My thoughts on project Eternity

[locomotron]

I really disliked being flooded with a million quests by every shmoe on the streets of Athkatla: here i (and i believe most people out there) disagree with Sawyer.The quest system was the strongest part of the game, and the amount of content that game had was sited as one of the better points as well.

 

I think the biggest flaw in the design was that it assumed that a player didn't hate imoen's guts, first thing I did in Baldur's Gate was have imoen be torn apart by the Ogrens on your way to Naskhel, or better yet, the gibberlings on your way to Friendly arms inn.

 

I did however like the part where Irenicus stole "something" from you in spellhold, that I think was a good motivator for going after him after having freed imoen.

 

I also agree that quest density was one of the better parts of BG2, aside from obvious journal issues it brought forth.

[uaciaut]

Relativize all you want, it won't change the fact that Josh Sawyer said that he does not like Baldur's Gate 2 + Throne of Bhaal.

You should sig that to spare yourself the effort of posting it every time. Then again a bigger post count makes you look better too.

[Helm]

 

Relativize all you want, it won't change the fact that Josh Sawyer said that he does not like Baldur's Gate 2 + Throne of Bhaal.

You should sig that to spare yourself the effort of posting it every time. Then again a bigger post count makes you look better too.

Don't get mad at me, I didn't write that I hate Baldur's Gate. Josh Sawyer did.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Helm

[Malekith]

 

I really disliked being flooded with a million quests by every shmoe on the streets of Athkatla: here i (and i believe most people out there) disagree with Sawyer.The quest system was the strongest part of the game, and the amount of content that game had was sited as one of the better points as well.

 

I think the biggest flaw in the design was that it assumed that a player didn't hate imoen's guts, first thing I did in Baldur's Gate was have imoen be torn apart by the Ogrens on your way to Naskhel, or better yet, the gibberlings on your way to Friendly arms inn.

 

I did however like the part where Irenicus stole "something" from you in spellhold, that I think was a good motivator for going after him after having freed imoen.

 

I also agree that quest density was one of the better parts of BG2, aside from obvious journal issues it brought forth.

the solution is to make a more clear journal and not to cut from content density

[Calmar]

I don't quite get the argument. Josh Sawyer is of course free to dislike BG II as much as likes, but, with all due respect to him, that doesn't make the game objectively bad in any way as far as I am (and many others are) concerned. I understand his arguments, but these things simply never occured to me as flaws. 

BG II is still seen as one (if not even the) greatest computer roleplaying games. And it is probably the most successful of the IE games. I think it might not be wise to ignore its appeal.

 

Besides, are promised two cities like Athkatla and to me that means shmoes and quests and all.

[LadyCrimson]

I see that Sawyer's little disciples really hate the fact that lead designer Josh Sawyer hates Baldur's Gate.

I never actually finished BG2 and I didn't like it nearly as much as BG1, for a variety of reasons. I definitely loved some of those old, "classic" crpg's and have many many fond memories of playing them, but I haven't played all of them nor do I hold them up as some untouchable pinnacle. What they do have are certain elements in them that I often feel are missing in many of today's rpg's, that I would like to see again. My reasons/those elements are obviously likely not the same as yours. 

 

And I really don't care what games Sawyer likes or dislikes in his own personal time or tastes. I'm sure everyone in the company plays a lot of games I personally dislike, but Obsidian has created games that I loved, nonetheless. But again, that's just me.

[JFSOCC]

I loved Athkatla, and nothing much beyond. I did like the vast amount of quests, I didn't like having them all stacked up and active at the same time with hardly any log-management. I disagree with Sawyer on various things, but I don't think he's unqualified for his job, which is what I believe you are saying Helm. (correct me if I'm wrong)

 

I'm sorry for you if you can't get past that.

[JRRNeiklot]

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

Edited January 30, 2013 by JRRNeiklot

[SophosTheWise]

 

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.  

You mean....no point in murder-grinding.... which is a staple of  modern RPGs and MMOs, and IMO needs to be toned down about 20 notches.  its a stupid, mindless concept.  There's a bajillion other ways to gain exp in a role-playing game, but most have been completely  forgotten over the years, and  the result?    We've now  got people like you  who don't  know what role-playing even is  -  that actually  equate killing exclusively with EXP, to the point where they cannot conceive of other ways to gain levels.   Play Planescape Torment sometime and you'll see how wonderful it is to get  your exp from talking  (for example) instead of just racking up kills.

 

Oh, and there's  a whole lot more to exploration than  just going out  and making things die.  Not sure why you even brought up exploration, as the concept itself is virtually unrelated to combat.

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubr you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

 

You don't have a patent on being right, just because you're older than other people. That would be terrifying for our world. As with literature, cinema, philosophy - there are different approaches to what roleplaying is. You should just get down of that high horse of yours.

Edited January 30, 2013 by SophosTheWise

[Valsuelm]

LMBO, innovation is THE DEVIL, HEAR THAT PAGANS, THE DEVIL!!! Back to the first edidtion ad&d drawing board with ye!

Well... let's see. 2nd edition AD&D was basically 1st edition AD&D minus demons and boobies with a few tweaks. The positives of 3rd edition are greatly outweighed by it's negatives, so I'd play 2nd edition in a heartbeat over 3rd, and fourth is an abomination. So yea... change isn't always good. Especially if one is attempting to reinvent the wheel or fix what isn't broken.

 

If all editions of AD&D were still in print and allowed to compete against one another I'd wager a bunch that 1st/2nd (they are very interchangeable) editions would sell more copies than 3rd, 3rd 1/2, and 4th, despite so many always thinking newer = better.

[Doppelschwert]

Which version of DnD you find best propably boils down to the first edition you played, easy as that. I started with DnD 3.5 and I like that system alot better than the versions before and after.

This also implies that I don't think that BG2 had the best combat system ever. In fact, I didn't like the combat system at all. Why?
Because there is almost no customisation involved. You pick race, class and attributes and thats pretty much it for the rest of the game. Whats the difference between my fighter and your fighter? Maybe some attribute points and the favored weapon, but thats it. I find that lacking. Also, mage fights were tedious and boring as hell.

So whats my point?
Even if they did something similar to BG2 with their combat system (which they don't), you wouldn't see me making threads about threats about not buying the game. Because there are different opinions - they are all valid, I can respect that and thats fine.

Arguing that things are wrong the way they could be without knowing how they will be or attacking devs personal taste is just immature.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Doppelschwert

[Lephys]

@Lephys

Actually, in that post, Sawyer was listing specific things that he didn't like about BG2, and then decided to make a more generalized statement that there wasn't much that he did like about it. It was a long time ago. I'm sure he meant what he said, although he may have changed his mind over the years.

 

Your decision to translate "There wasn't a whole lot I did like about [bG2]" into "There's not a lot in BG2 I wouldn't change if I went back in time and remade it." doesn't change the fact that he actually did say the first thing. It wasn't out of context as it was an independent statement summarizing his feelings about BG2, so your arbitrary decision to change it into something he didn't say is a reach (to say the least).

 

 

Allow me to clarify my point:

 

"I don't like that pizza place" doesn't tell you that I hate all things inherent to pizza places. Without elaborating, you have no idea what I mean. Maybe they tried to kill me there once. Maybe they make terrible pizza. Maybe I'm extremely picky. Maybe I just like another pizza place 10% better, and therefore adhere to a strict "this is the one I like, and therefore, that one is not the one I like" policy.

 

In other words, even if "there's not a lot he did like about BG2," you don't know WHY (or specifically what about this "lot" of generic stuff) he failed to like.

 

Also, the fact that he was referencing very specific aspects of system implementations in the game shows that he was already evaluating systems on more of a "this had problems/this didn't have problems" basis.

 

One final example. If you say "Do you like the current crime laws?", and I say "No, I really don't like the current crime laws," does that mean I LOVE crime and hate laws? No. Again, it could easily mean that I strongly wish they had more to them, i.e. "I don't like the current status/effectiveness of the laws." I could love every single thing that's already in them, and I'd still say "I don't really like them." Why? Because the word "like" can mean so many specific things. It's called ambiguity.

 

That's even before we consider the fact that the term "lot" is subjective. How much of BG2 does he mean by that? Maybe we should ask him. 8P

 

So, yes, Josh Sawyer didn't necessarily mean that he hated BG2. Nor can we really derive any useful information from that statement (such as "OMG! NOW WE KNOW THAT EVERY DETAIL OF BG2 IS THE ENEMY OF P:E's DESIGN!"), without further information. We could, I suppose. But then we'd be assuming.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Lephys

[Somna]

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

I seriously doubt you were granted experience on the fly, in the middle of combat, though.

 

And unless your DM was playing with house rules (which is highly possible), you didn't get any XP for being level 7, finding a 1 HD orc and killing it, which is part of the unspoken "kill XP" package as well.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Somna

[Stun]

That, and who on this thread argued that xp for kills didn't exist in the past? I sure as hell didn't.

 

Apparently being Old does not prevent people from making straw man arguments. lol

Edited January 30, 2013 by Stun

[uaciaut]

Lol, that's rich, son.  I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive.  Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s.  I know a thing or two about role playing.   EXP for kills has been around since the beginning.  Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

Do you have any scars to show from all the RPG's you've played along the years? I heard people really like scars yo.

 

 

 

LMBO, innovation is THE DEVIL, HEAR THAT PAGANS, THE DEVIL!!! Back to the first edidtion ad&d drawing board with ye!

Well... let's see. 2nd edition AD&D was basically 1st edition AD&D minus demons and boobies with a few tweaks. The positives of 3rd edition are greatly outweighed by it's negatives, so I'd play 2nd edition in a heartbeat over 3rd, and fourth is an abomination. So yea... change isn't always good. Especially if one is attempting to reinvent the wheel or fix what isn't broken.

 

If all editions of AD&D were still in print and allowed to compete against one another I'd wager a bunch that 1st/2nd (they are very interchangeable) editions would sell more copies than 3rd, 3rd 1/2, and 4th, despite so many always thinking newer = better.

 

 

You're not saying how good ad&d editions were, you're saying how good YOU thought they were and saying it's a generaly accepted fact. I enjoyed NWN2 which was based off ad&d 3.5 iirc as much as i did BG2. Actually i can say that i liked the fact that you could use non-str stats for fighting purposes (wis for monk, cha for pal, etc), the "dt" system, etc a lot more than what most of BG2's system had to offer.

 

Also at the very core innovation is what's allowing you to write this message on a forum, use a PC, drive a car etc. It's because people were not satisfied with some things and wanted more.

Anyway i don't want to delve into some crappy phylosophy over innovation, the point is that this isn't about innovation per se, it's about people disliking the fact that what's being changed is something THEY don't like or doesn't sound good to them, so they bring these crappy examples of other games that have failed with innovation and think that it enforces their argument to a rule. The fact that the game has a new world is innovation in itself, if they fear it that much they shouldn't get involved with it in the first place.

 

I mean people are literaly giving Blizzard as an example of success here when they have nothing in common with old school RPGS (unless you're saying PE should be a lot more like D2/D3 because they had success) and they're preemptively attacking the way dialogue and quests are being done when they have no details on it whatsoever because "jesawyer hates bg2" (like he's the only one working on this thing).

[PrimeJunta]

Which version of DnD you find best propably boils down to the first edition you played, easy as that. I started with DnD 3.5 and I like that system alot better than the versions before and after.

 

Counterexample here. I've played them all except 4.0 (anyone need a boxed set of the basic rules, only been read once?) and my order of preference is 3.0 > 3.5 > D&D 1.0 > AD&D 2 > AD&D 1.

 

Reasons? First off, none of them as game systems are all that hot. Its strength is and always has been in the huge breadth, depth, quality, and variety of lore, settings, supporting materials, and inspiration.

 

D&D 3.0 hits the best balance between simplicity and richness of stuff to do; 3.5 breaks compatibility for no very good reason and makes it tricky to use a lot of the stuff that was made for 3.0, without really bringing much of value to the table. AD&D 2 is a slightly less god-awful version of AD&D 1, which as a system is abso-bleeping-lutely horrible; unintuitive, clumsy, unnecessarily complex, with moments of glory alternating with unbelievable dopiness. The original D&D is way better than AD&D because it keeps its eye on the ball -- it's a narrowly scoped, simple, lightweight RPG system for a very specific type of gaming.

 

What's more, the only D&D that's actually halfway suited to a computer game is 4.0, which is why I wouldn't want to play it on tabletop. The D&D based cRPG's were good despite the game system they were running on, not because of it. Even D&D 3, which is decent (although not superb) as a tabletop system, is a bad fit for a computer game, and AD&D is just bad, full stop.

 

All of the D&D based cRPG's would have been much better games with game mechanics designed ground-up for them, retaining only the lore and settings from the D&D franchise.

Edited January 30, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[TRX850]

I still have all my original D&D boxed sets too. Basic (Red), Expert (Blue), Companion (Green), and Master (Black).

 

Back then, elves, dwarves and halflings were counted as classes.

 

<nostalgic sigh>

[Valsuelm]

I still have all my original D&D boxed sets too. Basic (Red), Expert (Blue), Companion (Green), and Master (Black).

 

Back then, elves, dwarves and halflings were counted as classes.

 

<nostalgic sigh>

Haha... yeah.....

 

I regret it, but I sold all my coloured D&D books (had them all) and a whole bunch more due to a girlfriend at the time. (good advice: NEVER sell ANYTHING for a girl, EVER)

[Helm]

And I really don't care what games Sawyer likes or dislikes in his own personal time or tastes. I'm sure everyone in the company plays a lot of games I personally dislike, but Obsidian has created games that I loved, nonetheless. But again, that's just me.

I don't care what he plays either, but it does not make sense to me to have someone who hates Baldur's Gate try make a spiritual successor. I am not surprised that he is changing all of the fundamental mechanics to his liking.

 

I really do not think that it is a good idea to have somebody who hates Baldur's Gate (but loves Skyrim) try and make a classic RPG.

 

 

Lol, that's rich, son. I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive. Played in a place I doubr you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s. I know a thing or two about role playing. EXP for kills has been around since the beginning. Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

You don't have a patent on being right, just because you're older than other people. That would be terrifying for our world. As with literature, cinema, philosophy - there are different approaches to what roleplaying is. You should just get down of that high horse of yours.

So you hate classic CRPGs then. Bravo sir. Welcome to Josh Sawyer's little club of classic RPG hate.

 

Anyway, this is why all modern RPGs are dumbed down and classic RPGs are dead. Just change everything until everything that made these games great is gone... What was the point of Project Eternity again? let me give you a hint: The point was not to make a dumbed down modern RPG.

 

 

Lol, that's rich, son. I've been playing rpgs longer than you've been alive. Played in a place I doubt you've even heard of called Lake Geneva in the 70s. I know a thing or two about role playing. EXP for kills has been around since the beginning. Without it you have stupid story games, not rpgs.

I seriously doubt you were granted experience on the fly, in the middle of combat, though.

 

And unless your DM was playing with house rules (which is highly possible), you didn't get any XP for being level 7, finding a 1 HD orc and killing it, which is part of the unspoken "kill XP" package as well.

Every combat encounter had a challenge rating. And you got experience for overcoming these encounters. This has been around since the beginning. The 2 most popular PnP systems (D&D + Pathfinder) still use this system.

 

And what if the challenge rating is very low (because your level is much higher), what happens then? Well, then you get little to no xp and not some exorbitant amount as you claim.

 

btw, even if you get the experience on the fly or after the session has ended you still got your combat xp! Always!

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm

[cyberarmy]

 

I still have all my original D&D boxed sets too. Basic (Red), Expert (Blue), Companion (Green), and Master (Black).

 

Back then, elves, dwarves and halflings were counted as classes.

 

<nostalgic sigh>

Haha... yeah.....

 

I regret it, but I sold all my coloured D&D books (had them all) and a whole bunch more due to a girlfriend at the time. (good advice: NEVER sell ANYTHING for a girl, EVER)

 

I sold all my first and second edition material for a girl   Made loads of money but i feel a bit empty since then...

[TRX850]

Valsuelm and cyberarmy, I feel your pain. Maybe we need a separate forum for RPGers to share their stories of memorabilia heartache? And when we have enough people, in a tavern, drowning their sorrows by the fireplace, it might spark up a new adventure. An epic quest to reclaim those tomes of old!

 

Baldric...fetch my armoured codpiece. We set forth at once!

[Somna]

[...]

Every combat encounter had a challenge rating. And you got experience for overcoming these encounters. This has been around since the beginning. The 2 most popular PnP systems (D&D + Pathfinder) still use this system.

 

And what if the challenge rating is very low (because your level is much higher), what happens then? Well, then you get little to no xp and not some exorbitant amount as you claim.

 

btw, even if you get the experience on the fly or after the session has ended you still got your combat xp! Always!

 

The term "Challenge rating" is 3rd Edition terminology. This terminology most certainly has NOT been around since the beginning, which can (arduously) be verified just by pulling out the Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides and reading them.  If the party had zero risk in killing an opponent, the party got absolutely no XP, regardless of the level of the opponent.  Anyone who has actually had to DM those systems knows this.

[Helm]

 

[...]

Every combat encounter had a challenge rating. And you got experience for overcoming these encounters. This has been around since the beginning. The 2 most popular PnP systems (D&D + Pathfinder) still use this system.

 

And what if the challenge rating is very low (because your level is much higher), what happens then? Well, then you get little to no xp and not some exorbitant amount as you claim.

 

btw, even if you get the experience on the fly or after the session has ended you still got your combat xp! Always!

 

The term "Challenge rating" is 3rd Edition terminology. This terminology most certainly has NOT been around since the beginning, which can (arduously) be verified just by pulling out the Player's Handbooks and Dungeon Master's Guides and reading them.  If the party had zero risk in killing an opponent, the party got absolutely no XP, regardless of the level of the opponent.  Anyone who has actually had to DM those systems knows this.

No, the termininology has not been around since the beginning, even though it fits.

 

Other than that, you just repeated what I wrote. Seems we have a misunderstanding here.

[BruceVC]

While I'm glad to see an rpg similar in vein to the BG series, I'm afraid there are too many new school ideas for me to ever purchase this game.  I'll enumerate them below.

 

Never missing is just plain dumb.   If I want to slay a dragon, I can just sit on my couch at home and swing my sword until he dies since I can never miss.   I wouldn't mind glancing blows doing less damage, but there should be the possibility of a miss. 

 

Cooldowns.  I hate them.  Give me a vancian system, or a spell point system, or something, hell, ANYTHING besides cooldowns.  I hate them in mmos, and I don't want them in a single player rpg either.

 

Level scaling.  I understand this is to be minimal in PE, but any scaling at all is horrid.  If I level up, and simultaneously, every creature on the planet levels up, I may as well not level up at all.  Some of my finest memories of crpgs, and indeed, rpgs as far back as the 70s are about getting my ass handed to me, and returning a level or two later for revenge.  If everything is mathematically balanced to always provide X level of challenge, we may as well be fighting nothing but orcs, because everything IS an orc with a different skin.

 

No exp for kills.  If there is no exp for kills, then there's no point in exploring.   It doesn't have to be a lot of exp, but there must be some, otherwise, what's the point?

 

 

 

Unless these proposed features are changed, I won't be purchasing this game.  It's unfortunate, because it otherwise sounds like an excellent game, but the above features would absolutely ruin the experience for me.   So, I guess it's back to waiting for a decent crpg and replaying the BG series for the nine hundredth time.   I suspect PE will do well, regardless, but a lot of sales will be lost due to the forcing of such unwanted mechanics on gamers.   I don't think the lack of such features would keep anyone from playing, but the existence of them will.   And all to serve some designers ego because HIS way of playing is superior to everyone elses.   So, back to waiting for a real crpg.  It's going on 13 years now.   Maybe Wasteland 2 will give me my rpg fix.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with a person acknowledging that PE isn't the type of game for them. We live in a world of free choice and you are entitled to financially support what you want. I would just move on to other forums where you may find a game more appropriate to your perspective of what constitutes an RPG. Have you considered the Dragon Age 3 forums?

[Helm]

There is nothing wrong with a person acknowledging that PE isn't the type of game for them. We live in a world of free choice and you are entitled to financially support what you want. I would just move on to other forums where you may find a game more appropriate to your perspective of what constitutes an RPG. Have you considered the Dragon Age 3 forums?

You are telling somebody who doesn't like the dumbing down and drastic modernization of PE to move on to Dragon Age 3? Lol, how contradictory.

 

But somehow it might actually be a good idea, I bet Dragon Age 3 is going to have more in common (mechanics) with the IE games than PE will.

 

But don't worry, practically all of the backers who have realized that we are not getting what Obsidian promised have already moved on to greener pastures. Can't change it now, Obsidian has our money. Let the few stragglers declare their disappointment before they leave.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Helm