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

[Infinitron]

DraQ
What's happened here is that being awarded with XP for killing enemies has become such a formalized part of RPG mechanics, that removing it seems to some people like a violation of the "internal reality" of the genre itself.

"What do you mean, getting XP for killing enemies incentivizes cheesy behavior? If you don't want to behave cheesily, just don't! That's how these games work, deal with it! Don't ruin it for the rest of us!"

Call it "The Simulationism Of Fools".

 

[DraQ]

DraQ
What's happened here is that being awarded with XP for killing enemies has become such a formalized part of RPG mechanics, that removing it seems to some people like a violation of the "internal reality" of the genre itself.

You're probably right, but here of all places people should be less uncritical in their acceptance of shit.

It always pisses me off to see people interested in exchanging new decline back for old, instead of thinking how to get rid of decline altogether.

 

[Aeschylus]

I always preferred holistic experience reward systems like those found in White Wolf games and AD&D where players are rewarded for the totality of their accomplishments at the end of a given bout of adventuring rather than by each monster killed or quest completed, but I suppose that such a system would be a little bit hard to implement in a cRPG due to the lack of obvious cut-off points, and the fact that delayed gratification isn't widely appreciated by most gamers these days.

So, I suppose a system which doesn't give XP rewards for combat is partway there, while kind of missing the point of holistic systems. It seems more like a tactic to give the developer greater control over player advancement (thereby making their own jobs easier) than a real attempt to create a reasoned system of rewards, but what do I know.

 

[Infinitron]

So, I suppose a system which doesn't give XP rewards for combat is partway there, while kind of missing the point of holistic systems. It seems more like a tactic to give the developer greater control over player advancement (thereby making their own jobs easier)

To be honest, in a game that needs to be out in a year and a half, this is more than understandable. They are not going to have time to test and tweak hundreds of different XP values that the player might earn over the course of a game.

 

[Mrowak]

DraQ
What's happened here is that being awarded with XP for killing enemies has become such a formalized part of RPG mechanics, that removing it seems to some people like a violation of the "internal reality" of the genre itself.

You're probably right, but here of all places people should be less uncritical in their acceptance of shit.

It always pisses me off to see people interested in exchanging new decline back for old, instead of thinking how to get rid of decline altogether.

The problem I see with our little community is that all too often we react to keywords without really knowing what stands behind them. Put RTwP, sand-box and LARP in one sentence and the amount of vitriol in responses will kill whales. It's like we liked not games but few selected features, without really recognising that it is not really how one part works that determines whether something is shit or not; it's combination of those things put in context.

The thing is, some of us cannot put things into perspective (like XP influencing all sorts of other things) and stick to the old formula, "because it worked, duh".

If we take that to EXTREME Codex will turn into reverse popamole where not a single new gameplay idea is permited. That's as well. "not going forward is going backwards" and all that...

 

[Mrowak]

[

The problem I see with our little community is that all too often we react to keywords without really knowing what stands behind them. Put RTwP, sand-box and LARP in one sentence and the amount of vitriol in responses will kill whales. It's like we liked not games but few selected features, without really recognising that it is not really how one part works that determines whether something is shit or not; it's combination of those things put in context.

The thing is, some of us cannot put things into perspective (like XP influencing all sorts of other things) and stick to the old formula, "because it worked, duh".

If we take that to EXTREME Codex will turn into reverse popamole where not a single new gameplay idea is permited. That's as well. "not going forward is going backwards" and all that...

Have you actually read any posts that seriously talk about this or this is just out of your ass?

That's just my aside for the discussion, good sir. Carry on with the passive-aggressive stance of yours.

 

[Mrowak]

[

The problem I see with our little community is that all too often we react to keywords without really knowing what stands behind them. Put RTwP, sand-box and LARP in one sentence and the amount of vitriol in responses will kill whales. It's like we liked not games but few selected features, without really recognising that it is not really how one part works that determines whether something is shit or not; it's combination of those things put in context.

The thing is, some of us cannot put things into perspective (like XP influencing all sorts of other things) and stick to the old formula, "because it worked, duh".

If we take that to EXTREME Codex will turn into reverse popamole where not a single new gameplay idea is permited. That's as well. "not going forward is going backwards" and all that...

Have you actually read any posts that seriously talk about this or this is just out of your ass?

That's just my aside for the discussion, good sir. Carry on with the passive-aggressive stance of yours.

There is NOTHING passive about it.

All the cases where RTwP, Larping and XP is being criticized I remember reading and writing arguments that make are not senseless. You are just attempting to be edgy by showing that you don't follow the herd or something.

I am afraid that the only one the *bleeds* edginess, good sir, is you.

 

[Mrowak]

I am afraid that the only one the *bleeds* edginess, good sir, is you.

Whatever.

:passive aggressive:

 

[Blaine]

I always preferred holistic experience reward systems like those found in White Wolf games and AD&D where players are rewarded for the totality of their accomplishments at the end of a given bout of adventuring rather than by each monster killed or quest completed, but I suppose that such a system would be a little bit hard to implement in a cRPG due to the lack of obvious cut-off points, and the fact that delayed gratification isn't widely appreciated by most gamers these days.

I prefer "post-session rewards" as well, and agree that they're difficult to implement in cRPGs for the reasons you mentioned. The difficulty is caused by more than the lack of cutoff points and impatient casual gamers, though. cRPGs tend to feature static content, are nowhere near as open-ended as tabletop RPGs, and there's no GM—so even if a developer managed to pin down appropriate cutoff points, dispensing occasional large blocks of XP or skill points would appear arbitrary and artificial, even if the final XP pool at the end of an average game is nearly identical to what you'd achieve via a kill/quest XP system.

I also think "post-mission rewards" are better suited to skill point-based, level-less character progression systems; perhaps holistic rewards could work in a skill-based cRPG, if developers could figure out when to dispense the skill points. It makes a lot more sense to receive occasional batches of skill points in skill-based systems than it does to receive batches of XP in systems that utilize an incremental progression of somewhat linear character levels.

 

[Shannow]

DraQ
What's happened here is that being awarded with XP for killing enemies has become such a formalized part of RPG mechanics, that removing it seems to some people like a violation of the "internal reality" of the genre itself.

You're probably right, but here of all places people should be less uncritical in their acceptance of shit.

It always pisses me off to see people interested in exchanging new decline back for old, instead of thinking how to get rid of decline altogether.

The problem I see with our little community is that all too often we react to keywords without really knowing what stands behind them. Put RTwP, sand-box and LARP in one sentence and the amount of vitriol in responses will kill whales. It's like we liked not games but few selected features, without really recognising that it is not really how one part works that determines whether something is shit or not; it's combination of those things put in context.

The thing is, some of us cannot put things into perspective (like XP influencing all sorts of other things) and stick to the old formula, "because it worked, duh".

If we take that to EXTREME Codex will turn into reverse popamole where not a single new gameplay idea is permited. That's as well. "not going forward is going backwards" and all that...

*Change of past paradigms in the genre* is not the same as *including "features" that have burnt us in the past*.
I think you're throwing some stuff together that simply doesn't mix.
New design can be discussed on its own merits.

stick to the old formula, "because it worked, duh".

The "wheel" works. So moving forward and thinking "squares" could do their job better just because it's a "new" idea, isn't particularly convincing. But each new idea would have to be discussed on its own merit and, when in doubt, simply tried.
Old concepts on the other hand: RTwP, LARP, emotional engagement, action packed, visceral, etc... With those we have experience. Our judgement will be based on that experience. Whether that is fair or not; it's human nature.

The problem I see with our little community is that the opinion of a few loud-mouths is considered the "hivemind's" opinion simply because they post the most...

 

[Murk]

Much truth in that last sentence, much truth.

I really hate it when people attempt to speak on behalf of the Codex, since the hivemind here is in fact non-existent.

Still, I think I understand what Mrowak is getting at -- there are a few people who just skip over the real meat and logic of an argument in favor of reacting. Hell, I've done it too. It's easy.

 

[80Maxwell08]

No idea why this wasn't posted yet but hey maybe people being a bit less obsessive is a good thing.
https://twitter.com/ChrisAvellone/status/291658871016128513
Not really a confirmation for when that stream is going to happen but he is installing it at least.

 

[almondblight]

The problem I see with our little community is that the opinion of a few loud-mouths is considered the "hivemind's" opinion simply because they post the most...

Not sure if that constitutes a problem, but it is what happens.

 

[Murk]

I look forward to his inevitable rage-quit(s) ;D

 

[Broseph]

Playing as a fighter at least, Arcanum becomes a joke after level 15-ish. Not that it matters to me because I'm a storyfag. If PE turns out to have fantastic writing (and I suspect it will) then it will be a day one purchase.

 

[Blaine]

Arcanum's combat is a train wreck through and through. Otherwise, it would be one of the best cRPGs ever developed.

 

[suejak]

Combat and incomplete quests, yeah. Also somewhat unreactive gameworld. But aside from that, yeah. Also bad leveling system and companions that only level when you level, so you have to find them at the right time or they'll be stuck below you in level. Other than that, yeah. And the level cap.

 

[Blaine]

I've forgotten about most of the game's flaws over the years. It's been a while since I played it. I do recall that the companion AI was fucking HIDEOUS, even worse than in Fallout and Fallout 2. It's a damned shame that not a single one of the Black Isle/IE-style games featured both direct control over all party members and turn-based combat.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Who own the RPG Codex twitter account?

 

[Infinitron]

I've forgotten about most of the game's flaws over the years. It's been a while since I played it. I do recall that the companion AI was fucking HIDEOUS, even worse than in Fallout and Fallout 2. It's a damned shame that not a single one of the Black Isle/IE-style games featured both direct control over all party members and turn-based combat.

TTOEE?

 

[Blaine]

TTOEE?

I tend to forget about TToEE when considering the Black Isle/IE-style collective, and frankly I'm not certain it should be included at all. If included, it's the single exception to the rule.

 

[Arkeus]

Also bad leveling system and companions that only level when you level, so you have to find them at the right time or they'll be stuck below you in level.

Oh God, i had forgotten about that :-(

 

[Roguey]

I've forgotten about most of the game's flaws over the years. It's been a while since I played it. I do recall that the companion AI was fucking HIDEOUS, even worse than in Fallout and Fallout 2. It's a damned shame that not a single one of the Black Isle/IE-style games featured both direct control over all party members and turn-based combat.

Arcanum allowed you to issue a few orders to your companions while in turn-based mode which is a step up from the Fallouts. You just couldn't run with Virgil or any other spellcaster if you were tech-leaning.

Also somewhat unreactive gameworld.

How is Arcanum less reactive than any other game of its time? I'd say it's actually more.

 

[Lancehead]

One thing that's lacking is that any actions outside the quests don't change the alignment. And the reputations are permanent, if I remember correctly.

 

[Lord Andre]

One thing that's lacking is that any actions outside the quests don't change the alignment. And the reputations are permanent, if I remember correctly.

Ban this fucking retard. Then ban Suejack too. Help clean the enviroment.