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

[Malekith]

I said that no one is forcing the player to exploit the system, you can play the game just how it was "designed" to be played. Why does it diminish the game for you that someone exploits it, play it how you want it, you have the freedom to do so. As for those badly designed parts of IE games, well I guess we will see if they where truly bad when P:E comes out.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean the design should have weak points and be flawed on purpose. Unless if someone liked the IE systems precisly for the loopholes in the system. That is a valid opinion, but tough luck for you. Sawyer obviously wants his system to be solid, nonexploitable. If that is bad or good depends on the person. I don't care eitherway. I liked IE exploits, i would have liked it without exploits as well.

[Lephys]

Yeah, scantily clad warriors, both male and female, make fine sense. There are cultures and peoples who simply fight unarmored. What doesn't make sense is synthesized, metal armor that is designed to not only lack body coverage, but also to ACCENTUATE the sexual nature of that uncovered body.

 

So, yeah, that's a bit of a tenuous subject. People go all "Hey, I can see her ankles! THIS GAME IS SEXIST!", and I have to laugh. But then, when armor is designed for the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, it really is a bit ridiculous. Plus, the heavier the armor, the more you're going to have it cover.

 

Annnnywho...

 

As for the continued inventory/loot issues... it's really a catch 22. You could just give all the common stuff no universal (monetary) value. However you want to do that: you can only sell so many rusty iron swords before the merchants don't want any more, or stuff like that just won't go for any price to begin with, because its cheaper for the blacksmiths to use their own materials and make their own weapons, and no one wants the weapons because they're so subpar. But then, people would ask "Why the hell do I even have the CHOICE of picking up this stuff? There's all this stuff around, and it does nothing for me!"

 

You could just limit inventory, and have all the stuff you don't take disappear after 12 hours or something, or whenever you leave the area, but then people will say "Blarg! I wanted that stuff! Why would you make me choose?! And then, why should it go away? I left it where everything was dead already!"

 

You give virtually unlimited inventory, and people say "Agh! I wanted limitations as to what I can take! I want what I pick up and what I don't to matter!"

 

You give all loot items some monetary value, and give the player a need for money for oodles of things throughout the game, and now 7,000 trips into LootLand is a perfectly viable plan for monetary income. Then we're back to "ZOMG! This game encourages me to pick up all I can, because money!"

 

And, I'm sorry, but the "players should get to play how they want" argument does not fit here. That's a valid argument, but not for this particular issue. It's a matter of design, and the inherent limitations that come with it. Would you play Super Mario Brothers, and say "Why can't Mario tunnel through the ground, and turn invisible, and summon flaming swords that he can then juggle around the screen, and cast magic spells, and why isn't the game in 3D instead of 2D?!"? No, you wouldn't. Because it just is what it is.

 

If you limit inventory, you're mandating what can and cannot be done. And if you make it unlimited, you're simply mandating a different value on a scale. You're never NOT-mandating what can and cannot be done (aka "How players are allowed to play the game") via the game's design. Why can't you have more than 6 party members? Why can't you grow a third arm and wield THREE swords? Why can't you just GTA up the city, blow up all the merchants, and take all their stocks? There are infinite "why can't we" questions to ask, and the answer is "because finite game design."

[jethro]

No healing / res: To prevent healing between battles.

To enable difficult fights. Every fight has the potential to get your stamina near zero making it a near loss without forcing you to rest after every fight

 

Unlimited inventory: To prevent people walking back and forth to pick stuff up. What?

To enable players to concentrate on the fun instead of managing inventory after every third fight. You decide when you want to visit a town, not your inventory

 

No kill xp: To prevent "grinding" in a game that doesn't have respawning mooks.

To make every play style balanced, whether you want to solve the game mostly diplomatic, or stealthy, or fighting.

 

All excellent choices in my opinion.

[Failion]

The thing with high fantasy the same real world tactics and limitations we have in the real world not transition the same. A plate mail bikini on a powerful female combatant can be pure intimidation factor. Rousing her foes to quickly butcher her only to be surprised by her speed and strength.

[Malekith]

The thing with high fantasy the same real world tactics and limitations we have in the real world not transition the same. A plate mail bikini on a powerful female combatant can be pure intimidation factor. Rousing her foes to quickly butcher her only to be surprised by her speed and strength.

Then why not going into battle in her pajamas or even naked? Chainmail bikini is retarded period.

Either the character is so superhero and above the rest of the world that he doesn't need any protection and he goes with his casual clothes, or he needs protection and wears armor.

[Pipyui]

Then why not going into battle in her pajamas or even naked? Chainmail bikini is retarded period.

 

Not saying I agree with the idea, but hey, had I the confidence to enter a fight in my swimsuit, I would.

Course, I'm a dude, and a short and unathletic one at that, so really it would be more depressing than sexy.

 

"Come at me vile creatures!  I bring your demise!"

"Eww, no.  Come on guys, this one scares me."

"You ought be scared!  I've felled trolls!  Wyrms!  Dragons!!  Cities!!"

"And you did all that in your underwear, did you?"

"Well ... no.  It's a swimsuit."

"Right.  Right.  So ummmm, I'm done raping and pillaging for today, how about you fellas?  This one's too into it.  Gives me the creeps."

*yep, mhhhmm, nods*

"Wait, come back!  I'm putting on my armor now, see?  Guys?  Come on!"

 

And thus ends the story of Pipyui the galant, the chaste, the exhibitionist.

 

...

 

So what I'm trying to say is, langerie armor might not be a good idea.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Pipyui

[Messier-31]

Everyone, roll for embarrassment.

[Sarex]

Well at least wizard/sorceress can go full bikini mode.

[Karranthain]

 

Then why not going into battle in her pajamas or even naked? Chainmail bikini is retarded period.

 

Not saying I agree with the idea, but hey, had I the confidence to enter a fight in my swimsuit, I would.

Course, I'm a dude, and a short and unathletic one at that, so really it would be more depressing than sexy.

 

"Come at me vile creatures!  I bring your demise!"

"Eww, no.  Come on guys, this one scares me."

"You ought be scared!  I've felled trolls!  Wyrms!  Dragons!!  Cities!!"

"And you did all that in your underwear, did you?"

"Well ... no.  It's a swimsuit."

"Right.  Right.  So ummmm, I'm done raping and pillaging for today, how about you fellas?  This one's too into it.  Gives me the creeps."

*yep, mhhhmm, nods*

"Wait, come back!  I'm putting on my armor now, see?  Guys?  Come on!"

 

And thus ends the story of Pipyui the galant, the chaste, the exhibitionist.

 

...

 

So what I'm trying to say is, langerie armor might not be a good idea.

 

 

[Chairchucker]

I kind of lost where the discussion was up to but I have some OPINIONS ABOUT VIDEO GAMES and here they come. Get ready for the opinions.

 

Unlimited inventory is good. I like it. I like not having an inventory limit. This is not just because I am a horrendous pack rat, (Although this is true. In FO:NV my character collected about 30 weapons or so, one that used each kind of ammunition. I used about three of them. Don't judge me.) but also because regardless of whether I'm picking up every single item in the entire world (I will be) or just the shinier stuff, hitting your inventory limit and having to trek back to the store doesn't add anything of value to the game.

 

Lack of kill experience will take some getting used to, but I think it is a positive decision in that it makes alternate play styles other than 'comb every corner of the area and kill every single living creature' equally viable. (I will still probably be destroying all the critters, though.) In many of the IE games, the 'best way' (in that after doing it this way your character was objectively more powerful than after doing it any other way) to do an area was to do all the talking or sneaking or whatever that might get you quest experience, and then come back afterwards and butcher them all. No kill experience means players are rewarded equally for whatever approach they take to a puzzle.

 

Otherwise it'd be like the latest Deus Ex which, for all its talk about being able to facilitate any type of play and any playing style being equally valid, and much as I did enjoy the game, there was absolutely a 'correct' way to play that game, in that you got the most of whatever the experience equivalent was and could afford to upgrade yourself the most. That way was to hack every single object even if you had a code, pick every lock even if you had a key, and knock every single person out even if you had no particular intention of walking in the area they were patrolling. I didn't mind doing this because there is a small part of me that likes gaming systems to hoover the maximum reward out of it, but if they had done away with these mechanics, I might've found it easier to actually play the role of my character.

 

Already covered by pretty much everyone else, but side note about plate mail bikinis: it seems like you'd run more of a risk of the edges of your 'armour' digging into you uncomfortably. Also, I think people usually wore clothes under their armour, didn't they? Are we to believe that plate mail bikini wearers are putting that thing straight onto the skin, or is there a cloth bikini directly beneath it? Because that would be as uncomfortable as hell.

[Walsingham]

I have it on extremely good authority that women wearing chainmail directly on the skin had better enjoy graunched nipples*. Not to mention I can attest to how chilly chainmail is. So yes, you'd wear big padded clothing underneath almost all armour.

 

Having said that I don't agree with the infinite trouser space idea for inventories. Sounds to me like you should be embracing an opportunity to tackle your anxiety issues, if you can't leave junk behind. My last couple of playthroughs of New Vegas have been inventory light, and refusing to carry anything classable as trash.

 

 

* I am told that even the ones who think they will, don't.

[Chairchucker]

Having said that I don't agree with the infinite trouser space idea for inventories. Sounds to me like you should be embracing an opportunity to tackle your anxiety issues, if you can't leave junk behind. My last couple of playthroughs of New Vegas have been inventory light, and refusing to carry anything classable as trash.

 

Well I embraced that for the vast majority of RPGs I've previously played. It didn't add anything meaningful to the experience.

[Lephys]

The thing about P:E's nigh-unlimited inventory is... only the part you can't immediately access is "unlimited" (Josh has said that it may not actually be unlimited, but just much larger than your typical game's, in comparison to the amount of stuff regularly found). Therefore, you still actually have a limited amount of space to manage for things that you actually want to use before you get to a resting spot, at which you would've juggled around your inventory anyway. The ONLY change I'd make is that I'd have the Deep Stash (super-huge, not-readily-accessible portion of the inventory) be accessible ONLY at towns/the stronghold, instead of at any and all rest spots (like campsites in the midst of a dungeon/forest). That way, you can always pick up whatever you want, so you never have to make a trip JUST to pick up some more things. But then, you can't ever access the Deep Stash stuff until there's no longer a strategic advantage in being able to access it (back in town, when you're not in the middle of any kind of conflict, and you would, in ANY inventory system, simply sell off your excess stuff to vendors, etc.).

 

If you can access it every 20 minutes or so, at a little rest-up campsite, then it's pseudo-circumventing the limited space for your usable/equippable goods, which is sort of the whole point of the choice of what to have on-hand and what makes that choice matter. Better yet, if you can camp somewhere to rest up, then fight like, a group of foes, then pick up everything, then just run back to that camp 1 minute away, then move stuff between your Deep Stash and your limited inventory, then... that's even worse. That's an IF, though.

 

*shrug*

[Messier-31]

I kinda like the idea of not gaining XP from defeating foes. Makes you wanna avoid some combat situations and consider a different approach. I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and we would be awarded with experience points just after some major events would be brought to an end. Not for every kill we would get, maybe just for some very important and story related boss's's's'sss... What I mean is that you play your role as in a theater, not simply hack n' slash everybody; there you put politicians.

[FlintlockJazz]

Depends on what you mean by 'worst' of us.  I suppose we are all the 'worst' to someone else.  I would consider chainmail bikinis, boobplate, super-sized anime swords, rest-spamming , forever increasing attributes, and loads of levels is the 'worst', but then to another historically-correct armour, no eye-candy, 'puny' swords, and having to trek back to a campsite would be the 'worst'. 

 

Naturally, my opinion is the correct one of course, I'm not saying that these other people have actually any credibility or value to their opinion, but I thought I would be tactful today and be magnaminous to my inferiors.

[motorizer]

I kinda like the idea of not gaining XP from defeating foes. Makes you wanna avoid some combat situations and consider a different approach. I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and we would be awarded with experience points just after some major events would be brought to an end. Not for every kill we would get, maybe just for some very important and story related boss's's's'sss... What I mean is that you play your role as in a theater, not simply hack n' slash everybody; there you put politicians.

As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.

[Sarex]

As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.

 

Reality?!? What? Anyways, those impossible fights are so sweet when you figure out how to win them, I would argue that they where a big (if not the biggest) part of the IE games. I still remember the Chimera fight at the ice temple in IWD2, or my first dragon in BG2. To tie in on this, why would you get the same amount of xp for doing something that is hard in this example a "hard fight" and for sneaking past the enemy. In my opinion that is just encouraging people to quit from those impossible fights, and go for an easier route.

[Malekith]

 

As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.

 

Reality?!? What? Anyways, those impossible fights are so sweet when you figure out how to win them, I would argue that they where a big (if not the biggest) part of the IE games. I still remember the Chimera fight at the ice temple in IWD2, or my first dragon in BG2. To tie in on this, why would you get the same amount of xp for doing something that is hard in this example a "hard fight" and for sneaking past the enemy. In my opinion that is just encouraging people to quit from those impossible fights, and go for an easier route.

 

Two things. First, loot. Unique enemies will propably have unique/overpowered weapons. Second, the trully difficult enemies will propably be part of an objective, so they will give XP.

[Sarex]

Two things. First, loot. Unique enemies will propably have unique/overpowered weapons. Second, the trully difficult enemies will propably be part of an objective, so they will give XP.

 

You didn't have to kill Firkraag(the dragon in BG2), it was optional. As for the items, well that is the reason why we want to kill them, also that is purely a balancing issue.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

 

Two things. First, loot. Unique enemies will propably have unique/overpowered weapons. Second, the trully difficult enemies will propably be part of an objective, so they will give XP.

 

You didn't have to kill Firkraag(the dragon in BG2), it was optional. As for the items, well that is the reason why we want to kill them, also that is purely a balancing issue.

 

Not quest, objective. I believe most of the quests will have smaller objectives in them, most of them optional. Just imagine Windspear hills where the big quest would be to save the child, with killing Firkraag as a sub objective. But i could be wrong about that.

[Elerond]

There is no need to them give you any other way to deal object than killing the difficult monster. Dragon(like Firkraag) could easily be secret optional objective in the game where you get tons of xp and good loot if you kill and only if you kill it, but anything in the game don't actually tell you that there is such objective.

Objective based xp don't force them to make several options for all the objectives, but it makes it easier to implement them if they want to give you such options.

[Sarex]

Not quest, objective. I believe most of the quests will have smaller objectives in them, most of them optional. Just imagine Windspear hills where the big quest would be to save the child, with killing Firkraag as a sub objective. But i could be wrong about that.

 

Killing Firkraag was an objective in a quest and that was not my point, my point was that in P:E you could hire a dwarf to collapse the cave and kill him and that would give you the same xp as going in your self and pulling up you sleeves.

 

 

There is no need to them give you any other way to deal object than killing the difficult monster. Dragon(like Firkraag) could easily be secret optional objective in the game where you get tons of xp and good loot if you kill and only if you kill it, but anything in the game don't actually tell you that there is such objective.

Objective based xp don't force them to make several options for all the objectives, but it makes it easier to implement them if they want to give you such options.

 

 

That is not what the developers said.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Sarex

[Elerond]

 

 

 

There is no need to them give you any other way to deal object than killing the difficult monster. Dragon(like Firkraag) could easily be secret optional objective in the game where you get tons of xp and good loot if you kill and only if you kill it, but anything in the game don't actually tell you that there is such objective.

Objective based xp don't force them to make several options for all the objectives, but it makes it easier to implement them if they want to give you such options.

 

 

That is not what the developers said.

 

 

Actually Josh mentioned that there could be objectives that are purely combat based.

[motorizer]

 

As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.

 

Reality?!? What? Anyways, those impossible fights are so sweet when you figure out how to win them, I would argue that they where a big (if not the biggest) part of the IE games. I still remember the Chimera fight at the ice temple in IWD2, or my first dragon in BG2. To tie in on this, why would you get the same amount of xp for doing something that is hard in this example a "hard fight" and for sneaking past the enemy. In my opinion that is just encouraging people to quit from those impossible fights, and go for an easier route.

 

When i said reality, I didn't mean "reality"

What I'm saying is...it removes a strong incentive for the player to roleplay an insane suicidal maniac....

[Lephys]

I love that the only comparison is ever between killing something, or merely sneaking past it. Don't you think killing something potentially accomplishes a lot more than sneaking past it necessarily does? What if someone's holding someone hostage? Killing them would prevent them from harming the person being held hostage, AND remove them as an obstacle towards getting that person back. The objective isn't "omg, overcome their super toughness and gain lots of combat XP!" They could be easily outmatched by you and your party, but they're holding a hostage, who is extremely vulnerable to attack. So, you'd either want to do things very very quickly/precisely, or very very quietly. So, in that case, sneaking about and taking them down without drawing any attention would be much more advantageous (and probably really build a lot more experience) than their mere defeat at the end of a sword. Because, again, they don't need to be a huge threat to YOU to be a problem, so they're not necessarily going to tax your combat abilities.

 

Furthermore, maybe no one knows why this person was kidnapped, and you can sneak around and overhear things and figure out why, and/or sneakily get the hostage out of harm's way (leaving the kidnappers with no real advantage), then interrogate them to find out plenty of things you wouldn't know if you simply killed them. That's just one example.

 

Here's the thing: Experience is already an abstract thing in these types of RPGs. That's why, if you simply lure a troll into a pit of oil, and light the oil on fire, and the troll burns to death, you STILL get a troll's worth of XP. You're being granted XP based on the obstacle you overcame (the troll), not the actual amount of combat XP you gained from the amount of fighting prowess you honed with the actions you took to dispatch the troll. If that were the case, then the greater the disadvantage you put yourself at, the greater the amount of experience you would gain. "I just killed a troll with a PENCIL! If I can do THAT, just THINK what I'm capable of doing with a SWORD now! 8D!"

 

So, the whole "wait! Why should someone get the same amount of XP for not-killing something?!" argument is a little silly. I mean, that's exactly why games that actually try to simulate actual EXPERIENCE gain do it based on what you're DOING, not what happens to die. If you throw a giant firebomb, you gain throwing experience. You don't gain something-burning-to-death experience. And you don't gain any experience for happening to slay something. You gain Swordsmanship (or whatever skill) experience for landing blows and parrying and such. The problem with that system is that they typically don't ever diminish the returns of experience based on the fact that hitting the exact same goblin a 7,000th time after consistently striking him, then healing him, would not really net you much new experience. But, that's a different story...

 

So, the point is, if you want your actions to be directly represented in the amount of XP you gain, then so be it. But, attributing the XP to the deaths of things doesn't accomplish that, at all. So, don't go around acting like not attributing XP to kills is somehow introducing abstraction to the system. It was already there. What P:E's doing is simply making it make a bit more sense, within the context of abstracted XP. If you're clever enough to lure foes into traps that you didn't even build/set (part of a dungeon or something), without ever so much as touching them with your weapon, and they die, then shouldn't you gain experience from your clever handling of the situation? And, if that's not going straight into a "Cleverness/Luring" skill only, then it's going to go in as general XP. Same with accomplishing something that doesn't involve anything dying.