I know you said boxed version.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pillars of Eternity by Obsidian Entertainment (Kickstarter) [Up: Teaser]
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
I know you said boxed version.
Well, not *quite*. The more big and complex your game is going to be, the more bugs become likely, so the more resources you should budget for testing and fixing them. At least, in a perfect world, where infinite resources are freely available
While you can't realistically quash everything, I do think that a lot of 'buggy games' were simply such because they didn't have a *realistic* idea of the resources required to fix them; better planning, better budgeting and more resources would make a world of difference; the publisher not really allocating the money and time required to produce a polished work of that nature.
The devs do a fantastic job with the resources they have, which is what makes these situations so infuriating!
Trial of Iron sounds amazing.
This sounds amazing, temptation to reinstall BG2 and try this rising.
This sounds amazing, temptation to reinstall BG2 and try this rising.
The fact is, there are so many things that can go wrong when you add shittons of choice & freedom that affect the world & everything that there really isn't any realistic possibility to make a bug-free game from these kinds of games. Even a big QA team can't find in years what hundreds of thousands or even millions of gamers can find in minutes.Well, not *quite*. The more big and complex your game is going to be, the more bugs become likely, so the more resources you should budget for testing and fixing them. At least, in a perfect world, where infinite resources are freely available
While you can't realistically quash everything, I do think that a lot of 'buggy games' were simply such because they didn't have a *realistic* idea of the resources required to fix them; better planning, better budgeting and more resources would make a world of difference; the publisher not really allocating the money and time required to produce a polished work of that nature.
The devs do a fantastic job with the resources they have, which is what makes these situations so infuriating!
Though, yes, Obsidian's games have been victims of shitty publisher decisions that have left them with even less QA than they should've had.
Mister_Bubbles
Member
Some interesting tidbits in that RPGamer interview:
Mechanics that encourage you to swap out companions over time... guessing that's something to do with the souls. As for not every companion being a combatant... is that a first for an RPG like this? I can't recall any party-based RPGs where each party member didn't also have some kind of combat role.
And here he is putting me in my place about the ship date :
Finally, this just sounds great:
Mechanics that encourage you to swap out companions over time... guessing that's something to do with the souls. As for not every companion being a combatant... is that a first for an RPG like this? I can't recall any party-based RPGs where each party member didn't also have some kind of combat role.
And here he is putting me in my place about the ship date
:Finally, this just sounds great:
I read a good game design article a little while ago - intended for text adventures, but certainly relevnt to this - talking about how you can have combinatorial expansion of complexity through simply adding one object. The example they gave is an invisibility cloak, since as soon as you have it everything needs to think in terms of 'player is visible' and 'player is invisible'; immediately you've doubled the test workload.
Yeah, I think we're broadly in agreement; "Perfectly bug-free" isn't realistic, "Better than it was" certainly should have been.
It'll be interesting to find out what effect their beta army will have. I do hope enough of them actually treat it like a beta!
Boo didn't
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
The allure of being in the beta for this game has won me over.
I just hope it's like the CS:GO beta and there's no NDA or anything like that.
I just hope it's like the CS:GO beta and there's no NDA or anything like that.
I'd join the beta but:
1)I'm already broke enough
2)If I have to wait until like 2014 anyway then I can manage waiting for the full product vs playing an incomplete/unpolished version of few months earlier.
Off the wall guess: Maybe the story will have characters die and reincarnate?
1)I'm already broke enough
2)If I have to wait until like 2014 anyway then I can manage waiting for the full product vs playing an incomplete/unpolished version of few months earlier.
Off the wall guess: Maybe the story will have characters die and reincarnate?
Sorry not an AMA it's just to find the top 5 most voted questions so that Tim can answer them next saturday on PE update.
http://www.reddit.com/r/projecteter..._a_chance_to_have_your_questions_answered_by/
SquiddyCracker
Banned
EDIT: I'm so LTTP.
lol, I kept thinking "why hasn't the guy answered any questions? This late motherfucker sure is taking his sweet time."
Exactly what happened to me! hehe
The most amazing thing about this stretch goal is that it seems not only are there 3 additional optional mode filters, but each mode filter has sub-settings you can toggle at the start of the game. So if you just want to specifically turn loyalty meters off, it sounds like you can! OMG!!!!
BassForever
Member
My only fear is Obsidian goes to far into Obsidian territory, promising us lots of content then not being able to deliver the full quality title we're hoping for. It's funny we're still fairly early in the Kickstarter and 2.3 million isn't really a "stretch" goal at this point.
Yeah, that was a cool addition. That's the right way to do modes.
Really, really cool mechanic. If I wasn't so sure that this would do 3 million I'd be sad to see it as a stretch goal.
Exactly. I understand some of them kids might want this, but it's just bad design. Luckily, it appears like even if it's in the game, we could hide it in expert mode. I still would rather not have it at all, but if it's for the kids...
Sentenza
Member
Regardless of how "superficial" it may sound, I'm actually just concerned about how pretty the game is going to look and how good/practical the user interface is going to be.
And that's because these are traditionally their weakest points.
For everything else, I have enough confidence in Obsidian's experience with the genre to believe the game is going to be *at least* competent and with some luck even exceptional.
NV would definitely have been further enhanced if the skill dialogue choices simply didn't show up if you don't meet the criteria.
The amount of bugs in an Obsidian game is inversely proportional to the ability of the game engine (especially the quest, scripting, and dialogue systems) to handle what they want to do.
Gamebryo's quest, scripting, and dialogue systems were particularly ill-suited for the ambitions of Obsidian. It's super easy to trip yourself up when working with those systems and create all sorts of nasty bugs. Then you add on top of that the existing Gamebryo jank/bugs and it's not surprising why New Vegas was as buggy as it was/is.
Honestly I'm not expecting a super polished experience, but nor am I expecting a bugfest. Partly due to the scope of the game, partly due to the game structure, and partly because they mentioned that they're using some of their in-house quest/dialogue/scripting tools in conjuction with Unity.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Um, I'm 30 and I think it's fine when executed properly and not so much in your face.
Cut out this "it's for other people" crap.
It was a joke, no need to take it personally or anything. I was just joking about them removing it from the Expert mode.
And to me, the problem with this kind of things is not that they're intrusive or not "hardcore", I see these kind of stuff as purely bad design, it's explaining the subtext. Knowing whether someone likes you or not is a matter of script, not a metric. I detailed some other reasons for me not liking it earlier in a thread too. I don't mind they have them in the game as long as they're not essential (not bonuses for someone liking you enough, no gifts etc.), but just a visible metric I can turn off - Then anyone who thinks other than me can have them if they want to.
I want them all to be there, and I'm glad they're not removing them to be hardcore. All that stuff shows me that my stats and choices are doing things and gives me motivation to contintue to improve them.
Sawyer made a couple of posts in the SA thread on the topic:
rope kid said:
rope kid said:
I'm aware that I basically just said I'm probably bad at video games. So be it.
I don't think being "bad" at a game is really a bad thing or something we need to shame people for (unless they're showing off to begin with and get owned! lol). Ultimately it is a hobby. It's not a job. We play games because we enjoy them and they are fun. For different people the threshold of fun varies. Some people like a greater challenge, some people don't.
Goddamn does Sawyer have my number right there. I am glad he thinks that way because I admit it I am one of those who are "not very good" at games. At least compared to I assume many on this forum and probably most in this thread.
This part right here
is describing me almost to a T. I know I should really use buffs and things like that more, but old habits are hard to break.
Yeah, but having no loyality meters does not make the game more challenging. Believe me, I usually suck at games, I am not one of those hardcore players starting every game on Hard. I was not talking about a gameplay element, but a problematic game design. Telling you someone likes you more via a metric is a problem with the story and script. Just imagine having affection measured in metrics in books?
I am not trying to say anyone who plays like that is bad at the game, but that this option is not good writing. I don't mind having it there as something purely visual (that I can turn off), though, as I said.
For what it's worth, I played FNV on Hard/Hardcore. Not that that was very hard, but a certain level of difficulty is required to provide tension and to make certain game mechanics matter that might not otherwise. I just don't like hidden stats. They encourage me to go searching outside the game for what certain things mean. I'd rather get everything from inside the game.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There's also the fact that "skill at videogames" isn't a single thing. I'm pretty good at combat in real-time games, or sneaking around, but I'm hopeless with my navigation skills. It's common for me to wander in circles for fifteen minutes before rage quitting in highly linear games. Not COD, obviously, but I got lost in Halo 2. I got lost, several times, in every single Half Life game (except maybe Lost Coast?). I think my favorite "I am so fucking stupid" moment in video gaming was when I was playing F.E.A.R., and there was this big series of rooms surrounding an office in the centre. I spent what felt like hours wandering around trying to work out where to go, before someone looked over my shoulder and pointed out the giant monitor in the office that said "PRESS BUTTON" in massive text.
The fact that I'm hopeless with navigation and an objective marker lowers my blood pressure significantly doesn't imply that I'm some kind of wimp, or that I play on easy-mode or whatever. Deus Ex HR was a good example where I was playing on the highest difficulty from the start and breezing right through it, but if I hadn't been able to turn on objective markers and object highlight I probably would have jumped off a bridge before hour 10.
But you see, you're approaching this from a "omg full immersion" perspective. For what it's worth, that is also my personal preference. But have you considered that it is also a game we're talking about? Not everyone is personally invested into immersion, and some prefer gameplay feedback over that. Do I think it's lame? Yes. Do I think they are wrong to think so? No.
Let's change the perspective a little from dialogue conversions to combat. For total full immersion, there would be no damage numbers popping up anywhere, and there would be no HP/MP bars in the UI. Everything would be visible based on how hurt an enemy or ally looks, and the damage to their individual limbs would show roughly how wounded they are. The same would apply for the player.
That sounds pretty cool. But what about people who aren't looking for this sort of experience? What if they want to play the same game, but as a game. I think that actually represents the majority of gamers playing a RPG. They'd not looking for immersion in the combat, they prefer clear and concise feedback from the game of how much damage they're taking and doing, and how stat changes and weapon/equipment changes will impact those values. There's nothing wrong with playing a game like a game.
With regards to the influence system I've not much issue with feedback. I think it needs to be there, but it could be done smarter than just popping up "+/- 6". What would be ideal is to go for a branching loyalty system. So you can have a companion gain +6 loyalty on two different branches. The consequences of each branch can vary, even with the same loyalty number.
Talking about the general difficulty, "hardcore RPG" is definitely a problematic label. Used a lot of the times to reinforce what people believe an RPG should be, or to condescend other with different tastes.
Talking about the general difficulty, "hardcore RPG" is definitely a problematic label. Used a lot of the times to reinforce what people believe an RPG should be, or to condescend other with different tastes.
I understand what you're saying, but there's a huge difference between combat and dialogues. In fact, I will go right a head and say - Combat and dialogues in RPGs should have as little elements in common as possible. The problem with combat, is, as you said, people need less immersion there because the very nature and intensity of the combat is quite engaging. People use what they can to win combats - They'll min-max, they'll use meta-knowledge, glitches, bugs, whatever they can, because they don't want their character to die. This is a given, this is what players do. If you make an RPG, and you want people to play your game as an RPG, you have to treat dialogues a little differently, you have to make the players realize they are not going to "lose" and that there's no "strategy" here, or they'll continue using every tactic they can to "win". If you give us a meter, we'll do everything we can to max it. This is not what dialogues should be about. If someone doesn't like you, he should talk like he doesn't like you. It's all about the script.
Now, as I said, it's not that I think it's wrong to play the game like that... As long as you give me the option to turn it off completely I'll live with it. But it's still lousy RPG design.
Sounds like you fundamentally disagree with how RPGs are even designed, so I guess that's an issue you'll have to take up with the people making them. The fact is that when designing dialogue and responses in a RPG, if you want it to be truly interactive, there are rewards involved. Once there are rewards involved, conversations can be gamed instead of appreciated, if the player so wants to. It becomes a game system, and that is the reality of it.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be interactive or there shouldn't be rewards - but they shouldn't be obvious and they shouldn't be about combat. This is not a fundamental disagreement, as RPGs are already about that - They're trying to give you moral ambiguity, trying to give you hard choices where you can't win. RPGs are already all about being less "gamey", those are the ones most regarded. PS:T, for example, is all about making you read, and decide and ponder. I'm just saying that loyalty meters are one of the things standing in the way of these goals.
Anyway, as I said, just let me remove it and I don't really care.
I think the problem is more to do with the linear scales often found because they're predictable. Once you know you get these rewards on one side of the scale and those rewards on the other side, you'd end up making a choice between rewards.
It is true that you have to design dialogue that involves a definite structure. Because when you talk to a companion you're not talking to an AI but a written and scripted character.
arglebargle
Member
this will not be a problem.
im bad at games (at least IE games since i dont know d&d rules). i love these games for the story and world, but i am certainly not hardcore, or expert, or capable of the trials of iron.
you are not alone.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Will play high difficulty. Will not play perma death, because I'm not insane.
Perma death mode would be good for a GAF challenge to see who lasts the longest though
CrunchyFrog
Member
Maybe on a second run, but yeah. Let's be realistic, how many times did things go wrong in BG or IWD during battles that was just purely rotten luck (oh shit my healer just got put to sleep right after a fireball exploded). I think there was always an acceptance in the IE games that trial and error was a significant factor in most battles.
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
I think this is the way I'll go, too. I'm glad the perma-death option is there for the people who want it, but I don't enjoy watching hours of progress evaporate.