Amentep

He also gave an example of a sneaky person being able to grab treasure chests without fighting but having to weigh whether they wanted to expend more resources to fight one of the areas antagonists so as to get that antagonists gear or not. So yeah, based on what he's saying you can get good loot whether you kill or not, but you won't get loot off of people you don't kill...

Not necessarily. There would just need to be an equivilent penalty, ie the loss of HP in combat isn't guaranteed but possible / loss of HP in stealth may be impossible, but other penalties may add to stealth to compensate so resources expended in either scenario would average to the same.

Indeed. Sadly enough, that's usually not the case. You and your co-worker could both worked 32 hours, paid the same. But it's 100% impossible both did the same amount of work. There always will be this variation. Same with questing in RPG's. And it's not a good way to reward one specific task more than the other, in this case, combat. Or you almost guarantee people will do it for the reward. It's why most people will want to work on sundays, it pays more than ordinary days. But one can hardly make everyone work on sunday alone and not the rest of the days. Nor is working on sunday really "harder" or " easier" than other days... I'm not saying to always reward combat as the best choice. I'm merely asking to reward the paths that hold the most conflict and confrontation(whether combat or not) I'd like to think - and I may be wrong on this - that just because the "system" at the high level isn't intended to prefer one way to solve a quest over another, that in specific situations there could be (and should be) places where combat leads to preferable outcomes. As I recall there was mention of objective and quest xp, so if a quest is broken down into 10 objectives, the quest might be completable by doing 4 objectives (stealth) 5 objectives (diplomacy) or 6 objectives (combat), thus making combat a "better" choice - but only for that particular quest (with the other objectives being optional but not required to complete the main quest). The idea being more objectives completed = more Quest XP when complete. I may be misunderstanding this, however.

it also opens up the question of why a player can't be awarded stealth xp for constantly walking back and forth in front of the same enemies; if you follow the idea that stealthing past "something" gives you xp, then why does it only give you xp once? Then there's the "Can you talk to the orc guard and diplomacy your way in (xp), sneak back out (xp) and then kill them all (xp)" problem...

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution. "Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind. So how does that encounter giving 600 exp to every solution not favor the hiding party? Because - for now at least - I don't know what resources might end up being expended for the hiding party. For example, stealth mode could consume stamina and stamina used in stealth mode could have a penalty to regeneration that stamina used in combat doesn't. Thus making the player whose party build is such that a stealth resolution is viable have to decide whether use of resources to stealth solve the quest outweighs the resources for using combat for the same (with the added penalty to stealth that failure in the stealth past results in losing both the stealth resources and your combat resources). But I'd like to think that if they're going to not encourage non-combat solutions at a high level that they're looking at ways to make the choice of resource use non trivial.

I'm not really saying its not viable (as it exists in games), but that the scenario encourages (via xp) the player using combat as a resolution. "Least effort" is an interesting thought; is it harder for a fighter with loads of skills in fighting to beat an orc guard who is stronger and bigger than they are in armed combat, or a thief with a lot of sneaking skills to get past an orc guard who can see in the dark and has better hearing than they have? Seems to me that there's effort in both situations, but effort of a different kind.

I don't want to put words in Helm's mouth but reading through this, I think the general fear is that by having quest XP, the system is encouraging whatever path requires the least amount of resources, thus you're replacing one system because it favors combat with a system that favors non-combat options. I'm not 100% convinced this is the case, partially because we know so little of how the resources are actually going to work. If I remember correctly the stamina system already mitigates some of the issue in terms of using up health potions in combat since as I recall stamina regenerates relatively easily but health not so much; but I'd think a combat based party would be (or should be?) less inclined to suffer health losses as opposed to stamina. This means that limits to times of use on skills might be a more important resource for players (combat powers used in combat, stealth powers in stealth) and management of resources in regard to the unknown situations ahead on the quest as opposed to what's in the inventory. Not sure.

True, it does, but in a way that is relatively easy to address. E.g. low-level loot drops from kills which more or less match your expected expenditure of resources for the battle. As an added perk, skillful players will be able to win battles with less resource use, meaning they'll end up ahead. This is a much easier problem to address than the imbalances introduced by kill XP. Could you please elaborate on how it would be so terrible if the majority of Exp was quest based and some exp was rewarded for combat ahead of avoidance options? I believe the inherent issue is the ability to double-dip into the XP. Lets say you have 10 orcs guarding a chest that contains an object you've been hired to get (the quest). If the 10 orcs have a 10xp for being killed value and the quest itself gives 500xp then if you fight the ten orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 600xp else if you sneak past the orcs (no xp) and complete the quest (500xp) you get 500 xp so the scenario encourages combat. Same scenario but you add 100 xp for sneaking past the orcs to not encourage combat as a resolution now if you sneak past the orcs (100xp) and complete the quest (500xp) and then double back and kill the orcs (100xp) you now encourage stealth complete quests and clean up for xp. So now you have to deal with, how do you make sneak a viable option without adding an additional incentive to go back and kill the orcs upon completion of the ques. You could remove the orcs (but why do they leave when they don't know what they're guarding is gone?) so they can't be killed. You could make them unkillable (that sort of thing annoys players). Or you could script it so that if the quest is completed by stealth the orcs no longer give XP. But I think what the developers are saying, rather than looking at a low level (script something that changes the quest xp for each scenario) that they'd like a high level solution that works for all scenarios.

Right, but I'd think that a fighter who specializes in sneaking would have to be paying a penalty to some other skill that would diminish their effectiveness in combat or other aspect of gameplay. Hence why I also suggested a "battle mage" build as opposed to a support one who might have an invisibility spell and a sound damping spell at the cost of not having as many combat spells to choose from.

PnP diplomacy can always be trumped by the DM. If a band of orcs are slaughtering the country side, the DM should have the orcs attack rather than parley. There's got to be some logic behind what is happening and the DM should control that logic. But that's the advantage of PnP, that things a lot more flexible than they'll ever be in a programmed game. It doesn't really solve the issue of avoiding combat becoming the best solution though. Wouldn't - in a well designed system - the best solution be based on the party build? ie, if you have a group of fighters and battle mages then surely the outlay of resources is going to be minimal compared to having the same group try a diplomatic or sneaky solution?

Sometimes good reviews make me go back to a game I don't like (case in point, Demon Souls). But I'm like you, I tend not to spend an inordinate amount of time on games I don't like (nor do I spend much time worrying about it if I didn't like it). I enjoyed Fallout 3. Was it as "good" as Fallout 1 and 2? I think I probably liked FO1 and 2 better - although all three games suffer from issues that if I wanted to complain about I could. But part of enjoying a game (IMO) is enjoying it for what it is rather than criticizing it for what it isn't; I can see flaws in these games and understand why others don't like particular entries but for me I find enough to enjoy and embrace that the negatives are outweighed.

No it's not the same because Risen, Gothic or Morrowind where never Turn Based. But to use your on example (The TES Series). Big Announcement from Bethesda. The Elderscrolls VI: Summerset New game Facts: Top Down Turn Based Combat. 5x5 square miles map with one village. Communicating in sign language. And it's set in the late stone age. Oh and there will be never ever again a traditional TES Style. Du you really think TES Fans would be cool with this? Even if it's a very good game. The fans would scream BETRAYAL. As a fan of Fallout 1 and 2 I didn't scream BETRAYAL when Fallout 3 was made. And frankly if Bethesda did the above with the Elder Scrolls games I also wouldn't scream BETRAYAL. Heck I didn't even scream BETRAYAL when Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was announced, nor when it shaped up to be a poorly conceived game. I'll look at the game they choose to make and evaluate it on what it is and whether what it is seems to be something I'd like to play. The rest of it is kind of irrelevant to me. Probably because to me the thing I like about Fallout is the 50s inspired apocalypse setting more than the turn based combat found in the original game. Others seem to think that Fallout can't be Fallout without TB combat. YMMV.

Yeah, MGM went bankrupt and couldn't afford to release it. They also had to digitally alter the film so the Chinese weren't the bad guys so they could release it in China. I was more thinking of MGM's bankruptcy; had the movie been stronger, I don't think it would have sat on the shelf for 2 years. One of the other studios would have snagged it.

Well Calax's parents seem to be going into the "as long as we pay something towards you, we have the right to tell you what to do" territory which is a bit foreign to me (although I know people like that). But I suspect that's really just an excuse for his parents to justify trying to tell him what they want him to do (well meaning or not, its a good way to alienate adult children).

That frustrated me, to be honest. I didn't know what happened in the Arrival DLC (since I had no way to get it and had been offline mostly for some time) so I didn't know why I was grounded under house arrest. Only later did I read what had happened in Arrival. Too bad EA doesn't release compilation editions of their games + expansions when building a game that relies on those expansions for narrative hooks...

Neither did I. My parents attitude was the only person who can lock a door in the house was them since they owned it and if you had a guest in the house, you didn't close the door to the room. I can't say that it was unreasonable.

There's probably a reason the Red Dawn remake sat for 2 years before being released...

Not when it looks as cool as it does in that game. I still haven't bought it, but I did enjoy the demo. Glad to know I'm not crazy I've actually beaten the game multiple times and yet I still like picking it up from time to time and taking on some giant monster. And just walking around the landscapes and bashing stuff. Interested to see what they do for the sequel. A PC version would have been great; pity there wasn't one. I've also been trying Demon Souls and Dark Souls and I have to say I just can't get into either game. Logically, I can see why people like it, but I've read a lot about how people feel a certain degree of catharsis from overcoming a challenge. I mostly just dread finding the next challenge that I have to repeat-repeat-repeat. I stopped of Demon Souls at a level where you're underground and it just grated my nerves having to go through another tunnel. I'm suspecting both games aren't for me.

Yea, this. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise" by saying the exact say **** Fargo's saying people would be screaming bloody murder. And if EA said that they wanted to make an IE inspired game i wouldn't have given them 1$. If this was a PR guy from Activision reviving the Torment "franchise",i wouldn't give a **** about the game. If Obsidian or inXile had the Fallout franchise i would be happy. For Beth's i don't care. *shrug* as much as EA or Activision seem to not make games I'm interested in, I'd wait out to hear how the game is shaping up / see footage / etc before making any complaints. Not liking the business decisions a company makes doesn't mean they can't make (even if its accidental) a decent game. Mind you I tend not to scream "bloody murder" in general about video games since, generally speaking, I just don't pay or play games that don't interest me. And if this sequel shapes up to be terrible, then I'll happily skip it too.

I've been playing Dragon's Dogma again. Is it sad that I still enjoy running up and down the countryside, jumping on giant monsters and stabbing them in the face no matter how many times I do it?

Tacos.

The forum badges apparently are going up when the fulfillment site goes up. Also, we should get a secret handshake.* * you may have to make your own

Wasn't he interrupted before he could do that? I saw the movie twice in the theater and I actually can't remember. Something happens.

My objection is that (especially given the restraint), there's no point in naming the game Torment aside from tugging on the heart strings since people highly regard the game Torment. For the same reason I'm not a fan of Interplay reviving the old Black Isle Studios name. It's manipulative and not necessary. Stating that they want to make a torment style game would be fine. But noooo, they are naming this game Torment straight up, and have said "Torment games have these themes." What made Torment amazing was that it was new, fresh, and unexpected. He's already handicapped himself for what the game's themes can be (i.e. a rehash of the same themes explored in Torment, so what was surprising and unique in the original game is now being leveraged to acquire more money, all the while undermining the potential for being surprised and unique in the same way that the original game could be." How has he handicapped himself? If he'd said that he was making a "torment style game" and said it'll have "these themes because we see this as the thematic aspects of Torment that will make a torment style game"...how does it matter what they name it? Your problem still seems to boil down to "I don't like them using the name" for no other reason than, apparently the name is sacrosanct. But they're still doing their own thing; they've defined Torment 2 within a context, but they could have defined that same context without calling it Torment 2; the idea that they've limited themselves is ridiculous because they've only limited themselves in ways in which they'd have to limit themselves - to define what it is they want to do. And doing Wasteland 2 isn't? Doing Project Eternity and mentioning Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale (and yes, PLANESCAPE: TORMENT) isn't? All of these kickstarters have used a hook, a way to boil down the essence of what the pledge is going for. And really Planescape: Torment is a "powerful franchise"...that never got a sequel back when the original Black isle could have done it? But how does development of this game effect PST at all? Is Fargo going to use the kickstarter to hire a bevy of break-in artists to snatch every existing copy of PST from the houses and vaults of the unsuspecting? Seriously, how has the "novel new funding mechanism that frees developers from their creative shackles" really done in terms of inventiveness? Project: Eternity - sold as a successor to IE games, heavily promoted BG, IWD, PST Wasteland 2 - sequel Shadowrun Returns - sequel and adaption of existing game system Star Citizen - sold on strength of connections to Wing Commander and Privateer / Freelancer Broken Sword - sequel Leisure Suit Larry - sequel Grim Dawn - spiritual successor to Titan Quest (using some of the same assets) and so on. Even most of the non-sequels are usually setting themselves up as "like [thing x]". So again, how new/novel is the stuff we're getting? Not much to my mind. Doesn't mean it isn't good or worth supporting, but I haven't seen anything that is shackle freeing (in the sense that defining a project will always shackle it in some fashion). And yet there are already arguments over things like power cool-downs, romances, level scaling and things like that and whether that makes Project Eternity a "real" successor. Anytime you frame a new creative endevor as "like" something else, there are going to be people who don't like it. And there are going to be people who dislike something - regardless of its quality - because they don't like the name. Maybe the game will be good. Maybe it'll be bad. But I'm not going to sweat the fact that they've decided to call it "Torment" of some kind. It is limiting, because we as gamers already know what the game is going to be about - the new and fresh themes that were established in the original. Which is completely contrary to what PST delivered (since Torment 2 is bound to attempt to recreate what PST delivered, lest it be a failure). Might as well just say "we're going to wow you just the same as PST did!" and step on your landmine right from the get go. No we don't know what its going to be about because we haven't played it. And again, had Fargo came out and said - "yeah we're doing a game and its going to have these themes" you wouldn't be saying he'd limited himself, because at some point he has to define what the game will be. The problem here is that they're calling it "Torment" and you see that as a slap to the face of torment fans. And that's fair enough. But I figure a game needs to be evaluated on what it is and whether it works for what it does, not for what its called or not even what the game its supposed to be like was.