Big patches after release?

[IndiraLightfoot]

@algroth: 100% agreed.

 

And you'd be surprised learning how many of the best creative works, innovations and inventions have come about by pure chance, mistakes, the use of contingency plans, or just ad-libbing. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by IndiraLightfoot

[Wormerine]

Yeah, “vision” and “**** doesn’t work as intended - let’s fix it” are two different things. Some of the greatest composers would change their work just before or after premier not because they were selling out, but things didn’t work the way they intended - parts ended up being unplayable, balance didn’t work as they intended covering important bits, pacing of the piece was off. Sometimes what is in your head doesn’t translate directly into reality. A mark of good craftsman is not sticking to his guts, but making tough decisions - sometimes cutting or changing things he liked or intended if they hurt overall experience or just didn’t work.

 

Sibelius’ Violin Concerto in D minor, op. 47 - one of the cornerstones of violin repertoire sucked at the premier. Great composer, great material. But it didn’t work. Cuts and edits were needed. He listened to feedback, rewritten the Concerto. After over 100years, it is still one of the most beloved and respected violin concertos. Heard once original edit - not nearly as good. I don’t think anyone would say that Sibelius compromised his vision - he just smartly fixed or cut what was needed for his original vision to come through.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Wormerine

[algroth]

A couple of pretty good documentaries about great artists executing their vision:

 

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (on the making of Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now)

Burden of Dreams (on the making of Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo - also his filmmaking diary Conquest of the Useless is available for reading)

 

These guys surely looked like they knew exactly what they were doing at all times.

[Boeroer]

But did they really, really, really have true...

 

 

?

[IndiraLightfoot]

In vino veritas.

[Ninjamestari]

Ninja, if you ever come across an artist that has a vision as fully realized and absolute as the one you describe, where *every* decision has been thought out preemptively and *every* detail forethought before a production stage, you let me know, because in my years of experience so far working with artists in several media as well as in my own personal incursions into each I have yet to meet even *evidence* of such an artist existing. Both between people I have met and worked with, and with the artists I know about merely from consuming and learning about each medium. When people speak of artistic vision, they speak of an individual or collective perspective that guides and informs the decisions made regarding a certain work so as to define and configure the aesthetic, narrative and discourse of a work around that perspective and what is wished to be told. And by guiding and informing them I mean determining whether doing X or Y is a good idea or the right thing to best approach that ideal, and what might be a bad idea - but you get to trying "X or Y" through experimentation, and determining whether they work or not through trial and error. They *never* mean "this artist knows exactly what to do every time ever" - that is quite simply *not* how vision or any artistic process I've encountered works, at all.

 

Moreover, the Might/STR+RES debate is such a *minor* element in the greater scheme of things that it's hardly worth framing a discussion on the presence or lack of vision in this project around at all. Josh's goals with regards to the attribute system in Pillars have been thoroughly explained in this video. With the new concentration system being implemented, resolve's overall impact feels negligible compared to the rest of the attributes and thus has become a dump stat, exactly what Josh wants to avoid. The ideal as per his vision is to create a system with no clear dump stats, and thus the change, even if it marks a departure from the original game, is in fact *informed* by this ideal. Ultimately however, the point is simply that whether "might" or "strength" make it into the game, this aspect is hardly so critical so as to say the game is "lacking vision" or any such thing.

 

So again I try to explain vision to a blind man. Vision is not "having every decision thought out preemptively", that's nonsense, when you have vision the decisions just are obvious because you can *see* them. You don't have to think them out preemptively, just like you don't have to think out preemptively every step you take when you go to talk to someone, you can *see* where they are so you don't have to plan out the route with a map.

 

The Might/STR+RES debate is a minor element, yes, but it is an indication of lack of vision; a well thought out system wouldn't have this sort of debate/experiment going on at all, the way the stats should work would be obvious. I mean, this stuff isn't difficult, you only have to see, and I really find it astonishing how difficult the concept of sight and vision is to some people.

 

 

 

Wow, you really think you appear like that to people? Don't you think it's dangerous to bloat your ego like that? I mean, based on the way you conduct yourself you really don't have any of the qualities that give Dwayne Johnson the ability to act like that without actually appearing to be pretentious and just a little sad.

[algroth]

[Ninjamestari]

What I mean by the Might/Res is that there's no fundamental vision behind the stat-system at all, it's just slapped in. That's why they're so mutable, they're an accessory to Obsidian, and that's why they struggle with the whole gameplay representing the fantasy - thing, and that's why the actual gameplay doesn't really reinforce the immersion to the world, it's just a game and as such it doesn't really stand out. That's why they should fix that fundamental connection, and the only way to do that is to begin with the fundamental aspects that make a character in the gameplay sense: the stats, or the attributes, what they represent and why, both in terms of the fantasy and in terms of gameplay. Just like Strength as a concept has a fundamental reality to it, which makes it easy to deduce what high strength means; you know, it means you can carry heavier stuff, you hit harder and everything that requires physical strength is easier to you. What it *doesn't* mean is more gun-damage. That's why you need a vision to build things around in a fantasy setting, because unlike Strength which is easy to derive from our physical reality, magic and other metaphysical concepts aren't as easy, so you need to have a vision of what they are, a clear one, and how they tie in to the abilities, or attributes, of the character. If this vision isn't clear, then you see fundamental flip-flop-changes like the Might/STR situation, and stuff like Might as a stat in the first place; they were thinking the wrong way around, they were making a game and then try to make the fantasy fit instead of making a fantasy and let the vision of that fantasy dictate the direction of the game.

[algroth]

 

Ninja, if you ever come across an artist that has a vision as fully realized and absolute as the one you describe, where *every* decision has been thought out preemptively and *every* detail forethought before a production stage, you let me know, because in my years of experience so far working with artists in several media as well as in my own personal incursions into each I have yet to meet even *evidence* of such an artist existing. Both between people I have met and worked with, and with the artists I know about merely from consuming and learning about each medium. When people speak of artistic vision, they speak of an individual or collective perspective that guides and informs the decisions made regarding a certain work so as to define and configure the aesthetic, narrative and discourse of a work around that perspective and what is wished to be told. And by guiding and informing them I mean determining whether doing X or Y is a good idea or the right thing to best approach that ideal, and what might be a bad idea - but you get to trying "X or Y" through experimentation, and determining whether they work or not through trial and error. They *never* mean "this artist knows exactly what to do every time ever" - that is quite simply *not* how vision or any artistic process I've encountered works, at all.

 

Moreover, the Might/STR+RES debate is such a *minor* element in the greater scheme of things that it's hardly worth framing a discussion on the presence or lack of vision in this project around at all. Josh's goals with regards to the attribute system in Pillars have been thoroughly explained in this video. With the new concentration system being implemented, resolve's overall impact feels negligible compared to the rest of the attributes and thus has become a dump stat, exactly what Josh wants to avoid. The ideal as per his vision is to create a system with no clear dump stats, and thus the change, even if it marks a departure from the original game, is in fact *informed* by this ideal. Ultimately however, the point is simply that whether "might" or "strength" make it into the game, this aspect is hardly so critical so as to say the game is "lacking vision" or any such thing.

 

So again I try to explain vision to a blind man. Vision is not "having every decision thought out preemptively", that's nonsense, when you have vision the decisions just are obvious because you can *see* them. You don't have to think them out preemptively, just like you don't have to think out preemptively every step you take when you go to talk to someone, you can *see* where they are so you don't have to plan out the route with a map.

 

The Might/STR+RES debate is a minor element, yes, but it is an indication of lack of vision; a well thought out system wouldn't have this sort of debate/experiment going on at all, the way the stats should work would be obvious. I mean, this stuff isn't difficult, you only have to see, and I really find it astonishing how difficult the concept of sight and vision is to some people.

 

"I will reply, since you reproach me as blind: You, even though you see clearly, do not see the scope of your evil, nor where you live, nor with whom you dwell."

 

A well thought out system is the end result, not the starting point. A vision is the starting point, which through trial and error, through deliberation and experimentation, grows more solid and becomes the "well thought out system" that was intended. Your problem in equating vision to sight is that you assume an artistic vision is always as clear as plain sight, when it's not. It's an idea, it's a seed from which to eventually produce an actual, tangible and solid work. But the idea itself is nebulous. You equate it to seeing the grass is green, but you don't get that through experimentation you determine *which* shade of green the grass you pictured in your mind is. That is why this debate with regards to a yet unfinished work does not deny vision - in fact it strengthens it, since clearly the end product is not meeting a desired goal which is itself enforced by vision.

[Boeroer]

Wow, you really think you appear like that to people? Don't you think it's dangerous to bloat your ego like that? I mean, based on the way you conduct yourself you really don't have any of the qualities that give Dwayne Johnson the ability to act like that without actually appearing to be pretentious and just a little sad.

[IndiraLightfoot]

One of the greatest visionaries I can think of is Einstein. I cannot begin to fathom how he came up with all his precise scientific theories. Interestingly enough, he still had plenty of doubts.

His self-doubt was perhaps at its lowest at his breakthrough, but for the most part he kept uncertainty as a life-long companion. 

Here are some Einstein quotes:

If you are out to describe the truth, leave the elegance to the tailor.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

Information is not knowledge.

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Memory is deceptive because it is colored by today's events.

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue.

Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age.

[Dryden]

 

Ninjamestari. You need to understand that "vision" from a system design / programming perspective is completely different from what you are describing. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're actually a software developer and know what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like it

 

[Boeroer]

Still no vision that Einstein person. With true vision (not the thing the blind ones have, mind you), you can put out a game and never patch it because it's perfect.

With true vision you can also post weird stuff on forums and never give in, because what you say is the truth. Like... every friggin' time! It's awesome... and convenient. 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Boeroer

[Ninjamestari]

Einstein said many things people take too literally. If you have one real pearl (1) and you find one more (+1), you know have two pearls (=2), unless you've thrown away the first one (-1). 1+1 = 2 works in reality 100% of the time, and every other aspect of mathematics is derived from that, so they too must work in reality 100% of the time. So what Einstein meant that the math of reality is often so elaborate and complicated due to the sheer number of variables, some of them are not obvious or even know at all, the application of math to reality is not always certain, depending on the context because you never have all the data. It's a good thing if you appreciate Einstein, but you really should put in more effort to actually understanding him, otherwise you're just paying lip service like most people do.

 

 

Wow, you really think you appear like that to people? Don't you think it's dangerous to bloat your ego like that? I mean, based on the way you conduct yourself you really don't have any of the qualities that give Dwayne Johnson the ability to act like that without actually appearing to be pretentious and just a little sad.

 

 

Now *that* is a much more appropriate descriptor of you. 

[Boeroer]

I have the body of The Rock, the brains of Einstein (and the hair of Yahoo Serious) and the humor of Adam Sandler. I'm clearly an Ubermensch.

 

I'm frenetically searching for a surgeon who can remove humors though...

[algroth]

I have the body of The Rock, the brains of Einstein (and the hair of Yahoo Serious) and the humor of Adam Sandler. I'm clearly an Ubermensch.

 

I'm frenetically searching for a surgeon who can remove humors though...

You still lack trve vision though.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Kuka on ninjamestari? Kaikkitietävä selvännäkijä, vai?

[Boeroer]

You still lack trve vision though.

Dammit, you're right. Maybe when they remove Adam's humor they can cut me a third eye? You know, not one of those ordinary eyes all you blind people have, but one with true vision.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Boeroer

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Nope, can't touch this!

[algroth]

 

 

TFW you have so much true vision that even your hair ends have eyes.

Edited January 22, 2018 by algroth

[Ninjamestari]

Ninjamestari. You need to understand that "vision" from a system design / programming perspective is completely different from what you are describing. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're actually a software developer and know what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like it

 

Well, if it doesn't sound like it to you, then perhaps you've got no idea what to listen for. Software development is indeed my field, and everything begins with a vision, without a vision you're just stumbling in the dark, but when you have a vision you know how things have to be. It's the same with all design, you can't create anything if you don't know what you're creating. The clearer you can see what you're doing, the better the results. Most companies aren't in a position where they can sacrifice a product for the sake of experiment, or waste valuable time pondering useless questions, decisions have to be made, and if you don't have vision you cannot make them.

 

When it comes to artistic vision, the artist needs it more than anyone else, and the fact that they change stuff to the very end of their creative process is that they have MULTIPLE visions in their head simultaneously. It's actually quite maddening, you've got many visions you try to make dance together, that means some visions need to be sacrificed in favor of others, sometimes less interesting visions that work better in the context of the multitude of visions you're working with. That's the difference between an artist and a designer: a designer needs to have vision in order to succeed, an artist needs to be able to handle a whole chorus of them without going nuts in the process in order to succeed. Plenty of artists fail miserably at that latter part, that's why they they so often abuse the hell out of sex and drugs and alcohol.

[Boeroer]

And I thought they just read too many of your posts. Cheers to my heroin addict swinger friends on my sofa!

[SonicMage117]

I expect a few gigs worth of patches within the first six months, mainly being updates/bug fixes, small mechanics changes and content.

[cokane]

I can say the original benefited immensely from patches and from the tweaks added post White March. I sure hope they do the same here, if necessary, and I don't think that means they lacked vision or whatnot. It's not easy to plan for every contingency on such a big project as this.

 

Game publishing isn't what it used to be, with constant internet access, publishers don't have to move a final product only when they're absolutely certain it's all polished.

 

I also suspect it's not going to require as much tweaking as the original did. Building a world and set of game systems from the ground up is way harder than tweaking them.

[kierun]

I am not sure if this thread is pure gold or just rubbish…

 

Well done everyone! Or is it well done⸮

 

…

 

☺

Edited January 23, 2018 by kierun