Backer beta: Developer Impressions

[Stun]

Then why is there this divide between chit-chat and fighty-fighty attributes? If you pump Resolve, you'll have to forego some points in either might, con or dex. The concept of avoiding a system where you have to decide is really strange, considering that PoE is about decisions. If Obsidian focusses on a game in which to solve quests in vastly different ways then creating a system where you have to decide on what to spend your resources on is mandatory, or otherwise you'll have a character that can do everything at once, making stats absolutely obsolete in the end. (edit: Also it makes the game a "Choose-your-own-story" like the Yawhg. I like the Yawhg, but that is not what I want from and what was promised for PoE)

 

Also, to whoever used VtM:B as an argument for the Quest-Only-XP: VtM:B was a vastly different game, geared to a vastly different playstyle and has nothing to do with BG,PS:T or PoE. It could never be compared to any of those games. In PoE, monsters exist to be slain. In PS:T encounters where rare and fine-tuned, but that is what makes PS:T special and PoE is nothing like that. PoEs encounters are more in the vein of BG1 and BG2. They are aplenty, some of them are rather random and they cannot be avoided or justified in some cases. Then there is the logical aspect that combat experience does exist, no matter what kind of fantasy universe you come up with. And the argument that every way of solving a quest should yield the same amount of xp is also invalid, as xp rewards can be tuned towards that. There are encounters every group is able to fight, whether the wolves in the south of Dyrwood or the freakin' beetles/spiders to the east of it. Loot, mostly, is not the reason to fight these battles, as the monetary gain is almost neglegible and not every battle can have a meaning behind it. Some are there because the fauna of the world is simply hostile towards almost anyone.

In D&D's Forgotten Realms there are many creatures who're just inherently hostile to almost any intruder and will attack, no matter what you do. This is, of course, partly due to the concept of D&D. But PoEs fauna is very similar in that regard. Again, PS:T, is a very rare exception and while we're at it, taking PS:T - the ONLY exception in all of this - as THE archetype for PoE is ridiculous, sorry to say that. You take the one exception and act like it's the norm (and yes, that is headed towards Gromnir), but it is not and this is just ridiculous. You act like you are the authority here yet your arguments are non-existant.

Yes. Couldn't have said it better.

 

Clarity, after 24 pages. Who could have imagined such a thing?

[Cantousent]

Why do I even use quick reply?  I'm constantly having to fix the interface after I click in it?  ugh

 

Regarding the idea that combat XP is intuitive in a combat heavy game, I'll elaborate on something other folks have said, which is that the logical extension of that idea is not to give combat XP, but have XP based on the abilities you actually use.  I don't want a TES style system, but it is in keeping with the logic that I see used for combat XP. 

 

Experience Points serve as an abstract notion to represent growth in skill as a result of the decisions players make.  Combat XP is no less an abstraction of the idea of self-improvement than quest only XP.  We could draw the line closer or farther, but we're drawing it somewhere.  ...And the same argument could be made for classes vs classless, levels vs no character levels, etc.

 

I completely agree with wicker that the reward need not (and probably should not) be the same for every option of how to solve a quest.  I think sometimes combat should yield superior results.  I think sometimes talking should yield better results.  In story terms, I think there should be a reward for thinking about how to approach and overcome challenges (we should probably think in terms of challenges rather than quests in the first place) *and* there should also sometimes be unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences from time to time.  Using dialogue or stealth to overcome a challenge might be your preferred method, but every now and then, you should have negative consequences for refusing to use more physical means.  Of course, the same goes the other way.  In terms of XP, however, if folks can solve a quest and get that superior XP reward for using one method, it defeats the purpose if the player then goes around to metagame and kill all the creatures anyway.  I think the player should be *allowed* to do so, but not *rewarded* for doing so.  Rewarding behavior virtually always habituates rational people to engage in it.

 

Quest XP is not superior because it is inherently better.  In a game like Diablo, combat XP is central to the design.  Fine.  I enjoy Diablo.  Loved 1 and 2 with xpacs and I... didn't quite *love* 3, but it didn't slip in my estimation because of combat XP.  Combat XP is not better because it is inherently so, and it's certainly not better because it was in a game in years past.  I agree that PS:T can't be the only basis of reference, but it is a legitimate point of reference to make arguments, at least to my way of thinking.  That said, just as PS:T is only one of the many ie games, combat XP is not what defines the ie games for me altogether.  Someone who only engaged in fights when forced to do so could still play and win BG and BG2.  In fact, one of my favorite areas in any game is Durlog's Tower, where there was plenty of XP outside of combat.  The combat XP wasn't a big deal in Durlog's tower.  Combat XP was not the point of BG and BG2.  It was central to Dungeons and Dragons, but the games could have removed those licensed elements without destroying the fun of the game.  In fact, I think, if it had been tooled from the beginning without combat XP, most folks here would still have enjoyed the games.  Maybe I'm wrong, but who here says that combat XP is the single factor that made all of the ie games so fun to play?

[Sarex]

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

[Cantousent]

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position.  I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

[Volourn]

"Temple of Elemental Evil - one of the best tactical RPG ports from a pen and paper game, ever.

 

It was *never* repetitive."

 

 

Kidding right. It was ALWAYS repetitive.

[wickermoon]

 

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position.  I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

 

 

 

Without any rewards other than loot - and let us be honest, most of the battles won't yield rewarding loot, but just money in all its wonderful dungeoneering form - normal battles will become tedious. If PoE is anything like the BG series, and currently it looks like it, than there will be plenty of battles to fight with most of them dropping random stuff you'll most likely sell. A non-combat-xp system stimulates a player to always avoid combat where possible, something I find as annoying as others might find combat-xp.

 

The thing is, if players want to go out of their way to get extra xp, by wasting their time and going to the farthest corner of the map in search of three wolves, just for some 45+xp, just let them do that. Why are people so hell-bent on trying to enforce a certain playstyle on others? If you don't like to do that, just don't do it.

And before someone says I want to enforce my playstyle, too: No, the thing is it makes no difference for people who don't go out of their way to kill everything to get combat xp, as they're not farming, but just experiencing the game. Combat xp is a logical, calculated and balanced part of the game (or should be). You might hate farming, but this is not a multiplayer, this is not a competition. If people want to farm, let them. Nobody is forcing you to farm. But by taking away combat-xp you are most definitely forcing other players to play the game how you want and this just sucks.

 

By the way, the you is the general you and not a specific person in this case.

 

But in my opinion, this is the biggest problem these days: Envy. People hate that others are faster, more efficient or stronger than them. People hate that there are munchkins out there who could beat the game faster than they will, because they're minmaxing and gaming the system. People hate that there are scumsavers, minmaxers, walkthrough-users and whatnots. And because they hate that there might be someone whose characters are a bit stronger than theirs, because he wasted the time to get some extra kills, they want to "balance" a singleplayer game and enforce a cetrain gaming style. Oh I still remember when there were people who would clamour about the possibility to save-scum. How they raged that ironman was only an option.

Edited August 28, 2014 by wickermoon

[makryu]

So, awarding xp only for quests, no matter how you solve them, is actually enforcing a gameplay style, but awarding xp for kills isn't? Quite the logic there.

[GreyFox]

 

 

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position.  I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

 

 

 

Without any rewards other than loot - and let us be honest, most of the battles won't yield rewarding loot, but just money in all its wonderful dungeoneering form - normal battles will become tedious. If PoE is anything like the BG series, and currently it looks like it, than there will be plenty of battles to fight with most of them dropping random stuff you'll most likely sell. A non-combat-xp system stimulates a player to always avoid combat where possible, something I find as annoying as others might find combat-xp.

 

The thing is, if players want to go out of their way to get extra xp, by wasting their time and going to the farthest corner of the map in search of three wolves, just for some 45+xp, just let them do that. Why are people so hell-bent on trying to enforce a certain playstyle on others? If you don't like to do that, just don't do it.

And before someone says I want to enforce my playstyle, too: No, the thing is it makes no difference for people who don't go out of their way to kill everything to get combat xp, as they're not farming, but just experiencing the game. Combat xp is a logical, calculated and balanced part of the game (or should be). You might hate farming, but this is not a multiplayer, this is not a competition. If people want to farm, let them. Nobody is forcing you to farm. But by taking away combat-xp you are most definitely forcing other players to play the game how you want and this just sucks.

 

By the way, the you is the general you and not a specific person in this case.

 

But in my opinion, this is the biggest problem these days: Envy. People hate that others are faster, more efficient or stronger than them. People hate that there are munchkins out there who could beat the game faster than they will, because they're minmaxing and gaming the system. People hate that there are scumsavers, minmaxers, walkthrough-users and whatnots. And because they hate that there might be someone whose characters are a bit stronger than theirs, because he wasted the time to get some extra kills, they want to "balance" a singleplayer game and enforce a cetrain gaming style. Oh I still remember when there were people who would clamour about the possibility to save-scum. How they raged that ironman was only an option.

 

 

I don't know if I find it sad or amusing that people are this way.

 

I was pretty surprised to come back here and see people so personally affected by the way other people play their SP game...I wonder how they react to real life situations.....

 

They had save game editors for the IE games, console for NWN  and likely will for this but people are worried about giving out 10 exp for killing some wolves....lol...amusing is where I sit atm so I guess that answers that.

Edited August 29, 2014 by GreyFox

[IndiraLightfoot]

Indeed. The questions that really should've been asked by Obsidian regarding PoE and no combat xp, no lockpick xp, no disarm trap xp, etc:

-Do we get more or less gameplay out of it by removing it and just keeping quest xp?

-Will opponents to these xp categories suffer in any way in this combat-heavy SP game because they are in?

-Will this be killing a tradition, one of the pillars that the IE games rested upon, or will it still be a spiritual successor to the IE games?

[Mayama]

Indeed. The questions that really should've been asked by Obsidian regarding PoE and no combat xp, no lockpick xp, no disarm trap xp, etc:

-Do we get more or less gameplay out of it by removing it and just keeping quest xp?

-Will opponents to these xp categories suffer in any way in this combat-heavy SP game because they are in?

-Will this be killing a tradition, one of the pillars that the IE games rested upon, or will it still be a spiritual successor to the IE games?

 

I guess they did that. Its something they debate since BG1. Its kinda ignorant to believe that the dev's of any game did not think stuff through, they have a reason for it. You might agree with it or not but thinking that they do stuff just for the lulz is naive.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Mayama

[GreyFox]

This game keeps track of kills right?

 

 

I wonder how they determine what the most powerful foe vanquished is in this.....hps, dps, hrmm....it's not XP

 

LOL I'm sure the kill XP people are going to have something else to talk about now that I'm sure they forgot about the fact that the character sheet sure has a lot of extra

tidbits about combat/kills....like they get everything but XP right down to most damage done by a single hit.

 

Wonder why there is a "Total Enemies Defeated" section but not "Total Quests Solved by Dialogue" or "Quests Completed".

 

I swear it's almost as if this is a combat oriented RPG.

Edited August 29, 2014 by GreyFox

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Indeed. The questions that really should've been asked by Obsidian regarding PoE and no combat xp, no lockpick xp, no disarm trap xp, etc:

-Do we get more or less gameplay out of it by removing it and just keeping quest xp?

-Will opponents to these xp categories suffer in any way in this combat-heavy SP game because they are in?

-Will this be killing a tradition, one of the pillars that the IE games rested upon, or will it still be a spiritual successor to the IE games?

 

I guess they did that. Its something they debate since BG1. Its kinda ignorant to believe that the dev's of any game did not think stuff through, they have a reason for it. You might agree with it or not but thinking that they do stuff just for the lulz is naive.

 

I agree that they did it for a reason, but they didn't consider the price tag of that decision enough, IMHO. I know that they released Stick of Truth pretty bug-free and it got great reviews and did well in that Metacritic chamber of horrors. They opted to have this beta build separate on Steam because they feared thre reviews would be too scathing, etc, etc. Imagine what those reviews and criticisms will be when those 70,000+ backers that aren't frequenting these forums and reading the updates get therir hands on the game and find out for the first time that combat xp, lockpick xp, disarm trap xp, craft xp, convo-foo xp are gone? It will be a **** storm, unfortunately, and that's not even me being pessimistic. If it's at all like here: You'll have tens of thousands of honestly disappointed backers that will say their piece.

 

Here's a few words of wisdom from another KS game I backed. I got this yesterday, Interdimensional games on their Consortium launch, a game that Tim Cain supported, btw:

"Why we are not all working full-speed ahead on producing the sequel – is due to our completely flubbed launch. We have unfortunately been faced with the issue of convincing the world of the current reality of CONSORTIUM (very close to bug free!) when compared to the perceived reality we have been marred with since launch (incredibly buggy!). It all then leads back to our decision not to launch as Early Access back in January, which would have extended our beta testing period and prevented reviews from being based on buggy builds. That was a massive, game changing mistake and we have been paying for it ever since. Our Metacritic score, for example, is based on too many reviews speaking about bugs and problems which no longer exist. We could go on and on with excuses and such... but we will not do that. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. This does not mean, however, that we are beaten as a company."

 

I don't want Obsidian and PoE to suffer the same fate. That would be awful.

Edited August 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Gromnir]

 

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position.  I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

 

one does wonder what % of people 'pon hearing o' the project eternity kickstarter gave half a fart for what kinda xp mechanic would be utilized. how convincing does you find folks who now says that belief that PoE would utilize per kill xp was a major reason they backed the project back in october o' 2012?  *chuckle*

 

as for the following silliness:

 

"Again, PS:T, is a very rare exception and while we're at it, taking PS:T - the ONLY exception in all of this - as THE archetype for PoE is ridiculous, sorry to say that. You take the one exception and act like it's the norm (and yes, that is headed towards Gromnir), but it is not and this is just ridiculous. You act like you are the authority here yet your arguments are non-existant."

 

*snort*

 

seeing as how obsidian is a direct descendant o' black isle, and the only ie games black isle developed were iwd, iwd2 and ps:t, we would suggest that observing how non-combat scenarios were handled in ps:t is actual quite meaningful. hell, considering the PoE game mechanics is far more reminiscent o' d&d d20 than ad&d, with far more mechanical opportunities to utilize non-combat resolutions to quests, we would think that it would be foolish to ignore obsidian's handling o' quest resolutions in the nwn games such as motb. after all, regardless o' ie or aurora engine, we is thinking that the way particular developers design quests is an important factor to consider when predicting how quest resolutions will be handled in PoE, no?

 

so, am thinking that underestimating ps:t influence is the more likely mistake, y'know, seeing as how we already know that companion interactions will be far more involved than in most o' the ie games and given that Chris Avellone is doing writing and that PoE game mechanics is built to embrace more non-combat activities than existed in any ie game save maybe iwd2.

 

*sheesh*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

So, awarding xp only for quests, no matter how you solve them, is actually enforcing a gameplay style, but awarding xp for kills isn't? Quite the logic there.

 

If you had bother to read the thread at all you would have seen that combat xp proponents want both kill xp and quest xp...

[makryu]

 

So, awarding xp only for quests, no matter how you solve them, is actually enforcing a gameplay style, but awarding xp for kills isn't? Quite the logic there.

 

If you had bother to read the thread at all you would have seen that combat xp proponents want both kill xp and quest xp...

 

 

I did bother to read, and it wasn't easy, with supposedly old-school posers and people with multiple personality disorder making the bulk of the posts, and nothing I read changes anything related to my previous comment. There is absolutely no way in hell that deciding to award only quest xp (no matter how you accomplish a quest) is "enforcing a gameplay style" any more than also awarding combat xp, in fact quite possibly a lot less so.

Edited August 29, 2014 by makryu

[Sarex]

I did bother to read, and it wasn't easy, with supposedly old-school posers and people with multiple personality disorder making the bulk of the posts, and nothing I read changes anything related to my previous comment. There is absolutely no way in hell that deciding to award only quest xp (no matter how you accomplish a quest) is "enforcing a gameplay style" any more than also awarding combat xp, in fact quite possibly a lot less so.

 

It does force the player a certain way, because it railroads him in to doing quest if he wants any character progression.

[IndiraLightfoot]

This game keeps track of kills right?

 

I wonder how they determine what the most powerful foe vanquished is in this.....hps, dps, hrmm....it's not XP

 

 

I swear it's almost as if this is a combat oriented RPG.

 

"Most enemies defeated", etc... Hehe, a game too RPG-ist snobby too get its hands bloody, but still it comes with detailed body counts. Monte Carlo said it eloquently: A sheep in wolf's clothing, or is it a wolf, after all? So, it is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which wears wolf's clothing. All these onion peels under its skin make me shed a tear or two.

Unless "defeated" means the game keeps track of all ways to "defeat" the enemies - it tracks every critter you sneak by, each lumbering giant you talk into submission, and those count as well, but I sincerely doubt it. This means there must be a ranking system already in for each and every monster/enemy.

All of the sudden, I'm getting much more optimistic as far as the re-introduction of combat xp goes. It's more or less already there under the hood, it just need to be re-activated.

Edited August 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Hiro Protagonist II]

This game keeps track of kills right?

 

 

I wonder how they determine what the most powerful foe vanquished is in this.....hps, dps, hrmm....it's not XP

 

LOL I'm sure the kill XP people are going to have something else to talk about now that I'm sure they forgot about the fact that the character sheet sure has a lot of extra

tidbits about combat/kills....like they get everything but XP right down to most damage done by a single hit.

 

Wonder why there is a "Total Enemies Defeated" section but not "Total Quests Solved by Dialogue" or "Quests Completed".

 

I swear it's almost as if this is a combat oriented RPG.

 

I'm going to use a walkthrough and try and avoid as much unnecessary combat and exploration as I can. Be great to see who can finish the game with the least amount of kills.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Yeah, it could be a Steam achievement, like in Dishonored: "Clean Hands."

[prodigydancer]

Temple of Elemental Evil - one of the best tactical RPG ports from a pen and paper game, ever.

 

It was *never* repetitive.

Just because you like something doesn't mean it's flawless. I played ToEE long ago and can't recall how combat felt in detail. All I remember is that it was nothing special.

[Monte Carlo]

I didn't say it was flawless, did I?

 

It is very, very good though.

[GrinningReaper659]

 

 

 

The thing to keep in mind, and this is in general, is that people asked for a spiritual successor of he IE games. While there are a lot of great systems out there it isn't what the people singed up for.

From my perspective, this is the most powerful argument against my position.  I still hold to my view, but if there were a single vexing argument to me from the opposing side, it's this.

 

 

 

Without any rewards other than loot - and let us be honest, most of the battles won't yield rewarding loot, but just money in all its wonderful dungeoneering form - normal battles will become tedious. If PoE is anything like the BG series, and currently it looks like it, than there will be plenty of battles to fight with most of them dropping random stuff you'll most likely sell. A non-combat-xp system stimulates a player to always avoid combat where possible, something I find as annoying as others might find combat-xp.

 

The thing is, if players want to go out of their way to get extra xp, by wasting their time and going to the farthest corner of the map in search of three wolves, just for some 45+xp, just let them do that. Why are people so hell-bent on trying to enforce a certain playstyle on others? If you don't like to do that, just don't do it.

And before someone says I want to enforce my playstyle, too: No, the thing is it makes no difference for people who don't go out of their way to kill everything to get combat xp, as they're not farming, but just experiencing the game. Combat xp is a logical, calculated and balanced part of the game (or should be). You might hate farming, but this is not a multiplayer, this is not a competition. If people want to farm, let them. Nobody is forcing you to farm. But by taking away combat-xp you are most definitely forcing other players to play the game how you want and this just sucks.

 

By the way, the you is the general you and not a specific person in this case.

 

But in my opinion, this is the biggest problem these days: Envy. People hate that others are faster, more efficient or stronger than them. People hate that there are munchkins out there who could beat the game faster than they will, because they're minmaxing and gaming the system. People hate that there are scumsavers, minmaxers, walkthrough-users and whatnots. And because they hate that there might be someone whose characters are a bit stronger than theirs, because he wasted the time to get some extra kills, they want to "balance" a singleplayer game and enforce a cetrain gaming style. Oh I still remember when there were people who would clamour about the possibility to save-scum. How they raged that ironman was only an option.

 

 

I don't know if I find it sad or amusing that people are this way.

 

I was pretty surprised to come back here and see people so personally affected by the way other people play their SP game...I wonder how they react to real life situations.....

 

They had save game editors for the IE games, console for NWN  and likely will for this but people are worried about giving out 10 exp for killing some wolves....lol...amusing is where I sit atm so I guess that answers that.

 

 

@wickermoon & GreyFox

 

That's really interesting stuff there, could you go ahead and direct me to all of these quotes of people saying that the reason that they don't want per-kill XP in the game is because they're angry or envious that some other player they'll never meet is gonna rack up 10 more XP than them? Oh, that's not what people have been saying at all? Hmm, it looks like you've just constructed some sort of straw man and dressed him up like your opponents, and then proceeded to beat him with sticks while laughing about how you're vanquishing your enemies. I'm sorry for the heavy sarcasm here but you guys have to be kidding with this.

 

Nobody cares about how much XP you have or how you play your game. It's amazing that this argument suggesting that mechanics and balance of a single player game are irrelevant because nobody's competing can still be put forth. Guess what, if the game has kill-XP, it affects everyone's game, not just yours. My game will be undeniably altered as well. If every enemy has 1 hp and my party members each have 200 hp and do at least 1 point of damage with every hit, guess what, my game has been ruined thanks to the devs not balancing it correctly. It has nothing to do with you getting through the game too easily or getting too much XP, the design decisions of a game affect the game and everyone who plays it. This same ridiculous argument could be made against the kill-XP side by me just saying that you're all trying to control how I play, but I'm not gonna go there. The truth is, we're both arguing to have the system implemented which we think will give us the most enjoyment. Nobody's envious of how you play your game or how I play mine, trust me.

 

 

 

I did bother to read, and it wasn't easy, with supposedly old-school posers and people with multiple personality disorder making the bulk of the posts, and nothing I read changes anything related to my previous comment. There is absolutely no way in hell that deciding to award only quest xp (no matter how you accomplish a quest) is "enforcing a gameplay style" any more than also awarding combat xp, in fact quite possibly a lot less so.

 

It does force the player a certain way, because it railroads him in to doing quest if he wants any character progression.

 

 

So really, what you're saying is that the game is railroading you away from a specific form of gaining a bunch of extra levels outside of the main quest line. So, you want extra levels that won't be given on the main questline to keep ahead of the challenge curve and you want to get them without completing sidequests? That seems incredibly specific and that's ultimately a design choice for the devs. I just don't see how this is detrimental to you. You can do the main quests and progress throughout the story and, if desired, you can go off and complete sidequests for extra level progression.

 

All of that aside, Quest-XP suggests that the player should do quests, and perhaps that the player should be exploring in order to complete quests. Quest-XP plus per-kill XP suggests to the player how to explore and how to complete quests. I'm not seeing how Quest-XP only is doing more railroading.

[prodigydancer]

Yeah, it could be a Steam achievement, like in Dishonored: "Clean Hands."

While not an RPG, Dishonored is a good example of a game that neither punishes nor promotes any particular playstyle. It's supposed to be a stealth game but you can take revenge on the world and brutally slaughter everyone who stands in your way if you wish so.

 

XP awards push the player towards certain decisions that often make little sense from RP perspective. And that's why I believe that XP is overrated - not just combat XP but the whole concept. The Elder Scrolls games are a proof that you don't need XP to create non-linear open-ended CRPGs.

 

But if Obsidian scratched XP completely... oh, I shiver as I imagine the outcry we'd have here.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Yeah, it could be a Steam achievement, like in Dishonored: "Clean Hands."

While not an RPG, Dishonored is a good example of a game that neither punishes nor promotes any particular playstyle. It's supposed to be a stealth game but you can take revenge on the world and brutally slaughter everyone who stands in your way if you wish so.

 

XP awards push the player towards certain decisions that often make little sense from RP perspective. And that's why I believe that XP is overrated - not just combat XP but the whole concept. The Elder Scrolls games are a proof that you don't need XP to create non-linear open-ended CRPGs.

 

But if Obsidian scratched XP completely... oh, I shiver as I imagine the outcry we'd have here.

 

I love Dishonored, I really do!

However, this is an entire game genre, and PoE has been advertised as an IE-game successor all the way, even down to Josh sitting in that couch in Gamescom talking about it. And as has already been described in detail - the xp system and the continual xp influx in small increments belongs is one of the key gameplay pillars in these games. Removing it, is, in essence, the same as making a new kind of game, bluntly put.

Edited August 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Mayama]

I love Dishonored, I really do!

 

However, this is an entire game genre, and PoE has been advertised as an IE-game successor all the way, even down to Josh sitting in that couch in Gamescom talking about it. And as has already been described in detail - the xp system and the continual xp influx in small increments belongs is one of the key gameplay pillars in these games. Removing it, is, in essence, the same as making a new kind of game, bluntly put.

 

People are very selective about what is a "pillar of the IE" games, PoE has no alignment system which is a part of icewind dale very important in baldurs gate and a core principle in planescape torment.