Sheikh
-
Posts
398 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sheikh
-
-
I was summarizing the topic and saying that unless developers have something to say, thread is done IMO.
-
They can. You didnt actually ask them to.
-
Yeah but Obsidian dont have to stay in business if that is the case. I dont really give a ****.
The point is, Obsidian would have made this game with only 1.1m. What do they use the extra 2.9m for doesnt make any difference to me. They had an extra 2.9m to work with - kickstarter works and there is no problem. They could have considered that 2.9m as profit and they probably did in fact.
So they definitely dont have to sell any copies because 2.9m was already guaranteed profit, they just decided to reeinvest that profit into eternity. But since they didnt have to do this, eternity doesnt have to sell any copies either. It was Obsidians choice and risk that they took like this and thats it.
-
Variety then at least. Not depth in that sense though yeah. I still think its good to add as much variety as possible, more or less on as many different levels as possible. Is nice.
-
It looks ****. It still looks washed out and the level of detail is basically nonexistant on the painted background. Juts some soggy looking dark green stuff on a light green background with a few blue things inbetween. Basically.
With more detail there would be something to look at, instead theres something inbetween a painting and a children having splattered some colors on a paper with his fingers. You know what I mean?
1. It doesnt look like a forest on that painting, it looks like a dark green mass
2. Those things dont look like rivers, they look like blue lines.
3. The background doesnt look like grass, it looks like light green [light green...nothing]
If they spent 700 hours and 400 000 dollars on map it would be far better for sure.
But for now I recommend this map to Obsidian because at least it doesnt try to be something it clearly isnt - art. This sincerely looks better as a result of the lack of confusion over wtf am I looking at? And I mean it, I would prefer this one.
-
1
-
-
Kickstarter games do have to be accessible.
Because they still need to sell.
Actually, they dont need to sell, thats the point of kickstarter jesus christ
Feed the devs while they make the game so they could make it while earning their living without being dependant upon special interest parties like the publisher.
Any copies it sells is just a very nice bonus
Okay.
I know you think that evil companies are run by evil, evil spirits or ghosts or whatever that can inhabit our bodies if we don't get enough colon cleanses or whatnot, but do you know how companies work?
They need to make money to stay existent.
Obsidian is working off loss right now. Every single copy rewarded through the Kickstarter is a loss.
That's the harsh truth.
And how do you know that?
-
Yeah but what do they think of the criticism that placescape somehow magically made 10x better animations than them?
-
Everything you can possibly tweak in the name of depth is worth trying to tweak, in my opinion, which is includes some extremely fundamental/high level things to the game.
Like lets make the story of the game be narrated by one fictional character in one style in the first half of the game and diferently by a different character later, just as an example. This is all good.
-
You know they can just make another kickstarter if they want to make another game like this.
I sure hope Obsidian makes tons of money by selling this game too and I wish them the best and hope they make more games like this in the future, especially if this one is going to be awesome which is what its looking like, but it doesnt really matter at all to be honest.
-
Yeah i agree the running and walking animations are totally ****ed and I dont really give a ****, safe. Because the animations are good enough for me to represent whats going on in the game without breaking immersion.
I really would like to know what obsidian themselves think of this whole topic, this criticism and what I just said also?
-
Yeah so we start sacrificing the game in any way at all so it could sell so we could get more games like this la da dada dada da
It doesnt work that way.
That will devolve back to where we started - special interests, such as a publisher who just want to make money. So it is no longer based on free will.
What capital does Obsidian even have? Obsidian doesnt have any capital, its owners do.
The whole point of kickstarter is we dont have to worry about whether there is a market for it. We get to know that before development starts. If we think like you said Guard Dog, there literally is no point and I dont believe that is the case. Kickstarter games dont need to have a market. The backers are the market.
Its nice of you to be so concerned for Obsidian that they have a market and all and that they can continue operation and so on, but they can manage that themselves I am sure.
Obsidian deciding to spend all of the money - as they said, on the game, is their choice. They wouldn t even have to do that and they could make a lesser game too and hell thatd even be fine as far as it goes, by me at least.
Let the grown men do their job! They dont need their finances babysat, they can handle them.
-
But he implied it again on two occasions during which he was saying he hadnt implied it.
-
Kickstarter games do have to be accessible.
Because they still need to sell.
Actually, they dont need to sell, thats the point of kickstarter jesus christ
Feed the devs while they make the game so they could make it while earning their living without being dependant upon special interest parties like the publisher.
Any copies it sells is just a very nice bonus
-
2
-
-
Ah is good. High five!
-
Pillars wizards are not DND wizards. Not all rpgs handle wizards the same. In the wizardry games they are glass cannons with some buffs debuffs. Seems like thats what they are here also.
Sounds good, at least. So they are rather special specialists as I take it?
-
We don't need "equally useful" or "equally combat worthy" classes. What we need is enough content in the game to justify the abilities of the classes. I find it awfully hard to believe that it is impossible to create situations where core DnD classes (as an example) are NOT useful.
It is not that hard to come up with situations and restrictions that allow full set of abilities as they are to be preserved, all the while making all abilities useful. It is the basis of god encounter design. Any average DM will pull it off. That is why people still play Fighters and Monks in D&D games. In the end it all boils down to how the content is implemented.
Yeah thats true.
So a more general point is that its good if the classes are extremely varied and have many niche abilities. The way to solve this is to create more situations that cater to each classes very specific talents. Meaning we make them useful based on situations, not based on themselves. So to make wizards more useful, instead of making them not totally **** in early game in terms of combat usefulness, you create very specific situations where wizards can be useful despite being **** at combat, in early game. Thats how I expand upon this comment.
-
1
-
-
Depth, strategy, challenges and a thinking person's game
High five!
-
@ Sheikh
Why would you want any class to have no non-combat use?
Because it makes that class different from the classes that have it. Difference is the essence of variety and indirectly of depth because variety is a component of depth. TL;DR: More depth.
I don't understand how that adds depth, why can't a warrior be good at sneaking around or talking to people?Because then he isnt any different from the thief class in that regard. One class can, other cant, means there is more difference between those classes and as a results there is more variety=depth in those classes. Choice of class becomes a bigger challenge.
Surely a warrior who has trained himself to be good at those things is a deeper more interesting character then Og the brainbasher who can only bash brains and is outwited by pastry filling.Good point, but thats multiclassing. Ideally multiclassing imposes special restrictions so that doing it demands a little sacrifice, this, again, forces and chllenges the player to choose.
Thats the main reason why this is all good, to make the player have to think about their choices and therefore make them think about the differences between the classes. That brings out the depth (difference between the classes) that is there.
So with that in mind, if you want a fighter who sneaks, it forces you to explore the differences between fighting and sneaking - through asking yourself the question "is it worth it" - that makes you compare fighting to sneaking in the context of the game and how valuable each is, in your mind and thats awesome. But if the multiclassing sacrifice is small, you can essentially do it just as well as if the fighter could simply learn to sneak just so.
-
1
-
-
Yeah JFK, you dont like it so lets label it toxic and moderate it to pieces so perhaps it would be a bit more to your liking.
Or you can just either go away or deal with it. Nobody forces you to read or post anything on here and neither does anyone force me to. Thats freedom and it works.
-
Noooooooo, I dont want them to be equally useful! I want wizards combat usefulness to be garbage like in early game in BG (compared to warrior) and complete opposite late game, more or less, for example!
In fact, this is the best:
#1 class is very bad in combat early game, average late game. But he is extremely useful at noncombat tasks (talking, picking locks, you know anything noncombat)
#2 class is bad in combat early game, awesome late game. Has moderate noncombat use.
#3 class is awesome in combat early game and good in combat in late game. But he has no noncombat use at all.
Classes dont eve have to be balanced from a combat perspective at all. They can be balanced for their lack of combat usefulness through their noncombat usefulness. Thats extreme depth and I love it!
For example you can pick class #3 purely to compensate for class #1 in combat, if you already picked class #1. And of course theres infinite shades of grey between all of these three classes.
Having a class be simply weak early but strong later (and vice-versa) isn't great character development IMO - better would be keeping all the classes useful in their own niches.
So in this regard we are doing that, but the niche is not just combat, but also noncombat.
I mean wizard using fireball to be useful in combat and warrior using [axe +3, 20 strength and a feat or two] is variety within the combat niche itself. But in this way, we take variety to a higher level, which I am sure is even better.
-
I'll bet he costs BiK DollARBILLZ now
Good for him, high five!
-
^Pretty much - except that I'm not equating 'power' with 'equally useful' - what are we using to define 'power'? Only dps?
COMBAT USEFULNESS
-
He was a very good narrator but I am sure Obsidian can find another very good one too.
-
So you would like Wizards to be exactly as powerful as warriors in all stages of the game, except to achieve this power in different ways?
Not encouraged
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Sheikh
Profit and making a good game are opposites and always get in the way of each other. I want a good game, dont really care about Obsidians profits.
And thats why kickstarter is good.
We need to emphasize the good game, not the profits I feel. Because for all I care, if Obsidian start making **** games the profits make no difference anymore to me, in fact it'd be better if they went bankrupt if they were making **** games like 98% of developers.