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

[Copper]

I think most of us are just trolling because it's kind of cute to see Sawyer is actually, in some ways, a low-brow nerd who loves teh awesome, considering how intellectually high and mighty some of Roguey's own trolling paints him as.

It's not a huge deal, but as an illustrator with an interest in environments, slagging off technically well rendered, but sloppy concepts in art that's being defended to the hilt is a nice windmill to tilt at. I'd like to see Obsidin up their art game, and give us something genuinely fantastic with the architecture to 'sell' adra, not just lumpy pillars and uncanny-valley architecture.

Consider this revenge for a thousand pages of rules and inventory bitching.

 

[Alex]

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

The walls are holding the arcs there. The image on the update has naked arcs instead.

 

[kris]

It is funny how they are still sticking with the silly half standing arches with magical goo nonsense in the new screenshot.

As a realism fag I get stuck up on this screen. It deceipts a ruin that seemingly haven't been touched by humans for decades or longer. and while the ruin itself points towards that fact, the terrain around it point towards humans/humanoids using the site still. There are trails and the vegetation have kind of left the place alone, like it dont dare approach it. Hardly a big issue, but I can't help mentioning it.

 

[Apexeon]

Googate ?

Will it bring down Pillars of Eternity.

 

[Visperas]

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

The walls are holding the arcs there. The image on the update has naked arcs instead.

But wouldn't the added adra strenght help keeping the archs standing even after the keystone has fallen?
Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that the whole "fantastic" archs wasn't made up on the spot because of the codex autism. Like Infinitron, I like explanations but it's not a big deal.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

What matters more to be is to be able to build different types of characters from the same base classes. In 3E, the "genericness" of the classes actually allowed you to conceptualize the characters differently, plus you could mix and match the classes in almost any order and proportion - essentially there were thousands of possible character builds.

To be honest I don't like 3E with its cheesy min-max 4 different classes builds (like with every fighter taking 1 bard level so he can met the requirements for RDD for example), rogues being reduced to skill junkies, fighters being completely outclassed by clerics in a melee etc.

Most of those 3E mix-match chars feel like soulless walking stat sheets to me, I'd prefer system with strong core classes that play very differently with customization (within those classes) coming from different attributes, talents and skills combinations.

In PE every Ranger will be an animal freak, and every Rogue will be DPS guy. No different concepts, no multiclassing, no mixing and matching.

I'm fine with each class having a certain role he/she excels at but as I said I think some level of customization will still be available (so different class concept will still be viable IMO but within a certain limit).

 

[Captain Crusade]

It is funny how they are still sticking with the silly half standing arches with magical goo nonsense in the new screenshot.

As a realism fag I get stuck up on this screen. It deceipts a ruin that seemingly haven't been touched by humans for decades or longer. and while the ruin itself points towards that fact, the terrain around it point towards humans/humanoids using the site still. There are trails and the vegetation have kind of left the place alone, like it dont dare approach it. Hardly a big issue, but I can't help mentioning it.

That screenshot may look pretty now, but in the game 3/4ths of the screen will be covered by an ugly fog of war, so you won't be able to see it in all it's glory. Just like the IE games.

 

[Alex]

But wouldn't the added adra strenght help keeping the archs standing even after the keystone has fallen?

I dunno, would them? I it does whatever Sawyer andthe other designers want it to do, but this kind of explanation has the habit of easily going out of control. I mean, if magical cement can keep a half arc standing, why are they built like arcs in first place? What else is this magical cement used on? Does that mean you can build without pillars with them, trusting the cement to keep roofs and upper floors standing merely by gluing them to walls?

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that the whole "fantastic" archs wasn't made up on the spot because of the codex autism. Like Infinitron, I like explanations but it's not a big deal.

I think the issue here is that even if you aren't looking for mistakes, that ruin image looks weird when you first look at it. The first impact it has isn't "hey, here are the ruins of a magical, impossible building". That should be the kind of first impression they should be shooting for. All this said, I don't really mind this that much. I mean, this is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to stuff like strength enhancing spell damage.

 

[hiver]

adra is slowly dissolving with time, the parts closer to earth dissipate slower.
- it only helps the architecture, doesnt make it magical. or indestructible. like if it was some relatively weaker magnetism for building materials or specific stone work. (Maybe they knew how to bind the molecule bonds better, to some extents, between different blocks or sections or materials)
- adra being a natural force, dissipates with time, though Glanfaeth(?) ruins still stand, etc.


I mean, thats what you can come up with, if you want an explanation that makes more sense, within internal consistency parameters.
So, can we cut out that crap already?

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

hiver , why are you, of all people, white-knighting Sawyer's Shenanigans?

Spoiler

 

[theSavant]

The graphics look great. Although I do not like the iso-perspective I almost tend to play this game once it comes out. But then there are no furry races to put into your party, so no thanks.

There are cat-hobbits.

What? Ok, maybe I need to investigate a bit more...

 

[hiver]

hiver , why are you, of all people, white-knighting Sawyer's Shenanigans?

Im not. I was thinking the same - realistically arches wouldnt collapse like that, most of the time. Pillars would remain standing but not the over arching blocks.
Its just that my brain came up with a workable solution for the concept in that setting.

- it is true those arches of the temple wouldnt connect if you extended them, so that would need to be fixed. -

 

[Space Satan]

In 3E, the "genericness" of the classes actually allowed you to conceptualize the characters differently

Have no idea where to dump news just add Avellone's recent hour and half interview somewhere

 

[Infinitron]

Have no idea where to dump news

http://www.rpgcodex.net/contact.php

We also have a General Obsidian Thread here: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/obsidian-general-discussion-thread.84849/

 

[SCO]

Is it too much to ask that a fucking artist read a architecture introductory book or even a fucking encyclopedia before he starts to draw architecture so that a game designer doesn't have to invent bullshit when put in the spot? I know there are no renaissance men any more, but this is still something for the arts to understand too.

edit: missed the roguey post. :haddock:

 

[Jasede]

Honestly, I'm fine with non-realistic architecture if it's symbolic or Escher-esque.
Which reminds me, Obsidian should make an Utena game.

 

[Johannes]

Is it too much

you have to ask?

 

[theSavant]

After investigation the cat hobbits: bleh. I expected at least a furry cat face too - but nahw - it's a human face.

"Hey buddy, your ears are a bit larger than mine, you are a different race".
"Hey buddy, you are 10cm smaller than I, you are a different race."

Ridiculous. All these "high-fantasy" craps suffer the same unimaginative "fantasy".

The worst: even the races in The Elder Scrolls are more distinct in appearance.

 

[Shadowfang]

Oh boy and i had forgotten all about the races. The godlike has to be my favorite.
Boring and unimaginative is how i would describe most of this game.
For example, the name of one of the companions is Pallegina. Can you guess what class she is? Yeah, a Paladin.
I can really tell the time they spent around this character.
"Oh so she is a Paladin and her name is going to be... Paladina! Oh no... thats too obvious. Maybe Palagina?"

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Isn't it more indicative of a passionate palladin vagina in your roster? Palladins do tap the power of their souls via Zeal. Maybe Pallengina is filled with Zeal about her Vagina. Maybe she is a feminist?

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

hiver , why are you, of all people, white-knighting Sawyer's Shenanigans?

Im not. I was thinking the same - realistically arches wouldnt collapse like that, most of the time. Pillars would remain standing but not the over arching blocks.
Its just that my brain came up with a workable solution for the concept in that setting.

- it is true those arches of the temple wouldnt connect if you extended them, so that would need to be fixed. -

Fair Enough. But IMO, we shouldn't have to come up with excuses for the sloppyness of their art department (hovering boulder FFS)

 

[hiver]

these days we have to do everything ourselves man. we should get a cut.

 

[nihil]

I think the issue here is that even if you aren't looking for mistakes, that ruin image looks weird when you first look at it. The first impact it has isn't "hey, here are the ruins of a magical, impossible building". That should be the kind of first impression they should be shooting for. All this said, I don't really mind this that much.

This is exactly it. Area design, in addition to its others functions, should take part in the narrative by sending messages to the player. If a location unwillingly sends a strong but incorrect message, or an easily misinterpreted message, it's not very successful design.

I mean, this is a drop in the ocean if you compare it to stuff like strength enhancing spell damage.

That sounds like a way to make strength useful for all classes, which is a noble cause, but the solution seems a little desperate. Maybe if it was called something else, like "power". Where did they say this, by the way?

 

[Infinitron]

That sounds like a way to make strength useful for all classes, which is a noble cause, but the solution seems a little desperate. Maybe if it was called something else, like "power". Where did they say this, by the way?

It's called "Might", not Strength.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-update-70-screenshots-stats-and-stuff.89119/

 

[nihil]

Ah, didn't notice that when I first saw the sheet. The abstraction feels a bit wrong, still. It makes it feel like a "heavy hitter" mage will always be a huge, muscular type.