Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pedroantonio

  1. Just to be 100% sure that I've understood everything ok. In the products entry for the expansion, it says: "You will gain immediate access to Part I of The White March and, when it is released, you will automatically gain access to Part II." That means there won't be a second key to redeem for the second part of the expansion, right? Part II will just get added in our platform of choice to people having redeemed Part I, right?
  2. It's a bit contradictory saying that no major issues are addressed and then asking them for the expansion. Most probaby, those issues are not addressed yet because they put a big chunk of their team to work on the expansion (i'd prefer it was the other way around, honestly). But anyway, I wouldn't hope the expansion to be released at least until christmas (best case scenario).
  3. Asking for companion's attributes to be changeable is absurd, they are as integral to the characters as their biographies and dialogue. Those who want to change a character that much would be better off just creating their own full party.
  4. In moments like that I wish Steam hadn't removed the option to disable auto-updates. Why? the update is not gonna delete your saves, just convert them to 1.05 format and make a backup. It couldn't have been made in a better manner, most developers would have gone "Incompatible saves, bad luck" and that would have been it. In fact one has to commend Obsidian for all the care they are putting in making bugfixes as retroactive as possible too, that's something uncommon.
  5. The autopause bugs in which "weapon ineffective" was triggered by the enemy's weapon being ineffective (instead of yours) and "spell cast" was triggered by your characters casting a spell (instead of the enemy casting a spell), have been fixed. More info: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/72471-auto-pause-on-weapon-ineffective-confusing-bugged/
  6. Just read the full review, still haven't played the game. Besides the tone, that some people will maybe find patronizing but I find just funny, most of the time he's basing his critiques in easily verifiable points (copypasted enemies, autopilot combat due to excessive xp gains, character progression mostly affected by leveling and not equally by items or player choices). So I think that at least he doesn't write like pulling things out of his ass, it would be easy to play the game looking for the points he's making and deciding if the facts on which he's supporting his reasoning are true or not. So I can't decide if it's a fair review because I haven't verified its facts, but I don't think it's a rant either. However, leaving the review aside, what strikes me as curious is why this review needed to be announced in its own thread here, instead of getting just added via bump to some review aggregation thread that was probably made during release. Maybe it's because it's a Codex review (that being seen as somehow granting it more relevance); or maybe this thread is just a petty revenge against Obsidian for not scraping the engagement system (whose flaws are really there, I'm not denying that). I think it would be convenient that, to avoid any suspicion about the real motivation being the latter, the next Codex review, if it happened to be positive, was posted in its own thread too, that way receiving the same visibility as this one.
  7. Thanks for your answers. I think I'll maybe start tentatively playing once 1.05 enters beta.
  8. I've been avoiding playing the game since release hoping for Obsidian to fix as many bugs as possible, but reading the support forums depresses me a bit, since it makes it look like just a few bugs have been fixed and new ones are being discovered constantly. However I'm aware that that could be just a perception, because probably not all the reported bugs are reported correctly, etc. So I'd like to obtain an objective assessment (as objective as possible, at least) of the state of the game, specifically how many things still don't work "as intented". Ideally, what I'd really like is Obsidian giving at least the backers readonly access to their bug tracker, so we could check for ourselves the existing bugs. But since that will probably never happen, I'd like to have some opinions from people who are far into the game about how broken the game is right now and whether I should prepare for a months long wait to start playing or not. Also, I had some hopes in 1.05 "fixing" the game, but the information offered in interviews seems to indicate they are focusing more in "balance" and "quality of life" improvements (which in my opinion is wrong, they should be just fixing bugs and avoid touching anything else until the game works as it was supposed to work on release, and only then improve on that).
  9. I hate to bump this thread (really, I don't want to be a pain in the ass). But I'd like to have some confirmation that, now that the character hit autopause bug has been fixed, the spell cast autopause bug has been added to the bug database along with the weapon ineffectiive one. Just so I can rest assured that they are known and in the list to be fixed eventually.
  10. The only auto-pause that's really useful is pause when enemy spotted. I wouldn't let waiting for any other autopause option fix keep you from enjoying the game. You'll need to smack the space bar about 3 times per second anyways. Not if you also activate the 2 second autopause. Anyway, the problem is that the bug also causes the feedback in the combat log to be wrong, and that's important to me.
  11. Great job, although I'm a bit disappointed that a fix for "Weapon ineffective" and "Spell cast" autopause options inverse behaviour is not on the list. Maybe on 1.05, I'm actually wating for those fixes to start playing the game, since I make heavy use of autopause.
  12. I hope that if 1.04 is released this week as it says in the support FAQ, 1.05 is no further than 2 weeks after that. I actually haven't started the game yet, if it's gonna be such a big patch, it seems like a good moment to start.
  13. No, not always. When a criticism is backed by measurements, statistics and proofs, it is objective. When it's backed by feelings, it's subjective. An example would be, let's say, a workload control software that gets installed in a company. The objective of the software is finding how much real work any given employee does per week. Then let's say that one employee finds a flaw in the way the calculations of the hours are made, and realizes the system is not fulfulling its objectives; then he makes several tests to be sure his observations are not casual, and presents those tests as proof, with certain suggestions to improve/fix the system. That's objective criticism. Then there's another employee who keeps sending emails all day, in which he repeats again and again that the system is flawed, because the previous system was "better" and this one "doesn't work", and it's "unecessarily complicated"; and he keeps saying all of that without giving even one piece of verifiable data proving why he thinks that. Maybe he only criticizes the system because he doesn't want to learn to use it (and maybe because he doesn't know how to cheat the new system to hide the time he wastes browsing the internet). That's subjective criticism.
  14. It seems that maybe my lack of english skills has made it difficult for me to explain myself clearly and therefore for some people to understand my point. I'm not against criticizing gameplay systems in itself, but, as my original post states, against criticizing them because you just don't like them at a gut level, or because they are dissimilar the systems on previous games you have played and you don't want to make the effort to learn them. I am however, totally supporting of criticizing a certain gameplay by using arguments and proofs. But that's not the kind of critics that I found saddening to read, the attitude I was referring to is the attitude of somebody who starts complaining about a certain system without giving no reasons beyond "I don't like it", "doesn't feel fun", "it's not like in the IE games", etc, and specially when that is done in the techsupport forum, which shouldn't be a place to voice opinions, but facts. What was bothering me is the people who feel entitled to ask for changes in a product because they are not having fun or they just don't like it: a boring thing for one player is a fun one for another, therefore asking for changes in the game just because feelings is in my opinion always arbitrary and useless. It's not the criticizing in itself as an action that bothers me, is the entitlement behind that action, which somehow, the complainers seem to think excuses them of having to give objective, factual reasons about why a system is flawed and it needs to be changed; I find that entitlement immensely rude. That was, more or less, my point; the source of my discomfort was more the attitude with which those kind of threads and posts are made than the threads and posts in themselves. I apologize to everybody for not having been able to explain myself in a clearer manner.
  15. Or that you haven't read up on the Rogue-specific talents very diligently, because there is in fact one called "Backstab", and it does in fact suck as a result of the party stealth mechanic. I stand corrected. I was thinking about sneak attack when I wrote that, thanks. I remember reading that one as well. Exactly the kind of post that motivated me to start this thread.
  16. Well, that's unfair man, I haven't tried to silence anybody, I even asked for opinions and thoughts about the whole thing at the end of my post.
  17. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Books (and movies) are not mechanically interactive as a videogame (in the sense that you don't use them by manipulating peripherals, although we could discuse if the physical volume is in itself a peripheral and the book is just the message contained inside it, and in that regard the way the physical volume is made could be important), but they are, let's say, "cognitively interactive". Meaning that your mind interacts with the things you're perceiving, emotionally and intellectualy; and one of the things that interaction can trigger in your mind is fun; because I think we all will agree that fun is something that's in your mind. So based on that, the process of fun being triggered in the consumer's mind obviously depends on an interaction between the product and the mind, and that's valid for games, books and movies. And again, you only can hope fun to be triggered in your brain, but your money only gives you access to the potentially triggering product, not assures the triggering itself.
  18. So, if you buy a book and don't like how the plot develops or how it is narrated to you, do you feel justified to go to the publisher or author website and make comments like "I didn't like this and that, will you change that in the second edition to satisfy my tastes"? Obviously not. Obviously if the book is missing ten pages in the middle, you complain rightfully, since that's something not working as intended, a bug. Fun is not measurable, not a feature. People don't pay to have fun, they pay to have access to a product that maybe will give them fun, maybe not, and that's how they should think about it.
  19. I also found Oblivion very boring but I never went to the Bethesda forums to make a thread saying: "The game is soooo booooring? Will that be fixed in the next patch?" That behaviour in people is what I find too entitled.
  20. This is hilarious coming from someone with 50 posts, but still... I wasn't aware that only lifelong Obsidian fans were allowed to voice their opinions. Gee, I even thought Obsidian wanted to attract new players. It's a video game, gameplay is hugely important. Pointing out its flaws will help make the expansion and/or the sequel better, isn't it desirable for all of us? Sure, sometimes people overreact or expect this game to be something it was never meant to be, but often their complaints are valid and useful, it all depends on how it's presented. Looking at your examples, "the game's too hard" doesn't say much, but if you describe specific encounters you have problems with, other people can help you learn new tactics to overcome it or maybe agree this part wasn't very well-designed. Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads. What do you do when you dislike the way the system was intended to work? What if the intended system is inherently flawed? Do you ignore it, shelve the game and go play something else - or do you talk about it on the forum, figuring out how it could be improved and made more fun? Speaking of fun, isn't it the goal of most video games, but also something deeply subjective? Look at the stronghold: it works pretty much exactly how it was designed, but it's terribly boring. We need to talk about such things. Yeah, the "number of comments thing" was unfortunate, I apologize for that. You say: "what if the intended system is inherently flawed?". To demonstrate that a system is inherently flawed, you should demonstrate that it doesn't fulfill the tasks it was designed to fulfill, so one should have to: Determine the planned/stated function and requirements of the system Examine the system's behaviour to see if it satisfies its function If it doesn't, find why, and what should be changed to fix it Post everything in the forums So, being objective about wether a system is inherently flawed or not requires a certain amount of work, and also knowing the stated intentions of the developers when they designed the system. However, most people don't do that work, and simply point their subjective dislikes (and the hurdles that force them to learn) as flaws.
  21. Of course there's not such thing, a dislike will always be subjective, but a critic must be based on objective, proven arguments, not on subjective feelings. For example, I'd never make a thread in the techsupport subforum based on what I subjectively dislike, but only when I observe a dissonance between how a system is intended to work and how's working (aka bugs); and people are making those threads. About the number of posts thing, I agree, it's not a fair measure to determine the amount of time somebody has invested in learning the game systems (I myself only have 50-ish posts but I have dedicated several evenings to read wiki+forums+combat log).
  22. Oh, I undestand you now. You mean a melee char doesn't close the distance to the enemy when ordered to do so, like (so to speak) if the pathfinding wasn't able to find a path to a valid melee attack position (when that path clearly exists) and therefore the attack ordered was cancelled in practice. I agree then, that's very strange. Using reach weapons like pikes or spears could be a way to mitigate that in the meantime, since they allow a char to make melee attacks on an enemy from behind another char.
  23. I'm aware of the irony of making kind of a rant thread about others' whining, but I'm gonna do it. Does somebody else feel a bit infuriated by the amount of people (specially people with less than 20 posts or so) who makes threads and posts just to complain about their subjective dislike of game systems? I'm not talking about bugs complains, those are legitimate, but about the usual: "Too much pause, I don't like it" "Too little pause, I don't like it" "Group stealth doesn't allow me to backstab" (a clear signal they haven't read the manual and don't know that sneak attack has nothing to do with being stealthy) "The writing is too verbose" "The writing is too amateur" "I don't like engagement" "I want taunts in the game" "Game's too easy" "Game's too hard" And so on and so on. Now, obviously people are free to dislike a game (same as with movies or books) for subjective reasons; but my problem comes when people doesn't differentiate between their subjectivity and game problems that can be objectively proven to exist (aka, systems not working as intented). A lot of those threads/posts feel like being made by people who haven't put even the minimal effort in reading about the game mechanics, how they work, how they are different from other games. They just seem to assume that everything must work like in the games they have played before, therefore not bothering with reading or learning anything about the game, and when they get stuck in some gameplay mechanic, they made a thread whining about how it "feels wrong", and how it being more to their liking would be "a design improvement". It seems to me those people feel some kind of entitlement to always being able to play the same game without ever having to adapt or learn a bit to new mechanics; they think they are entitled to be lazy. They are like those people who always start complaining when they have to learn something new at their workplace: zero curiosity, zero interest in learning new things, just wanting to be fed 40+ hours of well-known gameplay. I've always felt that the enjoyment of a new game comes mainly from the learning process you enter to learn the systems of the game, to then adapt to them, that allowing you to beat the game not by pure luck or bruteforce, but because you have acquired a reasonable amount of know-how. In other words, understanding a system is fun, and to do that you have to be ready to learn, and adapt to the system, not complaning at the first sight of an uknown mechanic. All of the above makes reading the forums kind of a saddening experience for me (I get over it obviously, I'm not literally shedding tears) So, opinions? Am I right, am I exaggerating? What do you think?
  • Create New...