-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by namelessthree
-
Because ultimately, backers are not game designers and we don't really know what is good for a game. This is the problem with the new Torment game in which the developers, for some reason, believe it be the backer's choice for something as fundamental as what combat system the game uses. In reality it was the developer's choice. To your main thesis, that Pillars of Eternity is more like Icewind Dale than Baldur's Gate and hence it is more combat oriented than story oriented, I find this belief to be unfounded. First and foremost, you have yet to even play the game, so you have no idea as to what kind of roleplaying options the game has. You assume that the lack of 'romance' (and use your definition for the word romance) means the lack of most interaction between party members, of friendship and the like. While this has a certain logic, I don't find this logic to be reasonable. You assume that the developers use your definition of romance, the definition which the character interactions in Planescape: Torment fall under. However, I find it more likely that when the developers used the word romance, they meant it under the standard, more contemporary definition, and as such, other character interactions would certainly be in the game without contradiction. I question your idea that there would be a lack of friendship or a lot of character interaction. Romance is not most of the roleplay in an IE game. There is also many, many other interactions; to say the the lack of romance means the lack of roleplay, is silly indeed. Take Baldur's Gate, a game that originally had no romances, or Baldur's Gate 2 and remove the romances. Do these still have important character interaction and roleplay? I believe so, and this is what I expect in Pillars of Eternity and at least this viewpoint is supported by evidence Take the article by PCgames.de (link below). In it, the journalist details that there will be a ton of party interaction, and that your decisions will effect what party you have and whether characters live, die, or leave. Such consequences as these cannot take place save character interaction take place, and such is the evidence for my viewpoint. http://freetexthost.com/ia2eflp4ra Edit: Finally, the lack of romance has been discussed to death, and the topic has been closed. Nothing will change, the game is already being put into beta stage as we speak. I would expect an administrator or moderator wont look well on this thread, but we will see. Backers are not designers. Right. But we can still voice our opinions, no? Is it not even interesting or valuable for the devs to know what their clients think it is important? I don't see any harm in a poll. Not to change anything at this poit like you said but just to have an idea about your client's opinions in those matters. I think you are understimating both backers and devs. Not every backer throw every whim without and argument, hell, some of them even have nice ideas! And devs are obviously not dumb. Nor Inxile nor Obsi is going to be chained to every backer desire, but they can listen, and in listening you always learn something. Maybe you discard it later, maybe it leads you to an interesting idea. You never know. It is unfounded, that's way it wasn't a thesis but some concerns. Those concerns though are based on facts, meaning, ruling out roleplaying capabilites. Nothing more beyond that. Like you said the rest is speculation and we'll have to wait and see. Regarding the meaning of romance, I would expect from Obsidian to use the term in nonconventional ways. After all, this guys did Torment. But yeah, we don't know really. I've never said that the lack of romance means lack of interaction but LESS interaction, less roleplaying options. If you have to game with the same amount of interaction in friendships and the second has also romances, which of the two has more roleplaying options? That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Too much posting.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Like I said in other respones. Really, not such a big deal in the sense losing romances but roleplaying options. But maybe you are right, if they are planning a trilogy, this could be interesting.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Maybe you are right. If they don't feel like they can do it right now, it's better to leave that out of the way. It's a shame though.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
I don't think that you understood the whole point of the letter. It's not a case in favor of romances but roleplaying options. Also, how is the concept of romance that I used vague? Is as specific as two different and valid options: Bg2 and Torment. The first is not thematic the second is. Very well, the devs decided it wouldn't be possible to add those roleplaying options but at the same time we have a megadungeon of 15 levels. See where I am going? I am not saying that the devs should do this and the devs should do that but why not give the backers the chance to, at least, express their opinion in the matter? Just because you are fine with what they decided? That's a poor argument. I am not patronizing anybody, believe me. Some people are fine with modded content, others are not. How am I saying the devs are lazy? I am just saying that maybe there are some more options out there. Don't be simplistic, please. EDIT: If he wasn't, that is for him to say. It feels to me that he was trying to explain why he was aghast and biased about this kind of posting, seems to me like apologizing somehow, but then again, is that really important? What matters is that we have a dialogue. And I didn't take anything as an insult, really. I didn't tell him to simply ignore what I have to say, again, you are being reductionist here. I told him that why not post his arguments points like he did in his second post instead of being jerky about my post in the first place. Because that doesn't help any kind of communication. So, in the scenario where you only peek a post to be witty-jerky, why not ignore it alltogether instead? Again, he isn't like that given his argumented and elaborated response and I am glad we could have a dialogue, so I don't really know what else do you want.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Pathetic and uncalled for. Go troll elsewhere. Not trolling at all dear boy, I merely have a few issues with these "open letters" that keep cropping up, and their inevitable style: 1. Brevity is the soul of wit. Stop rambling make a point with each sentence, set an example and move on. Far more effective method of communication. 2. Why open? Obsidian are eminently contactable, do so, especially if one has backed their project and wishes to raise an objection. 3. No romances mean less deep interaction. This keeps on bing repeated and just sounds more ridiculous every time, there were other characters than Grace and Annah in Torment and they were arguably more interesting. Daakon's instruction in the way of the Zerth was hardly a small whimsical thing. 4. People know other people for years at a time and don't pursue romantic engagements, this doesn't make them psychopaths, asexual or unusual in any way. 5. We're approaching beta, it's a little late for such a complaint, and really if one is going to invest their money in a Kickstarter why would they not not keep their eye on it? Return on investment and whatnot? Caveat Emptor. 6. As a backer you have a perfect right to complain and argue for features you'd like, however rambling "open letters" have the freakish stink of the BSN about them. I'd say that if you wish discussion on the main boards then simply make a thread arguing your position. 7. Personally i'm glad of the no romance ruling and wish other developers would follow suit, especially if it means less content gated off behind romances, more deep characters with more interactions, and more getting to know ones acquaintances rather than engaging in cheesy teenage romance fiction. Edit: The content of the other "open letters" i've seen may have influenced my bias somewhat, one for instance had a mother asking her infant child not to commit rape when he grows up! As if it was the little lads honest wish to be a rapist or that she had no part in his upbring (which she probably shouldn't.) The stultifying idiocy of such letters leaves one quite aghast, so please consider that it is not just your missive that has raised such a scathing dismissiveness within me. 1. I wasn't try to be witty, I was trying to elaborate some concerns and for that I need to argument my case, otherwise we can fall in reductionism very easily. 2. I saw Obsidian devs responding here so I just assumed this is as good of a place as any to raise and objection. In retrospective, maybe you are right but didn't even know you could contact Obsi outside these forums. 3. The thing is the whole point of the letter wasn't a discussion about if romances mean deeper or shallower interaction. I do feel the same way and I think a good friendship can be as deep as a good romance if done right. For example, what you mention about Dakkon, character which I love inmensely. No, the letter was a case in favor of roleplaying options. I think this is gonna sound ironic but I barely romance when I roleplay BUT that doesn't mean I want those options excluded, because in the long run they are just that, options and I feel that each of them have the capability of enrichen the experience for a vast variety of players. So really this post was really about voicing concerns against the cut of roleplaying options. Like I said, I prefer more Baldur and Torment than Icewind in my game. 4. True, but this is not the reality, this is a game. And I assume that in the game, if there are not time restrictions to finish the main quest, you can potentially spend years adventuring. It feels unrealistic that you cannot express your atraction towards anybody in the game (or the other way around) during a long period of time. And I say express because that is what I feel it is really important here, that you have the option to roleplay the character the way you want. Otherwise, like I said, you are forcing me to be some kind of character and that can pull some players out of the experience. 5. Too much faith in Obsidian? When they were talking about BG2 and Torment in the pitch, that was enough for me to send money their way. Really, BG2 + Torment + Obsidian was a no brainer and in my head the idea of Obsi letting me down was impossible I guess. I just assumed that when they were talking about a successor for BG2 and Torment, it was a successor with all the consequences. Why voicing my concerns this late? Simple. I was trying to read the less about the game as possible so the whole experience would be a surprise. It seems that journalism got in the way and you know the rest I guess. I guess it can be summarized as too much faith. 6. Sorry if you felt it was a ramble. I was simply trying to elaborate. Maybe I am too long winded? The thing is I don't know how to do the other things that you mention so, being new to the forums as I am, I just posted inside the part of the forums I thought it would make the most sense to post it, meaning the PoE main discussion thingy. 7. And personally I don't mind gating content behind a companion. I find it more realistic in the same way that in real life you wouldn't know cetain things about somebody unless this person is your couple. Also, gating contents means more replay value. I don't see the difference between gating content behind companions and gating it behind classes. You have to play with another character if you want to experience ways differently in both cases. Also, romances don't have to be neither teenager ego stroking neither cheesy. You have to have good writers behind them, though. But Obsi wrote Torment so I wouldn't sweat over things going cheesy. Edit: Apology accepted I guess but that doesn't mean you have to respond to a person writing their first post with a witty-jerky comment. Why not exposing the points of your argument like you did in your second post? Or if you are burned out with the subject, why not ignoring these posts altogether? Sorry If my post felt redundant ( I am new here afterall), and I am shocked about the other open letters that you mention, but like I said, let's all be polite.
- 186 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Ha, Ironic indeed. Thank you for your words. I did put a lot of heart into it, not really much because of the importance of romances themselves but because what the lack of them really represents (less roleplaying options). Sorry if this is boring for some of the locals but I am literally new in this forum and I can't really tell what has been debated to death and what doesn't, so I was just voicing out my concerns like I guess any of you would have done with some topic or their interest. One nuance though. Like I said, this post is not about "There should be romances no matter what" but about "Umm, I feel like the game is leaning towards Icewind Dale the most and I would rather have more BG2 and Torment in my game". 1. Well, that remains to be seen. While personality reputation is nice I feel it's only a way to manage content (in this case, friendships with your companions, or that is my guess) not to add new content. We'll have to wait I guess. 2. The BG1 argument is no argument really since the companions deepness in BG1 was literally non existent. If what you are saying is that they are following the BG saga schema, well, then that's a scary thought since, like I said BG1 companions were shallow to death. 4. The thing is, they don't work for everybody. With all due respect, it's not for me. I've never said such a thing. I said that if not included, -and I wasn't talking about romance only but also about the option to express your sexuality in general- the game will most certainly be more shallow or less deep than BG2 and Torment. It wasn't and absolute, it was a comparation. And I truly believe so, even if the amount of friendship in PoE is overwhelming, if you cannot express your sexuality or romance towards anybody really, that feels to me like less roleplay capabilities than BG2 and Torment. Again, not a big deal, but a simpton of more Icewind less Baldur's, and again we won't really know, like you said until the game is out. That's way, the first thing I mention in the post is that I was voicing my concerns. This is obviously not a "The game IS this or is that". Obsidian definitely have earned our faith, hell, everybody here is a backer I think, so that means we are all in the same boat of faith. I think they are an awesome, peculiar and unique dev team, but if I feel concerned about something I feel like I have the right to mention that to them, too. I don't really think is such a big deal. People talk and have concerns about each other all the time. And that's fine.
- 186 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
LOL You, sir, have won the Internet. Probably you are right though but I just posted about it when I read about it. Long live Gromnir. I will create a character in your honor.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
It was, but then again, if we are naming BG2 and Planescape as a pitch, can you blame me? Yes, we are for real, as real as you people in fact. So easy to ask somebody to get over something when you don't care about that thing on the slightest. -Sigh- Thanks. I knew my risks. I just wanted to express my opinion -like the rest do here- and maybe, only maybe make Obsidian reconsider by letting them know that this matters to some of us. Maybe on the expansion or in PoE 2? Well, that sets it on stone I guess. A shame. But thanks for the link. Pathetic and uncalled for. Go troll elsewhere. 1. Obviously not. But that's not the point. In the post I mention that games as BG2 and Torment had friendships AND romances. Seems to me that Pillars only having the former make said interactions, at least in my opinion, one or two points less deep than BG2 or Planescape. 2. I sincerely hope you are right. I am not so sure until I play the game. However, if those options are restricted to whoring only, well, it will be just sad. 3. No, it doesn't. Maybe i didn't expressed that right (Sorry, it was a long post). What I meant is if you are not able to express you sexuality in the game in any way, then the game will be restricting your roleplaying options for sure. Thanks again, JFSOCC. I am pretty sure Pillars of Eternity will be awesome one way or the other. I get chills everytime I watch the trailer. I guess the only thing we can do now is wait and hope Obsidian delivers. As I said, thanks again for your response and attention. Much appreciated.
- 186 replies
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with:
-
Puzzles...
namelessthree replied to Orange Death's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Yes, please, the more puzzles the better. It's so hard to see good puzzles in an RPG nowadays. -
Hiding helmet option
namelessthree posted a topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Just a quick question. Will the game integrate an option to hide the helmets you are wearing? I know this is only aesthetics but I usually like to see my characters faces. Just curious. Thanks! -
Npc conflicts?
namelessthree replied to Namutree's topic in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
I think there are only like 8 companions. If they start killing each other there were not be anyone left to go adventure with you! xd. I am fine with conflicts, you can even say that the most interesting situations / dialogues come from some kind of conflict but let's add this feature in PoE 2 where they hopefully increase the number of companions. -
Baldur's Gate 3?
namelessthree replied to projectx's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Beamdog has done a pretty solid job with BG and BG2 EE. For me they are really the definitive edition of those games now. Also Neera and Dorn for the win! -
I haven't started writting this post with a "Dear Obsidian" because I don't want the tone of the text to be confused with cynicism or sarcasm. With the writing of this text I am just trying to voice out my honest concerns towards a game that I've backed, and as such, this post should be read only as that, although I still would really like to be answered by at least one of the members of the Obsidian crew, if anything else. First of all, I do think the game looks amazing so far. Well, with that out of the way, my concerns started when I read in a virtual magazine that "Pillars of Eternity" will not include romance options. As a backer, I wasn't aware of this as I've always assumed that a game that was aiming to be a spiritual successor of "Baldur's Gate 2" and "Planescape: Torment" will at least try to create deep relationships with companions and or NPCs in the same way those games did. I was somewhat confused and dissapointed with this news, so I just went back to the original pitch and I read it again: "Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur's Gate, add in the fun intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment" The first time I read the pitch back when the kickstarter campaign started, I was thrilled at the oportunity of playing one game that will mix together the deep and richness of writing of both the "Baldur's Gate saga" and "Planescape: Torment". I have to admit that I was never very fond of the "Icewind Dale" series because while good games, they always felt to me much less alive due to the lack of companions or roleplaying options. Still, the combat in those games were pretty good and that was exactly what Obsidian was aiming to bring back from them, according to the pitch, so everything was good. But now, after these news, it feels to me that we are getting more "Icewind Dale" than "Baldur's Gate" or "Planescape: Torment", although I would really like to be wrong about this once the game is out on the street. The thing is I remember that one of the stretch goals for the game was centered on unlocking levels and more levels of a megadungeon. At the time, my first thought was "Cool", "neat" and " I am really looking forward to explore that", but that was before this news, because I would take roleplaying options over endless dungeons anyday. I know the game is gonna have interactions with companions seen as friendships or hateships but, somehow these interactions won't feel as deep as the ones in "Baldur's Gate" and "Planescape: Torment" because those had friendships + romances...and wasn't the whole point of the project to bring back that same level of deep interaction? And yes, I consider that a game without romances (understood either as they were offered in Baldur's Gate 2 or as they were developed in Planescape: Torment) will fundamentally offer less roleplaying options for the players. A game where your character emotional romantic connections are essentially nullified during the whole journey, without options for the player for those relationships to happen, feels as limited as a game with forced relationships only. I am not saying this game will be a bad game because of this decision, but I do think it somehow failed already to be as deep as Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment concerning the roleplaying posibilities. Because in BG2 you could chose to pursue romances or not, and that simple detail is always better that not having the option of doing so. Likewise in Planescape: Torment, we believed the relationships between the Nameless One and Deionarra, Annah, Fall-From-Grace or even Ravel because there were so many roleplaying options given through dialogue where you could chose how to behave with these characters, all of which obviously felt something for our Nameless fella. To me, the game felt much more real and believable thanks to those interactions because the creators weren't ruling out roleplaying posibilities and options, so each player had the chance to make the story of the game their own thanks to the answers they were deciding to give. If in "Pillars of Eternity" options like these are simply ruled out, every player will feel that their main character is either asexual, a psychopath or somebody that simply is no interested in any of their companions or the NPCs in the world in any romantic way whatsoever, which can be possible but it's unlikely and force the player down a certain kind of character. While the decision to rule out romances is great for players that want to roleplay their characters in that particular fashion, the rest of the players will be left frustrated with a character that they will not feel their own partly because of these restrictions. At this point, in case it wasn't clear, I would like to add that I understand romances in some different ways and I feel that at least the options given by both "Baldur's Gate 2" and "Planescape: Torment" were not only valid, but very interesting.To those putting romance and waifu in the same bag...I really don't think they are the same thing, they don't even play in the same league. And really, who really wants waifu stuff in their Obsidian RPG, anyway? Is somebody crazy enough to think Obsidian is going to write that kind of thing? No, I am obviously talking about something else when I talk about romances, for example, to those saying that "Planescape: Torment" didn't have romances, well, I simply don't feel that's true. Actually, my favourite approach to romances was Planescape's were those relationships were subtly played throughout the whole game, slowly building the connections with your companions. Fall-From-Grace is, for example, the epitome of a doomed romance, damning both of the characters in the process. Another person in another forum commented this about the Planescape's romances and I totally agree with him/her: "All of the romances in PS:T are there to underline the way in which TNO is bringing torment and suffering to all those close to him. The romances for Annah, FFG and Deionarrah serve the same purpose as Dakkon's enslavement and Morte's fate following you for eternity. Deinorrah needs no explanation, but Ravel makes it pretty clear that Annah falling in love with you is a 'very bad thing' (which can lead directly to her death - and even without that, puts her in a doomed devotion to someone whose fated to hell). FFG is the final part of the curse of torment - notice how when you encounter Ravel, she expertly picks apart every companion's weakness and points out just how TNO is bringing suffering upon them (Annah's love, Dakkon's slavery, Nordrom in a hopeless struggle against his own nature, and most of all, the one time in the whole game where Morte's joking facade gets broken, with Ravel revealing the bitter desparation beneath his humour)....but when she comes to addressing FFG she doesn't really have anything to say - in fact, while all the other characters are being taken apart, FFG is described as carefully sizing Ravel up for weaknesses. Then you get to the end of the game, with TNO on his way to hell...and finally FFG's torment becomes clear when she swears that she's go back to the very place that she had once escaped from, making a vow to rescue TNO that can't possibly be fulfilled and serves only to doom her to the same fate as TNO." So, in closing, we had thematically relevant romances in "Planescape:Torment" but also regular romances in "Baldur's Gate 2" where your companions developed feeling towards your characters only because they were given the chance to travel with him in first place, and from that point, things evolve according to player decisions. I don't think that's a bad option either. I think both games did a great job with their respective roleplaying options and that is why I find it weird that Obsidian is deciding to restrict the roleplaying capabilities of a game that claims to be a spiritual successor of those two classic RPGs. Modding the romances in is also not an option. At least for me. In first place, they won't be cannon and they will not ever be as intertwined with the story as one written by Obsidian. For those talking about this option...would they accept the other way around? Meaning, oficial game with romances and then some extra dungeons modded in by the community? Yep, I didn't think so. Josh Sawyer said in this very forum that the team didn't have the time or other resources to implement romances. But basically romances are more dialogue and reaction to it that adds roleplaying options to the player. Why then, if we assume roleplaying options are relevant in a CRPG, not give the backers the opportunity to have a say in this decision? Why not reaching a compromise? If the team doesn't have money or time for both let's say 40 dungeons and romances, why not ask the backers what would they rather have? And no, I don't mean cutting some levels from the megadungeon because what's promised is promised but maybe cutting some other dungeons instead. Inxile set up polls for decisions as important as deciding if the game were gonna be turn based or action with pause. Why not give the Pillars of Eternity backers the option to give their opinion? To know if they want the maximum amount of dungeons no matter what or if they would rather have less of them so that time and money would go to open more roleplaying options. I really would like something like this to happen. There are 73.986 backers only in the Kickstarter main page. 73.986. Do their opinions not matter? I know Obsidian has the last say but... is it not possible to even offer that option to the backers? To ask them what would they rather have via email/poll? Thank you for those patient enough to read the whole thing. As I said, this letter is addressed mainly to Obsidian, but dialogue is welcomed. Thanks again.
- 186 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- companionswriting
- backers
-
(and 2 more)
Tagged with: