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

[hiver]

Shit, nigga. Jackie Chan is one man engagement area AoO already! And Chris can do the diplomatic option.

 

[Roguey]

Sounds like Sawyer thinks the IE-games were enjoyable in spite of themselves entirely, so he's making an IE-game that isn't at all like one in order to compensate

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/378575581534506802

On Gamasutra, you said: "Some players will chime in and say they adore everything about the old Infinity Engine games -- except those core design tenets that identified them." Care to provide more details? What core design tenets do they not like?


Real-time with pause combat, isometric view, D&D mechanics like classes and levels, fantasy settings and races. I think the only major one I haven't seen criticized is that you can have a party.

RTWP combat: check
Isometric view: check
classes and levels inspired by D&D: check
fantasy setting and race also inspired by D&D: check

As for the "ahhhhhhhhhhh micromanaging" thing: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63432-update-44-the-rules-of-melee-engagement/page-5#entry1312458

We're not making a single-character MMO. We're making a party-based RPG. We're making it to appeal to the general tastes of audiences that have played D&D-based tactical party RPGs in the past. Yes, when you play a single character, having that single character be locked down is annoying because your only character is prevented from moving. You have a whole party to use.

We're also making this game for an audience that we believe wants increased challenge and will not react negatively to mechanics that require increased attention and player input. There are clearly limits to this, but we are willing to try this mechanic because we believe it is more appropriate for our audience.

 

[Infinitron]

We're also making this game for an audience that we believe wants increased challenge and will not react negatively to mechanics that require increased attention and player input.

Well, that's always nice to hear.

 

[Grunker]

Et tu, Infinitron, seriously? People complain about possible tedious micromanagement - the very thing Roguey got so riled up about in inventory management - Sawyer responds with the strawman that the criticism is just because of a short attention-span and you eat it raw?

Ah, fuck it. I give up. We're all YES-MEN here!

Concerns or questions about a design decision? Now now, that's not very nice!

 

[Roguey]

I don't see how this will necessarily be tedious since they're going to make it very clear through the selection circles who's engaging whom. NWN2 had no such feature.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not necessarily "eating" his argument. I'm just saying that sentence, in isolation, is nice to hear.

 

[Lancehead]

Agree with Grunker here, Engagement mechanics have potential to be tedious, nothing to do with challenge.

 

[Grunker]

I don't see how this will necessarily be tedious

Wow, wow. Didn't say it would be. I expressed my concern that it might, and my dislike for Sawyer's reply.

I'm not necessarily "eating" his argument. I'm just saying that sentence, in isolation, is nice to hear.

Sure, I guess, but it's not very nice in the context it's in.

 

[Lancehead]

Even if they get visual representation right, controlling characters' movement can still be tedious as there won't be any grid showing discrete movements.

 

[Roguey]

I don't see how this will necessarily be tedious

Wow, wow. Didn't say it would be. I expressed my concern that it might, and my dislike for Sawyer's reply.

"There are clearly limits to this, but we are willing to try this mechanic because we believe it is more appropriate for our audience." And from the next page of that thread: "We are implementing our Engagement system with the understanding that we may need to modify elements of it to find the right balance of tactical movement requirements and freedom of movement in our combat environments."

J-Saw's mentioned before that what happens during playtesting is what ultimately matters. He's perfectly willing to alter or discard any idea of theirs that isn't enjoyable (I suspect most of 'em will make it through, at least in altered form).

 

[tuluse]

I don't see how this will necessarily be tedious since they're going to make it very clear through the selection circles who's engaging whom. NWN2 had no such feature.

When and where was this selection circle thing talked about?

 

[Grunker]

Even if they get visual representation right, controlling characters' movement can still be tedious as there won't be any grid showing discrete movements.

It all depends though, doesn't it. IE-games functioned so well because your "hit box" or whatever you want to call it - the physicality of your characters - were very "hard" and defined, so movement was clear. To top this off you had graphical representation (rings around each character) to precisely identify the exact of each object. Conversely, horrible examples like NWN2 had very soft and unclear physicality, no graphical represantion of it, and the shoddy movement and camera added hugely to these things.

This certainly can be done right, but if you're adding more movement management to an IE-like, you better be fucking sure you have the basics down. Making sure I know exactly where my character will go when I click 'move' is key here (2D helps a lot with that), but selection-rings that define your actual presence in the game are a must-have as well.

And still, with that, comes the danger of having so much movement-micro that no amount of visual and other aids will help you.

So basically, I agree with Roguey, though not in that Sawyer has answered these concerns clearly, but then Roguey stalks more than I do.

 

[Roguey]

tuluse http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63432-update-44-the-rules-of-melee-engagement/page-5#entry1312434

 

[Grunker]

J-Saw's mentioned before that what happens during playtesting is what ultimately matters. He's perfectly willing to alter or discard any idea of theirs that isn't enjoyable (I suspect most of 'em will make it through, at least in altered form).

You didn't reply the last time I asked you this. Maybe you don't know? But all this front-and-centering of Q&A/testing (Obsidian's forte, amirite? ), has Sawyer went into how this'll be done, exactly? Games can be ruined by bad testing - fanboys who don't give it to you straight up, for example.

Another thing that sort of invalidates testing as an end-all, be-all of game design is that you will more often that not be faced with contradictory feedback - 40% say something is tedious and 60% say it's just right. Ultimately a bunch of calls will be up to Sawyer's hunches, he can't hide behind the wall of testing forever.

 

[Roguey]

You didn't reply the last time I asked you this. Maybe you don't know? But all this front-and-centering of Q&A/testing (Obsidian's forte, amirite? ), has Sawyer went into how this'll be done, exactly?

The same way it always happens, presumably.

Games can be ruined by bad testing - fanboys who don't give it to you straight up, for example.

He watches while they play and "what (he sees) on that monitor doesn't lie."

Another thing that sort of invalidates testing as an end-all, be-all of game design is that you will more often that not be faced with contradictory feedback - 40% say something is tedious and 60% say it's just right. Ultimately a bunch of calls will be up to Sawyer's hunches, he can't hide behind the wall of testing forever.

"We have stated pretty clear goals both internally and externally. As long as we feel that we hit those goals and the majority of players agree, we can't worry about the margins who a) never agreed with those goals or b) don't feel we met them."

"It's only a headache if you spend more than 2 seconds considering if you should attempt to make everyone happy. We're not trying to make everyone happy, so it's not a problem.

Irreconcilable differences are just that. If a variety of desires can be accommodated, we'll certainly consider doing it. If we can't, we make the decision that we believe will contribute to making the best game."

I'm sure I'll fall within the target.

 

[Grunker]

Two points:

1) You have a quote for everything, don't you?

2) What makes me iffy about that quote is the catch-all feeling of it. It's impossible to attack it because it covers all bases: "We'll test to make sure it works right. We'll also make our own call regardless of test results." Impossible to attack, but also so generalist it says very little.

Anyway, at least I have something to be immensely positive about. If they're going to have selection-rings, and those rings perfectly illustrate the physicality of a creature, then that's a very laudable thing from my point of view, and a very big step away from NWN2-like failure.

 

[Jasede]

Wait and see, I say.

 

[anus_pounder]

Are they planning to/Did they already add MP to this game ? :kosmonaut:

 

[Shadenuat]

We're also making this game for an audience that we believe wants increased challenge and will not react negatively to mechanics that require increased attention and player input.

Well, that's always nice to hear.

I am like, "hardcore" IE "fan" or whatever, but I sure do not want more input than in, say, NWN2. I want less. Because it was just a clusterfuck. And you know, I'm not even sure that micromanagement and moving your pieces around the combat with pinpoint accuracy with your mouse is that important for a tactical game, unless there is actual challenge involved, a tactical challenge, not mundaneshittypathfindingbadgraphicalrepresentation one. A commander does not order his troops to move using checkpoints, he does not manually order each Joe to walk up the river, cross the bridge, then go to an enemy post. He says - "team A, cross the river and capture an enemy outpost. Team B, wait in the hills and cover them with fire". When you order your character around, he seems smart enough to not hit a pillar on a way and start walking into it like glitchy AI from the 90's. So why can't I order my guy to "move from point A to point B, avoiding enemy contact"? Of course it is important to find a good position, say, for a spell to fire, and hold it, but should I really pay attention to my character so he won't slip on a one little hex of hazardous effect which he can perfectly see himself?

So yeah, nice to hear, but it does't have anything to do with the matter in hand.

 

[hiver]

So like... you want increased tactics but without additional attention needed?
How about you go fuck yourself?

Also, youre not fucking playing an RTS where you order youre fucking troops to take positions, dumbass.
And its youre entire post that has nothing to do with matter in hand. BECAUSE YOURE STUPID!

 

[Shadenuat]

Eat shit hiver. If I have 6 party members and AOO's I want either intelligent pathfinding or hexes, not "more imput because you guys are so hardcore".

 

[Roguey]

They're not AOOs, they're disengagement attacks.

 

[hiver]

Eat shit hiver. If I have 6 party members and AOO's I want either intelligent pathfinding or hexes, not "more imput because you guys are so hardcore".

You will have more input because it is necessary, not because of teh "hardcore" you fucking braindead moron.
Complain about pathfinding when you fucking have a chance of playing the fucking game.

And if you dont want to manually move and position 6 characters in this kind of game - you can go fuck yourself!
If you want to avid enemy contact - you will have to avoid it manually, not automatically you despicable streamlined shit.

 

[Lilura]

It all depends though, doesn't it. IE-games functioned so well because your "hit box" or whatever you want to call it - the physicality of your characters - were very "hard" and defined, so movement was clear. To top this off you had graphical representation (rings around each character) to precisely identify the exact of each object.

I laughed hard at this, even as an IE fan. These games had awfully imprecise movement even with pathfinding nodes maxed out. You could be in the midst of a key fight and click where you want your unit to go but then to your horror the retard goes completely the other way.
You can't even accurately measure whether or not you have enough time to get from A to B and do this or that, its just guesswork (lolRTwP).
This shit never happens in true TB tactical games like Jagged Alliance 2 and ToEE, where a potential movement is shown exactly how it will be before you commit to it.
Using words like "precise", "exact" and "clear" when talking about IE combat is just laughable - laughable, I say!

 

[Grunker]

It all depends though, doesn't it. IE-games functioned so well because your "hit box" or whatever you want to call it - the physicality of your characters - were very "hard" and defined, so movement was clear. To top this off you had graphical representation (rings around each character) to precisely identify the exact of each object.

I laughed hard at this, even as an IE fan. These games had awfully imprecise movement even with pathfinding nodes maxed out. You could be in the midst of a key fight and click where you want your unit to go but then to your horror the retard goes completely the other way.
You can't even accurately measure whether or not you have enough time to get from A to B and do this or that, its just guesswork (lolRTwP).
This shit never happens in true TB tactical games like Jagged Alliance 2 and ToEE, where a potential movement is shown exactly how it will be before you commit to it.
Using words like "precise", "exact" and "clear" when talking about IE combat is just laughable - laughable, I say!

I'm not talking about pathfinding.