New PC Gamer interview with Josh.

[constantine]

Anyways, we will have to see how much they can pull off. However I think dialogue is one of their major focuses for PoE, as they have repeatedly stated over the updates. Fairly early in post-production it was also said that there is gonna be dialogue for low intelligence protagonist, although I am unaware if this is to be accomplished in the end.

 

Surely seems to me like dialogue interactions are gonna be much more than a cosmetic addition and I hope this will be the case.

[Kjaamor]

Surely seems to me like dialogue interactions are gonna be much more than a cosmetic addition and I hope this will be the case.

 

I'm not saying that dialogue interactions will be cosmetic (see Shadowrun Returns).

 

I'm saying that your standing with a faction will not affect your dialogue options most of the time (i.e. almost all rpgs).

[ManifestedISO]

 

We’re trying to capture the look of games like Icewind Dale and Baldur’s Gate, where it looks a little less overtly fantastic and a little more realistic. In a lot of cases we looked at 2nd Edition D&D art by people like Larry Elmore, Keith Parkinson, and Clive Caldwell.

 

Of course, his name is Clyde Caldwell--the third member of the holy quad of dragon artistry.  Jeff Easley is the missing name, but I can understand why his work might be more "overtly fantastic" than Josh was looking for. Either way, it's exciting he mentioned these guys. Hundreds of hours, have I spent admiring their collective work.

 

PoE has all the potential to become my Number One Game of All Time. 

 

 

[constantine]

 

 

PoE has all the potential to become my Number One Game of All Time. 

 

 

 

I was thinking such myself, however some friends suggested I am not keeping my hopes that high for a Kickstarter founded game. But then all I read about PoE sounds so, so promising.

 

 

Do you think this game will fail to deliver and I am the only one here daydreaming ?

[Volourn]

That depends what you are hoping for. If you are hoping for 'best game ever' it is almost certain to fail since that is a lot of competition. However, if you are like me, where you hoping for a fun and enjoyable game than you are far less likely to be dissapointed.

[constantine]

I'm hoping for the best isometric cRPG I've played.

[Mor]

Nothing earth-shattering here, but enjoy: http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/

Do we know how Ciphers gain their Focus? Is it constantly regenerating through "contact" or only regenerated through 'soul whip' or ??

 

 

Edit: also is this a crop from an existing screenshot that I can't put my finger on, or something new?

 

Edited April 19, 2014 by Mor

[ManifestedISO]

No, I think daydreams have to be unique, so ... if I'm seeing the same thing you are, then it's not a dream, it must be real.    

 

 

Oh yeah all those screenshots are new, new to me for sure, except maybe one.     

[Silent Winter]

 

Edit: also is this a crop from an existing screenshot that I can't put my finger on, or something new?

 

The screenshots seem to all be taken from the gameplay teaser video - just stills from the video and cropped.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Silent Winter

[WorstUsernameEver]

Edit: also is this a crop from an existing screenshot that I can't put my finger on, or something new?

Most of those screenshots in the article are crops from the teaser trailer we got last year.

[Malekith]

I'm hoping for the best isometric cRPG I've played.

Honestly, i don't expect PoE to top PS:T, but if they deliver something better than BG2 (my second favorite) i will be in heaven.

[PrimeJunta]

Re pre-buffing, I'm not sorry to see the mechanic go as it's really tedious, but I would hope the pacing of combat allows for a short period of calm in the beginning, longer if you caught them unprepared, shorter or none at all if they got the drop on you. Would add a bit of tension while retaining some of the 'feel' of pre-buffs, but in a good way.

[Fezvez]

Thanks for sharing.

 

Apart from the pre-buffing, I am glad that he confimed that we would be able to walk from one part of the continent to the other, like BG1 (and unlike BG2)

[Stun]

Not sure why there would be a period of calm in the beginning of the battle when, theoretically, that is usually when a given enemy would be at 100% in both numbers and power. But perhaps a better thing to hope for is 1) fast casting times for these buffs and/or 2) it being more difficult to interrupt a spell caster's casting than it was in the IE games.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Stun

[Kjaamor]

I think the wording of a "period of calm" is perhaps misleading, but certainly a degree of advantage based upon the level of surprise would be nice, provided it doesn't reach the cheesing levels of the IE games.

[Mannock]

 

Nothing earth-shattering here, but enjoy: http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/04/18/pillars-of-eternity-interview-josh-sawyer-on-world-building-magic-psychic-warriors-and-more/

Do we know how Ciphers gain their Focus? Is it constantly regenerating through "contact" or only regenerated through 'soul whip' or ??

 

 

The "contact" is achieved using melee or ranged weapon, which makes the Focus regenerate. Josh stated so in the interview atleast.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Mannock

[Infinitron]

Period of calm == time until melee enemies close into attack range.

[nipsen]

 

 I really hope both of you are proven wrong. I would like dialogue to be as interactive as 'Planescape: Torment', or maybe more than that.

 

I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here.

 

I'm not saying that the dialogue won't be as interactive as PS:T. I'm saying that even if it is, the reputation system is unlikely to hold much depth. PS:T had very in-depth dialogue trees but in terms of reputation (in terms of Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil and faction rep) didn't have a substantial influence beyond the cosmetic. Yes, doors opened and closed but these were very limited in their scope.

 

Even Fallout 2, which had probably the most extensive and flag-happy dialogue trees (and for some unfathomable reason gets glossed over when people are singing the praises of PS:T's dialogue), didn't have reputation affecting matters in the way that people like to dream about.

 

I don't know. Just from my own experience as gamemaster, or writing stories for other gamemasters, I've always thought of a reputation or a faction-alignment system as a crutch. That someone who is too lazy to write more intricate dialogue with more branching, or scenarios that don't have enough conditions, will use to create short-cuts. "Oh, hello mr. [neutral effort +1 elf-lover], don't you belong with the [faction align] in the [north by degrees of hearth].

 

That it's a way to get away with writing generic dialogue.

 

But. If you create scenarios where it makes sense that you would pick up a reputation for this and that - whether or not that is actually your real alignment - then I suppose it would actually give you more options to customize dialogue. You're seen from a distance while settling the debt with the local law-enforcement, after being caught for an insignificant theft after brokering a settlement between the cultists and the thieves guild. And any onlooker will know that you've stolen an artefact from the cultists, and probably returned it to law-enforcement. So now you could start to legitimately care about how you're seen and who you're seen with. Put up reasonable ways for people to logically recognize you as well between hubs that are connected in some way (which is really difficult with when you only have local, personal dialogue to go from - how does even the most complicated dialogue tree translate to a reasonable response from an external point of view?).

 

Say, if you make too much noise in one hub, people might recognize you then, and it could trigger events that make the world respond to you, or move the story away. Making that difficult link between an interactive, sort of living, outside world. And between the player's actions from his perspective, suddenly easier to create believably. You could even cause cutscenes to actually make sense, right :D

[Volourn]

"Period of calm == time until melee enemies close into attack range."

 

Should be no such thing with spellcasting and missle weapons.

 

I dunno about the idea of no buff spells that can be cast pre battle. It limits far range planning. Do you use the spell slots/points for buffing and hope your warriors can win the day or do you use your spell slots/points for  pure offense combat spells. I think there should be a mix of short term and long terms buffs.  But, oh well, 'tis is life.

[anameforobsidian]

 

 

 I really hope both of you are proven wrong. I would like dialogue to be as interactive as 'Planescape: Torment', or maybe more than that.

 

I think we're talking slightly at cross purposes here.

 

I'm not saying that the dialogue won't be as interactive as PS:T. I'm saying that even if it is, the reputation system is unlikely to hold much depth. PS:T had very in-depth dialogue trees but in terms of reputation (in terms of Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil and faction rep) didn't have a substantial influence beyond the cosmetic. Yes, doors opened and closed but these were very limited in their scope.

 

Even Fallout 2, which had probably the most extensive and flag-happy dialogue trees (and for some unfathomable reason gets glossed over when people are singing the praises of PS:T's dialogue), didn't have reputation affecting matters in the way that people like to dream about.

 

I don't know. Just from my own experience as gamemaster, or writing stories for other gamemasters, I've always thought of a reputation or a faction-alignment system as a crutch. That someone who is too lazy to write more intricate dialogue with more branching, or scenarios that don't have enough conditions, will use to create short-cuts. "Oh, hello mr. [neutral effort +1 elf-lover], don't you belong with the [faction align] in the [north by degrees of hearth].

 

Reputation systems are almost certainly far better from a technical standpoint.  You don't want to create a bunch of crazy conditions for each npc because that requires loading a ton of variables, creates an opaque logic chain to debug, and just generally would make the program hackish and harder to maintain.  Since your brain does the heavy listing in pnp, you don't notice how precarious and fragile long strings of logic are.  

 

Also, you cover this later in your post, but systems have a higher base reactivity than individual hacks.

[nipsen]

Well, yes and no. If you really dislike the mechanical variance that always feels arbitrary and illogical, more reactivity isn't really going to help.. you know.. The Oblivion and Skyrim dialogue are great examples. Everything is dynamic! And it's all completely boring!

 

But what you can do with it is make the outside events move along in ways that make sense. And you can easily, and early when you write the story, fit in explanations for events that happened earlier into later events. That is valuable as well. 

 

I'm just saying that it won't really replace complex dialogue chains. (Or I don't think it should, at least.)

[Lephys]

Hmmmm, while my first playthrough will be as a Paladin, sassy jackass/**** Cipher sounds tempting.

Aka... a JACK-SASS!

 

BRB, I'm getting that trademarked.

[Lephys]

Re pre-buffing, I'm not sorry to see the mechanic go as it's really tedious, but I would hope the pacing of combat allows for a short period of calm in the beginning, longer if you caught them unprepared, shorter or none at all if they got the drop on you. Would add a bit of tension while retaining some of the 'feel' of pre-buffs, but in a good way.

I like how the Rogue's Sneak Attack is handled: If they land a hit within the first... what, two seconds of combat, it's a Sneak Attack? Or, that's one of the conditions that contributes to the "sneakiness level" of the attack (if enough are met, it could end up being a Lethal Strike or whatever).

 

But, yeah, that's really the only major thing about the sheer "eliminate pre-buffs" mentality that I'd be concerned about: ambushing. Of course, a lot of this has to do with the fact that it's a video game, and the "start of combat" doesn't really mean the same thing as it does in reality. With that in mind, I'd honestly be fine if, say, if you were sneaking up on people, everyone in your party gets one ability's worth of action before the enemy actually detects/engages you. So that, even though combat "has started" the second you start casting a bunch of buffs, you could cast up to one buff per person before actually alerting the enemy to your presence (i.e. one of those 6 orcs drops to an arrow, and the others immediately know "Oh crap, we're being stricken by arrows.")

 

Basically, it's still an opportunity cost, because you could've had everyone just run in and attack first (and/or cast offensive spells instead of buff-type spells, or even de-buffs); either way, you get that freebie "round" at the beginning of combat. I think that would be pretty nice.

 

And the Rogue's Sneak Attack "catch 'em off guard" 2-second condition could be applied to that point, too, instead of the actual start of the very first action from your party (when combat mode "toggles on/begins").

 

*shrug*

 

Functionally, just some sort of delayed reaction from the opposing "team." In a turn-based game, you'd get to go first when you sneak up on people. I think this pretty much applies in real-time, too, for the most part. You get to execute whatever you can in those first few seconds before you actually give yourselves away, whether that happens with a dagger in the enemy's shoulder or some kind of magical crackle sound/glow/shimmer coming from a buff spell.

 

Some enemies could even be harder to ambush. If there were a bunch of archers on a wall, arrows nocked, eyes scouring the flora along the tree line, then you're clearly not going to get away with standing in some shrubbery along the tree line while you cast some spells and prep some stuff, then charge them; they're pretty much going to start loosing arrows the instant they see you.

 

I know there won't be facings (at least, not planned, thus far) in the detection/stealth system, but... maybe simple states of alertness could at least count? Patrolling guards that stop to talk to one another, even if only for 5-10 seconds (at shift change or something?) would be slightly distracted from 100% on-the-lookout mode, and they could be caught off-guard a lot easier than guards who are simply staring at the place from whence you're emerging in the darkness, ready to swing/fire their weapon at a moment's notice. *shrug*

Edited April 22, 2014 by Lephys

[pl1982]

Very happy about the pre-buffing change. That was the one thing that was always lame to me and actually felt cheap. Sadly, it was almost required for quite a few fights in BG/IWD series. So this is very well done, as long as it is balanced of course.

[constantine]

Anyways, if you wanna have a taste of dialogue quality, dispositions & dialogue options check this post: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64979-josh-sawyer-talks-about-stealth-mechanics/?hl=stealth

 

-read Josh's posts on the external link our friendly backer provides

 

 

(note: you will have to scroll through many pages to get to the part about dialogue, but every other post you may read is absolutely delicious !)