Ninjamestari

Yes there is, and what you were doing is the former.

You might want to read the whole comment before responding, otherwise you might end up like you ended up now; quoting out of context.

Does it though? I hate to sound sceptical (who am I kidding, I'm always sceptical and I love it), but I really don't think your gut feeling on what 'most players' will and will not do is enough an indication on the subject. Especially when my own gut so disagrees with yours. I think that most players will indeed backtrack if necessary in order to avoid facing tough groups at less than full strength. Again with the same fallacy. If we start talking facts, most people who bought the game didn't even complete the first act. Doesn't sound like the game was meaningful to them, and only about 10% have even completed the game. Statistics like this don't really paint the picture you're seeing, might I suggest that there's quite a bit more tedium in the game than most people are willing to handle. When statistics show patterns like this, it's quite difficult to take assumptions that "the system is meaningful to most players". Yeah, I know, the two issues aren't directly related, I'm merely pointing out a the fallacy of what you imagine to consist of 'most players'. The thing most forum posters don't realize is that people who post on gaming forums are usually people who feel more passionately about the developers, they do not give an accurate sample population for any poll to be reliable. There is a certain level of mild 'fanboyism' in these forums, where people pick their sides in an argument through sentiment rather than reason. I'm not saying that's somehow inherently wrong, in fact it is unavoidable when you have passion for something, but it is something you have to realize and take into account when having an intellectual argument about the subject.

I thought we already established that backtracking is not a meaningful consequence, it's added tedium.

Its a flaw just cos you don't like it? Its precisely why I like the setting, the more realistic, less magic, more politics & court intrigue the better. Tho one thing I don't like is space & time travel/its connection to other settings, I hated the very end of the books cos of it. Btw. poeple who don't like Witcher here, also don't like asoiaf right? Less magic, more politics and court intrique is precisely the strong point of witcher, that's not the issue. I'm talking about the monotonous *mood* of the game, every single area has the same flavor of depression hanging on it, there's no light hearted adventure, there's no deep mystery, everything is just one gray homogenous mass emotionally. And I definitely like song of ice and fire, the only problem I have with the books is that the insane number of different viewpoint characters butchers the reading experience. Seriously, I start to have trouble keeping up interest if there are more than two viewpoint characters, song of ice and fire has so many that you can't even count them with the fingers of both your hands. The setting is awesome though, and the TV show has been good for the most part.

A consequence that can be gotten rid of with a single click of a mouse isn't a consequence. If resting had some sort of meaningful limits, THEN the endurance system would add value to the game beyond just being a straight knocked out party members get up after the battle. The Benefit of injuries in PoE: you hover your mouse over the rest-button in your interface and click it. That's the extent of the consequences you suffer for being careless. This is the same system as just having party members jump up, but with added meaningless hassle. In essence you don't have the benefits of either of the extreme ends, but you have to suffer through the bull**** of both. Oh, and the Tyranny system adds injuries every time you fall under a certain health percentage. If you want to avoid those injuries, you have to be super careful. Then again, a simple resting gets rid of those injuries free of charge so there's no real consequences beyond backtracking there. I don't really like the Tyranny system either, but that is a topic for a whole another conversation.

No it doesn't, it just adds the hassle of running back for more camping supplies. It's a pretend-layer, not a real one. The point is, either go for the KotOR approach of party members just getting back up, no added bull****, or go for the 0 HP and a character dies. Any compromise is just the former system pretending to be the latter. Unless you're going to restrict resting a lot, but they're not going to do that so there goes. In PoE you go to battle just like you would in a game without endurance and knockout only, as recharging the health bar happens with the press of a button. Sure you can pretend that it adds depth, but it doesn't. You can't have a compromise with these things, as the very nature of the compromise undermines the benefits of both systems. Knockout only has the benefit of being hassle free, zero HP and dead has the benefit of being more challenging and forcing more meaningful combat approach. The endurance system doesn't have either of those benefits, neither does the wound system. If you want meaningful resource management, then you'll have to go down limiting resting and backtracking to inns, which isn't a bad idea, but also isn't going to happen.

Well, you *can* just get a compass and test that theory ^^

Sorry but as Wormerine pointed out above the hit point system actually leads to more backtracking and reloading annoyances actually. With the Endurance system I actually carry on playing the game, maybe stopping to rest at the most, whereas with hit point systems I either immediately reload or have to backtrack back to town for a resurrection (which is annoying lore-wise, especially if death is actually meant to mean something in the world). I don't know, I prefer the having to reload if a character dies over the 'you can let characters go down in a fight' approach quite a bit. Hitpoints only is quite a bit more demanding from the player and presents a far greater challenge. The endurance system on the other hand simply tries to be some weird compromise between characters being completely unable to die unless the entire party is wiped out. Pick either or, as when compared to simple inability to die concept, the endurance simply adds a lot of tedium, backtracking and annoyances. You pick a way of thinking and you stick with it. If you can't stick with the line of thinking to the end, then the line of thinking obviously isn't a very functional one. EDIT: my point is, neither the endurance system nor the wound system offer any meaningful consequences to being knocked down. When compared to simply having HP and characters not dying unless the entire party is wiped out, the endurance system is exactly the same with added tedium; backtracking and such. It adds no real value to the game. With HP only and getting to zero means a character dying, you actually have to play differently, as you can't simply let a character fall in battle, which leads to a completely different way of approaching combat. I understand that some people have grown fond of the endurance system and others like it simply because it was obsidian's brainchild, the system offers absolutely no value beyond that sentiment. EDIT EDIT: what I mean is that, both the endurance and the wound system are 'pretend' - consequences. It's "let's pretend we're playing hardcore when we're really not". A system that is needlessly complicated just so the players can pretend that they're not playing a game without permanent death is just pure idiocy.

I've got a better idea. I call them "Hitpoints". These hitpoints represent the overall condition of a creature. When a creature is hit with spells or attacks or otherwise damaged, it loses these "hitpoints". Once the hitpoints drop to zero, the creature dies. An amazing concept, don't you think? I wonder how no one has come up with such a brilliant system before ^^

Precisely. However, successful isn't the problem, not for me at least. I got interested in the first game back when almost no one had even heard about the series, I just felt that it was a big letdown. The fantasy not resonating me was just part of the problem. Another problem with the game is the very monotonic setting, which is actually a flaw often shared by obsidian's products. An adolescent power fantasy doesn't automatically mean bad, I just get a certain repulsion effect from it, probably due to an over-indulgence in them from when I actually was an adolescent, as I indulge a *lot* in fantasy. The thing is, the more you fantasize the more your fantasies evolve to adapt to your perception of reality. Oh, and while almost every RPG indeed is a power fantasy, there are different kinds of power fantasies. For example the 'powerful female hero' is an infantile fantasy about a super-mom, which is natural due to small children being completely reliant on their mothers and it really is a tough place for a kid to suddenly realize that your mother is just a vulnerable creature, and the super-mom fantasy is a fairly common. If the female hero is also a young virginal character, it dips into the realm of an adolescent mind again, again, trying to deal with the uncomfortable vulnerability of the object that most draws the minds attention. This last one is a common fantasy for young boys who not only have the desire to act as a protector, but also realize their inability to truly protect anyone from the dangers of the world due to lack of strength or just not being able to always be around. This leads to the fantasy of an emotionally vulnerable girl requiring emotional protection from your part, while having sufficient strength to protect herself against dangers you can't protect her from. A shameless stereotypical fantasy is powerful stuff for a mind that hasn't been allowed to play those fantasies out in one way or another, this is why the argument is valid. I'm not going to comment on whether some people are using this argument for the Witcher's success as 'throwing poo-poo for the sake of it', but there is a powerful psychological reality behind it regardless. PoE attempts to create a more mature narrative and a more mature fantasy, which doesn't have nearly the same amount of power in the vast majority of the population. Damn I think about this subject way too much. I could rave on and on about it for ages. I'll just shut up now ^^ EDIT: I like the 'old batman' analogy btw, there's quite a bit of similarities there.

I really don't get how you draw your conclusions like wtf. I'm 27, never had old guy fantazies "old guy fantazies" lol. I told how I saw Geralt and he's certainly not a fantasy to be, beside being too old, he's too dumb for one thing, which is why I also said if it were to be a adolescent fantasy for me, I'd need to create my own, younger Witcher. f.i. If I were playing my adolescent power fantasy I'd choose innocent-lovely-younger Triss instead of what the character has been clearly intended for, it never sit well choosing Triss. This is an adult story with artificial power fantasy hooks. I certainly enjoyed it but I think I'd have enjoyed it even more if I was older/had a daughter. The adolescent part comes from the overarching themes that surround Geralt as a character. You can make a checklist: 'no emotion', but strangely enough he cares, so it's only the emotions that make someone vulnerable that Geralt lacks - this is textbook adolescent fantasy. Being sterile and immune to diseases - the ability to bang every single hot chick without consequences - another textbook adolescent fantasy. An experienced man that is desired by all the hot women - yet another textbook case of an adolescent who fantasizes about being validated by females. The line a game has to cross in order to turn from simple power fantasy into an adolescent one is murky at best, yes, but the Witcher is a clear text-book case. There's no "your personal adolescent fantasy" in this context here, the Witcher is a very generic adolescent power fantasy. Your personal fantasies are something else entirely you know, adult men fantasize about power too, but the fantasies are different, more mature so to speak, from the fantasies of adolescents. What is regarded as an adolescent power fantasy has been clearly documented and researched and it is quite clearly defined, and has everything to do with how an adolescent mind works, what do adolescents think about and what do they fear and desire. Adolescents want to be validated adults, and they want the validation of the opposite sex more than anything, but they fear responsibility and they fear of being hurt, often they fear emotional hurt a lot more than physical injury. Hence an emotionally invulnerable character that gets everything an adolescent mind could dream about, all the while being immune to all those things the young person fears about sex (responsibility through pregnancy, disease, being emotionally hurt through exposing themselves to intimacy etc). This is the way a child fantasizes, they want to just be able to ignore the things that make them feel uncomfortable. I mean, of course the games have a lot of other themes as well, political and otherwise, but Geralt as a character really is a textbook case of adolescent power fantasy, and that a large part of why young boys and young men find the game so appealing; they literally get to play out their own fantasies, with all the important details perfectly replicated. I hope I was able to explain it sufficiently ^^ oh, and the old-man jab, sorry about that, couldn't resist. This is also basic stuff. People who are getting older and realizing that their physical peak is in the past often fantasize about revitalized youth, and when doing a psychological analysis about a person you mark in details about the things they speak about and the details they bring up, because subconsciously those things are the ones they have paid attention to, which means that their subconscious mind holds those interpretations of reality relevant and important. In your case, the "increased libido of a witcher" is another really text-book example of how an old man would think and fantasize. Hell, in all likelihood an adolescent hasn't even heard the word 'libido', and since they're experiencing the greatest hormonal activity they've ever had during their short lives, they certainly aren't worried about libido, they take it as granted and don't pay much attention to the whole concept even if it is explained to them. Thus you fantasize like an old man past his physical and sexual prime. Again, sorry about the jab, but this is just so clear text-book stuff that I couldn't resist :D

Basic psychology Quillon, basic psychology. Everyone likes to think they're above it, but no one really is. If you want to convince me that you're not having old-guy fantasies where you're young and virile and attractive again, then I'd advice against pointing out how your attention is drawn specifically into the 'increased libido of a Witcher' And yeah, being an adolescent power fantasy sells a lot of copies, but that doesn't make it any less an adolescent power fantasy. I find it funny how some people always try to twist a discussion about generalities and overarching themes into details, while the same people usually also try to twist any discussion about details into generalities and overarching themes.

The whole problem with resting is that the discussion is taken completely out of context. The issue isn't 'resting' per se, the issue is whether or not you want to have meaningful mid-term / long-term resource management or do you want the player to be at full power before every single encounter. That is the core question the devs should ask, and then build the character system around those goals instead of starting with the details and hoping that the end product will resemble something. This isn't a 'choice' vs 'no choice' issue either, as there is balance to consider. They should pick a goal, design with that goal in mind and stick to it instead of having this ridiculous back-and-forth with largely meaningless details. When you have a clear goal you can ask productive questions, such as "does this design serve the goal we have", and "are there other ways to accomplish this", and even "is this feature even necessary to achieve our goal". The feeling I get from the deadfire project is that no one has a clear picture about what they are trying to do and why, which is why I'm still very sceptical about the whole game. The first game suffered very much from the same symptoms, but the situation wasn't bad enough to spoil the experience completely, which is why I don't regret buying it. True excellence requires leadership, not 'communication' and 'compromise' and 'talking'. Of course good leadership needs feedback, but it also requires a strong vision. When the vision isn't clear, the end product suffers, and where there's no clear and efficient leadership, the vision gets muddied under a thousand different voices and interpretations. To quote my favorite bad guys, 'One Vision, One Purpose'. EDIT: what I mean with meaningless details is that without a clear vision the details are completely without context and thus there is absolutely no way to determine whether they serve the purpose of the vision or not.

So....he was created to be a whiny bitch, and somehow that makes it...better? Nope he's a successful bitch which bound to get **** for being successful. My inner adolescent power fantasizing-self wants to create my own younger Witcher who could get with Ciri but I'm stuck with this ****ing old dude who just wants his daughter to be safe and leave this life before him, he wants a steady job instead of city-hopping and spend the rest of his days(rather long years) with Yennefer(preferably). I'm sorry but I can't see any adolescent fantasy in this, if anything this is a retirement fantasy. You're wrong, that fantasy you have with Ciri is the retirement fantasy of an old man wishing to be younger, lamenting about a wasted youth. Wow, i guess people see what they want to see. Witcher is the text-book definition of adolescent power fantasy, so I think the 'people don't see what they don't want to see' is more prevalent in this context. To quote Mr. Katarack, let's keep it real.

'Weird' is just a polite way of saying bad. I think denying how badly Tyranny handled its final chapter is very dishonest and morally wrong. If people can't even agree on the facts, then no solutions will ever be found, and denying facts in order to preserve someone's feelings is the worst sin you can commit in an intellectual discussion.

Then you torture assassins until they point to the right people then you sue those because killing is not enough… No no no, that misses the whole point about world being unjust and unfair. Better that the assassins torture you and your crew, and you'll be barely able to escape, with the assassins already having sunk your ship, sold all your gear and killed your puppy. Nothing beats a revenge fantasy that gets turned into a farce ^^

Did we see the same story? Geralt is continually being called an outdated idiot working on a field that is going to eliminate itself, and he should really either modernize or quit, or die. He's told these things by his friends, collegues, acquaintances, enemies, rivals, clients, basically everybody. Being the stubborn fool, he just continues working. He also keeps running into various pick-your-poison scenarios. Sure, if by "wins every time" you mean that he survives a lot of crap thrown his way, sure, but I doubt it's really a victory if all the choices are bad. Surviving is the whole point of the character. He's undefeatable, nothing can ever bring him down. In game rhetoric about a non-existent future in a non-existent world hardly qualifies as 'not winning'. He's a badass without any real weaknesses and always wins in every single way that is relevant to an adolescent boy. Self-defeating professions don't really count in a fictional universe as it will never translate into the character losing, and it is a story that will never be told. EDIT: in the eyes of a teenager, being stubborn fool and continuing on with your own way despite everyone telling you not to is the very definition of winning.

Which is precisely why you should pick your audience instead of trying to make a compromise that doesn't satisfy anyone. Eloquent solutions grow on people, even the naysayers, and most people don't know what they want before they get it. People who want strategic resource management are people who have experienced the excitement and the sensations involved with it. Limited resources generate stronger emotions and feelings, unlimited resources merely shield you from those feelings. You can only make a true universally praised masterpiece if you go in all the way and give a finger to all the naysayers; the more you try to satisfy everyone the less you can satisfy anyone.

The Black Isle Bastards is an obvious nudge to the roots of Obsidian, this is why its interesting. The Black Isle Bastards are not the "baby" of the group of donors/people supporting it, it is a recognition of sorts for the Black Isle Studios. I think this whole argument about 'people being entitled' is utterly ridiculous. Donating to obsidian, or to this project, doesn't entitle anyone to anything, it is simply a group of people showing their enthusiasm for the idea, and I really don't think opposing it over some argument about falsely perceived privilege is appropriate. This isn't about money or entitlement, it is about people showing passion for a nod to the past. Please treat it as such.

Witcher didn't succeed through any game-play merits, it succeeded because it is the very definition of adolescent power fantasy; you play an experienced character that wins every time and gets every chick, and everyone who is "good" likes and respects him while people who are "bad" hate him because they can't beat him. In other words, the shameless use of cheese on top of cheese is what made the Witcher sell so well. Beneath the cheese it's merely an ok game with an ok plot and an ok setting. All other reasons for its success are mere rationalizations; Geralt is a badass and that is the long and short of it. Thus, as long as PoE tries to be a game for mature audiences, I highly doubt it will ever capture the large masses. It's a niche title and I'd like it to stay that way. If more people start buying the game, good, but if Obsidian begins to cater for the masses then they'll lose many of their current customers, including me.

What Flintlock said. Tyranny had its moments, but was a very disappointing game overall. It devolved from the interesting political intrigue into a juvenile power fantasy way too quickly. And let's be honest here: the combat and the leveling/skill scheme in Tyranny sucked rat droppings. The spell creation system and the sigils were the only interesting thing in it, and they too were spoiled with a cooldown based casting which lead to the "Cast these heals when they come out of cooldown and invest to constitution and quickness and you'll become immortal", which to my dismay worked on PotD. Then there are the ridiculous consequences of the skill system, like making a high constitution HP-healermonster will lead you to getting a ton more XP than making any reasonable character, thus the more unreasonable build you make the stronger it will end up - bull****. Basically, Tyranny copied Skyrim, even to the point of having those "5 ranks per level" training limits, which considering how much that game sucks is never a good idea. Tyranny had two things going for it: the setting, which was awesome, and the sigil system, which was interesting and would've been awesome if it was based around a mana-system instead of cooldowns.

You forgot rogues, someone disarming traps really is mandatory, so you'll 'need' a cipher or a rogue for the mechanics bonus. That makes two frontliners, a wizard, a priest and a thief, leaving one slot for a support/free character and zero for Deadfire. There will be a ton of characters that will never see a place in the party due to this. Eder and Pallegina are both already in, Xoti I think was the priest, then a wizard and a rogue-type. But I agree, reducing the party size to 5 is one of the dumbest ideas there ever was for deadfire, and I'm extremely disappointed that it will be implemented. I have the feeling that Deadfire is being dumbed down in order to attract a wider audience, which if true is an absolutely disgusting thing to do for a crowd-funded project.

Bah, don't get me started on the damn Drow.

The distinction may not be completely clear, but certain cases are. That is why half-measures are so dangerous and why you must commit to go all in for these sorts of things; if you don't, then in all likelihood you'll end up with a half-assed feature. EDIT: what I'm trying to say is, the line is hazy if lets say you have powerful special circumstances and the game recognizes them say half the time when it would be appropriate, but the distinction isn't hazy when the game recognizes the special circumstances almost all the time or almost never. Ciphers and the God-like both fall into the latter category, Malkavians in VtMB fall somewhere in the middle while leaning towards the better end. The Malkavian case is debatable (I'd be leaning towards 'good enough'), Ciphers and God-like are not, as you have already recognized. The point is that a choice in character creation for the PC that allows for powerful special circumstances are not desirable in a game where you simply don't have the resources, or even the inclination, to pursue to the end; considering the way god-like and ciphers ended up, they shouldn't have even been in the game as options for the PC. I hope I'm making more sense this time. EDIT EDIT: damn I'm tired, but just one more attempt to explain: When you're making a game like this, dialogue, storytelling and all, and you come up with concepts for classes and races, the idea of a class that can read and dominate minds should instantly raise red flags of "well, the powers of that class raise some serious implications for dialogue if the player chooses to play it, I don't think we have the time to implement that properly" or a race that looks like a supernatural monster should instantly receive the "hmm, this concept art looks really out of this world, this would certainly invoke incredibly strong reactions from every person this character meets, I don't think we have the time to go through all the implications and special circumstances this would put the player in to represent the fantasy properly" - criticisms. EDIT EDIT EDIT: What I'm trying to say that both Ciphers and the God-like were obvious problem-childs even when they were just concepts, and anyone who invested more than two seconds of thought to them could see that, and I wish they would avoid things like that. Some cases may very well be a bit ambiguous, but for the love of god, please, at least avoid the obvious ones.