bad design decisions

[Mayama]

1. You do know that PoE has hardcore mode as part of difficulty options? Nobody is going to play that when you cannot escape a losing battle. They wasted their time.

2. I was trying to be nice. Spiritual successor is even closer to original than new generation X game (see how much different is between new Xcom and old one; much more than DAO vs BG2 -> DAO was advertized as spiritual successor)

3. It is all the argument you need. I also have you real points that you conveniently ignored because you are only complaining because you don't like this or that while accusing me of that.

4. You know there is a world outside this forums as well yes? And people there are not Obsidian fanboys and are much less forgiving. Lack of ammo is always on their lists of failed things.

 

I dont ignore your arguments it's just that you still dont get that my original post was entirely about. Your opinion does not equal fact, its a opinion, everyone has one. I just repeated to your post specificaly because you were the loudest in this thread. 

 

Spiritual successor means "in the spirit of x" it does not define how close it is to the original source material. Bio shock is a spiritual successor to system shock but beside some core mechanics they dont have much in common. Its similar "in spirit" which means its basicaly something completly different but with the same core feel. Go to wikipedia and look through all the game titles that are listed their. Not a single one is close to the original game. Its basicaly the opposite of making the same again.

[Lephys]

2. I was trying to be nice. Spiritual successor is even closer to original than new generation X game (see how much different is between new Xcom and old one; much more than DAO vs BG2 -> DAO was advertized as spiritual successor)

Dunno about that... The new Mortal Kombat game isn't a "spiritual successor" to Mortal Kombat. It's actually a "new generation" Mortal Kombat. Same with any and all reboots, or continuations of game series' like 10+ years later. Starcraft 2 wasn't a "spiritual successor" to Starcraft.

 

Yeah, maybe they're maliciously deceptive people who intentionally made you think you were getting almost an exact replica of one of the IE games with better tech, or maybe you just don't comprehend thresholds of specificity.

 

Next people will start moaning about how the space piglet isn't in the spirit of Boo, simply because it isn't a hamster and doesn't belong to Minsc. *eye roll*

[wanderon]

Space piglet?

 

Oh crap where we gonna hide THAT from the guards at the beginning of POE2??? 

[aeonsim]

Space piglet?

 

Oh crap where we gonna hide THAT from the guards at the beginning of POE2??? 

Don't worry this time round it'll be the space pig that frees you!

[archangel979]

 

2. I was trying to be nice. Spiritual successor is even closer to original than new generation X game (see how much different is between new Xcom and old one; much more than DAO vs BG2 -> DAO was advertized as spiritual successor)

Dunno about that... The new Mortal Kombat game isn't a "spiritual successor" to Mortal Kombat. It's actually a "new generation" Mortal Kombat. Same with any and all reboots, or continuations of game series' like 10+ years later. Starcraft 2 wasn't a "spiritual successor" to Starcraft.

 

Yeah, maybe they're maliciously deceptive people who intentionally made you think you were getting almost an exact replica of one of the IE games with better tech, or maybe you just don't comprehend thresholds of specificity.

 

Next people will start moaning about how the space piglet isn't in the spirit of Boo, simply because it isn't a hamster and doesn't belong to Minsc. *eye roll*

 

You are now comparing direct sequels with spiritual successors?! Edited February 20, 2015 by archangel979

[Lychnidos]

All these years I've been hearing people say "Fallout is the spiritual successor of Wasteland", and yet when I played them they were more different than BG and DAO. Have I been lied to ? 







Subjective **** gonna be subjective. 

[Lephys]

You are now comparing direct sequels with spiritual successors?!

Comparing? Not really. I'm contrasting them. As in "compare and contrast these two things," minus the compare part. Starcraft 2 just happened to be a "new generation X" game compared to the old one. The point being that a spiritual successor is not the same thing as "I'm going to make one of those games again!". XCOM is not a "spiritual successor" to the old XCOM game. Regardless of whether or not it's a sequel, it's another friggin' XCOM game. If they were going to make another infinity engine game, they would've just said "we're making another infinity engine game." But, instead, they said "You know, we really liked those games, and we want to make something like that." What they want to be similar and what they don't is kind of up to them.

 

And yet, people keep pointing out "Hey, this wasn't exactly like that, so it's not a spiritual successor!" Almost like they're expecting a sequel-like level of sameness.

 

"Spiritual successor" basically just means "The game I'm referencing inspired me to make this game I'm making." So, if you think it isn't enough like it, then great. But, there's no measuring stick to use to determine whether or not something's a spiritual successor.

[Lord Gorchnik]

While all those items presented on that list aren't a big deal for myself,  What I am (not) waiting for are the complaints from the thousands and thousands of people who haven't been keeping up with development and haven't experienced what the game truly plays like yet.  So many other forums I see people talking about this game claiming it will be "just like BG1/2 and ID, and it's going to play just like it!"

 

Boy are they in for a rude awakening.

[nipsen]

Well, as long as there will still be three-four people around - of the kind that are more influential than the rest of us, mind you - valiantly declaring how all should agree the game is exactly the same as BG, as long as potions can be chugged in bulk, spells can be cast for pre-buffing, and mobs can be kited across the map, and spells can be cast at a distance to win battles before they turn into engagements. Then obviously that's not going to be a problem. Because these people know what Baldur's Gate really is all about.

 

In fact, because these people are simply pouring out their opinions, untainted by argument or any sort of reasonable discussion, their opinions are pure. And therefore should be taken to be truth. Unlike any arguments that are bound by foul logic or godless consistency, or, considered with heretical perspective. Get rid of it all, agree with truth, and be at peace. This is how the universal law of things work in the multiverse, and it's how it always will be.

[Luckmann]

While all those items presented on that list aren't a big deal for myself,  What I am (not) waiting for are the complaints from the thousands and thousands of people who haven't been keeping up with development and haven't experienced what the game truly plays like yet.  So many other forums I see people talking about this game claiming it will be "just like BG1/2 and ID, and it's going to play just like it!"

 

Boy are they in for a rude awakening.

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic (completely locking down the field of battle for the player, as opposed to the very mobile IE battlefield), the "Combat Only" Abilities (which constantly interferes with performing tactics you'd think would be completely reasonable) and the neutered Stealth mechanic (especially anyone that enjoyed playing an Assassin in BG2).

 

By and large, I think PoE will be a success, and I don't think that the new generation of "gamers" will care overly much, especially those that aren't backers (and thus didn't really listen to the pitches) and those that haven't been around very long (i.e. those that haven't played the IE games or similar). But oh boy are there a key demographic that was completely sold on this product that are in for a rude awakening in regards to key mechanics.

[nipsen]

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic 

..since the entire middle-of-the-road compromise they chose - between jumping the gorge, and wandering around the valley - wasn't such a huge success as some thought it would be, that's probably not the most risky bet anyone has ever made, at least. But it's because the system just isn't very good, it's not because the backers have super-special preferences. Some of you certainly have super-special preferences, and those views have been incredibly overrepresented. But that the general "demography" has unbelievably curious tastes is a myth.

 

And I don't think you're right about how this won't bother anyone but the backers. Thing is that the combat as it is is boring. The challenge isn't finding the right strategy - the challenge is finding the right procedure, and then just staying with it until you fall asleep. "I'll challenge you to repeat the same process to defeat the same enemy over and over again - while I'll punish you for deviating from the obviously ideal recipe with expensive penalties, more boring grind, and failure" - said no successful game-designer, ever.

[Luckmann]

 

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic 

..since the entire middle-of-the-road compromise they chose - between jumping the gorge, and wandering around the valley - wasn't such a huge success as some thought it would be, that's probably not the most risky bet anyone has ever made, at least. But it's because the system just isn't very good, it's not because the backers have super-special preferences. Some of you certainly have super-special preferences, and those views have been incredibly overrepresented. But that the general "demography" has unbelievably curious tastes is a myth.

 

And I don't think you're right about how this won't bother anyone but the backers. Thing is that the combat as it is is boring. The challenge isn't finding the right strategy - the challenge is finding the right procedure, and then just staying with it until you fall asleep. "I'll challenge you to repeat the same process to defeat the same enemy over and over again - while I'll punish you for deviating from the obviously ideal recipe with expensive penalties, more boring grind, and failure" - said no successful game-designer, ever.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but at the same time, we've seen time and again that young gamers are willing to happily eat **** while grinning, likely fuelled in equal parts hype and buyers remorse/post-purchase rationalization.

[BigBripa]

Wasn't there mention of interrupts breaking engagement for 1-2 seconds when interrupt is finally fixed? I think this liberates the battlefield and makes perception a much more valuable Stat and still offers some stickiness to the front line. As long as there is an obvious indicator (selector circle flashing on interrupted unit) and your units are not auto-absorbed into some other unit's engagement I feel like this is a good compromise (between battlefield freedom and stickiness) and should at least lesson the rage from the anti-engagement camp. Maybe? Please?

[Lord Wafflebum]

@nipsen

 

How on earth could you possibly know the combat is boring? I thought you didn't have access to the beta anymore? I think the combat is just fine. I mean, it isn't anything to go crazy about, but I enjoy myself just fine. Did someone give you a beta key? Or are you basing your opinion on the beta that first came out that's completely different from what we have now?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic (completely locking down the field of battle for the player, as opposed to the very mobile IE battlefield), the "Combat Only" Abilities (which constantly interferes with performing tactics you'd think would be completely reasonable) and the neutered Stealth mechanic (especially anyone that enjoyed playing an Assassin in BG2).

 

Despite being 3D and Turn Based, I already feel that Larian's Divinity: Original Sin got more "old school" things right and is a better spiritual successor. PoE pigeon holes far too many things for my tastes and comes off as a deeply contrived but inferior form of D&D. I want to believe that many of the things I dislike about PoE are just birth-pangs, but in reality they are fundamental disagreements with design that I find to be deeply not IE. This is not to say I wanted a clone. Look no further than D:OS for an example of what was great about 1990s RPGs being brought to a modern date. Having been very involved in the beta, I cannot reiterate that opinion with PoE.

[HozzM]

 

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic (completely locking down the field of battle for the player, as opposed to the very mobile IE battlefield), the "Combat Only" Abilities (which constantly interferes with performing tactics you'd think would be completely reasonable) and the neutered Stealth mechanic (especially anyone that enjoyed playing an Assassin in BG2).

 

Despite being 3D and Turn Based, I already feel that Larian's Divinity: Original Sin got more "old school" things right and is a better spiritual successor. PoE pigeon holes far too many things for my tastes and comes off as a deeply contrived but inferior form of D&D. I want to believe that many of the things I dislike about PoE are just birth-pangs, but in reality they are fundamental disagreements with design that I find to be deeply not IE. This is not to say I wanted a clone. Look no further than D:OS for an example of what was great about 1990s RPGs being brought to a modern date. Having been very involved in the beta, I cannot reiterate that opinion with PoE.

 

 

I loved D:OS, especially the combat.  Best combat system in a CRPG in I don't know how long, maybe ever.  That said, in the 12 hours I have with the beta PoE feels very much like a successor to BG2.  Combat is a weakness, for sure, but it was in the IE games too.  I enjoyed them despite the combat, not because of it.

[Gladiuss8@gmail.com]

Combat wasn't the weakness of IE games.

[Luckmann]

Yeah, the combat in the IE games was actually great.

[nipsen]

Wasn't there mention of interrupts breaking engagement for 1-2 seconds when interrupt is finally fixed? I think this liberates the battlefield and makes perception a much more valuable Stat and still offers some stickiness to the front line. As long as there is an obvious indicator (selector circle flashing on interrupted unit) and your units are not auto-absorbed into some other unit's engagement I feel like this is a good compromise (between battlefield freedom and stickiness) and should at least lesson the rage from the anti-engagement camp. Maybe? Please?

Haha. .. funny. You see - all of this yank was there from the beginning. Too quick feedback, too much stuttery animation, too little direct feedback, very little pause and action slow-down, etc. That was, like SOME OF US said initially, where the "bad feedback" came from, not any faults with the ruleset.

 

But throughout this "beta", what's happened is that Obsidian - for whatever reason that has nothing to do with loudmouths at this forum, they assure us all - has systematically gone through and simplified all the mechanics on the ruleset level, toned down how significant the attributes are, removed attribute stats altogether, normalized all the character makeups, removed all kinds of build options, etc. - in order to attempt to fix people's "displeasure" with the yankiness in the game. "If only you remove engagement", "if only you remove interrupt", "if you only make all characters might-based", "if it's only identical to BG2 with pre-made characters", "if only ranged combat was superior to everything", "if only magic was stronger, no matter what", etc., then combat will flow perfectly and everyone will love it. It's been so obvious at every change throughout the beta that whoever is in charge truly believes that the development team is constantly one small incremental change away from suddenly solving all issues at once.

 

So just so it's been said - everyone should read the feedback in the quoted text over there, and judge for yourselves how successful this 7 month public "beta" process has been. Seriously - whoever was in charge of this, whoever scuttled the release of the at the time biggest crowdfunded project, and reduced it to what is coming out now -- there will be questions asked later that Obsidian better have some incredibly good excuses for. 

[Hassat Hunter]

So you loved having to re-do the same spells in every wizard encounter... over and over... since difficulty was "immunity to X" *cast counterspell*?

The more 'epic' the IE-combat became, the worse it got. Underdark was usually a cheese-fest... oh what FUN! (yes, that's irony)

 

I personally think having to go around the melee defenders to get the mage is much better than the mage just casting protections forcing you to re-cast the same spells over and over (or run away and just let time pas, lol, totally not exploit but apparently "good design decision" according to this thread).

[Sensuki]

Don't know what game you were playing but that doesn't sound like high level BG2 combat to me. 

[Hassat Hunter]

Here's a fight with Gromnir:

 

Go up stairs... fire all spells.

Go down stair, rest.

Go up, fire all spells.

Go down, rest.

Go up, fire all spells, most enemies are probably dead now.

 

BEST. COMBAT. EVER.

Or just a huge amount of design flaws stacked on top of each other?

[Karkarov]

Don't know what game you were playing but that doesn't sound like high level BG2 combat to me. 

It sounded pretty accurate to me.  High level BG2 combat is in fact basically "counter the mage, the game" and the tactics and skills you use to do that don't really change fight to fight.

[Sensuki]

Here's a fight with Gromnir:

 

Go up stairs... fire all spells.

Go down stair, rest.

Go up, fire all spells.

Go down, rest.

Go up, fire all spells, most enemies are probably dead now.

 

BEST. COMBAT. EVER.

Or just a huge amount of design flaws stacked on top of each other?

Haha, so you admit that you cheesed the game (possibly because you were terrible at the combat without it) and robbed yourself of the fun.

 

Two tweaks to Pillars of Eternity (rest anywhere and transition in combat - both have been modded in already in previous versions) and you'd be able to do exactly the same thing.

[Luckmann]

So you loved having to re-do the same spells in every wizard encounter... over and over... since difficulty was "immunity to X" *cast counterspell*?

The more 'epic' the IE-combat became, the worse it got. Underdark was usually a cheese-fest... oh what FUN! (yes, that's irony)

 

I personally think having to go around the melee defenders to get the mage is much better than the mage just casting protections forcing you to re-cast the same spells over and over (or run away and just let time pas, lol, totally not exploit but apparently "good design decision" according to this thread).

1) I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to wizard encounters and "Immunity to X" and "Cast counterspell".

2) Epic-level IE combat is not the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I personally enjoy lower-level play, but Epic-level IE combat wasn't bad for the reasons you state. The Underdark is pretty far from Epic-level play, and I have no idea what you mean by "cheese-fest". Did you cheese your way through it? Or do you mean that the enemies were cheesy?

3) Sarcasm. Not irony.

4) Except you can't go around the melee defenders to get the mage.