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

[hoverdog]

No, but I went through his post history

o_O

the key to understanding Roguey.

 

[almondblight]

Right now I'm doing that by donating to worthy KS projects. When I'll get the time to do it, I'll start working on my game as well, but that's more something of a long term plan. Also, most of the codexers would hate most of my ideas, with some exceptions here and there, because most of the codexers are a depressingly regressive bunch. It would less than worthless to come out and say "BROS, THIS IS MY DESIGN DOCUMENT. DICSUSS!!!".

I'm not talking about an existing game, but about how I see a game that I could really call a good CRPG. Fallout 1, Fallout 2 (especially), Arcanum, AoD, Gothic 1-3, Deus Ex, both System Shocks have almost all the necessary elements if you would put them all together, but, yeah, that game doesn't exist yet.

It's fine to think that there can be a better system made, and I agree there probably is. But I don't think that you should criticize a company for not doing what no company has done before (balance multiple levels of combat/non-combat skills). Separating out combat and non-combat routes seems to be a good way to approach this, and it's one I (and others) have suggested before. I don't think it's the perfect solution, but we haven't found that yet (assuming there is one). It does seem like it could be progress, though.

As for the games you've mentioned, I think you underestimate the amount of work it'd take to implement the system you want.

I played Fallout 1 in early 1998 and a second time in 1999 or so, so I can't claim to remember all the little details about it, but I doubt that, apart from the "in-your-face" things such as the power armor and The Glow, there weren't quite a few sidequests that were rather easy to miss. That's why I'm always suspicious of people saying "I did everything there was to do in this or that game". Unless you're talking about one of these newfangled ADHD modern shooters, you, most likely, missed something, especially in a good RPG such as one of the original Fallouts.

Well, I was talking about the ability to do everything as a jack-of-all trades character. In Fallout it's very easy to create a character that can do just about everything in the game - snipe supermutants from 50 feet while convincing Ian to join him for free and repairing power armor on his own. I don't remember much of anything that I ran into that I couldn't accomplish, since you are swimming in skill points in that game. For instance, people think that taking Gifted is the easy way, even though it drops your skills and the amount of skill points you get. I'd be surprised if Project Eternity characters even came close to being able to do all the things that Fallout characters could.

I wasn't talking about content, but I did play through Fallout five times and there was very, very little content I found on subsequent play throughs that I had missed the first time. The only one that comes directly to mind is the thieves guild, Brees disk, and a couple random encounters. I don't think Fallout was big enough to miss a lot of stuff in.

Also, you're thinking too much about Fallout 1 exclusively, which was pretty straigth-forward. Me, when I hear/read "Fallout", I always think "Fallout 1 and Fallout 2", and Fallout 2 has enough shit to miss unless you're really OCD or you have already played it 10 times and you know absolutely everything about it and you just do the 11th run to do everything in one go. And even then you might find out about some quest that you missed. I can tell you that for sure because I do know someone who played Fallout 2 12 times and, even then, he found out, somewhere on the net, about some obscure sidequest that he didn't know about.

Yeah, I never finished Fallout 2 (got to San Francisco and quit), so I can't comment. It did seem like it included more high level skill checks than Fallout. But even then, I got pretty far as a diplomat/tech/fighter. Because of the difficulty in balancing combat skills and diplomacy in other games, I think it's fine that Obsidian is going this route.

 

[Alex]

I really don't like the idea of having a separate pool for combat abilities and non-combat ones. Not because of any specific properties of such system, actually. After all, this is vague enough that I am sure people could design fun games around it. What I really dislike about it is that it hints the devs are designing the game around the idea of combat and non combat challenges. Like They want to make sure the PCs will have a certain level of competency at fighting and will be able to take a few non fighting choices. So they will design the game to test those two things as separate types of challenges at every turn.

Like, rather than having a series of situations and complications, and then diverse solutions for these that might affect other problems, I am afraid Obsidian is thinking instead of a more linear approach. With specific fights and troubles they will face that, even if not linearly, still are a far cry from a real sandbox game. Now, it is true that calling this a decline is a bit too much. I mean, PS:T certainly didn't do things this way, for example. But it isn't something that warms me up to the kickstarter either.

 

[Kane]

Maybe some day Sawyer will notice all this attention you're giving him and make sweet love to you. Maybe.

You're also configuring a party of characters, not a single character, so the number of combinations is much larger even with combat and non-combat skills being segregated.

Assuming he doesn't find out that Sawyer is a sexist rape-monster on one of his stalking sprees.

 

[Infinitron]

A Blobert-wannabe asks the tough questions
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/374252814160910832

DOESN'T HAVING SEPARATE SYSTEMS FOR COMBAT AND NON-COMBAT SKILLS KIND OF DETRACT FROM THE SPECIALIZATION AND THEREFORE UNIQUENESS OF CHARACTERS BY ALLOWING FOR BROADER COMPETENCY?

Yes. I consider that an acceptable trade-off to prevent dead-ending certain players/parties in circumstances where their particular brand of non-combat specialist isn't accounted for. You're also configuring a party of characters, not a single character, so the number of combinations is much larger even with combat and non-combat skills being segregated.

Nice to see that companions are in fact fully customizable.

You'll find that this question now has some interesting comments.

 

[Monad]

GREAT thread.

So sad to see so many wanting a mini-map. That shit belongs in aRPGs.

Nah. Minimaps are one of the most basic usability features you can have in an RPG. It doesn't have to show enemies etc., but landmark locations and stuff? Fuck wandering around aimlessly trying to find a quest giver in some town you last visited 20 hours ago.

stfu you retarded asshole.

 

[Nigro]

Man people are complaining about my username in Obsidian forum, what's the big deal with it?

 

[Grimlorn]

Man people are complaining about my username in Obsidian forum, what's the big deal with it?

Just tell them you're black, and they should drop it.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Are you saying I'm not a special snowflake?

Says the guy with the default avatar.

Man people are complaining about my username in Obsidian forum, what's the big deal with it?

Choose one, but not both:

A) Become a more interesting troll and not such an obvious retard.

B) Become a more interesting poster and not such an oblivious retard.

 

[Nigro]

Man people are complaining about my username in Obsidian forum, what's the big deal with it?

Choose one, but not both:

A) Become a more interesting troll and not such an obvious retard.

B) Become a more interesting poster and not such an oblivious retard.

Teach me how pls, I'd like option A

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Piss off.

 

[tuluse]

How about adding a peaceful mode with less enemies, less combat items, non-combat companions, and only peaceful quests? That way you don't have to fit in two different games into one mode, or make a dynamic world that changes based on what you choose about the character in the beginning.

From the kickstarter comments.

 

[J_C]

 

[DraQ]

What's wrong with a toggled, linen-like map or digital overview like Baldur's Gate instead of the acardey mini-map that will stay an eye-soar in top right of the screen, with a bunch of shitty icons and shit?

Toggle maps are less convenient than regular mini-maps. As for style, I'm all for a nice hand-drawn kind of map, provided it's detailed enough, as I'm not a fan of, say, NWN2-style maps which are just a screenshot of the level itself taken from a top-down perspective. Icons for indicating important locations and NPCs is totally fine - do you really have a problem with knowing where the nearest shop is at a glance, for instance?

To be fair though, in a top-down game a mini-map probably isn't entirely needed unless the camera is fairly close to the ground.

This.

It's a matter of convenience, like a well made journal.
It's not like the ability to whip out a piece of paper and something that leaves traces on it is what sets a proper cRPG connoisseur apart from common rabble, because it's fucking trivial, so why not make the game do it for you?

Man people are complaining about my username in Obsidian forum, what's the big deal with it?

Choose one, but not both:

A) Become a more interesting troll and not such an obvious retard.

B) Become a more interesting poster and not such an oblivious retard.

Are you saying I'm not a special snowflake?

Everyone is.
And they all melt the same when hit by a flamethrower.

 

[Grunker]

I really don't like the idea of having a separate pool for combat abilities and non-combat ones. Not because of any specific properties of such system, actually. After all, this is vague enough that I am sure people could design fun games around it. What I really dislike about it is that it hints the devs are designing the game around the idea of combat and non combat challenges. Like They want to make sure the PCs will have a certain level of competency at fighting and will be able to take a few non fighting choices. So they will design the game to test those two things as separate types of challenges at every turn.

Like, rather than having a series of situations and complications, and then diverse solutions for these that might affect other problems, I am afraid Obsidian is thinking instead of a more linear approach. With specific fights and troubles they will face that, even if not linearly, still are a far cry from a real sandbox game. Now, it is true that calling this a decline is a bit too much. I mean, PS:T certainly didn't do things this way, for example. But it isn't something that warms me up to the kickstarter either.

I think you're worrying needlessly. It sounds more like a Storm of Zehir type thing to me.

 

[evdk]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60018-free-concept-art-and-model-previews-to-wish-you-luck/

Oh yes, make it happen.

 

[Grimlorn]

How about adding a peaceful mode with less enemies, less combat items, non-combat companions, and only peaceful quests? That way you don't have to fit in two different games into one mode, or make a dynamic world that changes based on what you choose about the character in the beginning.

From the kickstarter comments.

Why go for a pacifist playthrough when you can just set the enemy AI to pacifist.

 

[InspectorRumpole]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60018-free-concept-art-and-model-previews-to-wish-you-luck/

Oh yes, make it happen.

Mudpeople?

 

[Infinitron]

They're called "turd elementals".

 

[Norfleet]

Look, as much as everyone's wound up about this, let's not forget that this is a thread about a game that doesn't actually exist. It's vaporware. What is said here is just so much empty talk without an actual GAME. There is no sense in spazzing out over a game that has nonexistence as its first and foremost feature.

 

[Stokowski]

... a game that has nonexistence as its first and foremost feature.

Whoa. I'd definately buy that.

 

[DraQ]

How about adding a peaceful mode with less enemies, less combat items, non-combat companions, and only peaceful quests? That way you don't have to fit in two different games into one mode, or make a dynamic world that changes based on what you choose about the character in the beginning.

From the kickstarter comments.

Why go for a pacifist playthrough when you can just set the enemy AI to pacifist.

Exterminatus.

 

[Infinitron]

Josh Sawyer doesn't like mundane flavor conversations: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=119#post407855368


the black husserl posted:

I'm still a little confused, in Alpha Protcol all the dialogue options were "choices" but that's not the way it was in BG. In the infinity engine games it was possible to ask questions, make comments, etc. without splitting off into branching paths.

How does always have compelling "choices" fit in if I just want to ask a peasant which way to the tavern? Thanks rope kid for answering all our nerdy questions

​

Putting mundane exposition into dialogue is, IMO, often a huge waste of the designers' and players' time. If conversation is not furthering player or NPC characterization and conflict, I think it's being ill-used. If straight exposition needs to be part of a "proper" conversation, I think it should be split off from whatever the main conflict of the character(s) is. But really, in that case, you've essentially just turned an NPC into an encyclopedia (especially if it's literally something like asking an unnamed character how to get to a location).

 

[Grunker]

I wonder if he realizes he spits in the face of one the best things about Torment here, a game they fucking cite as what they aspire to.

Torment was full of cool flavour-conversations about the nature of Sigil, the planes and all the weird culture and shit in the game.

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder if he realizes he spits in the face of one the best things about Torment here, a game they fucking cite as what they aspire to.

Torment was chuck-full about cool flavour-conversations about the nature of Sigil, the planes and all the weird culture and shit in the game.

I've shot him a question about his minimalist approach towards worldcrafting on his Formspring. Although he usually ignores my questions.

Did FO:NV feel minimalist in terms of conversations? If not, I assume we have nothing to worry about.