Game News Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Update #90: Post-PDXCon Preview Blitz + New Screenshots

[tuluse]

To me the setup feels kinda gamey. Why does Might affect damage but not AoE and duration? Wouldn't more powerful spells extend the blast radius, and maybe duration, naturally? Why does Intellect affect AoE and duration but not damage? Wouldn't smarter use of a spell allow you to use your spell more wisely to maximize the damage output?

If you trained strength that means you focused on intensity. Spells and abilities do more when they hit.

If you train intellect, you focused on spreading your abilities over as much area as possible.

Anyways, yes it's gamey as fuck. It's ultra-gamey. It's game supreme. Can we get over that. It's not like d&d is some paragon of attributes making sense. We've just played it for 30 years so we've been conditioned to accept it.

 

[Athelas]

You sound upset.

 

[tuluse]

You sound upset.

I'm upset I have to read the same retarded arguments over and over.

(that's not directed at raapys, who made a fair point)

 

[Transfiguring Roar]

Physics question: Does thrusting a gun forward whilst pulling the trigger make the bullet move faster?

Yes! The velocity (i.e. speed) and instantaneous acceleration of your thrust when you release the bullet (pull the trigger) will affect the bullet's speed and acceleration.

Spot on. They're going to have to redo their animations!

 

[Tigranes]

You sound upset.

I'm upset I have to read the same retarded arguments over and over.

(that's not directed at raapys, who made a fair point)

Exactly. How many times are we going to talk about might? Its a thing, its not a major thing. if we are going to turn into roguey-lite sawyer stalkers with no standards for complaining we might as well just complain about the lack of multi headed cocks.

(I would be fully behind this)

 

[Irenaeus]

You sound upset.

I'm upset I have to read the same retarded arguments over and over.

(that's not directed at raapys, who made a fair point)

Exactly. How many times are we going to talk about might?

Be prepared for an eternity of this.

 

[Roguey]

Anyways, yes it's gamey as fuck. It's ultra-gamey. It's game supreme. Can we get over that. It's not like d&d is some paragon of attributes making sense. We've just played it for 30 years so we've been conditioned to accept it.

http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/102191899536/combat-in-fnv-seemed-very-separated-from-the-game

Will PoE be different in that regard? Will the combat feel like a part of the game's lore?

No, it will feel extremely gamey, like the Infinity Engine games.

 

[Irenaeus]

Retarded.

 

[Delterius]

It's not counter-intuitive at all, it's just different from what other RPGs have done.

I agree that if you take Might in isolation it is not counter intuitive. The word is so generic and vague that it is completely without character. It is only when the game as a whole is taken into consideration that the attribute gains any sort of narrative value. And I worry that its right then that the whole thing falls apart.

As far as the game's story is concerned, Might signify completely distinct aspects of different characters. For a spellcaster, its a Wizard who somehow casts hotter Fireballs, or something. For a warrior, its the Fighter who swings axes really well. Magical, Athletic or any kind of prowess that is affected by Might only exists for those characters who can make use of it in such ways.

That's fine, but does the whole of the game's content support that logic? There will be dialogue checks in the game, will my physically inept wizard who dies in 3 hits against some damn beetles roll high on the Might check and occasionally become hercules?

 

[tuluse]

Delterius

How would that dialog check be any different from a d&d check with a high STR low CON wizard?

 

[Athelas]

Presumably PoE 2 will explore the dilemma that comes from living in a world where you can't be magically weak and physically strong at the same time (or vice versa).

 

[Irenaeus]

I'm still rolling my eyes on how retarded it is.

 

[zero29]

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yeah, why actually put any thought or reason into what you do when can just say "it's a gaem dont ask questions hurr durr" and the plebs will cheer you like they always do with mediocrity.

It's fucking hilarious that this is seen as a quality. Like going out of your way to make everything gamey is guaranteed to result in something good.

 

[Delterius]

Delterius

How would that dialog check be any different from a d&d check with a high STR low CON wizard?

Do I really need to rephrase that example to "wizard cant hit shit in actual combat, may be hercules in dialogue checks"?

 

[Raapys]

It's not quite that far fetched though. We can see Might as strength of body, and it's a fairly small leap to see magic as requiring a physical component from the caster given that it manifests physically. Thus the increase in spell power would come from the strong caster being able to physically handle more mana without losing control, essentially increasing the mana available for casting any specific spell.

This would make strong warriors great potential spell casters, but you can ignore that by simply saying 'they don't have the training to cast spells'.

Alternatively, if what it represents changes based on character class, you could have mages use their magic in skill checks. Breaking open a door or whatnot would be done with a push of magic rather than bodily force.

So I think it's possible to have it make sense, but you'd need to go all the way. Instead they've gone half-way. And even going all in, I doubt I'd see it as a good and intuitive system. You'll always feel it was done to avoid making strength a dumpstat for mages and/or to deliberately make it less similar to D&D.

 

[tuluse]

Delterius

How would that dialog check be any different from a d&d check with a high STR low CON wizard?

Do I really need to rephrase that example to "wizard cant hit shit in actual combat, may be hercules in dialogue checks"?

Your example was that a wizard would have low health (con) and be able to pull off physical feats (str).

Accuracy is based on perception I believe.

I'm still not sure what your example is trying to prove though. A 2E fighter with 18/00 strength is going to have a much better chance to hit than a 18/50 wizard, but a dialog check based on STR they'll be the same.

So I'm still trying to figure out how your dialog example would be different from doing the same thing in a IE dialog. Like I said d&d has pretty non-sensical attributes to begin with. PoE does as well, but they're not any worse, just different.

 

[Roguey]

Yeah, why actually put any thought or reason into what you do when can just say "it's a gaem dont ask questions hurr durr" and the plebs will cheer you like they always do with mediocrity.

It's fucking hilarious that this is seen as a quality. Like going out of your way to make everything gamey is guaranteed to result in something good.

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/5/e...itude-and-the-responsibility-of-expectations/

Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality.

Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.

 

[Havoc]

Never saw that game. They made Might & Magic: Heroes VII?

 

[almondblight]

Do I really need to rephrase that example to "wizard cant hit shit in actual combat, may be hercules in dialogue checks"?

I couldn't remember any strength checks in BG2. I did a search, and found one...for threatening a guy. Isn't "Wizard can slaughter armies in combat but can't threaten a guy because he's not a weight lifter" just as stupid? Might would actually have been a better check in that case. It all depends on how the skill checks are done (and if they're done...again, I remember very few outside of charisma in BG 2).

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality.

Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.

Except that as the whole adra aspect shows, Sawyer doesn't merrily go on his way, but does try to explain why his attribute system makes sense in the context of the gameworld. If it were a purely tactical affair like Blackguards he wouldn't feel the need to, but for a "full-scale" crpg he understands that there's a need for a certain thread of logic to tie together the different game systems.

This logic - or "realism" to use his strawman - is that pistols, magic and swords each have the same underlying damage, accuracy, etc. principles because what's actually driving them all in tandem is some mysterious force. The objection that I think the vast majority of people have to this isn't that it isn't "realistic", just that it seems very dull and unimaginative and that having guns, magic and swords work in their own unique way is more interesting than to have them all reduced to one unifying mechanic.

 

[tuluse]

I couldn't remember any strength checks in BG2. I did a search, and found one...for threatening a guy. Isn't "Wizard can slaughter armies in combat but can't threaten a guy because he's not a weight lifter" just as stupid? Might would actually have been a better check in that case. It all depends on how the skill checks are done (and if they're done...again, I remember very few outside of charisma in BG 2).

Hint: the BG series is the wrong game(s) to look at for dialog checks

 

[Delterius]

So I'm still trying to figure out how your dialog example would be different from doing the same thing in a IE dialog. Like I said d&d has pretty non-sensical attributes to begin with. PoE does as well, but they're not any worse, just different.

Well, what I am trying to say is that the stated goal of this rules system is to allow a plurality of character archetypes. It does so by drawing from the vagueness with which each attribute was named, such that they can each be interpreted differently at different situations.

As such, the game's plot points and dialogue checks must be written in such a way that may not ever clash with the picture painted by actual combat. A wizard with high Might lifting a heavy object or something more generic like an Intimidation-esque check? That works since the latter is generic and not every wizard needs to be an octogenarian with breathing problems. Overpowering someone in a narrated sequence? Probably not since there's always a good chance the player never invested on perks or whatever that allows him to create a spellblade kind of character.

I think we agreed this far.

Here's the thing: this has nothing to do with D&D. True, since there's no incentive whatsoever to make an archetypical wizard with both powerful magic and a body that outclasses most people's, this problem tends to disappear. If you are playing the IE games, odds are you'll only really consider a strenght check (such as forcing locks) if you are already a warrior yourself. That's just how that system works and its not really a point for or against it.

 

[Copper]

For my cents, they should have made the attributes aspects of the soul, not the body, and justified it as 'it's your strength of character, rather than how often you hit the gym to look ripped that matter in a fight.' If they're abstract, gamey things, why not make them... abstract, meta-physical things? Especially when you have all these different types of souls out there...

Quick example:

Might = Valour, you draw on lifetimes of battle to smite your foes
Dexterity = Fortune, your memories give you speed and cunning
Constitution = Temper, your past lives give you strength and toughness, from a soul hammered into an unyielding force
Perception = Clarity, you see the moment clearly, without prejudice from your past experiences
Intellect = Order, your soul is regular and well formed, and you see the world logically
Resolve = Majesty, your soul commands respect.

 

[Infinitron]

Something that seems to frequently come up when discussing the design of a game system is whether or not some aspect of that system adheres to reality. Or, more precisely, whether the outcomes of that system accurately simulate the results that the person making the argument expects, based on their particular interpretation of reality.

Generally, these arguments come from players, or from non-designers, or less experienced designers, and will take the form of, "But XXXX isn't realistic!" or "Realistically, YYYY should happen instead". And, frequently, experienced game designers will turn around and say "Who cares?" and merrily go on their way designing an "unrealistic" system.

Except that as the whole adra aspect shows, Sawyer doesn't merrily go on his way, but does try to explain why his attribute system makes sense in the context of the gameworld. If it were a purely tactical affair like Blackguards he wouldn't feel the need to, but for a "full-scale" crpg he understands that there's a need for a certain thread of logic to tie together the different game systems.

This logic - or "realism" to use his strawman - is that pistols, magic and swords each have the same underlying damage, accuracy, etc. principles because what's actually driving them all in tandem is some mysterious force. The objection that I think the vast majority of people have to this isn't that it isn't "realistic", just that it seems very dull and unimaginative and that having guns, magic and swords work in their own unique way is more interesting than to have them all reduced to one unifying mechanic.

FYI that's not actually a Sawyer quote

(Roguey's definitely amping up the troll factor as the game nears release)

dull and unimaginative

I dunno, judging by the reaction to it, it's anything but dull.

Sawyer would counsel you to look for "imagination" in a game's story and roleplaying choices, not in its low-level rules that are merely meant to facilitate a highly abstracted form of tactical combat