[Recently finished replaying Infinity Engine games]

Very off-topic: I just realized Nonek's avatar is faintly smiling. I've always just assumed that in keeping with his status as an Englishman, it was frowning disapprovingly.

 

On-Topic: I recently started playing BGT, but got distracted. I hope they improve combat.

Considering he is smiling ironically and about to die in that scene I don't think his avatar is off base at all

[What do we know about children?]

 

I still maintain that if a person truly wants to brutally torture children, he should make them play Superman 64 while eating squid.

I realize you're joking, , but I'd just like to point out (because a lot of people keep coming back to the "fulfilling player's desires to brutalize children" notion) that this isn't about satisfying players' urges to assault children. It's simply about allowing harm to come to children, at all. Even if you want to force players to be good (because attacking children is so morally despicable to us humans, who comprise the player base), if you line the streets with children, then prevent even the "bad guys" from harming them, then you're preventing the game from even encouraging the OPPOSITE of child-harming (which is the prevention of child-harming).

Again, no one arguing against killable children in game is arguing against a kid being in the game and possibly getting killed (maybe even by the player) as part of a story development or plot point.  We are arguing against the inclusion of randomly killing npc kids who just happen to be there for no other reason than "realistically there would be kids around".  No one in the thread has provided one decent viable reason for wanting there to be random npc kids in the game you can kill, probably because there is no decent viable reason for it.

 

So to sum up... you can have child violence in the game... but only if it serves a meaningful purpose to the story.  It should not be included as some sort of retarded random slaughter thing you can do "just because".

[Cinematics : your opinion ?]

Edit: Oh, look what I found. 

You do know Giantbomb is a wiki created by people, not a valid source of industry standards?  Again a CINEMATIC is a pre rendered movie, typically made using something other than the game engine itself or the standard in game models.  A CUTSCENE happens in game, in engine, using the graphics that are just there and only tools available from the actual game engine.  They take take no more "resources" than creating a combat animation does. 

 

Maybe you don't get it as a player watching it, but trust me, the people who actually make games understand the difference very well.  One is a relatively simple thing to create that just requires "triggers" and maybe some dynamic in game effects.... the other is a full on custom made graphical presentation with hand made models, typically very high quality textures, created in a program like Adobe Premiere, cut, edited, and rendered as a stand alone short movie of typically very high resolution greater than the game itself displays that then simply plays when the "start cinematic X" trigger goes off.

 

By your standards, and those of that crappy inaccurate wiki article, the entire game would be a cinematic.

[Cinematics : your opinion ?]

@Karkarov, whose definitions are those? 'Cuz the distinction seems pretty artificial to me, especially as in-game rendering gets closer and closer to film quality.

 

By that narrower definition, though, I guess that makes my list of games that benefit from cinematics an even zero.

Uh those are THE definitions.  If it happens fully in game, in real time, in engine, it is not a cutscene or a cinematic it is a simply a scripted event.  I hope you aren't suggesting they not run scripted events because Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale etc used them out the yin yang.  The only difference between the "not a cinematic" link I posted above and say ....  meeting Sarevok in the woods the first time and watching Gorion die is that in the Sarevok scene the camera angle stays the same. 

 

"In game renderings" as you said are just the games graphics, those graphics are being loaded when you play the game... they don't change for a scripted event.  The sith inquisitor in the video I linked doesn't suddenly get rendered in higher quality because a scripted event is happening, that is just what that character looks like in the game.  I know no one expects this to be a graphics whore game, but the in game models had better look on par with things like Drakensang at least.  I don't think that is asking too much considering the original Drakensang came out 5 years ago and had a budget likely in the same ball park as PE. At least most reviewers called Drakensang a "low budget game", so if it had more funding I doubt it was by much.

[What do we know about children?]

 

To quote a book I read recently which was quoting another book entirely... "Just because a gun has entered into a story does not mean it actually has to be fired."

You either misread this or the book was titled "How not to write a story". 

No I didn't.  You are going to the original source, I am talking about what was said in the book I read.  Which as I mentioned was going back to the idea of "Chekov's Gun" but merely stating that it does not in fact have to be true.  Either way, hair meet split.

[Cinematics : your opinion ?]

Depends 110% on the quality of the cinematic and how it is used.  Many people today, at least on this forum, seem confused though.  A scene where the camera angle changes and things play out in a scripted sequence (like Revan removing HIS mask) are not "cinematics".  It is simply a camera angle shift and a series of set animations playing out all in the same "field" that you play the normal game in all in engine.  The only resource they are taking is the time invested in programming the scene, all of that can be done in Unity easily. 

 

A Cinematic is a canned movie that happens outside of the normal play field and typically contains scenes or events that do not happen in engine and are rendered completely separately by a totally different program than the engine running the game. 

 

To borrow from the Star Wars Revan theme....

 

Not A Cinematic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDesWVLsagI

 

An Actual Cinematic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyYbvVAtlWk

[What do we know about children?]

It's not just that invulnerable kids are obnoxious. It's that I find the whole dispute nonsensical. It's like demanding that dogs be removed or hidden in places where they can't be hurt because puppies are so cute and innocent. Or demanding that references to genocide or rape or slavery be removed out of respect for the victims of these crimes. That's all fine if we're dealing with a kid's game, but this game is explicitly for grown ups, people who (I would hope) could deal with seeing an animated kid die on screen.

 

I mean, it's not like we're talking about a kid's torture porn simulation here, or a long and involved quest that demands you leave a trail of butchered toddlers in your wake. You hit them with a big sword and they fall down, like anything and everything else.

 

All I am saying is that "I want killable children" and "I don't want invulnerable children" are not the same thing.  To quote a book I read recently which was quoting another book entirely... "Just because a gun has entered into a story does not mean it actually has to be fired."  The point is that you can have children in the game, who are "killable" but never get killed due to one reason or another.  Or going through the act of killing them is basically you giving yourself a game over, or maybe for some overarching purpose you are just never in a position where you can even attempt to kill them.  An example would be the Lady of Pain in Planescape Torment.  The game gave you the freedom to attack if you wanted, but doing so was signing your own death warrant.

 

No one has argued against a killable child character for a logical story/plot based reason, that by definition would also carry consequences.  The only thing I (and others) are arguing against is the inclusion of just random kids who are there for no other purpose than being there to serve as some child killing check mark on some guys "needs to be in game" list.

 

Edit: I will take this one step further actually.  Forget killable kids.  The reason I don't like features like this isn't the subject matter, so much as it is that inclusion is being asked for 1: for no good reason, 2: as a part of some silly immersion/wish fulfillment argument.  If the inclusion of a feature does nothing to actually enhance the game then by definition it's exclusion does nothing to hamper the game.  People who want to play "crazy killer psychos" already have plenty of npc's to take that  "RP" out on.  How does the inclusion or exclusion of killable children enhance or take away from that?  It doesn't.  The lack of five year olds to slaughter makes you no less capable of playing a crazed murderer. 

 

I will always be against any feature that does nothing to make the game better and is there purely for the excuse of "being there".  Be it killable children, massive ui artwork just to look "pretty", or weapon repairs just to justify blacksmith as a class skill.  If it doesn't make the game better, it doesn't need to be there.

[What do we know about children?]

@Karkarov, they took out the dedicated crafting skill, not crafting itself. The original idea was that the Crafting skill also affected item durability. After the discussion they decided that durability was more of a drag than a gameplay improvement, so they took that out. That left the Crafting skill without sufficient gameplay value, in their assessment, so they took that out as well. The upshot was that crafting is not associated with a dedicated skill, but instead crafting different types of items is connected to different types of other skills with other gameplay uses.

 

So the mechanics are the same and crafting is still in, just not item durability, nor a dedicated skill. 

That's fine Junta but apples is apples.  Man... my sword never wearing out or getting dull sure is unrealistic.  Man it is breaking my immersion!  Blah blah blah.  You get the point either way.

 

 

 

The child witnessed something you did and will report the foul deed, or the child was in the way when my area of effect spell did damage to the three bandits. Or three bandits held the child hostage, I don't negotiate with terrorists so I killed the child to make my point.

So why didn't you just wait for the kid to walk away before committing the crime?  Why was there a kid in the middle of nowhere standing in the middle of a fight between you and a bunch of bandits?  You don't negotiate with terrorists (which don't exist because the word "terrorist" is a modern contrivance and you calling bandits terrorists is immersion breaking to begin with) so you kill the hostage..... which was probably the very reason you were dealing with them in the first place... which basically makes you the terrorist?

 

Your arguments don't hold water.  Other than the one where you said... I would kill the kid effectively "just because".  The truth is you have no actual motivation for killing random children npc's.  You just want to be able to do it.  It has nothing to do with RP or immersion, you just want to kill children because for some... "reason" it makes the game better for you.

 

Well guess what?  There are crowds you should cater to... and some maybe you shouldn't.  Which crowd do you think "people who like killing children in video games" falls into?

[What do we know about children?]

 

I can't even do crafting anymore, and they actually planned that to be in game at first.

 

Wut? When did that happen?

 

Pretty sure it was there and they took it out because of some illogical and mostly dumb forum war after they announced it in an update.  The official party line was "they felt it wasn't useful in and out of combat and didn't meet their base concept for all player skills".  Or something to that effect.

[What do we know about children?]

So I only see three direct responses to my question.

 

1: Immersion.  Seriously?  The game doesn't make me stop to eat every 5-7 hours, use the bathroom, or even make me obey some of the basic laws of physics.  I can't even do crafting anymore, and they actually planned that to be in game at first.  I don't see people complaining about those things breaking immersion.  Immersion is the weakest argument that has, or ever will, exist for the inclusion of a feature in an RPG.  It is what people use when they have no legitimate argument or point.

 

2: Exp.  Well considering Dragon's don't give exp for killing them I am pretty sure a defenseless child who can't fight back and dies in one hit won't either.

 

3: I find invulnerable kids obnoxious.  So you aren't in fact asking for killable children at all, you are asking for no invulnerable children in the game.  Works for me, we do like was said before.  Don't have children period, or put them only in areas where you can't attack them.  Like in the King's Throne room where drawing your weapon without approval causes powerful magical wards to instantly make your head explode.

 

The only time I could see a killable child in game is like the Dragon Age: Origins situation where the kid was possessed by a demon.  You don't kill the kid but if you don't jump through XYZ hoops first killing the demon results in the kid dying with him.  Something that is logical and makes story sense where the player has a legitimate motivation (beyond for the lulz/I am a jerk) is perfectly fine.  That is up to Obsidian to include that in game though and it is likely a one off event.

[What do we know about children?]

In all seriousness this is another one of those non issues.  I am sorry but the ability to kill children in a video game should not rate very high on Obsidian's priority list for PE.  In fact, it shouldn't rate on it at all... or even be in the list.

 

If they make it so you just never run into kids, works for me.  If they make it so they are invulnerable, works for me.  If they make it where they are only in areas where you can't attack (such as an inn with guards all around and violence = you getting killed or thrown in jail), works for me.  Or anything else you can dream up that gets them in game but in such a way you can't kill them, works for me.  If they include kids you can kill (why?), works for me too.  I will just never do it because I don't create characters who are idiots or raving lunatics.

 

Here is the real question.

 

Why do those of you who are in favor of killable children even want killable children in game in the first place?

[What do we know about children?]

 

What do we know about children?

They cry a lot and are expensive.

 

They also go poo poo quite often.  Gross.

[I want another Bowser or Gannon]

My only real concern for the villain is this....

 

1: They have their own personality and be a real character, not one or two sided.

2: They have legitimate motivation for what and why they are doing whatever it is they are doing.

3: They give me a real reason for not liking them, a really really good personal to my character reason.  No, they are out to conquer the world, resurrect an ancient evil, gain immortality at the cost of thousands of lives, etc are not good enough reasons.  Those are reasons to want to stop them, they are not reasons to be personally emotionally invested in their defeat.

4: They don't go down in game one.  Lets be real, they want this to be a new IP, new IP means sequels, and they have already made it clear we are level capped.  No reason not to let our conflict with our "nemesis" not stretch out over more than one game.

5: Flexibility.... why does it have to be one person... why cant there be a little bit of variance based on the choices we make?  Meaning there could be more than one potential "villain" and your "villain" might actually be my friend, etc etc.

 

They manage to believably pull off those five things I will be very satisfied.

[Beyond good and evil]

As I said in another post somewhere else you can not do a morality system in a game and be accurate.  What you CAN do is create a reputation system based on multiple factions and in some cases individual characters and have their feelings about the player change based on player behavior versus what the values of that faction/character are.

[The Appeal of Fantasy]

I like fantasy settings because they give you the option to do things you simply cant do in reality but not necessarily magic etc.  Not only that but the world can be designed so that you can have an effect on it and manipulate it through story or player agency.  The problem I think is the idea that "fantasy" means dragons and fireballs to too many people.  Shadowrun is just as much fantasy as Forgotten Realms.  As is Cthulhu etc etc.  Heck Red Dead Redemption is a fantasy game really.... unless you actually are a former outlaw cowboy gunslinger working for the government on a quest to save your wife and son in real life???

[Short Sawyer Interview at TransVergence Conference]

Guys seriously, young dude in early 20's who did an on the fly unscheduled interview.  It was fine.  Also Dragon Age treated women with plenty of depth, for every Isabella there was a Wynne or a Aveline.  You guys need to put the blind Bioware hate aside.

[Conversation lightweight UI mockup]

Yeah would have warned you before posting, even if you somehow based this on obsidians designs (which they haven't shown for conversation ui yet have they?), the vast majority of this forum is going to hate whatever your mockup is no matter what.  It isn't a great mockup per se because it is so basic and rough.  I get where you are going with it.... but I do still think the conversation window in the game should be on the bottom of the screen.  That said I wouldn't worry about portraits, everyone seems to want that and I would be surprised if they don't work it in somehow, even if it is slightly redundant.

[Happy 1 Year Kickstarter Anniversary :D]

wow year already ;\  I prefer to not think about it!  Nice to think of all the updates and content we have gotten since the year began but it also sort of makes me miss those early days when communication seemed regular.  How about a slightly late, yet celebratory and cool, one year update Obsidian?

[If there are in-game books and other flavor stuff, will you read them or ignore them?]

As long as they are good, fun to read, and there isn't a metric butt ton of them I will read them all.  EDIT: I agree with what Osvir says about this subject, but I would mention you have to be reasonably forgiving in Mass Effect's case.  That game having a "central codex" makes sense, in the far flung future print media is likely extinct and most people would get their info from some sort of digital database they could access on any old "internet" device.

[Update #63: Stronghold!]

Sounds excellent to me, everything I was hoping the stronghold would be, even a little more.  This is the sort of update we needed!  Not sure why some posters are upset over spoilers and what have you.  I mean "your stronghold may be attacked!" is hardly a surprising revelation, I would say it was a foregone conclusion even.

[It's called Eternity right? The "Project" part is just it's development name?]

Wow, I didn't realize that the title of the game has an impact on player immersion... and if the title does, why not other meta-game aspects? "The price of this game is really breaking my immersion right now!"

I agree.  If the game doesn't come packaged with a full refund of my kickstarter pledge and all the goodies I paid for my immersion will be decimated!

 

[Option to disable level cap?]

If there is a level cap it is there for a reason.  Don't forget the idea is to make a franchise and have a sequel where you continue with the same character.  Some of you may love being over powered and curb stomping everything in sight, and that is ok.  That said.... most people don't enjoy a game when all challenge has been removed from it.

[Have some faith people PE will be great]

What Osvir said.  I have no doubts the game will be great, but that doesn't mean there wont be a feature I wish was in, or one I wish they had done differently.  I just suspect that with the vertical slice in progress (almost done?/done done) they will move purely into developing the game and there will be a bit less to talk about here.

[@devs How does the team look at the moment?]

Why does a guy get trolled for asking something completely reasonable?  I don't see why wanting Obsidian to give a brief run down of how many people are actively working on the game right now is that big a deal.  It isn't like he was requesting lunch schedules, detailed time tables, or a point by point presentation on what Sawyer is doing today.  I can understand if Obsidian doesn't want to give the info, that's their prerogative, but there is nothing wrong with the dude asking. 

[How do you prefer writers to handle action descriptions / narrative in dialogue mode?]

The quotes make the most sense.  There is no reason to highly "run away / attack her" in any way in game though.  It is fairly obvious those aren't dialog options and what they are going to result in.