Update #62: Production 01 - State of the Project

[Lephys]

I don't think I'm going to add anything new to the discussion but I love the choice of a serif font. I find it the easiest to read. I loved the font in Planescape Torment and I think the closer it is to Times New Roman the better.

There are actually a lot of studies that suggest serif fonts are easier for the human eye to read when used in smaller-sized, larger quantities of text (blocks of font, "body" text, etc.), and that sans-serif works better for larger, shorter sections of text (headers, logos, page titles, etc.). Not that it's a difference that would be very noticeable if you directly compared two different variants of a sentence or paragraph, or something, but if you read 100 pages of text, once in serif font and once in sans-serif, you might then notice. It's more of a long-term thing, so it might be beneficial in the dialogue/descriptive text of an entire RPG. *shrug*

[Ieo]

 

I didn't say "Make PE Multiplayer". I was speculating that if Obsidian plans their code ahead, maybe they can do some work towards a Multiplayer experience in a sequel. Because I suspect that if Obsidian makes a PE2 they are going to re-use a lot of what they are doing for PE1.

 

 

I didn't think you were talking about PE, but to mix that system into the franchise later doesn't seem like a good idea either (unless, like all the previous commentaries about it, MP was tacked on and crappy as it was in BG2). Mass Effect, Dragon Age, so on. Maybe you didn't pay attention to all the initial discussion started in 2012, but trying to make "decent" MP content is another issue besides the technical complexities of MP; first we have the technical side of making different platforms work together in MP and all the related networking bugs, and then if going for "decent" MP, the content somehow has to reflect the MP context, so then what? Something has to give for a development firm without multi-million publisher backing. And you're probably smart enough to guess the price. Although the answer was actually given back in 2012.

 

Adding later would introduce quality inconsistency into the PE franchise when we're hoping for a unified trilogy or whatever. Quality intellectual SP games are extremely rare right now, and the proposed caliber of combined IE games is completely nonexistent, so most of us who don't want anything to do with MP are purist because we've already seen how MP strips and dumbs down SP content for AAA titles with multi-million backing. Reusing SP infrastructure isn't going to make much of a difference because you still have to develop new content and MP still has its own infrastructure complexities, but if you want "decent" MP, I'll bet the SP infrastructure will need to be reworked around it as well. But again, I wouldn't mind if it was completely crappy tacked-on MP where only the lead character can affect dialogue choices and such, and SP content development was never affected.

 

As I and others have said many times whenever the MP/co-op/console thing comes up, just have another Kickstarter for those items and make a different game. It can be set in the same universe, but a different kind of game altogether (because you can't have the same PE-type game with PS:T-like content  in a console or proper MP environment--it just ain't happening). For once, leave the games-for-dumb-masses to Bioware and the like and hopefully Obsidian will give us a solid, proper old-school-like SP game. That's what they promised, anyway.

[Silent Winter]

@mstark

 

Yeah, that might work. However it looks a little weird to me to have some descriptive/narrative snippets in italics, but others not. Why not also make them italic if they appear in-line? This is how your example would look with this change:

 

 

---

With the stench of spilled ale, rotting hay, and firewood assaulting your senses you approach the man standing behind the bar.

 

Osmaer: The innkeeper digs inside a mug with a dirty rag before raising his thick eyebrows to your level. “Welcome! Welcome! Please, make yourself comfortable, traveler.”

 

Osmaer: “Food's hot and my rooms keep cool. Holler whenever you need, I always got time to spare these days.” A strange silvery tooth appears behind his fat, shiny smile.

 

Osmaer: “How can I help ya?”

 

Thunder strikes in the distance as you consider your options.

 

    1. “I have questions about the area.”

    2. “I want to order food and drinks.”

    3. “Let's see what rooms you have.”

    4. “Goodbye.”

---

 

This one, to me, is the best arrangement.  I find the descriptive text in italics to be nicely separated from dialogue so that my brain makes an auto-switch between 'voices' and it looks consistent. 

Doing it novel-style (no italics) is ok, but doesn't look right to me with the NPC name making it look more like a script so the non-quoted parts still look to be part of what the NPC is saying.

 

Not sure it'll be possible to separate the initial 'scene-setting' description from the character name as it'll probably be part of the NPC's dialogue-files like in IE games (and thus the engine sees it as just text to display with his name).  That doesn't bother me so much though.

[Ineth]

@Ineth,

I believe there should be a difference made between descriptive text that is not part of interaction, and descriptive text that is, hence the italics when there is no preceding "Name:" (i.e. when the descriptive text does not belong to anyone). Also, italicizing all of it makes it a pain to read!

 

That depends on how you read it.

 

If you always diligently read everything word by word from left to right, top to bottom at an even pace - i.e. "read it like a book" as you say - then yeah, mixing italic and non-italic text in the same paragraph will be a slight distraction.

 

However, if you (at least sometimes) prefer to quickly 'jump' between direct speech snippets, only quickly skimming over the descriptive text in-between, then the italics will make the experience much more comfortable.

[Ineth]

Aloth: casts Restore Stamina

Forton gains 6 stamina.

 

+1 for the clear visual distinction between things a character does, and things that happen to a character.

BG2 was too inconsistent in this regard.

 

Thunder strikes in the distance as you consider your options.

 

Cadegund: “We should rest until the storm passes.”

 

Edair: “We're in a hurry. We better be on our way soon.”

 

+1 for having frequent NPC interjections like this, even for every-day decisions like resting at an inn.

BG2 used this much too sparingly (mostly just in case of major plot junctions, like when you have to decide whether to take Bodhi's deal), which was a shame imo.

 

Wicht: misses Forton (attack roll: 4 + 2 = 6)

Cadegund: hits Wicht for 12 stamina and 3 health (attack roll: 8 + 2 = 10)

 

+1 for consistent and simple friend/foe colors.

In BG2 the font colors for names in the battle log seemed random/inconsistent (at least I never understood them).

 

Wicht: misses Forton (attack roll: 4 + 2 = 6)

 

+1 for also mentioning the target of an action (Forton in this example).

I actually think this should be done for spells, too (if they are cast at a specific target).

Omitting this info makes the battle log much harder to follow, especially if lots of things are happening at once.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Ineth

[mstark]

I'm glad someone noticed . I based it off of the information available in the BG2 combat logs, and did what I could to make the same amount of information more consistent and clearer. I was unsure if I should add the target to a cast spell, it certainly does make sense for single target spells.

 

I believe the system can be extended to comfortably include forms of ailments (it would probably make sense to add the fail/success message within the attack/save rolls):

 

Wicht: casts Confusion

Aloth: save versus Confusion (save roll: 1 + 1 = 2 fail)

Aloth is confused.

 

and

 

Wicht: hits Aloth for 10 stamina and 2.5 health (attack roll: 10 + 2 = 12 success)

Aloth: “I need healing!”

Aloth: save versus Morale (save roll: 2 + 1 = 3 fail)

Aloth flees.

 

and

 

Slime: hits Aloth for 4 stamina and 1 health (attack roll: 10 + 2 = 12 success)

Aloth is poisoned.

Aloth: loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: loses 1 stamina and 1 health (poison).

Aloth: drinks Acid Antidote (no effect).

Aloth: loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Poison Antidote (cures poison).

 

 

I still think the open/close quotation marks may act as enough of a visual indicator of where speech starts/stops without having to resort to italics. I experimented with making the interjecting descriptive text a slightly darker shade of grey, but I thought that, too, broke the flow too much. I should probably add that the text I suggest should be in italics doesn't immediately belong within the conversation, and can show up at any point outside of conversations, too. Like when entering a cave, stepping on an alarm, or other such occurrences. It acts as a completely different form of flavor text.

Edited August 24, 2013 by mstark

[mstark]

The edit post time limit is a bit short!

 

I tried to keep the "pure white" messages to major events, but this would make more sense:

 

Slime: hits Aloth for 4 stamina and 1 health (attack roll: 10 + 2 = 12 success)

Aloth is poisoned.

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Acid Antidote (no effect).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Poison Antidote (cures poison).

Edited August 24, 2013 by mstark

[NoTorious]

The font is ugly. The kerning is all over the place and there are glaring misalignments like the dot on the "i". We'll be staring at reams of text for dozens of hours, please pay special attention that it's pleasing to the eye. From a pure legibility perspective I would be in favor of a sans serif font, but I can understand that for artistic consistency a serif font might look less out of place.

 

Fonts were one of my pet-peeves with the Infinity Engine; it was even worse in Neverwinter Nights 2 as font sizes didn't scale with resolution. NWN2 is damn near illegible at 1920x1080. I hope these issues are addressed in Project Eternity.

 

 I hope so too ive played lot of games last times wich make this mistake, sometimes have to go back to another resolution to make it eye friendly.

[Osvir]

 

 

I didn't say "Make PE Multiplayer". I was speculating that if Obsidian plans their code ahead, maybe they can do some work towards a Multiplayer experience in a sequel. Because I suspect that if Obsidian makes a PE2 they are going to re-use a lot of what they are doing for PE1.

 

 

I didn't think you were talking about PE, but to mix that system into the franchise later doesn't seem like a good idea either (unless, like all the previous commentaries about it, MP was tacked on and crappy as it was in BG2). Mass Effect, Dragon Age, so on. Maybe you didn't pay attention to all the initial discussion started in 2012, but trying to make "decent" MP content is another issue besides the technical complexities of MP; first we have the technical side of making different platforms work together in MP and all the related networking bugs, and then if going for "decent" MP, the content somehow has to reflect the MP context, so then what? Something has to give for a development firm without multi-million publisher backing. And you're probably smart enough to guess the price. Although the answer was actually given back in 2012.

 

Adding later would introduce quality inconsistency into the PE franchise when we're hoping for a unified trilogy or whatever. Quality intellectual SP games are extremely rare right now, and the proposed caliber of combined IE games is completely nonexistent, so most of us who don't want anything to do with MP are purist because we've already seen how MP strips and dumbs down SP content for AAA titles with multi-million backing. Reusing SP infrastructure isn't going to make much of a difference because you still have to develop new content and MP still has its own infrastructure complexities, but if you want "decent" MP, I'll bet the SP infrastructure will need to be reworked around it as well. But again, I wouldn't mind if it was completely crappy tacked-on MP where only the lead character can affect dialogue choices and such, and SP content development was never affected.

 

As I and others have said many times whenever the MP/co-op/console thing comes up, just have another Kickstarter for those items and make a different game. It can be set in the same universe, but a different kind of game altogether (because you can't have the same PE-type game with PS:T-like content  in a console or proper MP environment--it just ain't happening). For once, leave the games-for-dumb-masses to Bioware and the like and hopefully Obsidian will give us a solid, proper old-school-like SP game. That's what they promised, anyway.

 

As I have said before as well, I think it would be fun to have MP without touching the Singleplayer core experience. I've said it before, how the IE games handled it in the very first place. I personally enjoyed that sort of MP.

 

From BG/IWD perspective (you already know but I am "painting" a picture for everyone):

Singleplayer, 1 Player with 5 NPC's.

Multiplayer, 2-6 Players who control all NPC's or their premade ones. You can even, if you want a "canon" experience, create a "filler" MP character and then remove that one and play Imoen, Khalid, Kivan, Montaron etc. etc. whoever you wish to play. It's still the core experience.

 

That's what I'd like to see in PE. It doesn't interfere with the core Singleplayer experience. It simply allows your friends to tag along.

 

As for the Multi-Party Dialogue+Multiplayer suggestion/question.

 

Let's look at a concept from a Singleplayer perspective with a big "IF":

- 1 Player, 5 NPC companions.

- A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't.

- Luckily, Forton does have "Intimidating" traits in his pre-built character so asking him to help out doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

Now, Multiplayer:

- 2 Players, 4 NPC companions.

- A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't.

- Luckily, my friend has built a character for this purpose with "Intimidating" traits in his built character, so asking his character for help (Without any "Do you want to help?" prompts) doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

That is what I was trying to get at. But before you get on a high horse and look down on the MP or even me for suggesting it, I do want to emphasize that of course I prioritize an SP experience first and foremost. I don't think the Multi-Party idea is out of the picture of the SP experience though, because in so many ways it makes sense.

 

If you've got a charmer in your group when you're out, maybe he or she can get you in on a club that you wouldn't be able to "charm" your way into. Asking your companions in social situations where you lack the social skill isn't a bad thing, the question is: Are they willing to come through with that help? Would your friend charm the bouncer and leave you hanging? Maybe your friend would be able to get himself in, but the bouncer isn't willing to the total of 6 of you get inside (which unlocks "Split Party mechanics" thoughts but I won't get into that too much here~ basically being able to control a character away from the party). 

 

I bring up the same example again: Maybe Edair has great "Intimidating" or "Threatening" traits, but would he be willing (as a character) to threaten the Innkeeper? So asking Edair in that situation might be a bad thing for your relationship with him. But! If you've swayed him down a dark path previously, he might instead be possibly happy to do it. Buuut that's another previous suggestion (being able to "turn" companions~ make a good hearted companion into a stone cold killer). But alas, I don't know what kind of depth the game will have in terms of Companion interaction/meddling/mechanics/writing. I do think it would be cool

Edited August 25, 2013 by Osvir

[Valorian]

The edit post time limit is a bit short!

 

I tried to keep the "pure white" messages to major events, but this would make more sense:

 

Slime: hits Aloth for 4 stamina and 1 health (attack roll: 10 + 2 = 12 success)

Aloth is poisoned.

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Acid Antidote (no effect).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Poison Antidote (cures poison).

 

I'd say a fortitude defense check against poison is needed, after the reflex or deflection defense fails and the attack hits the target (also, a graze shouldn't trigger the fortitude check).

 

Please, correct your log.

[Stun]

Acid antidote lol

[Rostere]

I want the conversation window to look as similar as possible to a theatre script, failing that, a novel.

[Messier-31]

Let's look at a concept from a Singleplayer perspective with a big "IF":

- 1 Player, 5 NPC companions.

- A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't.

- Luckily, Forton does have "Intimidating" traits in his pre-built character so asking him to help out doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

Now, Multiplayer:

- 2 Players, 4 NPC companions.

- A conversation that requires an intimidating character, but my character isn't.

- Luckily, my friend has built a character for this purpose with "Intimidating" traits in his built character, so asking his character for help (Without any "Do you want to help?" prompts) doesn't seem too far fetched.

 

(...)

I bring up the same example again: Maybe Edair has great "Intimidating" or "Threatening" traits, but would he be willing (as a character) to threaten the Innkeeper? So asking Edair in that situation might be a bad thing for your relationship with him. But! If you've swayed him down a dark path previously, he might instead be possibly happy to do it. Buuut that's another previous suggestion (being able to "turn" companions~ make a good hearted companion into a stone cold killer). But alas, I don't know what kind of depth the game will have in terms of Companion interaction/meddling/mechanics/writing. I do think it would be cool

 

A nice and clear vision. Interaction is a serious issue: the more, the better. After all we're talking about a singleplayer game, so clearly every NPC has their own mind, their own goals, and might interrupt the PC on several occasions during dialogues, or other activities. If there would be a multiplayer (but I'm not so rad about it), Your idea makes perfect sense @Osvir. Nice and easy.

 

Still, interaction all the way.

[jethro]

 

I bring up the same example again: Maybe Edair has great "Intimidating" or "Threatening" traits, but would he be willing (as a character) to threaten the Innkeeper? So asking Edair in that situation might be a bad thing for your relationship with him. But! If you've swayed him down a dark path previously, he might instead be possibly happy to do it. Buuut that's another previous suggestion (being able to "turn" companions~ make a good hearted companion into a stone cold killer). But alas, I don't know what kind of depth the game will have in terms of Companion interaction/meddling/mechanics/writing. I do think it would be cool

 

 

(Speaking only about single player) I believe that is the only interesting example there is. Apart from that construed situation I don't think it likely that charm-, persuasion- or intimidation-experts would be reluctant to use their skills to help their party of adventurers. But then it simply becomes a routine non-decision to always use charming Boo in charming situations and you would ask yourself why the silly program can't simply and automatically use the person with the best skill?

Edited August 25, 2013 by jethro

[Hormalakh]

An acid antidote is either a base (risky) or water (still risky, but less so.) you've just been chemistry'd.

[Archmage Silver]

I want the conversation window to look as similar as possible to a theatre script, failing that, a novel.

As long as the font is actually readable and not some crazy calligraphy design.

[mstark]

 

I want the conversation window to look as similar as possible to a theatre script, failing that, a novel.

As long as the font is actually readable and not some crazy calligraphy design.

 

Readable is exactly what manuscript / novel typesetting, as a general rule, is 

Edited August 25, 2013 by mstark

[Osvir]

 

 

I bring up the same example again: Maybe Edair has great "Intimidating" or "Threatening" traits, but would he be willing (as a character) to threaten the Innkeeper? So asking Edair in that situation might be a bad thing for your relationship with him. But! If you've swayed him down a dark path previously, he might instead be possibly happy to do it. Buuut that's another previous suggestion (being able to "turn" companions~ make a good hearted companion into a stone cold killer). But alas, I don't know what kind of depth the game will have in terms of Companion interaction/meddling/mechanics/writing. I do think it would be cool

 

 

(Speaking only about single player) I believe that is the only interesting example there is. Apart from that construed situation I don't think it likely that charm-, persuasion- or intimidation-experts would be reluctant to use their skills to help their party of adventurers. But then it simply becomes a routine non-decision to always use charming Boo in charming situations and you would ask yourself why the silly program can't simply and automatically use the person with the best skill?

 

That entirely depends on your main characters relationship with the party of companions. It also depends on the party's agenda, I remember reading or hearing about the companions of PE having their own "goals" and "agendas". That implies many things, even things such as that they only want to stay with you for a couple of rounds until they achieve their own goals. Then they might hang around if they find you intriguing and/or have built a bond with your character.

 

Maybe something you want to do goes against their wishes entirely. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

One thing I really dislike and I'm seeing a lot of in my play through of IWD II is the over use of the asterix. Please for the love of god, don't use the * around words. We're not idiots and do get the emphasis on words. It's annoying as heck.   

 

And I realised how much I dislike the Fell Woods. One of the worse parts of the game. Using the same area backgrounds for different areas was a horrible choice. The Fellwood maze is a perfect example of what you should avoid doing to players.

[Silent Winter]

The edit post time limit is a bit short!

 

I tried to keep the "pure white" messages to major events, but this would make more sense:

 

Slime: hits Aloth for 4 stamina and 1 health (attack roll: 10 + 2 = 12 success)

Aloth is poisoned.

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Acid Antidote (no effect).

Aloth loses 1 stamina (poison).

Aloth: drinks Poison Antidote (cures poison).

This is a great example of how to do the combat/general log - the different colours make it easy to follow what's going on and there's all the needed info available.

[Monte Carlo]

 

By Brandon Adler, Producer

...

Stronghold

Tim went on a tear and got most of the backend systems for the player stronghold in place. There are a ton of really fun things you can do with your stronghold like sending companions on missions, buying rare loot off of merchants, building upgrades, and even purchasing hirelings to defend your keep from attack. Watching Tim's stronghold get robbed blind because he has low security and high prestige never gets old.

 

These all sound great. I was wondering though about the "sending companions on missions" activity. Are these separate adventures that we, as the players, will be able to play using just the companions? Or do these missions get completed based upon some internal formula? Thanks.

 

 

 

Hopefully we can send NPCs we don't like on suicide missions.

[Messier-31]

Hopefully we can send NPCs we don't like on suicide missions.

 

Hear, hear! :D

[AndreaColombo]

Hello.

 

I would only like to chime in to ask the developers to please, please, please not use italics inappropriately—and using them for descriptive text counts as (highly) inappropriate.

 

I understand and appreciate people's desire to separate descriptive/action text from spoken lines, but italics are not the way. As explained in this book (among others; this is the first example that came to my mind), italics are a punctuation mark that serves the purpose to emphasize text; but if everything is emphasized within a given text, nothing is. It ensues that the (ab)use of italics for descriptive/action text is gratuitously ungrammatical, and it makes the text itself harder to read. It's like the loudness war of written text (well, not really: Written text never experienced anything similar to the loudness war, but the results are the same—something that is harder for our brain to process).

 

In light of the above, I reinstate my request to look into alternatives to italics if you want to separate descriptive/action text from spoken lines.

[JFSOCC]

Our two new Design Interns - Matt and Ryan - have been filling in the areas with smaller quests and NPCs. It is really starting to make the city feel alive.

I'm very curious what these smaller quests and NPC's look like. I hope no 'rats in the basement' or 'fetch me three orc skulls' and the like.

I hope every quest, even the small ones, have a proper amount of attention spent on them.

 

when you mention smaller quests, do you mean that these are quests with little to no world reactivity upon completion?

[mstark]

Not sure I like the sound of 'smaller quests'. I can't remember such a thing as a 'smaller quest' in Baldur's Gate 2, but maybe I just don't remember them. Or maybe rescuing Aerie in Waukeen's Promenade counts as a small quest? In that case, give me plenty of 'em .

 

Oh, Waukeen's Promenade... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHnqodZoJM