Sacred_Path
-
Posts
1328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sacred_Path
-
-
Not everything that requires a suspension of belief is wacky, nor is escapism always a silly thing, there are massive varieties of both these things that are not silly or wacky, horror, insanity, rage, sorrow, delusion, awe, greed, ultimate evil or good. I would say the game sticks out from Durance too much, exploring his story as a protagonist would have been a fantastic introduction to this world, personal and yet intrinsically connected to the themes they sought to introduce.
I remain convinced that adding wacky elements that frankly soured the BG series for me is not the answer to sorting out the problems I found in Poe, a better crafted, more well explored, thematically relevant and reinforced design through gameplay is what I would ask for rather than silliness. The fantastic elements are there already, they simply need exploring and reinforcing.
I intended wacky to mean anything epic, larger-than-life, and by extension, supernatural. Korgan laughing in the face of every terrible monster is such an element, as is the Planar Sphere with its planar travel and its theme of atonement, or the Underdark which is obviously like a flipside or parallel world of the surface world, with its almost comically twisted inhabitants. At times all these emotions you mention come into play here, and I have to say I find this epic delivery ultimately more touching than Pillars', much like a fairy tale can be more touching than a milieu study.
-
1
-
-
Anyway, I'd say that if it's fantastical nature of the setting we're discussing, major recurring themes of the setting are not exactly unimportant - and soul manipulation was one of the most intriguing and fantastical themes Pillars of Eternity operated with, albeit it was premise that was fantastical while its exploration much more grounded. Which... You know, was one of my favourite things about Pillars.
Sacred_Path, on 25 Aug 2016 - 9:12 PM, said:
I've said repeatedly that Josh isn't actually aware of the problem I've pinpointed - either that or he doesn't admit it publicly (and with good reason, because it's one thing to say "our mechanics need tweaking" and another to say "on the whole our game was pretty uninspired").
Allow me to remind you that this discussion on "What did mr. Sawyer mean" started with this response to my post:Sacred_Path, on 24 Aug 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:
By "disappointed with PoE" I meant no more than "disappointed with this certain aspect of it", although I've seen enough people criticize the game at large. Still, Josh has taken notice of the problem so it's kind of pointless of you to deny it exists.
Which is where I started to try and figure out where has Josh Sawyer admitted it's a problem in the first place. Because without it, bringing up his name in the conversation is kind of pointless in the first place so I figured you probably know something I don't.
It's quite obvious that when he uses the word soul but then goes on to talk about silly characters, that's not the whole truth. Humour isn't synonymous with soul. There's no need for inside information here.
-
Do you have trouble reading the slides? He even uses the word soul.
Yes, there's the word 'Soul' used in the presentation. There's also the word 'Silly' used in the presentation. Neither has much relevance to what you are saying or to your statement "Josh thinks he's onto something" in relation to the tone of the world and both could be interpreted in may ways. What I'm asking you to do is to quote the relevant parts of the presentation as I don't see how do they relate to what you're saying so that we may continue the discussion constructively. You're doing yourself a disservice by trying to pass me as an idiot as opposed to properly quoting your sources - it's not actually that difficult to do and it would have saved us like 2 posts.
The only part I have found which is relevant is "Introduce more diverse locations, be attentive to lore pacing, use Tyranny’s highlight system, include some sillier characters – possibly a different companion type." which doesn't at all reinforce your point that mr. Sawyer would consider the general tone and seriousness of the world a problem. Then there's "Players and reviewers had mixed to favorable reactions about the world and lore. There was a lot to learn and keep track of. Many players wished for more light, funny, or silly elements." He didn't say he agrees with the sentiment - just that it's a reaction of unspecified "Many" players which, again, is not saying much. In short: You're stretching his statements without even knowing the context.
I've said repeatedly that Josh isn't actually aware of the problem I've pinpointed - either that or he doesn't admit it publicly (and with good reason, because it's one thing to say "our mechanics need tweaking" and another to say "on the whole our game was pretty uninspired").
-
There are a number of things which set it apart, firearms is one though they have been used in fantasy settings before, seperate species instead of races of humanity,
This is mostly fluff and very little is actually made of the racial diversity in-game. Hardly anyone raises an eyebrow when they see a godlike (how could they with all the backer godlike NPC's standing around). Playing a death godlike was completely disappointing as the reactivity hinted at in the manual wasn't present.
the emphasis on souls and the almost alchemical manipulation of themAttributes don't revolve around souls
Abilities don't revolve around souls
Combat resolution doesn't revolve around souls
Souls are only sometimes mentioned in dialogue
I wouldn't call that emphasis.
cultures defining their citizens rather than raceSeems like a contradiction, everyone's a different species but in the end everyone basically is Vailian or Dyrwoodan?
No what I am saying is that NPCs should react realistically rather than spouting cheesy one liners, this gives the impression that they are more grounded and living through their situation therefore aiding verisimilitude, rather than the usual squeeing which invariably grows tiresome. In acting terms it would be called acting naturally rather than mugging for the camera. Poor delivery is poor delivery, a seperate issue."Squeeing" seems to be a big thing to you, do you mean that NPC's express strong emotions? If so, I find that very fitting in a classic fantasy setting, especially because we're talking about a frontier type setting here. These people are the sons and daughters of settlers and pioneers, they shouldn't exhibit Victorian mannerisms.
I know you're not asking for a wacky comedy Mr Sacred, I think the wacky was just a poor choice of words on your part, and there might well be room for more lighthearted moments in the game. Personally I found there were enough, for instance Durance was probably the most likeable and funny character i've met in quite a few years of gaming.I think it's a fitting word, however superficially when people hear wacky they think of parody or goofiness, but I already explained how silly elements fit into the picture here. Anything that requires or facilitates suspension of disbelief is wacky in this context,
Yes I agree Durance was a fitting companion for this type of game. OTOH he also sticks out almost too much for exactly this reason.However I still think that you are, with respect, incorrect in your summation that it is lightness of tone that is the major stumbling block in Poe, I think it is a number of far more serious and hard to fix issues that could be improved. This is subjective though, so I am simply putting forth my argument that wackiness is the least of Poes problems.
I see other problems as well, such as the stronghold, combat resolution, the attribute system etc., but I actually think these problems are superficial compared to the fact that for a fantasy RPG, there's precious little well-realised fantasy in there.
-
It's in his slides http://media.obsidian.net/eternity/media/misc/pe-jsawyer-looking-back.pdf
lol @ him agreeing with all of my points. I said he's clearly not come to the same conclusion as me (or he doesn't admit it)
Yes, that's where he mentions they should introduce some sillier characters, not that the game as a whole is not wacky enough, which brings me back to my original point of majority of people apparently liking the game.
Do you have trouble reading the slides? He even uses the word soul.
-
For me "interesting" is a presentation of personal or relatable problems or situations, that is at one with and hopefully enhances the gameplay of a quest. It can be as deadly serious as say Vault 11 in New Vegas or the backstory of Durlag's Tower, or as lighthearted as much of Torment was, so long as it is implemented well. Defiance Bay I agree was not as well realised a setting as Athkatla, and nowhere near Vizima, Britain, Tarant or Sigil, however wackiness had nothing to do with that, it was more a case of a lack of focus on the little touches that aid verisimilitude, and the lack of thematic reinforcement.
I'm also talking about "little touches", however I can pinpoint what is meant by that. Verisimilitude is part of that btw. As it is now PoE's world doesn't make sense, dialogue is very personally oriented while the world is classic fantasy. It's also just as vanilla as D&D btw, unless you think widespread use of firearms somehow sets it apart.
Seriousness does not stymie suspension of belief, quite the opposite, it enhances a gameworld if it has verisimilitude, if the inhabitants show realistic behaviour and the issues of the world are well presented. Silliness is alright for silly situations or for breaking tension, if always used in a serious situation however it is likely to become vapid squeeing, out of place, childish and unrealistic. Morte serves as a counterpoint to the grim, driven and serious tone of much of Torment, the lighthearted and serious being well used, but even Morte's quips fade when the issue of his lying is brought up and the past is remembered. Seriousness has a place just as much as any other element, and many fantastic elements are not just serious but horrifying or outlandish in the extreme.What you are saying is that if an NPC takes things seriously the player will too, I'd say that's an unsubstantiated claim and one I can't confirm. The history of games is full of examples of serious business stories but the delivery is completely laughable and doesn't touch the player at all.
I'm not talking about turning PoE into a comedy game so that's hyperbole. PoE OTOH mostly lacks any tongue-in-cheek moments. A good RPG runs the whole gamut of emotion, PoE's tone is that of a ladies' teaparty throughout.
-
Personally for me the "wackiness" of the BG games got old very quickly, I didn't enjoy them for this reason but rather the following: A fairly sensible main plot, some interesting side quests, some of the less squeeing characters, exploration of what felt like a well realised world and of course the personal nature of the protagonists connection to the overarching narrative.
Minsc and Boo and their humour were not paticularly attractive, and became old very quickly because there was nothing else to them, whereas Morte in Planescape took the place of Mercutio, a derisive observer with far more character and depth. Thus beyond the quips lay an interesting person, rather than yet more wackiness. Interestingly enough I would say Korgan Bloodaxe also fulfills essentially the same role, there is more to him than just his psycopathy, though that is not explored in enough detail but more hinted at through his interactions with others.
I think if Poe lacks a distinctive "soul" then the answer lies in making a complete game rather than cutting corners, having attributes that make sense and are intuitive, having no features that are left unexplained because the developer couldn't be bothered, having a main quest line that affects one personally, not being herded into chokepoints where all ones hard work is rendered pointless, exploring the world one has created rather than altering it upon introduction, making mechanics that are sensible and easily explained rather than try to bluntly solve a gameplay problem.
However that's my own view, and it may be that there is no single answer when it comes to such a nebulous conundrum.
What makes side quests interesting? If you're making a fantasy RPG but you want to keep things "serious" you're obviously limiting yourself in what you can do. Defiance Bay suffers a lot from this, you just have to compare it to Athkatla to see that. An undead making machine is nothing compared to having a gang war with vampires, though that is also a problem of scope. But things like Pernisc's or the Salty Mast's quest are as banal and predictable as they come.
BG's world seemed well-realised because it integrated the fantasy elements well. In PoE they stand out like a sore thumb.
Humour and silliness aren't synonymous with wacky in this case. I take wacky here to mean anything requiring suspension of disbelief. However, seriousness stumps suspension of disbelief, so silliness can enhance the fantasy aspects (within limits).
The points you mention would make for a more cohesive/ convincing gaming experience, but I don't see anything there that would require throwing the term soul around. Games can be a polished experience without anyone talking about soul.
-
I'm not saying you can't prove that. I'm saying you haven't, not even by the vaguest of approximations.
I'm fine with you ignoring my points, just don't pretend to be able to follow what I've said
-
Still, Josh has taken notice of the problem so it's kind of pointless of you to deny it exists.
Did you see the GDC talk? Did he say anything along those lines? To my knowledge, Josh Sawyer only wishes for more diverse environments (which is quite understandable regardless of tone) and would like to add, quote, "Some sillier characters", emphasis on some - and, true enough, the game could use a little bit more humor, altho not that much. Overall, from interviews I've seen/heard, he's fairly happy with the tone of the world they've set in the original game. So where did you get the idea that even Josh Sawyer agrees with all of your points, disregarding the fact that him agreeing doesn't necessarily mean he's correct?
It's in his slides http://media.obsidian.net/eternity/media/misc/pe-jsawyer-looking-back.pdf
lol @ him agreeing with all of my points. I said he's clearly not come to the same conclusion as me (or he doesn't admit it)
-
Wow, good / evil path! So wacky!
Being evil or good gives you magical powers
you think this is realistic
good on you
-
Yeah BG had more wackiness, but that was hardly the soul of BG
- "My hotel's as clean as an Elven arse."
- "Heya, it's me, Imoen!"
- Xzar and Montaron
- Khalid
- Minsc
- "Methinks you are no ordinary chicken!"
- Noober
- Golden pantaloons
- Edwina
- "Me axe is bloody ready!"
- Jan Jansen
- Planar Sphere
- Human Flesh Armor
- Boots of Speed
- Raise dead
- Level drain
- Mage battles
- Contingencies
- The Underdark
- Good/ evil path
I rest my case (just because I can).
-
Josh also seems to think that six party members may be too much. That he sees a problem doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, or that his analysis of it is correct. But even if we do posit that there is at least a significant minority of players who found the 'soul' to be lacking in some sense, that doesn't mean that your analysis of it is correct. And frankly, you have yet to provide any compelling argument for your "soul == wackiness" claim.
Josh thinks he's onto something
I think he's onto something
You don't think so (because you like the game)
not a compelling argument either.
Also I'm open to counter points beyond "you can't prove that"
Moreover, even if wackiness is what those players complaining about soul were missing, it doesn't follow that a) adding wackiness would have made for a better game, or b) adding wackiness would have made for a more successful game. If adding soulful wackiness pleases one segment of the audience and disgruntles another segment of the audience in equal measure, it's just a lateral move as far as b) is concerned.This is not about sales numbers, if it was about sales I'd suggest Obs dumb down and consolify their games more but they're already doing that (hello Tyranny).
Adding wackiness, quirkiness, whatever you call it, would have been required to make a more traditional RPG, and certainly to make an IE games successor. That's my point. If that's better or not is open to discussion, but as I said if you argue against it you'd have to reconcile the serious business tone of things with the "let's go kill some evul munsters" aspects first.
-
I love fantasy, I hate Terry Pratchett's stuff, I loved BG, IWD and NWN, liked DA:O, hated DA2 and DA:I, liked Skyrim and love PoE. It's complicated obviously.
You can't boil things down easily to a point where you can say: "That's why everyone likes it". Unless you don't do a big survey you can only say why you liked or didn't like it.
For me, PoE is silly enough (you just have to play a char who's hunting for the clever disposition). It's epicness is good enough for me. I also like it's seriousness and sobriety. I really like it that items don't do things that are too weird and powerful. There could have been more diversity in the effects, true, but it's also cool that most unique weapons don't stand out so much and follow a certain set of rules - or should I say "set of effects" that are put together like Lego.
And with WM OBS introduced quite a bit of weapons which have truly unique features like Bittercut, Stormcaller, St. Ydwen's Redeemer and so on.
Designing and especially developing and testing such unique features (which you can't reuse in the game) costs time and money. Lets not forget that PoE had a small budget and a rel. short development time compared to many other games of that quality and scale.
I also like that they started the rule system as a streamlined one. They only got caught up in too much fuzz on the way. I mean look at the many different ways damage can be applied (direct damage, damage over time which depends on MIG and INT, damage over time which depends on MIG only and so on) and look at the six (?) categories of stuff that influences recovery time. But still I appreciate the effort.
For me, PoE is definitely not soulless.
I was specifically talking about people who are disappointed in a way with the game, not those who "love" it. But how can someone love PoE and BG/ IWD at the same time?!? Truly, I think it's possible. Maybe they like the diversity. Maybe they feel the game is more than the sum of its parts. Maybe, or very likely, these people aren't aware of the rift between serious business dialogue and roflstomping dragons for phat loot. Either way, I don't think it matters.
-
You sort of missed the point there - this 'people' entity you have mentioned on several occasions which had been disappointed with Pillars of Eternity has given the game average rating of anything between 80-90% on just about all user rating sites I've seen. Which means that, by and large, Pillars of Eternity is pretty damn liked by its fanbase as opposed to being disappointing. Oh, sure, you'll find a decent amount of forumites complaining about the game, but that's quite simply how complaining works - people are generally a lot more likely to go trough the trouble of registering on a forum and writing a post when they're unhappy about something.
By "disappointed with PoE" I meant no more than "disappointed with this certain aspect of it", although I've seen enough people criticize the game at large. Still, Josh has taken notice of the problem so it's kind of pointless of you to deny it exists.
-
Imagine scale of "fantazyness" and take BG2 as a zero. So on this scale Fallout4 and DA:O are like +40 and F:NV is -20. PoE on this scale is -100, because it is too realistic in terms of consequences of actions, too close to real life. There are no easy choices that lead to obvoiusly good or bad outcome. There's no magick word that would make all Dyrwoodans happy in the end, no Save-or-Die Spells of Ultimate Doom, no long forgotten artifacts that give simple answers to the questions of life, universe and stuff. Just actions, consequences and an eternity of unanswered questions... just like in RL.
And after getting stabbed, shot in the face and run through with pikes, everyone gets up and has a laugh. Just like real life.
And many gamers come to RPGs to find that feeling of specialness, ability to influence the whole imaginary world all by themselves, and they are naturally frustrated with what they find in PoE. The goal of a game designer here is to find a fine balance between realism and fantazy. And BG2 team did that perfectly. The opposite side of the spectrum is the DA:I with it's egomaniacal nonsense.I agree a balance has to be found, and BG2 did that pretty well.
In wanting to balance the systems they forgot to balance the realistic with the fantastical elements. You obviously need both, the realistic because people have to accept your vision, and the fantastical because it's still a fantasy RPG.
-
1
-
-
It's currently sitting at 89% on metacritic
Obs of all people should know what a fickle mistress metacritic is.
PoE speaks to people who want an updated, somewhat BG2-ish, complex RPG with a rich world that does take itself seriously, with events that matter to the characters in the game. It's not trying for "wacky". This is our niche, and it's been teetering on the brink of extinction for two decades. Please let us have it. There are a million other games out there for people who don't like this style, but we get only a few, and rarely at that. Doubly so for those of us who don't enjoy consolified UIs.Having wacky elements doesn't mean events don't matter to the characters, as they do matter in most fantasy stories. To me the attempted seriousness of PoE doesn't transport more emotion than BG's characters. They just lack that gaudy let's-go-on-a-quest feeling, which is bad because most of the time, that's what you're doing.
Not that it matters but I think you shouldn't hold your breath for un-consolized UI's in the future, after the direction Larian and InXile are heading.
-
finding his 'soul', specifically.
During his Gamescom presentation Josh mentioned a common complaint of players who were disappointed with PoE because they found its 'soul' to be missing. Josh also comments that 'soul is elusive'. Implying, of course, that players don't actually have a clue of what it is they're missing. So let's help him.
For people to be disappointed, there must have been certain expectations. We can assume that these expectations had something to do with the Infinity Engine games. All of these were D&D games, and most were set in the Forgotten Realms. I believe this is already the heart of the matter. As Josh mentioned elsewhere, D&D has always been an uneven rules system, torn between simulationism and gamism. And the Forgotten Realms are a notorious setting; they have been called silly, which they often are, but most of all they strive to be fantastical. Or, as I put it, wacky™.
In high fantasy, wacky things always happen. One of the tenets of fantasy is simply to boggle the mind, or at least surprise the recipient. Beings and items show unexpected behaviour or unnatural properties all the time.
In his quest to balance the rules and avoid degenerate player behaviour - which is often just making use of these special properties - pretty much everything in the game was streamlined. If you compare e.g. Baldur's Gate 2 with PoE, BG's wackiness is apparent. Its quirky spells, for example, have far more to offer than PoE's samey buff/ debuff/ damage spells. No hard counters means less impressive abilities on enemies. And magical items hardly ever did anything exciting - not even mentioning the fact that you always knew what they did right away.
The second blow to the traditional fantasy elements that could have been came from the game's tone; it's clearly trying to be serious. I say trying, because serious fantasy is boring and a dichotomy. My argument here rests on two assumptions:
1) fantasy is always escapist
and
2) escapism is not serious business.
Now, PoE clearly wanted to be darker in tone than the IE games, but dark =/= serious. In many cases, there's nothing sillier than a grimdark setting. So I'd say this in itself wasn't problematic - PoE could have been a dark, but still fantastical game, like its predecessors. What's really problematic is that it takes itself too seriously - and serious and wacky are on opposite sides of the spectrum. As such, this approach was unsuited to a successor of the IE games, or even fantasy RPG's at large. Sentient items, level draining, or raising the dead are more than just mechanics. They reinforce suspension of disbelief by being tied to the numbers. And I don't care if these are old, tired examples - Obs' job would it have been to make it better, not to simply avoid all this stuff.
-
Looking forward to kids buying this and financing a proper Pathinder CRPG.
-
The conclusion is pretty silly for anyone with any history of playing PC RPG's - and the author fails to make fitting comparisons, apart from praising the obligatory MotB and, for whatever reason, Icewind Dale. Apart from that, I agree with some points.
-
The Ranger can very easily use Intelligence as a dump stat. Pumping Might, Per and Dex instead is a pretty good idea unless you just can't live without hobbled enemies.
-
But now we don't know WHEN! Will it be in the next 5 minutes? The next 10 minutes?! Every second that goes by, I'm forced to wonder, "Could this be the second that the patch arrives?! WHAT IF I MISSED IT ALREADY ZOMG!!!11!11!1oneonewonwon11!"It's not like some of us have a week off work and don't want to play anything else...
Good to hear the gameplay bugs are about to get ironed out. I haven't been affected by anything technical, luckily.
-
1 week and I would have fallen for it, young padawan
-
1
-
-
I need a difficulty mode that makes prostitutes cost 1 gold, makes enemies forget about my wizard (I like em squishy) and gives trolls a million endurance so I can bang on them forever (I hate trollls). Do it Obs!
-
I really like the roleplaying incentives for priests and paladins. Mechanically, the classes are all so versatile I can't say I have a favorite.
POE 2 Suggestions
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
just two things:
- either increase flexibility of characters (multiclassing should have that covered) or don't include bottlenecks early on, before a party can bloom. I've had many interesting parties kick the bucket in the keep's hall.
- more incentives to figure reputations into your character concept. Like, how would a character be a great diplomat, if all they have is great strength?