Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm not trying to prove a subjective point. here is a quote from Zombra which Bruce agrees with:

 

"However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there."

 

Bruce agrees with Zombra that if something isn't in a game, like no broken glass, then it's not a Pro. because it isn't in the game. Therefore if something isn't in the game, Bruce doesn't see it as a Pro. That is Bruce's view. The premise that Bruce agrees with is: If something is not in the game, it's not a Pro. So if Combat xp isn't in the game, it should also be not a Pro. Because it isn't in the game. Something not in the game = Not Pro.

 

Therefore:

No Romance in game = Not Pro

No Combat xp in game =  Not Pro

 

However, Bruce does see no combat xp in the game as a Pro.

 

Hang on. One minute he's agreeing with the premise that that if you don't have anything in the game, it's not a Pro. Then he does a complete 180 and says, oh yeah, this other thing that's not in the game is a Pro.

 

Faulty logic at its best. or should I say, agreeing when convenient for him and then stays silent when the logic doesn't agree with him.

 

 

Your ability to flawlessly prove through formal logic that you're right, while simultaneously missing the point entirely continues to astonish me 

 

Edit: in all fairness, there is faulty logic there, but it's not in the part you are riffing on.

 

 

 

Well, you can go around saying "stop liking what I don't like!" in people's faces, but that's liable to achieve nothing aside from wasting your own time 

 

Edit: ninja'd by tajerio, who actually put it in a more eloquent manner.

 

And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not telling people "stop liking what I don't like". Where did that come from? tsk tsk.

 

 

*thinks carefully* You actually are right! You aren't telling people to stop liking what you don't like, you are telling them to stop not liking what you like! A world of difference

Edited June 27, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist II]

ah aluminiumtrioxid and tagerio. Can't go up against logic and you're only way to respond is to dodge and weave or to give flippant remarks.

 

As Bruce agrees with Zombra. Something that isn't in the game (eg.Combat xp) is not a Pro but..  yeah it is, but it isn't but it is. No, yes, no, yes...

 

[Silent Winter]

What an odd comment.

 

Are you under the impression that people who happen to dislike the excessive pseudo-drama and constrictive baggage associated with video game romances wouldn't see any of the thousands of other types of companion interactions as much better and preferred by default? And that they wouldn't beg Obsidian to spend their writing budget on *those* types instead of Romances?

 

Not at all - see my subsequent post that "IF that's what they meant then my point in this regard is null&void" (so the 'better and more companion writing because no-romance' IS a pro, whereas if they simply mean "no romance" then it isn't (or at least no more than "no apples")

And as others have pointed out, Planescape Torment had both combat xp and quest xp. But you choose to ignore that and quote BG2? And you will not be horribly underleveled if you avoid combat. Seriously, try the bare minimum crit-path to spell hold and you will not be horribly udnerleveled as opposed to doing every sidequest before you get to Spellhold. I recently played BG2 and did the bare minimum to get to Spellhold and I wasn't horribly underleveled at all. Quite the opposite because BG2 has level scaling. It's actually easier to be at a lower level because you aren't fighting the likes of Liches in Spellhold.

 

Didn't ignore PS:T - actually addressed that in subsequent post after it was brought up - but whether combat xp can be good or bad is irrelevant to my point.  My only point is that "No-XYZ" isn't a pro unless it includes "No-XYZ means more ABC"

 

Yeah, I already refuted that you wouldn't be underleveled if you avoided combat xp and went on the crit-path because you know BG2 has level scaling which made it easier when you arrived at Spellhold. I also mentioned Planescape Torment as other posters in this thread have already pointed out. And no, it wasn't you that brought up Planescape Torment first in this thread. I also gave examples afterwards which also refutes Silent Winters post that you can avoid combat xp with taking a pacifist route and be rewarded more than combat xp.

 

Despite all this Bruce wants to ignore all these examples and go back and quote something that has been proven wrong. And he still hasn't explained why one thing that isn't in the game is a Pro and then something else that isn't in the game isn't a Pro.

Just to be clear - going on the crit-path involves you killing things and getting xp - if you literally go invisible and kill nothing but the unavoidable bosses - would you be underlevelled?  (and besides - my point again is not "Kill-xp is bad therefore no kill-xp is a pro" - my point was "No-kill xp can be a pro for some because it includes the alternative objective-xp"

 

 

...But these are fairly tangential regarding his core argument, which goes "the exclusion of a feature is valid as a pro if its exclusion also implies it being replaced with something better". Whether that something is objectively better bears no relevance, because this is a subjective list, therefore if he feels it's better, it is replaced by something better from his standpoint

 

So basically he's made up his own mind and won't accept anything unless he feels it's better. So if anyone presents anything that's objective it bears no relevance.

 

Let's not put words in my mouth - I meant what I said, not that MY no-xyz is better because I like it

 

 

So it's okay for others to say no, that's not a pro like some people have said in this thread and others like yourself who join in with your own subjectivity. But really, it's all in their own subjective mind. They won't accept anything that's presented objectively to counter their bias.

 

No problem. Thanks for the heads up.

Not at all -  but your examples were to prove that you could get non-kill xp in BG and be ok (in some cases) - whereas my arguments (in this thread) had nothing to do with whether no-kill xp was better (though I may have mentioned that as the perception for believing that the alternative was better) but rather that "No-XYZ" is NOT the same as "No-XYZ=MoreABC so Yay!"

 

So to be clear:

"No-whatever is a Pro IF it's because there's something else there instead.  No-whichever is NOT a (valid) Pro IF it is simply the lack of a feature" <- THAT's my point.  Feel free to refute it, you are entitled to your opinion after all.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

As Bruce agrees with Zombra. Something that isn't in the game (eg.Combat xp) is not a Pro but..  yeah it is, but it isn't but it is. No, yes, no, yes...

 

 

The lack of combat xp means that there's a different xp system in the game, which SW feels is better, therefore he includes it on his pro list.

 

The lack of romance means - in Bruce's book, mind - that there is... no romance. It's not like there's a different romance "system" implemented to replace the "classic" way. (Mainly because romances aren't systemic exercises...  ) So it's a feature that is missing, instead of being replaced by a different feature that serves its purpose.

The fallacy you seek is in the fact that other venues of NPC interaction are opening up, therefore there is indeed a different system that serves its purpose. But Bruce thinks that romances are a type of NPC interaction that deserve to be treated separately from "generic" interactions, because he's weird like that (but still likeable  ), so that's not gonna convince him. And there we have a stalemate, because subjective feelings can't be penetrated by logic, no matter how one tries.

 

Edit: removed unnecessarily rude and inflammatory remark.

Edited June 27, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[ManifestedISO]

Everything was fine until the Cal bear baited the stubborn South African romance rhino. Now the hyenas are squabbling, again. 

[BruceVC]

 

As Bruce agrees with Zombra. Something that isn't in the game (eg.Combat xp) is not a Pro but..  yeah it is, but it isn't but it is. No, yes, no, yes...

 

 

Ok, I will repeat again, slooooowly, so you can understand

 

The lack of combat xp means that there's a different xp system in the game, which SW feels is better, therefore he includes it on his pro list.

 

The lack of romance means - in Bruce's book, mind - that there is... no romance. It's not like there's a different romance "system" implemented to replace the "classic" way. (Mainly because romances aren't systemic exercises...  ) So it's a feature that is missing, instead of being replaced by a different feature that serves its purpose.

The fallacy you seek is in the fact that other venues of NPC interaction are opening up, therefore there is indeed a different system that serves its purpose. But Bruce thinks that romances are a type of NPC interaction that deserve to be treated separately from "generic" interactions, because he's weird like that (but still likeable  ), so that's not gonna convince him. And there we have a stalemate, because subjective feelings can't be penetrated by logic, no matter how one tries.

 

"because he's weird like that ", I am a bit weird aren't I 

 

 

 But that's a good summary of my view, nice one

[Zombra]

However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.

 

That's a terrible argument. So when posters in this thread say on the Pro side, No combat xp because they dislike it. Then it doesn't really count as a Pro?

 

Well - first, it wasn't really intended as an argument, more of an observation intended to get people thinking positively.

 

Thanks to everyone who jumped to "my side", but Hiro is correct, both logically and emotionally: "No combat XP" really isn't a Pro by itself - to really be a Pro, the idea needs to be fleshed out into a positive feature, such as:

* Equal rewards for nonviolent mission resolution.

 

The positive side may be implied, but until it is made explicit, it doesn't really count in my opinion.

 

"No DLC" could be phrased as:

*Game will ship complete with substantial expansion packs planned.

This way it makes much more sense why it is a good thing.

 

So both sides are kind of right.  Something negative can imply a Pro if it can be turned around and phrased as a positive statement of something that is included, but it isn't really a Pro until you do.

 

It may seem like meaningless semantics, but there is actually a big difference between liking something that's there and hating something that's not there.  Two negatives only equal a positive in mathematics.

 

I'm reminded of the "let's pretend" game I often play with my co-workers: "Let's pretend you could be doing whatever you want right now.  What would it be?"  A very common answer is "I wouldn't be here at work."  See why that's not answering the question?

 

So: how would you change "no romance" into something that is meaningfully positive?

Edited June 27, 2014 by Zombra

[Stun]

 

As Bruce agrees with Zombra. Something that isn't in the game (eg.Combat xp) is not a Pro but..  yeah it is, but it isn't but it is. No, yes, no, yes...

 

The lack of combat xp means that there's a different xp system in the game, which SW feels is better, therefore he includes it on his pro list.

 

The lack of romance means - in Bruce's book, mind - that there is... no romance. It's not like there's a different romance "system" implemented to replace the "classic" way.

 

Wait, that's not a completely accurate comparison. RPG Romances are never a "system" in and of themselves. They're part of a system. Specifically, they're either an aspect of the game's greater narrative structure, or they're part of the Party inter-action system, or they're a result of the dialogue/influence system that is in place already.

 

But regardless, I, personally, don't see what the problem is with anyone who cites the absence of Romances as a "pro" and I don't quite understand why we're coming down so hard on those who do. Is it off-topic or something? The thread starter didn't define the criteria so specifically in his Op. He just told us to list things we're excited about. Well? I can totally see someone being excited that we're finally getting a party-based RPG that is romance-free. That's a rare thing these days.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Stun

[Sofaking]

I don't even know who I agree with, most of you appear to just be arguing past eachother.

 

"However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there."

"No-whatever is a Pro IF it's because there's something else there instead.  No-whichever is NOT a (valid) Pro IF it is simply the lack of a feature"

 

These statements are incorrect because they uses a poor example of broken glass which has never been included in games. So yes, saying no broken glass is a pro does not make sense beacause there would be a nearly infinite list of things we can state it does not have. But this ignores the fact that romance or combat experience are fairly common in RPG games now.  If, traditionally, games came with a kick in the balls and a developer came out and say, "Hey guys we're not going to kick you in the balls anymore." Then yes you can call that a pro even though it's just something that's not there anymore. There does not have to be a different or substitue system to the kick in the balls implimented, the simple act of removal (of the kick) is a good thing. But, if games never came with a kick in the balls and a developer says, "Hey at least we didn't kick you in the balls." Then no, you cannot call this a pro.

 

A good, actual example would be something like DRM. If a game developer usually releases games with restrictive DRM but their next title will be DRM free this most certainly can be considered a pro. 

[Nonek]

Suffer not the promancer to talk, else his squeeing echo.

Suffer not the promancer to see, lest he lay his diseased gaze on a goodly woman.

Suffer not the promancer to touch, for he is debased and diseased.

Suffer not the promancer to hear, for all he shall hear is scorn.

Suffer not the promancer to taste, do not nourish evil.

Suffer not the promancer to live, else his deviancy spread.

[Gromnir]

People are perfectly entitled to dislike content types for whatever reason they wish, and I agree that it's not cool to say, "You only said that because you want this."

 

However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there.

complete disagree. again, as we has beaten this issue to death many times, we will be brief.

 

we will not discuss everything that is wrong with bioware style romance. is not important for the nonce as we is only speaking o' how we can see as a pro on a pro v. con list, yes? so, moving forward...

 

first, a considerable amount o' resources that could otherwise go towards companion development is wasted on romances. using bio as an example, if they took all romance resources and used them to improve the individual companion dialogues and quest material, Gromnir would benefit greatly as we never use romance save as infrequent and rather painful experiments to be seeing if bio has changed. is never gonna be a 1:1 kinda resource allocation, but regardless, what isn't going to romance is going elsewhere, and as romance is necessarily bad, elsewhere at least has the possibility o' good. 

 

is not complete analogous, but am thinking it might help illustrate. if we learned that the us post office were gonna stop televising commercials for stamps we would be quite happy. the us post office has been operating in the red for years and yet they pay for national televised commercials for stamps... in prime time. is not as if Americans got an alternative to buying stamps, so what is the point? if Gromnir finds out tomorrow that the post office has stopped p1$$ing away money on stamp commercials, we would be happy... would be a Pro.

 

next, obsidian is looking to make poe into a successful property-- is not envisioned as a one-off. for some inexplicable reason, as terrible as they is, many people like romances in the bio games, and the romance fans is one of the most (if not the most) vocal segment o' the bioware social network. the following is Not hyperbole: every thread about a party npc in a bio game posted at bsn eventually becomes a romance thread. furthermore, if the thread in question exceeds some relative small critical mass, it will become an alternative lifestyle romance thread. 

 

...

 

is fine for folks who like such stuff, but they already has bioware games for that kinda thing. for folks who want a high density o' romance, weird romance, deviant romance and just plain sick romance discussions, bioware social network is a haven o' sorts. bio has made folks comfortable with discussing any and all matters that relate to sexing up any and every potential companion. calling that kinda thing romance actual offends us a bit. we don't want such. if obsidian were to add romance, we foresee it as a potential opening o' the floodgates for future poe games.

 

hey, perhaps the obsidian boards would remain largely the same as they is now even after they hypothetical included romances in poe. is not as if the tob discussions and nwn boards were all that different from the bg and bg2 boards. it genuine took years for the bsn to become what it is today. nevertheless, every time an obsidian game doesn't have romance, we sigh with relief.

 

furthermore, romance is not just a random issue. more than a few folks on these boards lobbied for romance. we were genuine concerned that in spite o' some obsidian developers having voiced their concerns 'bout the viability o' crpg romance during past developments, that they mighta' caved to fan pressure, particularly as this were a fan-funded project.

 

finally, is not as if there is an alternative Pro for romance absence. abandoning vancian magic requires some other kinda magic system... if a magic system is part o' the game. if Gromnir were happy 'bout about abandoning ie/d&d vancian magic, we would have the new magic system to identify as the Pro, yes? is not the case with romance. absence o' romance does not result in some clear and superior alternative, but from our post above, one must concede that we is clear relieved that romance is not included, yes?

 

am hopeful this satisfies. regardless, addition by subtraction is not a concept limited to sports teams, excessive gym workouts, or elimination of marginal clients in business. get rid o' romance is a Pro.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

Suffer not the promancer to talk, else his squeeing echo.

Suffer not the promancer to see, lest he lay his diseased gaze on a goodly woman.

Suffer not the promancer to touch, for he is debased and diseased.

Suffer not the promancer to hear, for all he shall hear is scorn.

Suffer not the promancer to taste, do not nourish evil.

Suffer not the promancer to live, else his deviancy spread.

 

[SqueakyCat]

Pros:

 

1.  A new IP that belongs 100% to Obsidian, and

     - No Romance

2.  An isometric, RTwP, party-based game paying homage to some of my favorite RPG's, and
     - No Inventory Baby

3.   Visually, the game is absolutely amazing, and
     - Not being hit on by companions with far below average pick-up skills

4.  A new world to explore, and
     - No romping in a tent donning cloth diapers

 

5.  Being able to read and use my imagination instead of everything being shown in a cut-scene, and
     - No romance

 

Cons:

 

1.  I'm curious as to how they are implementing the quest experience, but, for now, it's on the Con side.

2.  Not really a Con, but having to learn a new combat system since I haven't paid particular attention to all the discussions of the game mechanics.  Here' hoping for a really good manual.

Any other cons will  have to wait until the beta.  I hope they are few and far between. 

[BruceVC]

Pros:

 

1.  A new IP that belongs 100% to Obsidian, and

     - No Romance

 

2.  An isometric, RTwP, party-based game paying homage to some of my favorite RPG's, and

     - No Inventory Baby

 

3.   Visually, the game is absolutely amazing, and

     - Not being hit on by companions with far below average pick-up skills

 

4.  A new world to explore, and

     - No romping in a tent donning cloth diapers

 

5.  Being able to read and use my imagination instead of everything being shown in a cut-scene, and

     - No romance

 

Cons:

 

1.  I'm curious as to how they are implementing the quest experience, but, for now, it's on the Con side.

 

2.  Not really a Con, but having to learn a new combat system since I haven't paid particular attention to all the discussions of the game mechanics.  Here' hoping for a really good manual.

 

Any other cons will  have to wait until the beta.  I hope they are few and far between. 

 

Squeakymeister "waves" ...so nice to chat again

 

Why didn't you  mention no Romance as a Pro, you should have? I know you sit in the anti-romance group?

Edited June 27, 2014 by BruceVC

[SqueakyCat]

Hi Bruce!  Oops, I must have forgotten. 

[BruceVC]

Hi Bruce!  Oops, I must have forgotten. 

 

[tajerio]

Pros:

 

1. Obsidian's own IP, with a new world, story and NPCs.  I like seeing these guys having their own playground.  And I do love Josh's emphasis on verisimilitude.

 

2. Nine character classes that look pretty interesting to play.

 

3. A highly reactive world, and one that's reactive to more than just "are you good or are you bad?"

 

4. A new ruleset that still has familiar elements.

 

5. Reading-heavy.

 

Cons:

 

1. I'm not sure about this whole health & stamina thing.  It seems like it might be an unnecessarily complicating mechanic.

 

2. The priest and the fighter seem fairly bland.

 

3. The integration of animancy into the world as a whole, as I believe Gromnir mentioned earlier, seems to be somewhat rough.

 

4. Looks like there's only five skills.  I would have preferred approximately twice as many.

 

5. The effects of the various attributes don't all sit well with me, and I'm not sure if that's for gamist or simulationist reasons, but they don't.  Particularly Intelligence and AoE size.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Tajerio: Very nice sum-up. I wish I had written it.

[Gromnir]

 

Cons:

 

1. I'm not sure about this whole health & stamina thing.  It seems like it might be an unnecessarily complicating mechanic.

 

 

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue. manna strikes us a silly and potential unbalancing bit o' magic nonsense, but we has always envisioned fatigue/stamina as functioning similar to manna. constitution, endurance and/or whatever is frequently a dump stat for mages, and even for some ranged fighter type characters. have all actions cost fatigue is not only making sense to us, but is resulting in players having one less obvious dump stat. sure, poe will probable still have dump stats, but those dumps should be costly. for us, fatigue would be regenerating quickly, particular out of combat. wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate. special abilities would allow a player to use precious health points to boost actions. etc. we had whole systems worked out for health and fatigue and we found that they worked quite well in pnp.

 

'course, when we made health and fatigue, it were always built 'round tb pnp.  if action A cost 3 points o' fatigue, and action B cost 6 points, it would be easy to track and compare and plan out action ques. rtwp wouldn't be ideal for Gromnir notions o' health and fatigue. also, as is a typical flaw o' Gromnir rules mechanics, we could make things a bit too complex. but that ain't an inherent quality o' health and fatigue.

 

obsidian health and stamina is not same as Gromnir notions, but has enough similarities that we is pleased. however, am waiting for beta to see how it actual functions before we says yea or nay. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 27, 2014 by Gromnir

[Stun]

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue.

Aah, but that's the thing. In PoE's system Stamina does not = Fatigue. You do not incur stamina loss from casting a fireball or activating your Barbarian charge, for example.

 

Instead, you lose stamina when you get whacked in combat. When someone hits you with something. And when your stamina bar drops to zero, you fall to the ground.... maimed.

 

That means that the stamina bar is literally just a second health bar. Thus I'm still trying to figure out why it's needed. Or why it's even called a stamina bar, when it could more accurately be called: "The-Flesh-Wound-Bar" or "The-Blood-Loss-Bar" or "Immediate-Combat-Trauma-Incurred-Bar".

Edited June 27, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

@Stun Nope, having stamina drop to 0 doesn't make you Maimed. Having health drop to zero will, and if you get hit when maimed, you die.

[Elerond]

 

we has been lobbying for years, with virtual every new ip from bioware and others, to have a health and fatigue mechanic. hardly any new ip from obsidian, so has rare been an issue.

Aah, but that's the thing. In PoE's system Stamina does not = Fatigue. You do not incur stamina loss from casting a fireball or activating your Barbarian charge, for example.

 

Instead, you lose stamina when you get whacked in combat. When someone hits you with something. And when your stamina bar drops to zero, you fall to the ground.... maimed.

 

That means that the stamina bar is literally just a second health bar. Thus I'm still trying to figure out why it's even needed.

 

 

When character's stamina drops to zero, that character will fall to the ground and has unconscious status, which they can recover with abilities or automatically after battle. Character gets maimed or in harder difficult levels (or if character already has maimed status) dies if their health drops to zero. 

[Sofaking]

I kind of thought stamina was a way of preventing the old "I still have 1 HP" oddity with DnD. In that you're just as an effective fighter with 100 HP as you are when severly wounded and at deaths door with 1 HP. Is this wrong?

[Gromnir]

am realizing they is doing different, but is some similarities to what we envisioned.

 

"wounds would damage both health and fatigue. health would require medical and/or healing magics to regenerate"

 

past a certain threshold, a "hit" would damage health as well as fatigue. sounds similar. am curious to see how is actual implemented... and am optimistic that in future games they could improve. as we said, am waiting for beta.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am thinking it goes without saying that Gromnir approach is better, but one expects baby-steps from obsidian. am kinda joking.

Edited June 27, 2014 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

I kind of thought stamina was a way of preventing the old "I still have 1 HP" oddity with DnD. In that you're just as an effective fighter with 100 HP as you are when severly wounded and at deaths door with 1 HP. Is this wrong?

 

They decided against making characters less effective when they are heavily wounded, although if character has maimed status they suffer heavy penalties to all their attributes and they die from next hit that does damage to their health.

 

Some classes, more specifically monk and barbarian at least, have abilities that give bonuses from getting stamina damage or don't work until your stamina is under certain level.