. That's all I'd really hope for from P:E. Other things are vastly more important.

It adds strategic consideration for items which is more than any IE game with a bag of holding can say.

You keep parroting that term, but it doesn't apply any more then having to leave the potentially useful things behind.

 

[Roguey]

You keep parroting that term, but it doesn't apply any more then having to leave the potentially useful things behind.

You never have to leave behind anything useful in any IE game. The decision you have to make is "Does this trash loot sell more than the trash loot I already have?"

 

[Aeschylus]

Interesting? Not really. Like all forms of inventory management, it sounds like tedious (but ultimately necessary, for this type of game) busy-work. The best anyone has ever done re: inventory management is to make it not infuriating. That's all I'd really hope for from P:E. Other things are vastly more important.

It adds strategic consideration for items which is more than any IE game with a bag of holding can say.

No, it potentially adds a choice between a few minutes of backtracking to sell things, or just selling something later. It's inventory management; it's not strategy, it's just what it is. It's nice that the option to avoid being *forced* to trek back to town is potentially there, but strategy? No.

 

[evdk]

Roguey
I have never claimed IE to be any sort of great implementation of loot management.

 

[Grunker]

most players actually want to do

This is called making a good game

Holy Jesus, what a delusion.

This is why we can't have nice things.

What's the delusion?

Thinking that game-design is about making people able to do exactly what they want whenever they want to. The logical conclusion to that philosophy is the awesome-button.

I think what Roguey means is that good game design needs to work with people's basic instincts with regards to certain things instead of trying to suppress those instincts. It's not about literally letting them do whatever they want.

Lack of constraints on the player might be the main reason of the decline. It is the banner under which such abominations as the misconception of the term 'streamline' and simplification walk. The flag waved by those who enjoy dumbing down video games and held high by the proponents of simplicity and lower difficulties.

Roguey made this comment in relation to not being able to pick up everything and sell it. To then say that that is "basic human instinct" which "must be followed in order to make the best game" is not only a stretch and an argument pulled out of thin air, it also completely flies in the face of the fact that constraints on basic player wishes and dealing with those constraints have provided some of the best gameplay experiences we have. Blood Bowl is a good example because it's such a clear illustration of this; it pushes us to control and master everything. The game is about foreseeing all outcomes and doing everything to gain the tactical edge. Everything the player does is about control. Yet the game is built on the notion that player control can be completely taken away and smashed in a second, leaving everything to chance. You can build the prettiest tower of cards and an unrelated wind can blow it away.

(I hope you realize the Blood Bowl argument has nothing to do with chance in P:E, it's just an illustration of going towards players expectations and wishes and how that builds good gameplay)

 

[Roguey]

No, it potentially adds a choice between a few minutes of backtracking to sell things, or just selling something later. It's inventory management; it's not strategy, it's just what it is. It's nice that the option to avoid being *forced* to trek back to town is potentially there, but strategy? No.

The strategy is in determining whether or not you're going into an area equipped with the optimum tools to deal with the enemies you'll be facing. Making a choice whether or not you should have potions of barkskin at the top of your pack or potions of bless (or both and not having something else readily available). And, if faced with a situation you're not optimally equipped to deal with, making a decision to backtrack or go for it anyway.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey made this comment in relation to not being able to pick up everything and sell it. To then say that that is "basic human instinct" which "must be followed in order to make the best game" is not only a stretch and an argument pulled out of thin air, it also completely flies in the face of the fact that constraints on basic player wishes and dealing with those constraints have provided some of the best gameplay experiences we have.

"This is my idea, this is how you react to it, I'll modify my idea to accommodate your reaction while still achieving my goal" sounds like the ideal way of making anything to me.

Blood Bowl is a good example because it's such a clear illustration of this; it pushes us to control and master everything. The game is about foreseeing all outcomes and doing everything to gain the tactical edge. Everything the player does is about control. Yet the game is built on the notion that player control can be completely taken away and smashed in a second, leaving everything to chance. You can build the prettiest tower of cards and an unrelated wind can blow it away.

You make it sound terrible tbqh. Lots of people love bad games. Take the DOTA fanbase for example.

 

[Grunker]

So you argue from the point that listening to the players is the thing to strive for, yet hold that people have no idea what "good" even is? How can so many people according to you love terrible shit, yet be completely able to identify what they like and don't like in a game which allows Josh the Redeemer to look at them and go "well this is what we need to make the great game!"

On the one hand, people's behaviour makes it possible to differantiate quality from shit to you. On the other, it simply significies how much people love shit.

Blood Bowl sounds terrible to you, yet the reason it is so compelling is that it will strain your brain and your patience trying to regain control after control has been taken from you, and that struggle is what makes it so satisfying when you succeed, and compels you to keep trying when you don't. Had the designers looked at the player going "baaaaaaaw, I set this up perfect and it didn't work, that's so shitty!" the brilliance of Blood Bowl would have never been created, and that's true for a shit-ton of the best games.

 

[Aeschylus]

No, it potentially adds a choice between a few minutes of backtracking to sell things, or just selling something later. It's inventory management; it's not strategy, it's just what it is. It's nice that the option to avoid being *forced* to trek back to town is potentially there, but strategy? No.

The strategy is in determining whether or not you're going into an area equipped with the optimum tools to deal with the enemies you'll be facing. Making a choice whether or not you should have potions of barkskin at the top of your pack or potions of bless (or both and not having something else readily available). And, if faced with a situation you're not optimally equipped to deal with, making a decision to backtrack or go for it anyway.

Strategy that assumes meta-knowledge on the part of the player that the character wouldn't have is not really strategy to me, but that's another matter I suppose. And I fail to see how what you/Josh Sawyer have described is any different than any other RPG without unlimited inventory space. Different games handle it in slightly different ways, but as you say yourself it ultimately boils down to trek back to town to clear up space or keep going forward.

 

[Lord Andre]

strain your brain and your patience trying to regain control after control has been taken from you

Reminds me of playing witcher 2.

 

[DraQ]

DA:O was a legitimate attempt at making a tactical game (just ask Patrick Weekes), they just failed at it for the most part.

Sounds like it was a spiritual sequel to BG, after all.

All of your ideas discourage picking up everything, which is contrary to what most players actually want to do (pick up everything and sell it). Josh Sawyer doesn't want to work contrary to human behavior; instead he wishes to accommodate it while preserving the feeling for which he's striving. This is called making a good game. Making a bad game would be slapping them and saying "No! Play this game my way or get out!"

Players also don't want to die.
Having limited health makes you die.
Godmode for everyone!!!1oneoneone

Fuck you.

The idea isn't to work against human behaviour. The idea is to make it drive your game.
This means that if you spend all the time sucking human behaviour off you're doing it fucking wrong!

Not wanting to die is rationale for player to do their best to not die, NOT the rationale for the designer to remove player health mechanics.
Carrying everything you ever find being not possible or worthwhile is rationale for the player to think what is really valuable or useful, NOT rationale to make carrying everything possible and desirable.

 

[argan]

And on another note, the romance thread is still going on.

forums.obsidian.net/topic/62215-relationshipromance-thread-iv/page__st__400

Did the entire Bioware Social Network move there?

Hello, by the way, longtime lurker here.

 

[Infinitron]

Players also don't want to die.
Having limited health makes you die.
Godmode for everyone!!!1oneoneone

Not really.

In a world of swords, monsters and battle, players will instinctually accept that they can fail at combat and die. So dying doesn't work against player instincts.

This is about instincts, not explicit desires. Yes, some part of you "doesn't want to die", but the possibility of dying doesn't annoy you in the same way that "OH FUCK WHY CAN'T I PICK THIS ITEM UP" annoys you.

 

[Roguey]

DraQ responds with a strawman, quelle surprise.

To borrow roshan's rhetoric, Josh Sawyer is Obama, Obsidian is the US senate and some people on the Codex are Tea Partiers. Fortunately the Codex can't obstruct anything in this process.