Survey for the Future Part 2

[nakedmolerat]

 

 or that setting I can't remember the name of where you play a person with a bit of the power of a god and try to build up a kingdom as much as you are building a character?

 

Birthright.

 

Thank you.

Too bad I'll forget again by the next time it ever comes up, and I'll end up repeating my description blurb in stead of just saying the name.

[Quillon]

Well, this survey so far really obsesses about "isometric", guess that's Obsidian's feature. Tho I'd like Obs to consider 3D-Top Down for party based RPGs; wouldn't really alienate newer gen of players while keeping most old skooooolers.

 

Aaand it went on to Pathfinder. I don't know enough and have nothing against the license but enough high fantasy ffs. You already have Pillars and Tyranny.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Quillon

[PugPug]

I took the survey that was emailed to me. Did it work, or do you need me to do it again with this link?

[WorstUsernameEver]

This is a different survey than the one in the backer update and it's from a partner of Obsidian (I'd guess it's Paizo, but I don't think the survey notes who it is) rather than Obsidian themselves.

[ManifestedISO]

Pug may be referring to a Paradox survey sent by email, about Steam pre-order habits. Don't know.

[hrwd]

Did I do this already? Why is there a v2?

[Grimo88]

I'm always scared when these surveys come up that the anti-RtwP league will come of the woodwork and influence Obsidian to make Pillars turn-based. I realise that I am in the minority here but I loathe turn-based games outside of the tabletop. I'm still angry that I got suckered into backing Torment before they announced that it would be turn-based. Now I don't even want it.

 

RtwP is very unique, and since Dragon Age have set about merrily murdering the genre, Obsidian are the only people producing games like these any more. 

[ManifestedISO]

Numenera is turn-based, are you kidding me.  

[Grimo88]

Numenera is turn-based, are you kidding me.  

Is this sarcasm or surprise? 

[Riddlewrong]

I like the Pathfinder setting and many of the stories in the Adventure Paths. I would love to see that aspect of Pathfinder adapted into a game. That said, I'm not really a fan of the antiquated 3.5 rules, even with the changes implemented by Pathfinder. I've had some great times playing the game with friends, but 99% of all frustrations and time wasting boils down to bloated rules that feel more like they're in your way and aren't supporting your fun/role-playing. D&D 5e is a far superior system in my opinion, but the Forgotten Realms lore is all over the place these days. I feel as though if we could get the setting of Golarion with a system that's a lot more streamlined and fun to play with, it would be a perfect fit for a CRPG. Use the setting and develop your own rules.

 

I was a big fan of Neverwinter Nights, but I hated the implementation of the rules in those games. It was pretty awful. The one game that did 3.5 in a way that actually felt closest to pen and paper was Temple of Elemental Evil. Unfortunately, I can't say that I really liked that game because it had other problems, but combat felt like a step in the right direction there.

 

We never seem to get a D&D game that actually feels like you're playing D&D. Real time with pause is okay, but it feels like a concession between two types of players, rather than a definitive system that feels satisfying to play. I would much rather have a truly turn-based experience in an RPG. Sure, the battles take a bit longer, but the strategic aspect of the gameplay is a LOT more fun, and you can focus on a more accurate adaptation of a pen and paper style rule set.

[anameforobsidian]

I really don't see what Pathfinder can add as a CRPG. It seems mostly generic DND with a few rule tweaks. I'd like to see some games in a new setting. Pillars is at least Renaissance instead of faux-Middle Ages.

 

I'd like to see some games in relatively untapped settings. Underwater, in the desert (though this one is growing more popular), urban fantasy, kirby-esque space, depression era, Age of Exploration, Chinese fantasy, Indian fantasy, Middle East cyberpunk, African fantasy or civil war or cyber-punk, Space Dandy style cosmic absurdism. Really anything but high fantasy, cyberpunk, or militarized space.

 

Pathfinder seems like a step backward.

Edited November 6, 2016 by anameforobsidian

[PangaeaACDC]

Completed the survey (thanks for posting the link to it on GOG). Was a bit baffled about the focus on Pathfinder. Both art styles looked crap, I had to choose one, but mentioned in the comments that I didn't like either.

 

Not a big fan of turn-based either. It worked for Wasteland 2, but it also means that every tiniest battle takes forever. Real-time with Pause is superior.

 

Think the questions about story, dark/light, lighthearted/whatever weren't so grand either. It felt like missing the ball a bit. But I added some comments that hopefully helped explain my opinions.

 

Also wholeheartedly agree with the person who mentioned earlier that dark/light shouldn't necessarily come from art style and whatnot, but from what happens in the game world -- so excellently portrayed in Planescape Torment. That game has a very special place for me, probably even more special than Baldur's Gate.

 

I'd love another Isometric RPG, however, so I'm intrigued at what may come next (but am not filled with euphoria about Pathfinder).

[ManifestedISO]

 

Numenera is turn-based, are you kidding me.  

Is this sarcasm or surprise? 

 

 

Surprise.

 

Turn-based is the opposite of exciting gameplay, for me. 

[Quillon]

 

 

Numenera is turn-based, are you kidding me.  

Is this sarcasm or surprise? 

 

 

Surprise.

 

Turn-based is the opposite of exciting gameplay, for me. 

 

 

My brothers from other mothers!

 

Turn-based is immersion breaking slow-death gaming that so many indie crpgs use these days, guess its easier to make/balance etc.

[algroth]

Right, so... I'm personally not a Pathfinder veteran, but with regards to the two artstyle choices given, my personal gripe is that I am honestly not seeing any difference between them. I feel like I'm not sure which quality I should be looking at to say one is more fitting than the other for an iso-RPG. Both seem, at least to this ignorant pleb's eyes, pretty much the same.

[JerekKruger]

Real time with pause is okay, but it feels like a concession between two types of players, rather than a definitive system that feels satisfying to play.

 

Well, there's at least one player who prefers it to both pure real time and turn based (me) so don't be so sure it's a concession.

[Grimo88]

I really don't see what Pathfinder can add as a CRPG. It seems mostly generic DND with a few rule tweaks. I'd like to see some games in a new setting. Pillars is at least Renaissance instead of faux-Middle Ages.

 

I'd like to see some games in relatively untapped settings. Underwater, in the desert (though this one is growing more popular), urban fantasy, kirby-esque space, depression era, Age of Exploration, Chinese fantasy, Indian fantasy, Middle East cyberpunk, African fantasy or civil war or cyber-punk, Space Dandy style cosmic absurdism. Really anything but high fantasy, cyberpunk, or militarized space.

 

Pathfinder seems like a step backward.

I really don't think this is fair. 'X' setting is backward/overused/tired is a superficial complaint. It is all down to the writing. Obsidian have proved in the past that they can take tired, stale, uninteresting settings like the Star Wars universe (don't get me wrong, I love SW, but in the end, it is the hero's journey formula in space) and write the **** out of it, deconstruct it, make it fresh. The BG games, for instance, have every right to be a tired, lame old setting, but the quality of the ideas and the writing elevate it above even so-called 'mature' settings like the DA universe. 

[Karkarov]

 

Real time with pause is okay, but it feels like a concession between two types of players, rather than a definitive system that feels satisfying to play.

 

Well, there's at least one player who prefers it to both pure real time and turn based (me) so don't be so sure it's a concession.

 

Exactly.  Pure real time in a isometric RPG where you are controlling multiple characters with dozens of abilities and no decent AI to speak of sucks.  Even in DA Inquisition, which was made around the idea that your party had strong AI and did not need managing, still needed managing on higher difficulties in the major battles.  I wouldn't even want to dream what playing Eternity would be like without the ability to pause.

 

It is definitely it's own system and is not just a concession to try to please both groups.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Karkarov

[kanisatha]

 

 

 

Numenera is turn-based, are you kidding me.  

Is this sarcasm or surprise? 

 

 

Surprise.

 

Turn-based is the opposite of exciting gameplay, for me. 

 

 

My brothers from other mothers!

 

Turn-based is immersion breaking slow-death gaming that so many indie crpgs use these days, guess its easier to make/balance etc.

 

I'll add my voice to this as well. Turn-based really sucks. Combat is already my least-liked aspect of crpg's, and turn-based combat makes it even worse by painfully dragging out aggravating combat sequences. I too was really pissed when Torment went turn-based combat after I had supported the Kickstarter.

[Mamoulian War]

On the other hand, Numenera going turn based was for me the best news since the announcement of Kickstarter.

 

Unfortunately you can't please everyone, but for me the best wish would be turn based Reign of Winter Adventure Path with rules as close as possible to PnP Pathfinder rules and with the availability of Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide and Advanced Race Guide classes, archetypes and races, with combat as close to the Temple of Elemental Evil as possible.

 

Up until today, I haven't play game with better combat as ToEE.

[PangaeaACDC]

****. I hadn't heard Numenera went turn-based. That's a kick in the balls. Slowly.

 

[algroth]

****. I hadn't heard Numenera went turn-based. That's a kick in the balls. Slowly.

 

From the sounds of it, however, only about two or three encounters including the "tutorial" encounter will be obligatory. If you dislike turn-based combat and typically play more diplomacy-oriented characters, you might be able to avoid a lot of it.

[Sedrefilos]

InXile had a voting for the combat system of Numenera and turn-based won over rtwp for like 1%. So you can say backers were 50-50 about it. Good thing is combat is not supposed to be often and it can be solved in different ways. That means a dialogue option during combat or some other weird stuff can end it sooner. 

 

Wasteland 2 had fun turn-based combat but it could be annoying some times when misses happen often and there are many enemies spread out in the field. Badly designed action point management system could make it even more frustrating at times. 

The only party based iso-rpg with turn-based combat I liked was Divinity Original Sin, because of its well designed encounters and super fun mechanics.

 

I'm all in for rtwp system in general. Best invention for controlling multiple characters at the same time ever.

[Jarmo]

Yeah. Art style questions, didn't get them.

 

Guess I don't like swirly lightning balls all over the place so picked 1.

I would like the blokes to keep their shirts on, so early pathfinder.

 

Also.

Less tortured souls raped through childhood,

more spunky lasses ready to meet the world.

[Grimo88]

On the other hand, Numenera going turn based was for me the best news since the announcement of Kickstarter.

 

Unfortunately you can't please everyone, but for me the best wish would be turn based Reign of Winter Adventure Path with rules as close as possible to PnP Pathfinder rules and with the availability of Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide and Advanced Race Guide classes, archetypes and races, with combat as close to the Temple of Elemental Evil as possible.

 

Up until today, I haven't play game with better combat as ToEE.

I totally get why someone would want this - horse for courses - but what really bugged me was Torment was sold as a spiritual successor to Planescape and the Infinity Engine. It was in t he pitch. Then as soon as they were funded they were like 'Lol, it's turn-based! Not like Infinity at all!' 

 

I'm worried that PoE, which has built its brand upon the legacy of the Infinity Engine, doesn't do a 180 in the hopes of joining the ranks of the turned-based indie darlings that are seeing a revival now. That's their thing, they're good at it, but RtwP is PoE's thing.