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

[Lephys]

To make an analogy, if the aesthetic of play were a bowl of ice cream, the mechanics would be the spoon. Mechanics are the method by which you experience a game, not the game itself. Mechanics become meaningless when dissociated from the aesthetic they're intended to create: The spoon doesn't get you very far if you have nothing to eat with it. Likewise, you can serve the same aesthetic with radically different mechanics and different aesthetics with the same mechanics applied in a different context. Just look at how different in feel the IE games are when they (mostly) use the same engine and ruleset.

I see what you're getting at, but the mechanics of a game (especially as they pertain to gameplay) go beyond the input toolset available to the player. Mechanics affect what you can and can't do, what happens when you do and do not do certain things, and they affect your very decisions on what to do and how to do it. They affect both things within your control AND things beyond it.

 

In other words, the mechanics allow you to control your party in a battle. But they also lead the player to determine HOW to use the tools available to him to get through that battle. They're a much larger part of the "aesthetics of play" than I think you're realizing, rather than being a completely separate aspect of the gameplay. For example, the mechanics of the dialogue/scripted-events system not only dictate your available options in a given dialogue/event, but also directly affect the sense of reactivity and the aesthetics of play in relation to how you approach dialogues throughout the game and how reactive the world "feels."

[Micamo]

I never said "mechanics don't affect the aesthetic of play at all", I said "there are multiple ways to reach the same aesthetic." I firmly believe you could capture the aesthetics of the IE games, the important part, while ditching or replacing all the superficial bits. You don't need the D&D ruleset, isometric perspective, RTwP, classes and party management, or any of that. However, *having* these superficial bits doesn't mean you'll capture the aesthetic. Compare SMB3 with the New Super Mario Bros. series: The latter has all the window decorations of the former, but it's unplayable garbage.

 

Take, for example, Hotline Miami and Super Meat Boy. It's hard to explain what I mean precisely since the feel of a game is a rather ephemeral quality, but although their mechanics are different in just about every aspect, the aesthetics of play are mostly the same.

[Valsuelm]

 

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.

 

 

Newer isn't always better...

 

Insulation improvements aside, your average house built in 1801 is typically going to be standing a lot longer than the average house built in 2013 and will be more structurally sound in almost every way, even though the 2013 house will hold it's heat better and be more easily rewired for electricity than it's 1801 counterpart.

 

With most things as time goes on there are improvements available. Not often enough these days however are those improvements incorporated without sacrificing something else, and often needlessly (housing construction is a good example of this, though skyrocketing costs of the better materials in relation to your average person's income and the currency (inflation is bad, very bad) has a bit to do with this.). Improvements or not though, all too often some folks are trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

With all improvements considered, as far as houses go, I'd generally rather have a house built towards the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th as you'd get the most bang for your buck in materials with such a house and houses built then were still built to last, yet upgrading windows and insulation to modern standards is generally no biggie. And as far as CRPG games go, and all 'improvements' considered, I'd rather have a game from the 90s. There are many more games from that decade that stand the test of time than games of the last decade. Too many of the 'improvements' of modern RPGs (both PnP and CRPG) consist of shallow balance acts at the cost of substance done by folks lacking from imagination.

 

A good game stands the test of time. And with all of the modern improvements to video gaming available there are very very few things I'd alter in many of the great games of the past such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment (or Chrono Trigger, Link to the Past, Starflight 1/2, nethack, FF6, et al) and they'd mostly if not entirely have to do with improving graphics and UI (namely just higher resolution art (what would have been nice in BG:EE) and better inventory management (something I still have yet to see be done very well in any CRPG excepting WoW (where an addon called 'arkinventory' does the job)). Dragon Age is a good example of a game that, while good on it's own, falls far short of the spiritual successor to the IE games, and is not something I'll be playing again, where I very likely will be playing BG 1/2 and PST at some point again in the future.

 

And his analogy does work...

 

[Lephys]

I never said "mechanics don't affect the aesthetic of play at all", I said "there are multiple ways to reach the same aesthetic."

It's just that you directly described mechanics as merely the tools with which the player interacts with the game. I merely wanted to emphasize the fact that mechanics encompass more than that.

 

In other words, if the overall aesthetics are a bowl of ice cream, the mechanics would encompass the spoon (as opposed to some other utensil), as well as the properties of the ice cream (how cold it is, exactly how the spoon is able to affect it, the boundaries of the bowl, etc.)

Edited July 13, 2013 by Lephys

[Faerunner]

 

This is just pre-game complaining, in my view.  It happens with every game, Kickstarted or not.  Following this will be the post-game complaining, followed by post-post-game complaining.  Then the nostalgia phase.

 

Jesus, this was one of the best descriptions of the twenty tens that I ever read.

 

 

Seriously. People will always find SOME reason to complain... no matter how straight-forward the designers or how great the game.

 

I personally see even less point in complaining here than any other game. The developers have been very honest and open about what they plan to create, and how they intend to deliver. They gave a very clear description of what kind of game they want to create in the Kickstarter campaign, and almost every update since has shown us how they're making that promise a reality. Obviously major characters, themes and story points are kept hidden (otherwise why play the game?) and some minor details get switched around here and there (like the loss of durability that I keep reading about), but over-all the message is very clear: they're excited and proud to create the game they promised. It's enough for me.

[syn2083]

 

 

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.

 

 

Newer isn't always better...

 

Insulation improvements aside, your average house built in 1801 is typically going to be standing a lot longer than the average house built in 2013 and will be more structurally sound in almost every way, even though the 2013 house will hold it's heat better and be more easily rewired for electricity than it's 1801 counterpart.

 

With most things as time goes on there are improvements available. Not often enough these days however are those improvements incorporated without sacrificing something else, and often needlessly (housing construction is a good example of this, though skyrocketing costs of the better materials in relation to your average person's income and the currency (inflation is bad, very bad) has a bit to do with this.). Improvements or not though, all too often some folks are trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

With all improvements considered, as far as houses go, I'd generally rather have a house built towards the end of the 19th century or beginning of the 20th as you'd get the most bang for your buck in materials with such a house and houses built then were still built to last, yet upgrading windows and insulation to modern standards is generally no biggie. And as far as CRPG games go, and all 'improvements' considered, I'd rather have a game from the 90s. There are many more games from that decade that stand the test of time than games of the last decade. Too many of the 'improvements' of modern RPGs (both PnP and CRPG) consist of shallow balance acts at the cost of substance done by folks lacking from imagination.

 

A good game stands the test of time. And with all of the modern improvements to video gaming available there are very very few things I'd alter in many of the great games of the past such as Baldur's Gate or Planescape Torment (or Chrono Trigger, Link to the Past, Starflight 1/2, nethack, FF6, et al) and they'd mostly if not entirely have to do with improving graphics and UI (namely just higher resolution art (what would have been nice in BG:EE) and better inventory management (something I still have yet to see be done very well in any CRPG excepting WoW (where an addon called 'arkinventory' does the job)). Dragon Age is a good example of a game that, while good on it's own, falls far short of the spiritual successor to the IE games, and is not something I'll be playing again, where I very likely will be playing BG 1/2 and PST at some point again in the future.

 

And his analogy does work...

 

 

 

The portions about houses is relatively moot, that being said. It is not possible to argue that point (structural/test of time). We would need to time travel a few hundred years into the future to be able to do so and that is impossible, clearly.

 

Much the same regarding games.

 

When they moved from text based to graphical, the air was filled with bemoans of how terrible they had become, and how much was lost from text to rudimentary graphics. The death of us.

 

MUDs gave way to the original graphical MMOs, and the likes of EQ AC and DAoC were born (one directly from a company who made commercial MUDs). These days DAoC is either forgotten or maligned but was quite a bright shining star for a very very long time (relatively speaking... software and technology increase the speed clearly).

 

Then came WoW. To simple, and to much mass appeal, it lost the core! The core of what they were about, and there was no place for Hardcore MMO. Quest Markers?! Phaw! Well we know how that turned out.

 

Every generation makes way for the next. A kid of 10 today, after living a normal life, being handed a psx and diablo1 might think your insane, they might like it, but I feel its safe to postulate that in general they would laugh and go play Call of Whatever the heck 9000.

 

As we mature, and become more set in our memory, nostalgia ruminations, and likes we cement certain things. Music is a pretty classic example of something that is hard for general generational acceptance from one to the next.

 

Which brings me back home. Just because a Dragon Age exists does not mean that 1, all games are like Dragon Age, 2, all developers are like the developers of Dragon Age, and 3, that we should shun all things new because "its probably just like that Dragon Age thing".

 

Correlation != Causation

Coincidence != Universal Truth

 

If OE gave me a good reason to believe that they were incapable of making something in the Spirit of an IE game, then I would have evidence to form an opinion. If some other RPG is not like an IE Spiritual game (which is hard to quantify, but is NOT a carbon copy....) that has nothing to do with OE and their current development.

 

Penn and Teller did an excellent episode of Bull$h!t on 'The Good Ole Days' which gets into this mentality fairly well. Improvements, new technology, and matured thinking are not what we should be afraid of. Bad story tellers, bad imagination, and poor planning are. OE has not given me any reason to suspect the latter. If they do, then I will re-evaluate.

 

As the market expands, and adds more People (both consumers and creators) we see dilution of the medium. This is normal. Saturation is a real thing. That doesn't mean that all items are then bad, theres just more companies able to be bad in the sea making it appear that way.

 

Good Day.

[MattH]

I don't think there are any substantial arguments, it's just a matter of interpretation. The style of gameplay can be more balanced as well as more complex and bringing a few new things or changes to the table. A game can (and in my opinion should) feel and play a little differently and still retain the essential style of gameplay. You can't even compare the systems of Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment on the basis of such out of context lists with special emphasis.

Edited July 13, 2013 by MattH

[GrayAngel]

This again people when they show as the Alpha version of PE then i will say what i think about the game but right now all of this are speculations there still very early on the Project so give the some credit of trust is Oblidian people that make many great RPG games.

[SymbolicFrank]

 

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.

 

 

Generally, in serious combat, the first one to hit wins. Because, if it wasn't immediately lethal, it shocks you and makes you much worse at fighting. You die.

 

As that's not much fun, hitpoints were invented. And, when you have a party, a single survivor can resurrect all the dead party members.

 

Let's think about that for a second: would you be happy with a career where you die about once a week, because your co-workers will certainly resurrect you! Right? Right? Guys, please!

 

Not that you are aware of all that, each time it can be the final one.

 

But, after a good nights sleep, you're completely healthy and ready to die again.

 

 

Kiting is the only good way to fight if you want to survive.

 

It might be very "heroic" to wade in and die. But very stupid as well. And tactics and strategy are THE fun things for the players to do, instead of just selecting all and ordering them to attack.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Every class can fill any combat role. Doesn't mean they will, or that they can fill every role.

 

I don't see why this is a problem. At worst, this means you can have 6 different classes and specialize them all into single-target damage dealing. How is the ability to do that with 6 different-class characters any different from being limited to only being able to do that with 6 same-class characters, and still having the option to just roll with those 6 same-class characters?

 

Good point, and I agree.

 

However, in how far can you create all six of your party members as you see fit? While being able to create them all to specs, that would also be much more boring than having to choose between a limited set of NPC's who can join.

 

While it might increase the replayability options, in that you have more choice in the matter, with recruitable NPC's you also get all the downsides that come with them. Which is a good thing! Because, left to their own devices, people tend to gravitate to the same play style every time, unless there are some obstacles that make them choose between multiple, different choices.

 

Or, in other words: if you take all the level-up points and choices together from multiple playthroughs (except perhaps the first), they might be spend on different characters, but they're very likely spend on the same skills and abilities. Unless the designers limit that according to the personalities of the available joinable NPC's.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

 

Underpowered mages

I'll take underpowered mages over overpowered mages any day, but then you know that already.  Besides, after all the years of overpowered casters, it's only fair that the melee types get to be useful for a change.

 

I'll take a single, very powerful and very fragile mage any day, especially if I need all my other party members to protect and support him/her.

 

Much more interesting on a tactical and strategic level.

[alanschu]

 

...melee fighters only amounted to point-attack-forget.

 

Huh? There were 10 on-use abilities available to the warrior pool in BG2.

 

 

Super late to this party, but as your link indicates, those abilities only existed at high levels (i.e. the Throne of Bhaal expansion).

[Thylacine]

Hi, new here, and this is my first post.

 

Just a couple of weeks ago I dug out Baldurs Gate 2, and I freakin love it. I am so blown away by its complexity and deepness. I only recently came across P:E, and I am getting it whatever it will be.

 

But it is true that the combat system is somewhat hard to make sense of. I may evoke a lot of opposition by the D&D veterans, but I'd be somewhat pleased to see a game with the complexity of a Baldur's Gate and the simplicity of a Diablo. For example, how was I supposed to know what THACO, Lore, AC is... And now I'm in Chapter 7 and I still don't know if a Longbow +3 or a Composite Bow +2 is the better weapon... If the stats could be as complex and deep as they used to be, while at the same time being very easy to read, well, that would help newcomers such as me a lot

 

But anyways, apart from the somewhat enigmatic stats, I have never played a game that fascinating - love the riddles, the scale, the relationship to your companions... I would have backed for P:E as soon as I found out about it, but at the moment there only seems to be an option for a digital copy - and I'm more the physical box guy

[mkreku]

You have to understand, Thylacine, that you're addressing a crowd that enjoys buying rulebooks and metagaming the **** out of any game they play, before they actually play it.

[Kjaamor]

...and while we wait for games, we meta-debate on forums with our rulebooks.

[Gfted1]

You have to understand, Thylacine, that you're addressing a crowd that enjoys buying rulebooks and metagaming the **** out of any game they play, before they actually play it.

 

Hell yeah! Im glad Obsidian is selling me the strategy guide to totally non-degeneratively play this game.

[Hamenaglar]

I'm crashing late to the party, I know. But I just can't ignore this topic anymore.

 

My personal answer to the OPs question is no. Obisidian promised a game, a spiritual successor to the infinite engine games. 2d isometric graphic is cool and so far seems very true in spirit to IE games. Game will also be party-based and story driven. However actual game (more precisely combat) mechanics are worrying me. So far from what I've seen they are so far away from IE games. Spamming abilities (passive or active) is not what IE games were about. Nerfing rest, because it was supposedly abused. Giving mages per will and per encounter spell so they don't have to rest all the time. All the classes seem to be so front loaded. Oh, and there is no dodging (or at least very minimal). But the worst thing to me is, complex system behind the scenes. I hate it. I want to see the math and understand it, I don't want to see it hidden from me. And just because a system is complex doesn't mean it's good. KISS baby.

 

So why I don't like any of this, because it doesn't suit with my playstyle. I imposed self-restrictions on my self regarding resting. I would rarely rest unless the party was pretty damaged. I would just keep on going and going and going. Proper adventurers do not rest after every little skirmish, they keep on going untill the dungeon is clear. But I also like the option of having the ability to set up camp and rest anywhere if I wanted to.

 

I liked the fact that my fighers were fire and forget rockets. I would tell my party what to do at the start of the battle and watch them execute it. I would tweak it if necessary. Mages were usually at the back doing nothing, unless the situation was dire. When you have limited spells you try not to use them, because you don't know what's behind the doors. The goal of every fight was to spend as little resources as possible. There were choices to make. Do I cast a magic missile or do I hope my fighter can hit that gnoll one more time and finish him. YES! YES! Bloody Khalid did it. Finally something useful out of him.

 

I also liked to be unhittable, storming into the group of enemies and they can't hit me. I simply dodge and weave between their blows, while Boo turns them to goo with his berserking friend.

 

I liked the fact that my fighters were simple, my mages were complex babies that constantly demanded your attention (or they were useless, that's okay too). I also like the fact that sometimes my fighters were useless without the mages first doing their stuff (breaching spells, dispelling, blablabla, all that boring stuff).

 

I liked that I knew how every item I wore, every point spent, I knew how it would increase my chances of winning.

 

In summary:

To me, so far, Project eternity seems that it is reinventing the wheel. It also seems that combat (an important part no doubt) would be more similar to Dragon age origins, than Baldur's gate. And finally it seems to me that Sawyer and many folks here were not that great fans of IE games, considering how often it is mentioned here that mechanics were not fun.

 

Dammit, I want an IE game (I don't care about AD&D system). I want my fighters simple and stupid. My mages complex and whiny and most of the time useless. And I want to rest, whenever and however I want (though I wouldn't mind to see the consequences for excessive resting).

 

Now, I do believe that Project eternity has the potential to be a good and fun game. I certainly hope so. But for me, with the news so far, it is simply not a successor to IE games in terms of gameplay. Not everybody has to agree with me, but I do agree with myself and that's all that matters to me.

 

Cheers

Hamenaglar, The Unhittable Elf

 

p.s. There were no firearms in IE as well, but I can live with that. Maybe :D

[jethro]

 For example, how was I supposed to know what THACO, Lore, AC is...

 

You were supposed to have read the booklet accompanying your game. If you got it from gog you should be able to download the booklet in pdf form. If you bought a physical copy instead the pdf should be on the CD as well.

 

(Disclaimer: I can't check out the booklet right now whether THAC0 was really defined in there, but I would give that a high probability)

[jethro]

 I want to see the math and understand it, I don't want to see it hidden from me. And just because a system is complex doesn't mean it's good. KISS baby.

 

That, yes. Definitely. It may make balancing easier but it prevents so much fun you have tinkering and evaluating the system. And sadly no one will ever play a PE pen-and-paper session.

 

The rest of your post was for my taste too much tainted by nostalgia. I would find it highly boring if I could just use the same tactics I used years ago.

Edited July 29, 2013 by jethro

[tajerio]

 

 I want to see the math and understand it, I don't want to see it hidden from me. And just because a system is complex doesn't mean it's good. KISS baby.

 

That, yes. Definitely. It may make balancing easier but it prevents so much fun you have tinkering and evaluating the system. And sadly no one will ever play a PE pen-and-paper session.

 

The rest of your post was for my taste too much tainted by nostalgia. I would find it highly boring if I could just use the same tactics I used years ago.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken I think Josh explicitly said in an interview with Cybergamer that he definitely wanted to have a combat log to aid people "in understanding the mechanics in detail."  Bit of an older piece but I don't think we need worry that Josh has changed his mind on this one.

 

http://www.cybergamer.com.au/article/3083/page-2/Interview-with-Josh-Sawyer-of-Obsidian-Entertainment/. 

[smithereen]

*gritty film noir voice* "We're not getting the Project Eternity we were led to believe was on the horizon. We're getting the one we deserve."

[Hamenaglar]

 

 

 I want to see the math and understand it, I don't want to see it hidden from me. And just because a system is complex doesn't mean it's good. KISS baby.

 

That, yes. Definitely. It may make balancing easier but it prevents so much fun you have tinkering and evaluating the system. And sadly no one will ever play a PE pen-and-paper session.

 

The rest of your post was for my taste too much tainted by nostalgia. I would find it highly boring if I could just use the same tactics I used years ago.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken I think Josh explicitly said in an interview with Cybergamer that he definitely wanted to have a combat log to aid people "in understanding the mechanics in detail."  Bit of an older piece but I don't think we need worry that Josh has changed his mind on this one.

 

http://www.cybergamer.com.au/article/3083/page-2/Interview-with-Josh-Sawyer-of-Obsidian-Entertainment/. 

 

 

On the other hand, I've read many posts saying that Josh said that a lot of the math will be complex and done behind the scene. Not in the mood for looking for those quotes. Anyway, I would prefer a simple system like DnD. I'm not saying if it happens that it is a dealbreaker. After all DA:O was still playable despite having a complex, unclear math doing all sorts of weird stuff behind the scenes.

 

Cheers

Hamenaglar, The Simple Math Elf

[alanschu]

It's funny because I find myself liking Baldur's Gate despite the AD&D ruleset.

[Hamenaglar]

It's funny because I find myself liking Baldur's Gate. And Baldur's Gate 2. And IWD. Even IWD 2. P:T not so much and I believe AD&D wasn't a good choice for that game.

 

I hope that PE will be a great game. I've backed it and I can't wait to play it. But it is not an IE game so far (at least not for me), not even close. Obsidian started their kickstarter by praising IE games. By playing on nostalgia. Like all good marketers they haven't actually promised anything. Can't blame them for covering all their bases. However their turn towards the end of the kickstarter and after it, when they started slagging off most IE (AD&D) combat mechanics as not fun.... well, they were fun to me. Anyway, Obsidian has lost a lot of my respect after this and they will have a hard time getting it back. Not sure any of them care, not sure if they should. Not sure I would care, if I were in their shoes.

[alanschu]

That's the issue though, and it came to the forefront on the first day of the Kickstarter.

 

 

For all of the people that lament modern RPGs and how they just don't make them like they used to, there was this idea that while a lot of people would love to see another Baldur's Gate style RPG, that what people wanted from them were the same thing.  But that's a myth, and always has been.

 

 

Planescape: Torment is probably my favourite GAME of all time, but fundamentally it's a very poor game combat wise.  It's just exceptional in terms of its writing.  Heck, it's probably my favourite STORY of all time.  If we're to choose any IE game for them to most emulate, for myself it's definitely PST.

 

Really, really early in the kickstarter campaign there was the myth that there was some level of consensus over what made an Infinity Engine game an "Infinity Engine" game.  What I'm looking forward to the most?  Nuanced, branching dialogue with loads of reaction.  The game could probably get by without even having combat and I'd probably still enjoy it on some level.  Though I do expect the combat to still be real time, with pause, and a large degree of tactical diversity.  So far, I haven't seen anything that really runs contrary to that.

 

A lot of the issues they have with IE combat mechanics are the exact same issues I have with them, so obviously to me I don't see those as being intrinsic to the Infinity Engine experience, and am a lot more open minded towards it.

 

I think it's great that you are able to step back and realize (albeit after the fact) that what you want and what other people want for an "infinity engine game" are not going to fall into perfect alignment.  For myself, the kicker was that Obsidian always delivers on the things I enjoyed about them since PST: fantastic writing and RPG experiences.  So I think that this game will deliver on those elements.

 

 

It's unfortunate that you feel you cannot respect them anymore, but if that's the way you feel then that's the way you feel.

Edited July 29, 2013 by alanschu