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

[~RAGING BONER~]

What it'll actually be:

Dragon Age 1's combat.

fuck.

 

[Irenaeus]

What it'll actually be:

Dragon Age 1's combat.

 

[Jaesun]

We know nothing on the specifics of the Magic System, specifically how many spells there will be.

I doubt it will be like WoW/DA:O

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

i hope he avoids the typical elemental magic bullshit that's been so overdone...take a chance, it's MAGIC. Implement some rituals, sealing, esoteric languages, mystic pacts, time magic, proper necromancy etc.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Dragon Age: Origins had perfectly acceptable combat if you solo a rogue on nightmare difficulty.

 

[Zeriel]

What it'll actually be:

Dragon Age 1's combat.

Search your heart. You know this to be true.

 

[Jaesun]

Based on what exactly?

 

[Volrath]

Really, the one thing that concerns me about Eternity(well, aside from Obsidian's buggy history) is Sawyer's involvement with the combat system...this guy has said that he thinks rogues suck then goes ahead and leaves out rogue traps (one of the most tactical elements available in BG2) from IWD2.

He talks a great game, hell he convinces me every time with his lofty 'vision' of what a 'proper' combat system should be...I just don't know if he has what it takes to implement it in both a fun and tactically interesting way.

Wait... what?

 

[Cursed Beaver]

i hope he avoids the typical elemental magic bullshit that's been so overdone...take a chance, it's MAGIC. Implement some rituals, sealing, esoteric languages, mystic pacts, time magic, proper necromancy etc.

Fucking yes! I want more than just fancy fireball and magic missiles.

Magic that's a far cry from the click on icon then can on the area. ex : Spells that you sometime have to figure out how to activate properly (by performing a certain sequence of actions first). Or spells that have long term consequences if you cast them : like making an actual pact with some entity you summoned.

 

[~RAGING BONER~]

this guy has said that he thinks rogues suck then goes ahead and leaves out rogue traps (one of the most tactical elements available in BG2) from IWD2.

Wait... what?

J.S. said that rogues in IE (actually 2nd ed.) were horrible and weak (in one of the PE vids)...then when he goes on to develop IWD2, he neglects rogues by leaving out a key ability that makes them viable in combat.

come to think of it, I suspect that Saywer hates the "prep" time aspect of combat, but I can't be sure...I only base this on his disdain for BG2's magic system (which relies heavily on prep time) as well as the in-direct combat aspects of certain classes.

 

[Infinitron]

this guy has said that he thinks rogues suck then goes ahead and leaves out rogue traps (one of the most tactical elements available in BG2) from IWD2.

Wait... what?

J.S. said that rogues in IE (actually 2nd ed.) were horrible and weak (in one of the PE vids)...then when he goes on to develop IWD2, he neglects rogues by leaving out a key ability that makes them viable in combat.

come to think of it, I suspect that Saywer hates the "prep" time aspect of combat, but I can't be sure...I only base this on his disdain for BG2's magic system (which relies heavily on prep time) as well as the in-direct combat aspects of certain classes.

Trapmaking is a key ability in combat? Uh, okay.

Laying traps could get very cheesy in BG2. No big loss IMO.

 

[Duraframe300]

Got another of my questions answered

Hmm. Things I like best about PE setting so far:

1) Soul mechanics. I like the fact that this defining feature of the world affects almost every element of the setting. For example, we had a creature meeting this week, and we kept coming back to questions like, “Okay, given our soul mechanics, what does it mean to be (for example) undead in this world? What does it mean to be this other creature type? What kind of soul would this creature have? Why would it exist in our setting?” Our soul mechanics give us a strong foundation upon which to build the rest of the world, and in most cases, they result in logical reasons for subtle (or significant) differences between PE and other fantasy settings.

2) Strong national/regional cultures. Josh has done a great job defining these, and they are far more grounded in believable history than I typically see in fantasy games. The languages, though not yet fully developed, are based roughly upon grammar of real-world languages and follow well-considered rules of orthography and pronunciation. We’re paying a lot of attention to whether words and names feel appropriate to each language and culture, and if they don’t, we change them. Josh has even drilled down to the level of cultural virtues and vices that differ from one culture to the next (potentially setting up some interesting culture clashes).

3) Sense of a larger world that is “out there.” The world that you see on our regional map – and the areas you’ll see in the game – is only a small part of the setting as a whole. We’ve started to establish some cultures and groups that won’t even appear in the first game, but you may see references to them, creating a sense of a larger world to explore in future titles.

4) Lots of unanswered questions. The setting will present various questions about the nature of souls, the gods, cosmology, the larger world, etc., and not all of them will be answered in the first game. Some may never be answered at all – at least not definitively. People and factions in the world will have their own beliefs and opinions about these questions, but none of them will necessarily be identified as the absolute truth. (Another setting that handles this sort of thing well – in my opinion – is the Elder Scrolls, where aspects of the setting are often viewed differently by different people, and players are never told for certain who is right and who is wrong.)

 

[Infinitron]

Source, bro: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/447071954822780891

And here's something relevant: http://www.formspring.me/GZiets/q/447072125849725482

Which game among the IE games P:E feels closer to you? It reminds you of P:T, BG1 or 2, IWD 1 or 2? Or is a "perfect" combination of all 5 and feels closer to no one specifically?

It’s a little too early to say for sure, but I’d lean toward BG2. PE isn’t going to be as text-heavy as PS:T, but it probably won’t be quite as hack-and-slashy as the IWDs either. BG2 offered a balance of city questing and dialogue with combat and exploration in dungeons, and that feels like the direction we’re going. But again – we’re still in preproduction, so don’t take that as the final word.

 

[Frusciante]

What it'll actually be:

Dragon Age 1's combat.

I liked DAO's combat. The shitty encounter desing was a much larger problem. Also a party of 4 is a little bit to small for my taste.

 

[Infinitron]

DA:O's combat is boring, but other than both of them not being round-based like D&D, PE's combat is really nothing like it. It really isn't.

 

[imweasel]

PE looks better than this uninspired cartoon crap from your tech demo...

 

[Zeriel]

DA:O's combat is boring, but other than both of them not being round-based like D&D, PE's combat is really nothing like it. It really isn't.

Damnit, you're already in the alpha?!

 

[Osvir]

DA:O's combat is boring, but other than both of them not being round-based like D&D, PE's combat is really nothing like it. It really isn't.

Update #44 Rules of Engagement. I think it has a lot of potential, tactically & entertaining, and it also proves Infinitron's point: P:E will hardly be like DA:O.

 

[imweasel]

Update #44 Rules of Engagement. I think it has a lot of potential, tactically & entertaining, and it also proves Infinitron's point: P:E will hardly be like DA:O.

Right. It'll actually be more like Dragon Age 2.

 

[Infinitron]

DA:O's combat is boring, but other than both of them not being round-based like D&D, PE's combat is really nothing like it. It really isn't.

Damnit, you're already in the alpha?!

No, but from what I've read, I can list any number of differences.

DA:O has OP mages. PE will be more balanced.

DA:O has cooldowns. PE has per-encounter abilities and per-rest abilities.

DA:O has mana. PE has spell preparation.

DA:O has infinite health regeneration and powerful healing spells. PE has limited health buttressed by stamina regeneration, with tightly limited rest areas and no healing.

DA:O has hordes of identikit mobs. PE will have a diverse bestiary of unique monsters.

 

[Fart Master]

While I certainly hope PE won't have DA:O combat I didn't think it was THAT shit. I remember it being mildly entertaining on the harder difficulties.

 

[Rake]

DA:O's combat is boring, but other than both of them not being round-based like D&D, PE's combat is really nothing like it. It really isn't.

Damnit, you're already in the alpha?!

No, but from what I've read, I can list any number of differences.

DA:O has OP mages. PE will be more balanced.

DA:O has cooldowns. PE has per-encounter abilities and per-rest abilities.

DA:O has mana. PE has spell preparation.

DA:O has infinite health regeneration and powerful healing spells. PE has limited health buttressed by stamina regeneration, with tightly limited rest areas and no healing.

DA:O has hordes of identikit mobs. PE will have a diverse bestiary of unique monsters.

I don't think even the worst pessimist here excpects P:E combat to be as shity as DA:O.
FFS, i had more fun with P:T combat than DA:O.

 

[Zeriel]

I was really just trolling my little heart out and expressing a general pessimism that I don't expect P:E's combat to be particularly good. If it were turnbased I'd have a lot more hope for something on the scale of ToEE. I'd love to be wrong and find out that RTwP from Obsidian can be good, but... well, insert that whole 'fool me twice' schtick here.

 

[Jaesun]

Obsidian had designed their own combat system from scratch before?

 

[Infinitron]

Obsidian had designed their own combat system from scratch before?

Yeah, Alpha Protocol.