white march news

[TT1]

 

 

this bunch o' josh links is related to the stronghold.  is msotly describing why the stronghold cannot/should not be made more pivotal

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447867960

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447869576

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447870176

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447871673

 

we should perhaps simple create a link to SA so folks can read the feedback that they get... and we don't.  

 

...

 

am not bitter.  do we sound bitter?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I find his logic flawed. Like he says himself, once the Kickstarter was done, going back on the Stronghold was never an option. So between creating a token Stronghold that barely appeals, has poor support, broken mechanics, and is badly integrated into the rest of the game, and creating a worthwhile stronghold that is a given, special part of the game that is fleshed out and feels like it belongs, why would someone opt for the former, rather than the latter?

 

 

 

Always existed the option of not making the stronghold. He could just do an update and say "ok, we will not make the stronghold. We think it will be crap and we do not have resources to do it the way it should be", and then deal with it. After all, it is a kickstarter and that involves risks.

 

But he preferred to do a completely useless stronghold, frustrating players and remaining deaf to requests for enhancement (and there were many). It is necessary to invest a lot of money to make the stronghold work? That's not my problem. Obsidian made a lot of money with PoE. Just make it work or else stop to justify and minimize the problem. The stronghold of the way it is today is completely stupid.

 

It makes me really angry the fact that he spend hours in other forums dealing with and answering questions about the game, while we spent days, weeks ... without any answer or clue as to what's going on.

 

I think that's enough for me. I'm done with Obsidian.

Edited July 18, 2015 by TT1

[Luckmann]

 

 

this bunch o' josh links is related to the stronghold.  is msotly describing why the stronghold cannot/should not be made more pivotal

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447867960

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447869576

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447870176

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447871673

 

we should perhaps simple create a link to SA so folks can read the feedback that they get... and we don't.  

 

...

 

am not bitter.  do we sound bitter?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I find his logic flawed. Like he says himself, once the Kickstarter was done, going back on the Stronghold was never an option. So between creating a token Stronghold that barely appeals, has poor support, broken mechanics, and is badly integrated into the rest of the game, and creating a worthwhile stronghold that is a given, special part of the game that is fleshed out and feels like it belongs, why would someone opt for the former, rather than the latter?

 

 

 

Always existed the option of not making the stronghold. He could just do an update and say "ok, we will not make the stronghold. We think it will be crap and we do not have resources to do it the way it should be", and then deal with it. After all, it is a kickstarter and that involves risks.

 

But he preferred to do a completely useless stronghold, frustrating players and remaining deaf to requests for enhancement (and there were many). It is necessary to invest a lot of money to make the stronghold work? That's not my problem. Obsidian made a lot of money with PoE. Just make it work or else stop to justify and minimize the problem. The stronghold of the way it is today is completely stupid.

 

I can't disagree. Ultimately, people would've been disappointed in the Stronghold being cut, but they would've gotten over it, and the game could've been better. It is like the old saying that a delayed game will eventually be good, but a bad game is bad forever. In this case, having a bad stronghold actually detracts from the game a whole lot more than no stronghold at all would've done.

 

It wouldn't have been the first Kickstarter that goes "Well, guys, X isn't going to work because of Y. We want to do ABC, and because of This and That, we feel we can't do it justice. S**t happens and we hope that this wasn't a make-or-break feature you were wanting, in the end. Something's gotta give."

 

But Sawyer is excellent at disregarding or minimizing problems. If he doesn't disregard criticism, he deflects or deliberately misunderstands the questions or the critique. At the end of the day, I'm sure he has qualities, but that attitude and personality isn't exactly what you want in a Lead.. anything, really.

 

This is also why I've given up on seeing meaningful revisions of pre-existing content or core mechanics. If there's something that could use revision, it's the Stronghold, but nope, it's fine as it is and that's how it is. Apparently.

[TT1]

 

 

 

this bunch o' josh links is related to the stronghold.  is msotly describing why the stronghold cannot/should not be made more pivotal

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447867960

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447869576

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447870176

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=576#post447871673

 

we should perhaps simple create a link to SA so folks can read the feedback that they get... and we don't.  

 

...

 

am not bitter.  do we sound bitter?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I find his logic flawed. Like he says himself, once the Kickstarter was done, going back on the Stronghold was never an option. So between creating a token Stronghold that barely appeals, has poor support, broken mechanics, and is badly integrated into the rest of the game, and creating a worthwhile stronghold that is a given, special part of the game that is fleshed out and feels like it belongs, why would someone opt for the former, rather than the latter?

 

 

 

Always existed the option of not making the stronghold. He could just do an update and say "ok, we will not make the stronghold. We think it will be crap and we do not have resources to do it the way it should be", and then deal with it. After all, it is a kickstarter and that involves risks.

 

But he preferred to do a completely useless stronghold, frustrating players and remaining deaf to requests for enhancement (and there were many). It is necessary to invest a lot of money to make the stronghold work? That's not my problem. Obsidian made a lot of money with PoE. Just make it work or else stop to justify and minimize the problem. The stronghold of the way it is today is completely stupid.

 

I can't disagree. Ultimately, people would've been disappointed in the Stronghold being cut, but they would've gotten over it, and the game could've been better. It is like the old saying that a delayed game will eventually be good, but a bad game is bad forever. In this case, having a bad stronghold actually detracts from the game a whole lot more than no stronghold at all would've done.

 

It wouldn't have been the first Kickstarter that goes "Well, guys, X isn't going to work because of Y. We want to do ABC, and because of This and That, we feel we can't do it justice. S**t happens and we hope that this wasn't a make-or-break feature you were wanting, in the end. Something's gotta give."

 

But Sawyer is excellent at disregarding or minimizing problems. If he doesn't disregard criticism, he deflects or deliberately misunderstands the questions or the critique. At the end of the day, I'm sure he has qualities, but that attitude and personality isn't exactly what you want in a Lead.. anything, really.

 

This is also why I've given up on seeing meaningful revisions of pre-existing content or core mechanics. If there's something that could use revision, it's the Stronghold, but nope, it's fine as it is and that's how it is. Apparently.

 

 

 

Many things were kept in the game in a completely useless way and should have been cut. The stronghold is just one of them. Crafting is horrendous and it was still completely changed the original idea, even though it was presented to players in an update (http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64048-update-58-crafting-with-tim-cain/) of a much better way than in the final game. The decision to keep crafting in a different way from the one for me, as the project backer, strikes me, at least, disrespectful. So it's always an option to cut or hand other than the combined form. They could have done this to the stronghold, but decided to deliver it anyway.

 

So it is very clear what was the modus operandi of this project.

Edited July 18, 2015 by TT1

[ManifestedISO]

 

I think that's enough for me. I'm done with Obsidian.

 

Sorry to hear that. If you'll take care to avoid the screen door closing too fast and hitting your backside on the way out, that'd be great, thank you, it was just painted. 

[TT1]

 

 

I think that's enough for me. I'm done with Obsidian.

 

Sorry to hear that. If you'll take care to avoid the screen door closing too fast and hitting your backside on the way out, that'd be great, thank you, it was just painted. 

 

 

Oh, man I'm sorry. I did not know I had to send my opinion to some fanboy before posting.

[gkathellar]

I understand the argument that some people don't like the Stronghold, or the idea of strongholds, even though I've never heard about aversion towards the idea anywhere near the level of opposition towards romances (since Sawyer brings that up)

It's an extra level of weird insofar as nobody hates romances more than Sawyer.

[Gromnir]

josh is rational.  this can be a problem because while every poster believes he is rational, most is not.  one need only review respec and per-kill xp threads to see just how difficult it is for a rational person such as josh to communicate with earnest gamers who do not want to hear a rational response, or any kinda "no" related to their desired features.

 

the stronghold is optional.  once the developers decide that the stronghold is optional content, how much resource allocation is reasonable given that it is optional and a frequent disliked option based on feedback and actual viewing o' gameplay?  we boardies regulars perhaps got a distorted notion as to what is the gaming behavior o' the average gamer as we are shouting back and forth with other relative hardcore gamers.  josh, and obsidian, needs at least be aware o' the average gamer, yes?  you may not agree with josh assertion that the stronghold is disliked by many, but he likely gots access to far more data regarding the ordinary habits o' the typical player o' crpgs than does anybody posting on these boards w/o a developer tag.  so, the stronghold is optional and disliked by more than a few, and game development is zero-sum.  to provide a more robust stronghold than what we got, additional resources that were invested in other aspects o' the game would need to have been reallocated to developing the optional and much disliked stronghold.  so, what part o' the existing game does one trim to fill-out the stronghold?

 

etc.

 

josh is rational.  people don't actual respond well to rational.  rational comes across, as often as not, as arrogant and condescending.  so, we got some sympathy for josh, even if we often disagree with him.  am suspecting that we has disagreed with josh more than any current regular boardie.  we can disagree and criticize.  we will disagree and criticize.  am not having any particular problems with josh as a developer save for his writing contributions, and such complaints is necessarily 'bout esthetic as much as (more) than they is rational. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the stronghold was a kickstarter stretch goal and as such were necessary, but optional and disliked by many and...

Edited July 18, 2015 by Gromnir

[Nakia]

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.  You end up with the Stronghold whether you want it or not.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Nakia

[Gromnir]

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that Gromnir wanted more from the stronghold.  we complained, as did many others, that the stronghold were relative disappointing.  the thing is, the obsidians mentioned that there were problems with the stronghold development and josh further explained, in a rational way, why more resources were not redirected to make the stronghold better. we were disappointed by the stronghold.  josh giving us rational explanations don't change the fact that the stronghold failed to match our expectations.  the implementation problems related to the stronghold sure as hell weren't Gromnir's fault.  we blame obsidian.

 

nevertheless, we get it.  we understand that the stronghold, an optional feature disliked by many, turned out to be more complex and difficult to implement than the obsidians expected.  while all the functionality that obsidian wanted to include with the stronghold were prohibitive, we needs nevertheless consider the zero-sum problem for improving what we got in the core game.  what would we have sacrificed to improve the stonhold?  what existing and working functions would we have improved?  

 

we get it.  still, we too want obsidian to do it better.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Gromnir

[Nakia]

 

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II.   Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me.   I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened.  I had no luck.  

[Gromnir]

 

 

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II.   Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me.   I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened.  I had no luck.  

 

we likely already responded to you in our rather extreme edit... precognition on our part?  we were disappointed in the stronghold, and in the future, we would expect better from obsidian.  am not satisfied with the stronghold as-is.  however, we get the reasoning and the rationale provided by obsidian as to why the stronghold were not more robust.  a rational explanation for failure does not diminish the failure, yes?

 

HA!  Good Fun!

[tdphys]

 

 

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II.   Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me.   I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened.  I had no luck.  

 

 

 

And millions of people spend millions of dollars playing crappy "strongholdish" city builders.   I have to admit,  3 playthroughs and I still couldn't resist throwing some cash at the stronghold, just to renovate my digs.   The rest on stronghold screen was really nice for bounty hunting.   Alot of pillars of eternity was making a decent shot at satisfying stretch goals.  I'm amazed at how many they put in.  I'm also looking forward to their next game when they can focus on story and design instead of stretch goals and backer *crap*.    Getting all that stuff in and still pulling off an amazing metacritic score seems to me an impressive feather in a dev's hat.  --  not that that gets them any points on the codex per say

Edited July 18, 2015 by tdphys

[Nakia]

 

 

 

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II.   Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me.   I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened.  I had no luck.  

 

we likely already responded to you in our rather extreme edit... precognition on our part?  we were disappointed in the stronghold, and in the future, we would expect better from obsidian.  am not satisfied with the stronghold as-is.  however, we get the reasoning and the rationale provided by obsidian as to why the stronghold were not more robust.  a rational explanation for failure does not diminish the failure, yes?

 

HA!  Good Fun!

 

Highlight by me.   The fact that I failed to complete a project because I had a headache does not change the fact that I failed to complete the project.  My boss would probably say that I should have reported being ill and turned the project over to someone else.  If he/she is not very sympathetic I could even lose my job.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

Josh may be rational but the Stronghold is an integral part of the game.  You have to go there as part of the main quest, you have to repair the Eastern Bastion to get to Defiance Bay and now it is the trigger for the White March expansion.

and those necessary portions were quite adequate developed in poe and will no doubt be developed in white march.  developing the stronghold functions and features more than the critical path required is what folks is complaining 'bout, yes?  hire henchmen and build a church and fight off intruders is all optional stuff beyond the scope o' the critical path.  

 

the stronghold is a significant feature, even if it is optional.  makes sense that the stronghold would appear along the critical path to guarantee that all players became aware o' it, yes? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

True again, Luckmann, but the Stronghold still feels to me like an unfinished project, a sop tossed to the backers, a token of the strongholds in BG II.   Maybe I am being irrational but the place feels dead to me.   I tried saying I just wanted to go to Defiance Bay and then spent an hour trying to see if by some chance another path opened.  I had no luck.  

 

we likely already responded to you in our rather extreme edit... precognition on our part?  we were disappointed in the stronghold, and in the future, we would expect better from obsidian.  am not satisfied with the stronghold as-is.  however, we get the reasoning and the rationale provided by obsidian as to why the stronghold were not more robust.  a rational explanation for failure does not diminish the failure, yes?

 

HA!  Good Fun!

 

Highlight by me.   The fact that I failed to complete a project because I had a headache does not change the fact that I failed to complete the project.  My boss would probably say that I should have reported being ill and turned the project over to someone else.  If he/she is not very sympathetic I could even lose my job.

 

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post447063225

 

is obsidian's fault.  no quibbles.  however, given the implementation issues...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Luckmann]

 

I understand the argument that some people don't like the Stronghold, or the idea of strongholds, even though I've never heard about aversion towards the idea anywhere near the level of opposition towards romances (since Sawyer brings that up)

It's an extra level of weird insofar as nobody hates romances more than Sawyer.

 

 

Well, Sawyer hating the Stronghold concept itself would explain a lot, actually. It would be in line with the whole "I don't like it so it's going to be trash." modus operandi.

 

 

[snip]

 

You keep saying that Sawyer is rational, but most of his hangups aren't. I'm not sure what you're basing it on, other than the regular fanboyism.

 

The rational thing to do would have been what TT1 suggested; said that you can't do the stronghold justice, or if you felt that you yourself did not have the proper commitment to do it justice, cut it. There are many projects that have been forced to cut "promised" content. Hell, even forcibly or blindly doing something just because it was promised is almost by definition irrational.

 

It is the rational mind that says that sometimes, things don't work out, and we do the best we can with what we have. It is the irrational one that keeps pushing well past the point of no return, and would rather have something bad that was promised, than something good.

 

Also, you say that it's "optional" and disliked by many. Yet I've yet to see that many oppose strongholds as a concept at it's most fundamental level, and to even compare it to romances is just hyperbole, especially considering that Sawyer hates romances himself. I think that in this case, it's really just another representation of his irrational hangups that have marred the game.

 

And we need to stop thinking of optional and non-optional content. The vast majority of the game, and practically any roleplaying game, is functionally optional. But it's meant to be played. The game is meant to be played. We need to look at content as content, whether it's "optional" or "non-optional", and instead of saying X demographic doesn't like Y and prioritizing based on that, look at all the content of the game and make it as good as you can.

 

If PoE is a game with a Stronghold, don't consider the stronghold "Optional" as a way to dismiss it's qualities (or lack thereof) as a part of the game, but simply settle that PoE has a Stronghold, and as a part of the game, it should be as good as it can be, same as any other quest, side-quest or main-quest, or any other mechanic that makes up the gestalt that is the game. And if you don't like Strongholds for some reason, well, then you'll maybe like PoE a little bit less because it opted to have a Stronghold, but at least that Stronghold is well made.

 

I never liked romances as such, myself, but if a game has romances, I'd be annoyed as hell if I was used as some kind of excuse to dismiss romances into some third-rate part of the game as a whole, and I'd be doubly infuriated by the fact that not only did the game end up settling on having romances, but they were poorly implemented almost on principle, because a lot of people don't like it. Well a lot of people do like them, and a lot of people do like Strongholds, and I'd be a lot friggin' happier if a game that had romances would at least do it's best with them, rather than having them as some out-of-place forced-insert token feature in a pathetic attempt to please everyone.

 

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3706905&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=5#post447063225

 

is obsidian's fault. no quibbles. however, given the implementation issues...

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

I think there are a lot of things that could be better about the stronghold both in basic design and execution. We ran into various implementation problems during development that we hadn't expected and I believe we can have both better systems and content if we make a sequel.

A sequel will never save the base game. What is needed is revision of pre-existing content. If that happens as a sequel is developed, that's fine, but PoE definitely needs more work on existing content. Extra quest passes, dialogue tuning, and so on. If it's possible to do a better Stronghold in a sequel, it is possible to do a better Stronghold for PoE as that sequel is being developed, with the aims of making the PoE series of games a seamless experience.

 

The state of the Stronghold is inexcusable, and a better Stronghold in a potential PoE2 would practically just add insult to injury.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Luckmann

[Fardragon]

I don't like "Stronghold" content myself*. It belongs in RTS games. I don't remember many epic fantasy stories where the action is interrupted for weeks on end whilst the protagonist builds a house. I think developers sometimes listen too much to whiny forumites who insist that this feature or that feature must be included because it's in Other Game. They would be better off designing to suit themselves, then leaving it to the market to decide if the end product is any good or not.

 

 

*I don't include the strongholds in BG2. They are really class specific sidequests, not an RTS plug in.

[Luckmann]

I don't like "Stronghold" content myself*. It belongs in RTS games. I don't remember many epic fantasy stories where the action is interrupted for weeks on end whilst the protagonist builds a house. I think developers sometimes listen too much to whiny forumites who insist that this feature or that feature must be included because it's in Other Game. They would be better off designing to suit themselves, then leaving it to the market to decide if the end product is any good or not.

 

 

*I don't include the strongholds in BG2. They are really class specific sidequests, not an RTS plug in.

 

That, right there. That last line. That's just it. Most Strongholds are really just sidequests by any other name, revolving around your stronghold, your keep, your lands, or whatever. There's actually plenty of epic fantasy stories where the protagonist ends up having a home of a sorts, and have to deal with issues relating to it. Sometimes several different ones, at different times. In some, it's even a major focus (The Redemption of Althalus comes to mind).

 

It's an implementation issue, not Strongholds as a concept.

[Fardragon]

So perhaps the real issue is when strongholds try to be resource management minigames (as PoE tried to do, and NWN2). The stronghold in DA:I is fairly unobtrusive and doesn't really require any resource management.

[gkathellar]

So perhaps the real issue is when strongholds try to be resource management minigames (as PoE tried to do, and NWN2). The stronghold in DA:I is fairly unobtrusive and doesn't really require any resource management.

I think that's a fairly good characterization of the issue. The Stronghold should have been a sequence of quests or even just a cool staging ground for your adventures, rather than a mostly-uninteresting minigame.

 

josh is rational.

 

"Rational" is a problematic word, because it assumes that all reason is some perfect guidepost by which all people can come to identical conclusions. It isn't. Reason is a tool, a set of methods by which you enhance your aims, not an aim unto itself (except insofar as reason is also a passion). Saying "I want x things, and the situation is y, therefore I should do z," is rational, but "I want x things" is just a statement of fact, and has nothing to do with being rational or irrational. You can't reason your way into a correct set of desires, except insofar as secondary desires are reasonably subordinate to primary desires. Furthermore, using reason to enact those desires obviously requires that you have access to and full understanding of things as they stand. Josh is rational? Sure, whatever. But that doesn't mean that what he wants is right or correct, only that with sufficient correct information, he knows how to go about accomplishing what he wants.

 

Of course, that cuts both ways. Just because Josh doesn't want the same thing as someone doesn't mean he's unreasonable, and some folks could do well to remember that.

 

people don't actual respond well to rational.  rational comes across, as often as not, as arrogant and condescending.  so, we got some sympathy for josh, even if we often disagree with him.

 

Unfortunately, being the lead dev on a video game in the present day essentially translates to being a public punching bag. While the rest of the team is busy getting work done, part of the lead dev's job is to take the blame for ... everything. Honestly, going by the level of vitriol that emerges sometimes, you'd think Josh was responsible for apartheid or something. So, yeah, people could afford to cut him some slack instead of piling on.

 

ps the stronghold was a kickstarter stretch goal and as such were necessary, but optional and disliked by many and...

 

Given the legal ambiguities of Kickstarter commitments, that may or may not be technically true. Certainly it was from a PR perspective, though, so that's neither here nor there.

Edited July 18, 2015 by gkathellar

[Gromnir]

 

So perhaps the real issue is when strongholds try to be resource management minigames (as PoE tried to do, and NWN2). The stronghold in DA:I is fairly unobtrusive and doesn't really require any resource management.

I think that's a fairly good characterization of the issue. The Stronghold should have been a sequence of quests or even just a cool staging ground for your adventures, rather than a mostly-uninteresting minigame.

 

josh is rational.

 

"Rational" is a problematic word, because it assumes that all reason is some perfect guidepost by which all people can come to identical conclusions. It isn't. Reason is a tool, a set of methods by which you enhance your aims, not an aim unto itself (except insofar as reason is also a passion). Saying "I want x things, and the situation is y, therefore I should do z," is rational, but "I want x things" is just a statement of fact, and has nothing to do with being rational or irrational. You can't reason your way into a correct set of desires, except insofar as secondary desires are reasonably subordinate to primary desires. Furthermore, using reason to enact those desires obviously requires that you have access to and full understanding of things as they stand. Josh is rational? Sure, whatever. But that doesn't mean that what he wants is right or correct, only that with sufficient correct information, he knows how to go about accomplishing what he wants.

 

Of course, that cuts both ways. Just because Josh doesn't want the same thing as someone doesn't mean he's unreasonable, and some folks could do well to remember that.

 

people don't actual respond well to rational.  rational comes across, as often as not, as arrogant and condescending.  so, we got some sympathy for josh, even if we often disagree with him.

 

Unfortunately, being the lead dev on a video game in the present day essentially translates to being a public punching bag. While the rest of the team is busy getting work done, part of the lead dev's job is to take the blame for ... everything. Honestly, going by the level of vitriol that emerges sometimes, you'd think Josh was responsible for apartheid or something. So, yeah, people could afford to cut him some slack instead of piling on.

 

ps the stronghold was a kickstarter stretch goal and as such were necessary, but optional and disliked by many and...

 

Given the legal ambiguities of Kickstarter commitments, that may or may not be technically true. Certainly it was from a PR perspective, though, so that's neither here nor there.

 

we weren't speaking o' the legal necessity so much as practical.  obsidian made the stronghold a stretch goal.  failing to follow through on providing a substantial game feature that were paid for by the fans would result in, we expect, considerable disappointment and anger.  is there disappointment regarding how the stronghold were realized in poe?  sure.  nevertheless, how likely is it that all those positive reviews obsidian received from professional sources woulda' just ignored obsidian failure to meet the paid-for stronghold stretch goal?  how many fan reviews woulda' mentioned?  we got no idea o' the numbers, but we would be surprised if professional reviewers had failed to mention the absence o' obsidian fulfillment.  you?

 

in any event, we do not believe that being rational is the best way to handle fans.  look at luckman as an example, or any o' a dozen or so ardent supporters o' per-kill xp.  stronghold is another such example.  for chrissakes, luckman is trying to analogize to romances to make his... point. in the past, josh were a bit more colorful when dealing with obdurate fans.  youth.  am kinda missing those days.  truth to tell, Gromnir would purposeful rile josh up a bit 'cause when he got angry or frustrated, he would be more likely to provide genuine interesting information regarding developments... got a peek behind the curtain.

 

and yes, am agreeing that josh syllogisms depend on the validity o' his premise(s).  obsidian is hardly perfect.  josh says a considerable number o' players dislike strongholds.  am not certain where his feedback comes from or how accurate is such info.  nevertheless, how does fans rebutt?  feel arguments based on their impression o' board feedback?  yes?  no?  obsidian info can be wrong, but am gonna suggest that when it comes to the mechanical workings o' poe and the behavior o' the mythical average gamer, obsidian has access to information that we, the average boardies, do not. 

 

hell, look at all the time sensuki spent on the beta... he claimed over 200 hour, yes?  now look at josh post from SA as an example. you can follow any o' the sa links above if you wish to see all josh posts in the relevant thread.  is a goodly number o' posts at and immediate after release o' poe wherein josh is calmly correcting sensuki's misconceptions and assumptions regarding poe development and mechanics.  even so, josh can be wrong or ignorant.  when he is ignorant, he typical admits.  when he is wrong, he needs be convinced, but as he is rational, he is gonna be comfortable with more than "feel " arguments.  

 

rational is hardly perfect.  is many esthetic issues that defy rational.  furthermore, while attempting to find a balance between the frequent conflicting desires o' the fanbase is reasonable and rational, doing so likely leads to mediocrity.  we has suggested in the past that if fans is extreme polarized on an issue, then giving a middle-ground solution results in everybody being moderate displeased.  unfortunately, we don't have any kind o' numbers to back that up, yes?  we feel that certain features is polarizing, but that is all we got.  how we gonna convince josh he is wrong if his viewing o' game tester's actual play tells him different?

 

am not suggesting that rationality is the perfect approach-- far from it. however, we do note that while josh is rational, far too many fans believe that they are rational.  this leads to conflicts.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 18, 2015 by Gromnir

[Luckmann]

[...]  for chrissakes, luckman is trying to analogize to romances to make his... point. [...]

 

To be fair, it is not an analogy I'd bring up myself for this. Sawyer compared romances to the stronghold. I only continued it because it's an odd comparison to make, except at it's most base level, I guess.

 

In terms of, I dunno, controversy, I guess, the comparison makes no sense at all. I think there's a lot more people thinking that PoE has a bad stronghold mechanic, and thinks that the game is worse off because of it, than there actually are people that specifically don't want strongholds at all.

 

I think (pulling from memory) that Sawyer asked, in his usual tone, whether whomever he addressed really wanted to have 9-or-so quests pulled out of White March to make the Stronghold better, almost as some kind of threat from a kid angry at you wanting to play with his sand castle. And personally, my answer would just be absolutely. I'd rather see existing content fixed or improved before I see them moving on to creating new content that could end up having the exact same issues all over again. Especially since Obsidian has this reputation of never quite making it to the finishing line.

 

At least in PoE, that failure to reach the finishing line permeates the game, rather than being the end 10% just missing, give or take.

 

 

So perhaps the real issue is when strongholds try to be resource management minigames (as PoE tried to do, and NWN2). The stronghold in DA:I is fairly unobtrusive and doesn't really require any resource management.

I think that's a fairly good characterization of the issue. The Stronghold should have been a sequence of quests or even just a cool staging ground for your adventures, rather than a mostly-uninteresting minigame.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have minded a full "minigame" with real management aspects to it, but such a thing needs to be more integrated into the game, then, with the obvious effect that it'll put certain people off. At present, I think it's very generous to call it a minigame at all. The only interaction outside of the keep that actually relates to it in any way is probably the prison, and even that feels a bit out of place, and you never know who you can imprison, sometimes even why. I managed to get a prisoner without even realising I took them prisoner.

 

I don't think the bounties qualify, since they don't actually feel like they interact with the stronghold, a feeling probably reinforced by the fact that the Warden's Lodge is even situated outside of the Stronghold.

 

At present, it's a (bad) money sink. Shelling out gold and ticking a checkbox hardly qualifies as a minigame.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Luckmann

[Gromnir]

our recollection (edit: confirmed after reviewing the SA posts) is that josh only brought up romance in context o' strongholds to indicate polarization.  were a recognition that those folks who dislike strongholds and romances disliked those features to a significant degree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am almost hesitant to mention this, but your strawman use were a bit obvious.  show us where sawyer has stated that he hates romance.

 

"We decided we couldn't do a good, robust romantic system. They're very sensititve. It's very easy to do romances badly," Sawyer says. "So we decided to take them off the table." -sawyer  

 

rational.

 

"I think that in this case, it's really just another representation of his irrational hangups that have marred the game."

 

doesn't seem fair to make such a suggestion, eh?

 

perhaps you confused sawyer with avellone

 

"Not a big fan of romances. I did four in Alpha Protocol because Chris Parker, our project director, demanded it because he thinks romance apparently is easy, or MAYBE it’s because he wanted to be an **** and give me tons of them to do because I LOVE them so much (although to be honest, I think he felt it was more in keeping with the spy genre to have so many romances, even if I did ask to downscope them). At least I got to do the “hatemance” version of most of them, which makes it a little more palatable.

 

"Also, the only reason the romance bits in Mask of the Betrayer worked was because George Ziets helped me with them since he was able to describe what love is to me and explain how it works (I almost asked for a PowerPoint presentation). It seems like a messy, complicated process, not unlike a waterbirth. Don’t even get me started on the kissing aspects, which is revolting because people EAT with their mouths. Bleh.

 

"So if I were to implement a romance subplot in Eternity - I wouldn’t. I’d examine interpersonal relationships from another angle and I wouldn’t confine it to love and romance. Maybe I’d explore it after a “loving” relationship crashed and burned, and one or both was killed in the aftermath enough for them to see if it had really been worth it spending the last few years of their physical existence chained to each other in a dance of human misery and/or a plateau of soul-killing compromise. Or maybe I’d explore a veteran’s love affair with his craft of murder and allowing souls to be freed to travel beyond their bleeding shell, or a Cipher’s obsession with plucking the emotions of deep-rooted souls to try and see what makes people attracted to each other beyond their baser instincts and discovers love... specifically, his love of manipulating others. You could build an entire dungeon and quest where he devotes himself to replicating facsimiles of love, reducer a Higher Love to a baser thing and using NPCs he encounters as puppets for his experimentations, turning something supposedly beautiful into something filthy, mechanical, but surrounded by blank-eyed soul-twisted drones echoing all the hollow Disney-like platitudes and fairy tale existence where everyone lives happily ever after."

 

oh and since this could be a learning moment, your fallacious attribution o' irrational romance hate to sawyer were not strawman because he never said such a thing.  it became strawman when you then used hate that you cannot actual attribute to josh to then show how such irrational hangups were a detriment to poe development.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Gromnir

[Luckmann]

our recollection (edit: confirmed after reviewing the SA posts) is that josh only brought up romance in context o' strongholds to indicate polarization.  were a recognition that those folks who dislike strongholds and romances disliked those features to a significant degree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

But shouldn't there be a degree of parity? Sure, the people that really hate strongholds, really hate strongholds, and those that hate romances really hate romances, but at the same time, I'm not seeing how the two compare to eachother as issues.

 

Romances are significantly polarizing and was excluded under the rationale that they are very hard to do well, and have a lot of people that dislike them for various reasons (mostly because they are hard to do well).

 

Strongholds are not nearly as polarizing, and I've yet to be in a discussion where even someone opposing strongholds cannot find some common ground (like Fardragon, even if we don't necessarily agree; I would love to see what he doesn't want, if done well), are in the game (the most important difference), and I've yet to see a significant number of people throwing fits over it. They are also not terribly hard to do at least acceptably well (BGII, DA:O:A).

 

And no matter what, like I said, the most important difference is that there's a Stronghold in PoE, but no Romances, if either is in the game, same as any other part of the game, it's inexcusable to come afterwards and brush off the issues with an existing facet of the game with the argument that some amount of people somewhere, doesn't like that existing facet, to some degree, as a concept.

 

They simply don't compare as issues, and in the event that they did, if either or neither was in the game, they still should be treated as important facets of an overall whole (or be disregarded completely).

[Gromnir]

 

our recollection (edit: confirmed after reviewing the SA posts) is that josh only brought up romance in context o' strongholds to indicate polarization.  were a recognition that those folks who dislike strongholds and romances disliked those features to a significant degree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

But shouldn't there be a degree of parity? Sure, the people that really hate strongholds, really hate strongholds, and those that hate romances really hate romances, but at the same time, I'm not seeing how the two compare to eachother as issues.

 

Romances are significantly polarizing and was excluded under the rationale that they are very hard to do well, and have a lot of people that dislike them for various reasons (mostly because they are hard to do well).

 

Strongholds are not nearly as polarizing, and I've yet to be in a discussion where even someone opposing strongholds cannot find some common ground (like Fardragon, even if we don't necessarily agree; I would love to see what he doesn't want, if done well), are in the game (the most important difference), and I've yet to see a significant number of people throwing fits over it. They are also not terribly hard to do at least acceptably well (BGII, DA:O:A).

 

And no matter what, like I said, the most important difference is that there's a Stronghold in PoE, but no Romances, if either is in the game, same as any other part of the game, it's inexcusable to come afterwards and brush off the issues with an existing facet of the game with the argument that some amount of people somewhere, doesn't like that existing facet, to some degree, as a concept.

 

They simply don't compare as issues, and in the event that they did, if either or neither was in the game, they still should be treated as important facets of an overall whole (or be disregarded completely).

 

again, the specific context in which romances were analogized to strongholds by sawyer were extreme limited.

 

 

"You're downplaying the aversion that people have to strongholds, specifically. If there's a "I hate big dungeons" bloc of significant size, I'm unaware of them. Stronghold aversion seems more comparable to romance aversion."

 

you disagree?  fine, but again, your basis is feel and extending the comparison is unwarranted. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65107-no-romances-confirmed/?p=1417049

 

further clarification. 

 

HA! Good Fun!