What things do you NOT want in Project Eternity?

[BruceVC]

I don't want to see super-massive-over-the-top success of PE and subsequent porting to every platform under the sun. "What?" "Huh?" "Why?"

 

Success, I do want to see, but...

 

I don't want to see this place turn into Blizzard/Bioware forums over night, that's why. It's remarkably civil here at the moment and the last thing I want is an infusion of several million cheeto-eating-console-playing teens that have as little control over their commentary as they do their own hormones. The incoming nerd-rage-o-rama from such a success, over future IP development, would contain complaints about everything from the size of a female NPCs boobs to "dur why are there <insert-deragatory-name-for-same-sex-romances> in the game?". This place would become absolutely untenable in a matter of weeks. Basic principals of story evolution and creative license would be destroyed in their infancy by the sheer power of the weapon of mass destruction that is raging testosterone powered commentary.

 

"Aww, come on... Why are you bashing on the kiddies." - I'm not bashing the kids, I'm bashing the behavior. The title of the topic is, after all, "What don't you want..."

 

Games are rarely a black-and-white experience these days, just like any other creative medium. How many musicians do you know of where you liked every song on every album? Writers that you know where you liked every chapter of every book? Producer and every movie? Probably few, if any, I'd wager...

 

So, here's a realistic projection for Project Eternity:

• You will not like every character.
  
• You will not like every quest.
  
• You will not like every zone.
  
• You will not like every mechanic.
  
• You will not like every feature.
  
• You will not like every model.
  
• You will not like every musical score.
  
• But...
  
• You still may very much like the game.
  

It would be really nice if we could avoid millions of rabid internet rage posters on this one...

 

Sorry, but thats not something you can prevent. If PE is as wildly successful as I predict then we will see thousands more people these forums. Some will add value and some won't. Basically the same as any forum that has been formed around a popular game. But I also think PE is a relatively niche market, so it will never have the popularity of BSN.

 

I also think that BSN has thousands of people on it who are normal, reasonable and contribute constructively towards debate.

[Luridis]

Sorry, but thats not something you can prevent.

 

Didn't say it could be prevented, said it's something I'd rather not see... There is always hope!

[Umberlin]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor.

 

Yes, they wore so much full armor that Conan spent large portions of the Black Stranger naked or in a ragged peice of cloth he'd tied around his nethers, while fighting picts in little more than that, and usually that little more being incredibly strange. The truth is, while there are plenty of actual uses of armor in his books, they're far - far - from the rule. Generally considers the idea that it happened more often than not, and, it's true, there's plenty of armor abound in the Conan books, on men or otherwise, but there are plenty of completely unarmored, naked or 'strangely' armored men in those books. The amount of nudity and 'revealing' armor and 'revealing' garb on the men in those books is part of the reason the revealing stuff on the women isn't noticeable. Because it's all around, and everywhere. Heck, going back to the Black Stranger the opening of that book has him in just a tattered, dirty rag tied around him dangly bits. Seriously, that book is full of naked or barely dressed men and women of all ages you name it it's there, and it's not an exception amongst the Conan books. Howard liked his nude and skimpy men in those books every bit as much as the nude and skimpy women.

 

I'm not really for skimpy armor, but I am not for 'armored' either. I don't even like calling it skimpy because it's not skimpy as much as, well, let's go back to the Picts and some of the other oddly armored, or unarmored, peoples in the Canon books who existed along side armored peoples and cultures in that setting. Skimpy is relative, but some just didn't wear armor or only wore 'some', and I'm not talking about women here. That's not fiction. That's reality, people of differing levels of technology exist at once even not, and in our past, some never embracing armor of any sort, and still to this day being unarmored. There are parts of this world, even today, still so primitive some people seem to not even realize they exist, and they exist right along side cultures with nuclear arms and shotguns and assault rifles. They existed right along side cultures with swords and plate armor and chain and so on.

 

Part of the weird thing with fantasy RPG fanatics is they look for this 'proper' armored model in games where 'people are wearing practical armor all the time', so often, where it didn't even exist in our history, and certainly shouldn't in a fantasy. Armor sounds great until you realize how many cultures got by just fine without it. We have kevlar now, but for a long time when firearms were first developed people stopped bothering with armor entirely. Why? Because it no longer mattered, and it's important, in my mind, to think about the power of a firearm . . . now think about the power a Wizard in most settings weilds. In many ways it's the same issue. That armor that didn't work against a musket or cannon ball isn't very likely to work against a fireball or lightning called down from the sky either.

 

Of course we have gameplay balance to consider, and that's why they do work in fantasy RPGs, but if we're talking practical on levels beyond a game . . . I'm sorry, I'm putting my money on the guy with the gun or the guy who can create fire from thin air over the moron with the plate armor and a sword anyday.

 

Still, getting back to the armor, here's the thing. I like armor. It looks neat. I like clothes. They look neat. I like robes, they're neat too. I like the conservative - full covering - stuff more for myself and my characters, true, but I also have no problem with the other end of the spectrum, the supposed skimpy stuff, and the middleground in between the two exteemes. I firmly believe in 'something for everyone' and I do think you can create clothing/robes/armor and arms in every tier for both extremes, as well as the middleground, in any type of gear you might need to present a person with. Let them make the decision for themselves, pick what they like for themselves and create different factions in the world that speak to these different tastes, so everyone has a bit of something close to their heart, to their taste, and the only people left out are the extremist that loudly insist:

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but skimpy!"

 

Or

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Practical!"

 

Or

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Conservative!"

 

Or

 

""No only this is right nothing else is allowed but the middleground!"

 

Or whatever else didn't manage to make up on the spot.

 

Anyways, I know only some of that had anything to do with your post . . . the reply is mostly because your post inspired the line of thoughts, rather than an actual direct response - but you inspired me, be happy or whatever.

[NOK222]

 

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr

[Heresiarch]

I have no problem with armor variety, but I like consistency. If it's actual armor and not a fetish item from the local equivalent of a sex shop, it should be functional, not just a chainmail bikini or a plate codpiece or whatever. If it's a piece of exotic clothing from extremely hot countries, which leaves the wearer on the verge of being practically nude, it should elicit appropriate reactions from NPCs. Same could go for a courtly dress worn in a place with too hot a climate or tradition for skimpier clothing. If overly sexualized or otherwise inappropriate clothes are totally disregarded by everyone around it feels like fan service. And for very immature fans at that.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Heresiarch

[Calmar]

 

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr

 

This burly lad rouses strong brotherly feelings in me...

 

Who ist this alarmingly handsome fellow?

Edited January 14, 2013 by Calmar

[Luridis]

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr

 

Still doesn't quite cut it though, that's a prop and they're still trying to highlight her "figure". That scale "dress" couldn't stop a wooden sword. Found this on Google, it's about the most functional looking I saw amongst the hundreds of pictures of Xena.

 

[Helm]

level scaling (this seems to have been fixed)

regenerating health bar

quest only xp

no "missing" mechanic (this also seems to have been fixed)

any other unannounced "dumbing down" of the mechanics

[Kecaw]

Let me add mine three cent's to this:

 

Magicaly teleporting mine main character to do all the talking with an NPC when i started it with a different character. Seriously if i want to talk with character X let me! dont show mine main in his place (Naturally if the NPC will only talk with mine char. then be so)

 

Companions only for combat, as in what did NWN2, all your companions aka."friends" were just there to smack about, there was no point in giving them any skill point in more common stuff (diplomacy, bluff etc.)

 

"Core characters", by that i mean that one (or even two) characters that are always with you because they are esential for the whole game (IE roges that can lockpick because your warior with over 22 str. cant bust a stupid lock, or a mage that has that one uber spell whitout the whole fight becomes a pain in the bum)

 

Destroying a desk or cabin with brute force destroys an item there? is the item made out of glass or something that really easy breakes? no? then i dont want to see it breake.

 

Boxes/chest's/cabines that i open with brute force get destroyed in to milion pieaces, no no no, im trying to open a "lock" not chop them in to firewood.

 

Useless companions, as in they dont fit anywhere despise what your try to do.

 

(this will not be the problem in PE but still) to many companios to little space in the party to know everyone. (NWN2 and ME2 did it totally wrong)

 

(I said it in another topic but it will fit better here) Companions that leave you for no aparent reason, if the dude dosnt like me then let him leave in the mid game dont make him leave or switch sides right before the final boss with a text like "Hey i like you and all but im gonna join this bady here, and it dosnt matter that despise that his minions tried to kill me countles time and that it will be 10 vs 2 and you probably will kill me and him in like 2 min. from the start of the fight"

 

Infinite spawning mobs in the middle of a fight for no reason, like seriosly where do thouse guys come from? is there like a factory of clone's next door?

 

Overbuffing as in, buff everyone for 5min, run 10min killing everything, rest, buff, kill and so on.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Kecaw

[HangedMan]

In regards to including that stuff - if you did want to, the simple solution is to have a part of two of the game where somebody has decked out all their guards in utterly impractical ceremonial stuff because the guards are there to look impressive rather than be actual legitimate defenses. It'd of course be statted out to an appropriate level of uselessness, but that way you let people use and wear stupid things and let natural selection run its course...

I like this.

 

I mean, if some company made 17 different beverages that all tasted the same, no one would say "You're being FLAVORIST!". People would just say "Wow, you've got a pretty narrow design scope for your product. I'll look elsewhere, thanks."

 

I'm saving this.

[BruceVC]

Because the guys aren't also in chainmail codpieces and such as well. If EVERYONE has absurdly exposed armor, its just silly rather than sexist.

 

But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor.

 

Yes, they wore so much full armor that Conan spent large portions of the Black Stranger naked or in a ragged peice of cloth he'd tied around his nethers, while fighting picts in little more than that, and usually that little more being incredibly strange. The truth is, while there are plenty of actual uses of armor in his books, they're far - far - from the rule. Generally considers the idea that it happened more often than not, and, it's true, there's plenty of armor abound in the Conan books, on men or otherwise, but there are plenty of completely unarmored, naked or 'strangely' armored men in those books. The amount of nudity and 'revealing' armor and 'revealing' garb on the men in those books is part of the reason the revealing stuff on the women isn't noticeable. Because it's all around, and everywhere. Heck, going back to the Black Stranger the opening of that book has him in just a tattered, dirty rag tied around him dangly bits. Seriously, that book is full of naked or barely dressed men and women of all ages you name it it's there, and it's not an exception amongst the Conan books. Howard liked his nude and skimpy men in those books every bit as much as the nude and skimpy women.

 

I'm not really for skimpy armor, but I am not for 'armored' either. I don't even like calling it skimpy because it's not skimpy as much as, well, let's go back to the Picts and some of the other oddly armored, or unarmored, peoples in the Canon books who existed along side armored peoples and cultures in that setting. Skimpy is relative, but some just didn't wear armor or only wore 'some', and I'm not talking about women here. That's not fiction. That's reality, people of differing levels of technology exist at once even not, and in our past, some never embracing armor of any sort, and still to this day being unarmored. There are parts of this world, even today, still so primitive some people seem to not even realize they exist, and they exist right along side cultures with nuclear arms and shotguns and assault rifles. They existed right along side cultures with swords and plate armor and chain and so on.

 

Part of the weird thing with fantasy RPG fanatics is they look for this 'proper' armored model in games where 'people are wearing practical armor all the time', so often, where it didn't even exist in our history, and certainly shouldn't in a fantasy. Armor sounds great until you realize how many cultures got by just fine without it. We have kevlar now, but for a long time when firearms were first developed people stopped bothering with armor entirely. Why? Because it no longer mattered, and it's important, in my mind, to think about the power of a firearm . . . now think about the power a Wizard in most settings weilds. In many ways it's the same issue. That armor that didn't work against a musket or cannon ball isn't very likely to work against a fireball or lightning called down from the sky either.

 

Of course we have gameplay balance to consider, and that's why they do work in fantasy RPGs, but if we're talking practical on levels beyond a game . . . I'm sorry, I'm putting my money on the guy with the gun or the guy who can create fire from thin air over the moron with the plate armor and a sword anyday.

 

Still, getting back to the armor, here's the thing. I like armor. It looks neat. I like clothes. They look neat. I like robes, they're neat too. I like the conservative - full covering - stuff more for myself and my characters, true, but I also have no problem with the other end of the spectrum, the supposed skimpy stuff, and the middleground in between the two exteemes. I firmly believe in 'something for everyone' and I do think you can create clothing/robes/armor and arms in every tier for both extremes, as well as the middleground, in any type of gear you might need to present a person with. Let them make the decision for themselves, pick what they like for themselves and create different factions in the world that speak to these different tastes, so everyone has a bit of something close to their heart, to their taste, and the only people left out are the extremist that loudly insist:

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but skimpy!"

 

Or

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Practical!"

 

Or

 

"No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Conservative!"

 

Or

 

""No only this is right nothing else is allowed but the middleground!"

 

Or whatever else didn't manage to make up on the spot.

 

Anyways, I know only some of that had anything to do with your post . . . the reply is mostly because your post inspired the line of thoughts, rather than an actual direct response - but you inspired me, be happy or whatever.

 

Nice post Umberlin, you know your stuff How come you are so knowledgeable on this topic?

[Stun]

Destroying a desk or cabin with brute force destroys an item there? is the item made out of glass or something that really easy breakes?

Yes? More often than not, in games that implement item destruction as a consequence for container bashing, the items destroyed were often inherantly fragile.... such as Potions (which ARE made of glass), or spell components (flowers, eggs etc) Or scrolls, (which are easily burned, smeared, stained) or jewelery (it's very easy to damage a pair of gold earings, or necklace or ring with just a bit of force, let alone from the impact of a massive war hammer.)

 

Personally I'm *all* for a lock-bashing choice-consequence system like the one we had in NWN2 and KOTOR2. Locked containers are meant to be unlocked by a skilled lock-picker. If you want to take the easy/lazy way out and just bash that container open, then the option should be there for you, but so should the consequences for doing something the 'wrong' way.

 

 

Overbuffing as in, buff everyone for 5min, run 10min killing everything, rest, buff, kill and so on.

I don't understand this one. What you're describing is not a flaw in game design, it's a flaw in player behavior. Unless you're asking for the game to place strict time limits to buffing (which would be really stupid game design and not at all in the spirit of the IE classics.) As it stands, most *good* games, like the aforementioned IE games, had spell durations, so you did have to be semi-mindful of when you casted some buffing spells since they could expire before the fight if you took too long in your buffing session.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Stun

[NOK222]

ohmagawhd the lack of breast armor makes her gender confusing hurrrrrr

 

Still doesn't quite cut it though, that's a prop and they're still trying to highlight her "figure". That scale "dress" couldn't stop a wooden sword. Found this on Google, it's about the most functional looking I saw amongst the hundreds of pictures of Xena.

 

 

Still better than most though, nice find.

[Labadal]

No romances, level scaling and learn by doing. If those are not in, I'll be a happy camper. Romances can be ignored, so if they are in, that won't bother me as much as the other two.

[Kecaw]

Destroying a desk or cabin with brute force destroys an item there? is the item made out of glass or something that really easy breakes?

Yes? More often than not, in games that implement item destruction as a consequence for container bashing, the items destroyed were often inherantly fragile.... such as Potions (which ARE made of glass), or spell components (flowers, eggs etc) Or scrolls, (which are easily burned, smeared, stained) or jewelery (it's very easy to damage a pair of gold earings, or necklace or ring with just a bit of force, let alone from the impact of a massive war hammer.)

 

Personally I'm *all* for a lock-bashing choice-consequence system like the one we had in NWN2 and KOTOR2. Locked containers are meant to be unlocked by a skilled lock-picker. If you want to take the easy/lazy way out and just bash that container open, then the option should be there for you, but so should the consequences for doing something the 'wrong' way.

 

 

 

Overbuffing as in, buff everyone for 5min, run 10min killing everything, rest, buff, kill and so on.

I don't understand this one. What you're describing is not a flaw in game design, it's a flaw in player behavior. Unless you're asking for the game to place strict time limits to buffing (which would be really stupid game design and not at all in the spirit of the IE classics.) As it stands, most *good* games, like the aforementioned IE games, had spell durations, so you did have to be semi-mindful of when you casted some buffing spells since they could expire before the fight if you took too long in your buffing session.

 

On the first one. Oh i get it, and i understand it but only when an item could really be smashed to bits by hiting it, but then again really? destroyed in a chest when normaly a person would aim for the lock/locks and not smashing it with an axe head on, that would be just silly.

 

The second. Yeah you are right here, little mistake on me here.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Kecaw

[Gavinfoxx]

Whatever is wrong with not protecting the lockpicking skills? Shouldn't a party have several means to achieve objectives, each with their own drawbacks and benefits? As long as that isn't *all* the 'skilled' character can do, and they can contribute in areas outside their specialty...? So they have a way of finding traps and getting past mundane obstacles, as do magic characters and strength-focused characters. One could simply attack the trap (which should generally be active when monsters are in the area, as part of a combat encounter!), or use some magic to disrupt the energies, or whatever... multiple ways to achieve goals, you know?

[Alexjh]

Whatever is wrong with not protecting the lockpicking skills? Shouldn't a party have several means to achieve objectives, each with their own drawbacks and benefits? As long as that isn't *all* the 'skilled' character can do, and they can contribute in areas outside their specialty...? So they have a way of finding traps and getting past mundane obstacles, as do magic characters and strength-focused characters. One could simply attack the trap (which should generally be active when monsters are in the area, as part of a combat encounter!), or use some magic to disrupt the energies, or whatever... multiple ways to achieve goals, you know?

 

Well, lockpicking is really an archetypal skill for an entire class of characters while whacking a lock or casting a spell to undo it isn't. This is the difference between any class being able to do anything and any class being able to do anything well. As thief skills are squarely within the remit of the rogue it makes sense to protect them.

 

You could of course perhaps do it differently - if you assume lockpicking it the optimal route because it's quiet and doesn't risk damaging the items, you can add a few extra problems to go through. If perhaps some locks are just too well madeto physically break, trying to force a lock automatically triggers any traps and the noise involved can attract unwanted attention (all of which are plausible justifications) then suddenly thevalue of lockpicking is far higher. While I'm all in favour of any class being able to make do in any circumstances, that doesn't mean that every class should excel in every circumstance - when you have a specific thing that needs doing you want a specialist rather than just a guy with a big hammer.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1. Horrible mechanics

2. Gameplay/Story segregation

3. Overly restrictive classes

4. Action gameplay

5. Level Scaling

6. Doors that magically lock behind the party during combat

[Umberlin]

Nice post Umberlin, you know your stuff How come you are so knowledgeable on this topic?

 

My post? So many spelling errors . . . What was I doing? Bleh.

 

Outside of majoring in English, not that you'd know it by that post, and taking on a few other languages, I had a big interest in archeology and ancient history, origin of man sort of stuff. Combine that with some modern history courses and you have all of that. Then, of course, I absorb tons of fiction, like Howard's work, to weigh all that against . . . just for fun. I like my fiction, especially fantasy that doesn't devolve into the usual 'chosen', 'dark lord', 'dark army', 'end of the world' etc etc etc . . .

 

3. Overly restrictive classes

 

Hm, what qualifies as that particular point for you? An example, or set of examples, if you will.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Umberlin

[MithrilSilverAus]

1. Multiplayer (PE was flogged pretty much as a sp experience from what ive read and not many want the MP or co-op (seems to be trendy in games these days).

2. And yes the whole social gaming business needs to be left alone for this.

[Lephys]

level scaling (this seems to have been fixed)

regenerating health bar

quest only xp

no "missing" mechanic (this also seems to have been fixed)

any other unannounced "dumbing down" of the mechanics

 

Do you mean that they seem to have fixed the lack of a supposed miss mechanic that isn't truly a miss mechanic, or did you mean that they supposedly fixed the lack of a true missing mechanic? Same confusion with "dumbing down." The quotes are commonly used to reference something incorrectly labeled or misrepresented by another. So, I just wanted to make sure, because it strikes me as a bit odd to not want supposed dumbing down of mechanics, but it makes perfect sense to oppose the actual dumbing down of mechanics.

[Helm]

Same confusion with "dumbing down." The quotes are commonly used to reference something incorrectly labeled or misrepresented by another. So, I just wanted to make sure, because it strikes me as a bit odd to not want supposed dumbing down of mechanics, but it makes perfect sense to oppose the actual dumbing down of mechanics.

As I have seen in other posts you love to bend over and take all of the dumbing down with great pleasure. You also attack anybody that criticizes the dumbing down. So, yes, I meant dumbing down, i.e. destroying the mechanics so that the game caters more to retards, which might be the reason why you like it.

 

I also removed the quotes for you, because you are apparently some kind of wannabe 12 year old grammar nazi, even though my use of quotation marks is compliant.

 

Do you mean that they seem to have fixed the lack of a supposed miss mechanic that isn't truly a miss mechanic, or did you mean that they supposedly fixed the lack of a true missing mechanic?

Yes. Wrong. Anybody who is not a moron would see that. But I see that you are now resorting to grammar nazi tactics that 10 year olds like to use when they are trolling.

 

-> "no missing" mechanic.

 

Is of course correct.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Helm

[Frenetic Pony]

Going for too long doing the same thing.

 

I think that's one of the big reasons many enjoyed Baldur's Gate 2 more than Icewind Dale 2. IWD2 was always all combat, all the time pretty much. BG2 had better pacing in many areas. You got interspersments of story, buying items and levelling, solving a puzzle or two, checking for traps and etc. All inbetween combat encounters.

 

One of the worst dungeons I've ever encountered was from Dragon Age that failed at this. The same enemies, the same art assets, for two+ hours. It was nauseating by the end, enter a room that looked the same as the last, bash the same enemies, retrieve the same loot, move onto the next. My brother quit the game because of that dungeon, I almost felt like doing so and only pushed through because I enjoyed the story.

[AGX-17]

 

 

Destroying a desk or cabin with brute force destroys an item there? is the item made out of glass or something that really easy breakes? no? then i dont want to see it breake.

 

Much to my chagrin, i'm going to just ignore the flagrant spelling and punctuation errors rife throughout the post and address the (what should be) obvious logic here.

 

If you're destroying something, with physical force, why would any item with equal or lesser structural strength survive? if you put a bunch of furniture into a building that's going to be imploded in reality, do you think the contents of a given desk would survive being exploded and then crushed by 40 stories of concrete coming down on it? Why would it survive a Barbarian's battle axe or warhammer which can smash the head of a man wearing a steel plate helmet?

 

If he can smash steel, why would anything less strong than steel survive this felony assault on furniture? Why do you want to destroy furniture in the first place? You don't need to destroy it. You can unlock it. Besides, what's so precious that you would store it in a wooden desk or "cabin"? I assume you mean "cabinet," or you are even stranger than your post implies. If I had an item some roving, violent adventurer was desperate enough to smash all the furniture in a town for, I wouldn't store it in a piece of wooden furniture, I would keep it in a safe or a vault. Something that you cannot simply "smash," as you are wont to do.

Edited January 19, 2013 by AGX-17

[Shane-o]

Much to my chagrin, i'm going to just ignore the flagrant spelling and punctuation errors rife throughout the post and address the (what should be) obvious logic here.

Have you thought that perhaps Kecaw's native language is not English?