Josh Sawyer GDC Next 10 Talk

[Stun]

 

While I have Josh attention, I'll sneakily wedge in a question of mine in another thread 4 days ago: How much thought and testing has gone into soloing PE. Is it even advisable? Sooner or later, I'm sure gonna try it.

We absolutely allow people to try it and we will probably not put much effort into balancing it.  We do not design anything with the assumption you will have additional party members.

 

Wow! that's a refreshingly profound thing to hear. As someone who approaches games with an experimenter/tinkerer mindset, I read this statement and rejoice. The IE games were all soloable, but because they weren't particularly balanced for solo play, the player felt like he was venturing into uncharted territory when he soloed. And there was a pure rush when you discovered something about gameplay that the devs didn't intend. I live for moments like that.

 

And when an RPG manages to deliver a distinctly different experience with solo play than it does with party-based (intended or not), that game goes up a few notches in my mind. I give it tons of bonus points. That is why I Rank BG2 as the greatest game ever made. Soloing in BG2 was super different from party-play... and more, even solo runs with one of the classes leads to wildly different experiences than one with a different class..

Edited November 7, 2013 by Stun

[Enoch]

 

 

""A lot of the people playing games are not good at them. That's okay. It's our job to help them." - Josh Sawyer, Obsidian #gdcnext"

 

My grandfather really enjoys fantasy CRPGs.  The early Wizardrys and Might & Magics; the Gold Box games; the IE games, etc.  He's not a stupid man, but the details of game rules systems are not a strongpoint.  I still have nightmares about looking over his party when he told me how impossible he was finding some of the late stages of Icewind Dale.  Several characters using weapons they weren't proficient with; a cleric with a WIS that limited him to 4th-level spells; carrying the wrong ammunition for his ranged weapons, etc.

 

I would very much like to give him a copy of Eternity, and I hope that the game would be a little less easy to screw up, mechanics-wise. 

 

 

This is really the sort of thing I mean.  I've seen many intelligent, enthusiastic people attempt to play AD&D games and become mired for reasons very, very similar to those experienced by your grandfather.  People who came into the IE games with an extensive knowledge of AD&D were at a big advantage because the IE games often don't give prominent feedback on a lot of these issues.

 

 

Thank you. 

 

(And thank you for not pointing out that my example regarding WIS and spellcasting doesn't make any sense in an AD&D context.  It's been a while.  Upon further reflection, I think that the problem-- among several sub-optimal attribute allocations-- was with his Wizard's intelligence, and was probably at a higher spell level.) 

[StrangeCat]

I don't see you on gamasutra  maybe later?

[Stun]

Thank you. 

 

(And thank you for not pointing out that my example regarding WIS and spellcasting doesn't make any sense in an AD&D context.  It's been a while.  Upon further reflection, I think that the problem-- among several sub-optimal attribute allocations-- was with his Wizard's intelligence, and was probably at a higher spell level.)

Just a nit-pick, but which IWD are you talking about? Because In IWD1, the attributes do not affect spell-level acquisition... for any type of spell caster. Ditto with all the IE games, save for IWD2. And even IWD2 made it a point to remind the player in the load screens, and the manutal, and the character screens, that he/she needs high attributes to cast high level spells. Edited November 7, 2013 by Stun

[Tamerlane]

Welp, the game's made for readers, which can only mean it's text-based now. You'll literally "read" your surroundings, because the forests will be built from ANSI characters.

 

Totally launching a giant hate campaign against the game now. THANKS, ASSUMPTION! *high fives Assumption*

 

[Enoch]

 

Thank you. 

 

(And thank you for not pointing out that my example regarding WIS and spellcasting doesn't make any sense in an AD&D context.  It's been a while.  Upon further reflection, I think that the problem-- among several sub-optimal attribute allocations-- was with his Wizard's intelligence, and was probably at a higher spell level.)

Just a nit-pick, but which IWD are you talking about? Because In IWD1, the attributes do not affect spell-level acquisition... for any type of spell caster. Ditto with all the IE games, save for IWD2. And even IWD2 made it a point to remind the player in the load screens, and the manutal, and the character screens, that he/she needs high attributes to cast high level spells.

 

 

It was definitely the first one.  And, as I said, it's been a while. 

[Infinitron]

I'll be able to put the .pdf on my website in a few weeks.  I'm actually surprised more photos weren't taken at the event.  There was a lot of new artwork in the presentation (e.g. two companion portraits).

 

Hey, Josh, I have a question.

 

Dave Oshry said:

 

The questing in Project Eternity is going to be insane. Get ready to read, kiddos. Or don't. Because they're giving you casuals options too.

 

 

 

What did he mean by that? What "options"?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[J.E. Sawyer]

I'm not sure what he means by that comment.  The only thing "casual"-oriented about dialogue stuff is that the default display options show things like what stats are being checked, what reputations are being affected, etc.  You can turn all of those off and they're all off in Expert mode.

[SunBroSolaire]

What about quest journal instructions?

 

For example, players will be able to set options that will either allow them to receive explicit instructions for quests or they'll be able to set an option that doesn't give any quest instructions at all, leaving players to their own devices to complete the quest through pure blind exploration.

 

source: http://www.shacknews.com/article/81929/project-eternitys-difficulty-about-more-than-numbers

[J.E. Sawyer]

That's sort of correct.  The difference is actually between getting an explicit quest objective+journal text or just getting the journal text without the explicit objective.  E.g.

 

Kill Sammy the Idiot - 7:41, Nov. 11th 2013

Frank was really mad about one of his guys, Sammy the Idiot.  Sounds like a real pain, this guy.  Frank wants him "taken care of", and quickly.

 

vs.

 

7:41, Nov. 11th 2013

Frank was really mad about one of his guys, Sammy the Idiot.  Sounds like a real pain, this guy.  Frank wants him "taken care of", and quickly.

[Sensuki]

I like that. Covers both sides of the fence well, without being too in your face.

[Lephys]

Agreed. That's the sort of thing that makes for a good option. Doesn't really affect the functionality of the game. Either way, you have to find Sammy the Idiot to complete the objective. It's a simple matter of whether or not you'd like the interface to summarily pluck that objective out of the rest of the text or not.

 

It's almost like toggling auto-correct or something.

 

That, and the system-y dialogue info you can toggle (that will be off by default in Expert Mode). Again... it's not changing the function, either way. If something's checking Intellect, it's checking Intellect. Do you want to KNOW that, or figure it out? Either way, it's happening.

 

It's stuff like "I want to be able to toggle on location indicators for things I'm supposed to have to find" that's a terrible option. Might as well toggle combat auto-victory or something. That's toggling the requirement of effort, essentially. Which is pretty much the nature of cheats. "I don't WANT to manage my health and be able to die... *GOD MODE*"

 

Even difficulty adjustments don't give you additional tools. They take something that already existed/happened (such as enemy damage), and adjust it to make that factor less apt to end you as quickly/easily, thus making your overcoming of it easier. They don't just negate the game's design aspects.

 

Anywho... I digress. Quite often we see a "Why not just make it an option?" on here, anytime there's dissent amongst the populous regarding how a certain thing should be designed, and I just though this made a really good example of what IS appropriate to be made an option. 8P

[SunBroSolaire]

That's sort of correct.  The difference is actually between getting an explicit quest objective+journal text or just getting the journal text without the explicit objective.  E.g.

 

Kill Sammy the Idiot - 7:41, Nov. 11th 2013

Frank was really mad about one of his guys, Sammy the Idiot.  Sounds like a real pain, this guy.  Frank wants him "taken care of", and quickly.

 

vs.

 

7:41, Nov. 11th 2013

Frank was really mad about one of his guys, Sammy the Idiot.  Sounds like a real pain, this guy.  Frank wants him "taken care of", and quickly.

So do you anticipate there will ever be a situation where it will be difficult to discern what the specific objective is without this option enabled?

[mcmanusaur]

Forgive me while I venture off on a tangent to frame my response to this thread. Personally, while I do enjoy my fair share of hardcore strategy games, I tend to make a point of consuming them separately from my RPG's, which I treat as more of a [more-or-less] holistically immersive experience. I think RPGs have long suffered (with respect to my personal goals in playing them) from an expectation that they should essentially be "RTS's with narrative" what with all the focus on tactical combat, even if this tendency originated for valid reasons (abstracting systems for the board game format), Since the genre's presentation in the video game medium has unlocked much more fluid and inconspicuous methods of delivering experience, I'm perfectly content to simply absorb the RPG experience without the distractions of gamey optimization and pacing-detrimental challenges. I'm not ashamed to choose more "casual" settings (generally I try normal difficulty first, but you'll never see me doing ironman or whatever), and in light of all this I'm glad to hear that PE will be accommodating such play styles (which can be as much a consequence of player motivations as player knowledge), while not making compromises in other aspects (such as the amount of text).

Edited November 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

While I have Josh attention, I'll sneakily wedge in a question of mine in another thread 4 days ago: How much thought and testing has gone into soloing PE. Is it even advisable? Sooner or later, I'm sure gonna try it.

We absolutely allow people to try it and we will probably not put much effort into balancing it.  We do not design anything with the assumption you will have additional party members.

 

Wow! that's a refreshingly profound thing to hear. As someone who approaches games with an experimenter/tinkerer mindset, I read this statement and rejoice. The IE games were all soloable, but because they weren't particularly balanced for solo play, the player felt like he was venturing into uncharted territory when he soloed. And there was a pure rush when you discovered something about gameplay that the devs didn't intend. I live for moments like that.

 

And when an RPG manages to deliver a distinctly different experience with solo play than it does with party-based (intended or not), that game goes up a few notches in my mind. I give it tons of bonus points. That is why I Rank BG2 as the greatest game ever made. Soloing in BG2 was super different from party-play... and more, even solo runs with one of the classes leads to wildly different experiences than one with a different class.

 

 

^This! OMG, this!!! That's exactly how I feel about it.  *Goes Steve Ballmer-crazy*

[Infinitron]

I think RPGs have long suffered (with respect to my personal goals in playing them) from an expectation that they should essentially be "RTS's with narrative" what with all the focus on tactical combat, even if this tendency originated for valid reasons (abstracting systems for the board game format), 

 

I don't think it's anything as complex as that.

 

Fact is, in a party-based RPG, it's more engaging for the player to be able control all of his characters in combat, as opposed to, say, watching them fight it out automatically (something which usually comes with a host of "dumb AI" issues). And once you've given the player full control over more than one character, you've basically created a small scale "RTS", whether you like it or not. And anything done, deserves to be done well.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[mcmanusaur]

 

I think RPGs have long suffered (with respect to my personal goals in playing them) from an expectation that they should essentially be "RTS's with narrative" what with all the focus on tactical combat, even if this tendency originated for valid reasons (abstracting systems for the board game format), 

 

I don't think it's anything as complex as that.

 

Fact is, in a party-based RPG, it's more engaging for the player to be able control all of his characters in combat, as opposed to, say, watching them fight it out automatically (something which usually comes with a host of "dumb AI" issues). And once you've given the player full control over more than one character, you've basically created a small scale "RTS", whether you like it or not. And anything done, deserves to be done well.

 

 

Well, you're entitled to see it how you will, but to me controlling multiple characters (while more engaging in the sense that it gives the player more to do) is somewhat less immersive and detracts from the experiential element of RPGs. I of course agree that those who enjoy such an approach deserve a strategically interesting system to support their play style, especially in a nostalgic game like PE, but I would be happy that all players aren't forced to grapple with the game in that manner. And I do think this is a case of tabletop RPGs influencing future trends in RPG video games.

Edited November 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Infinitron]

 

 

I think RPGs have long suffered (with respect to my personal goals in playing them) from an expectation that they should essentially be "RTS's with narrative" what with all the focus on tactical combat, even if this tendency originated for valid reasons (abstracting systems for the board game format), 

 

I don't think it's anything as complex as that.

 

Fact is, in a party-based RPG, it's more engaging for the player to be able control all of his characters in combat, as opposed to, say, watching them fight it out automatically (something which usually comes with a host of "dumb AI" issues). And once you've given the player full control over more than one character, you've basically created a small scale "RTS", whether you like it or not. And anything done, deserves to be done well.

 

 

Well, you're entitled to see it how you will, but to me controlling multiple characters (while more engaging in the sense that it gives the player more to do) is somewhat less immersive and detracts from the experiential element of RPGs. I of course agree that those who enjoy such an approach deserve a strategically interesting system to support their play style, especially in a nostalgic game like PE, but I would be happy that all players aren't forced to grapple with the game in that manner. And I do think this is a case of tabletop RPGs influencing future trends in RPG video games.

 

 

That's a bit of an odd thing to say though, because in tabletop RPGs, you do control only one character in the party. Your friends control the rest.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Infinitron

[jethro]

So do you anticipate there will ever be a situation where it will be difficult to discern what the specific objective is without this option enabled?

Is Sammys situation so clear-cut? To deal with Sammy you could tell him to move to a different town and never show his face here again. This might suffice for Frank or it might not.

[mcmanusaur]

 

 

 

I think RPGs have long suffered (with respect to my personal goals in playing them) from an expectation that they should essentially be "RTS's with narrative" what with all the focus on tactical combat, even if this tendency originated for valid reasons (abstracting systems for the board game format), 

 

I don't think it's anything as complex as that.

 

Fact is, in a party-based RPG, it's more engaging for the player to be able control all of his characters in combat, as opposed to, say, watching them fight it out automatically (something which usually comes with a host of "dumb AI" issues). And once you've given the player full control over more than one character, you've basically created a small scale "RTS", whether you like it or not. And anything done, deserves to be done well.

 

 

Well, you're entitled to see it how you will, but to me controlling multiple characters (while more engaging in the sense that it gives the player more to do) is somewhat less immersive and detracts from the experiential element of RPGs. I of course agree that those who enjoy such an approach deserve a strategically interesting system to support their play style, especially in a nostalgic game like PE, but I would be happy that all players aren't forced to grapple with the game in that manner. And I do think this is a case of tabletop RPGs influencing future trends in RPG video games.

 

 

That's a bit of an odd thing to say though, because in tabletop RPGs, you do control only one character in the party. Your friends control the rest.

 

 

I would think that the first computerized RPGs were simply experimental testing grounds for those hardcore gamers who couldn't wait for the weekly tabletop sessions, and thus it makes sense that such early computer incarnations of the genre would focus on ramping up the tactics for that demographic. In other words, cRPGs were essentially designed to let people reproduce tabletop games by themselves. While tabletop games arguably rely on a social aspect for the "experience", this was substituted for the greater control and tactical focus of controlling more characters in early cRPGs. It all makes rational sense, but personally I think it represents a trend away from the "immersive experience" as the focus of the game (say what you will about subjectivity, but I think we can all agree that taking breaks from gameplay progression to tweak characters' optimization detracts from immersion), or maybe you could argue that "immersive experience" has never been the primary focus until recently.

Edited November 8, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[J.E. Sawyer]

So do you anticipate there will ever be a situation where it will be difficult to discern what the specific objective is without this option enabled?

 

If we're bad designers, sure.

[Messier-31]

 

So do you anticipate there will ever be a situation where it will be difficult to discern what the specific objective is without this option enabled?

 

If we're bad designers, sure.

 

Touché. But you can't predict all player reactions. Luckily "take care of someone" is quite straightforward, but maybe the more complex quest objective could be intentionally ambiguous?

[Nonek]

I was always delightfully surprised at what the game would allow me to do (and acknowledge) in New Vegas, so I have no fears in this department. No doubt however there will be players who refuse to read the journal, listen to conversations or read anything, and wonder why they rapidly become lost.

[Monte Carlo]

Wow. I mean... wow.

 

I thought I was the only guy on this forum who didn't like PS:T and now I find two other soul-mates.

 

It's like I can come out of the closet and join a support group or something.

[Stun]

 

 

So do you anticipate there will ever be a situation where it will be difficult to discern what the specific objective is without this option enabled?

 

If we're bad designers, sure.

 

 

Touché. But you can't predict all player reactions. Luckily "take care of someone" is quite straightforward, but maybe the more complex quest objective could be intentionally ambiguous?

 

Ambiguity does not instantly assume difficulty, it just suggests a potentially open-ended nature of the objective. Quest descriptions are inherantly action-based even if they're ambiguous... so all the player needs to do is either look for Verbs in the description, or else look for actionable items in the description. And a good devs will always put one or the other in there.

 

Examples of Ambiguity:

 

1) "little Timmy was crying in the street today because he lost his puppy." <---Ambiguous, because there could be several quest objectives involved with this description. But there are 2 verbs in the descriptor so it's not difficult to assume a few of them: A) Find Timmy's lost puppy; B) Calm Timmy down with diplomacy skills. C) Kill Timmy so the neighborhood can get some peace and quiet.

 

2)"Local Blacksmith has nothing to sell" <---- Ambiguous, And there's no verbs, or rather, there's a verb that's not happening. But there's an actionable item here. A problem. a business is open but not operating. So.... Objective is: A) Discover the cause of the inventory shortage and solve it; or B) Kill the Blacksmith and transform his store into a loot storage area for yourself.

 

.........

 

DIFFICULT stuff is when they literally give you nothing to work with - when you read the description and your first reaction is: So? or yeah....and?

 

Examples of Difficult.

 

1) I met the captain of the Guard today. He was wearing a Dwarf costume. <----Not particularly ambiguous, and if it's a quest objective then it has failed, because there's no actionable items, and whatever Verbs are in the description are actions that have already occured.

 

2) City Councilman Bruce Lay has decreed a national Monk-appreciation holiday this weekend <---straight forward with everything except for the quest objective. The player's reaction is: Um... ok... so what? What do I do? Where's the Party?

Edited November 8, 2013 by Stun