Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[tuluse]

It was the same engine.

I know Kotor and Kotor II lowered the round time to 3 seconds. I don't think NWN did.

Morrowind and Oblivion are the same engine, you wouldn't compare attack mechanics directly in those games. NWN made fundamental changes to the IE combat resolution system. It's only possible to lose attacks if it's possible for number of attacks X animation time to be greater than round time. In actual IE games this means more than 5 attacks per round. So it would have to be some insane combo that a bunch of IE experts around here don't know.

 

[Grunker]

But they're not the same engine. Am I missing something here? How is Aurora and Infinity the same engine?

 

[Infinitron]

But they're not the same engine. Am I missing something here? How is Aurora and Infinity the same engine?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/page-4#post-2278216
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...toxic-fan-feedback.79559/page-17#post-2457794
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/the-bioware-thread.68704/page-530#post-3295052

 

[Anthony Davis]

But they're not the same engine. Am I missing something here? How is Aurora and Infinity the same engine?

I've talked about this before. Aurora is built on IE. I say this as someone who has looked at the code and seen the time stamps and the comments in the actual code.

 

[Grunker]

But they're not the same engine. Am I missing something here? How is Aurora and Infinity the same engine?

I've talked about this before. Aurora is built on IE. I say this as someone who has looked at the code and seen the time stamps and the comments in the actual code.

But they're not the same engine. Am I missing something here? How is Aurora and Infinity the same engine?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/page-4#post-2278216
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...toxic-fan-feedback.79559/page-17#post-2457794
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/the-bioware-thread.68704/page-530#post-3295052

 

[tuluse]

The NWN games include Mask of the Betrayer, in my opinion Obsidian's second finest hour after KOTOR 2, and while KOTOR 2 has some detractors here I think the overwhelming majority of people here will give MotB its due.

No NWN, no MotB, and you can't argue that MotB could have been made in IE because it really couldn't. Atari weren't going to fund another IE game but BioWare showed that 3D RTWP games could be profitable.

What does that have to do with looking at games from a game design perspective?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

The NWN games include Mask of the Betrayer, in my opinion Obsidian's second finest hour after KOTOR 2, and while KOTOR 2 has some detractors here I think the overwhelming majority of people here will give MotB its due.

No NWN, no MotB, and you can't argue that MotB could have been made in IE because it really couldn't. Atari weren't going to fund another IE game but BioWare showed that 3D RTWP games could be profitable.

What does that have to do with looking at games from a game design perspective?

Ok I haven't been following the thread closely enough. I thought you meant NWN in general. Combat, sure, I think most Codexers would agree that NWN isn't the way to go (not me but I acknowledge I'm in the minority).

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

It was the same engine.

Aurora is built on IE.

Make up your mind already.

 

[Anthony Davis]

It was the same engine.

Aurora is built on IE.

Make up your mind already.

I realize there is a tendency for everyone to take written words literally, even when my intent is to "speak casually". Sorry for adding the the confusion.

Let me be explicit here:

Aurora is built on IE. It extends IE.

Much of the framework for various systems is similar/modified/almost the same.

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

Aurora is built on IE. It extends IE.

One engine is 2d, other is 3d, wake up, it's like saying Mario and Duke Nukem use the same engine. Half Life 2 (source engine) uses bits and pieces of Quake 1's (id tech) engine for instance, but would you really also call them the same or an extension..? I hope you wouldn't.

IE and Aurora may share some code parts to read font files for instance, but it doesn't imply any parent-child or brother-sister relationship, more like they're both about dnd and that's it.

 

[Athelas]

Calm down, it's just an engine. You sound like you just found out the person you slept with when you were drunk was a post-op tranny.

 

[Copper]

I'm sure hindsight is all very well, but didn't someone ever question if rigidly sticking to the 6 second round was a good idea? The argument 'It's in the rules' is blinkered nonsense, in my opinion - the movement rules already fucked it by allowing movement at any time.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Aurora is built on IE. It extends IE.

One engine is 2d, other is 3d, wake up, it's like saying Mario and Duke Nukem use the same engine. Half Life 2 (source engine) uses bits and pieces of Quake 1's (id tech) engine for instance, but would you really also call them the same or an extension..? I hope you wouldn't.

IE and Aurora may share some code parts to read font files for instance, but it doesn't imply any parent-child or brother-sister relationship, more like they're both about dnd and that's it.

You are talking about the RENDERER. How is is rendered.

Your gameplay system for handling how combat is resolved doesn't give a shit how it's rendered - you could render it in text for all it cares.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Interesting debate. I'd always thought that the attack animations in BG/BG2 bore little relation to the actual underlying (real) attacks, hence the random swishing, and weren't a limitation in any way.

 

[Roguey]

IWD used 7-second rounds.

Interesting debate. I'd always thought that the attack animations in BG/BG2 bore little relation to the actual underlying (real) attacks, hence the random swishing, and weren't a limitation in any way.

As Sensuki said, you can use a mod to disable the fake swings. It won't get rid of the real ones.

As far as I know NWN2 is the only one that gives you all your attacks regardless of animations, and we see how the likes of 1eyedking react to that.

 

[Athelas]

So what you're saying is that NWN2 technically has the best-implemented combat of all of the D&D RTwP games?

Spoiler

 

[Russia is over. The end.]

You are talking about the RENDERER. How is is rendered.

Your gameplay system for handling how combat is resolved doesn't give a shit how it's rendered - you could render it in text for all it cares.

Do daggerfall, morrowind and skyrim use the same engine? Shit, they didn't change the game system much, only the renderer, lol.

ALso, using your logic, Unreal Engine 4 and Unreal Engine 1 are just two instances of the same engine as well.

When coding, you always use code parts from your previous projects, it's not what defines the engine though. Of course you'll take dnd related parts and adapt them to use in another dnd game, but that's the most irrelevant part of the engine, the less defining part. What defines the engine is the technology behind it, the look and feel, the ui system, not the fact that you use d20 rolls using the same code or use the same names for classes. All dnd games use d20, and the way the d20 is coded is irrelevant, it's the easy code, and that's also the reason it was taken from IE to Aurora, because it's like copying the "+" sign to do an addition in another project.

 

[Infinitron]

Many people will in fact agree that Morrowind and Skyrim use the same engine.

 

[tuluse]

So what you're saying is that NWN2 technically has the best-implemented combat of all of the D&D RTwP games?

Most accurate to the rules as written is not synonymous with best. Sometimes making changes because of switching to RTwP or computer formats is needed.

Like IWD2 not having AoO despite being 3E. Though, I think they did that one by accident (lack of time) than a conscious decision.

 

[Roguey]

Like IWD2 not having AoO despite being 3E. Though, I think they did that one by accident (lack of time) than a conscious decision.

Nah, Josh hates AoOs. Time to make a comprehensive post for future reference.

http://www.sorcerers.net/newspro/arc6-2000.html

Attacks of opportunity work well in turn-based games, but suck in real-time games.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/03/15/icewind-dale-2-trailer-and-interview

The most obvious things about 3E that don't fit are attacks of opportunity and readied actions. We are not implementing these aspects of the system because they rely too heavily upon the sequential turn-based nature of pen and paper gaming.
...
To be honest, I think the primary thing that makes 3E combat seem more "sophisticated" is the use of attacks of opportunity. Those rules are easily the most confusing and among the most often criticized elements of the system.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/49192-iwd2s-use-of-3e-was-a-mistake/

AoOs are an integral, and contested, part of 3E combat. Not necessarily "great". They work reasonably well in a tabletop turn-based environment. They work less well (and make a lot less sense) in a real-time CRPG environment. For an example that supports this, NWN's handling of AoOs felt very haphazard due to when they went off and how they were executed. They were great in ToEE because they were modeling the tabletop environment very closely.
...
I did (and do) think that 3E and 3.5 are better games than 2nd Ed., but I did (and do) criticize the choices WotC made when they built and revised the system. I think AoOs are pretty cumbersome,
...
AoOs create a new tactical aspect to movement. However, in practice, most of that goes out the window with 5' steps. In 4th Edition, "shifting" (taking a 5'/1 square step to avoid OAs provoked by movement) is your entire move action, which seems like a "no duh" change to me. In the D&D Experience module, the kobolds we fought were "Shifty", which meant that they could shift for free. It made them very difficult to deal with.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-6#entry389694

AoOs sound like a good idea, but really wind up becoming an un-fun, un-intuitive pain in the ass.

 

[Athelas]

So what you're saying is that NWN2 technically has the best-implemented combat of all of the D&D RTwP games?

Most accurate to the rules as written is not synonymous with best. Sometimes making changes because of switching to RTwP or computer formats is needed.

I know that, I was being sarcastic.

Like IWD2 not having AoO despite being 3E. Though, I think they did that one by accident (lack of time) than a conscious decision.

Hmm, out of curiosity I took a look at the decade-old Codex review of IWD2:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10

Just as well, Icewind Dale II isn't entirely faithful to the 3rd Edition Rules. There are several glaring omissions of the official rules from the game, most notably the Attacks of Opportunity that are present in the pen and paper game, in Bioware's Neverwinter Nights and even in Pool of Radiance 2. The lack of that feature's presence hinders the game play from being much better than it could be now, when you consider the fact that the Attacks of Opportunity are one of the 3rd Edition's largest tactical implements, not present in 2nd Edition rules which the Infinity Engine was designed for.

Oh, how the times have changed....

Attacks of Opportunity are not to be found in Icewind Dale II for several reasons, most notably the limited amount of animations possible per round allowed by the Infinity Engine, and the poor pathfinding, which I will elaborate further upon later.

This bit is more relevant to the discussion at hand, albeit not as amusing.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmm, out of curiosity I took a look at the decade-old Codex review of IWD2:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=10

Just as well, Icewind Dale II isn't entirely faithful to the 3rd Edition Rules. There are several glaring omissions of the official rules from the game, most notably the Attacks of Opportunity that are present in the pen and paper game, in Bioware's Neverwinter Nights and even in Pool of Radiance 2. The lack of that feature's presence hinders the game play from being much better than it could be now, when you consider the fact that the Attacks of Opportunity are one of the 3rd Edition's largest tactical implements, not present in 2nd Edition rules which the Infinity Engine was designed for.

Oh, how the times have changed....

posted by Exitium

Indeed.

 

[Roguey]

Good thing the Codex now has my article to supplant his.

 

[Bleed the Man]

Like IWD2 not having AoO despite being 3E. Though, I think they did that one by accident (lack of time) than a conscious decision.

Nah, Josh hates AoOs. Time to make a comprehensive post for future reference.

http://www.sorcerers.net/newspro/arc6-2000.html

Attacks of opportunity work well in turn-based games, but suck in real-time games.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2002/03/15/icewind-dale-2-trailer-and-interview

The most obvious things about 3E that don't fit are attacks of opportunity and readied actions. We are not implementing these aspects of the system because they rely too heavily upon the sequential turn-based nature of pen and paper gaming.
...
To be honest, I think the primary thing that makes 3E combat seem more "sophisticated" is the use of attacks of opportunity. Those rules are easily the most confusing and among the most often criticized elements of the system.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/49192-iwd2s-use-of-3e-was-a-mistake/

AoOs are an integral, and contested, part of 3E combat. Not necessarily "great". They work reasonably well in a tabletop turn-based environment. They work less well (and make a lot less sense) in a real-time CRPG environment. For an example that supports this, NWN's handling of AoOs felt very haphazard due to when they went off and how they were executed. They were great in ToEE because they were modeling the tabletop environment very closely.
...
I did (and do) think that 3E and 3.5 are better games than 2nd Ed., but I did (and do) criticize the choices WotC made when they built and revised the system. I think AoOs are pretty cumbersome,
...
AoOs create a new tactical aspect to movement. However, in practice, most of that goes out the window with 5' steps. In 4th Edition, "shifting" (taking a 5'/1 square step to avoid OAs provoked by movement) is your entire move action, which seems like a "no duh" change to me. In the D&D Experience module, the kobolds we fought were "Shifty", which meant that they could shift for free. It made them very difficult to deal with.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/35419-does-anyone-else-share-my-dislike-of-d20/page-6#entry389694

AoOs sound like a good idea, but really wind up becoming an un-fun, un-intuitive pain in the ass.

So, the things Josh say about AoO are almost identical to what Sensuki says about the PoE engagement system, interesting...

 

[Roguey]

Engagement isn't confusing of haphazard, which is the big thing.