Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards

[Nonek]

 

 

 

 

There's Waldo!

[Mannock]

 

I don't think he was unimpressed, or even "not very impressed." He just said that, for him, it wasn't as immediately impressive as Wasteland 2, and that the combat he was shown looked basic. That's not "unimpressed," that's "I was impressed, but I have some reservations." Which is fair enough.

 

And yes, I'll gladly cop to being an RPS fanboy, but I would think it's lame to take three or four sentences in a very long article out of context even if we were talking about an IGN article.

 

 

 

 

I'm not taking anything out of context. Large chunks of the article was purely descriptive of what the game is about in general, and some, specific terms.

 

There were a few spots where he gave his own impressions and it was those spots I was relating to. His lack of "wow-feeling" was one. Another significant one was where he mentioned the quests he saw which, to him, seemed quite bland. A standard save-the-princess-quest for example. Which to me adds to the worries.

 

Nevertheless I'm looking forward to the game of course.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Mannock

[Ffordesoon]

Fair enough, I guess.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I would be more worried if he came away with the preview being impressed. We are talking a review site that concluded that New Vegas' writing was vastly inferior to Fallout 3 (and subsequently accused Obsidian of phoning it in).

Edited March 30, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Monte Carlo]

If RPS doesn't like it then I probably will.

[Quadrone]

I would be more worried if he came away with the preview being impressed. We are talking a review site that concluded that New Vegas' writing was vastly inferior to Fallout 3 (and subsequently accused Obsidian of phoning it in).

 

Eh, from what I am told RPS has been dead set on becoming the next Kotaku anyway.

But one more reason not to take what they say too seriously.

[nipsen]

Classic, that one. Review sites that become predictable - but not because they have writers who are consistent.

[Sedrefilos]

I agree with Josh 100%

[Bryy]

Classic, that one. Review sites that become predictable - but not because they have writers who are consistent.

Going into a Kotaku article, you know the main points they will try to hammer home:

• The article's headline will be something sensational and the writer's personal opinion more than actual fact
• If it's about Kickstarter, it will be negative. Kickstarter is Kotaku's Obama.
• If it's about Double Fine, it will be positive. Double Fine is Kotaku's Sarah Palin.
• If it is about DLC, it will be extremely negative.
• If it is a quote article, it will only list partials of the quote. The section that fits the narrative. 
• If there is something that makes fun of Kotaku, they will be overly aggressive about it. Making fun of Kotaku is John Stewart.

[Karkarov]

 

Classic, that one. Review sites that become predictable - but not because they have writers who are consistent.

Going into a Kotaku article, you know the main points they will try to hammer home:

• The article's headline will be something sensational and the writer's personal opinion more than actual fact
• If it's about Kickstarter, it will be negative. Kickstarter is Kotaku's Obama.
• If it's about Double Fine, it will be positive. Double Fine is Kotaku's Sarah Palin.

Are you sure you don't have Palin and Obama reversed?  I am pretty sure I never see negative coverage of her (if she is mentioned at all) and at least one half of the news has good things to say about Obama.

[Bryy]

 

 

Classic, that one. Review sites that become predictable - but not because they have writers who are consistent.

Going into a Kotaku article, you know the main points they will try to hammer home:

• The article's headline will be something sensational and the writer's personal opinion more than actual fact
• If it's about Kickstarter, it will be negative. Kickstarter is Kotaku's Obama.
• If it's about Double Fine, it will be positive. Double Fine is Kotaku's Sarah Palin.

Are you sure you don't have Palin and Obama reversed?  I am pretty sure I never see negative coverage of her (if she is mentioned at all) and at least one half of the news has good things to say about Obama.

 

I'm saying that Kotaku is Fox News. 

 

Oh, and any article on Kotaku about piracy is going to be written with the implication that piracy is okay.

[Rostere]

I would be more worried if he came away with the preview being impressed. We are talking a review site that concluded that New Vegas' writing was vastly inferior to Fallout 3 (and subsequently accused Obsidian of phoning it in).

 

Ooooooooooooooookay. It's good to have people around to remind you of that, so you won't have to worry. Maybe somebody should write to them and suggest they add a banner to their page saying "We believe F:NVs writing was vastly inferior to the writing in F3" or something like that so you know for sure you can disregard their opinions. Sigh. Really - seriously? What kind of deranged coprophage would prefer F3's writing? I actually find it very hard to believe that is somebody's honest opinion. It's like saying you prefer to have **** smeared in your face above having chocolate pudding.

[Ffordesoon]

Nathan Grayson is a big fan of New Vegas. The guy who wrote the New Vegas review is no longer with the site.

[Bryy]

Oh, that's classic.

[Rostere]

The guy who wrote the New Vegas review is no longer with the site.

 

Well, that's good I guess.

[anameforobsidian]

I love RPS, but they've made a series of dickish potshots at Obsidian.  I wouldn't interview there ever again if I were at Obsidian (unless it was another kickstarter campaign, because then you swallow your pride, take the money and run).  The most recent was demanding an apology for (the reportedly minimal) bugs in the Stick of Truth during an interview.

 

Nathan Grayson is also a terrible writer.  Just terrible.  Everything from the stupid pull-out quotes to the incredibly inconsistent tone, to the fake tough questions during interviews.  His writing always has a vague edge of "I'm desperately unsure of myself, so I want to do something to differentiate myself."  It's not because he's relatively new either.  Both Graham Smith, and to a lesser extent Cara Ellison are much better than him.  

Edited March 31, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's like saying you prefer to have **** smeared in your face above having chocolate pudding.

Well, I could take you to a couple of places where you would find that opinion pretty common...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Actually Stun that really isn't right.  "Tank" is not a class.  It is a role a character has in a party.  In WoW your "Tank" could be a Warrior, or a Paladin, or a Death Knight, a Druid, or even a Monk.  There is plenty of diversity between those classes and some of them are better at some parts of being a "Tank" than others.  They are not the same class, they don't play 100% the same way, and they don't "Tank" 100% the same way, or even have all the same abilities.

 

What Josh is saying is he wants to avoid situations where you have to have say a Paladin or you lose because the enemy does a spell that can only be countered by a Paladin buff.  If you don't have the Paladin buff the spell nails you and makes the fight basically unbeatable due to the penalty it inflicts.  That is a forced party make up.  It isn't that you needed a "Tank" it is that you needed a Paladin specifically. 

 

No.

 

What I've found with D&D 4th ed is you need certain builds in a party because otherwise the encounters are extremely difficult or impossible to get through. You really do need all 4 roles. Don't have a tank? TPK. Don't have a DPS? Who is going to do the most damage? Probably TPK. Don't have a healer? likely a TPK.

 

My most recent D&D 4th session, one of the players couldn't make it and he was our tank. That's ok we thought, we still have a Rogue, Cleric, Psion and Wizard. Hmmm. No that's not ok because someone has to get into melee while the Rogue flanks. So who has the most hit points and one of the best AC in the party? Our cleric! Healer is tanking while the Rogue is doing the deeps. WTF? Healer is the tank? Cleric is doing some damage but can't mark. And does the healer really want the enemy targeting them instead of the Rogue? No, because once you lose the healer, then game over. But as a party, do we want the Rogue to be taking all the damage? No, of course not because he's not acting as the tank, our Healer is. So we have no choice and the Healer has to take damage and heal himself.

 

So there's 5 monsters and we manage to kill 2, but there's the boss and two lieutenants left.  Boss targets the rogue and he goes down. Cleric can heal or do damage? Heals Rogue and takes half damage himself by other mobs. Rogue gets up and misses. Enemy continues to attack Healer and Healer goes down. Now who is going to heal the other players? No one. Then targets the Rogue and he goes down. Still no healer. Psion falls in the next round and Wizard runs away. Even our GM said, yeah, that's why we need a tank.

 

Whether you want to split hairs and say, No you don't need a Paladin is just avoiding the issue that you do need a tank in your party with games like D&D 4th ed. While PoE seems to be taking quite a bit from 4th ed, I hope it doesn't go to the point where you do need to have different builds (Controller, DPS, Tank, Leader) in your party just to get through the game. It seems Josh is saying you could do the game with any class or role. eg. party of rogues and won't need certain builds. If it turns out we need at least one of the 4 roles in a party when the game is released to finish the game, like a controller (eg.Wizard) or Leader (eg. Healer) then this goes against what he just said with having certain builds in a party to get through the encounters. Also, a role like a tank is a build.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[cornishr]

 

But seriously, that comment is nonsense. Most "traditionalists" or "Grognards" I've seen want the OPPOSITE. We are the ones who look at games like WoW and Dragon Age 2 and scoff at the cookie-cutter template parties those games require for success. Ie... Gotta have a Tank, Gotta have a DPS character, and gotta have a Crowd Controller, or else GTFO.

 

Agreed. One area which I would really like to see change revert to the "old school", would be smaller scale Gold Box scenarios. I'm so tired of LoTR derivatives where ONLY YOU--THE CHOSEN ONE, can save ALL OF EXISTENCE from the HORDE OF BAD GUYS.

 

*Sigh*

 

What happened to haunted keeps and swamps? When the scope is too large, both the stories and the characters get lost--player controlled or otherwise. Just take things down a notch and focus on the quest your on. Make each quest have character and meaning rather than being a speed-bump to aggrandizing your messiah complex.

 

I would have been much happier with the NWN official Campaign if they had just focused all of their energy and equivalent resources into Chapter 1 and the city itself. There was so much room for intrigue and drama, but it just got lost in the yawn-worthy epic scope they pushed. I believe it to be the main reason why the expansions were so much better than the original OC. I feel this can be said just about every c"RPG" ever made since.

 

Absolutely completely agreed.

 

I hate the way the whole fate of existence for a whole world rests on every game.

 

I'd much rather be just a discreet adventurer looking for treasure in a haunted swamp or whatever. I find a huge desert one level in size, a world traversing mountain range two levels in size, a civil war of 10 people and a giant capital city of eight houses faintly silly.

 

Much better to have a little country town, a few villages, a smaller scale map and goals. That way they could easily keep churning out more realistic expansions and things instead of having to invent the mother of the god of death's long lost brother who's brought their Dragon king back to eat the whole universe again. cheesy.

[nipsen]

:D ..I'm starting to become a fan of custom-made trap dungeons again. Like the Vault sidequests in NV, or the temples in the Tomb Raider reroll. Because they're a way to put in a small consistent quest based on the setting, or inspired by it, without necessarily hanging it on the main character's opera-drama.

 

Then again, I'm probably just thinking that because the main story-lines in a lot of games sound a bit like Jasper Forde reading his own books. There is something clever in here, probably - but all I can hear is the author adoring the sound of his voice.

 

I'm saying that Kotaku is Fox News. 

 

Oh, and any article on Kotaku about piracy is going to be written with the implication that piracy is okay.

 

So let me guess.. they've decided that Project RED should be supported no matter what. And Totilo objectively feels they are basically promoting piracy. So now piracy is a good thing. Instead of something that happens when the service you offer for money isn't good enough.

[Bryy]

So now piracy is a good thing. Instead of something that happens when the service you offer for money isn't good enough.

Piracy is never justified. 

[Elerond]

 

So now piracy is a good thing. Instead of something that happens when the service you offer for money isn't good enough.

Piracy is never justified. 

 

 

Because today it is so broad term, I must disagree with you, for example I would say that piracy is justified in case where you have bought a game which copy protection prevents you playing it, or if you have bought audio disc that don't work in your cars CD player because of copy protection and so on cases.

 

And I even would go so far and say that people have right to make additional copies of products, that they have license to use, for their personal usage even if product has copy protection that is designed to prevent that, as in my opinion that fair use of product and license and companies should not even first place have right to try prevent such use.

 

Also I see it justifiable that members of same family use same license on product even though license says that it gives only license owner right use the product.

 

And there are cases where I could see it justifiable to share oeuvre to public without its owners permission if it's for greater good of society, which of course is difficult to determine and is very two edged definition, but for example I see that for example leaking documents that expose illegal actives of governments or companies is justifiable thing to do even though it's against several laws including several piracy laws.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

No.

 

What I've found with D&D 4th ed is you need certain builds in a party because otherwise the encounters are extremely difficult or impossible to get through. You really do need all 4 roles. Don't have a tank? TPK. Don't have a DPS? Who is going to do the most damage? Probably TPK. Don't have a healer? likely a TPK.

 

My most recent D&D 4th session, one of the players couldn't make it and he was our tank. That's ok we thought, we still have a Rogue, Cleric, Psion and Wizard. (...)

 

 

You guys had two controllers and still didn't manage to control the battlefield whatsoever.    I think it's not exactly the system's fault...

[Bryy]

 

 

So now piracy is a good thing. Instead of something that happens when the service you offer for money isn't good enough.

Piracy is never justified. 

 

 

Because today it is so broad term, I must disagree with you, for example I would say that piracy is justified in case where you have bought a game which copy protection prevents you playing it, or if you have bought audio disc that don't work in your cars CD player because of copy protection and so on cases.

 

And I even would go so far and say that people have right to make additional copies of products, that they have license to use, for their personal usage even if product has copy protection that is designed to prevent that, as in my opinion that fair use of product and license and companies should not even first place have right to try prevent such use.

 

Also I see it justifiable that members of same family use same license on product even though license says that it gives only license owner right use the product.

 

And there are cases where I could see it justifiable to share oeuvre to public without its owners permission if it's for greater good of society, which of course is difficult to determine and is very two edged definition, but for example I see that for example leaking documents that expose illegal actives of governments or companies is justifiable thing to do even though it's against several laws including several piracy laws.

 

I knew that was going to get me, so let me clarify: piracy is never justifiable in cases of "I want it/it should be less money/I don't have the money with me, Greedo".

[Sarex]

I knew that was going to get me, so let me clarify: piracy is never justifiable in cases of "I want it/it should be less money/I don't have the money with me, Greedo".

 

But I still don't think pirates deserve the punishment/time they get, that makes it obvious how much influence Hollywood has over the government, so they get 0 sympathy from me.