Overreaction theater!

[AW8]

and i wondered why i haven't been posting on the forums much... stuff like the level scaling confirmed thread is a pretty good example of it. people, think for just a second. why did we back this project in the first place? because we're trusting this particular group to make a game, because they've done it before. and they've not only done it before, but they've done a great job at it. they've also learned a lot along the way since those halcyon days, which would suggest that they're even better prepared to make a great game. so why don't we actually do what we did when we had next to no information and basically a bunch of names, game and developer, thrown at us? trust them.

Your argument, that we should trust Obsidian (as opposed to voice our worries or criticism, I take it?), makes me think of

.

 

We've already trusted Obsidian with out money, are we not entitled to raise our concerns about the project?

 

Obsidian doesn't need you to defend them. And if you can't accept that people voice their concerns, who's overreacting?

[Monte Carlo]

People from RPGCodex said bad things about a game i like so i hate them

 

Tragic, but what does this have to do with this discussion?

 

We could play yo momma all day on this. The fact remains that the guy went on a hissy fit based on... what? He's bitching about the lack of TB combat. Seriously? The game, from day ONE, was meant to be inspired by IE style RTwP

 

I know that Codexians want Fallout and that they've been grinding their teeth about it for fifteen years. I know that they are too-cool-for-skool. I know that they think they are the alternative Frat House where you get to ride your motorbike up the stairs.

 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't call them when they spout self-righteous BS over here like they do over there.

 

Your turn. You guys love turn-based, right?

[evdk]

Oh, VotS is throwing a smug fit, not a hissy fit. There's a subtle difference - he's currently high on the I-told-you-so feeling.

[Monte Carlo]

Oh, VotS is throwing a smug fit, not a hissy fit. There's a subtle difference - he's currently high on the I-told-you-so feeling.

 

His happiness gives me a warm fuzzy. Can he just take it somewhere else?

[alanschu]

It's because people mostly assume the worst case scenarios of said mechanics. For example "partial level scaling" - it can be done right - via clever placing of monsters etc. (very rare solution), and it can be done bad (Elder Scrolls) - Since the bad examples of level scaling are more imprinted in memories - they automatically get called up. Same goes with crafting and other mechanics *shrugs*.

 

These hypothetical arguments make up the definition of being an apologist.

 

Level-scaling and cooldowns have always sucked RPGs. Hypothetical arguments to the contrary is nothing but blind hope that Obsidian will somehow invent a completely new design that will blow away everyone. Betting on mechanics that are already solid seems a much wiser choice with a low budget.

 

Level scaling exists in games like Baldur's Gate 2 BTW. I am pretty sure it's in PST as well.

 

There is no "hypothetical" here, so my only conclusion is that you think Baldur's Gate 2 sucks.

[Jandor]

One of the other forums I frequent tends to have topics discussing religion and politics. Those topics still manage to be more civil than the ones we have here about which magic system people would prefer.

 

I honestly find that a bit confusing.

[DocDoomII]

One of the other forums I frequent tends to have topics discussing religion and politics. Those topics still manage to be more civil than the ones we have here about which magic system people would prefer.

 

I honestly find that a bit confusing.

You've been in the wrong place then. Usually discussions on religion end in carnage and mass banning on forums.

[Jandor]

I'm glad I've been lucky in my choice of forums in the past .

[metiman]

Level scaling is not the point anyway. Sawyer has already said that it's not going to be in the game in any significant way. What more can he say? That's good enough for me. So it's a bit of a red herring. But we may be getting cooldowns-as-rest and other nextgen features which arguably simply are out of place in a tribute game to IWD and BG2 and PS:T, regardless of their merits. It is undeniable that those games did not have any of these nextgen mechanics being discussed. It is plausible to argue that it is dishonest of them to include these mechanics based on their promises right on the kickstarter page. I think they have the right to make any game they want, but they should be upfront about exactly what their vision is on the kickstarter page. Some people are investing lots of money into this. Thousands of dollars even. That's quite a different thing entirely from the many people who are just preordering a game. Such people are true investors and what they are investing in is Obsidian's game pitch on Kickstarter. Their investment is to see that sort of game get made, despite the tremendous unpopularity of it even on these forums.

 

It's just unfair to such people not to stick with your promises. I'd go so far as to say that it is wrong. Unethical. You can try to redefine what an old-school IE-like cRPG is all you want, but they were what they were. Every time you change one of the mechanics of those games in the name of "progress" or "evolution" you are changing the fundamental nature of the game. At the very least there should have to be an argument as to why a particular change does not change an important dynamic of those IE games: something essential to why those of us who actually loved those games enjoyed them so much. The burden of proof should be on those who propose the changes to the IE formula, not on those who want to keep the old mechanics. I don't think Sawyer has made a particularly good case for his rest-as-cooldown dynamic. Yes, walking back to a campsite is not the most exciting thing, but trying to remove that minor tedium might destroy the very IE formula that they claim to want to emulate.

 

It's often difficult to define what it is exactly that makes one game enjoyable and another with not so different mechanics not enjoyable. The only thing we know about the love that some people felt for games like BG2 is that the reasons for it are both subtle and complex. For instance why do some people (like me) find BG2 gameplay absolutely addictive and enjoyable for more than a decade of replays and yet never get more than a tiny fraction into BG1? Are the game dynamics between these two games really so different? No. The difference is subtle and yet it is enough to put some players off entirely. Compared to the minor differences between BG1 and BG2, or even between IWD1 and IWD2, Obsidian's proposed changes to the very essence of IE-ness are anything but insignificant.

 

I admit that Josh's attitude and statements in his 'fireside chat' yesterday has turned me around about the game. I am now planning to be a backer again. But I am still concerned. A very large faction on this forum is against nearly everything that made those IE games what they were. About the only thing they really seem to have liked about them was the isometric perspective. The rest is just nostalgia. Not that they will admit this, perhaps not even to themselves.

 

If I contributed $250 (a lot of money for me) to this project and it did turn into something like Dragon-Age-in-spirit even unintentionally would I be wrong to be angry about it? I don't think so. If Obsidian wants to significantly "improve" on the IE formula they should have been up front about it on the kickstarter page. If they are serious about it they have an ethical (although not legal) obligation to be clear about those changes on the kickstarter page. It's not enough to say that the game has not really been designed yet. They have already made promises upon which people are comitting large sums of money. There is still time to make those changes. Backers who are not happy with those changes still have time to withdraw their funding. The point is that, although Obsidian is free from the often arbitrary and illogical demands of a publisher, they are not free from the promises they have made to the true fans of their old IE games. Some of us loved everything about those games. Not just the stories, which aside from PS:T, were mostly nonexistent or just plain awful, but everything.

[alanschu]

I admit that Josh's attitude and statements in his 'fireside chat' yesterday has turned me around about the game. I am now planning to be a backer again. But I am still concerned. A very large faction on this forum is against nearly everything that made those IE games what they were. About the only thing they really seem to have liked about them was the isometric perspective. The rest is just nostalgia. Not that they will admit this, perhaps not even to themselves.

 

On the plus side, milestones have been met. You can still buy the game after it's released.

 

 

What's telling, though, is that any perceived "consensus" over what made the IE games is probably in the imaginations of most gamers. Fact is, a game like Baldur's Gate appeals to a wide variety of people that all have different things they prefer from it.

 

Even the IE games themselves differ quite a bit, where I infinitely (heh) prefer Torment over the others, but I still really like the BG games. The IWD games were fun, but utlimately not as interesting as their focus was mostly on combat.

 

 

Torment had crap combat, but is probably the best RPG of all time IMO. So what exactly makes these games what they were and what is it that all people love about them? Things like Vancian magic annoyed the piss out of me, but I tolerated it once I understood the idea behind it. It didn't take away from all the other things I love.

Edited October 3, 2012 by alanschu

[Jasede]

One of the other forums I frequent tends to have topics discussing religion and politics. Those topics still manage to be more civil than the ones we have here about which magic system people would prefer.

 

I honestly find that a bit confusing.

Hello Kitty Island Adventure Forums?

[NOK222]

But I know what an RPG is says one man...

 

No, I know what an RPG is said another man...

 

And they both knew they were right.

[metiman]

And then a man came upon a forum and he sayeth little meaningless phrases which he knoweth are clever and he doth display his cleverness for all to see...

[Monte Carlo]

@ Metiman... the elephant in the room here is Dungeons and Dragons.

 

It's as much of a burden as it is a blessing. Take Vancian magic. It's a D&D mechanic. The designers are now unshackled from it. From my POV the whole cool-down thing is a non-issue because I simply don't see Obsidian creating a mana-burning Diablo / ARPG type mechanic for magic.

 

They've reiterated that what they will give us will be demonstrably similar to what went before. All of us will see things that delight us, as much as we are likely to see stuff that is carved from a block of meh. Or even annoys us.

 

If you can't live with that then don't back the project. The only thing I don't want, for example, are romances and po-faced PC tropes. That doesn't mean that I want the game to be sexist, it just means that I find cultural Marxists... boring.

 

But some of that might wend it's way in. I'll suck it up and ignore it.

 

Seriously, it's that simple. And if it isn't, do what the anti-firearms fundie did and just go.

 

Cheers

MC

[NOK222]

And then a man came upon a forum and he sayeth little meaningless phrases which he knoweth are clever and he doth display his cleverness for all to see...

 

Did that kind of strike a nerve? It wasn't specifically meant for you, but if you want to take it as a personal attack go ahead. I'm not going to engage into these hate fests.

[metiman]

I didn't interpret it as a personal attack. I just don't think the sorts of posts you seem to enjoy making are helpful. Why not actually discuss the issues instead of just snickering at and belittling people?

[NOK222]

I didn't interpret it as a personal attack. I just don't think the sorts of posts you seem to enjoy making are helpful. Why not actually discuss the issues instead of just snickering at and belittling people?

 

My post was meaningful, a bit too crass and crude, but meaningful nonetheless. I was making fun of how people seem to be redefining RPGs to their own personal taste.

Edited October 3, 2012 by NKKKK

[ownagefool]

With old school rpg's seems to come old school temper tantrums.

 

Old school RPGs do not contain level-scaling* and cooldown-mechanics.

 

It is the worst kind of straw man to answer legitimate arguments raised against this by calling it temper tantrums.

 

Remember that cool Kickstarter video that begins with citing all the IE games as inspiration? For each step this project takes with its combat system, it's looking less and less like the IE games. That is a problem - a problem with marketing and a problem with substance. I am sure as hell going to voice my opinion on it - not because I'm throwing a ****ing temper tantrum, but because I hope to save a game that could have revitalized a genre, instead of doing just another Dragon Age.

 

And, FYI, I actually liked Dragon Age, but it's no where near as good as the IE games. Level scaling and cooldown mechanics were a big part of the reason for that.

 

* Well, a very few of them do, and it sucks there, too

 

Fairly sure the likes of IE games had level scaling and I honestly never saw a problem with it. I also don't really see a problem of leveling up not actually making you more combat effective either, I just think the whole idea has a terrible reputation because of how poorly implemented it has been in the past.

 

You shouldn't fight a guard with your rare artifact sword and have him be just as effective before. Every bandit in the wilderness shouldn't have a +10 sword, just because you do. You shouldn't encounter high level creatures in a forest on a regular occurance where it makes no sense for them to be there, just because you're high level. These things don't make sense and break immersion. However, a going to a non essential dungeon (which doesn't have the sword of uber, or anything in particular), then I don't have a big problem with running into mostly skeletons vs mostly ghouls dependant on my level. This sorta think happened in IE games (and I could take it or leave it, but it doesn't throw me into fits of rage) the former would happen in something like Elder Scrolls (and in particular largely killed oblivion for me).

 

I shouldn't be running into rare things every 10 seconds (unless we're in a setting that it makes sense) and thats what I believe really irks people about the Elder Scrolls type level scaling (that and the entire world keeping up with you when that doesn't make sense either).

[metiman]

They've reiterated that what they will give us will be demonstrably similar to what went before. All of us will see things that delight us, as much as we are likely to see stuff that is carved from a block of meh. Or even annoys us.

 

Bioware claimed that Dragon Age was going to be a spiritual successor to BG2. Not even NWN mind you. BG2. And look how that turned out. Backing or not backing the project is not the point. Telling people, the ones who actually liked the IE games, to leave the forum doesn't speak to this concern. "Demonstrably similar" is vague and misses the point. They didn't pitch a nextgen, as different from the wretched D&D as possible, and yet familiar to players of modern games. They pitched going back to those classic IE games that they used to make. If they aren't serious about their promise they should withdraw it. If what they promised is not what you want because you utterly despise everything about the game system that was used to create Every Single One of those classic IE games then perhaps you should be the one reconsidering whether you are backing the project. That fireside chat reassured me that, at heart, Sawyer is more of a Codexian than a NewBiowarian. It remains uncertain what that implies for the project though. Clearly the opposition to the IE game mechanics is very strong indeed as you demonstrate here. It remains to be seen how this popular opposition to the IE mechanics may or may not influence the direction of the game. I suppose they could change their pitch to: "What those of you who hated the IE games would have liked them to have been instead."

[Monte Carlo]

You're. Not. listening. IE was D&D. This is not D&D. Do you get it?

[Jasede]

What does that have to do with anything? A game doesn't have to use D&D to have similar rules and mechanics.

[Monte Carlo]

I just re-read this.

 

If what they promised is not what you want because you utterly despise everything about the game system that was used to create Every Single One of those classic IE games then perhaps you should be the one reconsidering whether you are backing the project.

 

If we don't agree with your notion of Infinity Engine purity then we 'despise' the game system. Wow.

[metiman]

Just because Obsidian isn't using a D&D license does not mean they do not want to use similar game mechanics to the IE games. IOW something like D&D 2nd or 3rd edition rules. From what sawyer said yesterday it also seems he is thinking in terms of a spell memorization system, albeit one with a possible cooldowns-as-rest mechanic.

[metiman]

If you despise 2nd and 3rd Edition D&D and the IE games used those game mechanics then yes I think it is fair to say that you dislike the game mechanics used by IWD, BG2, and PS:T.

[makryu]

I admit that Josh's attitude and statements in his 'fireside chat' yesterday has turned me around about the game. I am now planning to be a backer again. But I am still concerned. A very large faction on this forum is against nearly everything that made those IE games what they were. About the only thing they really seem to have liked about them was the isometric perspective. The rest is just nostalgia. Not that they will admit this, perhaps not even to themselves.

 

On the plus side, milestones have been met. You can still buy the game after it's released.

 

 

What's telling, though, is that any perceived "consensus" over what made the IE games is probably in the imaginations of most gamers. Fact is, a game like Baldur's Gate appeals to a wide variety of people that all have different things they prefer from it.

 

Even the IE games themselves differ quite a bit, where I infinitely (heh) prefer Torment over the others, but I still really like the BG games. The IWD games were fun, but utlimately not as interesting as their focus was mostly on combat.

 

 

Torment had crap combat, but is probably the best RPG of all time IMO. So what exactly makes these games what they were and what is it that all people love about them? Things like Vancian magic annoyed the piss out of me, but I tolerated it once I understood the idea behind it. It didn't take away from all the other things I love.

 

So true. It seems some people, especially a particular brand of old-schoolers (which I know, being an old-schooler myself, don't represent old-schoolers in general), feel like they are the only ones that get it, or understand what IE games were made of. The truth is that many of us that were there in the beginning, when the IE games first came out, don't feel outraged because PE won't be a carbon copy of the IE games.