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

[Grunker]

:imminent meltdown:

Anybody would do well with a short vacation from the 'dex.

tuluse: Of course not, I think the concern is that there are more trolls than ToEE-voters.

 

[tuluse]

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.

ToEE fans who aren't also Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment fans.

 

[Rake]

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.

Are you sure he wants to make something more complex than Pathfinder even if he could? He comes like he want his system to be easy to understand by many people, and he said that he can see easilly how a person new to D&D could have problems with IWD. So i'm not sure more complex=better in his mind

 

[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.

Are you sure he wants to make something more complex than Pathfinder even if he could? He comes like he want his system to be easy to understand by many people, and he said that he can see easilly how a person new to D&D could have problems with IWD. So i'm not sure more complex=better in his mind

Complexity =/= Depth, which was why I used both terms. As for the rest, why is it alright for Josh to cater to simpletons in this way when creating P:E but not for Todd when creating Skyrim?

Of course I am demanding a deep and complex character system. Anyone who tells me it's alright for Josh to craft a more simple system in the name of easing more people into it are arguing for streamlining and simplification, simple as.

 

[Broseph]

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.

ToEE fans who aren't also Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment fans.

Which are probably few in number unless you really appreciate the tactical combat that much, because ToEE was wasted potential any way you want to slice it.

 

[Lilura]

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. :/

Oh gawd, you think ToEE combat is boring, repetitive and uninteresting lol. Each to their own, but you back nothing up. You just have an opinion that you keep repeating, congrats I guess?
What about five-foot step, charge, grapple, trip attacks, meta-magic...

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.

You ignore feats and multi-class mix-ins for nuanced builds, the variation is impressive for a vanilla level cap of 10. And how those builds work together to form an effective party in combat encounters, you ignore that too?

Do they work against each other (ToEE) or synergize creating something greater than the sum if its parts (IE games)?

lol RtWP, its not a vigorously tactical combat system compared to ToEE (or even Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor). I know I seem bitchy atm, but I dislike when people criticize ToEE even for its strengths?

 

[Lady_Error]

The greatest implementation of 3.5 (perhaps of nay P&P) combat ever does not make an unmemorable game.

I thought the actual temple in TOEE was extremely well done, in addition to the awesome combat system. The whole end game including the boss fight was very memorable for me. More so than Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale.

 

[Mrowak]

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. :/

Oh gawd, you think ToEE combat is boring, repetitive and uninteresting lol. Each to their own, but you back nothing up. You just have an opinion that you keep repeating, congrats I guess?
What about five-foot step, charge, grapple, trip attacks, meta-magic...

Yet you didn't have to use those even once to beat the game. Pretty bad for a combat-oriented RPG. :/

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.

You ignore feats and multi-class mix-ins for nuanced builds, the variation is impressive for a vanilla level cap of 10. And how those builds work together to form an effective party in combat encounters, you ignore that too?

Yes, they are there, but so what? Does the game provide you with memorable opportunities for them? Not even once in my playthroughs I could tell myself "man, I am glad I've chosen Improved Trip - it really saved my arse in that battle" or "oh fuck, I need some spells now - Why I didn't invest in Craft Wand?". By comparison KotC is full of those moments.

Do they work against each other (ToEE) or synergize creating something greater than the sum if its parts (IE games)?

lol RtWP, its not a vigorously tactical combat system compared to ToEE (or even Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor). I know I seem bitchy atm, but I dislike when people criticize ToEE even for its strengths?

I acknowledge those strengths, but once again affirm that multiple other "details" counter, negate and dispel them rendering them nearly meaningless in the larger context. Hence my low opinion of the game.

 

[Lilura]

Yet you didn't have to use those even once to beat the game. Pretty bad for a combat-oriented RPG. :/

You don't need anything to beat the game, I soloed it with a stealthy halfing rogue and didn't fight anything, the game gives you options.
Anyway I mentioned that to illustrate the versatility that the radial menu offers you in combat, options like five-foot step and charge are there for reasons of efficiency, you'll do much better in combat if you utilize them.
If you wanna simply click on enemies and hope for the best, all power to you, no wonder you got bored and every fight seemed the same.

Did you use any other tactical options, like sliding initiative order portraits and the like, I never saw a game that let you alter initiative like that.

Yes, they are there, but so what? Does the game provide you with memorable opportunities for them? Not even once in my playthroughs I could tell myself "man, I am glad I've chosen Improved Trip - it really saved my arse in that battle" or "oh fuck, I need some spells now - Why I didn't invest in Craft Wand?". By comparison KotC is full of those moments.

But there were other feats you were glad you took, right? And crafting is another of ToEE's strengths, thanks for the reminder.

I acknowledge those strengths, but once again affirm that multiple other "details" counter, negate and dispell them rendering them nearly meaningless in the larger context.

For you, maybe. I've done 20 or so runs of the game, none of ToEE's many flaws stopped me from enjoying its virtues. Shrug.

 

[Excidium]

grapple

TOEE doesn't have that.

 

[Lilura]

grapple

TOEE doesn't have that.

Nope, but you can be grappled and attempt to break free, the point was combat nuance.

 

[Mrowak]

grapple

TOEE doesn't have that.

Actually I am pretty sure it has - I remember some enemies used that.

Yet you didn't have to use those even once to beat the game. Pretty bad for a combat-oriented RPG. :/

You don't need anything to beat the game, I soloed it with a stealthy halfing rogue and didn't fight anything, the game gives you options.
Anyway I mentioned that to illustrate the versatility that the radial menu offers you in combat, options like five-foot step and charge are there for reasons of efficiency, you'll do much better in combat if you utilize them.

I do not need them. Moreover I do not need any exceptional brainpower or effort to beat the game either. That's a serious weakness.

If you wanna simply click on enemies and hope for the best, all power to you, no wonder you got bored and every fight seemed the same.

In other words:

"Dear player,

Gone sailing. Please make the game interesting yourself. Larp difficulty or someting.

Yours truly,

Dev team"

Ehh...

Did you use any other tactical options, like sliding initiative order portraits and the like, I never saw a game that let you alter initiative like that.

Believe me - I know of those options. First, they are nothing to write home about - it's not groundbreaking or complex or anything. Second, you really don't have to rely on them.

Yes, they are there, but so what? Does the game provide you with memorable opportunities for them? Not even once in my playthroughs I could tell myself "man, I am glad I've chosen Improved Trip - it really saved my arse in that battle" or "oh fuck, I need some spells now - Why I didn't invest in Craft Wand?". By comparison KotC is full of those moments.

But there were other feats you were glad you took, right?[/quote]

No, not really. Regardless of whether you pick this or that, the encounters really didn't become more or less difficult. The only thing that roughly mattered was spell-selection.

And crafting is another of ToEE's strengths, thanks for the reminder.

You mean how it totally breaks the game economy and (already poor) encounter balance? Fantastic! It's good that it's there. It's bad that it's broken.

I acknowledge those strengths, but once again affirm that multiple other "details" counter, negate and dispell them rendering them nearly meaningless in the larger context.

For you, maybe. I've done 20 or so runs of the game, none of ToEE's many flaws stopped me from enjoying its virtues. Shrug.

Good for you then.

ToEE can be enjoyed - it has its features and moments. But they are simply not enough to make it a standard to aspire to. I mean, I would surely take elements from it (combat engine and character progression) and put them elsewhere, where they could work true wonders, while laying down the rest in the mass grave of bad design. As it is, ToEE underperforms on so many levels that it is no wonder so few people want P:E to follow its footsteps. I know I do not wish for that.

 

[kris]

But I'm not asking for thousands of scriped consequences... just the same old tried ones. Is a system that works very well on various games, like Arcanum or Fallout; kill people, get XP/gold/items but there are consequences. And the consequences are very simple, bountyhunters, bad karma, NPCS don't speak with you... nothing groundbreaking, and yes, it limits your playthrough and each time reduces what you can do more and more, until there is nothing to be done but kill every single person in the game and that's it. I have no problem with that, I know I'm "breaking" the game, the fun is seeing how far can you go.

The simplest solution here would instead be to have all the companions attack the PC or at least leave him. I doubt they will make any companion that is classed as a psychotic killer or madman.

Personally I have my own ideas about how to gain XP and I like killXP, but I don't mind this solution either. Don't think all games should go for the same solution, unless one is clearly superior in some way.

 

[Lilura]

I do not need them. Moreover I do not need any exceptional brainpower or effort to beat the game either. That's a serious weakness.

Believe me - I know of those options. First, they are nothing to write home about - it's not groundbreaking or complex or anything. Second, you really don't have to rely on them.

I don't see multiple options as a weakness, and wouldn't how vital they'd seem in your tactics depend on a few things, like whether you re-roll for aeons and then min-max, or whether you use point buy, and how your party is composed?

No, not really. Regardless of whether you pick this or that, the encounters really didn't become more or less difficult. The only thing that roughly mattered was spell-selection.

Empower spell, spell focus, crafting feats, TWF, power attack, whirlwind? Again, how vital a feat might seem depends on the above-mentioned things.

You mean how it totally breaks the game economy and (already poor) encounter balance? Fantastic! It's good that it's there. It's bad that it's broken.

It can break it if you abuse it, but I don't have a huge problem with games that can be or even are broken. Its funny, most of the best cRPGs are broken in one way or another, or in many ways.

Good for you then.

ToEE can be enjoyed - it has its features and moments. But they are simply not enough to make it a standard to aspire to. I mean, I would surely take elements from it (combat engine and character progression) and put them elsewhere, where they could work true wonders, while laying down the rest in the mass grave of bad design. As it is, ToEE underperforms on so many levels that it is no wonder so few people want P:E to follow its footsteps. I know I do not wish for that.

If P:E makes me wanna do 20 runs of it, I'll be pleasantly surprised, no, gobsmacked. Not holding my breath, though.

 

[Roguey]

Jeez this thread. Pages of an argument that happened months ago. Re-Josh-postin'

However, I am strongly against awarding experience points for "ways and means". I.e. killing monsters, picking locks, scribing scrolls, etc. Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs. Unless combat is the sole focus of the game, we need to keep the player's focus on achieving a goal in whatever manner he or she sees fit. The accomplishment of the goal, not the method itself, should net the main reward. The reward for "ways and means" is usually self-contained. E.g. monsters drop monster bits, opening locked rooms gives access to otherwise unavailable equipment, hacking a computer gives some interesting data that can tie in with another game system. And really, the biggest reward has already been granted to the player: you allowed him or her to play the game in the manner he or she wanted. There's an idea I don't subscribe to -- that players need to be given tiny rewards for everything they do. If your gameplay is actually fun, you shouldn't need to bribe them! When gameplay simply becomes drudgery motivated by a desire to gain a bonus that makes the gameplay easier, I feel that we have failed as designers.

Also Josh doesn't like Pathfinder because it paves over the flaws of 3.5 instead of addressing fundamental flaws from the ground up.

Who's the lad with the red shirt?

Clockwise from the left: Steve Bokkes, Josh Sawyer, Scott Warner, Chris Avellone, Reg Arendo, John Deliey

What unique properties does weapons have if all of them cover all damage types?

Additionally, every base weapon type has an advantage that is not necessarily unique, but is not shared by most other weapons. The examples I have given previously are the pike's extended reach and the flail's ability to negate some of the defensive bonus of a shield.

 

[Brayko]

And here comes Lawful Evil to reclaim the thread.

 

[Grunker]

However, I am strongly against awarding experience points for "ways and means". I.e. killing monsters, picking locks, scribing scrolls, etc. Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs. Unless combat is the sole focus of the game, we need to keep the player's focus on achieving a goal in whatever manner he or she sees fit. The accomplishment of the goal, not the method itself, should net the main reward. The reward for "ways and means" is usually self-contained. E.g. monsters drop monster bits, opening locked rooms gives access to otherwise unavailable equipment, hacking a computer gives some interesting data that can tie in with another game system. And really, the biggest reward has already been granted to the player: you allowed him or her to play the game in the manner he or she wanted. There's an idea I don't subscribe to -- that players need to be given tiny rewards for everything they do. If your gameplay is actually fun, you shouldn't need to bribe them! When gameplay simply becomes drudgery motivated by a desire to gain a bonus that makes the gameplay easier, I feel that we have failed as designers.

Sawyer

(Your thoughts on Pathfinder you can stick up your bunghole though )

 

[felipepepe]

I'm still butthurt, but I'll wait to see; they already have my money anyway...

 

[Lancehead]

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

Who apart from Roguey actually thinks P:E's system would be comparably deep and complex to that?

 

[Lancehead]

Also, to spice things up more, this kill-xp discussion is missing DraQ.

 

[Hormalakh]

ITT aspies calling Sawyer aspie because they aren't allowed to do aspie things in their games like killing every living creature for trickles of xp.

 

[felipepepe]

ITT aspies calling Sawyer aspie because they aren't allowed to do aspie things in their games like killing every living creature for trickles of xp.

Control Freaks vs. Derp-Freedom Freaks, why I'm super and who.

 

[Alex]

I'm still butthurt, but I'll wait to see; they already have my money anyway...

However, I am strongly against awarding experience points for "ways and means". I.e. killing monsters, picking locks, scribing scrolls, etc. Not only is it extraordinarily hard to balance for designers and QA staff, but it inevitably leads to nasty metagaming that, in my opinion, runs counter to some of the guiding principles of many RPGs. Unless combat is the sole focus of the game, we need to keep the player's focus on achieving a goal in whatever manner he or she sees fit. The accomplishment of the goal, not the method itself, should net the main reward. The reward for "ways and means" is usually self-contained. E.g. monsters drop monster bits, opening locked rooms gives access to otherwise unavailable equipment, hacking a computer gives some interesting data that can tie in with another game system. And really, the biggest reward has already been granted to the player: you allowed him or her to play the game in the manner he or she wanted. There's an idea I don't subscribe to -- that players need to be given tiny rewards for everything they do. If your gameplay is actually fun, you shouldn't need to bribe them! When gameplay simply becomes drudgery motivated by a desire to gain a bonus that makes the gameplay easier, I feel that we have failed as designers.

Sawyer

(Your thoughts on Pathfinder you can stick up your bunghole though )

I really don't get it why he is so afraid of having the game be unbalanced. And while I can sympathize with the metagaming complaint, in that part of the resources you are doing your decision making over are abstract things in the gameworld, which kind of breaches the illusion. But his solution is worse than the problem in my view.If one really wants to address that, you can have experience be something more concrete in the gameworld, so that it stops being metagaming and begins to be in game thinking.

You don't even need to go with more "realistic" systems like learn by doing or training or what have you. You can imply have something simple like 1xp for each piece of gold worth of treasure looted (the logic being that the more you manage to bring back in an expedition, the greater of an adventurer you are). Or even more ephemeral stuff, like fame or class accomplishment. Actually, now that I think about it, even quest XP could fall into this category, as long as there were clear guidelines of what a quest should be worth, instead of being a percentage of how much the player needs to get to the next level for the assumed level of the party, like they seem to do in most games.

 

[Murk]

J. Sawyer: "The destination is more important than the journey."

YA GODDAMN RIGHT IT IS

 

[Mrowak]

I do not need them. Moreover I do not need any exceptional brainpower or effort to beat the game either. That's a serious weakness.

Believe me - I know of those options. First, they are nothing to write home about - it's not groundbreaking or complex or anything. Second, you really don't have to rely on them.

I don't see multiple options as a weakness, and wouldn't how vital they'd seem in your tactics depend on a few things, like whether you re-roll for aeons and then min-max, or whether you use point buy, and how your party is composed?

Multiple options are a good thing, but not if they are largely meaningless. It would be cool if AI was good enough to take advantage of them and react accordingly to your performance on the battlefield, creating reasons for serious strategizing. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. Due to repetitive encounter patterns and predictable enemy behaviour all that options are there just as a curiosity. You can use them, but other than larp you have little reason why you ever should go for them. And even if you pick them, it's not complex at all - it's just common sense, plain and simple. It just makes it seem you are playing chess with a braindead opponent. So what you have all those options when the opposition is making the most obvious moves.

No, not really. Regardless of whether you pick this or that, the encounters really didn't become more or less difficult. The only thing that roughly mattered was spell-selection.

Empower spell, spell focus, crafting feats, TWF, power attack, whirlwind? Again, how vital a feat might seem depends on the above-mentioned things.

Yes, we've already established there's a lot of them.

You mean how it totally breaks the game economy and (already poor) encounter balance? Fantastic! It's good that it's there. It's bad that it's broken.

It can break it if you abuse it, but I don't have a huge problem with games that can be or even are broken. Its funny, most of the best cRPGs are broken in one way or another, or in many ways.

So someone forgot to put the feature in context, rendering it gamebreaking, but it should be excused because it's there. And that other RPGs are broken in same regard is not generally held as a point in their favour, so I see no reason why ToEE should get away here.

Good for you then.

ToEE can be enjoyed - it has its features and moments. But they are simply not enough to make it a standard to aspire to. I mean, I would surely take elements from it (combat engine and character progression) and put them elsewhere, where they could work true wonders, while laying down the rest in the mass grave of bad design. As it is, ToEE underperforms on so many levels that it is no wonder so few people want P:E to follow its footsteps. I know I do not wish for that.

If P:E makes me wanna do 20 runs of it, I'll be pleasantly surprised, no, gobsmacked. Not holding my breath, though.

My point was not to criticise your or anyone's positive opinion about the game, but to validate the low view that the Obsidian forumgoers hold - that was how the original argument began. It is perfectly legitimate impression of the game - objectively speaking it's a bad title. You may like it because feature X and Y really string the cord with you, but taking into account the rest of the package it's hard not see why it didn't enjoy success.

It simply did not deserve it.