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

[felipepepe]

Now instead of killing an NPC and facing the consequences, people will kill them and reload since they didn't gain nothing from it. This is dumbing down and streamlining a game to fit the creator's idea of "playing it right", nothing else.

But you can STILL KILL THE NPCS AND THERE STILL MAY BE CONSEQUENCES. Nobody is preventing you from playing the game the way you want to. Incentives != rules. You aren't being controlled.

Of course I am! There's a invisible Sawyer-GM in the sky clearly telling me that he won't give me anything if I kill NPCs because he doesn't likes that. I don't get Xp not because NPCs are weak, not because a game mechaninc, just because Sawyer dones't like that.

And is even worse if there are still consequences, because why should I face them now? Is LARP-only territory (or metaknowledge), there is no in-game reason for me to kill NPCs now. That's the point, he took a decision that was pratical/moral and turned into meta-gaming/LARPing.

people will kill them and reload since they didn't gain nothing from it.

Seriously, felipe, this sentence is wrong on so many levels. You're not supposed to kill people in games for the experience points. Experience points are a byproduct of progress, not an objective. Your objective in a game is to finish quests, have fun, and beat the game. Not to horde experience points.

XP are a consequence to your actions, they are markers of your experience. Sawyer's game refuses to acknoledge my experience or rewards in killing an entire city, he's saying "this is MY game, only my objectives and goals will be rewarded". Why killing 5 goblins is more meaningfull than an entire human city?! Fuck that.

Baldur's Gate allowed me to betray for no reason FR-poster boy Drizz't Do'Urden, loot and equip his shit. And gave me a ton of Xp for that. I was "breaking the game", but he was tottaly cool with that and even gave me hidden rewards and a high-five. Sawyer equivalent is shrugging and saying I wasn't supposed to do that, no cookies for me.

 

[Infinitron]

Baldur's Gate allowed me to betray for no reason FR-poster boy Drizz't Do'Urden, loot and equip his shit

And Project Eternity will still let you have that awesome loot, and maybe even give you XP if it considers killing Drizzt to be a "quest objective" worth rewarding.

Sawyer's game refuses to acknoledge my experience or rewards in killing an entire city

What does that even mean, "refuses to acknowledge"? Who says there won't be acknowledgement? You're just not getting experience points.

Is LARP-only territory (or metaknowledge), there is no in-game reason for me to kill NPCs now.

Kill the people you want to kill, for loot and plot reasons. Kill the people who try to kill you, to survive. I don't see how that's LARPing.

 

[Arkeus]

Of course I am! There's a invisible Sawyer-GM in the sky clearly telling me that he won't give me anything if I kill NPCs because he doesn't likes that. I don't get Xp not because NPCs are weak, not because a game mechaninc, just because Sawyer dones't like that.

And is even worse if there are still consequences, because why should I face them now? Is LARP-only territory (or metaknowledge), there is no in-game reason for me to kill NPCs now. That's the point, he took a decision that was pratical/moral and turned into meta-gaming/LARPing.

No, you won't get XP for killing NPC in addition to the XP you got from siding with them. If you side with a priest telling you to kill a druid and not the opposite, you get XP for that quest.

Going back to kill the priest SHOULD NOT give you exp, as that's a dumb as hell move- you can do it for larping reasons, but there is no reason whatsoever it should give you exp.

That you are entitled little twat that doesn't realize that "gaining twice as much exp by doing the quest twice" is a bug doesn't mean you are wrong.

 

[Gozma]

abolish fun

 

[Kz3r0]

It's a lazy approach, he "broke a rule" instead of adressing it's consequences. If the system encourages me to kill everything just for meager 10xp, he should provide me a reason not to do it, add some weight to my decisions, not just remove rewards from what I shound't do.

I think You are approaching it from the wrong angle. Awarding XP for killing is a retarded legacy mechanic that should have been thrown out the window years ago. It has been copied from D&D to everything and we are so accustomed to it that it feels natural, but it really does not make any sense.

However, I am not saying that awarding XP for defeating enemies is wrong, especially if that defeating serves a purpose (like completing a quest). But why give XP for attacking and killing random NPCs? XP should be awarded for accomplishing some in-game goals.

For example, if You got a quest to gather money and You completed it by killing 100 NPCs and robbing them, that is fine. But You should get as much XP for earning this money by, for example, using in-game trading system to get rich.

While awarding XP for killing has been overabused what you are proposing is another RPG mechanic that does little sense, let's trade a lot so I can gain enough XP to improve my combat skill, wut?
I think that XP fo killing was the obvious choice for every combat heavy game, the problem arose when different approach to solve quests weren't so rewarding, a matter of development resources more than mechanics I think.
The best approach in my opinion should be to use a different rewarding system for different approaches, for example by trading you not only improve trade skills but gain money that can be spent on something else, for example paying for combat training, buying better equipment, or hiring mercenaries.
The real problem is that XP are an abstraction, and XP for killing was the easiest way to implement them, giving XP only for quest solving however is just a shortcut, because implementing different rewards systems would be more complicated and time consuming, in my opinion this also means that the game has to be story driven if only solving quests will give XP, so why being so autistic about mechanics then?

 

[Infinitron]

but there is no reason whatsoever it should give you exp.

I don't necessarily agree with this, actually. The game could give you a special "Double Cross!" quest XP reward, for example, although there would probably need to be some negative consequence down the line for being such an asshole.

I think the primary objective of no kill XP is to let players stealth through dungeons without them feeling like the dungeon is "incomplete" until they've killed all the monsters in it. Closing the "kill the quest giver" exploit is just a bonus.

 

[Kz3r0]

Yeah, great idea, genius. Who's gonna create all that content? How much time will it take to create Dungeon Simulator 2014 that could have been used to create stuff that's actually interesting?

Wouldn't be better state clearly that is a problem of resources instead of mechanics then?
You know this looks awfully similar to the whole we are improving it by removing features.

 

[Lancehead]

Problem with XP is that it's pure reward. There's absolutely no reason for a player to not pursue for more of it. When the game has XP, it decidedly counteracts any meaningful consequences the game may throw at the player for his/her actions. Even if the game sends the bounty hunters after you, there're more XP, more reward for the player. If there is no XP for killing, then the bounty hunters will become an issue, a consequence the player must weigh in before acting. That is more interesting play, nothing to do with LARPing.

 

[Liston]

And people facepalmed harder and harder at every new explanation.

And this has nothing to do with our conversation or my point with that sentence.

It isn't, viable can be acceptable as in different classes can approach the game in different and still effective ways, instead we have mages slamming people with grimoires as the final result of all the babbling about viability.

This is exactly what he advocates, but instead you simply ignore it and represent his arguments like "balance for the sake of balance". Now whether he is going to achieve that is entirely different topic that is worth discussing but instead we have bullshit oversimplification like "mages will be the same as fighters because they have skill for disengagement".

So we will have options that only differ in flavor, don't be mistaken, having everything equal will just meant that a warrior could do what a mage does and vice versa.

Same as above, this conversation started with the topic of what his design philosophy is and now you are backpedaling to argue what his implementation will be like. I'm not going to argue that he won't fuck up and make everything equal, it is a real possibility but we don't have enough information about the game to judge it either way.

And people can find said arguments unconvincing and tell it openly, deal with it.

Of course that they can, you are again missing the point. If said people can't articulate their arguments and instead post bullshit they are only contributing to the noise.

Oh look, the nostalgia goggles argument to disregard criticism, the novelty.

And again missing the point. I have problems with people posting bullshit not that they are disagreeing with him, nor did I imply that every criticism is bullshit.

Oh look, the it's just all trolling and personal attacks argument to shrug off criticism, please, fuck yourself, I never attacked him for his political views and lifestyle or whatever. And what this has to do with me?

Just because I quoted you it doesn't mean that my whole post is dedicated to you.

 

[Infinitron]

You know this looks awfully similar to the whole we are improving it by removing features.

This is in fact a new game, not a sequel to a franchise, so nothing's being "removed". And if you consider it a sequel to the Infinity Engine games, well, those didn't have any consequences for resting in dungeons either.

And if you're talking about getting XP for killing things, that's not really a "feature" - it's a rule.

 

[felipepepe]

That you are entitled little twat that doesn't realize that "gaining twice as much exp by doing the quest twice" is a bug doesn't mean you are wrong.

I'm not asking for the same XP a quest would do, just the regular Xp of killing a guy, according to his challenge/power. Killing townsfolk should give shit XP, but it piles up when you kill a town. Killing a lv 18 Archmage SHOULD give you tons of Xp, no matter if he is a NPC or not.

Baldur's Gate allowed me to betray for no reason FR-poster boy Drizz't Do'Urden, loot and equip his shit

And Project Eternity will still let you have that awesome loot, and maybe even give you XP if it considers killing Drizzt to be a "quest objective" worth rewarding.

That's the point, it doesn't need to be "a quest objective worth rewarding", I killed goddamn Drizzt Do'Urden, that's a fucking awesome feat no matter what Sawyer thinks. Respect that, filthy game designer!

Is LARP-only territory (or metaknowledge), there is no in-game reason for me to kill NPCs now.

Kill the people you want to kill, for loot and plot reasons. Kill the people who try to kill you, to survive. I don't see how that's LARPing.

In BG2 I could march into the Order of Radiant Heart, kill everyone inside in an epic battle, loot awesome stuff and probably gain a level. As a evil character it made sense, they were good assholes and I would be stronger for doing so. It was a moral choice, a LARP choice and had serious in-game consequences and rewards.

If P:E has Paladin Order, attacking it will only waste resources, and even defeating the fucking Gradnmaster won't give me a single Xp point because he had a fecth quest. He removed the in-game consequences, only "I'm evil, they are good" LARP reasons remain.

 

[Kz3r0]

No, you won't get XP for killing NPC in addition to the XP you got from siding with them. If you side with a priest telling you to kill a druid and not the opposite, you get XP for that quest.

Going back to kill the priest SHOULD NOT give you exp, as that's a dumb as hell move- you can do it for larping reasons, but there is no reason whatsoever it should give you exp.

Bullshit, stealing his stuff is reason enough, killing a powerful enemy is another reason, eliminating two opposing leaders to create a vacuum of power or to benefit a third hidden faction can be other reasons to kill quest givers.
Fuck, I don't even have to cite Arcanum but fucking KOTOR let you triple crossing people, and that was a corridor ARPG.

 

[Infinitron]

That's the point, it doesn't need to be "a quest objective worth rewarding", I killed goddamn Drizzt Do'Urden, that's a fucking awesome feat no matter what Sawyer thinks.

But if he put Drizzt in the game and rewarded you XP for killing him, he obviously did think it was an objective worth rewarding.

Drizzt didn't just appear in the game on his own, man. The designers at Bioware put him there and assigned an XP reward for killing him. Every reward you get in a game, you got because the designer thought you should get it.

Ultimately you need to trust the game designer's good sense. Obsidian are the masters of choices and consequence in the gaming industry and if they can't give you the kind of reactivity you're looking for, no one can.

He removed the in-game consequences, only "I'm evil, they are good" LARP reasons remain.

How do you know?

 

[MicoSelva]

I think You are approaching it from the wrong angle. Awarding XP for killing is a retarded legacy mechanic that should have been thrown out the window years ago. It has been copied from D&D to everything and we are so accustomed to it that it feels natural, but it really does not make any sense.

However, I am not saying that awarding XP for defeating enemies is wrong, especially if that defeating serves a purpose (like completing a quest). But why give XP for attacking and killing random NPCs? XP should be awarded for accomplishing some in-game goals.

For example, if You got a quest to gather money and You completed it by killing 100 NPCs and robbing them, that is fine. But You should get as much XP for earning this money by, for example, using in-game trading system to get rich.

While awarding XP for killing has been overabused what you are proposing is another RPG mechanic that does little sense, let's trade a lot so I can gain enough XP to improve my combat skill, wut?
I think that XP fo killing was the obvious choice for every combat heavy game, the problem arose when different approach to solve quests weren't so rewarding, a matter of development resources more than mechanics I think.
The best approach in my opinion should be to use a different rewarding system for different approaches, for example by trading you not only improve trade skills but gain money that can be spent on something else, for example paying for combat training, buying better equipment, or hiring mercenaries.
The real problem is that XP are an abstraction, and XP for killing was the easiest way to implement them, giving XP only for quest solving however is just a shortcut, because implementing different rewards systems would be more complicated and time consuming, in my opinion this also means that the game has to be story driven if only solving quests will give XP, so why being so autistic about mechanics then?[/quote]
Awarding XP for killing and XP being an abstraction of character development are two completely different things. Of course that the example You mention (trading and increasing combat skills with the XP earned) makes no sense. Improving Your lockpicking skills because You shot a deathclaw in the face in Fallout makes equally little sense. I agree with that.

This is however a completely different subject than what is being talked about here.

Assuming that character development IS driven by experience points, these points should be awarded for accomplishing goals. Whether the goals are defined by quests or by something else, it depends on the game design. Of course in combat heavy games, like Diablo, where everything You do is kill monsters, there is little choice as for which activities should the XP be awarded, but in games that focus on different things, such a mechanic is pointless and stupid.

Of course if killing something is an accomplishment in itself, it should be rewarded with XP. Infinitron already mentioned this. I would expect XP for killing Drizzt in Baldur's Gate, even if that was not part of any quest.

 

[Cyberarmy]

If P:E has Paladin Order, attacking it will only waste resources, and even defeating the fucking Gradnmaster won't give me a single Xp point because he had a fecth quest. He removed the in-game consequences, only "I'm evil, they are good" LARP reasons remain.

How can you be so sure?

 

[Kz3r0]

You know this looks awfully similar to the whole we are improving it by removing features.

This is in fact a new game, not a sequel to a franchise, so nothing's being "removed". And if you consider it a sequel to the Infinity Engine games, well, those didn't have any consequences for resting in dungeons either.

And if you're talking about getting XP for killing things, that's not really a "feature" - it's a rule.

I am talking about the fact that this whole discussion about mechanics is in fact pointless, they have to create a new system with the resources they have, a system that can be easily implemented both to avoid excessive spending and overambitious goal that translate in bugs and broken mechanics, fine, it's sensible, but let's not pretend that certain limitations are better design instead of being just that, limitations.

 

[Infinitron]

let's not pretend that certain limitations are better design instead of being just that, limitations.

Well, we can't be sure about that. Sure, maybe Obsidian would design a more realistic reactive sandbox type of game, if they had unlimited resources. Dungeon ecologies with consequences for resting, being hunted down by increasingly more powerful bounty hunters and paladins for murdering people like a medieval GTA, etc.

Or maybe they wouldn't because that's just not the type of game they're good at making. Some people need limitations and create shit when they don't have them.

 

[felipepepe]

Drizzt didn't just appear in the game on his own, man. The designers at Bioware put him there and assigned an XP reward for killing him. Every reward you get in a game, you got because the designer thought you should get it.

Obviously, but Bioware designers weren't arbitrary on this. Drizzt has rewards and tons of XP, but so do all the high-level NPCs in the game, incluiding fucking quest givers. As I said, killing an Archmage should always be a rewardable feat. In some games they even provide a side-path for a secret, like in Arcanum where you can try to sneak GB and steal his coffer, or just kill the guy and get his key. And he was the most important NPC in the game! That's the difference between good design and making up rules to castrate players.

Ultimately you need to trust the game designer's good sense. Obsidian are the masters of choices and consequence in the gaming industry and if they can't give you the kind of reactivity you're looking for, no one can.

Luckly, Age of Decadence and Divinity:Original Sin said hi.

How can you be so sure?

Game isn't even half-done yet, we have nothing but Sawyer's quotes to debate, and they clearly say "No XP from quest-givers".

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

What the fuck is going on in this thread now? o_O

 

[Kz3r0]

Assuming that character development IS driven by experience points, these points should be awarded for accomplishing goals. Whether the goals are defined by quests or by something else, it depends on the game design. Of course in combat heavy games, like Diablo, where everything You do is kill monsters, there is little choice as for which activities should the XP be awarded, but in games that focus on different things, such a mechanic is pointless and stupid.

But I thought that combat was an important feature of PE, with XP tied to quest solving it becomes a purely story driven RPG, nothing wrong with that, probably a very good game too, but the risk is to trivialize combat and making it more of a chore that anything, because if combat in itself doesn't give any XP any forced confrontation in the game will be met with rage by the players.
Let's examine the possibilities, for example getting XP points by surviving a siege or an ambush, but in case of failure what woill happen, less XP or none at all?
How many people will reload then instead of continuing?

 

[Lancehead]

I wonder felipepepe, do you kill every NPC when you play RPGs that give you XP for killing? If not, why?

 

[Malpercio]

I actually think his approach could be interesting, let's see how it plays out.

 

[MicoSelva]

But I thought that combat was an important feature of PE, with XP tied to quest solving it becomes a purely story driven RPG, nothing wrong with that, probably a very good game too, but the risk is to trivialize combat and making it more of a chore that anything, because if combat in itself doesn't give any XP any forced confrontation in the game will be met with rage by the players.
Let's examine the possibilities, for example getting XP points by surviving a siege or an ambush, but in case of failure what woill happen, less XP or none at all?
How many people will reload then instead of continuing?

Ok, You win. I agree. You should get XP for killing defeating opponents when it makes sense.

 

[Malpercio]

What about magic items you get from battles? Honestly, those are more important than XP, to me.

 

[Kz3r0]

let's not pretend that certain limitations are better design instead of being just that, limitations.

Well, we can't be sure about that. Sure, maybe Obsidian would design a more realistic reactive sandbox type of game, if they had unlimited resources. Dungeon ecologies with consequences for resting, being hunted down by increasingly more powerful bounty hunters and paladins for murdering people like a medieval GTA, etc.

Or maybe they wouldn't because that's just not the type of game they're good at making. Some people need limitations and create shit when they don't have them.

Like KOTOR 2?
Previously Obsidian has fucked up sometimes for being too ambitious so the fact that they wised up can be a good sign, but the Codexer in me can't help but think that now that Evil Pubblishers are not backing them they are being very conservative this time.