:( Sad that obsidian is making this game isometric...

[Lephys]

I reload after a character dies because I haven't done the combat as well as I could have. I enjoy the challenge of developing my tactics until I get the goal that I'm aiming for. Personally if I never had to reload I'd be pretty pissed and for most of my playthroughs I don't want to be able to win every fight first time because that would be too easy, so maiming doesn't really interest me. I also don't want the consequences of failure being permanently gimping my party, so permadeath isn't something I'm interested in, unless I can reload.

Some just seem to act as though there shouldn't even ever be a reason TO reload in the first place. As if, ideally, no misfortune would ever occur, for any reason. Like "Oh, that person got hit... can't believe the devs would punish me by making me deal with less-than-full HP for the rest of the battle! RELOAD!". Or "Oh no, I got poisoned? Why should I have to deal with that status effect? AT LEAST I CAN RELOAD, even though I shouldn't have to. Negative things are BAD!"

 

I don't see what makes any negative affects/results being in the game a good/okay thing if something like maiming is bad. SOMEthing has to happen when you hit 0HP. The realistic basis would be death. But, it's a game, so maybe that's too extreme, especially considering the amount of time and effort that went into writing all that character's reactivity and content for the entire narrative. So, cool, we abstractly assume that, so long as anyone was still alive to kill the remainder of the hostile entities, they gave basic enough medical attention to the "downed" people to at least stabilize them. Maiming. But wait, maiming is bad, too? Then what should happen when you hit 0HP? Nothing?

 

That's what I don't get, Kore. What you said makes perfect sense. It's one thing to simply desire to reload and do better at that combat, almost as if it's a puzzle. Or for whatever reason, really. But, to act as though the very idea of some kind of negative factor to deal with for allowing a character to hit 0HP (something that's actively preventable) is astonishing or unacceptable... that boggles my mind.

[Tamerlane]

The "wow, I can't believe unwanted things occur when I don't do something like make sure to keep my characters away from 'death' -- Thank God for reloading!" mindset still blows my mind. If reloading is a convenient, yet roundabout way to avoid pointless limitations, then should we just go ahead and have infinite HP? Invulnerable party guarantees you never have to inconveniently try things again! 8D!

 

I take it having to deal with death and death-like penalties is just another way in which the game is telling us we're playing it wrong.

It's an illusion, Michael.

[teknoman2]

 

The "wow, I can't believe unwanted things occur when I don't do something like make sure to keep my characters away from 'death' -- Thank God for reloading!" mindset still blows my mind. If reloading is a convenient, yet roundabout way to avoid pointless limitations, then should we just go ahead and have infinite HP? Invulnerable party guarantees you never have to inconveniently try things again! 8D!

 

I take it having to deal with death and death-like penalties is just another way in which the game is telling us we're playing it wrong.

 

I reload after a character dies because I haven't done the combat as well as I could have. I enjoy the challenge of developing my tactics until I get the goal that I'm aiming for. Personally if I never had to reload I'd be pretty pissed and for most of my playthroughs I don't want to be able to win every fight first time because that would be too easy, so maiming doesn't really interest me. I also don't want the consequences of failure being permanently gimping my party, so permadeath isn't something I'm interested in, unless I can reload.

 

sometimes it's not that you did something wrong, but you got unlucky by a roll. i was playing IWD2 last night and i was killing orcs. i killed over 20 and the last one was attacking my paladin, while the entire party attacked it. my paladin had 12hp and the orc had a 1d8 weapon and was "near death". before receiving the fatal blow, the orc rolled a 20 to hit and 8 to damage, doing exactly 12 damage and killing my paladin. it's not that i did something wrong, it's that the last roll of the last enemy was a perfect critical, and it did damage equal to my characters hp... it was a 1/160 chance

[Kore]

 

I reload after a character dies because I haven't done the combat as well as I could have. I enjoy the challenge of developing my tactics until I get the goal that I'm aiming for. Personally if I never had to reload I'd be pretty pissed and for most of my playthroughs I don't want to be able to win every fight first time because that would be too easy, so maiming doesn't really interest me. I also don't want the consequences of failure being permanently gimping my party, so permadeath isn't something I'm interested in, unless I can reload.

Some just seem to act as though there shouldn't even ever be a reason TO reload in the first place. As if, ideally, no misfortune would ever occur, for any reason. Like "Oh, that person got hit... can't believe the devs would punish me by making me deal with less-than-full HP for the rest of the battle! RELOAD!". Or "Oh no, I got poisoned? Why should I have to deal with that status effect? AT LEAST I CAN RELOAD, even though I shouldn't have to. Negative things are BAD!"I don't see what makes any negative affects/results being in the game a good/okay thing if something like maiming is bad. SOMEthing has to happen when you hit 0HP. The realistic basis would be death. But, it's a game, so maybe that's too extreme, especially considering the amount of time and effort that went into writing all that character's reactivity and content for the entire narrative. So, cool, we abstractly assume that, so long as anyone was still alive to kill the remainder of the hostile entities, they gave basic enough medical attention to the "downed" people to at least stabilize them. Maiming. But wait, maiming is bad, too? Then what should happen when you hit 0HP? Nothing?That's what I don't get, Kore. What you said makes perfect sense. It's one thing to simply desire to reload and do better at that combat, almost as if it's a puzzle. Or for whatever reason, really. But, to act as though the very idea of some kind of negative factor to deal with for allowing a character to hit 0HP (something that's actively preventable) is astonishing or unacceptable... that boggles my mind.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to argue that either maiming or perms death was bad. It was late last night so I didn't phrase it very eloquently. I was arguing against the concept that reloading is a bad thing. Reloading is good IMO. If I were to choose between perms death and maiming I would choose death because as I said I like to know that I successfully won that battle. Maiming allows weak willed me to go "oh well that's good enough I guess" and just accept the poorer result. I don't always have enough will power to force myself to reload if the consequence for failure is so low.

 

I just reread what I said about permadeath last night and it doesn't really make sense so ignore that

[DaWu]

 

 

 

if this game wouldnt be isometric I would not have backed on single $

 

isometric hd looks always better than any 3d rpg out there - fact!

if it was 3d they would have found a publisher relativelly easy

 

Nope. PC only wouldn't. If they pitched a console fantasy action RPG, that is Skyrim successor instead of IE, then maybe.

 

it is implied that if it was 3D it would have a console version and the publisher would provide a AAA graphics engine

 

 

is this trolling? i cant take this BS for real -sorry

 

the screens we have seen so far are more detailed and do look more real than any quadriple AAA up'ur'ass graphic engine

[soulburner]

A triple-A graphics engine doesn't make a game good or pretty or interesting. You can make an ugly and unplayable mess on CryEngine 3 but you can also create something beautiful and with wonderful gameplay using the Quake engine.

 

By the way, I would love an Obsidian fantasy action RPG, too. Something like The Elder Scrools: Skyrim - New Vegas :D

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

 

if this game wouldnt be isometric I would not have backed on single $

 

isometric hd looks always better than any 3d rpg out there - fact!

if it was 3d they would have found a publisher relativelly easy

 

Nope. PC only wouldn't. If they pitched a console fantasy action RPG, that is Skyrim successor instead of IE, then maybe.

 

it is implied that if it was 3D it would have a console version and the publisher would provide a AAA graphics engine

 

 

is this trolling? i cant take this BS for real -sorry

 

the screens we have seen so far are more detailed and do look more real than any quadriple AAA up'ur'ass graphic engine

 

of course they are, but they are 2D and are meant for a game that can be played properly only with m&k on a pc. publishers do not care if the actual graphics are 100000000000000 better looking than any 3D game... they are 2D and can't be ported to consoles due to the pad's inability to handle the controls, so the game is not profitable and it gets no funding

if PE was a 3D, gamepad friendly, imitation of DAO, they would have publishers lining up for it is all im saying. luckily for us it is not

[Malekith]

 

 

 

 

 

if this game wouldnt be isometric I would not have backed on single $

 

isometric hd looks always better than any 3d rpg out there - fact!

if it was 3d they would have found a publisher relativelly easy

 

Nope. PC only wouldn't. If they pitched a console fantasy action RPG, that is Skyrim successor instead of IE, then maybe.

 

it is implied that if it was 3D it would have a console version and the publisher would provide a AAA graphics engine

 

 

is this trolling? i cant take this BS for real -sorry

 

the screens we have seen so far are more detailed and do look more real than any quadriple AAA up'ur'ass graphic engine

 

of course they are, but they are 2D and are meant for a game that can be played properly only with m&k on a pc. publishers do not care if the actual graphics are 100000000000000 better looking than any 3D game... they are 2D and can't be ported to consoles due to the pad's inability to handle the controls, so the game is not profitable and it gets no funding

if PE was a 3D, gamepad friendly, imitation of DAO, they would have publishers lining up for it is all im saying. luckily for us it is not

 

Not so sure about that either. I would love it to be true, but if it were Obsidian wouldn't have suffered lay offs the previous years. Pitching games to publisers seems to be an ongoing strugle, not the easy thing you paint it to be.

[teknoman2]

Im talking about the general trend of what publishers want, not that it is actually easy to get funding

if you make a copy-paste game of something that sold a lot, you have more chances to find a publisher.

[Karkarov]

Actually the publishers would care more if it were android and ios friendly than gamepad.

[neo6874]

uh, wasn't the whole point with the Kickstarter campaign so that they *could* make a IE game, and damn the publishers?

 

Also, 3.9m of 1.1m goal is pretty much "do want!" from people. Not to mention what's not tracked on Kickstarter (slacker backers + paypal ...)

[Lephys]

Sorry I didn't mean to argue that either maiming or perms death was bad. It was late last night so I didn't phrase it very eloquently. I was arguing against the concept that reloading is a bad thing. Reloading is good IMO. If I were to choose between perms death and maiming I would choose death because as I said I like to know that I successfully won that battle. Maiming allows weak willed me to go "oh well that's good enough I guess" and just accept the poorer result. I don't always have enough will power to force myself to reload if the consequence for failure is so low.

I just reread what I said about permadeath last night and it doesn't really make sense so ignore that

 

 

No worries. I mostly understood your meaning. I was trying to say that your thoughts on the matter were not the same as those I am baffled by. And see, you can choose the death. That's why it's an option now. Some people might enjoy the game saying "okay, you didn't actually die die, but you're pretty effed up, and probably need to get to a hospital," allowing them to continue on and possibly still make SOME use of that character, rather than either losing them forever, or having to trek around completely devoid of them until they magically revive them at a temple, etc.

In a video game, you're going to try again in some capacity. Be it a reload, or another playthrough, etc. So, it's not exactly ridiculous for the game to allow you to skip the "re-do" part at the cost of a penalty, so that you can keep going, but not without consequence.

 

Permanent death, maimed-state penalty, or replay something you already did to get back to where you are now without death OR maiming... the choice is yours, but there is no consequence-less choice, and there shouldn't be.

[Cybersquirt]

That's what I'm 'talkin about.

[Mor]

 

it is implied that if it was 3D it would have a console version and the publisher would provide a AAA graphics engine

 

is this trolling? i cant take this BS for real -sorry

 

the screens we have seen so far are more detailed and do look more real than any quadriple AAA up'ur'ass graphic engine

 

That or he has never heard of the kickstarer, or hasn't been a long time fan of old school RPGs.

 

Although, I have to disagree on the second point, unless you are poly shy modern Engines are far more capable. It's just that for our needs the current mix works best.

 

 

Permanent death, maimed-state penalty, or replay something you already did to get back to where you are now without death OR maiming... the choice is yours, but there is no consequence-less choice, and there shouldn't be.

As long as we have choice it is all good.

 

Some people seem to think that anyone who isn't playing a sort of "Ironman" mode(single continues save with permadeath) are not experts or old school enough. But while I get the extra challenge and risk involved in a "arcade like" way, I find the experience repetitive, mind-numbing busy work. Sorry but between life, wife and taxes I have very little time to play and my definition of challenge follows a different path than this.

Edited November 16, 2013 by Mor

[teknoman2]

you should read the rest of my posts before quoting a quote of someone who didnt understand what i said

[Tamerlane]

What the actual **** are you going on about, dude?

[Messier-31]

 Some people seem to think that anyone who isn't playing a sort of "Ironman" mode(single continues save with permadeath) are not experts or old school enough. But while I get the extra challenge and risk involved in a "arcade like" way, I find the experience repetitive, mind-numbing busy work. Sorry but between life, wife and taxes I have very little time to play and my definition of challenge follows a different path than this.

 

Quite. Due to some responsibilities it will be harder to play the game with all of the modes and possibilities it will provide. Still I say it should be big and challenging, sure. I will get to it faster or later, so will have more fun of it for more time. The wisest thing you said Mor is this: As long as we have choice it is all good. I want to turn stuff off, I turn it off. I want to turn stuff on, I turn it on. Who has a problem with that?

 

 

*malicious content*

 

 

As long as we have choice it is all good.

 

There, problem solved.

[teknoman2]

we got a truckload of different gameplay options, so everyone can customize how easy or hard the game will be. i dont see the reason why some think that these options are bad design. 

we have easy, medium and hard difficulty, we have normal mode where companions do not die, a hardcore mode similar to NV, expert mode that increases chalenge and makes companions killable, trial of iron that does not allow saves, and we can mix and match all these from normal easy all the way to masochistic expert+hardcore+trial of iron on hard. there is an option for everyone and if this is bad design, i cant imagine what good could be

[Mor]

Quite. Due to some responsibilities it will be harder to play the game with all of the modes and possibilities it will provide. Still I say it should be big and challenging, sure. I will get to it faster or later, so will have more fun of it for more time.

Just to make things clear, I never suggested otherwise. I enjoy challenging gameplay and plan for more than one playthorugh. However, the specific mode known as "Trial of Iron" is not my cup of tea for all the reasons I mentioned. Besides for SP game it is really a novelty mode, I suspect that most people who played games in the 90s or earlier would be able to find an alternative to "save scuming", which would only take couple of extra seconds very quickly. But it is easy to implement and appeal many people so great. Edited November 17, 2013 by Mor

[Katrar]

LOL Why is someone (or multiple someones) who apparently hated the IE games, and hate that this game is a spiritual successor to the IE games, even here? If there is a game announced that I know I will not like, I don't generally wander over... create a forum account... and well I suppose in this case it would be push the bomb release lever.

[Mor]

^ The only thing the OP is right about is that isometric view wasn't THE reasons why i loved the classics, and anyone who claims that over the years he never was intrigued by the idea of full 3D, lies through his teeth or dreamed small. With that being said, the idea that isometric(in our case 3D with fixed-angle camera) view is inferior game design compared to First/Third person view, is just plain simply annoying. Isometric view is not a compromise so we can go down memory lane, its the POV that offers the most to us(in terms of gameplay, art direction etc..) and utilized even by AAA titles such as Diablo3.

[Chairchucker]

 

Some people seem to think that anyone who isn't playing a sort of "Ironman" mode(single continues save with permadeath) are not experts or old school enough. But while I get the extra challenge and risk involved in a "arcade like" way, I find the experience repetitive, mind-numbing busy work. Sorry but between life, wife and taxes I have very little time to play and my definition of challenge follows a different path than this.

Because they're not? Why any other Sunday players (footbal, basketball, tennis) will have no problem in admitting that they are not as good as people who play regularly, but computer games players flip out when you state the obvious. Why?! Why is it always "I have a job, wife, lover, dog, and not so much time for games so make it easier and shorter and dumbed down". Why should we care if you don't have enough time? That's your problem. Did you hear about amateurs leagues in any activity to propose to simplifying the rules and make it easier to play their sport of choosing for everyone because THEY don't have enough time to be good? No! So why should game industry be any different?! Why people who have time and want good games with challenges be not allowed to have them because some Joe Average have a kid? Play on Easy and be grateful that there is an Easy difficulty. What? You feel insulted because the game is to hard and you cannot play on Normal difficulty? Tough luck, you really care about this. You have lowest quality wife, lowest quality job, lowest quality life then why can't you set for the lowest difficulty in game?

 

 

Hmmm, personal attacks aside which are pretty inappropriate and make you look pretty bad, you've totally missed the point in that Mor does not appear to be advocating removing the options for extra challenge. Hence the sentence 'As long as we have choice it is all good.' He just seems to be saying that people who act all elitist about how they're doing Ironman and anyone who isn't doing that and graphing their own maps and turning all the ease of use interface options off are low born scum - well those people are foppish and smell of rotting fish.

 

I may have paraphrased slightly.

[Ulquiorra]

And im personaly ...

 

HAPPY .. that obsidian is not makeing 3d game. I can't remember any obsidan game that was made good in 3d. Best example is Neverwinter Night 2, even today game can "freeze" some times on a computer that skyrim on highest setting is running like mad. Alpha protocol with "characters dissapearing in walls and obiects" and in gereral not optimilized graphics and bugs.

 

I did not ever encounter any of this **** on isometric games from obsidian, so ime glad they are not doing something that they can't.

 

The only game from obsidian in 3d that was running good was neverwinter night 1, it was not complicated yes but at least not freezing. From all years it crushed only once when i made a module with 20 dragons and 40 demons fighting ech other.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Quetzalcoatl]

Bioware made the first Neverwinter Nights, not Obsidian.

[Karkarov]

Guys few things...  Sharp One has long since proven he is just a flame bait troll.  Stop replying to him, it is a waste of time and counter productive.

 

Also... Unity is a modern engine.  Has it been used to make a AAA budget game?  No.  But it could be.  There are some very graphically detailed fully 3d games hitting the market that are 100% Unity based.  The game is isometric and 2D simulated 3D by CHOICE not because of a engine limitation.