The bad things about Project Eternity...

[Bli1942]

I'm nervous about seeing how the characters look in the world. In those old isometric RPG's I felt like the characters didn't really fit with the rest of the graphics, they looked a bit out of place and moved weirdly. Also when you click to move in BG (not sure about the others, haven't played them in a while) the characters always stop for a second then move - if this happens in Project Eternity it will annoy me so much. Hopefully the movement is much smoother and more visually pleasing than the old ones.

[IndiraLightfoot]

All the talk about it being finished at some point. I mean, the name implies that it should go on, forever, sorta like I felt with the Neverwinter Nights series.

[Cubiq]

For me the biggest downside atm is the getting xp only on quests.

I fear this will make the game very linear and perhaps even force you to complete quests you don't actually like on every playthrough, simply because you have no other choice on where to get xp.

Imagine having to do candlekeep chores every time you started a new game.

Or having to backtrack the whole dungeon, simply because you find out you aren't strong enough to face the final battle. Especially now that they plan to make damage spikes and combat less random, (which i also thought gave a lot of replayability to the IE games) so your stats will most likely be what dominates on whether you win or lose.

From what i hear the xp system is implemented to prevent powergamers from killing everyone once they complete the quest, but you could easily fix this by simply taking away the majority of the xp from the quest giver after the player completed the quest. After all, xp is subjective.

 

 

I don't know what the update on weapon/armor types are but last i heard there was a chance, you would need to keep switching weapons vs different types of armor, even in a single encounter, or face a 50% damage penalty. It feels a tedius shallow mechanic.

[Calmar]

The bad thing about Project Eternity? The amount of riduculous expectations, pre-emptive nitpicking and baseless disappointment seen on the forum increase seemingly without end.

[Lephys]

The bad thing about Project Eternity? The amount of riduculous expectations, pre-emptive nitpicking and baseless disappointment seen on the forum increase seemingly without end.

I'm disappointed in your lack of disappointment. I think something needs to be altered in the design, then announced, such that you, TOO, shall share in the sigh-worthy, doomsaying nitpickery!

 

0_0... Onnnne offf US! Onnne offf US! Onnnne offf US! *shambles creepily towards Calmar*

 

Seriously though, ...

 

For me the biggest downside atm is the getting xp only on quests.

I fear this will make the game very linear and perhaps even force you to complete quests you don't actually like on every playthrough, simply because you have no other choice on where to get xp.

Imagine having to do candlekeep chores every time you started a new game.

Why not spend all that imagination energy INSTEAD imagining a game in which Candlekeep chores are not even xp-worthy quests? I'm sincerely asking.

 

Or having to backtrack the whole dungeon, simply because you find out you aren't strong enough to face the final battle. Especially now that they plan to make damage spikes and combat less random, (which i also thought gave a lot of replayability to the IE games) so your stats will most likely be what dominates on whether you win or lose.

In conjunction with your clever and diligent utilization of your characters and their skills and abilities (and those stats), yes. And if it's less random, then wouldn't there be FAR worse odds of you managing to make your way through an entire dungeon without having a pretty good idea of your capability of facing what's to come?

 

From what i hear the xp system is implemented to prevent powergamers from killing everyone once they complete the quest, but you could easily fix this by simply taking away the majority of the xp from the quest giver after the player completed the quest. After all, xp is subjective.

You may have heard that, but that's not very accurate. Think of it this way: Up there, you just dreaded having to do all the chores in Candlekeep just to get enough XP to not fall behind in progression. Well, imagine, instead, that you had to KILL everyone in Candlekeep, just to do so. That's one of the reasons they're doing it this way. Besides, just like I said, you shouldn't HAVE to do either. So, they've simply decided that, only certain things are going to give you XP, and certain other things aren't. And, obviously, if you made it to the end of the game, then you accomplished all the stuff before that to get that far, right? So, why not base xp-rewards around accomplishment?

 

Also, there's absolutely no functional difference between saying "everything you kill gives you XP... EXCEPT this guy and this guy, and this thing after you've turned in a quest, etc." and simply saying "Only things that are considered progress objectives, in some form, and labeled thusly in the game code give you XP," then not-labeling killing that guy after the quest has been turned in as any sort of progress. And the latter is much easier to organize, as it pretty much covers anything you'd ever want to do. Why label an entire category of stuff as XP-worthy, then hand-pick out all the stuff you don't want, then label lots of other types of things as XP-worthy, too, when you could simply hand-pick all the stuff you want to be XP-worthy, and leave out the stuff you don't?

 

I don't know what the update on weapon/armor types are but last i heard there was a chance, you would need to keep switching weapons vs different types of armor, even in a single encounter, or face a 50% damage penalty. It feels a tedius shallow mechanic.

You hear a lot of bits and pieces, . I think the mechanic design has undergone some changes since you read that. I'm not sure if it's finalized, though. But, either way, the very REASON it's not already finalized is because Josh tests things to make sure they don't just work and sound nice in theory, but in actual application. That's why he wanted to get rid of misses (his hypothesis was that the game would be better without them), then, through actual scientific method, he decided that it's best if they were diminished a bit as compared to the old IE games, but not diminished out of existence.

 

So, the very fact that they're so concerned with making sure there's interesting damage-type-versus-armor-type mechanics WITHOUT making this a huge chore that screws you over if you don't constantly switch weapons every 3 seconds is a pretty big reason to NOT worry, if you ask me.

 

You're perfectly welcome to your opinion and all, but I just hate to see people worry SO much over something they COULD be quite excited about, instead (minus the worry, even if they're currently worried AND excited in equal parts), especially when there's nothing specifically to worry that much about. It's one thing to have a cut and say "I'm worried this won't quit bleeding," and another thing to say "I heard there are going to be sharp things in existence, and therefore I'm ultra worried that I'm going to get a cut, AND that it won't stop bleeding."

 

You're worrying about things that aren't even designed the way you think they are, to be honest. As are a lot of other people. I would just save all that concern until one of the updates is "We really liked the Candlekeep chore quests, and we hope to fill the game with quests just like those. Also, we don't want killing anything to EVER be a part of any kind of XP gains. Also, we want you to switch weapons all the time or die. We're even going to put in Resident-Evil-style quick-time events JUST for switching weapons, so that if you hit plate armor with a dagger, you not only fail to do damage, but you INSTANTLY DIE AND LOSE! 8D!"

 

Okay, I'm being a little silly, but, really, they've simply announced vague systems that COULD be horribly, horribly implemented. But ANY system could be horribly implemented. They could turn around and say "We're putting kill XP back in, and ONLY kill XP," and that would be just as bad. No quest XP, ever. Only slaughtering stuff gets you XP. But, if were going for kill XP, I wouldn't be in here talking about how worried I am that they're going to go that far with it, because the extreme has nothing to do with the method. Anything can be taken to the extreme. And I don't want all armor and weapons to do the same bland damge just because allowing them to deal/absorb differing damages in different circumstances COULD be really stupidly implemented so as to become really annoying, because... so could one damage type and one armor type. That could be horribly imbalanced, and have you wishing you had a weapon that did extra damage against heavily armored foes, because you're running around doing 3 damage to some 45-armor enemy with your 35-damage weapon.

[teknoman2]

here's what i think about negative speculation. 

a little faith can be a moral support for the devs

i dont expect the game to be the messiah of gaming, but i don't see why we should dig it's grave before we play it either

[StrangeCat]

The devs have to live up to the hype it's been little over 10 years since Baldur's Gate 2.  Making a game now should be an improvement in that style.  There shouldn't be any excuses why this game doesn't live up to that legacy.

Can't pass any judgement till there is an update showing something in action though.   I am sure it will meet expectations.

Maybe the new update or GDC will show whats' really going on.

[Bli1942]

For me the biggest downside atm is the getting xp only on quests.

I fear this will make the game very linear and perhaps even force you to complete quests you don't actually like on every playthrough, simply because you have no other choice on where to get xp.

Imagine having to do candlekeep chores every time you started a new game.

 

Vampire Bloodlines did this and that was the best XP system I've seen in a game, but I suppose that was only because every single quest in the game was worth it and fun. What it did was it allowed the developers to not have to add in enemies for no reason just so we could grind them, and it promoted exploration to find all the quests.

 

PE will probably have more quests all up so it might be harder to pull off, but I usually prefer the XP from quests only route.

[jethro]

Imagine having to do candlekeep chores every time you started a new game.

In a kill-xp game this would translate to always have to kill the rats in the cellar to get some xp. Wouldn't it be nice in further playthroughs to just let the street urchin into the cellar because he likes to roast them on a fire and get the xp anyway ;-). Or to just convince whoever gave you the task that you did it.

 

From what i hear the xp system is implemented to prevent powergamers from killing everyone once they complete the quest, but you could easily fix this by simply taking away the majority of the xp from the quest giver after the player completed the quest. After all, xp is subjective.

No, the xp system is implemented because this RPG will have multiple solutions to any quest, usually one of them will involve killing anything that moves and others will be done by stealth or diplomacy or trickery. To have all the solutions be equal for the player is virtually impossible if kills give xp but quite easy if you just have objectives and give xp for that.

Edited November 5, 2013 by jethro

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If PE has a similar XP/level cap to an unmodded BG(no BGT or XP cap removal tweak), then there should be enough XP to hit the cap several times over.

[nikolokolus]

If PE has a similar XP/level cap to an unmodded BG(no BGT or XP cap removal tweak), then there should be enough XP to hit the cap several times over.

 

Or the devs will build a system that (typically) reaches its "cap" near the end of the game? This isn't AD&D

[jethro]

Or the devs will build a system that (typically) reaches its "cap" near the end of the game? This isn't AD&D

What has that to do with AD&D? That there is more xp available than necessary is because some people play fewer side quests but still need enough xp to finish the game.

[cleric Nemir]

Well now,I imagine this thread was harmless in intent,but the resulting posts show that it is simply too early for that. I mean,we haven't yet seen none of the gameplay like Wasteland 2 demo provides... It may look like it to some,but there's not that much ground to go on,yet. We need to see what it looks like to play it as is before even attempting to judge the game any further.

[Sarex]

Well now,I imagine this thread was harmless in intent,but the resulting posts show that it is simply too early for that. I mean,we haven't yet seen none of the gameplay like Wasteland 2 demo provides... It may look like it to some,but there's not that much ground to go on,yet. We need to see what it looks like to play it as is before even attempting to judge the game any further.

 

That is a 2 way street.

[cleric Nemir]

 

Well now,I imagine this thread was harmless in intent,but the resulting posts show that it is simply too early for that. I mean,we haven't yet seen none of the gameplay like Wasteland 2 demo provides... It may look like it to some,but there's not that much ground to go on,yet. We need to see what it looks like to play it as is before even attempting to judge the game any further.

 

That is a 2 way street.

 

Maybe. I still think it's too early for all this.

[Sarex]

Maybe. I still think it's too early for all this.

 

Then this forum is pointless. (until that game comes out)

[cleric Nemir]

 

Maybe. I still think it's too early for all this.

 

Then this forum is pointless. (until that game comes out)

 

 

Never said that. Never meant to say it,either. A little more time and a few updates with videos on gameplay&mechanics isn't exactly a game release,I only think that what we've seen now is too little to start judging much,and we should wait some more. It's just that I feel it is too early to summarize  with all the bits still discussed in various other threads,and that is exactly what happened here. Most of the posters have still a vague sense of what the topic they see as bad/good will actually look like and behave ingame. We all do,perhaps. It may be just my opinion,but I didn't base it on wild assumptions. I saw it in the 7+ pages here.

[Sarex]

 

Never said that. Never meant to say it,either. A little more time and a few updates with videos on gameplay&mechanics isn't exactly a game release,I only think that what we've seen now is too little to start judging much,and we should wait some more. It's just that I feel it is too early to summarize  with all the bits still discussed in various other threads,and that is exactly what happened here. Most of the posters have still a vague sense of what the topic they see as bad/good will actually look like and behave ingame. We all do,perhaps. It may be just my opinion,but I didn't base it on wild assumptions. I saw it in the 7+ pages here.

 

No one here is saying that the game is going to suck or that we aren't going to play it, what we are saying is that some of the things being done are not exactly to our liking. But saying that, I think that everyone here is hoping to be proven wrong. What this is all coming down to is some people white knighting for the developers and defending every single thing they say and do. Well I think that the developers are big boys and can take criticism, in fact I think they welcome it (or they should) as it provides more information/feedback then someone just coming in to say "OMG, OMG you guys are great, so exited for the game, can't wait". This is a forum, people come here to discus things about the game that are know so far, so please leave the moderating to the moderators.

[Lephys]

No one here is saying that the game is going to suck or that we aren't going to play it, what we are saying is that some of the things being done are not exactly to our liking.

*shrug*... What I see is a lot of "possibly"s arbitrarily replaced with "probably"s. It's not that people are saying it's DEFINITELY going to suck... it's that they're saying it's PROBABLY going to suck, for reasons unknown.

 

Example: No kill XP. Suddenly, the simple fact that they're awarding XP in a different fashion generates an uproar about combat never giving you XP. Even though, no one ever said that killing will explicitly NOT ever grant you XP. Just that the act of slaying won't inherently be an XP-worthy thing, with a simple adjustment to the amount of XP for whatever it was you killed.

 

And, instead of saying "Okay, I just wish we still got XP for each kill, that's all. It's a preference thing, and therefore I am unhappy," oodles of folk still have their torches and pitchforks out and will adamantly defend their ire at the "fact" that they won't be receiving XP for any kills anymore.

 

People would rather find a reason to hang on to the torches and pitchforks than put them down and admit over-reaction. Then, of course, the even easier thing to do at that point is simply to pretend anyone pointing out reasons why they're overreacting just likes the change and doesn't like the way THEY (the overreacters) want it to be.

 

That's what's bothersome. Not disagreement, or displeasure. But irrationality.

 

Pointing out potential problems before the game is out is one thing. Bashing the game for "definite" problems that we don't even know exist is another, entirely.

[Sarex]

*shrug*... What I see is a lot of "possibly"s arbitrarily replaced with "probably"s. It's not that people are saying it's DEFINITELY going to suck... it's that they're saying it's PROBABLY going to suck, for reasons unknown.

 

Example: No kill XP. Suddenly, the simple fact that they're awarding XP in a different fashion generates an uproar about combat never giving you XP. Even though, no one ever said that killing will explicitly NOT ever grant you XP. Just that the act of slaying won't inherently be an XP-worthy thing, with a simple adjustment to the amount of XP for whatever it was you killed.

 

And, instead of saying "Okay, I just wish we still got XP for each kill, that's all. It's a preference thing, and therefore I am unhappy," oodles of folk still have their torches and pitchforks out and will adamantly defend their ire at the "fact" that they won't be receiving XP for any kills anymore.

 

People would rather find a reason to hang on to the torches and pitchforks than put them down and admit over-reaction. Then, of course, the even easier thing to do at that point is simply to pretend anyone pointing out reasons why they're overreacting just likes the change and doesn't like the way THEY (the overreacters) want it to be.

 

That's what's bothersome. Not disagreement, or displeasure. But irrationality.

 

Pointing out potential problems before the game is out is one thing. Bashing the game for "definite" problems that we don't even know exist is another, entirely.

 

 

Ah but isn't that the problem now, from your point of view it seems like we are bashing the developers/game, but the simple fact is that while we may be advocating for the old xp system, never had we said "This is going to ruin the game", what was in fact said is that in our opinion it isn't going to be as good/fun as the old one. The problem is, when arguments arise they continue to a point where it seems like it's all or nothing, when in fact it just arguing on a segment of the game that isn't even the most important part of it. The simple fact that we are still here waiting for new tidbits of information show that we are all still very much interested in the game and don't think it's doomed to fail. Most of all what people seem to forget is that all of the things said are just opinions (good or bad) and they are going to change the more we see from the game.

 

This is a forum where opinions are going to be had, be they good or bad and as long as everyone is being reasonably civil I don't see why that shouldn't continue.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Sarex

[Lephys]

Ah but isn't that the problem now, from your point of view it seems like we are bashing the developers/game, but the simple fact is that while we may be advocating for the old xp system, never had we said "This is going to ruin the game", what was in fact said is that in our opinion it isn't going to be as good/fun as the old one.

 

It's highly possible that the "we" to which you're referring is not the same "they" to which I'm referring. If you're not being irrational, then I'm not calling you out when I call out irrational complaints.

 

Being irrationally against something is no worse than being irrationally in favor of the very same thing. If someone said "The game will be really good because we'll get to fly rainbow pegasi, and that's why I backed the game! 8D!", then I'm not going to just say nothing to them just because they like the game's design and I like the game's design. Why? Because we don't know that we're going to get to fly rainbow pegasi, so that's not a valid basis for liking the game's design.

 

Speculating? Fine. Speculating, then complaining about the speculation as if it's the actual finalized design? Not fine. Some people are doing that, and it's pretty pointless. If you aren't doing that, then go you! 8D

[zimcub]

Speculating, then complaining about the speculation as if it's the actual finalized design? Not fine

Oh? Who died and made you king?

Lephys this is a thread made for exactly this sort of discussion, you can't slam anyone down as you yourself have "absolutely" no idea what the game will be like and for all we know it could be exactly as some people fear it will be.

People are postings their fears so that the developers can get a grasp in which way to develop the game. If they take the wrong turn and give an update that players don't like, they will lose money and development time, just to fix what they could have prevented by knowing what people like and dislike, even if they are speculations.

The fact that you are bashing people's speculations is doing more harm than good. If the developers are going to make a game that's to everyone's liking, they can prove it themselves without your white knighting.

If this discussion annoys you then perhaps you shouldn't be in this "specific" thread.

 

EDIT:

oh and they aren't complaining about speculations, they are giving reasons why they believe something is a bad idea. And the only way to do that is to create a scenario, with the assumption, it will be implemented in the game.

Edited November 9, 2013 by zimcub

[cleric Nemir]

How exactly do you people figure our comments are being dev's white-knighting? 

 

I mean,look at this:

 

 

 

Never said that. Never meant to say it,either. A little more time and a few updates with videos on gameplay&mechanics isn't exactly a game release,I only think that what we've seen now is too little to start judging much,and we should wait some more. It's just that I feel it is too early to summarize  with all the bits still discussed in various other threads,and that is exactly what happened here. Most of the posters have still a vague sense of what the topic they see as bad/good will actually look like and behave ingame. We all do,perhaps. It may be just my opinion,but I didn't base it on wild assumptions. I saw it in the 7+ pages here.

 

No one here is saying that the game is going to suck or that we aren't going to play it, what we are saying is that some of the things being done are not exactly to our liking. But saying that, I think that everyone here is hoping to be proven wrong. What this is all coming down to is some people white knighting for the developers and defending every single thing they say and do. Well I think that the developers are big boys and can take criticism, in fact I think they welcome it (or they should) as it provides more information/feedback then someone just coming in to say "OMG, OMG you guys are great, so exited for the game, can't wait". This is a forum, people come here to discus things about the game that are know so far, so please leave the moderating to the moderators.

 

 

 

That post is on fire. Flames all over. 

 

I just posted my humble opinion,ffs. A polite one,even. Discuss all you want man,but you're doing it wrong.

 

 

No one here is saying that the game is going to suck or that we aren't going to play it, what we are saying is that some of the things being done are not exactly to our liking.

*shrug*... What I see is a lot of "possibly"s arbitrarily replaced with "probably"s. It's not that people are saying it's DEFINITELY going to suck... it's that they're saying it's PROBABLY going to suck, for reasons unknown.

Example: No kill XP. Suddenly, the simple fact that they're awarding XP in a different fashion generates an uproar about combat never giving you XP. Even though, no one ever said that killing will explicitly NOT ever grant you XP. Just that the act of slaying won't inherently be an XP-worthy thing, with a simple adjustment to the amount of XP for whatever it was you killed.

And, instead of saying "Okay, I just wish we still got XP for each kill, that's all. It's a preference thing, and therefore I am unhappy," oodles of folk still have their torches and pitchforks out and will adamantly defend their ire at the "fact" that they won't be receiving XP for any kills anymore.

People would rather find a reason to hang on to the torches and pitchforks than put them down and admit over-reaction. Then, of course, the even easier thing to do at that point is simply to pretend anyone pointing out reasons why they're overreacting just likes the change and doesn't like the way THEY (the overreacters) want it to be.

That's what's bothersome. Not disagreement, or displeasure. But irrationality.

Pointing out potential problems before the game is out is one thing. Bashing the game for "definite" problems that we don't even know exist is another, entirely.

 

 

This. If this is my fellow white-knight,then by god I am entering that knighthood faster than you can scream "fire!".

Edited November 9, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[Lephys]

Oh? Who died and made you king?

I wasn't aware that things were only true because kings mandated them.

 

Lephys this is a thread made for exactly this sort of discussion, you can't slam anyone down as you yourself have "absolutely" no idea what the game will be like and for all we know it could be exactly as some people fear it will be.

I've slammed no one down. And your idea of what the game will be like is exactly as absolutely non-existent as mine. Which is exactly the point. You're inadvertently opposing my point with my own point, because you're under the illusion that I'm against discussion and speculation, even though I specifically emphasized that this was not the case.

 

oh and they aren't complaining about speculations, they are giving reasons why they believe something is a bad idea, and the only way to do that is to assume it will be implemented in the game.

Again, you and I are talking about completely different "they"s. I'm not referring to everyone or no one here. Some people are not only complaining about speculations, but they're spreading the speculations as truth in various threads whenever newcomers or people who've missed little details come asking about them. Which is even worse, because "this game MIGHT do this" and "this game IS DEFINITELY going to do this" are two different things to hear when you're wondering whether or not you should bother to follow/invest in a given in-development game.

 

Such things are in no way constructive. I never said they shouldn't be allowed to be posted. But they are not actually aiding any kind of discussion or collective understanding or exploration of anything. If anything, assuming a mere possibility is definite serves to cease the exploration of further possibilities.

 

Also, for what it's worth, you're the second person to defend yourself from what was neither an attack nor directed at you.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Lephys

[zimcub]

I wasn't aware that things were only true because kings mandated them.

Really? you could have fooled me.

 

I've slammed no one down. And your idea of what the game will be like is exactly as absolutely non-existent as mine. Which is exactly the point. You're inadvertently opposing my point with my own point, because you're under the illusion that I'm against discussion and speculation, even though I specifically emphasized that this was not the case.

Bull****, you're talking like a politician, you specifically slammed people who so called "complained" based on speculation and you're obviously talking about them in the lower quote.

 

 

Again, you and I are talking about completely different "they"s. I'm not referring to everyone or no one here. Some people are not only complaining about speculations, but they're spreading the speculations as truth in various threads whenever newcomers or people who've missed little details come asking about them. Which is even worse, because "this game MIGHT do this" and "this game IS DEFINITELY going to do this" are two different things to hear when you're wondering whether or not you should bother to follow/invest in a given in-development game.

 

Such things are in no way constructive. I never said they shouldn't be allowed to be posted. But they are not actually aiding any kind of discussion or collective understanding or exploration of anything. If anything, assuming a mere possibility is definite serves to cease the exploration of further possibilities.

This makes absolutely no sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying this game will DEFINITELY have achievement based xp. Because developers said it will (unless someone convinces them otherwise, which has not yet happened, which is why people are complaining, yes?). If it's the truth, then there's no problem discussing about it, especially if people don't like it. And like with absolutely every information it sometimes gets distorted, and this will happen even after actual game comes out and there's no going around that.

 

And there's also absolutely nothing wrong with saying that it MIGHT have such an Armor design, if it's true. I just rechecked and i saw that there has been no update on the official armor design thread. And the last thing that Sawyer said was that they are working on a new system, however if it fails they will move back to the 50% reduction. There is no reason why you can't bring up the issue and point out that it's a bad design, even as a failsafe. There's no reason to wait for the system to already be implemented before bringing it up, especially if they might not change it later because of time constraints.

There is EVERY reason for people to discuss these things, as they aren't even speculations.

 

And if you have an issue with any specific claims where people say things will DEFINITELY be in the game, and aren't true please feel free to point them out.

 

Otherwise these two are true facts and if a player decides not to invest in the game because of them, then he has every right not to. And if you're going to point out that "things might change", then it's the player's own fault for not grasping what it means when the game is in development.