alanschu

Are you of the impression that, when a game goes on sale for on Steam, that it's Valve deciding to put that game on sale?

Just that "et cetera" is not a colloquialism. It is a latin phrase that survived to this day and is far from what you try to make it out to be. Perhaps its a sort of "language barrier" or a cultural thing. Over here in the old world, there is nothing strange about that scene you linked. Far from it, a high ranking military man, to prove being above the rabble would make sense to be using a latin phrase instead of saying "and so forth" or something like that. After all, it is part of how those phrases did survive. You undermine your own argument, since there's little reason for me to expect a fictional universe to start using latin phrasing. Besides, the repetition of the phrase is the colloquialism. Thing "Yul Brenner" and "The King and I." There's no value in repeating the phrase, but you're right that it does help come across as smug. With the context of the sentence, however, it's absurd and campy. Doubly so with the way the voice actor delivered it. It's a game that clearly isn't taking itself too seriously. When Lord de Wett says that, he's clearly no longer outraged at Thaler's insolence. He's become a stage actor that's overacting. It undermines the seriousness that is allegedly portrayed (to which I counter that, in retrospect, was never truly intended). It's funny, because my interpretation of "et cetera et cetera" is what enabled me to enjoy the game. You're telling me that I'm interpreting it wrong, and that I really should have considered taking the game much more seriously, to which point I say that the writing is significantly less enjoyable.

I think there's a fundamental difference between saying "We want to make a game in the style of Torment" and "We're making the next Torment." Or in the case of Project Eternity, "we want to make a game in the style of the Infinity Engine games" as opposed to "We're making Baldur's Gate 3/Torment 2/Icewind Dale 3." Project Eternity's analogue (which garnered them huge amounts of money) still allots them a ton of freedom for what to do from a narrative aspect. The type of freedom to experiment that a game like Torment had during its creation. The moment you say "We're making Torment 2" then you create a measuring stick against Torment 2. If it is okay but not quite good enough, that's different than had the game had limited expectation in its narrative content. The same way that people that disliked Dragon Age 2 have often told me that they would have been more receptive to the game had it not been billed the sequel to Origins. In my opinion, part of what made Torment amazing is that I had little context on what to expect. All I had was "D&D game in Infinity Engine" so maybe it'd be like Baldur's Gate. There was nothing like it I could compare it to, narratively. Project Eternity's analogue is from a mechanics and gameplay perspective, which gives me an idea on what type of restrictions Obsidian will and will not have in creating content. It doesn't dictate what type of narrative content will be in the game.

Irrelevant. The point is that excessive Steam exclusivity prevents it. No one is saying that Valve won't adopt that product's new features. However, if said product never gets created (since it's not financially sound to do so), then Steam doesn't get to see what good ideas other companies come up with either.

To be fair, he was asking "for me." It should probably also be noted that there's a bit of an ardent capitalist in me that also accepts "If gaming goes down paths that I'm not comfortable with, I'll stop gaming." For instance, I didn't buy games that required Ubisoft's always online. Seemed a bit too far for me (to the point where sessions were interrupted when the server went down, for virtually no tangible benefit to myself). Although for something like Diablo III, where I only play the game online anyways (and the benefits of being "closed battle.net" are very apparent), it's a non-issue. I actually have a policy of telling people on the BSN that if they have major issues with EA, and consider EA/BioWare to be an unethical company, to withhold their money and not buy (or even pirate) our games. You owe it to yourself as a consumer to do so. What I find strange is the rationalizations people come up with, such as "But BioWare is one of the few that delivers on the type of game that I want" which gives me the impression that people don't fully understand how much control they have over their gaming. To sidetrack slightly as an analogy: If someone tells me how much they hate Day One DLC then goes out and buys Day One DLC because they just have to have that content, they haven't done a very convincing job of telling me anything more than "This is something I wanted to get... I would have preferred to pay less money for it." Which is an obvious position for any consumer buying anything. So similar with Steam: If a game has Steamworks, and you hate it, don't go and buy the game and implicitly support Steam/Steamworks (not saying anyone in this thread does that). As a responsible consumer it's the only rational decision you can make.

So did Wasteland 2, or even Project Eternity - games that also "allegedly [have] a small chance of financial success" that still had no trouble at all making their goals via Kickstarter. In fact, your statement is misleading because even Feargus notes that Torment eventually made money, even using the publisher model. The problem bigger publishers have is usually one of opportunity cost. EA or Activision could easily make these more niche games, and probably still turn a profit doing so. The problem is whether or not it maximizes their profit. Making a Torment presents an opportunity cost (that I feel is overstated, but alas... only so much I can change at any given time even from the inside). So if Project Eternity takes $4 million and ends up bringing in $8 million in revenues, you get pretty good return on investment. But if you take the Obsidian team, through $40 million at them, and they bring in $70 million in revenues, while the ROI is not as high, the absolute revenue is much, much, much higher. Unfortunately it's not as simple as just creating 10 different projects for $4 million a piece. What you do illustrate, however, is that the cries of "too many sequels" is pretty disingenuous by gamers. They have no problems with sequels, as long as they are sequels of games that they like.

It's more difficult for a product that is better than steam, that meets even more of the needs and wants that you have, from being delivered.

Now I'm playing "Swear at VS2012" \o/ EDIT: Now playing "Sweet it works! I'm now going home!" I like that game it's fun.

I played the English game (it's the only language I speak fluently). That is, the stuff I linked is exactly what I saw. I know some feel the English VO is hideous and while I'll agree it's not fantastic, I didn't mind it. I didn't really find the game confusing. Just aspects of it that I didn't really think were done all that well (especially in light of the hype). It really comes across to me as an early attempt at writing, where the second game was clearly a "I've learned from the first game, and can do a much better job in the second" (which they did).

Playing "update the build" Wheeeeeee

My point is more along the lines of "we don't know what the distribution complications are" in that it could literally be issues with getting the game deployed on something like Steam or even GoG. Unless they have a storefront set up to utilize their private server, I can understand their reluctance to set things up the same for the full version of the game.

At this point yes, though I'd consider a lot of Valve's Sainthood comes from Steam as well (ironically). When Steam was first released it had mountains of resistance, even up until Half-Life 2 times and beyond. It was routinely called a "Steaming pile of ****" among other things. I personally got burned by the Steam activation of Half-Life 2. Lots of vitriol tossed towards Steam for being a requirement to play one of the most anticipated PC games of all time. Although true, EA's reputation is certainly not comparable to Valve's.

Do you know how was the beta released? What sort of avenues are you talking about?

How should they release it?

With regards to CK2, I found an old (paradox) thread that states that the GamersGate version doesn't require steam. Interesting. Most of what I enjoy about Origin bashing is the vast amounts of deja vu I have from when Steam was released.

But they added multiplayer (which is apparently clear evidence that there's some sort of publisher involved) and those that didn't want multiplayer would have taken their money elsewhere (or something).

I have no problems with him working on another game before Wasteland 2 is completed. As you say, it makes sense in terms of how manpower is allocated. The issue is that for all the posturing (follow him on Twitter) that Fargo does about how amazingly awesome Kickstarter has been in terms of liberating him and other developers from publishers, he's still taking a "safe" approach, much the same way that publishers do, but leveraging the title of something that some (evidently myself) consider borderline sacred. My critique has nothing to do with the fact that his studio is looking at starting another game prior to Wasteland 2 being released.

So? Then be a pioneer and show that an RPG need not be called "Torment" in order to have deep, well written characters and great writing. Torment had a lot of combat as well. It's just not memorable because it's not very good, especially compared to the rest of the game. We can disagree all day whether or not other games had the "themes" that Fargo detailed for what makes a game a "Torment" game. Things like deep, well written characters are what I prefer in almost all my CRPGs. A reminder of what Fargo feels is a torment game: "overturning RPG tropes; a fantastic, unconventional setting; memorable companions; deep thematic exploration of the human condition; heavy reactivity (i.e., choice and consequences); an intensely personal (rather than epic) story." One of those things (emphasis mine) is something that I would consider to be "uniquely torment" and even then, I don't really consider it something that must be unique. Even if you take ALL those settings together. I don't think that Torment would require an unconventional setting (I consider that one a reach), I am pretty sure that the games like Baldur's Gate, and heck even Fallout, have memorable companions. Heavy reactivity is something we all want in all of our games. Heck, I bet Wasteland 2 has it too. Same goes for personal stories. The most ironic, however, is the overturning RPG tropes, which (by definition) would require this "Torment" game to overturn the tropes that itself has established. Which is somewhat of a contradiction.

It could very well be just a lost in translation thing, but it's here: It's a colloquialism that I usually find jarring when in fantasy games. The moment I saw it, it was so setting breaking for me that I was (perhaps ironically) able to enjoy the writing for the rest of the game, since I was no longer of the opinion that it takes itself seriously.

Which leaves us with Planescape: Torment and ... Alpha Protocol as the only RPGs with good writing? But the example you are mentioning kinda is realistic. In a situation where someone is being victimised you only have two choices: help them or look the other way. What did you want? Option 3: join the tormentors? That isn't very realistic either. Eh, see I think this is the problem. I went into The Witcher with all this talk about how "realistic" it is and did not come away with it at all. Your options aren't just "Look away or murder the assailants" in real life. Heck, just using The Witcher 2 as an example, I'd bet there'd be a way to use persuade/intimidate/Axii sign in the conversation as well. It just wasn't presented in a way that I found interesting. I'm much more interested in systemic/institutional racism being depicted (which games in general don't deliver on very well). In The Witcher, it was more of a "look look, we're dark and mature! See!" and at that point it comes across as trying too hard. Which doesn't strike me as feeling very realistic. Nevermind the complete about face of characters like Siegfried that have no problems acting completely out of character simply to show "Look. Real consequences for your actions! This guy that was otherwise decidedly NOT a belligerent racist to you, that you have helped in the past, is now a mindless zealot with no genuinely good explanation because you didn't choose the Order!" PST and AP are two of the better written RPGs out there, but even something like Arcanum I thought did quite well with having an environment that included more "uncomfortable" (I hesitate to use the word "mature") topics that were depicted in more creative ways (why Bates was so successful and the burden of his secret, a dwarf that committed an atrocity and shaved his beard and pretended to be a gnome to protect himself and stuff like that). Nevermind a game like KOTOR 2 which is also pretty well written (if abridged).

Anyone that thinks this is just being elitist and stupid. The game is offered as F2P simply so that people like yourself will play it. If you don't feel you'd get your money's worth with a $15 subscription, don't subscribe!

The unfortunate thing for me is that Fargo's description of what he feels is a "Torment" game is precisely what I want to see in pretty much all of my RPGs. I find it disheartening that for a game to effectively contain that level of writing depth, then that's what makes it a "Torment" game. The connection, to me, is much weaker than Wasteland 2 (no real opinion on the Bard's Tale remake). Based on history, I genuinely expect a more "Torment" like game out of Project Eternity. That said, I've gone on enough about this project already in other threads, so I'll not be a negative nancy and continue to try to derail the thread about the reservations I have for it.

The biggest problem I have for it is is that, for all of Fargo's bluster about how it's great to be free of publishers, he's just doing the same thing that publishers do (leverage a sequel to get additional money). It's one thing to do Wasteland 2 since it's a game he's wanted to make since Fallout was released (it's also a true sequel), but this one just rubs me the wrong way. His actions come across more as former CEO of a big Publisher rather than former game developer. Just my opinion on the matter. As for if the game turns out to be good, IMO there's already a level of expectation that would be otherwise more difficult to achieve then had it not been titled Torment. In other words, I think it will be more challenging for the game to be considered "good" simply because of its title. Unfortunately, whether or not games are considered good is not done in a purely objective sense.

The thing I disliked about the first Witcher's writing is how hamfisted it was. "Oh look, we're dark and mature and racism exists. Here's an obligatory scene of a dwarf getting picked on by big bad humans and Geralt can choose to help the Dwarf or do nothing at all. So reaaaaal." The game literally reminded me of my own attempts to make a "dark, edgy, and mature" module with the NWN toolset. It came across as the the first attempt at writing for an RPG. Maybe some of that was lost in translation, but ugh. The moment that Lord stated "etcetera etcetera" in a dialogue line, I realized the writing was so much intended to be good, but rather campy, and I enjoyed the game much more after that point. I laughed at the dialogue a lot in that game, but ultimately I felt like I was laughing with the game, instead of at the game.

Healing flagged players should, IMO, flag the healer for PVP as well. If it didn't then that is likely a bug.