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

[Sarex]

 

It's not respawning I'm complaining. It's a way of making the game harder by throwing more and more (in their numbers) foes at you at once. Sure, the game takes more time to beat, but it gets tiresome killing the never-ending swarms of enemies. This isn't Diablo, ffs.

 

The game is combat oriented, it never tried to hide that, thus it will not be to everyone tastes.

 

While i think both senarios should be avoided, between your two extremes  i find the first worse by many orders of magnitude.

 

Why? If I want a good story, I will read a book which will always have a better story then a game (unless it's a bad story/writer). I play games because they offer something that other mediums don't, interactivity, and if the game has a good story attached to it then that is just a happy bonus.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

 

 

It's not respawning I'm complaining. It's a way of making the game harder by throwing more and more (in their numbers) foes at you at once. Sure, the game takes more time to beat, but it gets tiresome killing the never-ending swarms of enemies. This isn't Diablo, ffs.

 

The game is combat oriented, it never tried to hide that, thus it will not be to everyone tastes.

 

While i think both senarios should be avoided, between your two extremes  i find the first worse by many orders of magnitude.

 

Why? If I want a good story, I will read a book which will always have a better story then a game (unless it's a bad story/writer). I play games because they offer something that other mediums don't, interactivity, and if the game has a good story attached to it then that is just a happy bonus.

 

Torment had more interactivity than IWD. Combat =! interactivity

Plus, your comparison with books, there are different types of storytelling. Games can have interactive storytelling in a way that books cannot.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

Torment had more interactivity than IWD. Combat =! interactivity

Plus, your comparison with books, there are different types of storytelling. Games can have interactive storytelling in a way that books cannot.

 

Clicking on dialog options is not what I consider a fun game and your view on interactivity is very close-minded. Anything that makes a player do something in a game is considered interactive, because it requires an action from the player.

 

Yeah, no. There isn't event comparing, books outclass games no matter how interactive their stories can be. I haven't played a game yet, that had a story comparable to a good book. The plain fact is game writers are average at best, as can be seen from many D&D books out there (the same goes for script writers). Also, ultimately books unlike games and movies leave the story interpretation to our imagination.

[Malekith]

Clicking on dialog options is not what I consider a fun game and your view on interactivity is very close-minded. Anything that makes a player do something in a game is considered interactive, because it requires an action from the player.

 

Incuding choosing how the narrative progresses. Your view on interactivity is the one that is very close-minded. Mine includes clicking on enemies to hit as well as clicking on dialog options.

Yeah, no. There isn't event comparing, books outclass games no matter how interactive their stories can be. I haven't played a game yet, that had a story comparable to a good book. The plain fact is game writers are average at best, as can be seen from many D&D books out there (the same goes for script writers). Also, ultimately books unlike games and movies leave the story interpretation to our imagination.

I never said that games (or movies for that matter) come close to books in quality. But it's not one or the other situation. In games you have interactive storytelling in a way you can't in books. So it offers something books cannot.

And it's not a matter of ****y writers. You can take the best author out there to write your game story. It will still be vastly inferior to his books. By the very fact that games must allow interaction from the player they cannot match a book story. Imagine your favorite book where the fans had the ability to decide how the story progresses and how characters develop. Chances are it would be inferior to what the author intended.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Malekith

[Sarex]

Incuding choosing how the narrative progresses. Your view on interactivity is the one that is very close-minded. Mine includes clicking on enemies to hit as well as clicking on dialog options.

 

You should read what I write more carefully, I never said that it wasn't, I only said that it wasn't fun.

 

I never said that games (or movies for that matter) come close to books in quality. But it's not one or the other situation. In games you have interactive storytelling in a way you can't in books. So it offers something books cannot.

And it's not a matter of ****y writers. You can take the best author out there to write your game story. It will still be vastly inferior to his books. By the very fact that games must allow interaction from the player they cannot match a book story. Imagine your favorite book where the fans had the ability to decide how the story progresses and how characters develop. Chances are it would be inferior to what the author intended.

 

And that is precisely why I said "If I want a good story I will read a book". As for interactive stories, well I have yet to see them. I know many game claim to have them, but none of them truly do.

 

Have you ever seen a good writer of books write a story for a game? I have seen lots of game writers, try to write novels.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Sarex

[Malekith]

 

Incuding choosing how the narrative progresses. Your view on interactivity is the one that is very close-minded. Mine includes clicking on enemies to hit as well as clicking on dialog options.

 

You should read what I write more carefully, I never said that it wasn't, I only said that it wasn't fun.

 

I never said that games (or movies for that matter) come close to books in quality. But it's not one or the other situation. In games you have interactive storytelling in a way you can't in books. So it offers something books cannot.

And it's not a matter of ****y writers. You can take the best author out there to write your game story. It will still be vastly inferior to his books. By the very fact that games must allow interaction from the player they cannot match a book story. Imagine your favorite book where the fans had the ability to decide how the story progresses and how characters develop. Chances are it would be inferior to what the author intended.

 

And that is precisely why I said "If I want a good story I will read a book". As for interactive stories, well I have yet to see them. I know many game claim to have them, but none of them truly do.

 

Have you ever seen a good writer of books write a story for a game? I have seen lots of game writers, try to write novels.

 

Fun for you. For many people combat is a complete waste of time. What someone finds fun in a game is completely arbitary.

As for a 'real' writer writing in games, Rothfuss will be in the new Torment. We will see how it comes along. I don't expext miracles. Richard Morgan wrote for Crysis 2. You don't need me to tell you how that came along.

Also, in most fantasy novels the plot is completely standard and uninspired. Same with the setting. The characters and the quality of the writing is what separates them from games, not the stories per se. Many renowned authors like Rothfuss,Jordan,Hobb,Brooks have very generic plot.

[Skie Nightfall]

We'll have Dragon Age 2.

 

This was absolutely my first thought when I read the title of this topic.

[Sarex]

Fun for you. For many people combat is a complete waste of time. What someone finds fun in a game is completely arbitary.

As for a 'real' writer writing in games, Rothfuss will be in the new Torment. We will see how it comes along. I don't expext miracles. Richard Morgan wrote for Crysis 2. You don't need me to tell you how that came along.

Also, in most fantasy novels the plot is completely standard and uninspired. Same with the setting. The characters and the quality of the writing is what separates them from games, not the stories per se. Many renowned authors like Rothfuss,Jordan,Hobb,Brooks have very generic plot.

 

"For many people combat is a complete waste of time" This is the stupidest counter argument I have heard about games, to be made yet. As a matter of fact I don't believe that it even applies to you, let alone MANY other people. Most of the games in existence contain combat in them and it is the main feature of the game and the rest are either sport, racing, or SIMs.

 

Well at least now I know that your replies to my posts are only meant to be contrary and thus I will avoid replaying to your posts.

[Malekith]

 

Fun for you. For many people combat is a complete waste of time. What someone finds fun in a game is completely arbitary.

As for a 'real' writer writing in games, Rothfuss will be in the new Torment. We will see how it comes along. I don't expext miracles. Richard Morgan wrote for Crysis 2. You don't need me to tell you how that came along.

Also, in most fantasy novels the plot is completely standard and uninspired. Same with the setting. The characters and the quality of the writing is what separates them from games, not the stories per se. Many renowned authors like Rothfuss,Jordan,Hobb,Brooks have very generic plot.

 

"For many people combat is a complete waste of time" This is the stupidest counter argument I have heard about games, to be made yet. As a matter of fact I don't believe that it even applies to you, let alone MANY other people. Most of the games in existence contain combat in them and it is the main feature of the game and the rest are either sport, racing, or SIMs.

 

Well at least now I know that your replies to my posts are only meant to be contrary and thus I will avoid replaying to your posts.

 

For me it doesn't apply. But i have lost count of how many times i have read in Witcher or Bioware forums that " i only play games for narrative and characters". Go see for yourself if you don't believe me. And i don't know anyone who played Obsidian games for the combat from all things. Like it or no, many people don't care about combat in their RPGs.(and no, i don't consider it a good thing but it's not up to me) 

[IndiraLightfoot]

My two cents:

 

Me and D&D was a perfect fit already in the late 70s. Why? Because Gary Gygax' and Dave Arneson came up with something that jogged both of my big interests: Fantasy melee with strict combat rules using figurines (I used tin soldiers and the like and dice, but my system was rudimentary) and fantasy roleplaying on the basis of Tolkienesque literature. I recall that I was just blown away by it all. I still to this day feel that Gygax, Arneson and I are kindred spirits, and I don't even know them (and sadly they have both passed away a few years ago). In short, I love the combat part that translated so well into ARPGs and what not. I love grinding, mindless fighting, never-ending dungeons and endless streams of loot, and I love many of the fantasy settings as an exciting and varied intellectual and emotional ride in make-believe landscapes with pseudo-cultures and weird menageries. I used to make maps when I was a kid. I could sit for hours and make up place-names, and simply dream myself away. PnP RPGs gave me fantastic tools to do that more systematically and having much more fun in the process.

 

TLDR: Loving action and combat as well as fantasy indulgence can be rolled up into one and the same person: I am a great example of this.

[Lephys]

Yeah, I've gotta second that I have a weird love for the grind, and endless loot and such, in a strange way.

 

I think it's kind of like enjoyment of dessert. You know, pie is delicious, but obviously just eating pie all day, every day, would leave you with a stomach ache and manlnourishment, and probably diabetes.

 

This is why I can enjoy the crap out of Diablo and Borderlands 2 for bits at a time, but I'm not just itching and needing, ever, to play games like that with every ounce of free time I have like I am with games that engage me with other things as well.

 

I mean, the "grind" we always refer to isn't a completely separate thing that just isn't in most games. It's a matter of extents: how much of what you do is indulging in the act of combatting and looting and gaining, itself, over a certain amount of time, in order to achieve "goals" in the game, and how much is actually progressing other purposeful aspects of the game? The boiled down difference between grinding for good equipment and not-grinding for good equipment is basically just the nature of what you're doing in order to acquire the equipment. Did you just get 1,000 gold from each story mission/quest, and therefore you could already afford that new equipment when you stopped by the merchants in between quests? Not grind. Did you spend the exact same amount of time running around doing things that didn't really feel all that purposeful to you but that earned you enough money to buy that equipment? Grind.

 

*shrug*, anywho... I agree that we're often not talking about COMPLETELY separate things when we talk about bad things in games, but rather, extents and imbalances. A game that's 99% about loot, and 1% about not-loot, is probably pretty imbalanced. Sure, all that loot is really fun, in a way, but the game is missing something. Eventually, you get thirsty, and all you have to drink is a milkshake. But you just want some water.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Me too. I have these periodic cravings for ARPGs. Like now, for instance, I'm all into Path of Exile. Then I cease doing it for long swaths of time. While I am playing them it's like action, concentration and meditation in one fell swoop. It can be great in its own right, but it's not RPG as I would have it.

 

A great RPG should have elements of grinding and loot, but just the best of them, and done sparingly and tastefully. Indeed, getting the balance right with the major parts of the RPG experience - the story, the varied paths of all sorts of conceivable roleplaying, the unexpected twists and turns of fantasy galore - that's what sets a good CRPG far apart from Diablo or Titan Quest.

[Messier-31]

Yet another cliche came to mind: Uber Wizard; what is that?

 

A frequently occurring phenomenon of a most powerfull wizard in the entire world/setting, usually (but not always) a goody-two-shoes who has a pointy hat, e.g.

• Gandalf the Grey (Middle-earth)
• Elminster Aumar (Forgotten Realms)
• Raistlin Majere (Dragonlance)
• Zandalor (Divine Divinity)
• Ghiron (Tzar: The Burden of the Crown)

Possibly more...

[Lephys]

Yet another cliche came to mind: Uber Wizard; what is that?

 

A frequently occurring phenomenon of a most powerfull wizard in the entire world/setting, usually (but not always) a goody-two-shoes who has a pointy hat, e.g.

• Gandalf the Grey (Middle-earth)
• Elminster Aumar (Forgotten Realms)
• Raistlin Majere (Dragonlance)
• Zandalor (Divine Divinity)
• Ghiron (Tzar: The Burden of the Crown)

Possibly more...

 

Conveniently restrained to using only a small portion of his total power (and rarely, at that) by some potent principles and/or the Forces of Benevolence themselves.

 

"Don't worry, I'll only let it get to the point that it SEEMS all hope is lost. Then, I'll jump in with just enough power to ignite a tiny pile of hope leaves again. I'm sure all you guys can do the rest... you know... with your completely-average-Joe-levels of power, and not my unbelievably ludicrous capabilities. *whistle, skip whistle...* ^_^"

[Walsingham]

I hate Elminster with a passion.

 

The only thing worse than a drow ranger is an all powerful wizard who won't intervene in worldly events other than to keep said drow ranger alive and in sparkly armour.

 

I think it's time I played through BG again.

[Messier-31]

The only thing worse than a drow ranger is an all powerful wizard who won't intervene in worldly events other than to keep said drow ranger alive and in sparkly armour.

 

Still better love story than Twilight.

 

I think it's time I played through BG again.

 

I sense some stabbing involved... just a hunch.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

IMO, PE would be a soulless mechanical grind with a thin layer of narrative applied to mask the lack of anything but combat if to catered to the worst of us.

 

You mean... Icewind Dale?

[IndiraLightfoot]

*Icy winds howl eerily through the dale.*

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In all fairness, IWD never claimed to be anything more. I do find it hard to muster the will to replay that combat sim, even if encounters were well done.

[Mamoulian War]

 

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.

no.jpg

 

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

 

 

It would end up looking like Dragon Age: Inqusition

[Lephys]

"Hi, I'm Dale... But my friends call me Icewind."

 

[Walsingham]

 

The only thing worse than a drow ranger is an all powerful wizard who won't intervene in worldly events other than to keep said drow ranger alive and in sparkly armour.

 

Still better love story than Twilight.

 

I think it's time I played through BG again.

 

I sense some stabbing involved... just a hunch.

 

It would be more accurate to assume a ferocious number of summon wands and scrolls, and a LOT of arrows.

 

For the record I should add that my PC ate his corpse. So they can take their resurrection spells and f*** off.

[Gyges]

Dragon Age 2 was not a bad game. It blended into DAO's shadow like a black chameleon but compared to other non-Bioware titles it was pretty good.

[Lephys]

It was only horrible in comparison to its own potential. It's just disappointing, seeing what should've been a really great game crippled by its own faults, is all.

[Malekith]

It was only horrible in comparison to its own potential. It's just disappointing, seeing what should've been a really great game crippled by its own faults, is all.

Fixed.

Most of the consept of DA2 was better than DA:O.

The Quanari culture, Mage/Templar being the only grey situation in Bioware's history(even with the consept ripped from Warhammer Fantasy), having a more personal story, moving away from the epic Biowarian structure and having the game move on time instead of miles covering the fate of a single city, having the player not being the "chosen one" but instead being reactive with no real control over the situation and making thing worse in the long run.

 

All of these were good ideas. Better than DA:O's "ancient evil awakens and wants to destroy the world, you are the only one who can unite the humanity to stop it" that describes more than half of Bioware games.In the hands of a company that knew what they were doing these elements would have made a good game.

Bioware just had a ****y execution of EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, with **** gameplay and level design on top.

 

As for the "bad for Bioware, good compaired to most non Bioware games" that is thrown around  with every Bioware's **** up, i am curious which are all these terrible RPGs that make Bioware's games look good in comparison. Because the only ones that come to mind are the ones from Bethesda