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

[Lancehead]

It can be a pain if you want a party of 6 with different stealth abilities to sneak past a warehouse full of enemies, for example.

If one party member has a high sneak skill maybe that can apply a bonus to party members' skill. Sort like a D&D skill adding bonus to another skill.
Or perhaps have a party sneak stat derived from sneak values of the members.

 

[Sannom]

I have the same concern. I don't want to play a third-person Thief game.

It sounds more like a shallower version of the system used in Commandos 2 than an 'action' stealth game like Thief. Player skill will be secondary to things like good placement, distractions and timing.

 

[Rake]

or you know, manage them one at a time.
Lets face it, if you want somewhat complex stealth mecanics, managing your party all at once is not an option. If you want that put mass invisibility in the game and call it a day.
Propably the "stealth solution" will require only one character. Even in the quote from Sawyer, one character would make a distraction, to help the others sneak.

 

[imweasel]

challenge system @ Formspring:

We will also have some sort of challenge/reward system similar to F:NV's. Some challenges will be purely combat-focused.

 

[Shadenuat]

The idea of combining lore bit (unarmored monks) with gameplay (if you're unarmored you get "rage" resource faster) seems pretty elegant.

 

[Captain Shrek]

The idea of combining lore bit (unarmored monks) with gameplay (if you're unarmored you get "rage" resource faster) seems pretty elegant.

Yeah. It was never done by, say, DnD o_O.

 

[Roguey]

Just trying to anticipate arguments before they arise. We were talking about stealth and how his new mechanics might be crossing over from character skill to player skill.

Josh believes player versus character is a false dichotomy. Eternity will require both character and player skills.

 

[Hormalakh]

Josh believes player versus character is a false dichotomy. Eternity will require both character and player skills.

Good. For the most part, I agree with him. There are some games that require more "actiony" player skill than not. But for the most part, yeah.

 

[Maiandros]

Personally speaking i am not holding high hopes, those are reserved for InXile...if PE gets to be anywhere near the disappointment what i think it will be, i will be dying to hear what excuses they will have to make this time, when they were self funded, self directed, self managed, and with a couple of millions of greenies extra a budget on top of all that.
If it wasn't an upcoming game of this genre, i'd have even written this with plenty of smileys and decorated it with an abundance of Codex memes. Since it is however, i hope i am proven wrong. I will refrain from judging the tidbits released to us the masses daily and await for the product itself.

P.S. i cannot emphasise just how important i find 'story'..but story is one thing, and a good solid RPG is another. They may interelate, but they are not interdependent.

 

[Hormalakh]

Personally speaking i am not holding high hopes, those are reserved for InXile...if PE gets to be anywhere near the disappointment what i think it will be, i will be dying to hear what excuses they will have to make this time, when they were self funded, self directed, self managed, and with a couple of millions of greenies extra a budget on top of all that.
If it wasn't an upcoming game of this genre, i'd have even written this with plenty of smileys and decorated it with an abundance of Codex memes. Since it is however, i hope i am proven wrong. I will refrain from judging the tidbits released to us the masses daily and await for the product itself.

P.S. i cannot emphasise just how important i find 'story'..but story is one thing, and a good solid RPG is another. They may interelate, but they are not interdependent.

What exactly makes you think that this game wouldn't be compared to the previous games? Give examples, be specific.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Josh believes player versus character is a false dichotomy. Eternity will require both character and player skills.

Good. For the most part, I agree with him. There are some games that require more "actiony" player skill than not. But for the most part, yeah.

Yeah, I'm not sure I get that distinction between player and character skill. Holding a button in an action game to go into stealth mode requires no more player skill than clicking on the stealth icon in an rpg. I don't think the addition of RNG based failure is really enough to fundamentally change the character of that interaction. Whether or not you use your reflexes (i.e. react in real-time) provides a much more meaningful difference.

That being said, stealth mechanics that work well in a first person or over the shoulder type of view would be fairly tedious in an isometric view (or isometric-esque for the pedants).

 

[Lancehead]

The distinction is the use of motor skills; carefully manoeuvring the character to avoid danger, in this case.

 

[Hormalakh]

The distinction is the use of motor skills; carefully manoeuvring the character to avoid danger, in this case.

But you are just as likely to use "motor skills" to orient and position your characters during combat. Why is it OK during combat to try to limit danger, manage spells, etc but not when it's outside of combat.

There is unfortunately a huge gulf between player expectations when it comes to how RPGs should play in and out of combat. It's crazy. Outside of the turn-based advocates (which might be the whole codex), people have no problem with RTwP playing the way it does in combat, but when it comes to things outside of combat suddenly things become too actiony?

That being said, stealth mechanics that work well in a first person or over the shoulder type of view would be fairly tedious in an isometric view (or isometric-esque for the pedants).

Have you played Commandos? It is an isometric-esque game where you control several characters in a stealth game.

 

[imweasel]

What exactly makes you think that this game wouldn't be compared to the previous games? Give examples, be specific.

How many times has changing the formula led to a shit game (or anything else for that matter). Let me count the ways...

 

[Raapys]

Changing the formula usually always leads to better games. Just look at [blank].

 

[Lancehead]

The distinction is the use of motor skills; carefully manoeuvring the character to avoid danger, in this case.

But you are just as likely to use "motor skills" to orient and position your characters during combat. Why is it OK during combat to try to limit danger, manage spells, etc but not when it's outside of combat.

There is unfortunately a huge gulf between player expectations when it comes to how RPGs should play in and out of combat. It's crazy. Outside of the turn-based advocates (which might be the whole codex), people have no problem with RTwP playing the way it does in combat, but when it comes to things outside of combat suddenly things become too actiony?

I probably should've quoted the part I was responding to, but I was responding to the distinction between player and character skill. I don't think what Sawyer is proposing for sneaking makes it action-y.

As for positioning your characters in combat, it'd count as motor skill if you're doing it in real-time. But there is pause.

It doesn't have anything to do with in or out of combat, but rather in or out of gameplay moments.

 

[Hormalakh]

How many times has changing the formula led to a shit game (or anything else for that matter). Let me count the ways...

Please do. Tell me how changing "the formula" (whatever that is) has led to such a game. You believe not innovating is decline?

Let's stick with the IE games. What exactly was the formula?

IWD: Let's forgo a story and stick with combat.
PS:T - Let's forgo death and stick to a story.
BG2: Let's make a game with romances, and make a game that doesn't exactly follow the D&D rules, but it's pretty close.

What exactly is the formula? These three games are exactly the same?

 

[Infinitron]

The distinction is the use of motor skills; carefully manoeuvring the character to avoid danger, in this case.

But you are just as likely to use "motor skills" to orient and position your characters during combat. Why is it OK during combat to try to limit danger, manage spells, etc but not when it's outside of combat.

There is unfortunately a huge gulf between player expectations when it comes to how RPGs should play in and out of combat. It's crazy. Outside of the turn-based advocates (which might be the whole codex), people have no problem with RTwP playing the way it does in combat, but when it comes to things outside of combat suddenly things become too actiony?

I probably should've quoted the part I was responding to, but I was responding to the distinction between player and character skill. I don't think what Sawyer is proposing for sneaking makes it action-y.

As for positioning your characters in combat, it'd count as motor skill if you're doing it in real-time. But there is pause.

It doesn't have anything to do with in or out of combat, but rather in or out of gameplay moments.

IMO, if a game is slow-paced enough - I mean literally, things just don't move very fast - then even pure realtime without pause can be not actiony/twitchy.

 

[Hormalakh]

You could also pause while sneaking. Combat isn't the only time you can pause. People just generally don't do it.

 

[imweasel]

Please do. Tell me how changing "the formula" (whatever that is) has led to such a game. You believe not innovating is decline?

Let's stick with the IE games. What exactly was the formula?

Well, roughly said, what they had in common of course. One had more combat, the other had more text, but essentially they all had the same fundamental design. And as we know PE will be quite different with it's sneak mechanic, etc.

Now I am not saying that the game will be horrible, maybe it will actually be so good that you play it every morning while taking a shit or something, but there is of course always room for doubt like Maiandros said.

 

[coffeetable]

Personally speaking i am not holding high hopes, those are reserved for InXile...

Have you seen inXile's history? Bard's Tale (mediocre-to-shit), five iOS games, two PSN games and HUNTED: THE DEMON'S FORGE (shit). W2's isn't quite the unavoidable catastrophe GODUS and Elite are, but the odds of it turning out well are far less than the odds of P:E or DFA turning out well. For all that DF and Obsidian have a flawed history making games like these, at least they have a history making games like these.

(Not to say their chances are great either. Considering how DFA's run into money issues already, I wouldn't be surprised if every "big" budget Kickstarter goes up in flames)

 

[Infinitron]

Considering how DFA's run into money issues already

What issues are you referring to?

 

[tuluse]

Considering how DFA's run into money issues already

What issues are you referring to?

They ran out of money to make the game they wanted to and went after some additional funds through other channels.

Edit: They didn't actually run out of money, but there was no way they were going to meet their projected deadline and make the game the size they wanted. So their options were to get more money or cut a good amount of content out of the game.

 

[Jaesun]

Joined: Dec 18, 2012

 

[coffeetable]

Considering how DFA's run into money issues already

What issues are you referring to?

If you're a backer, watch the December update. Summary: they don't think they've got enough money to complete the game to the standard they wanted, so they're looking for extra funding elsewhere (probably from internal sources) and they're cutting stuff the extra funding won't cover. Nothing that doesn't happen in every other development cycle, but in every other development cycle there's a publisher you can run to if needed.

e: If you're not a backer, the $30 is probably worth it just for the documentary.