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

[Shadenuat]

A designer making narrative-driven RPG successor prefers narrative-driven, goal-driven games. We're so fucked!

 

[Lancehead]

Yeah, players totally need to have a goal set in stone by the game designer. Hence Minecraft's and The Sims success.

Or Oblivion LARPing success.

 

[Blaine]

A designer making narrative-driven RPG successor prefers narrative-driven, goal-driven games. We're so fucked!

Nowhere have I stated that goal-driven games are bad, or that it's a problem that Project: Eternity will have clear goals. I am arguing against the fallacious notion that it is bad to design games without clear, developer-set goals, and/or that goal-driven games are superior and preferable.

Arguing in favor of turn-based and 2D games (for example) doesn't necessarily mean that I oppose real-time and 3D games. Similarly, arguing in favor of non-goal-driven games doesn't necessarily mean that I oppose goal-driven games.

 

[The Bishop]

It all comes down to games vs toys. You don't need goals or even rules with toys. For a game, though, rules and goals are mandatory because that's what makes it a game in first place. Setting up rules and goals is what makes game winnable. You don't win playing with toys (or Minecraft, or Sims). You do win a game of Chess or football because of set rules and objective winning conditions.

such as nearly the entire 4x genre, unless "to win" constitutes a goal now

It absolutely does. For as long as winning conditions are set (and they are), "to win" is as clear of a goal as any. You win a football match by scoring goals.

 

[Blaine]

All (or nearly all) computer games lacking set-by-the-developer goals are nevertheless governed by a system of rules and mechanics, fulfilling half of your criteria and clearly distinguishing such games from toys.

As for the other half of your criteria, that being set goals, there is no authoritative source claiming that the goals of a game must be set by the creators of that game, rather than by the player(s). Once a goal has been chosen by the player(s), it can then be worked toward and progress made in a manner similar (or in some cases, nearly identical) to working toward a developer-set goal. It is quite true that narrative-driven games aren't typically conducive to such freedom of choice, but that's not actually the point.

Your examples are muddled and your reasoning unsound, but I have to hand it to you, it sure sounded authoritative. Some games cannot be "won" in the traditional sense, but the assertion that this means that they aren't actually games is laughably simpleminded and absurd.

 

[Shadenuat]

...

You were't fast enough, I've read it.

It's not hard to misinterpret your posts, you know, as you change your skins very fast. You started from nitpicking a neutral assumption that "clear goals are't that bad" and rolling all over the waterchip and timer using curtain of tropes, and quickly stated the position that anyone who needs these in game is an idiot and console peasantry. And, of course, you have a perfect knowledge of what Sawyer thinks when he says something specific. Oh, but today you are actually arguing about an *idea*... but, okay, let's say your statement is fair. Games should not be shackled by one designer's vision.
Do you really think that if you'll ask Sawyer about games with randomly generated worlds or assets and player acting there on his own agenda and point out that his idea may be wrong because (Minecraft, Elite, FTL, insert your favorite), he'll disagree with you?

Because I don't think you're actually waiting for Rogue to change Rogue's ways.

 

[Roguey]

Yeah, players totally need to have a goal set in stone by the game designer. Hence Minecraft's and The Sims success.

Minecraft was one well-known example I had in mind, and there are numerous others—such as nearly the entire 4x genre, unless "to win" constitutes a goal now—but they'd be lost on Roguey. The "pro game designers" (and more importantly, Josh Sawyer) from whom he sponges all of his opinions have spoken; you might just as well argue politics with a Fox News enthusiast or debate egalitarianism with a feminist.

Minecraft is Virtual Legos for autistic children. The Sims is a person simulator. There's no "not knowing what to do" in either.

 

[Gozma]

RPGs have implicit purpose or meaning, which is "Get more shit so you can get more shit" shit being loot, XPs, transportation, etc. It's like the start of Quest for Glory or Darklands - the initial drive is "do RPG stuff" and the main plottish crap only comes in later once you have already begun the RPG cycle.

 

[Blaine]

You started from nitpicking a neutral assumption that "clear goals are't that bad"....

Not nitpicking at all. In context, it was obvious that Roguey's "clear goals aren't a bad thing" comment implied that no clear goals were a bad thing, as he amply confirmed soon after.

...and quickly stated the position that anyone who needs these in game is an idiot and console peasantry.

You're getting mixed up, there. I did state that people who require clear goals to follow in video games and can't handle setting their own from time to time are idiots, and I stand by that. My "console peasantry" remark was actually in reference to Sawyer's sentiment that most people are frustrated by challenge and assume that any difficult task is impossible.

And, of course, you have a perfect knowledge of what Sawyer thinks when he says something specific.

That's an incorrect characterization of my opinion. To repeat myself, I've simply noticed a trend—that being that Sawyer tends to make statements along the lines of, "Most of our testers..." or "Most gamers..." and that he often bases/justifies his design decisions on such statements.

It seems you're confused more so than I "change skins very fast."

 

[Shadenuat]

...

Can I have a fair answer to my fair question instead of dissecting post quote n quote?

(Actually, you can probably just ask Sawyer about narrative driven vs. player driven games, maybe he'll end up posting whole video about that)

 

[The Bishop]

All (or nearly all) computer games lacking set-by-the-developer goals are nevertheless governed by a system of rules and mechanics, fulfilling half of your criteria and clearly distinguishing such games from toys.

As for the other half of your criteria, that being set goals, there is no authoritative source claiming that the goals of a game must be set by the creators of that game, rather than by the player(s). Once a goal has been chosen by the player(s), it can then be worked toward and progress made in a manner similar (or in some cases, nearly identical) to working toward a developer-set goal. It is quite true that narrative-driven games aren't typically conducive to such freedom of choice, but that's not actually the point.

Your examples are muddled and your reasoning unsound, but I have to hand it to you, it sure sounded authoritative. Some games cannot be "won" in the traditional sense, but the assertion that this means that they aren't actually games is laughably simpleminded and absurd.

Toys are also constrained in their function. Your toy robot only walks when you put it on its feet and press that exact button, not the other. Do these rules and mechanics make that robot a game?

Your argument boils down to "if you can make up a goal for something, this something is a game". The thing is, you can make up a goal for anything. It doesn't make that anything a game.

But if you set your own goals that can then be worked toward and progress made in a manner similar (or in some cases, nearly identical) to working toward a developer-set goal, sure you got a game. You just made one.

You can go down your basement, take a lid in one hand and a chef's knife in the other and imagine yourself a knight. At this point we have a Blaine game, a game that cannot be won in the traditional sense. Now if you go ahead and set yourself a goal, for example to shred a rag in 3 parts by only using two swings - there you got yourself an actual game. Note how basement, lid, and chef's knife aren't considered games by themselves. In traditional sense of course.

 

[Blaine]

Toys are also constrained in their function. Your toy robot only walks when you put it on its feet and press that exact button, not the other. Do these rules and mechanics make that robot a game?

I ought to have said something earlier—I was half-expecting a harebrained counter-argument like this. Yes, the world around us is subject to the fundamental laws of physics, and it therefore follows that all ideas, objects and constructs are limited both in their form or design, as well as in the way in which we conceive of or interact with them. Congratulations on some genuinely heroic water-muddying and semantics.

Like many here at the Codex, you have assigned a highly specific personal meaning to a word or phrase which is neither universal nor definitive. Your motive in this case is to assert that certain types of games aren't "real games," because they aren't to your tastes or don't meet your criteria for whatever reason. This is standard Codex practice, and I've seen it many times before.

Games are not necessarily defined by whether or not they have clear goals or can be won. Here is an excerpt from an authoritative source, The Oxford English Dictionary:

Spoiler

There's nothing about "winning" or "goals" in this definition. Indeed, "game" is nearly synonymous with "play" in that context, which is why you're engaging in semantics by insisting that games without creator-defined goals or that cannot be won are simply toys, and not "real games." You also sound as though you're parroting someone else's opinion, but I won't get into that. Of course, a dictionary definition never tells the whole story. Some simple Googling reveals that "game" as an in-depth concept is difficult to define exactly, and that experts who are likely much more qualified than you or I disagree.

What this argument is really about isn't terminology, however, but rather whether or not you (or whomever) like or dislike electronic entertainment programs that don't feature clear goals set by the developers. It's bickering over whose preferences are better, and it's dumb as Hell. I enjoy games both with and without goals, and see no need to denigrate either approach.

 

[DraQ]

Not only does the missing blows go through the air, also the hits do.

Well, actually at least the target reacts to hits. In Skyrim it does not.

But at least they act somewhat convincingly near death, unlike morrowind where they go from 100% healthy to 100% dead in one hit.

Actually, it's pretty much the opposite way around.

In Skyrim you feel as if your target was enclosed in implacable forcefield bubble (that spurts blood for some reason) - only after certain amounts of hits the bubble pops, and you can hit the target proper, before that moment the target just doesn't behave as if it got hit.

In Morrowind you can make target stagger or flinch on nearly every hit. With particularly strong blow you can knock the enemy flat on the ground even if they still have plenty of HPs, especially with heavy weapons.

If you look at the video, it takes a shit tons of hits to down him.

Maybe because tapping your attack key like a spastic retard won't do much good if your weapon is a steel war axe with 1-20 damage range, meaning you need a good swing to let its weight work for you instead of against?

Tapping is going to inflict around 1-2 points of damage per hit and most swings aren't hits in that vid, partially thanks to lousy fatigue level.

Then *she* has several healing pots in her inventory (as potential reward for bringing her taxman's ring).

 

[The Bishop]

I ought to have said something earlier—I was half-expecting a harebrained counter-argument like this. Yes, the world around us is subject to the fundamental laws of physics, and it therefore follows that all ideas, objects and constructs are limited both in their form or design, as well as in the way in which we conceive of or interact with them. Congratulations on some genuinely heroic water-muddying and semantics.

So specifics of any mechanism is just laws of physics now? If one Lego block fits this other one, but not next, is that because physics dictate that, not the designer? You must be desperate to support your point if you cling to arguments as weak as that one.

It's bickering over whose preferences are better, and it's dumb as Hell.

Then stop being dumb as Hell. You're the only one pissed about the word "toy" I used previously. I enjoy challenging game mechanics, but I also enjoy toying with them in the way not at all intended. Stop tilting at windmills, tone down your ad hominems, and maybe, just maybe you'll be able to see the actual meaning behind people's words.

 

[Shadenuat]

...

Can I play post dissecting too, for once? Usually I don't do it, because in real life, people, usually, do not talk like that. They use multiple points to create a more complex and interesting one, and usually you reply to that point, expanding the topic. Unless one shapes his points into a) b) c), usually human beings talk like that (I should have used the fact of speech degeneration in the internet as my diploma work... lol).

Here:

all as planned

generalization (a tactic which you seemed to disrespect before, for Sawyer, at least)

semantics (and from my point of view, where semantics starts, natural human conversation usually ends)

semantics (with dictionary and google - another last resort of people who tend to fall into sophistry)

"experts know better, thus everything is pointless"

repeating your own preference, which boils down to a fact that you hate something which follows from your own generalization

And that's basically it. Aside from you repeating the statement that you fight injustice about games variability, your post does not carry any of your own thoughts. And thus, it is pointless.

certain types of games aren't "real games," because they aren't to your tastes or don't meet your criteria for whatever reason. This is standard Codex practice

Don't mistake standard spam or heat venting of people who are tired of not getting games they wanted all these years for the Hivemind. Generally codexers are as flexible in their gaming tastes as any gamer (usually better than any).

 

[Blaine]

You must be desperate to support your point if you cling to arguments as weak as that one.

Your toy robot and its button argument took the cake, really. It's you who steered the conversation in that direction, not I. Water-muddying at its finest.

Then stop being dumb as Hell.

Not reading your posts ought to be a good start.

Shadenuat: I'M the one engaging in semantics in this discussion? I'M engaging in sophistry? Heh.

Yes, I used an online dictionary and referred to a Google search because those are tools available to everyone here. Make fun of them all you like, but it's a step above pulling everything directly out of my ass as others are wont to do. I don't have a reference library and a conference of experts on game theory in my fucking computer room. I do have an actual dictionary, but I'm not going to photocopy it every time some asshole assigns their own personal definition to a word.

 

[Shadenuat]

You almost got my goat.

Third time's the charm!

 

[Blaine]

I tend to edit my posts several times before finalizing them. That part ended up on the cutting room floor. Well played, in any case.

 

[Kaldurenik]

I find morrowinds combat system ok... Tbh i find it more fun then skyrims combat system. Once you understand how it works you will be able to to hit a lot, swing a lot and deal alot of damage. Just tapping the LMB dont do anything.

Skyrim feels bland... its a action adventure game with horrible combat and bad story.

But oh well.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I hate thinking inside of tropes, it's just boring, lazy and usually wrong. When you accept the context, searching for G.E.C.K. is not that illogical. You have a dying chunk of people in tribal state who look into everything from the past as magical and mythical. So when they find a clue of something which can bring fertility back to the land they send their best and most spirited tribesman on it's search. And the G.E.C.K. then quickly gets de-romanticized into nothing but a bunch of field chemicals and collection of random seeds - another purely utilitarian item marketed in pre-war magazines as some wonder, the same magazines people now use to clean their asses with. But the protagonist, being rat-eating tribal he is, is till obsessed with it's "magic" (not very logical for someone with 200% Science of course).
The game would be better if in the end people did't actually need the G.E.C.K. to make their lives better (banal moral lesson, but at least it would still be a lesson).

G.E.C.K. being a collection of seeds and fertilizers is just an ass-pull by MCA and it wasn't even in game lore, but something that he wrote in the bible.

 

[Shadenuat]

G.E.C.K. being a collection of seeds and fertilizers is just an ass-pull by MCA and it wasn't even in game lore, but something that he wrote in the bible.

I remember that my perception of G.E.C.K. as something utilitarian was supported by conversations with drugstore owner in New Reno, moonshiner in Klamath, Lynette and in-game information.
But the seeds and stuff could have mixed in my head with it, probably. I am too tired and lazy to check right now.

 

[Commissar Draco]

In Morrowind to be good fighter you need plenty of stamina... which you can raise quite easily by running and fighting skills above 50... which mean plenty of septims invested in trainers. But ''I can't find Caius Cosades help'' and faggots who can't into swordplay prefer to kill Dragons on level 2. Hence the comercial success of Oblibion and Skyrim.

 

[Jaesun]

Rob Nesler ‏@NeslerRob
@NeslerRob: Here's my tweet: I am working, right now, on update no.43 for #ProjectEternity art update no. 2! It'll be f@ck'n awes!!

 

[The Bishop]

Your toy robot and its button argument took the cake, really. It's you who steered the conversation in that direction, not I. Water-muddying at its finest.

I take it that other than argument bending and ad hominems you have no way to prove your point. As expected.

Not reading your posts ought to be a good start.

No, no, no. To stop reading my posts you have to at least try starting to read them first. What I saw from you is just acidic retorting because I hurt your feeling by calling your favorite games "toys" and apparently you don't take such offense lightly.

 

[Cromwell]

For your discussion about goals and do what you want games. A game with a goal gives me the incentive to do something. Goals provide entertainment, story provides entertainment challenges provide it. The creators took an effort to provide me with entertainment. If theres not goal all the entertainment has to come from myself, my own mind.

Why should I pay some Studio money if the only thing they do is give me something with which I could entertain myself only if all the effort for said entertainment comes from myself? its like paying someone to be allowed to masturbate to his graphically subpar overprieced porn. without actual porn in it.