Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[mcmanusaur]

Allow me to introduce you all to my friend Mr. Venn Diagram:

 

 

Depending on your inclinations there may be more or less purple or green relative to each other, but I have assumed in this image that people here feel that "classic" RPGs do more right than "modern" RPGs, which may or may not reflect my personal opinions. My second assumption is that even though there have been some good RPGs, there's still quite a bit of room for improvement in the form of ideas that haven't yet been seen in the RPG genre. The point is that although the "ideal" RPG is very subjective, neither blindly following the current trends in RPGs nor sticking to the conventions of yesteryear will likely produce the best game, unless we've already tapped most of the genre's potential. In that case, the future of the genre consists only of formulaic clones, and the RPG is arguably relegated from an art to a commodity.

 

Personally I'm most interested in the developers' ability to separate the "orange" (genre conventions that don't actually work) from the "brown" (core elements of RPGs), and to discover the "blue" via innovation. Other people's priorities may vary, but so far I've been reasonably pleased in these regards.

Edited July 2, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Elerond]

Game mechanics seem to be bit different than what I originally though that they would be, but that was something that I expected as they pitched entirely new system and world, but in my opinion Obsidian's vision looks better than what I had in my mind when I pledged.

 

Mechanics looks that they can easily produce game that give us at least same degree tactical combat and dungeon scrawling as IWDs, which is what Obsidian promised.

 

And we also know now that game will use pre-rendered (2d) backgrounds that are visually stunning and have BG/BG2 style aesthetics and that game will use isometric view, just like Obsidian promised. 

 

But what comes promises of "emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of PST" and "memorable companions and the epic exploration of BG", we probably need to wait for the beta to give judgement how well those promises are realized.

 

So in my opinion, what is worth, we will get just that or even better PE than what we were led to believe.

[Amentep]

My expectations going in were -

• isometric (or similar)
• real time with pause
• fantasy setting
• party based
• Made by people at Obsidian Ent.

So far, that's kinda how its looking to me, so I'd say its a success. They don't have the D&D license, they don't have the infinity engine; it was (to my mind at least) never going to be a 1 to 1 translation anyhow.

 

EDIT: I also have to say, realistically, you can have a game that is both Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment. The entire ideas behind them are opposed to one another. Baldur's Gate kinda lies between them; I wonder if that's why everyone seems to think this should be Baldur's Gate III (without the name because, lawsuit).

Edited July 2, 2013 by Amentep

[NerdBoner]

what you guys don't seem to get is that Obsidian shut its doors 8 months ago and hired a small skeleton crew to impersonate Obsidian employees while Feargus, Avellone and a few others party hard with the 4 mil (that's a hell of a lot of hookers and blow)...when the 2014 2015 release date comes around they'll hastily put together an android game called Eternity mobile and re-open the doors of Obsidian ent. with a brand new mission statement geared towards producing tablet and smart phone games.

[quechn1tlan]

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. However, what do I, a random guy know about making games? Next to nothing. And as such it is not my place to tell the developers to change stuff because I am the all-mighty backer-investor and demand to be obeyed.

So, what I expect from PE? A good RPG. If I don't like some elements of it, but the game itself is good - I'll just have to deal with it. Simple.

[Gfted1]

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. However, what do I, a random guy know about making games? Next to nothing. And as such it is not my place to tell the developers to change stuff because I am the all-mighty backer-investor and demand to be obeyed.

So, what I expect from PE? A good RPG. If I don't like some elements of it, but the game itself is good - I'll just have to deal with it. Simple.

 

Amen brother (sister). I just hope the suck parts don't drive me from the game. 

[Tale]

It's hard for me to really be objective here. I think I would be okay with any direction they took.

 

But I also recall them being pretty open about what they were hoping to do during the kickstarter drive. There are things they bragged about and compared it to, but I never got the impression they were going to simply be copying any particular set of old IE games verbatim. The core elements of tactical combat and parties are things they seem to really still be focusing on. I don't think that Icewind Dale-with-the-serial-numbers-filed-off is what they were seriously promoting.

 

That said, I like the deviations I've read about, and am impartial to others. I'm sure if playing Baldur's Gate II as a Kensai/Mage is what defined that game for me more than arranging party members and microing them, I'd likely have a different perspective.

[Merlkir]

I'm getting more and more excited about the game with every new update. The KS pitch actually made me feel nostalgic, but also a bit disappointed. It sounded very generic, like another Dragon Age. What they seem to be doing is far more interesting. And the fact they do deviate from the IE formula? GREAT! I liked the IE games a lot, but DnD is not my favourite system and replaying the IEs lately, there's a lot I don't enjoy as well.

And they're doing things not often seen in games, like languages, or reasonably historical arms and armour. That's way cool.

[SerRodrik]

Well, since I only started playing through the old infinity engine games since the kickstarter ended, I'm probably not the person that this question is targeted at. But I never really got the impression that Project Eternity would be those games exactly, in all but name. I got the impression that they were going to take their inspiration from those games, while still leaving room for new ideas or experimentation, and that's exactly what we seem to be getting. I really could not be more pleased with the direction the game seems to be going.

[Karkarov]

I have no major complaints from the direction they have gone with the game so far other than that it includes elves and dwarves ;p.

 

I expected a real time with pause strategy RPG based on small team play, an original and new rich lore filled world, deep and interesting character creation and development, and a excellent high quality narrative.

 

I am pretty sure they are going to deliver on what I expect.  Will there be things I don't like ultimately?  Yes.  That is just how the world works.  Will I like the total package though?  More than likely I will.

 

When, or if, they kickstart BG 3 will I be there?  Nope.

[lolaldanee]

one thing: who says only people who want a new infinity engine game backed this game?

i for one backed it because, while i also liked the icewind dale games bg2 and torment very much, i enjoyed the more recent games obisdian has made

i backed it because of the fantastic writing, the choices and consequences in Alpha Protocol

i backed it because of the awesome story and unbelievably good party members in mask of the betrayer

 

my ultimate hope is that for once an obsidian game will be as well executed on a technical and gameplay level as much as they always have been on the narative level

the absent need for console versions and simply the fact that this game is in 2d are two major reasons for me backing too

Edited July 2, 2013 by lolaldanee

[Labadal]

The thing I want the most, besides an isometric 2D game, is that we have as much reactivity as possible. That's why I loved Alpha Protocol and Fallout: New Vegas.

[decado]

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. 

 

Why? I've never understood why this term was so controversial.  All game design is an attempt to remove/avoid degenerate game play.  Otherwise we'd still be playing solitaire.  

 

Obsidian seems to be taking steps to remove cheesy, useless mechanics (read: degenerate gameplay) from their project, and I cannot imagine how this is a bad thing. Further, the term was never issued as an indictment against players.  Sawyer made it pretty clear that degenerate gameplay was a symptom (not a cause!) of a larger problem, which was problematic design.  So I ask, what exactly is wrong with getting rid of problematic design?  Again, isn't that what the very essence of designing a game is all about?  If the competition were to design problematic games we'd all be playing Calvinball. 

 

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted this because you used the phrase.

[Labadal]

 

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. 

 

Why? I've never understood why this term was so controversial.  All game design is an attempt to remove/avoid degenerate game play.  Otherwise we'd still be playing solitaire.  

 

Obsidian seems to be taking steps to remove cheesy, useless mechanics (read: degenerate gameplay) from their project, and I cannot imagine how this is a bad thing. Further, the term was never issued as an indictment against players.  Sawyer made it pretty clear that degenerate gameplay was a symptom (not a cause!) of a larger problem, which was problematic design.  So I ask, what exactly is wrong with getting rid of problematic design?  Again, isn't that what the very essence of designing a game is all about?  If the competition were to design problematic games we'd all be playing Calvinball. 

 

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted this because you used the phrase.

 

 

I understand the context in which the term was used, so it didn't bother me much, especially when he didn't comment on players. He was talking about the developers doing the right things for the game. However, I'm not a native English speaker, but the word seems a little loaded, so I can understand why some people reacted.

[decado]

From a technical point of view, the term "degenerate" is used frequently in disciplines like technical writing and (I would imagine, though I am no expert) Information Technology. I've encountered the term a lot when talking/writing about systems, whether they are actual or conceptual.  To label a system as "degenerate" means it breaks down (degenerates) or fails to fulfill its stated design goals.  When you have a "degenerate interface" in a mobile application, for example, it means your interface is requiring people to compensate for your broken system because it was poorly designed.  

 

It is interesting that you mention this, though, because I often though that the people who were flipping their lids over the term were maybe misunderstanding it.

[quechn1tlan]

 

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. 

 

Why? I've never understood why this term was so controversial.  All game design is an attempt to remove/avoid degenerate game play.  Otherwise we'd still be playing solitaire.  

 

Obsidian seems to be taking steps to remove cheesy, useless mechanics (read: degenerate gameplay) from their project, and I cannot imagine how this is a bad thing. Further, the term was never issued as an indictment against players.  Sawyer made it pretty clear that degenerate gameplay was a symptom (not a cause!) of a larger problem, which was problematic design.  So I ask, what exactly is wrong with getting rid of problematic design?  Again, isn't that what the very essence of designing a game is all about?  If the competition were to design problematic games we'd all be playing Calvinball. 

 

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted this because you used the phrase.

 

 

Because I disagree with Sawyer's(and many others') vision about these things being poorly designed. I like them. For those people having some characters better than others and classes completely different from one another is unacceptable, resting after every battle is wrong, hoarding loot and micro-managing a limited inventory is bothersome, having unpredictable trial and error encounters is just game breaking and gods forbid quicksaving after every two steps and then reloading until you get things right or roll some lucky dice in a tight spot is heretical.

 

For me - these are things I like in my games. I think save\loading is a part of gameplay just like any other, cheesing pick-pocketing on almost no skill until you get it right? Please, this is every single Fallout playthrough for me. Having a limited inventory, backtracking and selling junk not because I need money, but because it feels right? These are parts of the core gameplay that I like. And furthermore their being in the game doesn't really affect those who don't like those things. Don't like resting? Don't rest, the game is perfectly beatable no matter how you play(unless you're just very bad, but then it's your problem, not the game's). People played IE games however they wanted. Some rested, some not, some looted everything on sight, some didn't, some had parties of 6 and some had parties of 1, and so on.

 

Getting rid of so called degenerate gameplay and making the game as accessible as possible is simply taking away options from players. And in the process it has a big chance of oversimplifying to the levels of dumbing down(I'm still not convinced that health and stamina won't be a variant of regenerating HP), and this is not good for anyone.

 

Once again I'll mention that this is not something that makes or breaks the game. But these are the things that I like and there's no reason for me to be glad about them being gone. Bad pathing, weird walkspeed, stats that are useless - these are poor design choices. Being able to pickpocket someone from 20th try - is a way of playing that, as a player, you may or may not prefer.

 

And yes, I don't see the term "degenerate" being addressed towards players, it's just as simple as me liking things that are considered bad design and not being happy about games getting rid of them, when they weren't really harming anyone.

[Nonek]

I donated simply because Obsidian are one of the few developers making games that actually innovate, i'd have donated whatever they announced, The Sith Lords, MOTB, Alpha Protocol and New Vegas earned them a shot in my eyes. The infinity engine games were good to excellent, but I thought in many ways games such as Ultima, Wizardry, Krondor and Darklands were equal if not superior in certain aspects.

[Lephys]

The whole thing with a Kickstarter is "Here's what we've got... if you think that's enough information for you to want to help us make it, then go for it. If that's too vague for you, then don't give us money until you get more specifics."

 

It's just like buying something. If a car dealer tells you "This car is fast!", and you just say "Great! ^_^" and purchase it, then come back to complain that it only travels at 50mph, then it's really hard to suggest they lied to you. You could've asked them for quantifiable speed ratings of the car, then decided for yourself with more specific info.

 

The only difference is, the car dealer was very likely TRYING to mislead you. If you were mistaken about Obsidian's specific vision for P:E, it was because of insufficient/vague information on your part, and we're back to "you shouldn't have backed it thinking whatever was in your head was just magically going to line up perfectly with their specific plans."

[jamoecw]

actually the most popular RTSs have more to do with 'mechanical' skill than positioning, turn based strategy on the other hand...

[zimcub]

Indeed whether you liked it or not, one of the more memorable things about IE combat were seeing goblins get a lucky attack roll and take out one of your characters, or an enemy missing an attack when you had 1 hitpoint left, allowing you to win the fight.

 

Those kind of situations probably will not exist in this game... simply because missing attacks, even ranged attacks, will not occur (afaik).

is this true?

Obsidian, i am disappoint.

The main thing about IE combat that made it fun was that no fight was ever the same. This is exactly what made the IE games withstand the age of time and are still playable. If the game has only positioning puzzle then you will breeze through it the second time with ease because you know what to prepare for and there will be no fun in playing it the third time, because it will be all the same and boring.

Yes maybe some things do need improvement, but this is absolutely NOT one of them.

[decado]

 

 

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. 

 

Why? I've never understood why this term was so controversial.  All game design is an attempt to remove/avoid degenerate game play.  Otherwise we'd still be playing solitaire.  

 

Obsidian seems to be taking steps to remove cheesy, useless mechanics (read: degenerate gameplay) from their project, and I cannot imagine how this is a bad thing. Further, the term was never issued as an indictment against players.  Sawyer made it pretty clear that degenerate gameplay was a symptom (not a cause!) of a larger problem, which was problematic design.  So I ask, what exactly is wrong with getting rid of problematic design?  Again, isn't that what the very essence of designing a game is all about?  If the competition were to design problematic games we'd all be playing Calvinball. 

 

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted this because you used the phrase.

 

 

Because I disagree with Sawyer's(and many others') vision about these things being poorly designed. I like them. For those people having some characters better than others and classes completely different from one another is unacceptable, resting after every battle is wrong, hoarding loot and micro-managing a limited inventory is bothersome, having unpredictable trial and error encounters is just game breaking and gods forbid quicksaving after every two steps and then reloading until you get things right or roll some lucky dice in a tight spot is heretical.

 

 

I agree with some of this, but I think maybe you are considering things as "degenerate gameplay" when they may not be.  For example, I do not think that any Obsidian game devs believe some trial and error, or some unpredictability, are game-breakers that need to get engineered out of the experience.  I also don't think we can look at this stuff in a vacuum.  Resting after every battle is a great example, so let's go with that.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with a mechanic that requires you to rest after every battle.  Resting qua resting is fine, in whichever way it has to occur.  The problem arises, I think, when the resting intersects the other game mechanics and produces an undesirable outcome.  This is particularly notable in  games like DnD where your resources like spells are directly tied to resting.  The magic system was designed -- from the ground up -- to operate on scarcity and prior planning.  You were supposed to memorize your spells and use them carefully.  But the resting system in NWN2 completely defeated the scarcity controls that were built into the DnD magic system.  Since there was no limit on resting, there was no reason to be strategic in your spell casting.  The problem occurred when the pen and paper design was applied verbatim to the CRPG platform, and I don't blame anyone for it.  But it is a problem.

 

To use an analogy, let's say that instead of  spells being the scarce resource, it is arrows for your Ranger.  In our game, the designer's original intent was for Rangers to have a limited amount of arrows, take a specific load-out of arrows with him/her when leaving town, and strategically using those arrows to accomplish game objectives.  Now let's say they allowed you refill your arrows without having to go into town by pressing the "R" button so long as no enemies are around. 

 

We have now completely destroyed the scarcity value of the arrows, and there is no reason to use them strategically (only tactically, so you don't run out during a fight).  Obviously, there is a problem with this system, since it undermines another one of the games systems already in place, a system that is integral to the gameplay as a whole. You may say that you like being able to refill your arrows whenever you want, and I can't disagree with you since that's just a matter of taste.  But I can point out that this system is flawed, that it is needlessly counter-productive and robs the game of a huge chunk of it's strategic appeal.

 

That's degenerate gameplay.   I don't doubt that people like certain aspects of it.  But as a designer, I want to make the tightest, most perfectly designed game I can make.  Which means getting rid of things that don't make sense, or things that make the player game the system in order to get ahead.  Getting rid of that stuff isn't about making the game "accessible" so much as it is about making it sensible. 

[Lephys]

 

Indeed whether you liked it or not, one of the more memorable things about IE combat were seeing goblins get a lucky attack roll and take out one of your characters, or an enemy missing an attack when you had 1 hitpoint left, allowing you to win the fight.

 

Those kind of situations probably will not exist in this game... simply because missing attacks, even ranged attacks, will not occur (afaik).

is this true?

Obsidian, i am disappoint.

The main thing about IE combat that made it fun was that no fight was ever the same. This is exactly what made the IE games withstand the age of time and are still playable. If the game has only positioning puzzle then you will breeze through it the second time with ease because you know what to prepare for and there will be no fun in playing it the third time, because it will be all the same and boring.

Yes maybe some things do need improvement, but this is absolutely NOT one of them.

 

Umm... that's false. Missing is in. It's just more in-depth now. If a farmer stole his dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a ninja, he'll miss a lot of the time. If a ninja stole his ninja-dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a farmer boy, he'll probably hit you every single time (but will always have the chance to graze instead of cleanly hit).

[zimcub]

Umm... that's false. Missing is in. It's just more in-depth now. If a farmer stole his dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a ninja, he'll miss a lot of the time. If a ninja stole his ninja-dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a farmer boy, he'll probably hit you every single time (but will always have the chance to graze instead of cleanly hit).

That's not really "more in-depth"

By the sound of it they just made it less relevant to make the damage less unpredictable. Which isn't always a good thing because, because it can make it too predictable and boring, and it usually leads to heal/potion spamming.

[decado]

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. 

 

Why? I've never understood why this term was so controversial.  All game design is an attempt to remove/avoid degenerate game play.  Otherwise we'd still be playing solitaire.  

 

Obsidian seems to be taking steps to remove cheesy, useless mechanics (read: degenerate gameplay) from their project, and I cannot imagine how this is a bad thing. Further, the term was never issued as an indictment against players.  Sawyer made it pretty clear that degenerate gameplay was a symptom (not a cause!) of a larger problem, which was problematic design.  So I ask, what exactly is wrong with getting rid of problematic design?  Again, isn't that what the very essence of designing a game is all about?  If the competition were to design problematic games we'd all be playing Calvinball. 

 

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted this because you used the phrase.

 

 

Because I disagree with Sawyer's(and many others') vision about these things being poorly designed. I like them. For those people having some characters better than others and classes completely different from one another is unacceptable, resting after every battle is wrong, hoarding loot and micro-managing a limited inventory is bothersome, having unpredictable trial and error encounters is just game breaking and gods forbid quicksaving after every two steps and then reloading until you get things right or roll some lucky dice in a tight spot is heretical.

 

 

I agree with some of this, but I think maybe you are considering things as "degenerate gameplay" when they may not be.  For example, I do not think that any Obsidian game devs believe some trial and error, or some unpredictability, are game-breakers that need to get engineered out of the experience.  I also don't think we can look at this stuff in a vacuum.  Resting after every battle is a great example, so let's go with that.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with a mechanic that requires you to rest after every battle.  Resting qua resting is fine, in whichever way it has to occur.  The problem arises, I think, when the resting intersects the other game mechanics and produces an undesirable outcome.  This is particularly notable in  games like DnD where your resources like spells are directly tied to resting.  The magic system was designed -- from the ground up -- to operate on scarcity and prior planning.  You were supposed to memorize your spells and use them carefully.  But the resting system in NWN2 completely defeated the scarcity controls that were built into the DnD magic system.  Since there was no limit on resting, there was no reason to be strategic in your spell casting.  The problem occurred when the pen and paper design was applied verbatim to the CRPG platform, and I don't blame anyone for it.  But it is a problem.

 

To use an analogy, let's say that instead of  spells being the scarce resource, it is arrows for your Ranger.  In our game, the designer's original intent was for Rangers to have a limited amount of arrows, take a specific load-out of arrows with him/her when leaving town, and strategically using those arrows to accomplish game objectives.  Now let's say they allowed you refill your arrows without having to go into town by pressing the "R" button so long as no enemies are around. 

 

We have now completely destroyed the scarcity value of the arrows, and there is no reason to use them strategically (only tactically, so you don't run out during a fight).  Obviously, there is a problem with this system, since it undermines another one of the games systems already in place, a system that is integral to the gameplay as a whole. You may say that you like being able to refill your arrows whenever you want, and I can't disagree with you since that's just a matter of taste.  But I can point out that this system is flawed, that it is needlessly counter-productive and robs the game of a huge chunk of it's strategic appeal.

 

That's degenerate gameplay.   I don't doubt that people like certain aspects of it.  But as a designer, I want to make the tightest, most perfectly designed game I can make.  Which means getting rid of things that don't make sense, or things that make the player game the system in order to get ahead.  Getting rid of that stuff isn't about making the game "accessible" so much as it is about making it sensible. 

 

I'm going to be lame and quote myself because I can't edit this post for some reason, but I wanted to add something.

 

@ quechn The things you like about the old system are in many ways still there.  After all, what are "per use" abilities if not  those abilities you get back by pressing "R" at the end of every combat, anyways?  They just took the button press out of it. And to continue the analogy with DnD, "per rest" abilities are basically charges for your wands/staffs, or perhaps usable scrolls that you can only buy in temples.  They are resources that cannot be replenished out in the field.  Whether you replenish them at a campfire or in town is really immaterial, what matters is that they are limited by scarcity so you have to use them carefully. 

 

So really, I don't think much is changing except that some abilities/spells/whatevers are being managed in a different way, and perhaps with some meaningless button-presses being removed from the equation.  I'm perfectly happy with that.

[Elerond]

 

Umm... that's false. Missing is in. It's just more in-depth now. If a farmer stole his dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a ninja, he'll miss a lot of the time. If a ninja stole his ninja-dad's crossbow to fire at you, and you're a farmer boy, he'll probably hit you every single time (but will always have the chance to graze instead of cleanly hit).

That's not really "more in-depth"

By the sound of it they just made it less relevant to make the damage less unpredictable. Which isn't always a good thing because, because it can make it too predictable and boring, and it usually leads to heal/potion spamming.

 

 

But you can't spam healing spells or potions in PE as it don't have any.