Overreaction theater!

[GammaHamster]

...name one fight in SoA/ToB where ya absolutely had ta guess correctly 'bout spells or reload...I canna name one where ya jus' hadta randomly guess an' had no way ta prepare in some way' aforehand...jus' one...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

Just one? Ok.....The Kangaxx fight.

 

You either had to guess correctly, or else you had to come online/use the strategy guide to get the step-by-step How-to. if you didn't, you lost one party member per round, until there was no one left and it was Game Over.

 

I still don't get why is this bad and should be fixed. Kangaxx fight was awesome.

 

Personally, I find it immersion-breaking if you can't improvise your way through a fight. If you need to do a fight a dozen times to learn exactly what an enemy is going to do, how would the characters realistically ever survive that encounter? I realize that's not a concern for everyone, but it annoys the hell out of me in games.

 

I actually find it a bit immersion breaking when characters CAN improvise their way through any fight in books and movies. Everything just seems too easy for them.

I like death and reload mechanics in video games because it can somewhat show how dangerous the situation is.

 

If you need to do a fight a dozen times to learn exactly what an enemy is going to do, how would the characters realistically ever survive that encounter?

 

They won't survive. In game lore you always hear about how supposedly no adventurers ever returned from red dragon cave/underdark, etc. Well, those poor **** who don't have a player with save/load function watching over them will be among those who "never came back". Think of player as representaion of luck or divine intervention.

Edited October 2, 2012 by GammaHamster

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...name one fight in SoA/ToB where ya absolutely had ta guess correctly 'bout spells or reload...I canna name one where ya jus' hadta randomly guess an' had no way ta prepare in some way' aforehand...jus' one...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

Just one? Ok.....The Kangaxx fight.

 

You either had to guess correctly, or else you had to come online/use the strategy guide to get the step-by-step How-to. if you didn't, you lost one party member per round, until there was no one left and it was Game Over.

 

I still don't get why is this bad and should be fixed. Kangaxx fight was awesome.

It's not bad. it's Awesome. But lets not pretend that "smart" players could just correctly guess, the first time out, on how successfully take him on. Our Dwarven-dialected friend, above, is kinda pulling our collective legs,. here. (which is fine. We're all prideful, hard core Ego-gods, here) But lets tell it like it is: It takes either ESP, or a strategy guide, or a reload, or hint-gathering from message boards, to go into that fight blind, and emerge victorious the very first time out. Too many tools required. Too many variables involved.

 

And PS: Kangaxx the demilich is immune to level 9 or lower spells, so NO, Sargallath, your Sunray had NO EFFECT on him. But I do wonder how you managed to protect your cleric from imprisonment while she cast Sunray. Hindsight says you used a protection from Undead scroll, but how did you know to bring one on your first time through....and to use it AFTER the transformation instead of before..... that's my question.

 

However, for me at least, all it took was a single reload.

 

 

...ummm, no, no "pullin' legs"...1st try...no cheatin'...Sunray has effect on Lich...Demi-Lich surpised me, but still beat his arse an' no one got dead......happened...liek I's says, preparation & payin' attention...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Gorth]

...I ne'er lost one party member anytime I's e'er fought Kangaxx...Spell Immunity - Abjuration (Imprisonment be neutralized) was an automatic against Liches, so no worries (imagined, prepared ahead o' time wit'out cheatin')...me mage cast it on theysselves an' stood closest ta 'im, so he'd keep castin' Imprisonment on them an' fail...no guessin' involved...

I lost plenty, but then I didn't have the familiarity with D&D that some seems to have

 

Yeah, I worked out the spell immunity abjuration for myself, as I did using the ring of the ram (which Kangaxx for weird reasons was not immune to at all) and barbarian rage seems to negate the imprisonment as well (although Minsc for other strange reasons didn't seem to have the same kind of rage, him still getting imprisoned) and then just whack away with the few +5 weapons you've got in your arsenal. Easy enough when you know how, but for the uninitiated there is/was some trial and error involved

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...I ne'er lost one party member anytime I's e'er fought Kangaxx...Spell Immunity - Abjuration (Imprisonment be neutralized) was an automatic against Liches, so no worries (imagined, prepared ahead o' time wit'out cheatin')...me mage cast it on theysselves an' stood closest ta 'im, so he'd keep castin' Imprisonment on them an' fail...no guessin' involved...

I lost plenty, but then I didn't have the familiarity with D&D that some seems to have

 

Yeah, I worked out the spell immunity abjuration for myself, as I did using the ring of the ram (which Kangaxx for weird reasons was not immune to at all) and barbarian rage seems to negate the imprisonment as well (although Minsc for other strange reasons didn't seem to have the same kind of rage, him still getting imprisoned) and then just whack away with the few +5 weapons you've got in your arsenal. Easy enough when you know how, but for the uninitiated there is/was some trial and error involved

 

 

...absolutely was a tough fight an' absolutely was possible when ya was somewhat prepared fer a Lich fight...an' wit'out cheatin'...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[GammaHamster]

Am i the only one dumb enough to try to counter Kangaxx's impisonment spell by transforming my fighter into a green ooze?

 

It actually worked, btw.

[Tuco Benedicto]

Something something entitlement.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Tuco Benedicto

[Merin]

...yer loose in the head, lad

 

Bait.

 

.ne'er once did I say that roleplaying was strategy & tactics, I's said that sound tactics & strategy was part o' roleplayin' yer character...quit creatin' straw man where none was

 

That's a slight reinterpretation of what you actually said before ...

 

I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells. So in other words, was that a failure of tactics or a failure to guess correctly?

The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.

...no, what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin'...sorry it were not Diablows-like enuff fer ya...

 

... where "learning your tactics was wrong" and "learning to rethink the battle", which implies the player, not the character, is growing in his or her tactical skill and that is roleplayin.

 

Straw man is setting up an argument for your opponent that he isn't making because it's easier to shoot down.

 

You are arguing that combat tactics is role-playing. I'm saying it isn't. No straw man there, unless the previous underline part isn't your argument?

 

 

----

 

And there's still this, too... where you were wrong.

 

..ye jus' countered yer own point in mid post...

 

My point - (1)your definition of role-playing doesn't hold any water, or that (2)dying in combat doesn't force you to role-play?

 

"you have kind of have to make a new character. If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button." is roughly the middle of my post.

 

So, yeah.

 

The disagreement is you saying that tactics and strategy for overcoming a given fight equals role-playing, and I say it doesn't It equals game-playing.

 

Role-playing is making decisions in character. Planning out resource management and how to line up your 6 party members has very, very little role-playing in it.

[Amentep]

Kangaxx kicked my rear a few times before I figured out a strategy against him. Since it was optional fight, I had no problem with it being as tough as it was; probably feel differently if it had been the middle fight of the main quest or something.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...yer loose in the head, lad

 

Bait.

 

.ne'er once did I say that roleplaying was strategy & tactics, I's said that sound tactics & strategy was part o' roleplayin' yer character...quit creatin' straw man where none was

 

That's a slight reinterpretation of what you actually said before ...

 

I remember countless times facing a tough fight, dying and reloading only to pick a new set of spells. So in other words, was that a failure of tactics or a failure to guess correctly?

The IE games basically encouraged meta gaming and not cleverness if you think about it.

...no, what it did was tell ya that ya was wrong in yer tactics an' ta rethink the battle...hence roleplayin'...sorry it were not Diablows-like enuff fer ya...

 

... where "learning your tactics was wrong" and "learning to rethink the battle", which implies the player, not the character, is growing in his or her tactical skill and that is roleplayin.

 

Straw man is setting up an argument for your opponent that he isn't making because it's easier to shoot down.

 

You are arguing that combat tactics is role-playing. I'm saying it isn't. No straw man there, unless the previous underline part isn't your argument?

 

 

----

 

And there's still this, too... where you were wrong.

 

..ye jus' countered yer own point in mid post...

 

My point - (1)your definition of role-playing doesn't hold any water, or that (2)dying in combat doesn't force you to role-play?

 

"you have kind of have to make a new character. If you are role-playing, there's no "redo" button." is roughly the middle of my post.

 

So, yeah.

 

The disagreement is you saying that tactics and strategy for overcoming a given fight equals role-playing, and I say it doesn't It equals game-playing.

 

Role-playing is making decisions in character. Planning out resource management and how to line up your 6 party members has very, very little role-playing in it.

 

 

...tactics & strategy is part o' roleplayin' yer character...jus' like it be in table top (A)DnD...hence me sayin' ya counterin' yerself midpost...an' "straw man" was misrepresentin' me arguement, which ya tried...an' failed...but, hey, 'least ya learned somethin'...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Katrar]

Uh, no offense but are you a perma-pirate? =P

[Redwulf]

I think that the level scaling in standard Oblivion was horrible, and I hope to see nothing like that in Project Eternity (Not that I think it will be that bad at all). I personally hope they take a look at the Oblivion mods which effected the leveling scaling by Setting maximum levels based on what the type of enemy it is, like a Thief can't be more then level 15 or something, and won't have the best armor and weapons. I'm currently too tired to go into more, but the level scaling mods I liked with Oblivion were Oscuro’s Oblivion Overhaul and Francesco’s Leveled Creatures and Items Mod. Lately I have been playing the latter and I have been liking it very much. Basically I want the game to be challenging, of course, but, I also want to be rewarded for my efforts, with being able to easily dispatch enemies that used to cause me a lot of trouble earlier, makes me feel like leveling and clearing every map actually means something. So mixed with the creatures that are hard on my current level, should be those that I can crush with a flick of my mighty wrist. Level scaling is not the black death, though I don't love the way it usually works, still I do understand how it could make the game more enjoyable if done right. I think as beta testers, we will be able to tell Obsidian if they have done it right or not. If the game is fun and keeps us involved with it to the end, they did it right, whatever their level scaling scheme is. Time alone will tell.

[edrst10]

Well people at 4chan /v/ are overreacting about gay inclusiveness, and people at the codex are overreacting about cooldowns and level scaling.

Just what I got from the forums I'm lurking...

 

Whine on the codex and /v/? Don't you say?!

I wanna see a good argument as why level scaling and cooldowns are a bad thing, so far I've only seen pure hatred lol.The way Sawyer was explaining the magic system sounded pretty reasonable to me, still, what do I know...

 

This is actually really simple to answer. For level scaling you only have to look to Oblivion. Level scaling really ended up breaking that game, to the point that I personally can't play it without mods that completely change the underlying systems. Why did it break the game? For two reasons. On the one hand RPGs provide a sense of growth in your character build, with level scaling that sense of growth is lost, and can sometimes get silly, like every bandit in Oblivion at high levels having what is supposed to be rare weapons and armor. Then there is the other side of it. Part of the reason I love the Gothic series is that you got your ass handed to you if you went into the wrong area, so basically exploring had a sense of tension. You came upon a new cave but you had to explore it at your own risk. There is also the sense of acomplishment from entering and surviving an area you are not levelled up for through strategy and skill, this adds memorable moments to the playing experience.

 

Now I know that my examples are from a different type of RPG, but when you extrapolate that to a game with a more strategic battle system, the reward of conquering an area of a higher level is even more satisfying, it is a validation of your choices in character build on the one hand (effective use of your decisions and loot) and a reflection of strategic mastery. That on top of the tense atmosphere that exploring without knowing what level enemies you will encounter in an area.

Edited October 3, 2012 by edrst10

[Merin]

...tactics & strategy is part o' roleplayin' yer character...

 

Tactics and strategy is part of playing a role-playing game, it's what you, the player, decide. It isn't role-playing. Again, unless you are role-playing a person who is playing a role-playing game...

 

jus' like it be in table top (A)DnD...hence me sayin' ya counterin' yerself midpost

 

Many, if not most, of my table top role-playing sessions had no combat. So... no role-playing then, by your definition, I guess...

 

...an' "straw man" was misrepresentin' me arguement, which ya tried...an' failed

 

Your argument isn't that tactics and strategy is role-playing, then? But... just a few lines back you said... "tactics & strategy is part o' roleplayin' yer character."

 

Do you mean that there's tactics and strategy to deciding how your character would approach decisions...

or that you, the player, use tactics and strategy to figure out the best way with your party of 6 characters to win a set fight that you've encountered before and failed at?

 

The former is role-playing, the latter is playing a role-playing game.

 

...but, hey, 'least ya learned somethin'...

 

Yes.

 

That you have the insufferable inability to admit you, at the very least, misunderstood what the person you were disagreeing with was actually saying... or that you misspoke.... or that snark isn't actually a debate tactic of any worth.

 

 

----

 

Seriously, though, you do realize what nikolokolus was saying about dying and reloading and trying a fight again is meta-gaming, right? You do understand that and are just trying to be funny and difficult. Right?

[Bobby Null]

Good evening all,

 

I'd like to take a few minutes to discuss a few things. The goal/vision of this project is to capture the magic (old school feeling) of the Infinity Engine games. Many of the long time folks at Obsidian are just as big of fans of old school RPGs as you are. We are not interested in "capturing the biggest market" or making a game that "caters to everyone" for this title. We just want to make the best possible PC RPG we can, that lives up to the vision I stated above. Those games did very well for the publishers of their day, and since we don't need to deal with a publisher and are going direct, we are more than happy to ship this game to a smaller fan base, i.e. you.

 

This bears repeating. We want to capture the OLD SCHOOL feeling of the Infinity Engine games. We know the lack of cinematic dialogue or using an isometric camera is not enough to accomplish this. This obviously doesn't mean we are making a BG or IWD clone, however. We want it to feel like those games... with improvements. Not to stream-line it or dumb it down, just to make it better.

 

I'd like to share a good example of this philosophy from the 3rd edition D&D rules. In the olden days, classes in D&D leveled at different rates. Rogues leveled faster than everyone else and wizards were the slowest, others fell somewhere in the middle. This was built into the system and each class had different xp requirements for each level. Without getting into why the old systems did this, most people hated it. Of course there was a die-hard fan base that thought it was great. When WoTC released 3rd edition they got rid of it... or did they?

 

I'm using a pen and paper example here because not all of the CRPGs that used the system implemented this. If you played a rogue and disarmed a trap (without anyone aiding you), you got extra xp. Looking at the rules as written (RAW) in the DMG, that character overcame a CR challenge alone. Doing so gains quite a bit of XP and if the DM allowed this, caused a rogue to level much faster than any other class.

 

Conversely, the Wizard received the Scribe Scroll feat for free at 1st level. If you wanted to be ready for any situation, you crafted scrolls and memorized your core spells. Crafting scrolls (and any other magic item) cost XP, sometimes A LOT of it. Result: every wizard I ever played, played with, or DMed, leveled slower than everyone else. This was now a player choice to level slowly and he was rewarded for it. IMO, this is MUCH better design that accomplished the same thing in most cases as the old system.

 

These are the types of designs we are striving to implement into PE. We want this game to feel like the games you loved, while not implementing clearly poor design choices. Much like our community, many of us on the team are passionate about certain aspects of RPG design. I tend to fall into the hardcore, old school, group. Part of my job is to be the voice for that community (I've championed turn-based combat on multiple occasions). I know what you guys don't want. Josh and I have discussed this on multiple occasions and I have every confidence in his vision.

 

Lastly, nothing is currently set it stone. Game development doesn't typically work that way. This will be an evolving process to get us to the goal of making a great strategy system, that feels "real" if that makes sense. Josh's vision of combat will get input from a lot of folks that have a lot of experience in playing and making RPGs. We'll get it right.

[Gurkog]

@Mr. Null

 

[TrashMan]

 

Role-playing is making decisions in character. Planning out resource management and how to line up your 6 party members has very, very little role-playing in it.

 

But the PC is the party leader.

 

It is the leaders job to do EXACTLY what you describe - to plan tactics and lead. And manage resources (technicly he could delegate that to someone else, but whatever).

 

How is that NOT roleplaying?

[Minttunator]

This bears repeating. We want to capture the OLD SCHOOL feeling of the Infinity Engine games. We know the lack of cinematic dialogue or using an isometric camera is not enough to accomplish this. This obviously doesn't mean we are making a BG or IWD clone, however. We want it to feel like those games... with improvements. Not to stream-line it or dumb it down, just to make it better.

 

Thanks a bunch for posting that! Posts like this go a long way in allaying the fears that PE will turn out to be just another modern Awesome™ and/or Emotionally Engaging™ pseudo-RPG. That is, it's nice to see that you guys can, at least, talk the talk.

 

I feel like some of the devs are being a bit too harsh on the IE games, though - sure, some of their features weren't the best ever (such as the RTwP combat, but you're not changing that, so...), but the success of the Kickstarter is, after all, mostly based on the fact that so many people liked them.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Minttunator

[Reddie]

I, for one, want to say: PE is going EXACTLY the way it should for me, and at current state of things (we never know what lies ahead) it's going to be one of the best games ever.

 

Obsidian team took the best possible attitude - they have their own resolve, which they allow to be influenced by fans, but only to a certain degree. They don't want to just recreate the experience associated with classic cRPGs, they want to move it forward, to make a game showing where the genre should be standing today. And rightly so!

 

There is a vocal group on the forums (and in the community as a whole) that argues for even more old-school-ness, for sticking completely to the basis without aiming for progress in terms of gameplay. While I understand their nostalgia, I am also happy that for a good part it will not find itself into a game. I don't want every single cRPG until the end of time to have turn-based combat and vancian magic system and so on. I don't even want a majority of the genre to have these common traits. I have my own likes and dislikes, but above all I value diversity. Not only it's the only possible way to achieve progress (and it's valid not only for video games) but it also allows everyone to find their own game, as opposed to bending to supposedely "superior" mechanics as presented in old titles, and being told that one is a poor player if he/she simply can't stand it.

 

So, if anyone from Obsidian will read it - stay with your resolve, guys.

 

/rant

Edited October 3, 2012 by Reddie

[Reddie]

Role-playing is making decisions in character. Planning out resource management and how to line up your 6 party members has very, very little role-playing in it.

 

But the PC is the party leader.

 

It is the leaders job to do EXACTLY what you describe - to plan tactics and lead. And manage resources (technicly he could delegate that to someone else, but whatever).

 

How is that NOT roleplaying?

 

When you are planning your strategy, do you take into account factors like relations between PC and a character, if a character is good/bad, in other words - all the parts of character's design that are not associated with gameplay? If so, yes, this is roleplaying. But if you only look at how useful a character is in combat - not so. Except if your PC is so manipulative and cunning in every game you play.

 

For example, right now I play Baldur's Gate and my character is a Transmuter. All it means for BG mechanics - apart from a minor modifiers when learning - is that he can't use abjuration and necromancy spells, and he gets additional spell per level which doesn't have to represent chosen school. Nontheless, I play it so the majority of my spells are transmutation, even tho combat mechanics would dictate otherwise.

[metiman]

At some point the conflict between the Codexian /Old School faction and the Biowarian or new-systems-are-better factions is going to have to be acknowledged and commented on. There is a major rift in the supporters of this project. It will be difficult/impossible to please both groups. Controversial decisions will eventually have to be made which will displease a large number of people from one faction or another. There may even be some people who will feel ripped off if the development of the project turns strongly against what they were expecting and what was explicitly described in the kickstarter project description.

 

The difference between 2nd Ed. and 3rd Ed. DnD is not all that controversial. Even I tolerate 3rd Edition after seeing how well ToEE did it and after enjoying NWN2: MotB game mechanics, albeit to a lesser degree. I'll always have a soft spot for 2nd Ed. though and don't necessarily agree that 3rd Ed. is better. A more controversial decision would be going with 4th Ed. Lots of people feel it uses MMOG mechanics.

 

The controversial decisions are going to have to be made eventually regarding truly modern game mechanics from Dragon Age, MMORPGs like WoW, Witcher, Oblvion/Skyrim, console rpgs and jrpgs. These sorts of mechanics don't seem to jibe with the description on the kickstarter page. After all, if all of the nextgen game mechanics are adopted what is left of games like IWD or BG2 in PE? Just the isometric perspective? I think one of the first things Obsidian should decide on are what core aspects of gameplay from the original IE games do they want to keep and then announce what those are, if any. If it's just the isometric perspective there will definitely be some dissapointed backers in the OldSchool faction. Myself included. If PE is too similar to the games mentioned in the kickstarter obviously the Biowarian/NewSchool factions are going to be enraged and disappointed.

Edited October 3, 2012 by metiman

[Minttunator]

Controversial decisions will eventually have to be made which will displease a large number of people from one faction or another.

 

This is clearly true, but my bet is on them mostly withholding such information until the end of the Kickstarter campaign, even if they have already made their minds up with regards to some points. Which, I'm sure, isn't the case with all gameplay mechanics - e.g. I don't think they've actually decided what to do with resting and spell cooldowns yet. Same goes for potentially rage-inducing storyline decisions as well (romances, most notably). Why piss off your consumers while they can still withdraw the money they're planning to give you?

[grotbag]

 

There is a vocal group on the forums (and in the community as a whole) that argues for even more old-school-ness, for sticking completely to the basis without aiming for progress in terms of gameplay. While I understand their nostalgia, I am also happy that for a good part it will not find itself into a game. I don't want every single cRPG until the end of time to have turn-based combat and vancian magic system and so on. I don't even want a majority of the genre to have these common traits. I have my own likes and dislikes, but above all I value diversity.

 

This is certainly a threatening possibility. I too am glad that this game will free the modern RPG from its crippling dependence on turn-based gameplay and bring some diversity to the genre.

 

In case you're serious - no, come on. There are some people on this forum arguing dogmatically in favour of various gameplay tropes, just as there are those who make their own arguments simply by referencing those grognardish 'vocal groups' with their darned unreasonable 'nostalgia' and 'opposition to progress' rather than bothering to dig in and discuss the actual pros and cons. But there's plenty of genuine debate going on - before it was locked, I thought the cooldown discussion thread was incredibly over-crowded but had some interesting and sensibly argued opinions on all sides.

 

What bloated that thread, without adding any genuine value to the conversation, was this kind of hand-wringing meta-commentary upon the commentary that obscures the thing itself.

 

'You guuuys, stop complaining - we have to trust Obsidian!.'

'You stop complaining about our complaining! What are you saying, are you saying we shouldn't express our opinions? Huh? What are you, a sheeple?'

'Well, I'm just glad Obsidian knows better than to ignore all you neckbeards. Hurrah for Obsidian! Perhaps I'll make an 'I SUPPORT OBSIDIAN' thread just so they know all of us support them.'

'WHY IS EVERYONE GETTING SO EMOTIONAL AND OVERREACTING?'

 

No forum or debate really benefits from this kind of hyper-neurotic fourth estate clogging up the issues at hand. A fourth estate which, of course, I have now contributed to and even commented upon at obsessive length, making me the very worst culprit of all. Such is the nature of the vicious cycle.

[volrath]

stuff

So indie Dragon Age confirmed then?

[TrashMan]

I feel like some of the devs are being a bit too harsh on the IE games, though - sure, some of their features weren't the best ever (such as the RTwP combat, but you're not changing that, so...), but the success of the Kickstarter is, after all, mostly based on the fact that so many people liked them.

 

I for one liked it. The pacing. If you ever watched a real sword duel, you'd notice that combatant don't spend the entire time hacking at eachother. They pace themslves. tehy pull back. Change stance. Wait. (a shocking concept for the action crowd, for whom everything must be in motion constantly, even tough any real human would drop dead from exhaustion fighting like that.)

 

Of course, something closer to KOTOR with more comabt animations would be preferable to give it even more atmosphere and flair.

 

If the fatigue system was in, this would make even more sense.

Furthermore, it increases the survivabiltiy of mele-weak classes, since battles would last a bit longer.

[metiman]

stuff

So indie Dragon Age confirmed then?

 

Neither confirmed nor denied.