What things do you NOT want in Project Eternity?

[nocoolnamejim]

Hi everyone,

 

Contributor to Project Eternity looking forward to my shiny, sexy badge at whatever the $250 level is making my first post.

 

I'm just starting to poke my head around here and get a feel for the Obsidian community, so my apologies if i talk about anything that's been already discussed to death. The theme of this post, as the title indicates, are which things you want to make sure that Project Eternity does NOT have in it.

 

My list, off the top of my head, is as follows:

 

1. Multiplayer

2. Co-op

3. Motion Control support

4. Social gaming of any kind

5. Any sort of casual tie-in like a facebook or phone apps

6. An overabundance of bugs

 

My reasons for this are as follows.

 

With regards to Multiplayer and Co-op, I agree with that theoretically it is possible to have these things and not detract from the Single Player experience, but in general I view that as being similar to how Unicorns and Elves could potentially exist in the depths of rain forests that have not been fully explored. In other words, I acknowledge that it has not been entirely DISPROVEN to be possible, but that the odds tend to be low.

 

With motion control support, I simialrly acknowledge that there might be some games significantly made better by having it. I'd be hard pressed to name these games at this time, but I do admit to the possibility. In particular, I think there's a good chance that, say, a Golf game or a Zelda game could be made better. With a traditional RPG, I'd prefer, at this time, to stick with what has been known to work.

 

My reason for not wanting social gaming is pretty straightforward. I hope that Project Eternity has an immersive, compelling story with fascinating characters that I grow to love a great deal. Just like how trying to read a book socially or watch a movie with someone constantly talking would be detrimental to such things in my opinion, I see social gaming as something that HINDERS narrative, plot and character development rather than helps it.

 

Casual tie-ins like facebook and phone apps strike me as money grabbing and general bloodsucking. See: Mass Effect 3. Don't do this pretty please Obsidian?

 

On the subject of bugs...this is one that I have to be a bit delicate on I think. I like Obsdiian's games for the most part. I enjoy the writing. I think they do good characters. If I didn't like this company, I wouldn't have donated at the level that I did. But I DO view that donation as being inherently risky because of Obsidian's track record in this area. I have often seen publishers blamed for incomplete, unfinished and unpolished offerings from Obsidian and I am sure there is some truth to that.

 

But...Obsidian seems to not be able to release a polished and finished product REGARDLESS of who the publisher is. Hopefully the Kickstarter model will fix this, but I would be remiss in not mentioning this issue with past titles.

 

Anyway, what about others? Is my list comprehensive? Do you have your own suggested additions or subtractions off of it?

[Alexjh]

I'm guessing you never played any of the Infinity Engine games in co-op then? Didn't detract from single player in the slightest as it was literally exactly the same as the single player except control of the party was split between 2 or more people. Nothing purpose built, just the entirely optional ability to play the same exact story with friends.

 

But you are in luck, as multiplayer has been confirmed in its absense.

[jivex5k]

Microtransactions

Real Money Auction House

Required Internet Connection

Randomized Loot

Instant Heal Potions

 

Basically: Anything Diablo 3 has in it. (Aside from obvious things like combat, magic, monsters...don't be a troll now!)

Edited January 11, 2013 by jivex5k

[nocoolnamejim]

I'm guessing you never played any of the Infinity Engine games in co-op then? Didn't detract from single player in the slightest as it was literally exactly the same as the single player except control of the party was split between 2 or more people. Nothing purpose built, just the entirely optional ability to play the same exact story with friends.

 

But you are in luck, as multiplayer has been confirmed in its absense.

 

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but...

 

I would disagree that the single player experience is exactly the same with friends as without. There ARE games that I enjoy playing with other people. There are activities that I enjoy playing with other people. It's kind of hard to play poker by yourself for example, or basketball. Both among my favorite things to do with others.

 

But would you say watching a movie or reading a book with other people is the same thing as doing those things solo? Or are you less immersed in the story, distracted from the narrative, etc.? There's a reason why talking is frowned upon in movie theaters.

 

My HOPE is that Project Eternity has the same feel as a game like Planescape: Torment, which I would have enjoyed far less if people were talking to me while I was trying to play it.

 

MP can make surprise appearances at times, and as this is the place to show opinions to developers, I wanted to get my objections to it on the record.

 

@jivex5k

I'd agree with all of those things except MAYBE randomized loot. I'd prefer to have a mix of random and unrandom loot. Some things being in fixed locations and chests regardless, but other things being a bit more random.

[Amentep]

Tacos.

[Gfted1]

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but...

 

What that means is your first 5 posts have to be approved by a moderator to ensure you are not a bot. After those five approvals you may post freely and there is no limit to the amount of daily posts.

[nocoolnamejim]

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but...

 

What that means is your first 5 posts have to be approved by a moderator to ensure you are not a bot. After those five approvals you may post freely and there is no limit to the amount of daily posts.

 

Thank you. I realized that after I finished that last approved post but I appreciate the clarification nevertheless.

[Alexjh]

I'm guessing you never played any of the Infinity Engine games in co-op then? Didn't detract from single player in the slightest as it was literally exactly the same as the single player except control of the party was split between 2 or more people. Nothing purpose built, just the entirely optional ability to play the same exact story with friends.

 

But you are in luck, as multiplayer has been confirmed in its absense.

 

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but...

 

I would disagree that the single player experience is exactly the same with friends as without. There ARE games that I enjoy playing with other people. There are activities that I enjoy playing with other people. It's kind of hard to play poker by yourself for example, or basketball. Both among my favorite things to do with others.

 

But would you say watching a movie or reading a book with other people is the same thing as doing those things solo? Or are you less immersed in the story, distracted from the narrative, etc.? There's a reason why talking is frowned upon in movie theaters.

 

To clarrify myself here, I love playing IE games both solo AND co-op. I've completed both Icewind Dales and Baldur's Gate 2 solo and then gone back later to play them through with various friends, and then back again to solo and so on. As these, and by extension, Project: Eternity are squad based tactical combat games they lend themselves quite naturally to co-operative multiplayer. There is no extra game content for multiplayer, it is exactly the same story and mechanics and areas as the single player, but it adds a whole different dimension when you have to call out to your friend over chat to get them to deal with that wizard whose summoning at you or when you manage to sneak attack that big warrior who is about to kill your friends character. Sure, it does generally adversely effect how you intake the story, but, the tradeoff is a whole new way of playing the same game where you have to rely on someone else to have your back. Exact same content, but very different experience.

[nocoolnamejim]

I'm guessing you never played any of the Infinity Engine games in co-op then? Didn't detract from single player in the slightest as it was literally exactly the same as the single player except control of the party was split between 2 or more people. Nothing purpose built, just the entirely optional ability to play the same exact story with friends.

 

But you are in luck, as multiplayer has been confirmed in its absense.

 

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but...

 

I would disagree that the single player experience is exactly the same with friends as without. There ARE games that I enjoy playing with other people. There are activities that I enjoy playing with other people. It's kind of hard to play poker by yourself for example, or basketball. Both among my favorite things to do with others.

 

But would you say watching a movie or reading a book with other people is the same thing as doing those things solo? Or are you less immersed in the story, distracted from the narrative, etc.? There's a reason why talking is frowned upon in movie theaters.

 

To clarrify myself here, I love playing IE games both solo AND co-op. I've completed both Icewind Dales and Baldur's Gate 2 solo and then gone back later to play them through with various friends, and then back again to solo and so on. As these, and by extension, Project: Eternity are squad based tactical combat games they lend themselves quite naturally to co-operative multiplayer. There is no extra game content for multiplayer, it is exactly the same story and mechanics and areas as the single player, but it adds a whole different dimension when you have to call out to your friend over chat to get them to deal with that wizard whose summoning at you or when you manage to sneak attack that big warrior who is about to kill your friends character. Sure, it does generally adversely effect how you intake the story, but, the tradeoff is a whole new way of playing the same game where you have to rely on someone else to have your back. Exact same content, but very different experience.

 

I can definitely see how this sort of gameplay would lend itself to playing with friends. (Heck, I remember way back in the day playing Secret of Mana coop)

 

But in all honesty, my perceptions on this are heavily colored by the fact that building in the coop/mp component to begin with generally leads to shorter, less polished SP. Sure, you can play that same content alone or with friends or both ways, but resources are finite and most of the time I've seen these mods pushed into games that don't necessarily need them, it sure seems like those games have suffered relative to predecessors.

 

With Obsidian having something of a history of...not fully polished (sorry Obsidian team, still love you guys)...offerings, it's just something that I don't want them to try and bite off. I'd prefer that ALL available resources be devoted towards maximizing the SP.

[rjshae]

Mullet haircuts.

[moridin84]

To clarrify myself here, I love playing IE games both solo AND co-op. I've completed both Icewind Dales and Baldur's Gate 2 solo and then gone back later to play them through with various friends, and then back again to solo and so on. As these, and by extension, Project: Eternity are squad based tactical combat games they lend themselves quite naturally to co-operative multiplayer. There is no extra game content for multiplayer, it is exactly the same story and mechanics and areas as the single player, but it adds a whole different dimension when you have to call out to your friend over chat to get them to deal with that wizard whose summoning at you or when you manage to sneak attack that big warrior who is about to kill your friends character. Sure, it does generally adversely effect how you intake the story, but, the tradeoff is a whole new way of playing the same game where you have to rely on someone else to have your back. Exact same content, but very different experience.

Regardless, no multiplayer is absolute decision made by the developers of the game, arguing about it is pointless.

 

This should be sticked somewhere.

Edited January 11, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

Regardless, no multiplayer is absolute decision made by the developers of the game, arguing about it is pointless.

 

This should be sticked somewhere.

 

It actually isn't. Arguing about whether or not the developers have already decided on the matter would be pointless. Arguing (or, in this case, discussing) multiplayer and its effects when implemented in cRPGs (such as P:E) is actually quite non-pointless.

 

Also, developers possess the incredible ability to change their minds due to various factors, so the possibility of multiplayer still making its way into P:E in some form isn't entirely gone, especially if it's a decision due to resource limitations and time constraints. For what it's worth...

[Jasede]

I don't want "What do you not want in PE?" threads in PE.

[NOK222]

Good, cause I thought Project Eternity was confirmed a game and not a forum. Otherwise, we're in trouble.

[nocoolnamejim]

Regardless, no multiplayer is absolute decision made by the developers of the game, arguing about it is pointless.

 

This should be sticked somewhere.

 

It actually isn't. Arguing about whether or not the developers have already decided on the matter would be pointless. Arguing (or, in this case, discussing) multiplayer and its effects when implemented in cRPGs (such as P:E) is actually quite non-pointless.

 

Also, developers possess the incredible ability to change their minds due to various factors, so the possibility of multiplayer still making its way into P:E in some form isn't entirely gone, especially if it's a decision due to resource limitations and time constraints. For what it's worth...

 

I agree with this, which is one of the biggest reasons that I mentioned the feature to begin with. I'll be very upset if it gets added in. I don't buy the whole "MP is optional" argument. Like a lot of primarily single player gamers, adding this will make me MUCH less excited about this game. My experience is that MP is tacked on or shoved into games that don't need it and don't benefit from it often these days at the behest of publishers who don't understand the schisms between SP and MP gamer archetypes.

[Alexjh]

Regardless, no multiplayer is absolute decision made by the developers of the game, arguing about it is pointless.

 

This should be sticked somewhere.

 

It actually isn't. Arguing about whether or not the developers have already decided on the matter would be pointless. Arguing (or, in this case, discussing) multiplayer and its effects when implemented in cRPGs (such as P:E) is actually quite non-pointless.

 

Also, developers possess the incredible ability to change their minds due to various factors, so the possibility of multiplayer still making its way into P:E in some form isn't entirely gone, especially if it's a decision due to resource limitations and time constraints. For what it's worth...

 

I agree with this, which is one of the biggest reasons that I mentioned the feature to begin with. I'll be very upset if it gets added in. I don't buy the whole "MP is optional" argument. Like a lot of primarily single player gamers, adding this will make me MUCH less excited about this game. My experience is that MP is tacked on or shoved into games that don't need it and don't benefit from it often these days at the behest of publishers who don't understand the schisms between SP and MP gamer archetypes.

 

Really? You do know that every Infinity Engine game except Planescape had co-op right? I can understand you being indifferent to it, but actively notably measurably less excited?

[nocoolnamejim]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I'd be less excited. I'd regret my donation level were it to occur.

[Alexjh]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I'd be less excited. I'd regret my donation level were it to occur.

 

To each their own I guess.... Though I really do recommend you at least try out some IE co-op at least once, makes for a whole new experience of playing the same great games. The Icewind Dales are probably the best choice as you dont have to worry about player choices.

[nocoolnamejim]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I'd be less excited. I'd regret my donation level were it to occur.

 

To each their own I guess.... Though I really do recommend you at least try out some IE co-op at least once, makes for a whole new experience of playing the same great games. The Icewind Dales are probably the best choice as you dont have to worry about player choices.

 

Unlikely to do so as it just doesn't interest me in general. I view excessive requirements to have other players to game with as an encroaching plague on the industry. I absolutely abhore the influence of how extensive and omnipresent multiplayer has become.

 

Do you think EA might have managed to actually finish the Mass Effect 3 endings, have an actually functioning journal system, any interesting side quests, and not butchered the Tali face reveal if they had spent the resources used to add Kinect/MP support to Mass Effect 3 on those other things instead?

 

From my perspective, MP in games is simply my being forced to pay for a mode that I'll never use and is likely to make the mode I WILL use shorter and worse.

[Alexjh]

Do you think EA might have managed to actually finish the Mass Effect 3 endings, have an actually functioning journal system, any interesting side quests, and not butchered the Tali face reveal if they had spent the resources used to add Kinect/MP support to Mass Effect 3 on those other things instead?

 

Errr.... given that the first is a bad writing problem, the second I hadn't even noticed as an issue, the third a structural choice rather than ommission and the fourth some weird art direction splurge, I fail to see how otherwise engaged level designers and programmers could have caused them?

[nocoolnamejim]

Do you think EA might have managed to actually finish the Mass Effect 3 endings, have an actually functioning journal system, any interesting side quests, and not butchered the Tali face reveal if they had spent the resources used to add Kinect/MP support to Mass Effect 3 on those other things instead?

 

Errr.... given that the first is a bad writing problem, the second I hadn't even noticed as an issue, the third a structural choice rather than ommission and the fourth some weird art direction splurge, I fail to see how otherwise engaged level designers and programmers could have caused them?

 

The ME trilogy hadn't exactly suffered from an abundance of bad writing prior to introducing MP. Yes, I know correlation does not imply causation, but it's hardly the only game where, once MP was introduced, the quality in other areas suffers. Writing the plot, like EVERYTHING ELSE in a game is a function of resource allocation. Say the budget for a game is $100 just to make up a number. Now say that you have to add in MP and Kinect into that game, still have the same timeline, and the same budget. Maybe that means that the budget to deliver the original stuff planned for is $80 instead of $100.

 

Money is a fungible resource. Opportunity Cost with regards to economics. Put another way, the more you try and do, the less likely to do EVERYTHING well. Bad writing is more likely to happen the more features you try and add into a game. Since MP is a feature I don't like and won't use, adding it in makes it more likely that the features I DO like and use won't be as good.

 

A functioning journal system UPDATES. Mass Effect 3's did not. You got quests just by randomly walking by people talking about things. You could find things, but the journal wouldn't update you with a reminder of where that thing was supposed to be delivered to. Basically, you got a journal entry when a quest was assigned, BUT NOTHING ELSE.

 

The third being a structural choice is, again, a issue with resource allocation. You have a limited budget to use when creating a game. You can spend it in certain places and in certain ways. For me, interesting an fun sidequests are MANDATORY for a truly great RPG. Those that don't have it don't meet the criteria to me. Things like coop are not mandatory for a good RPG.

 

The fourth item was the fact that the designers and programmers didn't actually MAKE Tali's face. They looked around on the Internet, found a stock photo, and then photoshopped it a bit. It would be like using the picture that came with a frame you bought at the department store. Tali was a character that a great many people were looking forward to getting a true romance scene with and they totally mailed that in.

 

Which brings me back to my assertion that certain elements show poorly decided upon priorities for games. When you're skimping on areas like good writing, side quests and character development to put in motion control and multiplayer you're skimping on the things that truly make an RPG great.

Edited January 12, 2013 by nocoolnamejim

[moridin84]

The ME trilogy hadn't exactly suffered from an abundance of bad writing prior to introducing MP. Yes, I know correlation does not imply causation, but it's hardly the only game where, once MP was introduced, the quality in other areas suffers. Writing the plot, like EVERYTHING ELSE in a game is a function of resource allocation. Say the budget for a game is $100 just to make up a number. Now say that you have to add in MP and Kinect into that game, still have the same timeline, and the same budget. Maybe that means that the budget to deliver the original stuff planned for is $80 instead of $100.

The ending of Mass Effect 3 was written by like, 2 people. And those were the lead writers or something. I'm pretty sure that multiplayer didn't affect that.

 

The fourth item was the fact that the designers and programmers didn't actually MAKE Tali's face. They looked around on the Internet, found a stock photo, and then photoshopped it a bit. It would be like using the picture that came with a frame you bought at the department store. Tali was a character that a great many people were looking forward to getting a true romance scene with and they totally mailed that in.

The game designers/programmers wouldn't have made the face ANYWAY. That goes onto the art team.

Edited January 12, 2013 by moridin84

[Alexjh]

Do you think EA might have managed to actually finish the Mass Effect 3 endings, have an actually functioning journal system, any interesting side quests, and not butchered the Tali face reveal if they had spent the resources used to add Kinect/MP support to Mass Effect 3 on those other things instead?

 

Errr.... given that the first is a bad writing problem, the second I hadn't even noticed as an issue, the third a structural choice rather than ommission and the fourth some weird art direction splurge, I fail to see how otherwise engaged level designers and programmers could have caused them?

 

The ME trilogy hadn't exactly suffered from an abundance of bad writing prior to introducing MP. Yes, I know correlation does not imply causation, but it's hardly the only game where, once MP was introduced, the quality in other areas suffers. Writing the plot, like EVERYTHING ELSE in a game is a function of resource allocation. Say the budget for a game is $100 just to make up a number. Now say that you have to add in MP and Kinect into that game, still have the same timeline, and the same budget. Maybe that means that the budget to deliver the original stuff planned for is $80 instead of $100.

 

Money is a fungible resource. Opportunity Cost with regards to economics. Put another way, the more you try and do, the less likely to do EVERYTHING well. Bad writing is more likely to happen the more features you try and add into a game. Since MP is a feature I don't like and won't use, adding it in makes it more likely that the features I DO like and use won't be as good.

 

A functioning journal system UPDATES. Mass Effect 3's did not. You got quests just by randomly walking by people talking about things. You could find things, but the journal wouldn't update you with a reminder of where that thing was supposed to be delivered to. Basically, you got a journal entry when a quest was assigned, BUT NOTHING ELSE.

 

The third being a structural choice is, again, a issue with resource allocation. You have a limited budget to use when creating a game. You can spend it in certain places and in certain ways. For me, interesting an fun sidequests are MANDATORY for a truly great RPG. Those that don't have it don't meet the criteria to me. Things like coop are not mandatory for a good RPG.

 

The fourth item was the fact that the designers and programmers didn't actually MAKE Tali's face. They looked around on the Internet, found a stock photo, and then photoshopped it a bit. It would be like using the picture that came with a frame you bought at the department store. Tali was a character that a great many people were looking forward to getting a true romance scene with and they totally mailed that in.

 

Which brings me back to my assertion that certain elements show poorly decided upon priorities for games. When you're skimping on areas like good writing, side quests and character development to put in motion control and multiplayer you're skimping on the things that truly make an RPG great.

 

Well you can't blame the ending on that - they were going to write an ending no matter what, it's just the one they wrote was bad. Hearing a supposed version of the story behind that I basically heard the lead writer locked himself away and refused to let anyone see it until it was handed in. If anything that means it's because they weren't using the money they did have for such a thing appropriatly.

 

Honestly, strucutrally I consider sidequests entirely optional - and narratively it made sense in ME3, Shepherd is meant to be saving the universe, he/she doesn't have time to be stopping to stopping to extract Krogan cats from space trees. The narrative of the story was basically a race against time to defeat the reapers which to my mind suited a very linear main quest far more so than the format of ME1 or ME2. You also have to bear in mind the structural format of ME3 relying on choices from the previous two games. If ME 1 had only 10 important choices in the game and ME 2 only had 10, thats 100 potential scenario changes to ME3 that each have to be accounted for separatly. The result being that ME3 has a LOAD of content that you only see a fraction of on any one playthrough - this is what will have eaten the time from the creative side of production (whose gaffes/choices all these but the journal are) more so than the kinect or multiplayer.

 

I think you are also making the mistake here of assuming that a game studio functions as some sort of weird hive entity that works with one single mind - yes the Tali thing and the ending thing particular were creative bumbles, but they were both done as such that I suspect had the option been there others in the studio would have done them differently. This isn't to say that they shouldn't have been caught and fixed (they should) but I don't put the blame on Bioware as an entire studio compared to whoever made those specific choices, and whoever knew about them but didn't call them up on it. The cost of some constructive criticism on writing and one piece of concept art in no way = cost of implementing multiplayer.

 

As for the journal, I honestly didn't notice any problems at all at the time, though I don't use journals that much. Not to say it wasn't broken, but again, theoretically that should be a fairly minor thing (importing over previously working journal system from ME1 or ME" if nothign else surely?)

[Lephys]

Whoa whoa whoa... Look, nocoolnamejim...

 

I understand your feelings on multiplayer, truly I do. But, the fact remains that you're basically betting on a pattern purely because you've seen a lot of bad implementations of multiplayer gameplay in a lot of games. That in no way makes the ability for multiple people to play a game an inherently bad thing.

 

If every time I gave someone a carrot, they happen to stab someone to death with it, that wouldn't make carrots bad or dangerous. It just means that all the people I gave carrots to happened to use the carrot in the same manner.

 

You said it yourself, that multiplayer tends to be an afterthought, tacked on to have multiplayer capability purely for the sake of multiplayer capability, no matter what it might mess up. But that only specifically supports the fact that, when it is an afterthought that isn't designed well, multiplayer detracts from games and is a waste of resources.

 

That's all. And I doubt anyone would argue with you on that fact, as it is quite true, and quite frustrating.

[Gavinfoxx]

What I don't want?

 

Randomized Loot

Randomness in Character Creation (no rolling! Point buy, please point buy! Or just assign scores from an array, but NOT RANDOM!)

No Control or methods of customizing the build of NPCs (I want at least a bit of control over their advancement!)

Randomness in advancement, ie amount of hit points per level