PrimeJunta

Lazy, guilty as charged. Hater, not guilty, your honor. We may also be talking about a slightly different thing. I'm also generalizing somewhat to the NWN series. Thing is, with long-term buffs like Bull's Strength, Emotion: Hope, Stoneskin etc., why would you ever not want to apply them? (Or in MOTB with Persistent Spell, Haste, Mass Death Ward etc). The way I play, I find myself applying those standard buffs every time after rest. Every bloody time. It's repetitive, tedious, and adds nothing meaningful to the experience. For me anyway. Again, nonsense. Lets take the Big Daddy of the IE games. BG2. BG2 had hundreds and hundreds of fights. Of them, there are only maybe 2 fights in the entire game where meta-gaming might be necessary. And those 2 fights are hidden easter eggs. You won't even encounter them in the first place without meta knowledge. (Kangaxx, Twisted Rune) "Metagame knowledge is TOTES NOT NECESSARY! And I know this because I've played BG2 50 times and memorized every fight!" Way to prove my point, Stun.

In that case I'm almost certain that your essays were never even close to as good as they could have been. I'm lazy too and rarely wrote more than one draft of anything at school, because that was enough to get an A, most of the time. Since having to do such stuff in circumstances where it's seriously vetted, I've learned just how good those first drafts really are.

I don't recall electing PrimeJunta as the Minister of Fun-Defining for the world. Therefore, It's not up to him to decide what anyone else sees as fun. That's why I phrased it as a question. Are they fun? I don't think they're fun, but if you do, I can hardly argue with that. Edit: I also find it a little amusing that the people who are most vehement about how metagame knowledge is TOTES NOT NECESSARY in the IE games are the ones who have played them so many times they don't even remember what it was like the first time around. Heh.

@Bryy I guess. I never got the angst about that kind of stuff either. From where I'm at the big problem with the publisher system is that (1) the publishers rather than the studios get the rights, and (2) the publishers get final say over the product, which pushes things towards playing it safe and going for the lowest common denominator. I would be pissed if inXile or Obsidian announced that they've sold the IPR's to WL2 or P:E to EA because they run out of moolah. Distribution deals and such don't bother me the least.

Not intended that way. I'm also not denying that Obs and BIS produced more than their share of bugfests too. No doubt. I've got my own list. It's still a brilliant game, and after PS:T my favorite among all the party-based D&D cRPG's. Unbalanced and disappointing compared to what? I encountered two bugs on my one-and-a-half playthroughs. Both were cosmetic; in one case some toons were lacking heads, and in another case the map marker showing where you are was shifted to the right a bit. My suspicion is that the "bugfest" thing is due to confirmation bias -- Obs has a reputation for buggy games, so even a small number of low-impact bugs will make people go "Oh, bug, Obsidian, right." Shouldn't be. I try to judge things by what they attempt. While I like the odd J-RPG and have watched a few South Park episodes, I'm not a huge fan of that style of gameplay nor the series. I.e., I'm not in the core target demographic for the game. Obsidian has a track record of doing brilliant things with the material they're given to work with, whether it's epic D&D in a horrid engine, Fallout in 3D with Oblivion faces, or South Park. What's more, I think it's fairer to compare their games to other games that are out there rather than some imaginary ideal. Even in their weak spots Obsidian's games compare pretty well to what else is out there -- and they've done a lot to improve their weak spots over the years.

To clarify, the godlike variants -- with the different head details -- are by Polina. Pallegina, the paladin with the birdlike features, is also by Kaz. And yes, I do like the portraits, although to my eye Edér and Pallegina are a good deal better executed than the backer portraits.

FO:NV is superb by any standard. MotB is the least flawed NWN series game. South Park: The Stick of Truth is brilliant at what it attempts. That's three they hit out of the park, which is better than you can say for most studios as far as I'm concerned.

As an aside, I still don't get this discussion. Games are supposed to be enjoyable, right? Games are based on incentive systems, right? Therefore, an enjoyable game should provide incentives for enjoyable activities, and not provide incentives for unenjoyable activities, right? Are things like constant saving and reloading, repetitive, rote application of pre-buffs, trekking back and forth between a dungeon and a shop, shuffling things around in and between inventories, or repetitively killing the same respawning monsters over and over again enjoyable activities? If not, then why should the game incentivize you to engage in them?

It clearly bears repeating... Kickstarter isn't a pre-order system; it's a patronage and sponsorship system. Sometimes stuff fails in any of a variety of ways. (I backed Forsaken Fortress, and that didn't go so well.) Nevertheless, the devs are morally obligated to their backers to do their best to deliver what they promised in the pitch. Thing is, from where I'm at a lot of the rage around P:E or T:ToN hasn't actually been about what they promised in the pitch. It's been about what people assumed was in the pitch. People have (legitimately) different ideas about what, say, "the IE experience" means. The overall picture is pretty clear and was in fact defined relatively precisely in the pitch -- top-down isometric with hand-painted backgrounds, party-based, fantasy cRPG, deep companion interactions, plenty of tactical combat. The further away you get from those nailed-down core features, the more subjective it gets. Maybe someone really likes gnomes and always played a gnome in all the IE games. That would make the ability to play a gnome a core part of the IE experience for that person, and he would be legitimately pissed off that P:E doesn't have gnomes. But ultimately there's no way to satisfy everybody. Some of us want to see things we didn't like in the IE games being changed -- improved upon, from our point of view -- if they're not part of that core vision. Others especially liked those things and consider them integral to the IE experience and feel betrayed when they're removed. The converse is true too; I bet most of us would be a little miffed if Obsidian produced something with a max rez of 800 x 600 and pathfinding that gets characters from Venice to Milan via Jakarta. Beyond what they promised in the pitch, I would prefer that they use their own judgment to do what they believe is best for the game. I'm pretty sure they want to make a great game, and they'll want to make more after this one. If I didn't trust them to do that, I wouldn't have backed.

@Sheikh, I hate to break this to you, but creative expression is work. It can be immensely rewarding work, but it's definitely work, subject to all the constraints this sorry excuse of a capitalist economy imposes on us. So until the Revolution, things will be a little constrained.

@teknoman2 All of the portraits are made by Obsidian. All except the godlike variants are by Kaz. The backer portraits are overpainted on photos. The godlike one is by Polina.

I have seen worse first posts. Welcome.

@Hiro Gibs are in. They even show it in the very short gameplay video.

The problem with this is that unless you -- the level designer -- want to make the encounter turn into a chaotic free-for-all, you're pretty much obligated to place these convenient choke points everywhere. That leads to linear, corridor-like levels and monotonous gameplay. Why are you still harping on this "impairing the AI of the opponents" thing, when it's nowhere indicated that the fighter ability will do anything at all to the enemy AI? Um. So, in your opinion, turning a fighter into a mobile wall that's not actually doing any fighting is somehow more exciting than allowing him to stickily engage multiple enemies at once? Again, this is entirely incomprehensible to me, but there's no accounting for tastes. Now this is an excellent idea. Quite simple to do too. Have a "Wall of Iron" type spell, but with a narrow doorway in it. As an active ability, I don't much care for it. As a passive one, yeah, this would work. Thing is, with both of your fighter-based solutions... didn't you just say that you're "very worried" about anything that interferes with gankers' ability to scoot past fighters? Yet you're proposing two alternative abilities that do exactly that. Why the apparently change of heart? Lucky for you the barbarian has exactly that ability. So there's your solution -- have barbs instead of fighters in your front line! I agree 100%. Aggro mechanics suck. Isn't it great that P:E will have nothing of the kind?

Oh yes. The converse is true too. Kiting is way too easy. Tedious, but easy. Sticky engagement with punishing disengagement attacks is exactly the right recipe to solve that problem, and giving fighters a tangible edge in that is a great way to differentiate them. (Also, popping up enemies from nowhere behind you every once in a while is fine, but over and over and over again...?)

@Malignacious... not sure that talking to you is a great idea, but here goes anyway. P:E is explicitly billed as a retro game. The selling point isn't cutting-edge physics, graphics, or similar things. The whole point of it is to bring back the feel of the Infinity Engine games. It's also a game that's being made on a very tight budget. That's why, for example, they have painted "choose your own adventure" intertitles instead of animated cutscenes or custom animations. I think it's pretty safe to say that most of us backers would prefer that limited budget to be spent on things that help recreate and build on the things the IE games did well -- big, sprawling, beautiful worlds, scads of quests and story, deep and well-written companion interactions, lots of gameplay variety with various character builds and party compositions, lots and lots of different monsters, and so on. While fantastic animations, physics, and what have you would be nice, they don't really contribute all that much to these things. The fantastic demo you linked to, for example, is done with very expensive middleware. It is not a priority for this game. If you value things like immersive physics and graphics, then P:E is not the game you're looking for. There are others. Why not go play them, instead of ranting that this one does things a little differently, and how benighted we all are because we like it that way?

That is entirely incomprehensible to me, but to each their own I guess.

That Euphoria demo was pretty damn cool. About as relevant to P:E as a flight simulator though.

It's not just one more attack. It's the ability to block critters from moving through your zone of control, and punishing them -- hard -- if they want to disengage and try another route past. This will solve the IE game problem where it was basically pointless to try to position your fighters anywhere there wasn't a conveniently-positioned narrow doorway, since the gankers will just scoot right past them to go after your squishies. This will make it possible to use actual tactics -- have a line of heavies in front of your squishies. I hope it's going to also immobilize the fighter, as it will fix one more annoying thing about IE-style AI -- the propensity for your characters to run after enemies after they gank one (Guard button notwithstanding). Don't forget that it's an ability you can turn on and off at will. Pick a position, park your fighter at the choke point in defend mode, and you're all set. Edit: note that there is a certain amount of speculation in the above. I'm extrapolating from what Josh has said are his intentions when designing the mechanics. It would be cool if he showed up to confirm/debunk, as appropriate.

@MReed, have you followed what Josh has said about maimed characters? By the sound of it they're seriously gimped, plus they will be dead if hit again. I've seen nothing to indicate that it'll be a DA:O style easy-to-shrug-off condition you can fix on the fly with a consumable or spell.

When you want to move? (Okay, not sure about this one -- I think I heard it mentioned somewhere that this is a "defend" mode that parks your fighter somewhere. Could be that it has some other trade-off, but I'm pretty sure there is one. Paging Dr. Sawyer to the OR, stat!)

To pick some of the most obvious ones, DA:O has aggro mechanics (and it's quite crucial to use them to play effectively), but P:E doesn't; DA:O has cooldowns, but P:E doesn't; DA:O has (plentiful) spammable potions for health and mana, but P:E doesn't; DA:O has maiming which is fixable on the fly with an expendable, P:E has maiming which requires you to rest (with limited resting); DA:O has no permadeath, but P:E does even in normal mode (a Maimed character whose health hits zero is permadead). So spellcasting in the IE games was a cooldown too, because you had to rest to regain them? Okay then, glad we got that cleared up.

More to the point, your description of those mechanics WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY WRONG. Which kind of starts the discussion off on the wrong foot.

And where did it say that the "flypaper" ability does that? I'm fairly confident that all it means is that the fighter, unlike other classes, and when that ability is active, is able to engage more than one target at once -- and possibly that his disengagement attacks are meaner. There's nothing about disabling AI there. Yet Josh has explicitly stated that "heat" (aggro) mechanics won't be present in the game, and has not mentioned the presence of "Taunt" at all.

Yes, you do. But that interpretation is entirely yours, and not founded on anything the devs have said. Read what Josh has said about the reasons he changed that mechanic. It was not to get rid of the need for counters, but to get rid of the necessity for trial-and-error-reloading. Before, if your main caster was hit by a paralysis, petrification, or death effect, you effectively lost the battle. Now, you will have a chance to react to the turn of events after it happens. I.e., a surprise attack by basilisks suddenly becomes a possibility that won't trigger an automatic reload. It does in no way imply that you won't need protection from petrification anymore. That would be silly.