Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

 

I'm playing Kiting: Enhanced Edition right now, and while not all gameplay is ****, combat certainly is.

I like it. But i would be curious if you have a better example of RTwP combat.

 

You enjoy kiting everything? Because that's the tactical depth in BG1 (not counting mods as we're talking about the original games). I've certainly not seen any RTwP games that do it worse, and RTwP goes back to the early 90s (Ultima VII).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm playing Kiting: Enhanced Edition right now, and while not all gameplay is ****, combat certainly is.

I like it. But i would be curious if you have a better example of RTwP combat.

 

You enjoy kiting everything? Because that's the tactical depth in BG1 (not counting mods as we're talking about the original games). I've certainly not seen any RTwP games that do it worse, and RTwP goes back to the early 90s (Ultima VII).

 

No but i didn't kit anything when i played the games. And IWDs were better in that aspect. PS:T and BG1 had the worst combat among the IE games, so it isn't fair to reject IE combat for that games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No but i didn't kit anything when i played the games. And IWDs were better in that aspect. PS:T and BG1 had the worst combat among the IE games, so it isn't fair to reject IE combat for that games.

Yes, BG1's combat was **** and IWD's was a tad better. That's why I also think that a great dose of nostalgia is required to enjoy their gameplay nowadays - I'm not nostalgic about BG1 so the flaws are just glaringly apparent to me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No but i didn't kit anything when i played the games. And IWDs were better in that aspect. PS:T and BG1 had the worst combat among the IE games, so it isn't fair to reject IE combat for that games.

Yes, BG1's combat was **** and IWD's was a tad better. That's why I also think that a great dose of nostalgia is required to enjoy their gameplay nowadays - I'm not nostalgic about BG1 so the flaws are just glaringly apparent to me.

 

BG2 and IWDs had my favorite gameplay to date. No nostalgia involved. I replay them evry couple of years because i enjoy their gameplay, so i don't see your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultima VII wasn't RTwP, it was just real-time, with no party control.

Combat was real time, and spellcasting could be initiated while paused. Also the chaotic nature of combat would practically force you to go into pause every now and then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No but i didn't kit anything when i played the games. And IWDs were better in that aspect. PS:T and BG1 had the worst combat among the IE games, so it isn't fair to reject IE combat for that games.

Yes, BG1's combat was **** and IWD's was a tad better. That's why I also think that a great dose of nostalgia is required to enjoy their gameplay nowadays - I'm not nostalgic about BG1 so the flaws are just glaringly apparent to me.

 

BG2 and IWDs had my favorite gameplay to date. No nostalgia involved. I replay them evry couple of years because i enjoy their gameplay, so i don't see your point.

 

You also said you didn't use kiting in BG1. That just means you've been wearing rose colored glasses from day 1. The combat isn't exciting just because you choose not to kite, the combat is **** because kiting is clearly superior to everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

BG2 and IWDs had my favorite gameplay to date. No nostalgia involved. I replay them evry couple of years because i enjoy their gameplay, so i don't see your point.

 

You also said you didn't use kiting in BG1. That just means you've been wearing rose colored glasses from day 1. The combat isn't exciting just because you choose not to kite, the combat is **** because kiting is clearly superior to everything else.

 

Cheeseable combat =! **** combat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheeseable combat =! **** combat.

I think the same standards that apply to everything about an RPG apply to combat too; #1, is it challenging and #2, is it fun. Kiting isn't challenging and it's only fun for retards special people. Again, the fact that you choose to use proper tanking and tactical spellcasting because you don't want to cheese is your personal preference, not good design.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also play BG2 and Icewind Dale 1+2; with the various mods that enhance and expand regularly. You know a game was well made when you have a copy permanently burned into your hard disk since you first played it. 

I can only hope that PE is the next in that long tradition.

If it isn't, well I've had to deal with disappointments before. Anyone who didn't think it was a gamble to invest was deluded, or at the very least far more positive than me.

I do however feel hopeful every time there is an announcement about new features. If the gameplay remains interesting and the complex story and character interactions are detailed and highly variable based on play style and character type then I will have nothing to complain about.

I don't expect a miraculous rapture inducing game or a duplicate; just something similar and engaging, that will hold surprises for years to come.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ultima VII wasn't RTwP, it was just real-time, with no party control.

Combat was real time, and spellcasting could be initiated while paused. Also the chaotic nature of combat would practically force you to go into pause every now and then.

 

 

I may be wrong, but I believe only Exult has a pause function.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The party control is the crucial bit. The whole point of RTwP is that it's real-time combat with an added pause function to help you control the entire party at once. If you're only controlling one character, you generally don't need the pause.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ultima VII wasn't RTwP, it was just real-time, with no party control.

Combat was real time, and spellcasting could be initiated while paused. Also the chaotic nature of combat would practically force you to go into pause every now and then.

 

I may be wrong, but I believe only Exult has a pause function.

 

Nop. Game pauses when you open your inventory

 

The party control is the crucial bit. The whole point of RTwP is that it's real-time combat with an added pause function to help you control the entire party at once. If you're only controlling one character, you generally don't need the pause.

You can give orders to your party members in U7 while paused: engage nearest, go for the strongest/ weakest, flanking attacks, run away. You can also have them use items like potions, food or bandages and change their weapons and I think armor as well. The only thing you can't do is manually selecting a target for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

Fantastic post. Very well put together.

 

Personally, I'm very happy at what we seem to be getting, and it seems to very much be in line with what I thought. I'm extremely happy with the rules presented so far, but even more so with the lore and the stuff we've been told about the world. 

 

And lets face it: the WORST part of the IE games were the D&D rule set. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Features of Project Eternity:

 

Six fully controllable party members, arranged in formations.

Isometric.

2D backgrounds.

PC exclusive.

Text heavy, without full voice acting.

Spell memorization/preparation mechanic (not mana and cooldowns like Dragon Age)

Obvious equivalents of all D&D races (not just Humans/Dwarves/Elves like Dragon Age)

Obvious equivalents of all D&D classes (not just Warrior/Rogue/Mage like Dragon Age but also Clerics, Paladins, Bards, etc)

Rich assortment of monsters (not just the same monsters repeated again and again with palette shifts like in Dragon Age and other console games)

 

 

Six fully controllable party members, arranged in formations: For now, but for all we know Sawyer's going to come out and say having 4 party members is better for balance reasons.

Isometric: probably won't change.

2D backgrounds: same

PC exclusive: So was witcher 2 and diablo 3

Text heavy, without full voice acting: All we know is that it doesn't have full voice acting.

Spell memorization/preparation mechanic (not mana and cooldowns like Dragon Age): Subject to change per what Sawyer feels is best for balance (they've already back peddled on cooldowns).

Obvious equivalents of all D&D races (not just Humans/Dwarves/Elves like Dragon Age): Just having a lot of races does not a good game make; they have to actually make use of them.

Obvious equivalents of all D&D classes (not just Warrior/Rogue/Mage like Dragon Age but also Clerics, Paladins, Bards, etc): In name, but who knows how the actual game will play (hell, the differences between the classes may end up being purely superficial by the end because, you know, balance).

Rich assortment of monsters (not just the same monsters repeated again and again with palette shifts like in Dragon Age and other console games): As far as we know, but we've seen a grand total of like what, 1 actual monster?

 

I mean don't get me wrong here; I want this game to be amazing, and I want all the things they've promised to materialize within the final product, but if something sounds too good to be true then... you know. All we can do is wait and see when the game is released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that worries me the most about "paying homage," "spiritual successor," and other such terms is that Dragon Age was supposed to be just that, and while it's not a bad game in and of itself it's definitely no IE game.

 

As it stands I can't help shake the feeling that the game we're eventually going to get will end up being more DA:O and less BG/PST/IWD.

 

... "supposed to be"... :)

 

When someone makes a house from wood that they claim is a well-built house, and it falls over under its own weight, that doesn't get me doubting that someone else trying to construct a wooden house is somehow going to fail.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is so far everything I believed I was getting, but I had no disillusions and took what they said at there word not interjecting something else. That said totally confused as to what the OP stuff... was... Also whoever was the angry part of that discussion must of not actually read anything Sawyer's said or not realize PE is using uses per rest systems. They're not turning it into a cooldown system or anything. It's a very involved and complex system which is fantastic.

 

But yeah to the actual question posed by the title, so far, it's everything I've expected and am extremely happy with the updates and developer discussion in these forums thus far.

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The thing that worries me the most about "paying homage," "spiritual successor," and other such terms is that Dragon Age was supposed to be just that, and while it's not a bad game in and of itself it's definitely no IE game.

 

As it stands I can't help shake the feeling that the game we're eventually going to get will end up being more DA:O and less BG/PST/IWD.

 

... "supposed to be"... :)

 

When someone makes a house from wood that they claim is a well-built house, and it falls over under its own weight, that doesn't get me doubting that someone else trying to construct a wooden house is somehow going to fail.

 

 

True, but wooden houses are a dime a dozen, BG spiritual successors are not.

 

Now if someone's underwater dome collapsed would you then equally trust the next guy's dome to not, or might you be a little more wary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't believe they said that they were going to re-create BG/IWD. A game with the same style and type as those, the same story style and pacing, similar *but modern* mechanics, and a very intricate decision and conversation system... Sounds pretty right on.

 

 

 

 

The thing that worries me the most about "paying homage," "spiritual successor," and other such terms is that Dragon Age was supposed to be just that, and while it's not a bad game in and of itself it's definitely no IE game.

 

As it stands I can't help shake the feeling that the game we're eventually going to get will end up being more DA:O and less BG/PST/IWD.

 

... "supposed to be"... :)

 

When someone makes a house from wood that they claim is a well-built house, and it falls over under its own weight, that doesn't get me doubting that someone else trying to construct a wooden house is somehow going to fail.

 

 

True, but wooden houses are a dime a dozen, BG spiritual successors are not.

 

Now if someone's underwater dome collapsed would you then equally trust the next guy's dome to not, or might you be a little more wary?

 

 

 

I don't really see how this applies in this instance. Even a pure analogy standpoint, switching from a house to a dome under water, why would you cease trusting all building companies?

 

Nostalgia and human memory are great things, but time serves to erode the harsh light of the moment. We are designed to look at things we enjoy less critically, and fuzz over the details that were poor. Its great for me to say I want a true successor to fallout 1 and 2, but if that is literally built, without taking into consideration how the medium has matured, technology, or improvements to mechanics that were possible/thought of/or considered almost 2 decades ago what good is that?

 

Do you want a house built by 1801 standards or 2013? Do you like insulation? Energy Savings? Safety, fire, constructional and foundation improvements? I sure do.

 

So whatever core improvements and adjustments that a team like obsidian can think of, or have learned through years of trial and error... well great, lets take advantage of that wisdom and skill.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that analogy is kind of getting away from us. What I was trying to say with my original comment was that I'm wary of anything marketed with terms like spiritual successor; DA:O was just an example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The thing that worries me the most about "paying homage," "spiritual successor," and other such terms is that Dragon Age was supposed to be just that, and while it's not a bad game in and of itself it's definitely no IE game.

 

As it stands I can't help shake the feeling that the game we're eventually going to get will end up being more DA:O and less BG/PST/IWD.

 

... "supposed to be"... :)

 

When someone makes a house from wood that they claim is a well-built house, and it falls over under its own weight, that doesn't get me doubting that someone else trying to construct a wooden house is somehow going to fail.

 

 

True, but wooden houses are a dime a dozen, BG spiritual successors are not.

 

Now if someone's underwater dome collapsed would you then equally trust the next guy's dome to not, or might you be a little more wary?

 

 

Not unless circumstance dictated that the next guy's dome was, for some reason, EXACTLY the same as the now-collapsed one. That's kind of the point. A guy's dome collapsing doesn't lead me to believe that domes just collapse, or that a functional dome is impossible to build, just like an airplane crashing into a house doesn't lead me to believe that if I live in a house, It's inevitably going to get smash-sploded by an airplane.

 

In other words: I attempted to do Thing A, and I failed. The fact that Thing A is what was being attempted doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with the fact that the attempt was failed.

 

Dragon Age was made via a huge publisher, for one thing, on whose list of priorities "make sure this game represents the spirit of some old '90s cRPG" is at the bottom, I assure you. 

 

Rolling with your glass dome analogy (in response to my simple wood-constructed-structure analogy... we're wading a little thick int o the analogy forest here, hehe), I'd point out that Obsidian doesn't even necessarily have to build their dome underwater. Thus, they could fail and still have ENTIRELY different results than Dragon Age.

 

If I tried to go climb Mt. Everest right now, I would surely fail. Yet, a blind person did it already. So, I'm not sure what my inability to do something, within my own factor set, has at all to do with anyone else's ability to do the same thing with a completely different factor set. Jumping to "well, that task is probably just highly failable" is an extremely large leap and doesn't do anyone much good, I'm afraid. It's basically unbiased paranoia, at that point. Just like looking at Dragon Age and going "welp, I'm worried P:E is going to end up like Dragon Age." (Not that I think you're suggesting it's going to resemble Dragon Age... just that it's somehow going to resemble Dragon Age in its failure to spiritually represent IE games, purely because they both happen to be attempting the same thing)

  • Like 2

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Hugh Jackman

 

Edited by JFSOCC

Remember: Argue the point, not the person. Remain polite and constructive. Friendly forums have friendly debate. There's no shame in being wrong. If you don't have something to add, don't post for the sake of it. And don't be afraid to post thoughts you are uncertain about, that's what discussion is for.
---
Pet threads, everyone has them. I love imagining Gods, Monsters, Factions and Weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream: If you're going to say that everything is "subject to change because SAWYER" then there's not much to debate, is there?

 

If you believe that Josh Sawyer wants to ruin this game, then I suggest you ask for a refund now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...