Jump to content

GrinningReaper659

Members
  • Posts

    245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by GrinningReaper659

  1. How is this evidence that Sawyer is overrated? I'll give you a hint: it's not. It's also not evidence of anything else really, it was his call to make and you being upset that some whacky character ideas didn't make it in certainly isn't "evidence" that Sawyer is overrated or a bad designer or anything else. Honestly the people who like the game seem to rarely credit Sawyer directly or even know who he is. There is a small group of people who seem to violently dislike everything about him and have for some time now. L0L so says you, Volourn. Also, it's irrelevant. Sawyer didn't change anything. He made a comment on twiiter/tumblr/whatever the **** it's called and then Obsidian (note Obsidian and Sawyer are two different things) contacted the backer and asked if he wanted to change it, the backer said yes and changed it. You guys can keep retelling the story as "Sawyer changed the backer's poem" all you want, but that's not what happened. This much is true. I mean, Codexians hate RTwP combat, so obviously they also despise BG2 and even PS:T. Then again, the most extensive poll they've done of the 70 top RPGs of all time resulted in PS:T at number 1 and BG2 not too far behind... I think the Codex likes ****ting on everything and there's not much consensus on which games they actually like. If there were, it would be evident in things such as those poll results.
  2. wot? BG1 and BG2 were both real time with pause, not turn-based. Not really sure about that. Bioware developed the BG games, Black Isle published them so not necessarily any design involvement. Some Black Isle peeps do work at Obsidian but, again, Black Isle didn't make the BG games. They did make the IWD games and PS:T and the console hack 'n slash BG:Dark Alliance 2. Everything else you said was pretty much spot on.
  3. I don't think anyone is fixated on Mr. Sawyer as the Ultimate Enemy Of All Things Breathing. He's got some unusual hangups and ideas that have affected the game on a fundamental level, despite the issues. It's not so much a fixation as it is criticism, and I think it rubs people the wrong way that he tends to either dismiss or "misunderstand" the criticism, if he doesn't avoid it completely. I think he also lost a lot of people by then suddenly jumping at the command of crazy people. You could probably write a thesis the size of a large dictionary based on the issues examined in detail on the forum, which has gone completely unheeded or simply ignored, while he is quick to lick the steamy bootheels of the most unreasonable clique of the psychologically deranged. So it's no surprise he's not the most popular man in the world. Come to think of it, I can't think of anyone that's lead such a successful high-profile game development project yet managed to maintain significant impopularity. Most others end up with veritable cults, like Avellone, Urquhart, Fargo or Cain. You're definitely fixated. Maybe someone with more energy or interest than I could make a wordcloud of all your posts here, so we could all see the big, bold Sawyer front and center. That's an interesting version of events. I wonder if your mind is so warped that it skews reality to convince you that that's exactly what happened, or if you know that you're seriously twisting the story and you just don't care because you want to convert another mindless drone to your cause. It amuses me how sure you are that you and that group of raving lunatics that would not (and still won't, apparently) shut up about the insignificant, benign memorial incident are "the more reasonable people." Well, at least you're consistent. Carry on.
  4. No, Obsidian wrote the stories for the backer NPCs. Everywhere I read, it was said that is fan text (backers). Obsidian probably just checked it out so it is not standing out too much. Where did you read that? Obsidian clearly wrote the text for the backer NPCs. if you want to see what the writing of the backers looks like, read the memorials. The difference is pretty obvious.
  5. Apparently so, I guess there are a few triggers that will cause it. That's pretty cool.
  6. Luzarius, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you completely. PoE combat is better than DA:O combat.
  7. @Stun Just to be clear, I can see that they may have meant to imply the series when they said Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. It's certainly possible, but it was not explicitly stated. They absolutely did not mean "just BG2." Also, they were very specific in their promises. They promised the central hero, memorable companions and epic exploration of Baldur's Gate. Even if they were talking about both games, then they would only need to provide these three things in a way which related to either one of or both of the titles. Saying that they promised the best of BG2 is completely wrong in my eyes, because they simply never said anything of the sort. It was that claim that prompted my initial comment, to which you responded.
  8. LOL Wait a minute. So for the record, you are claiming that they didn't promise that PoE will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment? And that this wasn't exactly what they pitched us on the front page of their kickstarter, before asking us for a million dollars? pay attention, Stun. You'll note that "BG2" is bold. They named dropped the IP's. Baldurs Gate is a SERIES, as is Icewind Dale. They did not need to mention the specific sequels, the specific expansion packs, and the various patch updates. Because anyone with more than a single brain cell knew what they meant when they promised the best elements of those titles. They didn't, for example, promise Planescape Torments Combat, or Icewind Dale's story writing, because that wouldn't have been good marketing. First of all, again, please pay attention. The comment I replied to said that they promised the best of PST, IWD, and BG2. As in he explicitly stated BG2 and left IWD as is. This is misleading, as they never once mentioned BG2. You can keep imagining things if you think it further justifies your disappointment, but they never said BG2 in the pitch. And they also didn't promise to take the best things from all of these titles. The pitch was pretty specific, in fact you quoted it in this very thread. Here it is: "PoE will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment." You'll note that they never promised "the best of" these games, nor did they ever mention BG2 or IWD2. If you thought they were implied, that's your issue, but they never said it so you expecting them to deliver on a promise you imagined is absurd. If you want to understand the meaning of the pitch as I understand it, you just have to read it: "PoE will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment" If you want to understand it as you do (and the person I was replying to did), you must alter it: "PoE will combine all of the best aspects of IWD, PST, and BG2 into one game..." some of you also seem to add "...that everyone will agree is as good as or better than all of these classics." You think I'm taking the pitch too literally I suppose. Well, when an accomplished company like Obsidian presumably spends months building an initial Kickstarter campaign, which includes things such as the pitch, I take them at their word. I don't think that they meant to say "BG2" instead of "Baldur's Gate" or that they meant to say "the best parts of" instead of the specific things they did list. I imagine they worked for quite some time on the wording of the pitch, so changing it to fit what you want it to say doesn't make much sense to me. You're free to disagree, of course. Fair enough, that's my mistake. Me too. I've seen the pitch. Once again, taking "the best aspects" of those games wasn't mentioned, and even if it had been, the best aspects are different for different people. The promise was much more specific than you make it out to be. Whether or not it does capture and combine some of the best aspects of them is also debatable. I mostly agree about BG2. BG2 had tons of content - quests, areas, companion interactions, you name it. Just think about everything that happens in and is located in the Athkatla docks district throughout the length of the game, and you'll be blown away by how expansive it was. However, I never expected the amount of quests or content in BG2 because they never promised that. The first comparison to BG2 I ever remember them making was to say that the game would be somewhere in length between BG1 and BG2. Even if you (and Stun) think that it's obvious they were also drawing inspiration from BG2, they certainly never promised to make the game as content-rich or as long as BG2, or anything else specifically about BG2 for that matter because the didn't actually bring it up. As for BG1 characters vs. PoE characters, I guess you have a point. To me, though, it just seems like a different type of approach. That you dislike it doesn't make it worse. They interject less than in BG1? Maybe, I'm not really sure. The PoE party members sure have a hell of a lot more to say (for better or worse), but they don't fight with one another or leave the group, that's true. Some people would see that as an advantage, though. I could do with somewhere in between I guess, I did like that BG1 NPCs had minds of their own and would disagree with the PC, but I'm pretty sure unexpectedly leaving the party pissed off more people than it amused, and it mostly negatively affected Evil parties (which I never played). In PoE, the NPCs are quick to insult the PC where appropriate, so they express their opinions without trying to actually kill each other or leave the group. There are strengths and weaknesses to both of these approaches imo.
  9. Not really, the game was pitched as having the best of BG2, IWD and PS:T. Now, it should have been obvious that the first iteration of POE would never live up to this but, debatably, it's not even close to reaching any of these goals; the combat diversity is poor, the companions and exploration are not even close to BG2 and the plot is standard cookie-cutter stuff. The reason most people are disappointed/dislike/hate the game is due to the missed potential, this is also why these people continue to post instead of just leave and forget about it. Some of this blind fanboy defense is ridiculous tbh, this pretense that POE hit the mark perfectly. Ha, please show me the pitch where they promised the best of PS:T, IWD, and BG2. Actually, don't bother because it doesn't exist. They promised to incorporate aspects of BG, IWD, and PS:T. They frankly made no explicit mention of BG2 or IWD2. I notice you single out BG2 but not IWD2 in your list for some reason, maybe because you idolize BG2 and wanted PoE to live up to it? They never said BG2, you can keep saying that they actually meant BG2, but they did not say it. Expecting them to deliver on promises that you or anyone else imagined is absurd. The assertion that everyone defending the game is a blind fanboy proves that you're not open-minded enough to look at the situation objectively. PoE promised to combine aspects of BG, IWD, and PS:T into an original RPG. The game accomplishes exactly that.
  10. What is the point of you people dropping in here to accuse others of being idiots or lacking reading comprehension? Do you feel better about yourself now buddy? Good, then go away and stop trying to turn a conversation into a ****-measuring contest. I love reading, and I'm in the 97th national percentile in the U.S. for reading comprehension according to my SAT scores, what do you think about that Exyll? I guess we'll have to duke it out with some mortal reading comprehension kombat to determine which of us is the true reading champion There's more to this issue than a lack of signposting on the knights vs. dozens issue. Are you not capable of comprehending that simple point?
  11. Then it's a good thing we all wanted to play an rts. I don't see any argument that could be made for PoE being more of an RTS than the IE games, but I'm willing to listen. Unless, of course, you're saying that the reason you didn't have to learn resource management in the IE games is because of the wonderful rest-spamming option? Listen, if you need that level of non-challenge in IE games, it's available. If you need that level of non-challenge in PoE, it's available here too, it's called Easy mode. In easy mode you can spam those spells and there are less enemies to deal with, so those same spells will end fights quicker. Then you can rest after every couple of fights because there is really no shortage of camping supplies in this game. How many does the game let you carry on easy, is it four? That really should be plenty, four rests between town maps with inns and the possibility to just go to an inn any time and sleep and restock your camping supplies... what's the issue exactly?
  12. This would only have people wasting time waiting for time to pass, or traveling from one area to another to force time to pass. Honestly, I don't see why there needs to be a change to it. As it is, it serves as a small deterrent to spam-resting if you don't want to waste time traveling to inns. I don't see a good solution to this 'problem'. Either the resting is so restricted that it just annoys the player, or it's completely irrelevant like it is now. I've yet to see a real middle ground. I was half-joking at first, but the more I think about my suggestion the more I actually like it. Maybe a separate toggle such as the "Expert Mode" toggle that exists now (where you have to set it on before the game and if you turn it off can't turn it back on again), with a few "hardcore" features such as limited number of rests per day and inventory system with limited weight and space, etc. I agree, though, that limiting the rests per day would only end up frustrating most players if it were mandatory.
  13. I've got a different sort of idea for the limited camping supplies. How about we make the limitation meaningful by not allowing infinite inn rests. I propose making it so that you can only rest once every 24 in-game hours (or even as much as once every 12 hours). Feel free to only implement this on Hard and PoTD. As for the OP's suggestion, you may as well just ask to remove resting restrictions altogether. Even if the number available is severely limited, there will still be enough to have wilderness inns all over the place. I don't see how this would improve anything for anyone or really change much at all, as you're usually not far from a town anyway.
  14. You're doing it wrong. The encounters weren't designed in such a way that you will need to sleep after every battle at any difficulty. Luzarius, I'm 90% sure you're a troll based on your post history, but I'm willing to respond because of that 10%. Now, if you want to play things your own way and rest after every single fight then that's fine, but don't expect the devs to accomodate your whacky playstyle at the cost of hurting other playstyles. If you decided to never rest, for example, you might come on here and explain how you refused to ever rest and that's why you need all spells to be per encounter and also why you need all health to regen after each encounter. However, the devs wouldn't be obligated to listen to your request, because never resting is a decision which you made which runs contrary to the design of the game. You do you, but don't expect the devs to also do you. that's just not right. No. Luzarius choosing to spam all his most powerful spells and not worry about taking damage and then rest after every encounter doesn't prove that spell limitations are flawed or anything else for that matter.
  15. we weren't surprised either, but is clear that a number o' seemingly rational folks were taken unawares. "we weren't particular distraught by the manner in which the faction choices were presented and the way the warning were given. even so, obsidian does needs be reactive to what players do rather than what Gromnir believes is reasonable. it appears that more than a few folks were confused by the choice. if those few is more than just isolated folks, then obsidian does have some easy options to fix. 'pon entering defiance bay you get a scripted encounter with a messenger from l. webb that cryptic warns you, as a new potential player o' significance in defiance bay politics, about aligning with any individual faction? between that and the warning from the faction heads, we suspect the number o' people confused by the significance o' the choice would drop. " people don't always respond the way we expect 'em to. if enough people is being stymied or frustrated, there is a few minor ways to clarify the significance o' the choice. HA! Good Fun! Maybe upon first talking to a representative of one of the factions at their base, whoever that representative is mentions the fact that there's going to be a big hearing soon. They could mention the groups that will be going at that point, only mentioning the groups that the player will ultimately choose between. So, the dozens guy would say something along the lines of Just a thought.
  16. Why are you still going on about how clearly they signposted the Dozens vs. Knights thing when I have said as much myself multiple times now? I never once said that it wasn't clear that supporting either the Knights or the Dozens would alienate the other group. It was clear, I agree with that and haven't said otherwise. My main issue is not knowing the scope at all. In other words, "if you do anything for us (X) you'll piss off them(Y)" doesn't help me much because I didn't know that I would be at some point forced to choose between X, Y, and Z for the main culmination of the Act II issues. I'm happy to concede the point, though, if you disagree. My main purpose in commenting was that there's more to the confusion than signposting the Knights vs. Dozens thing, which your orignial post suggested was the whole issue. It was just speculation, just like thinking that you would ever have to choose between siding with the Domeonels and siding with one of two other groups would be speculation. The point being that none of these things was clearly more likely than any other. It's not as if every person or group you hear of ends up being a possible faction to side with, so to assume it about the nobleman I hadn't heard of before entering Defiance bay or about the Domeonels would have been a stretch. Obviously, I misunderstood and thought that you were suggesting that you would still get quests from them, which you weren't. My mistake.
  17. Not sure what you're talking about here to be honest. I was never able to do any quests for them, which does make sense. My first interaction involved murder in Dyrford, and then foiling a burglary plot, going to their estate following that resulted in the choice between attacking everyone or leaving. Later (after further cementing my fate through the defense of a certain merchant) I did inquire with them about the hearing (for science) and the response implied that the foiled burglary is what prevented the possibility, but who knows. So, I'm not sure which quests you mean here. I mostly agree. I was just saying that accusing OP and others of wanting more hand-holding or insulting their reading comprehension isn't a very useful response. It's about more than the signposting for Dozens vs. Knights because you don't know the scope of your options at that point. Not a big deal, but I think the whole thing is a bit clumsy. For example, how was I to know that earning favor with one noble by further antagonizing the Domeonels when I spoiled the burglary wouldn't result in a positive of some sort by gaining myself a non-Domeonel noble ally? If they're going to limit you to three options, that should be a bit more clear I think. The Dozens vs. Knights thing is definitely signposted clearly enough, although I still think that you can't really get a clear picture of either group until it's too late. Mostly I just wish the choice had ended up making more of a difference, even if the process of getting there remained the same.
  18. That's all fine, but there was never any indication that you would be forced to side with or seek the help of one of these three factions (or that there would be only three options). At first, I wasn't sure which of the two I preferred, and it wasn't until doing quests and getting to know them better that I decided on the Knights, who would no longer work with me at that point. You can't really form an informed opinion on the dozens until ...and you can't really form an informed opinion about the Knights until Again, all that would be fine I guess, but then the game forces you to get the help of one of the groups. This, too, turns out to be pretty irrelevant, admittedly. As for the third "faction," I had already burned that bridge before ever realizing that they would be one of only three options and before officially meeting any of the groups. It doesn't bother me much, but the "maybe you guys should just learn to read" attitude presented by you and Gromnir isn't very useful.
  19. I agree that the game should be a bit more clear when a choice is about to be made which will cut off major options. By the time I knew I would have to be helped by one of the three groups, I had thoroughly closed off the possibility of the third option, and had helped both of the first two groups, which for some reason only prevented one of them from helping me. So, I had to get the help of the group who I completely disagreed with and then essentially betray them. My full thoughts on the issue (Act II Spoilers):
  20. For what it's worth, as I avoided bringing it up, I happen to enjoy BG1 quite a bit, I just don't think whether or not I like it personally is very relevant to the point put forward by the OP. If he's saying that comparing it to BG1 is unfair because he sees BG1 as a crap game and it shines too favorable a light on PoE, then he's essentially just whining that some people are pointing out some of PoE's strengths and trying to force some absurd argument about how they can't possibly be compared to put a stop to it.
  21. Stop rambling, what are you complaining about? Not everyone that likes this game is a "fanboy" of Obsidian. Anyway, they certainly never promised "A best CRPG" or "the best CRPG" if you meant the latter. They promised a game inspired by the IE games, they delivered on that promise, so calm down and stop spreading drivel. Upon further review, I have been notified by a troll authority that you are not to be fed, Exoduss. Feel free to carry on with your lunacy unimpeded.
  22. According to Tigranes, there is a technical issue which compels them to do so, on RPGCodex he said: "The forum has a weird (read: stupid) quirk where after, say, 25 pages, we start to get some random errors, sometimes involving disappearing posts. Thus it is customary to close after that, and invite users to start new ones."
  23. I haven't misunderstood you, nor was I defending the quality of BG. The fact remains that declaring BG to be a crap game is pointless in the context of the majority of backers who presumably liked the games that PoE set out to imitate. You or me thinking that BG1 is crap would be irrelevant because it can't possibly be crap to the majority of people who backed a game inspired by it. More to the point, your statement about comparing 1998 mobile handset to smartphone today doesn't make any sense. If a new phone smartphone was being designed today by Sony and they said that they were basing the design on some mobile handset from 1998, then comparing the finished product to that handset would be pretty much expected and obvious. Think about it. Also, you're talking about gradual technological advancements making the comparison meaningless. There's a huge difference between comparing pieces of technology vs. art and design decisions which don't necessarily progress over time like technology. Again, a lot of people think that the IE games did a lot of things right that haven't been done since due to regressions since then, so it's not at all analogous with technological progression. If you want to say that praising technology improvements specifically (such as game engine, etc.) is meaningless, I guess you have a point, but it's dwarfed by the fact that most comparisons are to encounter design, story, setting, etc. These aspects are clearly fair game for comparison, because there's no argument that all of these things have fundamentally progressed too much in the last 15 years to be comparable.
  24. No, it's not. PoE was designed as a game heavily inspired and influenced by BG, IWD, and PS:T. The comparison between PoE and any of these games is logical, and all other comparisons are absolutely more of a leap. The time between these releases matters not at all when the IE games are among the favorite games of many backers, and when many of us haven't found much of worth since the IE games. The entire premise of this game was its relation to the IE games, so claiming that the comparison is unfair is ridiculous. Your motives here are disingenuous, you just clearly dislike that this particular comparison paints PoE in a more positive light than you like. Also, not everyone agrees that BG was as terrible as you think it is. Again, BG1 is one of three games explicitly stated as inspiring PoE, so there's a pretty good chance that a lot of backers wouldn't be as quick to dislike BG1 as you are.
  25. I really can't express how pointless crafting and enchanting are. Also, the stronghold. As soon as I saw these stretch goals going up in the Kickstarter I thought, why are modern RPG fans so obsessed with these silly housekeeping and flower-picking mini-games that only serve to distract from the game itself and/or diminish the fun of unique items, all while being incredibly boring. I guess they turned out okay for what they are, there was no way I would like them because I'm against all of these things in principle; and no surprise they seem to add nothing of value to the game and take plenty away from it. I even resent the mega-dungeon a bit, because as I saw that number of levels rising, I saw the quality of each level decreasing. I thought, Durlag's tower didn't need over a dozen levels... Anyway, what's done is done, and as soon as the stretch goals appeared there was no way to stop it. I do sometimes close my eyes and imagine the game without crafting and enchanting, with a unique item system that involved only finding actually unique items or reassembling epic items with the aid of a blacksmith. Oh BG2, you did this so right. Simple is definitely better in this case I think. Also, there's no thrill in finding unique items when you can almost always make something better on your own through enchanting. As for the stronghold, I really feel that it could just disappear and the game would be better for it. Again, I am biased against the mechanic in general, but I just don't see what it adds apart from some weird mini-game that involves clicking the same few buttons again and again in order to put loot and gold in some treasure chest. Endless paths could be put anywhere else in the game, like beneath Dyrford. The bounties could be posted in Defiance Bay (and also in Dyrford). I do wonder how many people actually think that these mechanics add enough to the game to justify their existence. Obviously this is set in stone for PoE, but if enough people clearly dislike these things and express that to Obsidian, then maybe they can be removed or changed for PoE2. This thread is about crafting primarily, but it seems I'm not the only one who finds enchanting to be pointless.
×
×
  • Create New...