RPGCodex Review #1 - Hŵrpa Dwrp

[Gromnir]

^admit you're wrong Gromnir. Or, simply Retreat behind silly gifs and starwars clips. It's up to you.

the reviewer has fundamental misconceptions about the mechanics.  boosting attributes does result in very useful bonuses.  and no, you can't dump any attribute without it resulting in pain.  the reviewer is just as oblivious as were you in this matter, and obsidian already explained all o' this regardless... which you and sensuki is also knowing.

 

you can't be helped.  we can't even get you to understand basic definition o' strawman for chrissakes, so how can we get you to recognize a misconception you has been making since the early beta.

 

you don't like that poe attributes is less vital?  fine.  but if you can't see the problem with how the reviewer were complaining 'bout both the lack o' significance in pumping attributes as well as claiming obvious dump attributes w/o also recognizing what poe attributes is clear intended to contribute, then we cannot help you.  you heard obsidian explanations and you is still acting oblivious.  don't like the obsidian explanation?  fine.  but be obdurate to a comical degree?  why?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[View619]

*Bump* Almost 800 posts now. Let's make a record that stands the test of time!

It's the longest thread I've seen on these boards IIRC. Given its content, isn't that ironic, at least a little?

 

The worst part is that this is one of many reviews that will be linked. Will we get 40 pages of this for every review?

 

Also, the "Hard Mode is Too Easy" thread may have been longer.

[Stun]

the reviewer has fundamental misconceptions about the mechanics.  boosting attributes does result in very useful bonuses.

Define "very useful".

 

 

and no, you can't dump any attribute without it resulting in pain.

Sure you can. A ranged Rogue can dump his Constitution to 3 without painful repercussions. Edited April 26, 2015 by Stun

[Prime-Mover]

 

Define "very useful".

 

 

and no, you can't dump any attribute without it resulting in pain.

Sure you can. A ranged Rogue can dump his Constitution to 3 without painful repercussions.

 

That would make him/her more squishy when faced with teleporting monsters, or if you fail to protect your backline adequately. You may of course then argue that those monsters are few and far between, and that the AI sucks, but that's a really big stretch to make the observation fit the conclusion.

[Stun]

That would make him/her more squishy when faced with teleporting monsters,

I didn't say define useful, I said define Very useful. Rogues are squishy with 20 constitution.

 

 

So when the build choice boils down to Squishy vs. a little less squishy, the choice to DUMP constitution and use those 15 points towards something like Intelligence or Might becomes a no-brainer. Just like Min-maxing was in the IE games.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Stun

[Gromnir]

 

 

dear lord, what is wrong with you folks?

 

the boosts or penalties is NOT actual insignificant or unimportant.  however, the attribute values ain't vital and they ain't s'posed to result in extreme harsh obstacles for those who do not choose optimal builds.  the attribute costs do not overshadow talent choices and power choices.  the bonuses is only underwhelming if you have a clear misconception about poe attributes.  the value o' pumped might is only miniscule when compared to the value o' pumped strength in some other less balanced and less rational game systems.  

 

*whoosh*

 

right over the head o' stun and antless.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

So, just because a mechanic is intended to work the way it does, it can't be criticized for working the way it does?

 

sure it can be criticized.  complete fail to observe that the feature works as intended and the reasoning behind the feature, particularly when the value o' the future as intended is a known quantity that were debated into insensibility is disingenuous at best.  is similar to folks who complain about all the tax money that goes to welfare recipients w/o stating important facts.  observe stats regarding the billions o' welfare dollars spent and the numbers o' able-bodied and unemployed folks getting a "free-ride" from the government?  those stats need not be wrong to make condemnation o' welfare a rant if one fails to also note that the majority o' welfare monies actual goes to support children. even folks such as Gromnir who thinks welfare is busted gotta at least recognize such factors as the children getting welfare aid before we claim the whole system needs be abandoned. etc.  

 

nobody expects a codex review to be fair.  nevertheless, to purposeful ignore that the attributes work as intended and what were reasoning behind such an attribute mechanic is, at best, disingenuous.  is a misrepresentation. is fraudulent 'cause it presents one side o' the exhaustive debate without even recognizing the existence o' the other.

 

as we said in our first post in the thread,

 

"mat516 seemed to express our concerns about the review already, so no need to repeat.  the thing is, where matt no doubt read the whole thing, we couldn't. am admitting that we got a few paragraphs deep before we realized it were offering little more than a bad nostalgia flashback to too many rants we recall from a couple years o' poe development.   the disenfranchised, limited by the obsidian message board medium, found a new outlet to release pent up vitriol?  am not actually opposed to such rampages as Gromnir has indulged once... maybe twice. "

 

matt got further along than did Gromnir, but he saw similar problems.  we still ain't read more than a couple paragraphs, so we defer to matt 'bout the entirety o' the review.  regardless, from what we saw and am seeing in these posts, the review... wasn't.  it weren't any kinda review from what little we saw. it were a collection o' the complete myopic and one-sided rants from folks who has been angry 'bout obsidian since early in the beta.  those rants is fine on a message board where folks is attempting to convince obsidian to do more like d&d/ie game hard counters and insta-kills.  nevertheless, if you wanna be taken serious as a review, you gotta do more than simple collect all the old grognard rants from +8 months o' beta and paste 'em together with a few screenies. 

 

the review weren't a review as much as it were a sermon delivered to the faithful.  only folks who is gonna get useful from the codexian review is the folks who were already True-Believers.  the review were a joke.

 

btw, is nothing wrong with joke reviews.  we don't get the animosity level'd at joke reviews... or any review.  why should we care what a review says anymore than what some random poster here or elsewhere says?  we don't.  we played the game, so what purpose does the review serve?  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 26, 2015 by Gromnir

[CaptainMace]

" and and and... the system doesn't make any sense and... why is there an engagement system in a real time game ? I mean ok, per rest spell use doesn't make a single f**king sense in these games either but, uknow, it was in bg2 and I have wet dreams about it and and and... "

 

But yeah the game is not particularly good, I'll agree on that. The worst game of Obsidian ? Dude you need help. It's funny because he only had to hold his hand, just a bit, so his review was full legit, but hey considering how DarthRoxor has been considering the project in the last year, the conclusion is not surprising. I'd like him to review Dungeon Siege 3 now

[Prime-Mover]

 

I didn't say define useful, I said define Very useful. Rogues are squishy with 20 constitution.

 

 

So when the build choice boils down to Squishy vs. a little less squishy, the choice to DUMP constitution and use those 15 points towards something like Intelligence or Might becomes a no-brainer. Just like Min-maxing was in the IE games.

 

I was not arguing that it was "very useful", I was arguing that having a con of three can lead to "painful repercussions", which is certainly true for the unfortunate rogue, who now can take only one hit vs. five. It gives the thief enough ballast to Shadow Beyond or Escape. Further, it also affects resource management, since con gives both health and endurance. You can of course use tactics to avoid the penalties associated with low con, but that's a trade-off, and it significes that there actually are detrimental effects to taking a low con.

[Stun]

sure it can be criticized.  complete fail to observe that the feature works as intended and the reasoning behind the feature, particularly when the value o' the future as intended is a known quantity that were debated into insensibility is disingenuous at best.

First, it is not a reviewer's job to painstakingly observe and report whether or not a feature is working as the developers intended.

 

Second, a criticism of a crap mechanic does not need to take developer reasoning in mind. For example, When Bioware decided to implement parachuting mob waves in DA2, we didn't NEED to discover the reasoning behind such crap design before concluding that it was a f*cking Crap design.

 

Third, as anyone who took part in PoE's 6-month-long public Beta process will tell you, the Attribute system has gone though countless iterations (even some totally fundamental changes). In their first incarnation, the attributes flat out didn't carry any penalties at all (Dumping Might to 3 resulted in a +3% damage BONUS. And that was the intention). Another version of the Beta saw Accuracy tied to perception. etc. So citing developer intentions here is kinda pointless anyway. They've been constantly changing their intentions.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Stun

[Antless]

 

sure it can be criticized.  complete fail to observe that the feature works as intended and the reasoning behind the feature, particularly when the value o' the future as intended is a known quantity that were debated into insensibility is disingenuous at best. 

 

 

Maybe he just doesn't agree with you that it is a good mechanic or doesn't serve to achieve whatever it is supposed to achieve, despite it working as intended on a technical level?

 

There is a game called Victory 2. In it, there are capitalists, who do little more then every now and then building random factories in random provinces. They are so terrible at placing them that these factories will often shut down immediately because they cannot make a profit, yet they are continuously built anyways. They are supposed to simulate free market growth, which they do, I suppose, if Alfred Krupp had been a monkey with a dart board.

Now, they serve their purpose well enough (since they operate in every country everyone is on equal footing) and they are also working as intended, as far as I can tell.

Are they a good or bad mechanic?

[Gromnir]

 

 it is not a reviewer's job to painstakingly observe and report whether or not a feature is working as the developer's intended.

 

 

 

nope, but they should be fair.  were no mind reading necessary and the fellow ranting were aware and present for many such debates.  if he were unaware, then, if one wishes to actual be fair, one should at least ask the question: why?  why did obsidian do thus?  answers is pretty obvious, so absence o' fair is unforgivable. rant.

 

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 26, 2015 by Gromnir

[Stun]

I was arguing that having a con of three can lead to "painful repercussions", which is certainly true for the unfortunate rogue, who now can take only one hit vs. five.

Uh...No. The difference between 18 Con and 3 Con for a rogue is less than 10 points of endurance per level. And even that can be mitigated further with damage reduction gear, which will reduce the damage they take from every hit.

[Gromnir]

 

 

sure it can be criticized.  complete fail to observe that the feature works as intended and the reasoning behind the feature, particularly when the value o' the future as intended is a known quantity that were debated into insensibility is disingenuous at best. 

 

 

Maybe he just doesn't agree with you that it is a good mechanic or doesn't serve to achieve whatever it is supposed to achieve, despite it working as intended on a technical level?

 

 

 

so, it is your suggestion that Gromnir is demanding that the reviewer agree with obsidian?

 

HA!

 

...

 

HHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAA!

 

you are gonna have a hard time finding any single poster who has more frequent disagreed with the obsidians (which includes many former troika and black isle developers) than Gromnir.  the suggestion that we would demand agreement is high-larious.

 

disagree all he wishes.  am not certain what it is about some folks being so damned obdurate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Mr. Magniloquent]

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

I can't support that statement. They sold this game on being the best of the IE games. Explicitly, terms of combat, PoE is supposed to be like Icewind Dale. Combat in PoE is only superficially like Icewind Dale. When dealing with things like class design, soft-counter philosophy, engagement, spell design, item usage, combat states, etc.....combat is nothing like Icewind Dale, let alone the IE game that people were actually clamoring for.

[Stun]

nope, but they should be fair.  were no mind reading necessary and the fellow ranting were aware and present for many such debates.  if he were unaware, then, if one wishes to actual be fair, one should at least ask the question: why?  why did obsidian do thus?  answers is pretty obvious, so absence o' fair is unforgivable. rant.

 

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Nope sorry. I don't see the point in dwelling on "intentions" when giving a gameplay review. Again, one does not need to explain to the reader all the the reasons why DA2 has reused maps and parachuting mobs. Just that it does, and maybe the resulting implications to gameplay because it does.

 

Nor do I see how it's more "fair" for a reviewer to ignore or not criticize game feature that he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game

Edited April 26, 2015 by Stun

[Prime-Mover]

 

Uh...No. The difference between 18 Con and 3 Con for a rogue is less than 10 points of endurance per level. And even that can be mitigated further with damage reduction gear, which will reduce the damage they take from every hit.

 

What part are you Uh...no-ing? That cleary signifies a tradeoff. Having a high con will augment your thief's survivability. That fact that you can just gear-up doesn't change the fact that there are painfull painful repercussions associated with a low con. Obviously this is a everything equal consideration, and you can always gear up. But gear has a cost, and you'd probably would prefer some of that gear on your main battle-tank, or support tank. So there's another tradeoff here. Ergo, Vis a Vis, Concondantly, it's not a dump stat comparable to the IE games, and there are painful repercussions associated with dumping a stat. Sure there are ways to compensate for it via tactics and gear, but that's irrelevant, since that constitues a further tradeoff. 

[Gromnir]

 

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

I can't support that statement. They sold this game on being the best of the IE games. Explicitly, terms of combat, PoE is supposed to be like Icewind Dale. Combat in PoE is only superficially like Icewind Dale. When dealing with things like class design, soft-counter philosophy, engagement, spell design, item usage, combat states, etc.....combat is nothing like Icewind Dale, let alone the IE game that people were actually clamoring for.

 

actually, obsidian stated more than once that poe would be inspired by many older games Including the ie games.  iwd combat were inspiration.  ps:t companion interaction were an inspiration. etc.  the thing is the obsidians also specific noted that they were limited as to what they could do.  obsidian noted, more than once, that the diversity and sophistication o' bg2 combat encounters were outta reach simple 'cause poe would be game 1 o' a new ip.  obsidian also stated that they were not wedded to taking everything from the ie/d&d crpgs and keeping it the same in poe, 'cause many such things done in those games were stoopid.  nevertheless, the initial goals remained constant.

 

we do believe that trying to be all the ie games were a mistake.  is not that their goal changed, but perhaps it shoulda.  we mentioned this earlier with senuki's misunderstanding regarding quantity v. quality.  after bg2, people complained o' the dearth o' "exploration."  so obsidian had to make a choice about density.  if you want lots o' places to go, and many individual and insular quests to lets folks explore, those resources need come from somewhere.  well, you can't make as many eyeless/durlag locations and quest loci if you are spreading quests out to foster more exploration.  is possible that obsidian made to many compromises in a vain attempt to actual be all the ie games to all people.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Karkarov]

You guys love troll bait.  Troll review gets 40 pages of comments?  Why?  There is nothing worth reading or discussing about it.

[Stun]

 

Uh...No. The difference between 18 Con and 3 Con for a rogue is less than 10 points of endurance per level. And even that can be mitigated further with damage reduction gear, which will reduce the damage they take from every hit.

What part are you Uh...no-ing? That cleary signifies a tradeoff.

 

That's great. We weren't discussing tradeoffs, because no one claimed their absense. We were discussing PAINFUL tradeoffs. Reducing a Ranged Rogue's Endurance by what amounts to less than 20% of the total pool in exchange for a +30% increase in the duration of his special attacks, or a +40% bonus to ALL his damage dealt (or BOTH) is not Painful. It's a No brainer. Especially since the slightest of party strategy tweaks will quickly render that endurance penalty irrelevant. Edited April 26, 2015 by Stun

[Antless]

 

 

so, it is your suggestion that Gromnir is demanding that the reviewer agree with obsidian?

 

HA!

 

...

 

HHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAA!

 

you are gonna have a hard time finding any single poster who has more frequent disagreed with the obsidians (which includes many former troika and black isle developers) than Gromnir.  the suggestion that we would demand agreement is high-larious.

 

disagree all he wishes.  am not certain what it is about some folks being so damned obdurate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

No, you don't demand agreement with the devs, but with you. You just use the devs as an excuse as to why your opinion is right and everyone disagreeing is "ranting", despite them painstakingly spelling out their reasoning for having the opinion you disagree with.

[Monte Carlo]

[Prime-Mover]

 

That's great. Now Find a single person on this thread who claimed that Stat dumping in PoE doesn't incur tradeoffs.

 

You're being a ****. First rule of not being a **** club: "don't be a ****ing ****". It follows that membership requires you to respond to the full post, and not just one sentence out of context. You claimed that a con of three didn't have painful repercussions. I've argued that this view is mistaken. If you want justify the existance of your response, provide reasons why I am wrong.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Prime-Mover

[Elerond]

 

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

I can't support that statement. They sold this game on being the best of the IE games. Explicitly, terms of combat, PoE is supposed to be like Icewind Dale. Combat in PoE is only superficially like Icewind Dale. When dealing with things like class design, soft-counter philosophy, engagement, spell design, item usage, combat states, etc.....combat is nothing like Icewind Dale, let alone the IE game that people were actually clamoring for.

 

 

This is how Obsidian described PoE in Kickstarter:

 

"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

 

Combat uses a tactical real-time with pause system - positioning your party and coordinating attacks and abilities is one of the keys to success. The world map is dotted with unique locations and wilderness ripe for exploration and questing. You’ll create your own character and collect companions along the way – taking him or her not just through this story, but, with your continued support, through future adventures. You will engage in dialogues that are deep, and offer many choices to determine the fate of you and your party. …and you'll experience a story that explores mature themes and presents you with complex, difficult choices to shape how your story plays out.

 

We are excited at this chance to create something new, yet reminiscent of those great games and we want you to be a part of it as well."

[Gromnir]

 

nope, but they should be fair.  were no mind reading necessary and the fellow ranting were aware and present for many such debates.  if he were unaware, then, if one wishes to actual be fair, one should at least ask the question: why?  why did obsidian do thus?  answers is pretty obvious, so absence o' fair is unforgivable. rant.

 

and no, obsidian stayed steadfast regarding ultimate goals.  they have been refining the mechanics to more fully realize their intentions.  they have tossed out a few tokens to the fans who needed to be appeased.  the fact that they ain't changed their intent is what the reviewer and you is railing 'bout.  all the wailing and gnashing o' teeths and still cain and sawyer did not budge?  how dare they?

 

HA! Good Fun!

Nope sorry. I don't see the point in dwelling on "intentions" when giving a gameplay review. Again, one does not need to explain to the reader all the the reasons why DA2 has reused maps and parachuting mobs. Just that it does, and maybe the resulting implications to gameplay because it does.

 

Nor do I see how it's more "fair" for a reviewer to ignore or dismiss away a game feature he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game

 

 

 

around we go.

 

and we never suggested that a reviewer should " ignore or dismiss away a game feature he feels hurt the game simply because Developer X had a really really good reason for putting it in the game."   however, it is unfair to purposeful avoid recognition that a disliked feature has a reason behind its inclusion.  the reviewer need not agree that the reason is substantial enough, but pretend that it don't exist is no different than pretending that the welfare children don't exist when blasting welfare dollars spent.  the reviewer can point to obsidian claims and observe that whatever were their goals, they failed in application because ___________ .  bash obsidian after recognition?  sure thing.  been there.  done that...  more times than can be counted.

 

again, we didn't get much further than attributes, but that is as far as we needed to see that the review were gonna be a codexian preaching to the codexian faithful w/o any attempt to be fair and observe that those features he found offensive to the reactionary pretensions o' his congregation might actual have value.  bring down fire and brimstone After actual dismissing the espoused value o' obsidian attributes?  why not?  as we said, nobody in their right mind would expect genuine fair from codex, but most folks (the aforementioned spazmo included) at least pretended to make a show o' being open-minded and reflective.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 26, 2015 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

You guys love troll bait.  Troll review gets 40 pages of comments?  Why?  There is nothing worth reading or discussing about it.

 

Because meaningless argumentation in internet is fun, would be my guess that is based on my past experiences.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Elerond