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

[Grunker]

Infinitron: Arguing from the basis of "player instinct" is absurd. Not only have you not provided any sort of basis for why crafting things to accomodate player instinct is a thing to strive for, you also haven't provided any basis for the identification of said instincts. It's just a circle-jerk made-up argument that fits well into your line of arguments in the current discussion we're having.

See my previous reply to Roguey.

"OH FUCK WHY CAN'T I PICK THIS ITEM UP"

oh jesus christ the derpyness just went waaaay beyond 9000

 

[DraQ]

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.

So disgustingly fucking alien.

Also, I guess recent BW games did a p. good job catering to human instincts, so do corridors of duty.

Being anxious or indecisive is natural human behaviour, so avoiding it by making your game a linear corridor with no choice of any consequence is good design practice too, I guess.

I so fucking hate.

 

[Aeschylus]

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.

Actually, he was engaging in reductio ad absurdem, not a straw man.

 

[Infinitron]

you also haven't provided any basis for the identification of said instincts. It's just a circle-jerk made-up argument that fits well into your arguments in the current discussion we're having.

Yes, possibly. I'm speaking from personal experience here. I haven't conducted an academic study of gamers' desires obviously.

All I know is that hitting the inventory cap in Dragon Age or Witcher 2 was very annoying. Getting killed in those games was not so annoying.

By my estimation, most RPG players seem to like picking up loot and they also seem to like challenging combat. That's what they want to do. I don't think that's an outrageous observation.

 

[FeelTheRads]

which is contrary to what most players actually want to do (pick up everything and sell it)

Roguey argues with retarded Sawyerisms. Quelle surprise.

A good game is something which caters to the masses. I see. Why isn't this a first-person 3D game then? It would be the best game ever.

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.

I've never seen such pathetic delusions since being "in love" in 5th grade. Really quite sad.

 

[Grunker]

By my estimation, most RPG players seem to like picking up loot and they also seem to like challenging combat.

My point is that you can't say "what players seem to like" makes sense for determining how to make quality games then say "well, people like a lot of horrible shit" when faced with an argument using that exact definition of quality. It's absurd.

That was what Roguey did. And I understand why. It's because this "player instinct" crap you two have caught yourself in now is such a vague and unprecise concept that it's not useful for doing, identifying or measuring shit.

Drop it and go back to discussing the practical assets and functions of IE-inventory and P:E-inventory. That might get us somewhere in contrast to this made-up, hypothetical dream-discussion we're caught in now. For example, I'd be interested to know how Roguey can maintain P:E-inv looks promising and IE-inv is craptastic while rebutting my arguments with saying how the two are basically similar on almost every point.

 

[Roguey]

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?

One doesn't listen. Give people what they want, not what for which they ask. One observes and asks themselves "Am I satisfied with this behavior?" When it comes to resting every few feet or backtracking a million times to sell everything that's not how they wanted the game to be played. Yet it's how many people play because they feel the need to play that way (even though it's not enjoyable). Sticking your head in the sand and pretending there's no problem would be a pretty lazy way of handling this, and coming up with a bunch of different ways to discourage it would lead to resentment.

 

[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?

Give people what they want, not what for which they ask.

This makes no sense in the context of your rebuttal of my argument on great games.

You've basically taken this to the absurd conclusion that people don't really like what they like and that Godly Game Designers like Josh are so great because they can tell from people's behaviour what they actually like. In essence:

My point is that you can't say "what players seem to like" makes sense for determining how to make quality games then say "well, people like a lot of horrible shit" when faced with an argument using that exact definition of quality. It's absurd.

That was what Roguey did. And I understand why. It's because this "player instinct" crap you two have caught yourself in now is such a vague and unprecise concept that it's not useful for doing, identifying or measuring shit.

Drop it and go back to discussing the practical assets and functions of IE-inventory and P:E-inventory. That might get us somewhere in contrast to this made-up, hypothetical dream-discussion we're caught in now. For example, I'd be interested to know how Roguey can maintain P:E-inv looks promising and IE-inv is craptastic while rebutting my arguments with saying how the two are basically similar on almost every point.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yet it's how many people play because they feel the need to play that way (even though it's not enjoyable).

HEY GUISE I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU HOW U LIKE TO PLAY GAEMS AND U SHOULD PLAY HOW I SAY YOU SHOULD!!!!!11

Bethesda design 101.

 

[Infinitron]

That was what Roguey did. And I understand why. It's because this "player instinct" crap you two have caught yourself in now is such a vague and unprecise concept that it's not useful for doing, identifying or measuring shit.

I was the one who started talking about "player instinct", not Roguey.

Yes, it's not a perfect term and there's a lot more that I could say about how dying in combat isn't really in the same category as not being allowed to pick up an item, but fuck it, it's late and Roguey is doing a good enough job on his own. Enjoy your debate.

 

[Roguey]

This makes no sense in the context of your rebuttal of my argument on great games.

You've basically taken this to the absurd conclusion that people don't really like what they like and that Godly Game Designers like Josh are so great because they can tell from people's behaviour what they actually like.

I know I for one don't like how resting works in the IE games or having to constantly trade items between party members so they always stay just below the encumbrance cap.
This was quoted before but it could use requoting:
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/page__view__findpost__p__1296177

Gameplay degeneration isn't a pejorative commentary on players using it. When I write about gameplay degeneration, what I mean is that both the intended gameplay styles (from a design perspective) and the players' desired gameplay styles effectively go out the window because the system rewards some other method(s) of gameplay. It's not a gamer's fault for making use of an obvious loophole or method of min-maxing, but it is our responsibility (as designers) to try to align fun design intention with actually fun gameplay.

If we design a system that rewards resting every 5', the gamer isn't at fault for using it. We put it in there! If we design a system that rewards savescumming, we (the designers) are the ones to blame. If we design an inventory system that rewards traveling back and forth to haul load after to load of loot out like precious grains of sand, again, we're the ones that built the system.

My job is to give the player interesting challenges to overcome and a variety of tools to overcome those challenges. If their solutions to the challenges involve mentally un-engaging rote tasks or exploiting loopholes, I believe that most players don't like that. I believe most players would rather have us think about and eliminate loopholes and present challenges that allow them to overcome challenges in a "stand up" fashion.

Another example is kiting, which has been brought up a number of times and is a pernicious problem in a lot of games. The steps we take to solve kiting issues will not be made to slap the hands of gamers we think are doing something "bad". If we allow and effectively reward kiting, then kiting becomes the low-bar for overcoming combat challenges, but it will be our fault for letting it happen.

I bolded the best paragraph.

 

[Grunker]

Meh, we had that discussion before. It's the wrong priority, because it is unachievable. When achieved partly, it is usually done by locking players off from certain stuff, which simply reduces complexity and choice. P:E will prove this point, but again we reach a point where we can't move any further.

In any case, it was a good diversion from my argument though not related to it in any way.

 

[almondblight]

It's really not that hard to make an AI kite you provided it has some room and not too many actors.

Yeah, Myth did this ~16 years ago. Melee units were faster than ranged, though, which prevented you from running around in circles. It also had AI where skirmishers would attack archers if they were undefended, and would run away if you sent melee units over to protect them.

 

[Hormalakh]

I sure am.

Newbie here. Word of advice. Be yourself and don't try to "act hardcore." If you like a certain type of game, you'll find people here who agree/disagree with you. The Codex isn't a hivemind - there is a huge diversity of opinion here. Of course, some Codexers probably think others should be banned, but that's another discussion.

 

[Blaine]

Roguey, the essence of your argument is the very same slippery slope that led to the decline. "Most people" grew from a relatively small collection of nerds in the 1980s and early 1990s to a massive group of uneducated young imbeciles in the 2000s and 2010s. Games have become more affordable with each passing year, as have computers, and consoles have gradually assimilated many games that would once have been PC-exclusive. The average member of even a niche target audience is now a broke, functionally illiterate, 23-year-old missing link. That's "most people" now.

Most people don't want to face difficult puzzles or challenging enemies. Most people would rather click a button and instantly travel someplace in the game world rather than journeying there. Most people appreciate quest markers, item highlights and so on. Most people prioritize good graphics over many other, much more important aspects of a computer game. Most people want to turn their brains off and press A to win in order to "relax after work" or some such garbage.

I don't give a shit what "most people" want. Fuck them. Some of the best old-school games were built from the ground up by a small team of guys pioneering some concept, building a world, emulating tabletop or board games... building a game THEY would want to play, rather than implementing design by committee at every turn.

 

[hiver]

Isnt the point that these few games arent made for that mass market in the first place?

 

[Blaine]

Ostensibly, although unfortunately Obsidian's fan base includes more than a few Biodrones and casuals.

Most, if not all of the IE games suffered somewhat from the beginning stages of the decline (RTwP being the prime example), although they were still very good games despite this. I don't necessarily think P:E will be decline, or that Roguey is an advocate of decline, but the "most people" mentality is questionable at best.

Design by committee makes computer games shitty.

 

[Shannow]

Congratulations codex! Your squabbling in this thread has unlocked another level of the mega dungeon!
You can now play with He-Man's knees. How low can you go? Will you reach his toes?
On to the next 100 pages!

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Meh, we had that discussion before. It's the wrong priority, because it is unachievable.

Having interesting challenges that can be solved with a variety of tools is the wrong priority now.

Sounds p popamole to me

building a game THEY would want to play, rather than implementing design by committee at every turn.

Well, Josh is building the game he wants to play, according to his own philosophy, and he doesn't give a shit what the Codex Committe of Crying says about it. Satisfied?

 

[Raapys]

Well, Josh is building the game he wants to play, according to his own philosophy, and he doesn't give a shit what the Codex Committe of Crying says about it. Satisfied?

Unfortunately, he does seem to give a shit about everyone else.

The way this has been going, I'm pretty sure they could try to get funding from EA at this point.

 

[GueulEclator]

Have they leaked anything about a multiplayer component in a paid DLC/Expansion? I know most of you don't like it, but Other human players has always been a big part of D&D or D&D like games (in this case) for me. So it's not like i'm spewing blasphemy or something.

 

[Infinitron]

Hiver in da house: http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/413575023840753174

Are you going to go with fixed amount of HP points or will players be able to raise the amount of HP in any way, by leveling or otherwise, during the game?

Characters will gain HP throughout the game.

Have they leaked anything about a multiplayer component in a paid DLC/Expansion? I know most of you don't like it, but Other human players has always been a big part of D&D or D&D like games (in this case) for me. So it's not like i'm spewing blasphemy or something.

Nope.

The way this has been going, I'm pretty sure they could try to get funding from EA at this point.

That's not saying much. The sheer hype this project has generated means they could probably get funding from EA, who would happily hop on board for PR purposes, no strings attached.

 

[Raapys]

That's not saying much. The sheer hype this project has generated means they could probably get funding from EA, who would happily hop on board for PR purposes, no strings attached.

Well yeah, there's that. Though as you probably figured out, I did mean it in a negative way in terms of how they're designing this stuff. To me, it's definitely sounding more like Dragon Age than BG/IWD/whatever old stuff.

Meh, I'm just annoyed. Just seems like a kind of 'abuse of kickstarter'; the entire point, at least as I had understood it, was that there wouldn't need to be compromises because of publishers or mass appeal. Yet strangely, just about everything we hear points to how this game won't actually be very different from modern RPGs after all.

Personally I was hoping, wishing for basically a clone of the infinity engine games in a new setting, with a new story. Is that really so much to ask?

 

[Blaine]

Well, Josh is building the game he wants to play, according to his own philosophy, and he doesn't give a shit what the Codex Committe of Crying says about it. Satisfied?

Except it sounds very much like he's building the game most people want to play based on his analyses of majority preference. Now, it may be that a designed-by-committee game is what he wants to play, but that was hardly my point and I'm sure you realize that.

 

[Infinitron]

That's not saying much. The sheer hype this project has generated means they could probably get funding from EA, who would happily hop on board for PR purposes, no strings attached.

Well yeah, there's that. Though as you probably figured out, I did mean it in a negative way in terms of how they're designing this stuff. To me, it's definitely sounding more like Dragon Age than BG/IWD/whatever old stuff.

Meh, I'm just annoyed. Just seems like a kind of 'abuse of kickstarter'; the entire point, at least as I had understood it, was that there wouldn't need to be compromises because of publishers or mass appeal. Yet strangely, just about everything we hear points to how this game won't actually be very different from modern RPGs after all.

Personally I was hoping, wishing for basically a clone of the infinity engine games in a new setting, with a new story. Is that really so much to ask?

When the only things you hear about a project are how it will differ from your expectations, the perception that the project as a whole will be nothing like what you expected is hard to avoid. It's hard to see the forest for the trees.

I agree that Josh could do more to show how this game WILL be like the IE games. Which I'm confident it will be.

I also think that Obsidian could have emphasized at some point that another primary purpose of this project was to finally give Josh Sawyer a chance to make his own game, a chance that has been repeatedly denied to him over the years, with cancelled project after cancelled project. But of course, that wouldn't mean much to the vast majority of the audience.