What would PE look like if Obsidian catered to the worst of us?

[Pipyui]

I was reminiscing on the last hours of the Kickstarter when Obsidian held a live party at their studio to celebrate its successful close, and remembered the live chat access with the video feed.  It was like reading the comments on youtube; while I had thought that the general maturity of those who would back a cRPG like this would be more in respect as what I find in these forums, it was a cesspit as any other on the internet.

 

And I remember thinking: Gods, I hope Obsidian doesn't cater to this crowd in any fashion.

 

Sometimes on these forums I see arguments between "thank you obsidian for hearing our voices" and "obsidian shouldn't listen to any of the crap we spout."

 

But I thought we could play a little game:  What would PE look like if Obsidian dropped developer integrity altogether and just went to target the biggest or loudest crowd? (you might call it "ultimate fanservice mode")

 

My greatest irrational fears:

• memes
• universal clothing-toggle option
• everyone's romancable; multiple partners!
• giant anime swords
• giant anime hair
• tiny anime apparal / langerie armor
• anime anything
• any use of teen-speak acronyms (OMG LOL)
• greenshirt girl
• ultrasimulation - my sword should take into account the factor of air resistance
• super ultra gritty violent underground mature 18++, I'm not old enough physically, but I swear I'm like 20-something in maturity years, game
• objective arrows, everywhere
• auction house (a la Diablo 3)
• memes

[Cultist]

We'll have Dragon Age 2.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

An unholy fusion of The Witcher, Mass Effect, and WOW.

[teknoman2]

An unholy fusion of The Witcher, Mass Effect, and WOW.

with a bit of uncharted 

[hollowcrown]

No resting

Characters have to eat, go to the toilet, wash, clean clothes etc.

Weapon degradation

Permadeath

 

etc.

 

Basically taking hardcore RPG to the max.

[PrimeJunta]

A tall, young, bald, senile midget with red hair, a clean-shaven beard, with a tiny straw basket made of wood, with two dozen giant miniature space battleships in it.

[Messier-31]

Things that I just find reluctant in a cRPG:

• giant wide weapons of ultra glowing nature (epic!);
• races based on cute fluffy-wuffy animals;
• gold picked up by standing near it;
• items falling out of enemies and containers (Diablo style);
• one save at exit (more Diablo style);
• monsters respawn after leaving the area (Septerra Core style);
• level scaling;
• companions faint and stand up after the fight (DA: Origins, Dungeon Siege 2 style);
• expanded crafting system - make all! (Skyrim style);
• monks as party tanks... or monks in general;
• magic everywhere, everyone's a caster of some sort.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Messier-31

[Barothmuk]

[PrimeJunta]

Oo, good list. I even agree with a lot of it. 

 

 

Things that I just find reluctant in a cRPG:

• giant wide weapons of ultra glowing nature (epic!);
• races based on cute fluffy-wuffy animals;
• gold picked up by standing near it;
• items falling out of enemies and containers (Diablo style);
• one save at exit (more Diablo style);
• monsters respawn after leaving the area (Septerra Core style);
• level scaling;
• companions faint and stand up after the fight (DA: Origins, Dungeon Siege 2 style);
• expanded crafting system - make all! (Skyrim style);
• monks as party tanks... or monks in general;
• magic everywhere, everyone's a caster of some sort.

 

 

Marked the ones I agree with in green, the ones I disagree with in red, and the ones that I'm neutral about – as in "it all depends on the context or the implementation" in gray. These aren't ironclad preferences, though; there are games where immediate permadeath instead of stand-up-after-the-fight work, but in most games of this type it's just another reload trigger, and I'd rather minimize those.

 

But monks. Monks are cool. Especially Friar Tuck style quarterstaff-wielding beer-swilling monks. 

[Walsingham]

I don't see why picking up coins is so bad. It's so standard, it hardly seems worth worrying about.

 

I also love crafting a la Skyrim (modded).

 

I disagree with reloading for losing fair fights. I get around this by not reloading after losing fair fights. No bloody coding required.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't see why picking up coins is so bad. It's so standard, it hardly seems worth worrying about.

 

I also love crafting a la Skyrim (modded).

 

I disagree with reloading for losing fair fights. I get around this by not reloading after losing fair fights. No bloody coding required.

 

The problem is that most games of this type can't be played enjoyably without reloading after losing a fair fight.

 

Suppose you have a party-based cRPG with permadeath.

 

Further suppose that it's a reasonably difficult game. I.e., you can get party members killed in fair fights, even if you're a reasonably competent player.

 

Now, suppose a party member does get killed. 

 

The result is that your party is materially weakened. This means that if all else remains the same, you will be more likely to lose more party members in further fights. This creates a feedback circle, with difficulty rising exponentially after every loss. With the difficulty assumption above, this makes it extremely unlikely you'll even be able to complete the game. If you lost one party member, you're more likely to lose a second one, more likely than that to lose a third, fourth, fifth, and last. Unless you magically upgrade your gaming skills so much you'll be able to make up for the loss with that. Which is unlikely. Game over.

 

To break this cycle, you need some way to make up that loss. Options are:

• Resurrection magic. This is IMO worse than stunned-and-get-up, since it nerfs death itself – what should be if not the biggest penalty for failure in the game, at least one of the biggest.
• Magic resupply of (near) equivalently powerful replacement party members. E.g. an adventurers' hall where you can hire another meat shield of more or less the same level, ad infinitum.
• Level scaling. Joy and happiness.

In my opinion, none of these options are particularly attractive. Sure, it's unrealistic to have people beat up to incapacitation only to get up and prance around merrily afterwards, but from where I'm at none of the others are any more realistic – nor, IMO more importantly, do they make for any more enjoyable gameplay. 

 

I quite like PE's current approach to this – characters that are beat up badly enough become maimed, which significantly reduces their effectiveness until they get some medical attention that's more sophisticated than you get in the field and presumably costs money. That's enough to motivate you not to get them carelessly beaten up, but not so severe that it'd be an automatic reload trigger.

 

I'm all for hardcore modes with permadeath, though. That can add to the replay value a great deal. But with that you know what you're getting when going in.

 

Don't believe me? Then I challenge you to play Temple of Elemental Evil from level 1 through 3, not in Ironman mode, without reloading after losing a fair fight. It can be done, but it's sure as hell not my idea of fun.

[PIP-Clownboy]

 

Don't believe me? Then I challenge you to play Temple of Elemental Evil from level 1 through 3, not in Ironman mode, without reloading after losing a fair fight. It can be done, but it's sure as hell not my idea of fun.

 

 

I've done this many times.. including clearing Moathouse on Ironman. TBH, not playing TOEE on Ironman would be anti-fun for me. There is no tension otherwise. 

 

The only problem with TOEE Ironman is how buggy the game is. 

Edited October 14, 2013 by PIP-Clownboy

[Gfted1]

I disagree with reloading for losing fair fights. I get around this by not reloading after losing fair fights. No bloody coding required.

You have to understand, self control and allowing players to play their game the way they wish got thrown out with the baby and the bath water. Hence we wind up with gems like no healing or resurrection (unless you nap), cool downs, unlimited inventory, no kill xp, and having to trek to specific locations to rest (see napping). Most of the games mechanics were only created to prevent this or that action. 

[Lady Evenstar]

 

You have to understand, self control and allowing players to play their game the way they wish got thrown out with the baby and the bath water. Hence we wind up with gems like no healing or resurrection (unless you nap), cool downs, unlimited inventory, no kill xp, and having to trek to specific locations to rest (see napping). Most of the games mechanics were only created to prevent this or that action. 

 

 

Are you saying that these "features" have been added to Project Eternity? Ewww ...  I supported a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. If Project Eternity lacks comparable latitude to play it in a way I find enjoyable it will be the last Obsidian game I buy/support.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Lady Evenstar

[Gfted1]

Are you saying that these "features" have been added to Project Eternity? Ewww ...  I supported a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate. If Project Eternity lacks comparable latitude to play it in a way I find enjoyable it will be the last Obidian game I buy/support.

Im afraid so.

[mcmanusaur]

You have to understand, self control and allowing players to play their game the way they wish got thrown out with the baby and the bath water. Hence we wind up with gems like no healing or resurrection (unless you nap), cool downs, unlimited inventory, no kill xp, and having to trek to specific locations to rest (see napping). Most of the games mechanics were only created to prevent this or that action. 

 

While I do agree with the general gist that most RPGs' design unfortunately seems to assume that the player is more concerned with exploiting game mechanics rather than with role-playing (or otherwise exercising any form of self-control), I don't see how some of the examples you listed have anything to do with this phenomenon. If my understanding is correct, the "no kill XP" thing is more about ensuring that different play-styles are equally rewarded than it is about preventing people from grinding up their level. I would also think that unlimited inventory constitutes the opposite: relying on players to exhibit self-control and to not "game the system" more than necessary.

Edited October 14, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Messier-31]

But monks. Monks are cool. Especially Friar Tuck style quarterstaff-wielding beer-swilling monks. 

 

Well, at least this monk of yours is wielding a staff, and is not a karate-kid wannabe (or is he?)

 

As for coins: it's silly, but I like to see what amount of gold is there to click and pick up. So no magnetic powers.

As for crafting: I get rejected because of the unimaginabillion of ingredients; for me Waste of Timecraft.

[Elerond]

There is no healing magic in PE's world, meaning that your party get their health back only by resting. Death is permanent and currently there is no way to bring members of your party back to life, although in normal and lower difficult settings party members don't die but are only maimed, which means that they get heavy penalties to their stats and skills until you rest.

 

Current plan is dropped all "cool down" abilities from game, instead of those there is per rest abilities, per battle abilities and abilities that use resouces like wounds (Monk's abilities) or Focus (cipher's abilities), that are renewed by different mechanics like getting damage (monk's wounds) or doing damage (cipher's focus).

 

Unlimited inventory referes to stash, which is limited use invetario, where which player can access on save zones like cities and camp areas.

 

No kill xp, is because of that game use objective xp system where you get xp by solving encounter, which can be by killing monsters in that encounter, sneak past them by using secret path, by diplomancy or some other way, and nevertheless which option you choose you get xp from that encounter. And depending on which option you chose you may or may not get bonus rewards like loot from corpses.

 

Current plans are to limit resting in camp areas and save zones. Which may or may not be good idea.

[mstark]

Based on some of the most popular threads on these boards, this is what I'd expect to see:

 

• A console based, multi-player, LAN experience with modding support
• Localization/translations for every country
• Great DPI scaling
• Justin Sweet will be making the portraits.
• The main plot line would focus on feminism, the role of female breastplate, with splashes of romance.
• No save games to prevent degenerate play
• Armor

[okkoko]

i bet they have it all down wit combat . and a game whre you dont have much els you can do but fight . but they impelemt all them games inside the game like stronghold and influence in the big city several companions magic i dont know how many many game there are behaves also ashivments who knows

[Gfted1]

I don't see how some of the examples you listed have anything to do with this phenomenon. If my understanding is correct, the "no kill XP" thing is more about ensuring that different play-styles are equally rewarded than it is about preventing people from grinding up their level. I would also think that unlimited inventory constitutes the opposite: relying on players to exhibit self-control and to not "game the system" more than necessary.

Having kill experience in the game prevents other manner of rewarding experience? Why? It was removed to prevent people from grinding, in a game with no respawning enemies. Yeah.

 

Unlimited inventory was added because it was deemed "degenerative gameplay" for players to walk back and forth to collect loot. This added the side effect of loot having almost no value or the economy would have been broken by chapter one.

[Lady Evenstar]

So if a party member gets injured, you need to trudge back to town or a campsite to rest because you lack other healing choices? Or reload ...  Because limiting the player to a single choice is deep gameplay? I could understand preferring herbal/medicinal remedies to magical ones, but inflicting one-size-fits-all punitive tedium on the player after every difficult battle just sounds like poor design.  There must be something I'm missing, at least I hope so.

[Gfted1]

So if a party member gets injured, you need to trudge back to town or a campsite to rest because you lack other healing choices? Or reload ...

That is correct.

[PIP-Clownboy]

So if a party member gets injured, you need to trudge back to town or a campsite to rest because you lack other healing choices? Or reload ...  Because limiting the player to a single choice is deep gameplay? I could understand preferring herbal/medicinal remedies to magical ones, but inflicting one-size-fits-all punitive tedium on the player after every difficult battle just sounds like poor design.  There must be something I'm missing, at least I hope so.

 

But it's not your only choice. You can continue on with that injured party member. Alternatively, you could have prepared yourself better before the encounter and/or made better tactical decisions during said encounter. 

 

In 99% of every other game you would just chug a potion/cast heal and continue on. Fun!

Edited October 14, 2013 by PIP-Clownboy

[JFSOCC]

I dunno, the worst of us is a subject of debate, I imagine. I find myself disagreeing about as much as I agree with others on this forum. Generally I notice that if we discuss some really bad ideas it gets clearer that some of these posts are misinterpreted, or when argued can be interpreted differently. Oft times discussing bad ideas leads to good ideas.

 

I suppose this thread is more about what influence you fear from the community. I don't really fear the influence, even from people I disagree with. I know that this game is not going to be exclusively catered for me, and I'm OK with that.

 

However, there are certainly things I see as fairly popular which I don't consider to be good. Some of which I may have indulged in a moment of weakness, but I try to avoid it if I can:

 

"the worst of us" conservatism: I see a lot of nostalgia for arguably bad mechanics from the Infinity Engine games, and sometimes I wonder whether some members want a new game, or the exact same game distilled down to the last drop of nostalgia, regardless of whether or not it is a good idea.

This attachment is too conservative for me. I'd like to see artists grow, and I encourage them to try new things as well.

 

"the worst of us" "too much effort" I've seen assumptions made on how much developer resources features or mechanics would take, and I generally don't like the argument because really, unless you're an experienced developer yourself, you probably have no idea how much resources it will take to implement an idea. I find this a dangerous argument as it dismisses suggestions based on something you can't possibly know. You may envision a mountain of work where a developer might see it as three lines of code.

 

Another "worst of us" notion I have is with idea that anything can be made optional. When this is related to difficulty, I can sort of understand, but often the suggestion to make something optional is another way of saying "I don't like it, but you go and play whatever game you want".

This argument is dangerous because it refuses to discuss the suggestion itself. Instead the suggestion gets placed in a limbo of not being officially dismissed, but not really being discussed either. This is killing with kindness, and I believe that it's more respectful to actually argue why you would or wouldn't like it, and leave the judgement on it's optionality to the developers. If you truly don't care enough to argue against or for the suggestion, or offer an alternative, then perhaps it's better to say nothing at all.

 

"the worst of us" communication: Arguments where arguers have different definitions of the same terminology, leading to miscommunication of ideas. Pro tip, if you find yourself typing "What I meant to say was", you're probably not doing a great job communicating.

 

"the worst of us" argument: people posting opinions as fact, cherry-picking sources, or trying to convince others by holding the floor rather than by argument.

I attempt to have my first post in a topic state my views, not convince someone else that he or she is wrong. If you feel compelled to convince someone of your views, don't waste space repeating yourself. No thread should have two posters replying to each other with large quoted pages going over each previous reply piece by piece.

If you get to that point, you've already taken a wrong turn somewhere earlier.

 

Finally "the worst of us" in negativity:

Negativity is a very negative trait, it's ugly and doesn't ever help discussion.

I see a lot of creativity and suggestions shot down without examination. And I'm sorry whenever I see that happen. Someone may be very bad at stating their ideas and suggestions, they may even be terrible suggestions. Neither is grounds for being dismissive. Someone's bad idea may be a bad solution to a real issue, in which case you could conceivably argue for an alternative, while acknowledging that the issue is real.

Just because someone doesn't have the (right) answer, doesn't mean the topic isn't worthwhile. There are some posters here who seem very fond of shooting down ideas without acknowledging the thoughts behind them.

This is a very nasty way to punish posters taking a risk and a nasty way to kill creativity.