Eternity Pillars of Eternity + The White March Expansion Thread

[Grunker]

Doesn't BG3 have like a million times the budget of PoE or is that me being misinformed?

The mechanics to make the encounter are essentially present in the divinity engine as of the first Divinity Original Sin game. It's just using a lot of basic mechanics together to create a very interesting encounter.

If I'm choosing between dialogue which, yes, essentially boils down to a very simple interaction but at least can have humongous variety in the ~*THEATER OF THE MIND FEELS*~ and sim-approximations in the vein of spamming elemental surfaces everywhere, I know where I land.

I see the appeal of DivOS' interactions, but for me they're also a clear warning about what happens when you try to approximate simulations instead of accepting that you're dealing with an abstracting and just building a robust system first - then try to make that system as inoffensive to verisimilitude as you can.

...
I just want to use science on computers without the game telling me exactly which one to use it on

That's not the Deus Ex-approach, that's the Fallout-approach, and it's essentially the same as a dialogue window, just more obtuse. I guess I don't personally care about which of those systems you use, but I don't see how one is totally P&P and interacting with the world and one is ding-dong-boring computer world. It's the same system, the only difference is how you bring up the window. It's essentially just a UI difference. It doesn't have any of the tabletop-implications you were talking about in my of your posts.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Doesn't BG3 have like a million times the budget of PoE or is that me being misinformed?

The mechanics to make the encounter are essentially present in the divinity engine as of the first Divinity Original Sin game. It's just using a lot of basic mechanics together to create a very interesting encounter.

If I'm choosing between dialogue which, yes, essentially boils down to a very simple interaction but at least can have humongous variety in the ~*THEATER OF THE MIND FEELS*~ and sim-approximations in the vein of spamming elemental surfaces everywhere, I know where I land.

I see the appeal of DivOS' interactions, but for me they're also a clear warning about what happens when you try to approximate simulations instead of accepting that you're dealing with an abstracting and just building a robust system first - then try to make that system as inoffensive to verisimilitude as you can.

...
I just want to use science on computers without the game telling me exactly which one to use it on

That's not the Deus Ex-approach, that's the Fallout-approach, and it's essentially the same as a dialogue window, just more obtuse. I guess I don't personally care about which of those systems you use, but I don't see how one is totally P&P and one is ding-dong-boring computer world

One lets the player discover it, the other is presented to the player.
Like the difference between telling your DM "I use my science skill to hack the computer to check it for interesting files" and the DM stating "you can use science on this computer to hack it because it contains interesting files"

 

[Grunker]

Difference being that my GM will always allow meaningful interactions where as in a video game I’m still stuck trying to guess a developer’s limited range of intended interactions. And guessing the whims of a developer is never fun, we know this from bad P&C games.

That’s not the point however. The point is that this change would have marginal implications and not really mean much in terms of approaching tabletop

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Difference being that my GM will always allow meaningful interactions where as in a video game I’m still stuck trying to guess a developer’s limited range of intended interactions. And guessing the whims of a developer is never fun, we know this from bad P&C games.

That’s not the point however. The point is that this change would have marginal implications and not really mean much in terms of approaching tabletop

I consider it to be a significant shift. The game telling you what to do has the same issues that quest GPSes have.

 

[Grunker]

Hardly, but even if I agreed, it’s still a question of guessing developer intend vs knowing your option range. Neither seem to remotely approach the issue we’re discussing: tabletop approximation

 

[Lacrymas]

During a PnP session, you can say "I try to hack all the computers in the room, do I find anything interesting?". Repeatedly clicking on random computers with different interactions seems meaningless to me. The less time we waste, the better. I know where rusty is coming from, but it's the lesser evil.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

During a PnP session, you can say "I try to hack all the computers in the room, do I find anything interesting?". Repeatedly clicking on random computers with different interactions seems meaningless to me. The less time we waste, the better. I know where rusty is coming from, but it's the lesser evil.

You can just skip playing the game and waste no time at all.
If you're on a mission to hack a specific computer, you should already know which one you want to hack. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with rewarding players for exploring the game world.

 

[Parabalus]

Doesn't BG3 have like a million times the budget of PoE or is that me being misinformed?

The mechanics to make the encounter are essentially present in the divinity engine as of the first Divinity Original Sin game. It's just using a lot of basic mechanics together to create a very interesting encounter.

If I'm choosing between dialogue which, yes, essentially boils down to a very simple interaction but at least can have humongous variety in the ~*THEATER OF THE MIND FEELS*~ and sim-approximations in the vein of spamming elemental surfaces everywhere, I know where I land.

I see the appeal of DivOS' interactions, but for me they're also a clear warning about what happens when you try to approximate simulations instead of accepting that you're dealing with an abstracting and just building a robust system first - then try to make that system as inoffensive to verisimilitude as you can.

...
I just want to use science on computers without the game telling me exactly which one to use it on

Usually when this is the case the area is carefully pruned to reduce the number of interactive objects to a minimum, which has its own problems.

Do you want to click 'DO SCIENCE' in a room with 200 electronic objects?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Usually when this is the case the area is carefully pruned to reduce the number of interactive objects to a minimum, which has its own problems.

Do you want to click 'DO SCIENCE' in a room with 200 electronic objects?

When the game tells you what to interact with, interactable objects have already been pruned as much as possible. You're making my argument.

 

[Parabalus]

Usually when this is the case the area is carefully pruned to reduce the number of interactive objects to a minimum, which has its own problems.

Do you want to click 'DO SCIENCE' in a room with 200 electronic objects?

When the game tells you what to interact with, interactable objects have already been pruned as much as possible. You're making my argument.

X objects, when you interact with them you are presented with Y options.

A objects, you can interact with them using B skills/items.

The former usually has more meaningful interactions.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The former usually has more meaningful interactions.

I don't consider "click highlighted object and select dialogue line" to be a meaningful interaction.

 

[Parabalus]

The former usually has more meaningful interactions.

I don't consider "click highlighted object and select dialogue line" to be a meaningful interaction.

Compared to 'scroll and click through skill wheel, hoping to receive cookie'?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The former usually has more meaningful interactions.

I don't consider "click highlighted object and select dialogue line" to be a meaningful interaction.

Compared to 'scroll and click through skill wheel, hoping to receive cookie'?

Yes.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'd consider that a win and being unable to use most of your spells/abilities out of combat to be a really bad design decision.

Ok, but for one thing, think of the logical dissonance between being able to weather a Stinking Cloud on one hand, and suffocating with smoke in a mere minute on the other. For another thing, in the IE games where you can freely cast spells, that doesn't lead to much except finding traps in the best case, or triggering combat most often.
I think the burning house scene is more impactful if narrated. If all the possible actions had to be custom-scripted to be allowed to do in-engine, it would make it hugely expensive for a one-off thing.

Sure, it needn't be a one-off thing, and it neededn't be scripted. You could have an actual mechanic where fire douses water. Swen did that and built two games around it. But this only showed that the novelty wears out fast.

 

[Grunker]

But this only showed that the novelty wears out fast.

QFT, as they said in the olden days

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

But this only showed that the novelty wears out fast.

Yes, it does. I got tired of the dialogue in pillows before I was even halfway through it.

You guys are advocating for RPGs to become visual novels where your only interactions with the world are through text. This genre already exists, it's called visual novels, go play read it.

 

[Parabalus]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

But this only showed that the novelty wears out fast.

Yes, it does. I got tired of the dialogue in pillows before I was even halfway through it.

You guys are advocating for RPGs to become visual novels where your only interactions with the world are through text. This genre already exists, it's called visual novels, go play read it.

People here are advocating for the interactions with the world to be meaningful, not having to sift through shit to find them.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

But this only showed that the novelty wears out fast.

Yes, it does. I got tired of the dialogue in pillows before I was even halfway through it.

You guys are advocating for RPGs to become visual novels where your only interactions with the world are through text. This genre already exists, it's called visual novels, go play read it.

People here are advocating for the interactions with the world to be meaningful, not having to sift through shit to find them.

How is the game telling you exactly what to do meaningful?

Here's how the valewood ruins interaction works in POE:
There's a blue glowing wall. You click it. There are two dialogue choices, one if you don't have a grappling hook. They both do the same thing, except you have a chance of getting hurt in one.
whoaaa meaningful, I'm blown away with the meaningfulness here.

At least if it required you to think of using the grappling hook+rope on the wall yourself it would be a bit meaningful.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

and it gets even dumber the further you go in this 'lineage', here's how world interactions work in wrath of the righteous:

all you do is click it. That's it, that's your entire meaningful interaction. The game tells you what to click, and you click it.
I can't wait to see where it goes from here, maybe they'll take out that strenuous clicking part. Wouldn't want to waste anyone's time, after all.

 

[Grunker]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

The reason arguing with you is incredibly annoying is because you seem to "forget" arguments already presented to you, so one has to repeat himself constantly. BG1 had essentially next to no skill and context-based interactions beyond these few examples. Hell, it didn't even have skills!

As such, it serves as a perfect example to highlight what you get from shifting to dialogue-based interactions: you get more interactions and more diverse interactions in systems that permeate the entire game rather than one little corner of it.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

The reason arguing with you is incredibly annoying is because you seem to "forget" arguments already presented to you, so one has to repeat himself constantly. BG1 had essentially next to no skill and context-based interactions beyond these few examples. Hell, it didn't even have skills!

As such, it serves as a perfect example to highlight what you get from shifting to dialogue-based interactions: you get more interactions and more diverse interactions in systems that permeate the entire game rather than one little corner of it.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

Charm in BG1 is infinitely more interesting than every single "whoa so meaningful" skill interaction in the games I've mentioned.
Yes, I like interacting with the gameworld rather than the game telling me what to do.

 

[Grunker]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

The reason arguing with you is incredibly annoying is because you seem to "forget" arguments already presented to you, so one has to repeat himself constantly. BG1 had essentially next to no skill and context-based interactions beyond these few examples. Hell, it didn't even have skills!

As such, it serves as a perfect example to highlight what you get from shifting to dialogue-based interactions: you get more interactions and more diverse interactions in systems that permeate the entire game rather than one little corner of it.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

Charm in BG1 is infinitely more interesting than every single "whoa so meaningful" skill interaction in the games I've mentioned.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

It's funny how bioware found the time to add charm-specific dialogue and interactions for essentially every NPC in BG1 but now even doing things like checking if the player healed a wounded NPC is considered to be too much for modern developers. Gotta cut everything so that they can focus on writing more dialogue. Because that's what RPGs are, books, right?

The reason arguing with you is incredibly annoying is because you seem to "forget" arguments already presented to you, so one has to repeat himself constantly. BG1 had essentially next to no skill and context-based interactions beyond these few examples. Hell, it didn't even have skills!

As such, it serves as a perfect example to highlight what you get from shifting to dialogue-based interactions: you get more interactions and more diverse interactions in systems that permeate the entire game rather than one little corner of it.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

Charm in BG1 is infinitely more interesting than every single "whoa so meaningful" skill interaction in the games I've mentioned.

Can you still argue that you prefer something else? Sure. But presenting it as a zero-sum game when it is clearly not is getting tiresome.

What's tiresome is people thinking more dialogue lines is a substitute for actually interacting with the world in an RPG.
Maybe there's a reason deadfire sold like shit and divinity original sin 2 was one of the best selling RPGs ever made. Who knows?

For all this talk of "choice and consequence", the epitome of game design to you guys is essentially the ending for ME3.

 

[Grunker]

What's tiresome is people thinking more dialogue lines is a substitute for actually interacting with the world in an RPG.

Making what is essentially a UI change be the difference between interaction and non-interaction isn't helping your case in terms of honestly presenting your argument lol

 

[Parabalus]

and it gets even dumber the further you go in this 'lineage', here's how world interactions work in wrath of the righteous:

all you do is click it. That's it, that's your entire meaningful interaction. The game tells you what to click, and you click it.
I can't wait to see where it goes from here, maybe they'll take out that strenuous clicking part. Wouldn't want to waste anyone's time, after all.

This is better than carrying 200kg of boxes and barrels in your inventory to cheese combat encounters with.