Tuco Benedicto

Just for the record this is still an issue in 2021 and at this point it's pretty obvious it won't be fixed anymore.

Find quality models - rigged, textured, with animations and of the same visual style, then we'll talk about it. Well, thank you for your consultation, but my question was if it's feasible, not when in your opinion that could happen.

Is there any knowledge of how easy it would be to replace characters' models and animations through mods? Not a deal breaker by any means, but they are the only thing I don't find particularly appealing aesthetically in the game and I was wondering what modders could do about it (if they will ever want to, of course).

Sorry if this topic was already argued a lot in the past, but I just checked the last pages and didn't notice anything specifically about my question. So... as the thread title suggests, I was wondering how much do we know about the potential for modding with this game. For instance, while I appreciated a lot of what I played and I love the general art direction of the game, the only thing aesthetically unappealing for me in the beta were characters' models and animations... And I was wondering: let's say some modders decide to revamp/replace them, it would be technically feasible with Unity as core engine?

I would be extremely bothered by the opposite. When it comes to RPGs I like carefully crafted experiences: cleverly designed dungeons, finely tuned and hand-placed loot, well written narrative. NOT generic/randomized/procedurally generated content. The argument is typically "But that would make every game different!". Well, I beg to differ: more often than not that would make any moment of the game feel equally generic. Now, just to be clear: I'm very fond of procedurally generated stuff from a technological stand point and I definitely think there's a place in gaming for it. I just don't think RPGs are that place. It suits better other genres, like... dunno, immersive sims? Roguelikes? Management/building games?

The part where he praises Josh Sawyer and concludes with "That Josh guy knew his sh*t" is fairly hilarious.

A Darklands spiritual successor would be the best possible outcome for me, but I would be glad about everything that isn't fantasy, too.

Taking the new trailer as reference, frankly I would prefer if instead of adding new features or stretch goals they would put some more effort in improving the production value. To be even more specific I found some of the models/animations in the trailer a bit... let's say underwhelming. I know we are talking about a game with a tight budget, but I don't think it's too much to ask from a professional studio like Obsidian to have characters/monsters one-inch-high that can at least match what the RTS genre achieved few years ago. I think there are models even in the first Dawn of War that could still top what we saw today when it comes to animations, and that was before Relic became a big studio.

They are in full development right now, I think the stretch goals' time is over.

As far as I'm concerned it was "worthless" from the start, not just now that they changed it, because durability in a *party*-based game is a bloody stupid idea that doesn't add anything beside an unwanted hindrance in the form of a pointless money sink. Ditching it they didn't "miss a chance for greatness", they just avoided a baffling waste time. But I would almost like to read a supporter of this idea capable of convincing me that durability would improve a RPG of this kind to any extent, because that would be quite an achievement. So far reading this thread that didn't happen. And let me stress that I don't just disagree with the idea in general, I'm even more fiercely against those supposed "issues" it was supposed to address, because 1) they aren't actual issues. 2) what this mechanic would introduce as a trade-off is far worse.

What about at least making an effort to read the last pages instead of making ridiculous claims that were already addressed by Sawyer himself? Also: you may not be familiar with this idea, but design is a iterative process, there's not such a thing as a "vision" that goes untouched and unaltered through the whole development. Sometime you come out with a concept that sounds cool and interesting, but then you test it/argue about it and you realize it just doesn't work as well as you thought at first.

Which is another complete non-issue. A blatant case of solution in search of a problem.

Bingo. Beside, there were a lot of very faulty premises behind the whole concept. For a start, the idea that having a single character capable of using a crafting kill was "a problem to solve" is senseless, when the whole point of party-based games is the subdivision of roles. "But in that way you will need just ONE blacksmith!". Yeah, so? Second, durability can (eventually) work in a game with a single character, but there's virtually no scenario where it doesn't become an annoyance when you have to manage a whole party of fully equipped characters, and the only alternative to having it as an annoying process, is to automatize it a lot, which is going to make it even more pointless and not enjoyable. Just a purposeless money sink. Third, a strictly balanced economy is not that crucial, but even going with the assumption that it is, a constant money sink would probably be the worst possible solution. And frankly what's far more annoying than "having too much money" in these games is often constant inflation. How it is that you start a game in a world where 50 coins sound a lot and you end it considering thousands of coins like peanuts with items pricing around the hundreds of thousands? Incidentally, that's also a problem which isn't solved with durability. Games like Gothic 2 or Risen, on the other hand, didn't have durability or repair and yet managed the economy far better than any Infinity Engine game ever had. In Risen, for instance, you start a game considering 200 coins like a valuable sum, maybe even out of your reach at first, but completely achievable... And you end the game somewhat more rich but still considering those 200 coins a valuable sum (even if easier to gather in the end game). It's more about how you balance loot, rewards and prices than about putting an arbitrary money sink just for the sake of it.

Embarrassing.

I really don't like how these options are worded, because I don't feel it's my place to tell to developers what does and doesn't belong in their games. Let's just say I'm not a fan of durability in RPGs (or at least in this kind of RPG) and I would be happier without it.

Something something entitlement.

Yeah, one that isn't an immersion killer and doesn't mess with gameplay feedback too much. Differences that are relevant enough for me. Yeah, and that's pretty much all I don't want this game to be. Or any TES, for all that matters. Bad gameplay, bad balance, bad world design, abysmal dungeon design, horrible combat, horrendous quest design, unrewarding (scaled) loot, lifeless characters. Now, if you were pointing me Gothic or Risen as examples of open world done right, I could agree... But in fact they don't use any sort of scaling.

As far as I'm concerned level scaling in every shape or form is one of the worst offenders in modern RPG design. I know decent games that offered some degree of scaling? Yeah, I do. Not many of them but there are a few. Still, i liked those games *despise* level scaling, I never liked the expedient itself. Now, my guess is that designers could read this thread and say "Well, it's easy to complain, but why don't you try to come out with a better solution to grant balance?". Well, my problem with this is: there are *already* better solutions and they were already used in some games. For a start, if you want enemies that are challenging but not exceedingly strong at pretty much any level, you could design your progression system around a horizontal growth instead of a vertical one. You can have characters that become more powerful and versatile over time without multiplying their HP X10. In a game like Mount & Blade, for instance, a character that start at level 1 with 40 HP can aim at best to reach 60 HP at level 30 or so. You can also scale encounters, adding enemies or switching some of them with a stronger substitute. This can work, but it needs to be dosed carefully, because it can go out of control very easy and then you have fire giants roaming in packs just out of the city gate where previously you had goblins. The world design and story progression can help, too. Sure, it's an open world map, but that doesn't mean that you should be able to roam anywhere at any time. The story should suggest direction and while reaching dangerous zones should be possible, it shouldn't be pointed as wise. Dark Souls is a great model in this sense. You can also design your world map like a "leopard's pelt", and I beg your pardon for the weird metaphor: you have all these "yellow fur areas" where you can wander pretty much at any level all across the world (almost), but you have these "black spots" that are very dangerous areas, not set in a linear progression but scattered all around the map, that are intended just for players that are ready for the challenge. I won't make a fuss, i won't scream "betrayal", but I surely will be *deeply* disappointed if Obsidian will go for plain and simple enemy scaling. It's the laziest, most annoying immersion killer I can think of in a RPG.

The "boob plate" on Cadegund was just a "interpretative liberty" (not sure if it's the correct English term, but I hope you get the idea ndT) that the artist took making that concept art, and it was apparently disapproved by the lead designer himself (Sawyer), who commented on why he doesn't like the idea. So I wouldn't worry too much about how "Obsidian caved". Stuff gets modified from the initial concept all the time in game development. Even far more relevant stuff, I mean.

I don't care about the objectification hysteria. More often than not that's not even remotely what artists/designers are thinking about, they are more likely focused in making their characters "cool", regardless of the result. My problem with boob armors is actually the same I have with horned helmets and giant pauldrons: they are unbearably idiotic to wear. They just look bad.

Yes, it can. Well, it is. But that's also true for a system where you don't have to memorize specific spells, like the sorcerer's one. Or for a mana based system where mana is not subject to regen. It works as far as spells are a limited resource, no matter what system is in use.

But you didn't explained why. You think you did, but you didn't. What you actually did was arguing about the *balance* of these specific classes, which is *completely* irrelevant, as we aren't talking strictly about these specific classes (that most likely won't even be in P.E), but just about the mechanics they rely on for spell memorization/use. I already pointed it to you, but you ignored my point and you preferred venting about how outraged you were by me namedropping Chaos Chronicles. No one needs your explanation about on why a mage is superior to a sorcerer (learning from scrolls, using higher level spells at parity of level, etc) because no one cares and that's not the point. The point, instead, is: which mechanic of spell memorization/use is more fun and rewarding gameplay-wise. And that's exactly why all your rant about knowing where the name "Vancian" comes from was completely pointless from the start.

Nah, it's hardly related.

just to back Merin's last post, one of the first times they talked about real time with pause, they also said that it's a system that can be messy when it's an adaptation of a turn based system, but this won't happen for this game as it's going to be designed as real time from the start. So yeah, that pretty much rules out D&D.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on this forum so far, and that's something. So you are saying that -for instance- no one should propose a skill-based system similar to the one used on Fallout 1 and 2 if he isn't aware that's called S.P.E.CI.A.L.? Do you realize that isn't just a wrong concept, but it's also very stupid? Also, are you at least aware that two threads were merged and that when I made that first reply it wasn't part of this very same thread dedicated to the Vancian system, but it was part of the other one?