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

[zimcub]

decado, i think you're just taking the very bad design of NWN and using it to extreme. The rest system in IE series wasn't bad because it had the chance of getting interrupted and attacked, so spamming rest did have it's drawbacks and you had to evaluate, if you wanted to risk getting attacked without your spells. Perhaps it could ahve used a little tweaking, because if you were in bad position and needed rest there was nothing you could do but risk it, but the concept behind it wasn't really bad.

Edited July 2, 2013 by zimcub

[decado]

decado, i think you're just taking the very bad design of NWN and using it to extreme. The rest system in IE series wasn't bad because it had the chance of getting interrupted and attacked, so spamming the rest, did have it's drawbacks and you had to evaluate, if you wanted to risk getting attacked without your spells.

 

Yeah, but only to a point.  Attacks by monsters when trying to rest were usually (though not always) just an annoyance.  And if you were really ready to die you could save beforehand and, if interrupted, try again.  The same thing happened in Morrowind -- attacks while resting were usually nothing more than an annoyance.  They added no depth or challenge to the game.  

 

It seems like a better idea to avoid the situation entirely and build a system that is less open to abuse/spamming. At least, that's what I would want to do as a designer.  Why go through the hassle of creating challenges if they are so easily surmounted by metagaming the game?  

 

ETA: I'm not picking on NWN, here, though they were the first to spring to mind.  BGII's resting system was also pretty cheesy.  In fact, the resting system in all the IE games was pretty silly, essentially relics left over from the conversion of paper to computer.

Edited July 2, 2013 by decado

[Elerond]

In IE games rest had change to be interrupted only in few areas (and in some areas you couldn't rest at all), but mostly it was without any real set backs and usually in areas that gave some restrictions you could go back last area where there was no rest restrictions. And of course you could always save on those areas where there was change to be interrupted and load until you can rest freely.

 

And to be fair NWN and NWN2 also had this kind of restriction in some areas. 

[zimcub]

Yeah, but only to a point.  Attacks by monsters when trying to rest were usually (though not always) just an annoyance.  And if you were really ready to die you could save beforehand and, if interrupted, try again.  The same thing happened in Morrowind -- attacks while resting were usually nothing more than an annoyance.  They added no depth or challenge to the game.  

 

It seems like a better idea to avoid the situation entirely and build a system that is less open to abuse/spamming. At least, that's what I would want to do as a designer.  Why go through the hassle of creating challenges if they are so easily surmounted by metagaming the game?  

 

ETA: I'm not picking on NWN, here, though they were the first to spring to mind.  BGII's resting system was also pretty cheesy.  In fact, the resting system in all the IE games was pretty silly, essentially relics left over from the conversion of paper to computer.

I disagree that they were cheesy. They were great source of grind and when i wanted the fun of combat and money grind, this was the fastest way to initiate it. it could have used some tweaking. Perhaps adding more diversity to it would have been better and adding an easier way out if you needed healing, but it had it's uses and added more realism to the game.

 

Don't take this as an attack but the thing about making a point as a designer doesn't really mean much since it's the players that decide if things are good or not.

 

I'm off to sleep now.

Edited July 2, 2013 by zimcub

[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.

 

 

I agree with some of this, but I think maybe you are considering things as "degenerate gameplay" when they may not be.  

 

 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.

 

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 really not into internet discussions, mostly because I don't really care if other people agree with me, so I'll answer\clarify some points and move on here.

 

1-I'm mostly generalizing for the purpose of not going into excessive detail, but as far as randomness goes, afaik people had to convince the devs that "miss" is something that should exist in the game.

 

2-in PnP you don't generally have encounter after encounter of fights against dozens if not hundreds of monsters or have battles with CR mostly equal or higher than your characters, so the resting in NWN made perfect sense to me. Also, most games of DnD have a healer in the party, and in NWN where you didn't have one - it was more of a tool to regain your hp. And the thing is - if you wanted to (on rare occasions I played spellcasters there I sometimes did) you could try and go as long with being restless as possible. So I don't see a problem here other than it's not like in PnP. But then we could go into stuff like eating, counting actual time of steps, needing a torch to see anything or the lore skill actually being 10 different knowledge skills. There's just some things that don't translate well into electronic format.

 

3-There is no such thing as getting ahead in a single player game. And playing the system, figuring out what you can and can't do is really fun.(Perhaps to people living in places where games were sold with manuals or you could actually play PnP DnD before playing BG or NWN - not so much, but for me, who as a kid was getting through all this avalanche of information - finding out how to get an edge, or be more productive - is a very fond memory and to this days I like to have this option and not be spoonfed everything.)

 

4-As far as your latter addition goes - the per rest, per encounter abilities for casters is not something that bothers me at all right now. It actually makes sense to let Elminster cast as many fireballs as he wants. The fact that fighter types get them as well(and the lack of information on how it's going to actually be implemented)-is. I liked warriors in DnD because they were focused on actual melee combat, fighting stuff with a trick like trip or knockdown here and there. Most of the depth came from building your character and gearing them accordingly. You had a plethora of options how to make your die rolls and stats as good as possible. And the fact that now warriors can become basically melee mages who fight with swords instead of wands is somewhat unnerving(See Dragon Age for what I mean with their skill\spell trees). 

[Lephys]

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.

"Previous"/typical system: one threshold. Above it, you hit. Below it, you miss. Then, criticals (which generally retained the same range, only varying slightly between different weapons.)

 

P:E's system: 3 thresholds. Below the lowest one, you miss. Above that, you graze. Above that, you hit normally. Above that, you critically hit. The more precise/accurate your character is compared to your given opponent, the greater your chance to critically hit and hit, and the lesser your chance to graze and miss. A large enough difference will push the chance to miss completely off the table, leaving a graze as the worst hit you can possibly get, and will extend the range for critical hit chance. Whereas, a very small difference (or a significantly higher defense, on the opponent, than your accuracy/precision), the greater your chance to miss and graze, and the lesser your chance to hit and critically hit, with a large enough difference pushing critical hits completely off the table and leaving normal hits as your best possible outcome.

 

Whether you like it more or dislike it, it is absolutely more in-depth.

 

Also, they didn't put miss back in simply because enough people urged them to. Our feedback simply led them to focus more on the impact of removing full missing from the mechanics. The dev teams' own testing and evaluation of a system without missing is what caused them to put misses back in the game.

 

You may not care about other people agreeing with you, but maybe you care whether or not your own information is accurate. *shrug*

Edited July 3, 2013 by Lephys

[Frenetic Pony]

I am, and that's good enough for me. I put my money into faith in Obsidian as a developer, and they're doing their best to deliver.

 

If I wanted the exact, picture perfect game in my head I'd go off and make it myself.

[J.E. Sawyer]

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.

 

Yes, that is the intended meaning.  I've also explained the intended meaning previously.  I don't think I've ever used "degenerate" as a description of players, but of gameplay.  I don't believe players are ever at "fault" for using whatever tools designers provide for them, including features like save/reload or rest spamming.  It's the designers' responsibility to design systems and individual sub-systems that work well together and promote enjoyable gameplay.

 

BTW, in my own tabletop gaming scenarios, I've heard plenty of players (and DMs) deride other players for "abusing" clear rule loopholes.  I don't think this is helpful for anyone and, unless you're in a tournament environment, I don't know why any DM/GM wouldn't simply talk to the players about adjusting the rules for the long-term health of the game.  With PE, the rules we give to you are ours to write.  If a player "abuses" any rule we put in, we are the people to blame, not the players.  I.e, we, the designers, create degenerate gameplay opportunities.  Players simply recognize the opportunity and take advantage of it to win the game, which is usually one of their major goals.  But because those opportunities often become the de facto tactic or strategy for overcoming an obstacle, what could have been a dynamic element of gameplay becomes static -- generally undesirable.

[decado]

Don't take this as an attack but the thing about making a point as a designer doesn't really mean much since it's the players that decide if things are good or not.

 

 

Sure.  But I'm willing to trust their judgement. After all, every author can only write/paint/draw/create what they can envision, and produce the best work they can.  It has always been the case that author and critic might not see eye-to-eye on a particular work, but thems the breaks as they say.

Edited July 3, 2013 by decado

[lomifeh]

 

Don't take this as an attack but the thing about making a point as a designer doesn't really mean much since it's the players that decide if things are good or not.

 

 

Sure.  But I'm willing to trust their judgement. After all, every author can only write/paint/draw/create what they can envision, and produce the best work they can.  It has always been the case that author and critic might not see eye-to-eye on a particular work, but thems the breaks as they say.

 

 

Interesting thread to read.  I too trust their judgement as they know a bit more about this than I do.  I also hope they take the IE engine and improve it where it needs and that they keep to the spirit of what the engine was.  I don't think they should ignore everything that we have all learned about games and UIs since the IE games were released.

[ManifestedISO]

Spend less time asking what game we're getting, start hoping and trusting that we get a game at all. The Pebblewatch Kickstarter just shipped to Best Buy instead of backers first; the Ouya game console sold out on Amazon without first shipping to Kickstarter backers, and the Double Fine Kickstarter game just ran out of money ($3mil) and will now dump half a game onto Steam's early release program for full price until that pays for the second half to be released as a "free" update. 

 

I'll be delighted to get a Project Eternity game of any kind.  

Edited July 3, 2013 by ManifestedISO

[Lephys]

^ This isn't Obsidian's first rodeo.

[rjshae]

Spend less time asking what game we're getting, start hoping and trusting that we get a game at all. The Pebblewatch Kickstarter just shipped to Best Buy instead of backers first; the Ouya game console sold out on Amazon without first shipping to Kickstarter backers, and the Double Fine Kickstarter game just ran out of money ($3mil) and will now dump half a game onto Steam's early release program for full price until that pays for the second half to be released as a "free" update. 

 

I'll be delighted to get a Project Eternity game of any kind.  

 

Okay, I get the business motivation for the first two; they just better not expect any future Kickstarter contributions from me. The third one sounds like just plain bad planning. It won't surprise me to see a number of video game Kickstarters running out of money as many of the goals seem far too optimistic for the amount of money being requested.

Edited July 3, 2013 by rjshae

[DCParry]

As a player, I have no problem admitting to my degenerate status.

[teknoman2]

OP did you expect a copy of BG with better graphics? BG and IWD were great games and nobody doubts it, however they suffered from the tecnical limitations of the time they were created. DnD rules, low res graphics, static world, minimal feedback, the spell part of the UI and many other things, were made as they are because the developers could not make them any other way at the time. in order to make an IE inspired game, it is not necesary to also copy the tecnical limitations of that  game engine... you only need to get the atmosphere right

[Stun]

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.

You don't need to know anything about making games. To be an authority on matters, you just need to know enough about playing them. Especially when dealing with developers who love worrying about "degenerate gameplay".

 

Convoluted ranting to come here, but hopefully I'll make a point sometime in the next 1000 words.

 

Where to begin. OK. Even if we LOVE what the developers are doing to eliminate "Degenerate Gameplay", they're still doing it wrong. A Game developer should be 100% focussed on creating a fun game, not check-mating bad player behavior at all costs. The latter is just a stupid, soulless approach to game creation. It's like a music artist who, instead of composing a masterpiece from his heart and soul, decides to just study up on his fanbase, and their tastes and habits, and then methodically creating a song that his "research" suggests will be successful.

 

 

But forget about that pseudo-philosophical crap. Lets focus on the more practical. The given definition (given by Josh Sawyer, in fact) of "Degenerate Gameplay" is stuff like: 1) being able to Rest too often; 2) Being able to Save too often; 3) being able to Reload too often; 4) Min-maxing; 5) Meta-gaming.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game. If I do 1-5 and end up ruining the experience for myself then that's my problem. However, if the developer wastes his development time creating a game with a billion fail-safes, a million gameplay limitations, and unshakeable, rigid "balance", all designed to ensure that we degenerates will never get the last laugh, then chances are they have just created an unnatural, mechanical thing that will not feel like a masterpiece at all, but a perfectly designed piece of.... unbreakable metal. And when that happens, it's THEIR fault.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[Stun]

As a player, I have no problem admitting to my degenerate status.

Ditto.

 

I'll also freely admit to approaching Nerd Nirvana when I'm playing a game and, after a few playthroughs, discover an obscure flaw in the game's design that I can exploit to make that tough situation super easy. (yes, folks, Cheese makes any meal better.) That very process of discovery *alone* can motivate me to replay the game 10 more times!

 

BG2 was filled to the rim with such design "flaws". It's one of the reasons why I love that game to death, and wouldn't change a thing about it.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[Amentep]

A Game developer should be 100% focussed on creating a fun game, not check-mating bad player behavior at all costs.

Given that they've said in the past that they're checking the systems they create in the game to make sure they're "fun", isn't this a non-issue?

 

Second, as JE mentioned in this thread, they're not "check-mating bad player behavior" they're trying to address what I'd call broken systems. "Degenerate Gameplay" is not about the player, its about the unintended consequences of systems.

[Stun]

For lack of better phrasing, I'd say that a game system should BE "breakable".

 

Perhaps not so obviously breakable on a blind first playthrough, but later on, when we've already experienced the brilliantly designed "tough" scenario that the Devs spent tons of time creating.

 

 

It's difficult to describe, but my thought process keeps saying: Let me *discover* those loopholes. Give me the opportunity to exploit them. I actually see such things as credits to a game, not flaws. Again, do you honestly think Baldurs gate 2 would have generated such a cult like following so many years after its release if it DIDN'T have such numerous "cheeze" for the player to indulge his inner munchkin on; and for the fans to discuss with each other; and for the "tips & tricks" authors to write about; and for the tinkerers/experimenters to try out?

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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.

You don't need to know anything about making games. To be an authority on matters, you just need to know enough about playing them. Especially when dealing with developers who love worrying about "degenerate gameplay".Convoluted ranting to come here, but hopefully I'll make a point sometime in the next 1000 words.Where to begin. OK. Even if we LOVE what the developers are doing to eliminate "Degenerate Gameplay", they're still doing it wrong. A Game developer should be 100% focussed on creating a fun game, not check-mating bad player behavior at all costs. The latter is just a stupid, soulless approach to game creation. It's like a music artist who, instead of composing a masterpiece from his heart and soul, decides to just study up on his fanbase, and their tastes and habits, and then methodically creating a song that his "research" suggests will be successful.But forget about that pseudo-philosophical crap. Lets focus on the more practical. The given definition (given by Josh Sawyer, in fact) of "Degenerate Gameplay" is stuff like: 1) being able to Rest too often; 2) Being able to Save too often; 3) being able to Reload too often; 4) Min-maxing; 5) Meta-gaming.Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game. If I do 1-5 and end up ruining the experience for myself then that's my problem. However, if the developer wastes his development time creating a game with a billion fail-safes, a million gameplay limitations, and unshakeable, rigid "balance", all designed to ensure that we degenerates will never get the last laugh, then chances are they have just created an unnatural, mechanical thing that will not feel like a masterpiece at all, but a perfectly designed piece of.... unbreakable metal. And when that happens, it's THEIR fault.

While I don't have a problem with them trying to weed out blatantly broken mechanics, I have to agree that if the solution to fixing the problem ends up creating a huge annoyance for all players, not just the ones who play the game "wrong", then it would be a failure. I also agree that letting the players enforce limiting exploits is optimal.

 

Although, I'm optimistic about PE. It seems to me that they've cut down on the need to rest-spam by implementing "per encounter" abilities in addition to "per day", which is better than slapping someone on the wrist and telling them "YOU CAN'T REST HERE!!!!", afaik save/reload won't be limited, and min-maxing and meta-gaming will still be possible. I also think that PE is taking a better approach to balance than 4E, by designing all classes to have the same amount of relative power, but that power is more or less useful in different situations depending on the class, instead of making the only difference between classes how they deal X damage.

[Amentep]

For lack of better phrasing, I'd say that a game system should BE "breakable".

 

Perhaps not so obviously breakable on a blind first playthrough, but later on, when we've already experienced the brilliantly designed "tough" scenario that the Devs spent tons of time creating.

 

 

It's difficult to describe, but my thought process keeps saying: Let me *discover* those loopholes. Give me the oportunity to exploit them. I actually see such things as credits to a game, not flaws. Again, do you honestly think Baldurs gate 2 would have generated such a cult like following so many years after its release if it DIDN'T have such numerous "cheeze" for the player to indulge his inner munchkin on?

Can't say I ever used a lot of the exploits that other people did in BG2 (when I wanted to do a trivial dance through the game, I just gifted myself stuff via the console).

 

That said I'm not sure that its possible to create a game completely devoid of exploitable elements. I'm not sure that means the developers shouldn't try to create something without obvious flaws, though.

[decado]

If the argument becomes "I like degenerate gameplay because it is fun!" then there is really nothing else to say, as "It is fun!" is simply a matter of taste.  So then we're left with arguments over taste and/or sense.  

 

So let's get down to it, then.  If you give me two games, one that allows rest-spamming and min-maxing and one that doesn't. I will prefer the one that doesn't.  I mean, isn't this the philosophy behind hardcore modes, Heart of Iron, etc?   I couldn't lay claim to owning a working brain if,  while on the one hand demanding the ability to rest spam, I play the game in hardcore mode.  I mean, what the hell? That makes no sense.

 

So if the argument really comes down to taste, I think Obsidian (and every other game developer making good CRPGs) is firmly on the winning side.  I'm betting that far more people want to see the genre refined, and want to see new and worthwhile game mechanics replace older ones that maybe didn't work so well, than do people who want to rest spam because it is fun.  

[Gfted1]

Meta gaming definitely isn't a concern of the devs, they're selling us the book after all.

[Stun]

I think Obsidian (and every other game developer making good CRPGs) is firmly on the winning side.  I'm betting that far more people want to see the genre refined, and want to see new and worthwhile game mechanics replace older ones that maybe didn't work so well, than do people who want to rest spam because it is fun.

If by "winning side", and "refining", you mean eliminating the resting mechanic outright, and then designing a system from the ground up that turns your characters into energizer bunnies who's spells and abilities are tied to a cooldown timer, so that you'd never need to rest anyway, then sure. They're winning. Today's biggest selling RPGs, MMOs etc. don't even *have* resting mechanics.

 

But they're not doing anything better. And I question their use of the term "RPG" in the first place. I'll take the old system, thanks. Makes more friggin sense.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[JFSOCC]

Spend less time asking what game we're getting, start hoping and trusting that we get a game at all. The Pebblewatch Kickstarter just shipped to Best Buy instead of backers first; the Ouya game console sold out on Amazon without first shipping to Kickstarter backers, and the Double Fine Kickstarter game just ran out of money ($3mil) and will now dump half a game onto Steam's early release program for full price until that pays for the second half to be released as a "free" update. 

 

I'll be delighted to get a Project Eternity game of any kind.

Seriously Double Fine failed?

I am so surprised!