.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Sacred_Path
-
Posts
1328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sacred_Path
-
-
If I tell you that I'm going to, at some point in the future meet up with you, and you have absolutely no idea when that will be, then why would you just stand there actively waiting on me to arrive, then get mad at me when you wasted your own time foregoing other things just to wait on my arrival?
I'm simply going to quote this here:
The last official information we ever got, however, was merely "soon!"
as I haven't closely followed the plans for the backer site. So, my example would be more appropriate than yours
What you're debating is rather unclear, at this point. All I've said is that there's no logical justification for suggesting that Obsidian is somehow going against their promise by not having the fulfillment site up by now when they never guaranteed to have it up by now. People are quite literally suggesting "it shouldn't take this long."
We can objectively say that, if you're bound on putting up a website, it can be done in much, much less than a year, so at the very least, expecting it to be done in less than a year is, by itself, very reasonable.
The very lack of information that your argument rests on OTOH is another thing that frustrates people about this. If they had said from the very beginning that the website will go live at the point of, say, beta release, there would be no complaints (fewer, at any rate). That's why I mentioned unspecific advertising.
Could they probably update their current estimation of its status, and provide us with whatever they do currently know? Yes. I never said otherwise. Did they suggest that they'd have more info "soon," a few months ago, and now we still don't have more info? Yes. Neither of those means that it's wrong or somehow problematic for the fulfillment site to not yet be completed.
If backers would welcome a means to have a better overview of their pledge and possibly a way to easily modify it, then yes, the lack of such an option is problematic.
Though it might've been some minor degree of wrong for them to have mis-estimated the relative timeframe of additional info, and/or to simply slack in providing us with that info.
Yeah, that's why no one is screaming for their blood or polishing uzis. It's a minor inconvenience. I don't know what made you think otherwise.
-
People can feel as entitled as they'd like to have those promises with unspecified timeframes fulfilled all they want. I suppose they're simply emphasizing, in this thread, their feelings of that entitlement, and not in any way assuming something they don't actually know by suggesting that the unspecified amount of time should've already elapsed by now?
If I tell you to wait for me because I'll come around and then I show up 12 hours later, you're not gonna be mad because I didn't mention a time so I can't be late.
I suppose if Obsidian were throwing a party, but they didn't know when it was going to be, yet, then we're entitled to invitations, RIGHT NOW, that allow us to RSVP.
I strongly suspect that Obs have had a rough idea, from the beginning, of when the backer site should go live (and even if not a specific time, then a specific set of circumstances), so I think you're falling flat there.
I think you're missing the point anyway. I'd never debate the fact that my customers are entitled to their expectations that I evoked with my unspecific advertising.
-
Step 1) Don't know details of situation...
Step 2) ...
Step 3) Entitlement to demands.
Seems legit...
The details of the situation are indeed quite irrelevant
As it's more like:1) get promises without details
2) hand over money beforehand
3) feel entitled to have promises fulfilled
If manpower was the problem (which I doubt), I certainly wouldn't care about the details, because I do know for a fact that Obsidian isn't just made up of the P:E team, so it would simply be a matter of delegation.
-
I didn't allege that you did. I only pointed out the difference.
I can understand people desiring for fulfillment to be going faster than it is. What I don't understand is people expecting it to be going faster than it is, much less to suggest it's somehow wrong of Obsidian to be taking this long.
I wish P:E were complete and ready to play right now, but I don't think that it should be done by now.
I think a lot of people (including me) don't know exactly how many people are working on P:E, and what reasons have so far prohibited say, one or two of them from working on the backer site and making it go live. Ensuring the functionality of doors may take precedence over that, but I think customers are generally entitled to wanting to get their stuff done.
Hey, Josh is busy crunching numbers and stuff, but shouldn't his experience allow him to whip up a backer site in his spare time? Yeah? No? Maybe.
-
Sure, if you've just got the goods sitting there at your feet, and all you need to do is take them to a shipper and say "Hey, please deliver these," and you're simply failing to do so.
When you have to produce all the goods AND get an entire site built to collect/finalize recipient data and allow for upgrades and such (necessitating even MORE production of goods), all while working on an entire video game project with a relatively small budget, I'm not really sure "taking your sweet time" is an accurate description at that point.
I didn't say I actually want them to focus less on the game and more on the backer site, I simply stated that I can understand customers wishing for a speedy fulfilment of all promises; and that includes miniscule things like badges, even without any binding contracts.
-
Taking your sweet time to deliver goods is surely something you can be blamed for, wether or not you actually gave an EDT.
As for badges, I'm sure they'll coincide with the beta, because that's what makes sense.
-
In that regard, I hope we can carry them in bookbags.
library wing babiez
-
Actually, you completely fit the profile I described. You want the exclusive, different gameplay that comes with the stronghold. You want more content, but wrapped in a different package than the usual quest. That's exactly what I described.
I don't really see that because
Actually, no. For the people who strongly wants the stronghold, the rewards that come with it are secondary to the simple break in gameplay it provides.
I wouldn't enjoy the stronghold if it had no numerical advantages, and I wouldn't enjoy it if it had only numerical advantages. I want a system that both reflects a real rise in status, and one that also plays differently than if I hadn't gone down that road.
Example: "Witcher 2: Assasins of Kings"
At the end of Act 1 you get to side with Vernon Roche or with Iorweth. The quality and amount of story after this decision is pretty comparable, yet the results of your actions differentiate a lot. Neither of these paths is better/worse (objectively, not subjectively), yet both have their distinct pros and cons. Can it be done? It can be done. The same goes with a stronghold.
There must be room for both equal and unequal opportunities in an RPG. I don't really want a game where, after an epic battle, I have to sit down and think "actually, I could just have let everyone live and still be rewarded in equal measure".
-
Why even consider siding with the dragon? Because a role-playing game means you play a role (duh). Since when all of ours unique characters have a role of dragonslayers or landlords all of a sudden? You kill every single living thing for xp or gold? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming.
The thing is every feeling of progression is lost if all choices are equal. On the first playthrough, it may be totally cool to roleplay and say "shove your stronghold, I'm a man of the road", knowing that you're not losing out on much content. On your second or third playthrough though, I'm sure a feeling of "man, I wish they'd made some better use of that stronghold" will come up.
-
2
-
-
No, actually I can see the point of having something for the no-stronghold playthrough. A few minor quests rising from the fact the player isn't managing the hold.
That's entirely subjective. Personally, I prefer one strong option here over two weak ones. Killing the dragon in an epic battle and taking his gold vs. letting him live and making him a quest giver, which is better and why?
Couple of minor missions is enough for the alternative history to be interesting enough.
The replayability of P:E in all likelihood won't hinge on the stronghold, though. Apart from that, I agree. It would make sense that you get access to a few different tasks if you're an anonymous mercenary rather than a count. I'd simply want the stronghold to be the 'strong' choice, because well, that's what makes sense.
-
The Baldur's Gate series had lots of these. One of the first items you pick up is a History of Halruaa for a quest in Candlekeep, just a few paragraphs discussing a country you will never visit in-game and which has zero impact on gameplay. There were books like that scattered all over the game, completely meaningless in terms of gameplay but which added a sense of the greater Forgotten Realms actually existing outside of the main plot of the game.
Funny you should bring up BG, I didn't think of that. Probably because I never bothered with books in BG. First of all the Forgotten Realms seem to cliché laden and uninteresting, and the second was, what with the wealth of FR material, trying to learn about its lore via ingame books seemed like an uphill battle.
In P:E though, I'll gobble up any lore I can find.
-
Combat can have enjoyable gameplay but most people wouldn't do it if no loot was ever dropped. Wanting some kind of meaningful reward doesn't mean you don't enjoy a game mechanic for its own merit
Exactly. The point is that "see, stronghold people get a stronghold, so they don't need anything else exclusive" is wrong because it only becomes an enjoyable experience if it's meaningful; if the stronghold is a mechanic of its own that provides more than just numerical advantages.
I don't see a problem with some exclusive encounters for people who don't want the stronghold as it is the type of thing that would also add replay value for those of us who do want it.
The problem as I see it is if you can get the same kind of things without a stronghold as with it, just fewer of each (fewer items, fewer quests). A stronghold, and the position that comes with it, would in reality mean all kinds of opportunities. Some of these opportunities will be simulated by taking prisoners. In reality, it IS a unique opportunity to have your own lands. Why then shouldn't it offer unique content compared to a mercenary company living on the road?
-
1
-
-
Actually, no. For the people who strongly wants the stronghold, the rewards that come with it are secondary to the simple break in gameplay it provides. If they were just interested in more content and its rewards, they would just ask for bigger and more numerous side-quests.
Nop. I'm one of those people and I don't fit your profile. I will enjoy the exclusive gameplay variants that come with the stronghold, such as the whole prisoners affair. Why should I just ask for more side quests when I can have it wrapped up in a neat package that includes a stronghold? You're implying that people just want a stronghold for LARPing reasons and as long as they get a building with high walls they'll be content. I challenge that assumption.
That's why it's optional, because there are people who really don't like that kind of gameplay in their RPG and made themselves clear about that fact in the past.
It's optional because it's never been a core component of IE games, so this would go directly against their pitch. However, 'optional' isn't the same as 'inconsequential', and I hope this is reflected in the way the stronghold is tied into the game. Making the stronghold optional doesn't imply that the devs agree that people who don't choose the stronghold should get the same amount of content as those who do.
-
The oroblem, if you want to call it that, is that running the stronghold will be a bit of a hassle. You have to be physically present regularly, you have to fend off attacks, etc. If I don't get any exclusive content out of that, it's simply not worth it - people don't want a stronghold, they want the advantages it provides.
Exclusive is the key word here; you'll want to give stronghold owners something they can only have because they went that extra mile to take care of their stronghold. Right now it sounds like prisoners will be exclusive to those with a stronghold. More items, more stat bonuses, more NPCs and mo money aren't exclusive, they're simply more of the same.
-
I think he's already done the stupid playthrough
-
One of the worst offenders of running a stronghold in games is when it's actually inconsequential. They're doing their best to avoid this pitfall, it seems. In a lot of games, your "stronghold" isn't actually a stronghold at all; it's not a fortified base that offers you real strategical advantages but requires effort, planning, and your actual physical presence. It's just a pretty house.
Why should there be a need to accomodate those who don't want to run their stronghold as much as those that do? Personally, I don't like companions. I prefer to customize characters to the n-th degree and otherwise have them be silent automatons. I'm not v. happy about the fact that those who choose to have interactive companions in P:E will probably get to see more content than you'd get with a fully player created party (i.e. personal quests), but I'm not complaining. There's really no need for all options in an RPG to be equal. If it's possible to win the game on normal difficulty without running a stronghold, that should be enough. I'd much rather have a game that's well balanced on all difficulty levels around the assumption that players will use all options available to them than a game with a myriad ways to play it.
-
4
-
-
If for the sake of balance making the stronghold mandatory is preferrable, I hope they do that. If good stronghold management makes the game easier, and therefore becomes critical on the higher difficulty settings, I'm all for that.
-
(unless the stronghold completely replaces the player house, but I doubt that.)
I seriously hope that. If nothing else, getting both a house and then a stronghold in Act 1 would be sort of silly. Getting the house after you already have a stronghold would be equally silly.
-
YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAHHH
You will be offered the stronghold early in the game, before you finish Act 1.Great!
I'm really excited about the fact that the stronghold in P:E will be a real, dynamic base of operations and be on the forefront of your campaigning rather than being an afterthought.
-
1
-
-
Is this the thread where we talk about all the pitfalls of BG that P:E should avoid?
-
If BG serves as any indicator of the general style of combat, I don't think ultra-precise placements and extremely well-timed spells and abilities will demand much pausing for the majority of combat. I don't think anyone will gain anything from keeping things paused 90% of the time, and making a 15-second combat take 5 minutes.
Considering there are even multiple "channels" for modal abilities, my guess is you'll want to have those active all the time/ as soon as combat may be coming up. Of course, there's the compromise of allowing players to build relatively low-maintenance characters, but I don't think that'll be a real (desirable) alternative for all characters, every time.
-
Which is exactly why your substitution of the word "pausing" into Josh's quote was utterly unnecessary, since he made it clear he's in no way advocating "reaction = pausing."
What you're advocating and what ends up being the reality of the finished product may easily be two different things.
Maybe a character who has both "Power Attack" and "Rapid Shot" active will be visually distinct compared to someone who doesn't. Maybe.
-
You think pausing the game is required for assessment/tactical alteration to occur. I see.
bad trolling is bad
For the reasons I mentioned, yes, I'm skeptical about micromanaging your characters' tactical roles in P:E.
-
Changing what units are doing based on the circumstances of combat is the essence of tactics.
pausing is the essence of tactics?
(IOW you have a real time game, not a turn based one)Pausing is the top hat of tactics?
See. I can blatantly misrepresent people's quotes by arbitrarily changing out words, too. ^_^
You think that pausing and assessing/ changing tactics don't go together in real time with pause. I see.
(IOW you have a real time game, not a turn based one)
Fulfilment site?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Your example implied that we actually had no clue at all of when the backer site was supposed to go up. Of course, "soon" is still pretty relative, mirite?
I never said they lied, I do expect that the site will go up at some point.
You personally, as in, in contrast to others ITT. Of which I can see no proof, reading through the posts here.