Development Info Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Update #79: Graphics and Rendering (and E3)

[Grunker]

What that "core gameplay", that Codex doesn't care about, is? Because unless i got that wrong, your definition can't be that far away from Roguey's.
And that's the main reason i called you. Because i believe you agree with Roguey at some degree, but you will express it in a less trollish manner.

Well, when you get tired of reading this tl;dr, remember it was yourself that asked

It's not that "the Codex doesn't care about core gameplay", it's that many people here expressed disdain about discussions concerning gameplay. Like it isn't important next to a number of other factors. The example in the PoE-thread is that many people claim that the sturdiness of a mechanic's appeal in a simulationist sense is actually more important than its function as component of a system - as a game mechanic. Did you see the discussion with me and Roxor concerning what was the core of Might & Magic? I believe I expressed most of my views on the topic there.

As for agreeing with Roguey, I don't. Despite denying it, Roguey seems to be a fundamentalist formalist in the sense that she denies or at least reduces incredibly the value of anything not related to challenge provided by interaction. In other words, Roguey's narrow definition of gameplay seems to be "only that which requires you to interact with a system and is not trivial, i.e. requires you to overcome an obstacle/challenges you." Obviously this definition - like any strict and short definition - is retarded. What about sandboxing in Rollercoaster Tycoon or playing dress-up with hentai dolls in your browser? The latter might not constitute very compelling gameplay, but it's obviously a game.

In the end though, that discussion is kind of irrelevant. It's like the "what is an RPG" discussion. Even if some definition won after 20 years of debate, what exactly would be achieved by this semantic victory? Here's what I think is interesting:

What I do agree with Roguey on is that the majority of game designers - and, it seems, a lot of people on the 'dex - straight up refuse to discuss the inherent merits of the craft and structure of a game. They simply will not recognize the fundamental importance of a game's mechanics, and, like you, will say that as long as the mechanics serve their basic function sufficiently, the rest is more important. The truth is that if you put something in a game, it should have value, weight, and reason for being there. Gameplay doesn't take precedence over story or anything else. It's all important and it all interacts, and if something's fucked up, that's a flaw.

The obvious counter-argument will be Torment or Bloodlines or somesuch game, but if I was asked to rate these games by objective markers of quality, I would never call them "best ever." It's funny. We agree that these games - Torment, Bloodlines, Arcanum - are flawed gems. No one will argue that definition. Yet most of us sort of agree they're simply the best ever. So, despite agreeing they're "flawed", we also define them as the "best" - i.e. closest to perfection. I will say that their high rating on people's lists (mine included) is a testament to just how strong their stories and characters are, since they carry the weak mechanics. Buuuut, even if I do not like a game like Dark Souls personally, it's a much more well-rounded and flawless game than Torment or Bloodlines could ever be. It has next to no flaws. It functions in almost every part of its design in the way that it was designed to do. It doesn't have huge, obvious problems like Torment or Arcanum.

So, I said I like Torment and Bloodlines but didn't particularly enjoy Dark Souls. So why's the discussion even important? Because if we don't recognize the fundamental importance of structure and form, we can never hope for something truly great, i.e. a Torment that doesn't squander the majority of its mechanical assets. Dark Souls is limited by its narrow scope, so even if it has few problems, it cannot become truly great. Torment could have been much more than Dark Souls, because it doesn't share its limited ambition. This is even more true for Arcanum. However neither of these games succeed at becoming more, because their designers never gave much thought to their craft, their structure - their mechanical design.

It's like Aevee Bee's criticsm of Spec Ops and Limbo:

I really did not like Limbo, from its mechanics to the metaphorical meaning it was sort of having, but Limbo is a crystal clear game to analyze aesthetically. I feel similarly about Spec Ops: The Line, in that it’s basically got nothing, but it does have a plot and characters and we can have a ready set of tools for talking about them.

[...]

I also can’t stand a lot of the critical darlings either, that have plot and aesthetic of a sort maybe but are incredibly shallow compared to say, an actual gosh damn book, especially when their form and craft is otherwise weak. Spec Ops has plot and characters, but its pacing is ridiculously awful, the delivery of its message eye-rollingly blunt and lacking in nuance, and the supposedly mediocre shooting is mediocre to no interesting end. Look at the plot and characters in a vacuum and you can almost reconstruct the game they were trying to make, but that is not the actual game.

Source: http://mammonmachine.com/post/55695607522/craft-and-form (read this article, it states my opinion much better than I could hope to do myself)

So, in short: I ackknowledge that all parts of a game is important, but while everyone in the industry and, apparantly, on the Codex, will recognize the importance of simulation and writing, gameplay and mechanical functionality is completely underappreciated. That's what I like about Sawyer. That's what I like about games like Paper's Please. Mechanics are to a game what structure and language is to writing. Your characters can be ever-so interesting and your story ever so original; if they're not told with sufficiently effective tools, they're doomed to being flawed.

This, more than anything, is what is holding back contemporary games, IMO. It's like Chris Franklin said:

There's a saying in the medium of film that goes "show, don't tell." Why? Well, film is a visual medium. If you just have two talking heads saying lines in shot/reverse-shot, you aren't really utilizing the medium to its fullest potential. There's all sorts of information that you could add to your work with cinematography, editing, framing, lens selection and mise en scène. Similarly, games are an interactive medium. There are all sorts of things you can say with win-states, lose-states, kinaesthetics, assymetric vs. symmetric play, game balance and vocabulary selection. A general corollary for games might well be: "do, don't show."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-3gcVICiCs

I'm not stupid enough to go to an arguement with her...

The folly of starting an argument with Roguey is overrated. Roguey is simplistic and blunt like a hammer that hits a nail, but certainly not stupid. Both me and Infinitron have had plenty of constructive debates with Roguey.

 

[Infinitron]

Brofisted just for the sheer effort.

 

[Rake]

That was overkill...

Spoiler

her bad taste aside, i consider Roguey one of the good posters of the dex

 

[dunno lah]

NAISU.

 

[J_C]

Gameplay requires a test of your abilities, even if it's an easy test.

I'm amazed how can you pull out these definitions from your ass. Gameplay is interaction with the game. If you choose dialogue options, if you only walk in a straight line, those are all part of the gameplay. Shallow gameplay, but gameplay nonetheless.

 

[Roguey]

I'm amazed how can you pull out these definitions from your ass. Gameplay is interaction with the game. If you choose dialogue options, if you only walk in a straight line, those are all part of the gameplay. Shallow gameplay, but gameplay nonetheless.

Crap like Dear Esther and The Path are not games.

 

[J_C]

I'm amazed how can you pull out these definitions from your ass. Gameplay is interaction with the game. If you choose dialogue options, if you only walk in a straight line, those are all part of the gameplay. Shallow gameplay, but gameplay nonetheless.

Crap like Dear Esther and The Path are not games.

What is a game? And while you are at it, tell us what's an RPG?

 

[Roguey]

What is a game? And while you are at it, tell us what's an RPG?

A contest with rules, the result being determined by skill, strength, or chance.

The above but with the player assuming the attitudes, actions, and discourse of another. Role playing video games must support multiple roles with tangible in-game reactions.

 

[Shadenuat]

So, I said I like Torment and Bloodlines but didn't particularly enjoy Dark Souls. So why's the discussion even important? Because if we don't recognize the fundamental importance of structure and form, we can never hope for something truly great, i.e. a Torment that doesn't squander the majority of its mechanical assets. Dark Souls is limited by its narrow scope, so even if it has few problems, it cannot become truly great. Torment could have been much more than Dark Souls, because it doesn't share its limited ambition. This is even more true for Arcanum. However neither of these games succeed at becoming more, because their designers never gave much thought to their craft, their structure - their mechanical design.

That part bothers me. Designers never gave thought to their craft my ass.

They are just highly specialized games that reached near-perfection in something, but had to give up something in return. You can't do environmental storytelling like Dark Souls but have characters from PST; PST placed it's bets on dialogue and gave up on combat; and Arcanum gave up on a lot of shit that Sawyer, for example, would never give up, to allow you play anyone and do anything, even if Beauty stat would never matter in any RPG as much as mastery in shooting people in the head (unless you stretch mechanics so much that it will look totally synthetic and completely ruin players suspension of disbelief).

Also, saying that DS has no flaws is just laughable - for example, magic in Dark Souls probably is more counter productive for it's set design goals than in Arcanum, where combat at least wasn't the only purpose of the game.

on the Codex, will recognize the importance of simulation and writing, gameplay and mechanical functionality is completely underappreciated

And where did you pull that from I have no idea. It's almost always opposite. People only bitch about Sawyer when they feel that parts of the genre they actually enjoy are in jeopardy, and not just because Sawyer strives for mechanical perfection so much, but because he sometimes does dare to tell players that what they love is false.

 

[Roguey]

You can't "play anyone and do anything" if the content that exists in the game doesn't support your build. Only a dummy would design a system that allows you to attempt to play unsupported character concepts.

 

[Duraframe300]

[QUOTE="Shadenuat, post: 3316833, member: 1424] You can't do environmental storytelling like Dark Souls but have characters from PST.[/QUOTE]



No

Like, just no. There may be examples for your argument, but that is an incredible stupid one.

 

[Shadenuat]

Like, just no. There may be examples for your argument, but that is an incredible stupid one.

You just misinterpreted it. What I meant was that if DS doesn't focus as much on dialogue and expansive writing it doesn't mean that it is limited somehow. It would not become a "perfect" game if it broadened it's scope by adding more writing into the game.
Just as I don't think that PST needs better combat so badly.

You can't "play anyone and do anything" if the content that exists in the game doesn't support your build. Only a dummy would design a system that allows you to attempt to play unsupported character concepts.

Designing a system and creating content for it are two separate objectives. Insufficient amount of content for, say, a particular skill might just be a production problem, not a failure of system itself.
Not that I believe that a complicated, expansive system would have no gaps in it whatsoever. Whatever people believe "Balance" is, it and freedom of play seem to be natural rivals.

 

[Grunker]

They are just highly specialized games that reached near-perfection in something.

That's bullshit. Of course PS:T and Arcanum could have played better. Of course their systems could be more than complete shit. Of course you could have added fun and deep mechanics to both games. There is no magical quality of either of these games that caused their combat systems to be inherently broken. They were bad because they were poorly designed.

And where did you pull that from I have no idea. It's almost always opposite.

I can't really argue with your own perception very well. However I have debated this in Might & Magic, in Elder Scrolls, in Arcanum, in PS:T, in Fallout, in the PoE thread, I have debated this everywhere. Rarely if ever did "the old guard" agree with me that if something was lacking in RPGs, it was mechanical structure.

Also, saying that DS has no flaws is just laughable

Good thing I did not say that, huh

More well-rounded and flawless than something ≠ completely flawless. The flaws are very minor however.

magic in Dark Souls probably is more counter productive for it's set design goals than in Arcanum, where combat at least wasn't the only purpose of the game.

I disagree. Here is a review with Dark Souls I agree with:



Also, magic in Arcanum is downright terrible. That something isn't key to the game doesn't excuse its horribleness. Otherwise broad games with many mechanics would be automatically better than focused games. Often, the reverse is true, unless the broad game is truely tight and well-designed, in which case it obviously has a chance at larger greatness, due to a bigger scope.

Designing a system and creating content for it are two separate objectives. Insufficient amount of content for, say, a particular skill might just be a production problem, not a failure of system itself.

Agreed, however this doesn't apply to Arcanum. Its system was complex and fun to toy around with without context, but ultimately pretty shit in context, and would have been regardless of what context.

 

[Dr Schultz]

They are just highly specialized games that reached near-perfection in something.

That's bullshit. Of course PS:T and Arcanum could have played better. Of course their systems could be more than complete shit. Of course you could have added fun and deep mechanics to both games. There is no magical quality of either of these games that caused their combat systems to be inherently broken. They were bad because they were poorly designed. Cut...

And what about quest design, dialogue system (system, mind you, not writing), companion mechanics, puzzles and dungeons? Are all these elements shit in Planescape and Arcanum? Allow me to disagree.

You are totally right when you say that RPG players tend to underestimate the importance of a well thought game mechanic. Point is, games such Arcanum and Planescape, along with obvious flaws, have also some crystal-clear gameplay qualities. Quest design, for instance, to me is as much as important in RPGs as level design is in platform games, and for 2/3 of the game Planescape is one of the best RPGs ever made in this area. Being able to deal with problems in different (and not obvious) ways is another important gameplay quality, and few games have done better than Arcunum in this other area.

So, are Planescape and Arcanum game flawed? Of course they are. Is their gameplay shit? Absolutely not.

 

[Grunker]

They are just highly specialized games that reached near-perfection in something.

That's bullshit. Of course PS:T and Arcanum could have played better. Of course their systems could be more than complete shit. Of course you could have added fun and deep mechanics to both games. There is no magical quality of either of these games that caused their combat systems to be inherently broken. They were bad because they were poorly designed. Cut...

And what about quest design, dialogue system (system, mind you, not writing), companion mechanics, puzzles and dungeons? All are these elements shit in Planescape and Arcanum? Allow me to disagree.

You are totally right when you say that RPG players tend to underestimate the importance of a well thought game mechanic. Point is, games such Arcanum and Planascape, along with obvious flaws, also have some crystal-clear gameplay qualities. Quest design, for instance, to me is as much as important in RPGs as level design is in platform games, and for 2/3 of the game Planescape is one of the best game ever made in this area. Being able to deal with problems in different (and not obvious) ways is another important gameplay quality, and few games have done better than Arcunum in this other area.

So, are Planescape and Arcanum game flawed? Of Course they are. Is their gameplay shit? Absolutely not.

I don't think you and I disagree as much as you might think. However, combat plays a major part in both games, and is terrible in both. Beyond terrible in fact. So is a lot of the basic system tinkering. I don't think I've said "gameplay is just all-out shit in Arcanum and PS:T", which is what you sort of indicate that I have.

Also I think Arcanum has much more extensive problems than PS:T, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Dr Schultz]

I don't think you and I disagree as much as you might think. However, combat plays a major part in both games, and is terrible in both. Beyond terrible in fact. So is a lot of the basic system tinkering. I don't think I've said "gameplay is just all-out shit in Arcanum and PS:T", which is what you sort of indicate that I have.

Also I think Arcanum has much more extensive problems than PS:T, but that's neither here nor there.

Combat doesn't necessarily plays a big part in both. Actually in Arcanum and PS:T you can avoid combat almost entirely. In the former you can leave the dirty work to your companions, and in the latter you are actively encouraged to avoid combat by the quest design itself. Of course, the fact that combat sucks in both game is still a big flaw, but not as big as it would be in Baldur's Gate or in Icewind Dale.

 

[Grunker]

I don't think you and I disagree as much as you might think. However, combat plays a major part in both games, and is terrible in both. Beyond terrible in fact. So is a lot of the basic system tinkering. I don't think I've said "gameplay is just all-out shit in Arcanum and PS:T", which is what you sort of indicate that I have.

Also I think Arcanum has much more extensive problems than PS:T, but that's neither here nor there.

Combat doesn't necessarily plays a big part in both. Actually in Arcanum and PS:T you can avoid combat almost entirely.

Oh boy. I thought we'd been through "you can avoid it so it's not important" debate? You can avoid combat in both games, but you can also fight A LOT A LOT A LOT, and if you do, you are presented with horrific mechanics. Those mechanics don't become less horrific by the meta-knowledge that they can be avoided.

 

[Dr Schultz]

I don't think you and I disagree as much as you might think. However, combat plays a major part in both games, and is terrible in both. Beyond terrible in fact. So is a lot of the basic system tinkering. I don't think I've said "gameplay is just all-out shit in Arcanum and PS:T", which is what you sort of indicate that I have.

Also I think Arcanum has much more extensive problems than PS:T, but that's neither here nor there.

Combat doesn't necessarily plays a big part in both. Actually in Arcanum and PS:T you can avoid combat almost entirely.

Oh boy. I thought we'd been through "you can avoid it so it's not important" debate? You can avoid combat in both games, but you can also fight A LOT A LOT A LOT, and if you do, you are presented with horrific mechanics. Those mechanics don't become less horrific by the meta-knowledge that they can be avoided.

And I though we'd been through "gameplay frameworks that aim to different goals can't be judged with same criteria" debate? Is Zelda's combat any good? No, it's not. But I still think that A link to the Past, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are 3 of the best games ever designed. Authentic game design textbooks. And all 3 of them have lots of UNAVOIBABLE combats that are just interludes between puzzles. And thank god they are. Otherwise the game's focus wouldn't have been that clear

 

[Grunker]

If you think PS:T and Arcanum's combat is somehow defendably shitty, then what can I say, I disagree with you. A lot. I don't see how Zelda's shitty combat reinforces your argument. Their combat remains shitty, despite whatever else they might have going for them.

 

[Rake]

I'm not sure why you two disagree. DR S says that PS:T and Arcanum had good gameplay (not perfect) because they nailed SOME elements of it that happen to be much more important than combat. Grunker says that them nailing some parts doesn't mean that the parts that they didn't nail aren't a flaw, since the bad parts were part of the game, and quite a significant part depending on someone's playstyle.
These two opinions aren't mutualy exclusive.
The only thing i "disagree" with is

And all 3 of them have lots of UNAVOIBABLE combats that are just interludes between puzzles. And thank god they are. Otherwise the game's focus wouldn't have been that clear

as it seems to imply that the flawed parts are a positive since they serve to highlight where the real meat of the game is. While i see the logic that in an all around "perfect" game there won't be a part that stands out as all parts will be great, i fail to see how that would be a bad thing.
I don't need the game's focus to be clear, since that implies that the game's neglected parts are also clear. All of the game's parts should be the focus, or else why include them? Just remove them already.

Spoiler

while i agree with Grunker in this one, it remains a theoritical stance. All part's of the game should be perfect. Well, of course they should. But in the Real World of limited resourses, each dev will prioritize things, which also means that some elemends will fall to the backseat. The only "all around flawless" games will also be games with limited scope or ambition from the outset, like Dark Souls. That is my main beef with Grunker's stance that Codex likes it's flawed gems while doesn't consider a more solid, polished,"executed as designed" but ultimately unexceptional game. I would take Arcanum over Dragon Age for example any day of the week, despite the former's giant shortcomings.

 

[Dr Schultz]

If you think PS:T and Arcanum's combat is somehow defendably shitty, then what can I say, I disagree with you. A lot. I don't see how Zelda's shitty combat reinforces your argument. Their combat remains shitty, despite whatever else they might have going for them.

It reinforces my argument for the most obvious reason: combat, as any other game mechanic, is meant to have a specific purpose(s) in the context of a game system. This purpose, of course, change from game to game, and you can't simply expect (or even worse pretend) equally complex combat mechanics in two different games, one of which isn't remotely focused on combat while the other one is totally focused of combat.

Good games have often under-developed game mechanics. Point is: these mechanics can still serve well the whole game purpose, like combat in Zelda.

 

[Grunker]

That is my main beef with Grunker's stance that Codex likes it's flawed gems while doesn't consider a more solid, polished,"executed as designed" but ultimately unexceptional game. I would take Arcanum over Dragon Age for example any day of the week, despite the former's giant shortcomings.

This is a misrepresentation. What I'm saying is that the Codex should welcome debates on the faults of the mechanics of those old games with open arms and ackknowledge the designers who aim to improve upon them.

It reinforces my argument for the most obvious reason: combat, as any other game mechanic, is meant to have a specific purpose(s) in the context of a game system. This purpose, of course, change from game to game, and you can't simply expect (or even worse pretend) equally complex combat mechanics in two different games, one of which isn't remotely focused on combat while the other one is totally focused of combat.

Combat plays a huge role in the games you mentioned. At the minimum, it can. It's a major flaw that it is so obnoxious.

Good games have often under-developed game mechanics. Point is: these mechanics can still serve well the whole game purpose

This is too vague and generalized to comment on, but even if I accepted it, it is not true about neither PS:T nor Arcanum. Arcanum's combat remains fucking rotten and sucky whichever way you look at it.

 

[Hormalakh]

what games do you think have good combat grunker?

 

[Dr Schultz]

I'm not sure why you two disagree. DR S says that PS:T and Arcanum had good gameplay (not perfect) because they nailed SOME elements of it that happen to be much more important than combat. Grunker says that them nailing some parts doesn't mean that the parts that they didn't nail aren't a flaw, since the bad parts were part of the game, and quite a significant part depending on someone's playstyle.
These two opinions aren't mutualy exclusive.
The only thing i "disagree" with is

And all 3 of them have lots of UNAVOIBABLE combats that are just interludes between puzzles. And thank god they are. Otherwise the game's focus wouldn't have been that clear

as it seems to imply that the flawed parts are a positive since they serve to highlight where the real meat of the game is. While i see the logic that in an all around "perfect" game there won't be a part that stands out as all parts will be great, i fail to see how that would be a bad thing.
I don't need the game's focus to be clear, since that implies that the game's neglected parts are also clear. All of the game's parts should be the focus, or else why include them? Just remove them already.

Spoiler

while i agree with Grunker in this one, it remains a theoritical stance. All part's of the game should be perfect. Well, of course they should. But in the Real World of limited resourses, each dev will prioritize things, which also means that some elemends will fall to the backseat. The only "all around flawless" games will also be games with limited scope or ambition from the outset, like Dark Souls. That is my main beef with Grunker's stance that Codex likes it's flawed gems while doesn't consider a more solid, polished,"executed as designed" but ultimately unexceptional game. I would take Arcanum over Dragon Age for example any day of the week, despite the former's giant shortcomings.

See my previous post. Combat in Zelda has essentially a rhythmic purpose, and its simplistic combat mechanics serve well this purpose. If you add a complex combat system to Zelda what you get is Darksiders, an overall weaker game experience. The greatest game is not the game with all its parts equally well crafted. It's the game where all the mechanics cooperate to a clear design purpose.

 

[Grunker]

what games do you think have good combat grunker?

Why? Do you think Arcanum or PS:T have good combat?

rhythmic purpose

lol

If you add a complex combat system to Zelda

Who said anything about "complex"? Combat doesn't need to be complex to be good. Hell, PS:T's combat can be pretty fucking complex and it sucks.

The greatest game is not the game with all its part equally well crafted. It's the game where all the game mechanics cooperate to a clear design purpose.

This is a meaningless and nonsensical sentence, but the part of it that's true - that is, that the great game is the game where all components work together for the same purpose - is not true of PS:T and Arcanum. Their respective combat mechanics and character system mechanics do not work together with the rest of the systems to much interesting end. Except of course for some cleverly designed stat checks and the like.