Sir Chaox

Indeed, and that's why Tim Cain's "accomplishment" is so much better, because it rewards the party after they have dealt with the encounter, instead of the concept "objective xp", which to me entails having an objective, and thus it's almost is like a mini-quest or a part of a quest, and that won't do it, no? I like have you emphasized "hand-placed". This is what I presume as well, even if it has some randomness via some script, all encounters should have been thought through thoroughly and make sense in its context (heh, a comeback for that term). And the question of "significant impact" is very interesting. What happens if the party takes out one ogre and flees? Well when I think about gaining experience, I am trying to think "what makes sense?" It makes sense to me that you gain experience for attempting to fight something but realizing you are not strong enough to overcome it so you flee to fight again another day. I mean it would make sense because you learned something new, so you might get a small experience gain from it. But honestly, trying to implement a system like that in code sounds quite advanced; it would be a pretty amazing system though if they could pull it off. Unfortunately, I do not think it will be so dynamic. So more than likely, without meeting some sort of threshold, you would not gain any experience for that single kill, but I also don't really know how advanced the current accomplishment system is. Also, I agree "accomplishment" really is a better word for it, just got too use to using the term "objective" from earlier. That's why Tim is sitting over there and I'm sitting over here, I guess. P.S. I'm off to bed, good night until tomorrow

This is a very intriguing idea... Like... I'm still trying to wrap my head around how it would feel to play this way. Part of me wants to see those numbers, perhaps because I'm so use to it. Another part of me is saying "Why? You aren't going to reload the game for more XP anyway. It doesn't matter!" It should actually be fairly easy to implement this, so I would not worry about that angle of it. I think doing this as a simple gameplay option would be fantastic! Edit: I just read someone suggesting this; we should keep this as a separate gameplay option instead of incorporating it into Expert Mode. This is really more for roleplayers specifically than for expert players; some experts will want to see those numbers.

Broken Age has the great story and memorable characters, for certain, but the puzzles are (mostly) pretty straightforward, particularly for the veteran adventure gamer. Definitely not bad mouthing it and I'm planning on playing it again soon. Urg, well I'll have to give it a shot soon. Bad puzzles can turn an adventure game into an interactive movie. I'm looking at you, Dreamfall. hey! interactive movies aren't a bad thing… though if that was not it's intent then i guess it's a bad thing… but it's all about the intent of the creator and how well the story is told. I suppose you are right, if the interacting is well done. Dreamfall was a severe disappointment for me; most of the game involved bringing object A to place A, watch a cutscene, bring object B to place B, watch a cutscene, etc. etc.... You essentially just guide your character from one scene to the next. Didn't really care much for the story either. I really liked The Longest Journey (which had a great balance of gameplay and story).

I hope I am getting this information right (so much to sift through) I think that the situation Stun and Azmodan were discussing should definitely warrant experience, and I would agree with Stun that you shouldn't need to grab a quest or objective BEFORE being rewarded experience for encountering a hand-placed wilderness event (i.e. the ogre camp). It is absolutely possible to still do this within an objective/accomplishment system because the ogre camp is hand-placed; instead of needing an initial quest to gain the XP, you would simply take action and gain a new objective dynamically through that action. So you encounter the ogre camp and have no objective relating to it. You can interact with it in a number of ways (steal from the camp, wipe out the ogres, talk with them, etc.). Whatever you choose to do, you should be awarded XP if you make a significant enough impact on the camp. I think that is reasonable, though it may be difficult to gauge what "significant impact" means; how many ogres is enough to consider it "wiped out"? Still, because all of these encounters are not randomly generated, it should be possible to trigger experience gains based on meeting certain criteria for such an encounter where you do no initially have any tasks relating to it. The main idea is that the player should definitely receive experience for interacting with this encounter and similar encounters, despite not having an initial quest/objective to do so, and it should be possible within this accomplishment system.

I agree with that; it was a rare inconvenience to be overburdened in the IE games, and overall feels unnecessary to implement this. But I feel we are going off topic again. Then again, going back on topic might not be productive...

Did not even realize it was a term Josh was using. I meant the term in a design sense, so you are right.

It would also promote multiple Playthroughs. And role playing. But shame on me for being an Idealist. Developers should not be concerned about the playing habits of lousy gamers. They should only be focused on creating a fun, challenging experience. period. A game specifically designed to eliminate all "degenerate gameplay", will end up being a very DULL game. Consider the following "solutions" that RPG makers (including Obsidian) have already done in the past and which have ultimately lead to the nauseating dumb-down of the entire genre. 1) Issue: combat is too tough. The system is too complex Casual Player behavior to this: Save scumming! Multiple reloads. Quits playing the game. Developer solution: Make combat brainlessly easy. (example: Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2) Make the rule system child-like in simplicity (Skyrim) 2) Issue: Dungeons too open ended and complex. Casual Player behavior to this: Casual player loses interest in the game itself. Quits playing. Developer Solution: Make Dungeons linear, and impossible to get lost in (example: Skyrim, Dragon age 1 & 2) 3) Issue: perma-death for party members Casual Player behavior to this: Reload! Reload! Developer solution: No more perma-death. Death no longer has any meaning. Combat loses that wonderful element of urgency; players no longer have to be extra careful with their party's actions because the consequences of failure have been minimized. (example: Most RPGs from 2006 to the present.) 4)Issue: True choice; true branching narratives. Casual Player Behavior: Casual players miss half the game Developer response: from a boardroom, while looking at cost-effectiveness reports, budget allocation pie charts, and other rigid, non-gaming things, the decision maker decides its not a good idea to expend resources on content that most players will never see, so the result is a linear game, with rails everywhere (example: Dragon age 2) 5) Issue: the game of Chance. Casual player behavior: Reload till you get the best outcome Developer Response Remove chance. Result: No more fun things we used to love in our games. Like the deck of many things; the wand of wonder; Save or Die rolls etc. 6) Issue Having to heal yourself after a fight is boooring... casual player behavior: varies. God mode console commands; playing on easy; Quit playing the game. Developer response Make health instantly regenerate at the conclusion of combat. (example Most RPGs today) 7) issue: lots of text Casual Gamer behavior: casual gamer doesn't like to read while gaming. Skips over the text. Developer Response: minimize text. or replace text with cutscene after cutscene. (example: every Bioware game after 2004) This is just a small list. Only a fraction of the 'evolution' of the genre. This very kickstarter was born from a groundswell of gamers who wanted Obsidian to make the kind of game that used to exist before the industry-wide crusade to stamp out "degenerate gameplay" began. I think you've taken my statement to the extreme and went a bit off topic as well, but whatever. So I agree with a lot of what you said in regards to other RPGs, but I think you are taking it too far in regards to PoE. It has already been stated that PoE will be implementing several things you are concerned with. Let's look. 1. I believe combat with challenge is a major goal of PoE, so no worries there (unless you lack confidence in Obsidian's team, veterans of the IE days) 2. Couldn't say, but I hope they will be similar to the old IE games, perhaps even a step further in complexity 3. Permadeath is in. (Expert mode) 4. Branching narratives will be in PoE, and I am hoping they will implement this in a way where there is no "best outcome"; simply different outcomes 5. I'm not sure if this one will be in PoE, but I don't see why not 6. Healing will still be a requirement in the Stamina/Health system (at least this is their goal) 7. IIRC, I believe there will be lots of text in this game, similar to PST So even despite trying to remove degenerate gameplay mechanics, this game will have most, maybe even all, of these items you've listed. You can eliminate the problems of the IE games and still make it feel like an IE game. Unfortunately, what I see as a problem, you see as a key part of the IE experience: this is the core of the argument. So as you can see, we are all idealists, just that the ideal happens to be different for each of us. Another unfortunate note is that there is virtually no middle ground here; either we choose one system or the other.

Less frequent level ups is a good thing. It makes you focus on the quests, story, and exploration versus your next level up. A level up should just be a pleasant surprise and short distraction before you're back into the game. But too many RPGs these days shower you with level ups and stat points and perks and BLAH.

This. Also, I did not realize that about Schafer. That explains a lot, Lol. For some reason, that makes him more the man in my mind. Bad management skills in a company president are nothing to admire or aspire to. Hey, I didn't say I wanted to be him. Maybe be his buddy. :D Lol. More seriously, he should maybe pass all the budgeteering on to someone else. You do realize that, as a project leader, he needs to set the budget for his project, right? Tim Shafer isn't just day-dreaming all day. Neither are Josh or Chris, or any other dev. Let's not fall into the trap of "Creatives don't need to have business skills". ALL the best rock stars are savy businessmen. Because it is a business. But I agree that Shafer needs a leash. The DFA fiasco was swept under the rug so hard. Oh, I'm well aware of the budget issues on DFA, and I can tell the project suffered as a result (fairly short experience, for one). But if Schafer is notorious for poor budgeting skills, he should really find someone else to project manage and stick to the creative work. Cause project management is so BORING (at least it looks like it when I turn over to my supervisor every day).

Liked your post, but I just want to point out, I dislike the B option as a bonus versus the A option, which is a good sub-objective. Ensuring no civilian deaths means if one of your civs ends up dying, you'd be prone to reload the game and try again (bad). Meanwhile option B simply requires you to find the prisoners; either you find them or you don't, there is no reloading over it. I realize you were just using it as an example, but I wanted to point out that I'm hoping such objectives like A are limited or don't exist in the game. Maybe the story changes because not all of the civilians survived, but you should not be penalized experience for it happening (I consider not getting an XP bonus a kind of penalty in a way).

You're not necessarily killing them for XP. They are bandits, after all. They've been robbing everyone (and have killed at least twice that you know of), and will continue to do so if left alone. I've played as a paladin where I wiped out the camp, looted everything, rather than leave the items for more bandits to use, and donated the proceeds to the temple of Helm (well, I kept the full plate and the enchanted long bow - I was playing a paladin, not a saint). Well, the reasons I read suggested it was done for the XP alone. Also, you could still do the same thing without the XP being given to you per kill anyway.

Yup, agreed, it's two objectives. I suppose an XP reward for being imaginative is almost impossible to do in a CRPG, but something like efficiency might be almost as good - e.g. if you wiped out the bandit camp with, say, 5 traps and a skeleton instead of 100 traps, 20 skeletons and with two party members killed you might get more XP for the former case. If we start producing cases where you get more XP based on your performance, then would we not be encouraging players to save scum?

This. Also, I did not realize that about Schafer. That explains a lot, Lol. For some reason, that makes him more the man in my mind. Bad management skills in a company president are nothing to admire or aspire to. Hey, I didn't say I wanted to be him. Maybe be his buddy. :D Lol. More seriously, he should maybe pass all the budgeteering on to someone else.

Sorry, I am sifting through a lot of pages here... bear with me. I feel like random encounters is a separate discussion. People have brought up good points as to the relevance of these encounters, since they tend to offer almost nothing to the player and are just a time sink; sure, potentially there can be an interesting, story-based encounter, but a majority are just trash mobs to fight (or ignore) and offer little to no worthy loot or experience. I can imagine players getting fed up with these encounters quickly and just reloading to avoid them. Also, PoE may not even have them as simple trash fights, choosing to make each random encounter a special circumstance; but the issue with that is that players will hope for these encounters, and may reload to try and get them, which becomes the opposite effect. Anyway, not sure if there has been a discussion on random encounters, but it feels mostly off topic. I think Lephys brought up a question that I have failed to see answered satisfactorily: If you are given experience for completing an objective, and this objective was accomplished almost entirely through combat, then how is it that you are NOT getting experience for fighting? How did you get the experience, if it was not through fighting? I think one of the main issues is the loss of immediate XP returns on accomplishments, such a disarming traps or slaying an opponent. The only way to create the balance between paths that they (Obsidian) want in this game is to implement a bulk return for accomplishing larger goals rather than allowing users to cheat the system, in a way, and following multiple pursuits SIMPLY FOR EXPERIENCE. With an objective system, you can simply do what is necessary and not try to maximize your gains of XP. The bandit camp is a great example of how killing everyone in the camp just for experience is really something that is trying to be avoided in this game. Grinding and metagaming at its worst. I understand there is something to be missed by losing these smaller returns, but this will produce a stronger system overall that will hopefully eliminate "degenerate gameplay" (a great term, by the way).

Well like I said in some other thread somewhere this is a concern because the idea that a character is a "social" or "stealth" character and not a valid "combat" character is frankly.... a stupid way to make a game. Every character needs to be viable in combat on some level no matter what I do with their "skills". If a character can be made that is basically useless in an actual fight Obsidian needs to scrap that character build or adjust it to fix that issue. There should be no such thing as a character who is straight out useless in combat. I realize this is a video game, but is it not realistic to create a character that is horrible in combat? If a pacifist playthrough is possible via a combination of stealth and sweet-talk, and people want to pursue this, then I don't see the issue. But at the same time, this is a party based game, and it is hard to get every one sneaking through an area (and ultimately pretty ridiculous), so I do expect everyone to do some fighting. The point is that if I choose to emphasize some skills over others, making it more difficult to overcome a challenge through combat, or if I simply have a preference to avoid combat, then I should be rewarded similarly for pursuing another path through the challenge because I need the experience to upkeep my other pursuits. My need for XP should be similar as someone going all combat. But I want to correct myself and say that XP does not necessarily have to be the SAME for every path; this may depend more on the situation at hand, what path makes the most sense versus a path that will require more effort (and should reward more experience). But the trick is to try and keep it somewhat balanced so players do not feel like they are missing out on XP by going particular routes.

Definitely loved a lot of Arcanum characters. You forgot Garfield Thelonius Remington III (Gar)! Loved that guy. Unfortunately, after a lot of characters join your party, they mostly add no input back into the game. Some characters do at key points, but otherwise, a lot of wasted potential with NPC party member interaction. Yeah, it did feel like you zombified them or something. Yes, Master! Although IIRC wasn't there sort of a not-really-fleshed-out romance with Raven and/or Z'an Allurin? It's been a long time since I played. Yes, but it is so minor. It's one of those things that's like "We should hook up after this whole thing is over." Nothing really happens. I could find more interaction with the sheep at Madam Toussaude.

Yeah, PoE is a different story when we compare the type of game and the team behind it to other Kickstarter projects. But so far, I haven't had any regrets with my KS backings... Maybe because I haven't invested much yet. Planning to up my pledge for PoE once I hear some further details on if they are doing the new stretch goals for wilderness and companions.

To add, you'd be building your characters around non-combat skills versus combat skills, and would need the similar amounts of experience (let's say the same amount) to continue to hone those skills and match the non-combat challenges proposed in the game; it is not like people who choose to go non-combat with their characters do not need experience at all to successfully meet these new challenges, like a combat character would. Any kind of character could potentially need the same amount of experience; it depends on if the game offers enough depth in these different areas (stealth, diplomacy, etc.).

This. Also, I did not realize that about Schafer. That explains a lot, Lol. For some reason, that makes him more the man in my mind.

Deus Ex was a great example of XP rewarded for accomplishing goals. It didn't matter how you got to a point, you would get relatively the same amount of XP. Although you could sorta cheat the system by taking every route and get additional XP sometimes (go through hidden areas to get partial objective XP).

Definitely loved a lot of Arcanum characters. You forgot Garfield Thelonius Remington III (Gar)! Loved that guy. Unfortunately, after a lot of characters join your party, they mostly add no input back into the game. Some characters do at key points, but otherwise, a lot of wasted potential with NPC party member interaction.

I still remember how horrified and sad I was when I saw that I had to fight Griswold in Diablo 2. That whole Tristram level was like having to kill everything that I liked about that game, as none of the new characters I met seemed to have as much personality as they did. Wirt, the witch, Cain, Ogden, Farnham, all seemed to have stories that felt cut short... Technically, the witch, Adria, survived and was in Diablo 3. OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE I MENTIONED THAT GAME, I HATE MYSELF (Wait a minute, nothing has changed... )

So my fears were true. I hope Act 2 for Broken Age is a bit more worthwhile. Act 1 is good, and I do not regret backing it at all, but I was hoping for more. Maybe Act 2 will be amazing and much lengthier with better puzzles. We'll see! I'm definitely interested in what happens next, storywise.

Indeed it was and I participated in it back then, so don't feel bad because I got little teasy I bet I'll "vote for it" every time someone brings something similar to my attention. As long as I won't have to register that is. So as you can see I was laughing at myself too, in the process. Cheers Oh, I know. I'm a sucker for it, too. It's unfair, really. Those superficial, one-click surveys target the bored far too well.

Glad to see people mention Diablo 1 characters... Such a memorable game. My friend often quotes the guy outside of the cathedral that talks about the Butcher. Perfect example really of a memorable minor character.