Game News Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Excidium]

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Ok, problem solved

 

[Dr Schultz]

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

And you are a brown nosing faggot.

 

[Lancehead]

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

No, they don't work well in games. Disregard for logistics, time flow etc. just show how much crpgs still have to improve.

 

[cherry blossom]

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

Abstractions that adhere to ages old gaming conventions and serve gameplay functions for entertainment. The only thing they need to maintain is internal consistency.

Visual design, on the other hand, is in your face. It can be beautiful, ugly, exquisite, boring, bland, contain supernatural elements impossible IRL but it too needs consistency.

Half arches with magical goo is stupid because it is inconsistent with reference architecture, similar to the way it would be stupid if level 1 fighter classes in DnD could cast high level spells that caster characters could only cast on high levels.

 

[Rake]

Half arches with magical goo is stupid because it is inconsistent with reference architecture

 

[Dr Schultz]

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

No, they don't work well in games. Disregard for logistics, time flow etc. just show how much crpgs still have to improve.

Strangely I've always thought that the weakest part of Computer RPGs are the often non-existent role-play elements. And improve to become what, anyway? A real life simulator? No, thanks. I fold.

Seems like you don't understand what is an abstraction.

Nope, seems like you're arbitrarily distinguishing between abstractions and lazy design features. Some abstractions are good because... well simply because you are used to them. Other abstractions are gamey crap because you don't like them, or because they are not canonical.

No, some abstractions are good because they simplify things for the sake of playability. The designer being too lazy to come up with a proper solution and taking the easy way out is a whole another thing.

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

Abstractions that adhere to ages old gaming conventions and serve gameplay functions for entertainment. The only thing they need to maintain is internal consistency.

Visual design, on the other hand, is in your face. It can be beautiful, ugly, exquisite, boring, bland, contain supernatural elements impossible IRL but it too needs consistency.

Half arches with magical goo is stupid because it is inconsistent with reference architecture, similar to the way it would be stupid if level 1 fighter classes in DnD could cast high level spells that caster characters could only cast on high levels.

Again, 2 half arches still standing with no magic goo.

http://mtararattour.com/tours/kars/half-arch.jpg

 

[Zeriel]

Standing arches aren't stupid, that they felt the need to come up with "magic goo" is.

 

[Grunker]

they are stupid when not explained

Standing arches aren't stupid, that they felt the need to come up with "magic goo" is.

damned if they do, damned if they don't

 

[Visperas]

If the arch thing is impossible I want some explanation on this.

 

[Rake]

Standing arches aren't stupid, that they felt the need to come up with "magic goo" is.

Ok, so Saywer is an aspie, just like half the Codex. How does that merit 5 pages of discussion?

 

[Lancehead]

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

No, they don't work well in games. Disregard for logistics, time flow etc. just show how much crpgs still have to improve.

Strangely I've always thought that the weakest part of Computer RPGs are the often non-existent role-play elements.

And why do you find that strange? Is it because you misapprehended what I said?

And improve to become what, anyway? A real life simulator? No, thanks. I fold.

No, just a proper simulation of the game's own fictional world. Does the game world have logistics and time flow? If the answer is yes, then apply those to the pc in a believable manner.

 

[Rake]

No, just a proper simulation of the game's own fictional world. Does the game world have logistics and time flow? If the answer is yes, then apply those to the pc in a believable manner.

How impossible looking arches come at odds with the game's lore? The main complain i see is that Sawyer's explanation seems stupid to some people, and they would prefered the issue handwaved entirely.

 

[Zeriel]

I don't think anyone actually cares about the issue, it's just another thing to argue about for 10 pages.

 

[Dr Schultz]

What exactly does simplify the per-level multiplication of your character HP? In real life there is no such thing that needs to be simplified. And what about the unnatural rate of your character progression in basically everything? It is a simplification or a 100% gamey mechanic that works well in games? And the senseless amount of stuff you can horde in your backpack? And...

No, they don't work well in games. Disregard for logistics, time flow etc. just show how much crpgs still have to improve.

Strangely I've always thought that the weakest part of Computer RPGs are the often non-existent role-play elements.

And why do you find that strange? Is it because you misapprehended what I said?

And improve to become what, anyway? A real life simulator? No, thanks. I fold.

No, just a proper simulation of the game's own fictional world. Does the game world have logistics and time flow? If the answer is yes, then apply those to the pc in a believable manner.

In a game about loot, a believable inventory system would be the most boring feature ever concieved.
In a game wìith tons of combats a realistic healing system would be absolutely idiotic.
In a game about social interactions survival mechanics would be totally out of place.

Game mechanics are supposed to serve game purposes, not to create fictional simulation nirvanas. Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

 

[Lancehead]

Game mechanics are supposed to serve game purposes,

Yes, and? The implicit assumption in my posts is that the concepts being talked about are pertinent to whatever game it is that's being talked about.

Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

Turns are discretized time flow. Turns have artifacts, but they didn't come out of nothing.

 

[Zeriel]

I think it's more accurate to say that turns are a common feature of games that predated the invention of the computer, and people liked them enough to bring them over to computers. They weren't an invention to make it easier to handle the passage of time, though in some cases I'm sure that was seen as a benefit. There were plenty of real-time games that were contemporary with the first turn-based computer games. I think affection for board games is spliced into the DNA of CRPGs from the outset, and that's really all there is to say about that. People loved tabletop roleplaying and wanted to play it on computers when they couldn't do it with their friends.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Game mechanics are supposed to serve game purposes,

Yes, and? The implicit assumption in my posts is that the concepts being talked about are pertinent to whatever game it is that's being talked about.

You sure? It didn't seem like that when you wrote this:

No, they don't work well in games. Disregard for logistics, time flow etc. just show how much crpgs still have to improve.

Maybe I'm dumb, but I interpreted this sentence this way: "simulation is for the better. C-RPGs needs to be more simulative otherwise they won't improve".

Well, they don't, not necessarily at least.

Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

Turns are discretized time flow. Turns have artifacts, but they didn't come out of nothing.

ROUNDS create a discrete time flow framework. Turns are an invention of an ancient game designer that has nothing to do with simulation. Actually they harm any simulation purpose.

 

[Roguey]

It's a funny thing.

Something about the game systems is criticized for being lazy and making no sense "ITZ JUST GAME MAN"
Something about the art is criticized for being lazy and making no sense "Uuuh I mean yeah, b-but you see, *bunch of lore excuses made up on the spot*"

I mean at lesat pick one position and be consistent.

It wasn't made up on the spot.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/456460

Eír Glanfath was an ancient melting pot of races that built elaborate, often massive, structures out of a living shell-like substance called adra.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/660384

A concept artist (Hi, Polina and Kaz) creates a concept for the unique visual element of this area. Let's say for our purposes the unique element is a cool adra pillar that is holding up a portion of the ceiling.

 

[Lancehead]

Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

Turns are discretized time flow. Turns have artifacts, but they didn't come out of nothing.

ROUNDS create a discrete time flow framework. Turns are an invention of an ancient game designer that has nothing to do with simulation. Actually they harm any simulation purpose.

Let me rephrase myself this way: as long as we're dealing with relatively low frequency, real time events can be simulated in a turn based environment without much loss in fidelity.

 

[Dr Schultz]

Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

Turns are discretized time flow. Turns have artifacts, but they didn't come out of nothing.

ROUNDS create a discrete time flow framework. Turns are an invention of an ancient game designer that has nothing to do with simulation. Actually they harm any simulation purpose.

Let me rephrase myself this way: as long as we're dealing with relatively low frequency, real time events can be simulated in a turn based environment without much loss in fidelity.

Still incorrect: A typical P&P round lasts 4-5 seconds (in some systems even 10 seconds). Some rulesets are based on a 2 sec-per-round framework, but they are the exception, not the rule. So, usually you do have a substantial loss in fidelity with turns.

Point is: I don't give a shit. In my book turns make the best tactical combats, even if they are unrealistic.

 

[Lancehead]

Turns are out of place in any kind of simulation you can name. You know what? I love turns...

Turns are discretized time flow. Turns have artifacts, but they didn't come out of nothing.

ROUNDS create a discrete time flow framework. Turns are an invention of an ancient game designer that has nothing to do with simulation. Actually they harm any simulation purpose.

Let me rephrase myself this way: as long as we're dealing with relatively low frequency, real time events can be simulated in a turn based environment without much loss in fidelity.

Still incorrect: A typical P&P round lasts 4-5 seconds (in some systems even 10 seconds). Some rulesets are based on a 2 sec-per-round framework, but they are the exception, not the rule. So, usually you do have a substantial loss in fidelity with turns.

That loss can be acceptable, especially when compared to what you can get in typical real time combat systems.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

TB is essential so that I can play my CRPGs drunk.

 

[Dr Schultz]

That loss can be acceptable, especially when compared to what you can get in typical real time combat systems.

That loss is acceptable simply because turns are fun to play. That's the point. Certain simulation elements can be fun to play too. Not all of them are, though. Especially not in any context.