Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How can this game claim to have anything to do with IE games at this point. Other than having an Isometric interface, they are basically reinventing everything that embodied what IE games were in my opinion.

 

Let me be clear on a couple things first. I did not pledge in the Kickstarter (because I had a funny feeling this would happen). And I will still purchase the game! However I do feel it was disingenuous to base the entire project on this. Also, I do understand that what an IE game embodied is subjective and probably varies from person to person. But at best the product this is shaping up to be will have tenuous links at best to classic IE games. Thats fine I suppose as I feel its a capable team who really loves what they are doing, and if I look at the game from a different perspective (not judging it through IE tinted glasses if you will) it sounds like an awesome RPG that forgoes glitzy Skyrim-type flash for more solid gameplay.

 

One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I have a different idea of what it means to be an old IE games. It's real-time with pause, focusing on tactical party combat, questing, and exploration. That's what I expected, that's what I seem to be getting.

 

I know some people are upset that it's not a 1:1, that wizards don't look to be quadratic, that it's not D&D 2E with the serial numbers filed off. But I never got the impression that's what they were aiming at.

 

Respecting that subjectivity, and since we're in the right forum for that, I should ask; what does the spirit of the infinity engine games mean to you?

  • Like 17
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and I have a different idea of what it means to be an old IE games. It's real-time with pause, focusing on tactical party combat, questing, and exploration. That's what I expected, that's what I seem to be getting.

 

I know some people are upset that it's not a 1:1, that wizards don't look to be quadratic, that it's not D&D 2E with the serial numbers filed off. But I never got the impression that's what they were aiming at.

Maybe your right. I knew it wouldn't of course be a DND product however I feel like they are literally trying reinvent every aspect of the old formula. Again no problem for a foward-thinking RPG and I actually am hopefull that this project could spark a new era in future CRPGs (wishful thinking perhaps). I guess I was just hoping for a throwback, a modernized BG instead of a total rethinking of the entire concept of CRPGs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.

 

They didn't have the D&D license, so a 1 to 1 translation was never, IMO, in the cards.  So if you've got to create something new I expected some looking at systems and how they work.

 

My expectations were fairly simple -

  • Isometric (or closely related)
  • real time with pause
  • fantasy setting
  • party based
  • Made by people at Obsidian Ent.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obsidian promised us:

  • new fantasy world, with familiar elemets that have some sort of new twist on them
  • new rule set, that has classes, firearms and magic in it, nothing more nothing less
  • Eight companions
  • homage to IE games, meaning that
    • game will use isometric view,
    • real time with pause combat that is at least as tactical than that which you can find from IWD series
    • has similar exploration feeling than BG series
    • has companions that have similar or even deeper depth than those in PS:T
    • there will be also dungeon crawling
    • game will use prerendered backgrounds
  • Game will be out in summer 2014
  • There will be expansion pack that is similar to expansion packs of old
  • There will be Tim's cook book
  • MCA will play Arcanum
  • There will be additional stuff, like art book, novellas etc.
  • Backer only item (that don't have any effect on game balance)
  • Backer only achivement
  • In-game pets and  $50+ backers get exclusive pet

Currently it seems to me that Obsidian is on track to deliver everything that they promised and more.

 

Correct me if I forgot something that Obsidian did promise

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.

 

you're the one-eyed king among the blind followers you're so totally wrong on so many levels. peel the ie games out of their a/dnd shell and look a second time what made those games. perhaps this time you'll find the similarities with project eternity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

peel the ie games out of their a/dnd shell and look a second time what made those games. 

 

This is precisely the issue.  The ruleset is not the game.  The ruleset is what we use to navigate our way through the game's content.  It seems to me that Obsidian are taking the best parts of the content and presentation from the IE games, and leaving aside the many problematic elements of a ruleset that could never be more than awkwardly shoehorned into a cRPG.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you know, Bioware said Dragon Age would be spiritual successor to IE games, though modernized.

And hey, I loved it. It was all that and their vision of what all that means.

 

Now Obsidian is going to deliver their vision. And I like the sound of it so far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're indubitably right Gfted1.  This sense of betrayal, though, because Obsidian didn't want to duplicate the IE games, doesn't make sense to me.  They never promised that, and it's pretty hard to get the impression that they promised a retread game if one reads through their pitch material.  If people just saw "Infinity Engine" and went "huzzah!" and pledged, then felt cheated later, that's their fault for not doing their research, not Obsidian's for advertising falsely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you know, Bioware said Dragon Age would be spiritual successor to IE games, though modernized.

And hey, I loved it. It was all that and their vision of what all that means.

 

*retches*

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're indubitably right Gfted1. This sense of betrayal, though, because Obsidian didn't want to duplicate the IE games, doesn't make sense to me. They never promised that, and it's pretty hard to get the impression that they promised a retread game if one reads through their pitch material. If people just saw "Infinity Engine" and went "huzzah!" and pledged, then felt cheated later, that's their fault for not doing their research, not Obsidian's for advertising falsely.

You agree that name dropping positively influenced the sales but feel its peoples fault for getting sucked in by that practice?

 

The onus is on the company selling the product to be clear to the buyers and, imo, that was not the case here and they absolutely knew what invoking those game titles would mean to people. Nobody expected a clone (they don't have the D&D license) but I think people expected a close approximation (like they are doing with several mechanics already).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider the analogy perfect (although I do agree it likely brought in more money).

 

I had no expectation that the game would be a perfect mirror when they harkened back to the IE days in their pitch.  I was looking at scale and scope of their times.  Explicitly calling the game Torment places a lot more expectations on a game than "I want to make a game inspired by Torment." for someone such as myself.

 

 

 

You agree that name dropping positively influenced the sales but feel its peoples fault for getting sucked in by that practice?

 

Given that "this is not what my imagination told me I was promised" appears to be an epidemic across some online groups, on some level I'd still say yes.  I accept full responsibility that Fargo billing his game "Torment" got my money (and on some level I actually do regret it).

 

 

I think people expected a close approximation (like they are doing with several mechanics already).

 

This is the fun part.  I see little that has convinced me that this isn't still a close approximation.

Edited by alanschu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You agree that name dropping positively influenced the sales but feel its peoples fault for getting sucked in by that practice?

 

The onus is on the company selling the product to be clear to the buyers and, imo, that was not the case here and they absolutely knew what invoking those game titles would mean to people. Nobody expected a clone (they don't have the D&D license) but I think people expected a close approximation (like they are doing with several mechanics already).

Saying something "is like Item A" doesn't mean something "is Item A". It gives the customer a frame of reference.

 

Clearly some of us felt the frame was more/less involved based on our own interpretation of what they gave us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One thing I do find quite odd however is the many pledgers and backers who are not even the least bit concerned or upset that they were basically strung along with false promises.

 

you're the one-eyed king among the blind followers you're so totally wrong on so many levels. peel the ie games out of their a/dnd shell and look a second time what made those games. perhaps this time you'll find the similarities with project eternity.

 

Well I had hoped and tried in my original post to NOT sound like this as its NOT how I feel. Honestly I feel like im missing something that everyone else isn't because the general feeling I get from lurking the forums for quite a while now is one of being pleased with the direction of the project. Simply, im trying to understand.

 

So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low. Going of whats in this thread so far (very small sample size I know) it seems the general concencus on what is expected is :

 

-Isometric

-Party Based

-Fantasy Setting (although i dont equate fantasy with firearms this doesnt seem to bother the majority here either)

-Companions

- RTWP

 

The problem with that is it describes any number of older CRPGs.

 

Like I said I knew it was not going to be DnD . But I DID think it would of been close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nb4bitchingatsawyer

 

From the info available, PE does look like an IE game. It doesn't have kill XP, it uses a "more gamist" attribute system, and missing is less common, but IMO those differences doesn't transform PE into a Diablo clone.

 

Like I said I knew it was not going to be DnD . But I DID think it would of been close.

In terms of classes, every one but the Cipher is an analogue of one of the 3.5E core classes. Other than that, I'm happy PE is getting away from the D&D, which does not function well outside of PnP.

Edited by KaineParker
  • Like 1

"To be fair, if I was married to Milla Jovovich, I would also be happy just making movies that show off her butt." - Hurlsnot

"You need to be careful, lest I write another ten page essay on mythology and how it relates to Sailor Moon." - majestic

"I won't say what just in case KaineParker is reading" - Bartimaeus

"Oh no! Is there super secret ending as well? I don’t care." - Wormerine

"Get some poor minorities, that keeps WASPs away easy." - Malcador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You agree that name dropping positively influenced the sales but feel its peoples fault for getting sucked in by that practice?

 

The onus is on the company selling the product to be clear to the buyers and, imo, that was not the case here and they absolutely knew what invoking those game titles would mean to people. Nobody expected a clone (they don't have the D&D license) but I think people expected a close approximation (like they are doing with several mechanics already).

Saying something "is like Item A" doesn't mean something "is Item A". It gives the customer a frame of reference.

 

Clearly some of us felt the frame was more/less involved based on our own interpretation of what they gave us.

 

 

This is it exactly.  Obsidian obviously wanted to trade on the appeal of the IE games, but they equally obviously weren't going to make another one--like any sensible business, they wanted to move forward and use new ideas, even if they took inspiration from the past framework of their success.  

 

I think the perception of how closely these games were going to hew to the IE template varies from person to person not depending on what Obsidian said--since that's more or less a constant--but on how devoted people were to those IE games, and how much they've liked/disliked CRPGs since.  I like the IE games, with the exception of P:T, which I think is excellent.  And I have liked the CRPGs that I have played since the days of the Infinity Engine, while lamenting the loss of the depth of character in P:T, and the options of character customization present in all of those games.  So I don't feel any pressing nostalgic need to go back to the halcyon days of yore, but I do want them to bring the good bits back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the perception of how closely these games were going to hew to the IE template varies from person to person not depending on what Obsidian said

 

This was my (perhaps not so surprising) epiphany right after the Kickstarter* came out.  There was large consensus from people that "we need more RPGs like Baldur's Gate!" for a long time now.  The problem is, however, that there is not a consensus over what aspects of those games are essential.  At the time, they still appealed to different people for different reasons.  I think nostalgia convinced a lot of people that "we all love those games.  Therefore someone making one like it would make us ALL happy"

 

 

EDIT: Said "game" instead of "kickstarter"

Edited by alanschu
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far it seems like the explanation is peoples "bar" is set very low.

For me - so YMMV - there's really two frames of reference; Kickstarter is a funding mechanism and so the question being asked when a Kickstarter is presented is "does this sound like something you'd like to see exist?" And if the answer is yes, and you believe the risk of losing all of your money, never to be seen again is worth supporting you do. This is the frame of reference of the "supporter".

 

What Kickstarter isn't is a promise to make something you'll actually like; it hasn't been made yet. Might end up being a bit rubbish. This is the frame of reference of the "end user" or the consumer. But Kickstarter isn't a store; you don't put in $20 and get a game, you put in $20 to fund a game that may or may not get made and maybe if the $20 tier gets you a copy of the game as a backer reward you get the game as a reward.

 

All that to say, my bar to back was really set at "made by Obsidian". I like the company, I post on their boards, they make a lot of games I like. If they'd proposed an RPG where you had to navigate your house as a little girl who is running around trying to arrange a mock tea party with her stuffed animals, I'd probably still have backed it. Sawyer could have come up with some sort of weirdly balanced tea pouring mechanics and Avellone could have knocked out some great dialogue between the girl and her stuffed rabbit or something.

 

So considering that, once you add in IE (isometric, real time with pause, fantasy (anything with magic is fantasy, IMO)...well I had no problem with supporting the game. And I'm willing to sit back and see what game they craft; have I liked every bit of information I've heard? No. Do I regret backing it? Absolutely not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that is it describes any number of older CRPGs.

Divine Divinity and Darklands?
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I had hoped and tried in my original post to NOT sound like this as its NOT how I feel.

 

then i don't understand the part about false promises in your opening post... that's ridiculous.

 

The problem with that is it describes any number of older CRPGs.

 

well, you know, before baldur's gate revived crpgs there was no other real contender. back then basically the whole genre was based on ie games.

Edited by Semper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I pretty much turned off any expectations I had for this game, and I don't mean that in a bad way (or a good way). I realized that they are not striving for the IE games, but for their reimagining of the IE games. Take that how you want it, but what it means is that P:E can be worse or better then the IE games. Kudos to Obsidian for that, because they are taking a huge risk. If the game doesn't deliver, it will stain their image for years to come. Here's to hoping that they deliver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're reinventing, then, by definition, they're not changing.

 

If you "reinvent the wheel," you're basically trying to make a wheel, but you're pretending it doesn't already exist, and using the existing knowledge of its design pros and cons.

 

If you ask me, the problem with the games industry is that everyone else ISN'T trying to reinvent things. They're either just directly copying and tweaking a few aesthetic values for flavor ("THIS shooter sequel will have like 3 more guns! 8D! And a different 'story'! 8D! And more enemies to kill!"), rather than actually re-iterating on their core design from the ground up, using their experience and knowledge from their previous iteration to their advantage.

 

All they're doing is stuff they WISH they could've done originally, but lacked the tools/resources/knowledge to do before.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the term "reinventing the wheel" refers to unnecessary change. It's also a bit of a self-defeating metaphor. We went from solid stone rollers to rubber tires filled with air. That was a good change.

  • Like 2
"Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I paid for an Obsidian game, that is what Obsidian are developing. I may not agree with everything they are doing mechanically, but then again I hated Star Wars, and Obsidian enthralled me with The Sith Lords. They've earned a little trust in my eyes.

Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.

I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin.

 

Tea for the teapot!

Link to comment
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...