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

[Hellraiser]

Call of duty? Seriously?

 

[Brayko]

http://www.obsidian.net/component/poll/28-poll-pe-whichgame

ToEE in last place behind Call of Duty

Well... ToEE wasn't that great. It had a good implementation of the D&D ruleset, but little beyond that. The encounter design bad, especially in the later part of the game and all those bugs. It wasn't very awe-inspiring experience.

Of course it had problems, quest design was very buggy and it lacked a rounded resolution, but it's an excellent system to build upon with much more refining. The fact that it's DEAD LAST just shows that people can't really grasp the underlying brilliance of it...

 

[Mrowak]

http://www.obsidian.net/component/poll/28-poll-pe-whichgame

ToEE in last place behind Call of Duty

Well... ToEE wasn't that great. It had a good implementation of the D&D ruleset, but little beyond that. The encounter design bad, especially in the later part of the game and all those bugs. It wasn't very awe-inspiring experience.

Of course it had problems, quest design was very buggy and it lacked a rounded resolution, but it's an excellent system to build upon with much more refining. The fact that it's DEAD LAST just shows that people can't really grasp the underlying brilliance of it...

I'd say it COULD HAVE been a brilliant game. But that's not enough - to be honest it is completely unmemorable, which is why people don't vote for it.

It was a good try, but you don't get Kodeks Kool Kredits just for the effort. It's the whole package that matters. That's why even though BG2 has vastly inferior combat engine, due to the better use of it and generally great polish it is a better game.

 

[Grunker]

this game is really completely unmemorable.

The greatest implementation of 3.5 (perhaps of nay P&P) combat ever does not make an unmemorable game. It makes a very memorable game. The fact that the game lacked in other departments makes it a flawed gem.

Some (rightfully) call VtM:B a flawed gem because it gets many things right but combat wrong. This game gets progression, character system and combat absolutely right and other things wrong. Both are flawed gems.

This:

You don't get Kodeks Kool Kredits just for the effort. It's the whole package that matters.

is the biggest falsehood I've seen in a while. The Codex proves again and again each time it votes or discusses games that it loves so-called "flawed diamonds" above everything else. The whole package matters little to us, it seems; what matters is excellence. And ToEE has truely excellent combat and character system.

Anyway, below Call of Duty is a joke no matter how you see it, and I hope the trolls put it there.

 

[Rake]

The CoDoption was a joke anyway. I can't imagine anyone voting for this seriously.

 

[Lilura]

It was a good try, but you don't get Kodeks Kool Kredits just for the effort. It's the whole package that matters. That's why even though BG2 has vastly inferior combat engine, due to the better use of it and generally great polish it is a better game.

I suppose you mean "as a whole", though to me that's still debatable. I've done as many runs of ToEE as I have of BG series, probably more actually if you include Co8 and solos.

Would much rather be discussing ToEE than any IE or Aurora game, and this 677 page topic should be about ToEE, not PE

 

[Mrowak]

this game is really completely unmemorable.

The greatest implementation of 3.5 (perhaps of nay P&P) combat ever does not make an unmemorable game. It makes a very memorable game. The fact that the game lacked in other departments makes it a flawed gem.

You mean ALL other departments?

Some (rightfully) call VtM:B a flawed gem because it gets many things right but combat wrong. This game gets progression, character system and combat absolutely right and other things wrong. Both are flawed gems.

It did combat right? Oh really? :/ Frankly the combat was pretty lackluster, and not that difficult. It had *potential* to be interesting, but it seriously lacked in encounter design department, especially when you reach the Temple itself.

This:

You don't get Kodeks Kool Kredits just for the effort. It's the whole package that matters.

is the biggest falsehood I've seen in a while. The Codex proves again and again each time it votes or discusses games that it loves so-called "flawed diamonds" above everything else.

Yeah, I really ought to have put "should not" in there. Codex loves broken games and endlessly ponders on "what if" or "if only" about really really flawed titles, nitpicking at details, while disregarding the greater picture. Half of the reason I (sadly) distanced myself from this place recently.

The whole package matters little to us, it seems; what matters is excellence. And ToEE has truely excellent combat and character system.

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O With all of its potential squandered by the remaining elements?

The thing is - as a system designer you should be first to admit - it's how the whole system functions that matters. Details are details - they are important, but the ultimate priority is to make those details (however flawed they are) work together in unison. I think that's the secret behind the success of Infinity Engine games.

Anyway, below Call of Duty is a joke no matter how you see it, and I hope the trolls put it there.

Then it seems to me ToEE is more of a joke than CoD.

 

[tuluse]

Depends on whether combat performance is the one and only yardstick. Gandalf certainly didn't bring Bilbo along expecting him to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the dwarves.

I mentioned much earlier in this thread that I thought it was okay for a particular class (rogue-types, say) to have a lot of general utility or other speciality, but mediocre combat performance during a pitched battle—compared to, say, a fighter who has almost no utility at all outside of combat. That's pretty much what I'm talking about here. Quest for Glory was that way, sort of: Fighters had a MUCH easier time in direct combat than Thieves. Older D&D was similar, I think, though I barely remember.

The idea of the badass, enemy-lawnmower rogue is, to me, emblematic and/or symptomatic of a World of Warcraft-esque school of thought. As is toning down wizards to be "as appealing" as a fighter, rogue, or something else, though admittedly even old D&D did that.

Rogues aren't going to be able to fight shoulder to shoulder with fighters in PE either. They're going to sneak around enemy lines for sneak attacks.

As for everything else, Sawyer is putting combat at the forefront of the experience. All classes are going to be useful, and close to equally useful in combat. There is no combat/non-combat dichotomy in PE. With that in mind think of each class as having received martial training and they're different classes of "soldier". Not the classic DnD classes.

 

[tuluse]

Are you guys seriously complaining about the CoD votes? It's obvious people voted for it because they thought it would be funny.

 

[Grunker]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. So few have done what ToEE and KotC did there.

Details are details

The fact that you just called the combat system and the character system in a dungeon crawling RPG "details" is the biggest self-explanatory counter-argument to your own statement I've seen in a while.

Half of the reason I (sadly) distanced myself from this place recently.

If you can't handle the heat...

 

[felipepepe]

Had written a huge reply, server went bad and it vanished...

TL;DR: Sawyer is silly, and I'm butthurt.

 

[Infinitron]

I agree with Mrowak that the total package is what matters in a game, although of course this is a subjective matter.

Half of the reason I (sadly) distanced myself from this place recently.

Awww.

 

[Grunker]

^ I think you'll find yourself in some real troubles when you start to define the difference between "total package"-games and the reverse.

All we can do is discuss elements of a game, and ToEE had a great implementation of its character system and a good combat system, and that made it memorable.

But, as I said, the important part here is below Call of Duty is pretty laughable no matter how you slice it.

 

[Gakkone]

 

[Lilura]

All we can do is discuss elements of a game, and ToEE had a great implementation of its character system and a good combat system, and that made it memorable.

It also featured a slick UI, thorough feedback and some of the most luscious backdrops and silky animations in any isometric game (just saying I remember it for more than just combat and character builds).

 

[Mrowak]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. So few have done what ToEE and KotC did there.

I am not surprised at all. I accept that stance and I am inclined to agree that in tactical RPGs (where you control more than one character) it's usually the best option (if there is a ruleset available). You might also remember that my only reservation was that such approach can potentially limit creativity and foster copy-pasting features instead of coming up with better, more robust solutions befitting the medium.

And KotC is a different matter altogether - it's actually a very good, very polished, very focused product that simply suffers from poor marketing (they totally should have put it on GOG and Steam). It's miles above ToEE.

 

[villain of the story]

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.

The mere fact that you could kill an archmage should be a reward in itself. The act itself would mean that you have spent time improving your party and have employed good tactics against the archmage. Hopefully, the archmage's death would even acknowledge your party's renown in the gameworld, for better or worse.

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.

And that is why it was so damn good when you did those things; the mere fact that you could, not that it gave you generous amounts of XP. And indeed, THAT is the difference between good design and making up silly rules to reward players for retarded actions regardless of whether it might or might not make sense.

I'm not against XP by principle, some games are certainly better for it but I am quite sick of this abusive decades long XP fad which needs to die a miserable death already and good fucking riddance. I think the XP mentality is actively preventing the RPG genre evolve.

 

[Grunker]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. So few have done what ToEE and KotC did there.

I am not surprised at all. I accept that stance and I am inclined to agree that in tactical RPGs (where you control more than one character) it's usually the best option (if there is a ruleset available). You might also remember that my only reservation was that such approach can potentially limit creativity and foster copy-pasting features instead of coming up with better, more robust solutions befitting the medium.

And KotC is a different matter altogether - it's actually a very good, very polished, very focused product that simply suffers from poor marketing (they totally should have put it on GOG and Steam). It's miles above ToEE.

I disagree (very much in fact). While KotC has much, much better encounter design than ToEE and more enemy variation, ToEE for the most part has a better implementation of its combat mechanics. KotC actually hasn't got a very big variety in its system - most spells & abilities are variations of the same fundamental templates.

KotC might be a better product overall, but ToEE had more potential.

 

[Kirtai]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

I can't but feel that this is more a condemnation of cRPG ruleset design than a celebration of how good PnP rulesets are.

It seems to me that the real problem here is that cRPG rulesets simply don't get the same kind of development and playtesting that PnP rules do, especially since developers seem to take a positive delight in redoing them from scratch instead of building on previous work (a fucking endemic problem in computing in general). Given that, it's no wonder they suffer by comparison.

 

[Grunker]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

I can't but feel that this is more a condemnation of cRPG ruleset design than a celebration of how good PnP rulesets are.

It seems to me that the real problem here is that cRPG rulesets simply don't get the same kind of development and playtesting that PnP rules do, especially since developers seem to take a positive delight in redoing them from scratch instead of building on previous work (a fucking endemic problem in computing in general). Given that, it's no wonder they suffer by comparison.

I've discussed this issue to death in every other thread here, but the gist of it is that I see no reason for game designers to take on the jobs of P&P system designers. Game designers should, for the most part, be picking their systems from the available ones and twist them to fit their needs, not keep making their own simplistic crap that doesn't have time to be tested.

You don't see mid-level game designers suddenly decide they want to make all the graphics of their game. Until RPG system design is recognized as a major undertaking that can't be done as part of making a game, shitty and simplistic will be the too adjectives that will continue to define our cRPG character systems.

Sawyer's might very well be one of the best and most complex in this category yet, but as I've set before: My money's on a system WAY, WAAAAAAAAY less complex than, for example, Pathfinder. And those who contradicted me on this point can eat their words when P:E comes out

 

[evdk]

Pathfinder

 

[Grunker]

You'll have to give me that Pathfinder and D&D are the most obvious systems to compare to P:E. It makes sense to measure the depth and complexity of P:E's system and variety by comparing it to those.

 

[Brayko]

Are you guys seriously complaining about the CoD votes? It's obvious people voted for it because they thought it would be funny.

....The fact that the trolls overrule the ToEE enthusiasts is rather disconcerting.

 

[Kirtai]

I've discussed this issue to death in every other thread here, but the gist of it is that I see no reason for game designers to take on the jobs of P&P system designers. Game designers should, for the most part, be picking their systems from the available ones and twist them to fit their needs, not keep making their own simplistic crap that doesn't have time to be tested.

You don't see mid-level game designers suddenly decide they want to make all the graphics of their game. Until RPG system design is recognized as a major undertaking that can't be done as part of making a game, shitty and simplistic will be the too adjectives that will continue to define our cRPG character systems.

What I'm suggesting is that designing cRPG rulesets should be considered a task just as big as, but not the same as PnP ruleset design. While it may be possible to make a ruleset that works well for both I'd like to see rulesets designed specifically for cRPGs with the same quality and attention to detail that is given to PnP rules.

Rather than having to pick a PnP ruleset and twisting it to fit or making their own half-arsed system, I'd like to see developers having the option to choose from a selection of well designed, solid cRPG specific rulesets.

 

[Mrowak]

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. So few have done what ToEE and KotC did there.

Details are details

The fact that you just called the combat system and the character system in a dungeon crawling RPG "details" is the biggest self-explanatory counter-argument to your own statement I've seen in a while.

It was more of a general statement referring to stuff that comprised said combat system and other stuff. However, I still maintain the combat system (I'd rather call it "combat engine") was not enough to create interesting combat and that's the fault most grave in any combat-oriented game. It *was* boring for the most part... And buggy... And repetitive... It was just pretty bad. :/

And character progression? Well that stuff was there but I didn't feel all those skills were exceptionally useful - perhaps due to *attrocious* encounter design and low interactivity which really didn't encourage you to use all of those goodies the game provided you with.

Once more: details *do* matter but what matters more is how they operate together. Do they work against each other (ToEE) or synergize creating something greater than the sum if its parts (IE games)?

Because it was copy-pasted word-for-word from PnP? o_O

Yes. You well know my feelings towards this issue. cRPGs would be improved tons and get much closer at their intended goals if only more did this.

Frankly, I'm not sure why it's a surprise to you. So few have done what ToEE and KotC did there.

I am not surprised at all. I accept that stance and I am inclined to agree that in tactical RPGs (where you control more than one character) it's usually the best option (if there is a ruleset available). You might also remember that my only reservation was that such approach can potentially limit creativity and foster copy-pasting features instead of coming up with better, more robust solutions befitting the medium.

And KotC is a different matter altogether - it's actually a very good, very polished, very focused product that simply suffers from poor marketing (they totally should have put it on GOG and Steam). It's miles above ToEE.

I disagree (very much in fact). While KotC has much, much better encounter design than ToEE and more enemy variation, ToEE for the most part has a better implementation of its combat mechanics. KotC actually hasn't got a very big variety in its system - most spells & abilities are variations of the same fundamental templates.

KotC might be a better product overall, but ToEE had more potential.

Yes... potential. And that's all that it amounted to - lost potential. In other words ToEE is hands down the worse of the two and In my honest opinion worse than many other games that were considered in these parts.

Half of the reason I (sadly) distanced myself from this place recently.

If you can't handle the heat...

It's not the heat I cannot handle. Frankly, there is no heat to speak of. It's just... I need a vacation, I guess.