Asking for a favor from the Hivemind

[Slow James]

No, you're missing the point.

People get upset about all kinds of things. I'm saying that people who are specifically upset about PoE are stupid. Unless they were expecting epic mage duel simulator, which is a legitimate expectation that will not be met.

So? Who cares if they are stupid? Stupid people in large numbers are pretty much the source of large segments of the world's biggest calamities and crises.

This isn't a case where you can refute an argument and the problem goes away. Acting like it is (or, more accurately, Obsidian acting like it is) will not be of any help in avoiding the fallout that could have been rather easily avoided.

 

[FeelTheRads]

"grinding quests"

So, what is wrong with that statement?
What's the difference between going out of your way to fight monsters and going out of your way to solve quests?

 

[tuluse]

So? Who cares if they are stupid? Stupid people in large numbers are pretty much the source of large segments of the world's biggest calamities and crises.

This isn't a case where you can refute an argument and the problem goes away. Acting like it is (or, more accurately, Obsidian acting like it is) will not be of any help in avoiding the fallout that could have been rather easily avoided.

I have no idea what your point is anymore. Obsidian should make a game for stupid people? Or I should not complain about stupid people?

Either one is a strange argument on the codex.

 

[Slow James]

I think it's the other way around. You wanted a BG-like game so badly you didn't read the pitch (which clearly stated it's going to be something different). Most people here didn't suffer from such illusions.

Again - I'm not all that riled up about it. I pre-ordered the game and am pretty stoked about how it may turn out.

But ignorance about why people might be upset riles me up. Assuming there isn't a problem - and again, a problem that could have been easily avoided - just because Obsidian didn't specifically say they weren't making a clone of BG or <insert ideal IE game here> is not a good strategy for anyone to take at this point.

 

[vivec]

No offense, but anyone who thinks BGs had "great" story or IWDs has "great: combat is pretty much stupid people. These were okayish games with great visuals and simply not competed with when they came out.

 

[Slow James]

I have no idea what your point is anymore. Obsidian should make a game for stupid people? Or I should not complain about stupid people?

Either one is a strange argument on the codex.

You can complain about them all you want. But dismissing the damage of riling up said stupid people because they are stupid is... well, stupid. Obsidian would be smarter to get in front of the bus before it runs them over... although how that is even possible at this point is debatable.

But no one should be saying "I don't see why anyone would be angry." The why's and how's are pretty well-established, regardless of whether or not you think the merits are worthwhile.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think it's the other way around. You wanted a BG-like game so badly you didn't read the pitch (which clearly stated it's going to be something different). Most people here didn't suffer from such illusions.

Again - I'm not all that riled up about it. I pre-ordered the game and am pretty stoked about how it may turn out.

But ignorance about why people might be upset riles me up. Assuming there isn't a problem - and again, a problem that could have been easily avoided - just because Obsidian didn't specifically say they weren't making a clone of BG or <insert ideal IE game here> is not a good strategy for anyone to take at this point.

The only issue here is whether or not Obsidian promised or implied that they are making a clone. They did not. In fact, they specifically stated that they are making some new (and thus different) and the only things they borrow from BG are companions and exploration. It's possible, of course, that someone misread, saw nothing but "Baldur's Gate!" and went but I don't see why it's Obsidian's fault or problem.

But no one should be saying "I don't see why anyone would be angry." The why's and how's are pretty well-established...

They are not. Obsidian didn't make any false promises. You're trying to blame them for what other people assumed, which is incorrect, to say the least.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I just got through watching Josh and the producers do a daily walkthrough of an area in PoE on the big screen in the main lounge. It involved combat.

The animations looked smooth, the controls seemed to work just fine, and visually it looked like a 2d/3d mash up of IE combat to me (2d backgrounds, 3d characters). He paused, gave instructions, it seemed strikingly similar to IE games.

That is not the same thing as seeming like DnD., I understand that, and I also was not the one at the controls.

Still, it seemed smooth.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I just got through watching Josh and the producers do a daily walkthrough of an area in PoE on the big screen in the main lounge. It involved combat.

The animations looked smooth, the controls seemed to work just fine, and visually it looked like a 2d/3d mash up of IE combat to me (2d backgrounds, 3d characters). He paused, gave instructions, it seemed strikingly similar to IE games.

That is not the same thing as seeming like DnD., I understand that, and I also was not the one at the controls.

Still, it seemed smooth.

Pictures or it didn't happen.

 

[Infinitron]

No offense, but anyone who thinks BGs had "great" story or IWDs has "great: combat is pretty much stupid people. These were okayish games with great visuals and simply not competed with when they came out.

Well, this is another problem right here.

Not only is the IE fanbase divided in the ways in which they played the games (moving a lot or not, rest-spamming or not, etc) and in the importance they attached to particular games (BG2, PS:T, whatever) over the other ones, but there's also a significant amount of "Infinity Engine fans" that actually think the IE games were pretty damn clunky.

But, there's also a group that thinks the IE games were nigh-perfect, and they don't think that Obsidian should have ever paid much attention to the former group.

 

[Slow James]

The only issue here is whether or not Obsidian promised or implied that they are making a clone. They did not. In fact, they specifically stated that they are making some new (and thus different) and the only things they borrow from BG are companions and exploration. It's possible, of course, that someone misread, saw nothing but "Baldur's Gate!" and went but I don't see why it's Obsidian's fault or problem.

Firstly, based on their forums? It's not just "possible." Secondly, it's not just "someone" but a group that are large enough and fired up enough to shit all over the relatively small piece of landscape on the Internet that people who would care about such a game would frequent.

Fault is irrelevant, although I would say Obsidian is at the least guilty of tying their sales pitch to a genre where certain games and features were quite likely to at the least draw some associations. Not to mention the fact that there are aspects of PoE that are nothing like BG or IWD, the only two games they mentioned. But again - fault is irrelevant.

It is most definitely Obsidian's problem, though. The fact that Anthony thought (apparently incorrectly) that the negativity of their backers came from the grumpy old coots at the Codex shows the problem - Obsidian might legitimately have a large problem on their hand if the issue isn't localized to a group or community of people who can be easily dismissed.

They might have to ::horror:: deal with the fact that some people legitimately feel like they were misled. And by "might" I of course mean "definitely, with multiple articles and interviews talking about the bursting of the crowd-funding model and the disillusionment of developers and funders with the process where demands and expectations have serious problems aligning with finished products."

Since Obsidian is a studio with an actual true business unit attached to it, these comparisons, complaints and scrutiny are going to be going on at high levels in the industry when PoE comes out. And that's DEFINITELY Obsidian's problem, even if you don't think it's their fault.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Secondly, it's not just "someone" but a group that are large enough and fired up enough to shit all over the relatively small piece of landscape on the Internet that people who would care about such a game would frequent.

The question is 'over what?'. If it's over a promise that turned out to be a lie, that's one thing. If it over the fact that Obsidian dared to mention the holy name of Baldur's Gate in their pitch and then didn't create a perfect clone, that's something completely different and frankly silly.

Fault is irrelevant...

So guilty or not, let's condemn Obsidan and burn them for their sins?

Not to mention the fact that there are aspects of PoE that are nothing like BG or IWD, the only two games they mentioned.

Technically, they mentioned 3 games. Technically, the words "we have the DnD license!" were never mentioned.

It is most definitely Obsidian's problem, though. The fact that Anthony thought (apparently incorrectly) that the negativity of their backers came from the grumpy old coots at the Codex shows the problem - Obsidian might legitimately have a large problem on their hand if the issue isn't localized to a group or community of people who can be easily dismissed.

The issue revolves around the combat system. Frankly, I didn't like it and simply stopped playing the beta. Now some might say it's because the new system isn't as good as BG's system (didn't like it either, RTwP isn't my cup of tea). Others might say it's because the new system isn't good, period. I assume (well, hope) that the system is easy to fix and it's only a question of tweaking, time, and patience. If they fix it, would the fact that it's not like BG still be a problem? I doubt it.

They might have to ::horror:: deal with the fact that some people legitimately feel like they were misled.

They cant "legitimately" feel that they were mislead if they weren't, in fact, mislead. Either a specific promise was made or it wasn't. Simple as that.

Since Obsidian is a studio with an actual true business unit attached to it, these comparisons, complaints and scrutiny are going to be going on at high levels in the industry when PoE comes out. And that's DEFINITELY Obsidian's problem, even if you don't think it's their fault.

Not if the game is well received and sells well.

 

[Slow James]

The question is 'over what?'. If it's over a promise that turned out to be a lie, that's one thing. If it over the fact that Obsidian dared to mention the holy name of Baldur's Gate in their pitch and then didn't create a perfect clone, that's something completely different and frankly silly.

Did I lie or mislead in my El Camino example? No. Does that mean people wouldn't be upset if they expected a Detroit Dinosaur and were given something you'd see in Boys in Tha Hood?

You are confusing "Obsidian can prove legally or rationally" with "how the consumer feels." How the consumer feels trumps anything. Everything. I don't really care whether you agree with that because it's reality. People who feel ripped off ARE ripped off, at least from their perspective. Obsidian doesn't have to defend themselves legally in civil court, they have to win the perception argument in the court of public opinion. Saying "we didn't lie and you guys are stupid," even in corporate PC speak, won't do that.

So guilty or not, let's condemn Obsidan and burn them for their sins?

I'm not suggesting anyone, let alone the two of us that the contraction "let's" implies, condemn Obsidian. But that's markedly different than saying "people will be condemning Obsidian."

Technically, they mentioned 3 games. Technically, the words "we have the DnD license!" were never mentioned.

Technicalities don't matter when all it takes for someone who feels burned to write a "game is shit, 0/10" Metacritic score and bad mouth it to all of their friends.

The issue revolves around the combat system. Frankly, I didn't like it and simply stopped playing the beta. Now some might say it's because the new system isn't as good as BG's system (didn't like it either). Others might say it's because the new system isn't good, period. I assume (well, hope) that the system is easy to fix and it's only a question of tweaking, time, and patience. If they fix it, would the fact that it's not like BG still be a problem? I doubt it.

It may, it may not. You know what would have prevented it from being a problem? Not giving specific games, maybe not even the "IE" genre, in their pitch. Or, conversely, making an IE clone first, then evolving the system to take on more experimental design choices a game or so down the road.

They cant "legitimately" feel that they were mislead if they, in fact, weren't mislead. Other a specific promise was made or it wasn't. It's as simple as that.

Someone can legitimately feel things that aren't true. A fundie can legitimately feel that God is punishing America for allowing gays by releasing Justin Bieber upon the world. That's the wonderful thing about feelings and belief - it doesn't require jack shit for them to exist and do active harm.

And nothing, in the history of anything, is ever "as simple as that."

Not if the game is well received and sells well.

True, if the amount of positive responses are loud and powerful enough to overpower the negativity. I'd still say that is a problem for Obsidian to combat that negativity in one way, shape or form, or at the least it is a risk they are mitigating at this point.

 

[Lhynn]

The issue revolves around the combat system. Frankly, I didn't like it and simply stopped playing the beta. Now some might say it's because the new system isn't as good as BG's system (didn't like it either, RTwP isn't my cup of tea). Others might say it's because the new system isn't good, period. I assume (well, hope) that the system is easy to fix and it's only a question of tweaking, time, and patience. If they fix it, would the fact that it's not like BG still be a problem? I doubt it.

Yeah, if it was good no one would complain. Fact is it isnt, they went with a experimental aproach and messed up, instead of going for an already tried formula that pretty much everyone was expecting.

A lot of things outside of combat arent good either, but everything started with that mess.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The issue revolves around the combat system. Frankly, I didn't like it and simply stopped playing the beta. Now some might say it's because the new system isn't as good as BG's system (didn't like it either, RTwP isn't my cup of tea). Others might say it's because the new system isn't good, period. I assume (well, hope) that the system is easy to fix and it's only a question of tweaking, time, and patience. If they fix it, would the fact that it's not like BG still be a problem? I doubt it.

Yeah, if it was good no one would complain. Fact is it isnt, they went with a experimental aproach and messed up, instead of going for an already tried formula that pretty much everyone was expecting.

Already tried formula means what? Copying DnD?

A lot of things outside of combat arent good either, but everything started with that mess.

I thought that everything else (visuals, atmosphere, dialogues, options, etc) was pretty damn good.

Edit:

Did I lie or mislead in my El Camino example? No.

It's a silly example and a poor analogy that simply doesn't fit. You can't compare physical products that serve a very specific purpose with digital artsy-fartsy goods that are ten different things to 10 different people (which is why we still argue what RPG is and isn't).

You are confusing "Obsidian can prove legally or rationally" with "how the consumer feels." How the consumer feels trumps anything.

Only if 'the consumer' represents all consumers interested in this product and not some entitled people who can't be arsed to read what the product is.

If PE sells well, how these people feel wouldn't matter in the least. Take any game/book/movie - there are people who dislike it for some reason. That's normal as you can't create something that everyone and their dog would like.

People who feel ripped off ARE ripped off, at least from their perspective.

By adding 'from their perspective' you cancel that powerful 'ARE ripped off'. Either they're ripped off (Obsidian lied to them) or they feel that they are ripped off because they feel they are entitled to something and not for any other reason (i.e. Obsidian did NOT lie to them). Since I see no evidence of Obsidian lying...

Technically, they mentioned 3 games. Technically, the words "we have the DnD license!" were never mentioned.

Technicalities don't matter when all it takes for someone who feels burned to write a "game is shit, 0/10" Metacritic score and bad mouth it to all of their friends.

So the solution is what? Pander to everyone out of fear that someone might develop negative feelings and give a bad review?

It may, it may not. You know what would have prevented it from being a problem? Not giving specific games, maybe not even the "IE" genre, in their pitch.

HAY GUYS WE R MAKING A GAEM!?

They cant "legitimately" feel that they were mislead if they, in fact, weren't mislead. Other a specific promise was made or it wasn't. It's as simple as that.

Someone can legitimately feel things that aren't true.

Legitimately in this context means that the feelings are justified, that there are good reasons to feel this way. It's not the case. You can say they really feel or feel strongly but not legitimately. Anyway, since we're debating semantics now, it's time to stop and do something productive.

 

[Lhynn]

Already tried formula means what? Copying DnD?

Copyin IE games mechanics. No engagement mechanics, hard counters, Combat rounds, etc.

I thought that everything else (visuals, atmosphere, dialogues, options, etc) was pretty damn good.

Except they make it really hard to tell what the fuck is going on, but thats getting fixed. but yeah, visuals and options are great.
What im talking about is the limited skill pool. While its true we didnt have any in IE games, this was a superb opportunity to make a good skill system, something better than what we got i NWN. I am also talking about the classes and skills, about the attributes and what they do, etc.

 

[Slow James]

Only if 'the consumer' represents all consumers interested in this product and not some entitled people who can't be arsed to read what the product is.

If PE sells well, how these people feel wouldn't matter in the least. Take any game/book/movie - there are people who dislike it for some reason. That's normal as you can't create something that everyone and their dog would like.


By adding 'from their perspective' you cancel that powerful 'ARE ripped off'. Either they're ripped off (Obsidian lied to them) or they feel that they are ripped off because they feel they are entitled to something and not for any other reason (i.e. Obsidian did NOT lie to them). Since I see no evidence of Obsidian lying...

I'm just going to lump all these together here, because you are chasing your tail. "If PoE sells well, those basement dwellers can go fuck themselves" is the thrust of your statement. The PROBLEM is that those basement dwellers are likely to go out, rip the game a new one to anyone and everyone who will listen and bemoan how Obsidian sucks, Kickstarter sucks, crowd-funding sucks and that they got swindled out of their money by lies and false implications.

That's going to be bad. Bad for Obsidian, bad for sales, bad for Kickstarter and bad for gamers in general. How bad it will be has a chance of being mitigated by a game that is good despite not being what was (perceived to be) promised, but that element of knee-jerk reaction will, without a doubt, be present.

Anthony himself said he was worried about MC scores being bombed just like Wasteland 2 when it came out. The quality of the game may stand it up stronger than WL2, but it still is a risk if the number of voices who feel jaded are numerous and loud enough to cause damage. And that damage includes SALES, before you start chanting that mantra of "good sales cancels out this problem" again.

So the solution is what? Pander to everyone out of fear that someone might develop negative feelings and give a bad review?

Maybe more along the lines of "let's be a little more conservative when we are working with other people's money?" The team didn't sell this as a carte blanch for the devs to make whatever game they wanted with an overhead camera. A game that the majority of people would envision when you think "IE game" would be a start. The details would be different, obviously. But they have done some pretty large departures from any IE game ever made.

 

[Infinitron]

It all depends on Obsidian's expectations.

The Army of Butthurt Backers MIGHT end up preventing PoE from becoming a runaway hit like Divinity: Original Sin was, but if they're happy with a Wasteland 2 level of sales, they have nothing to worry about. inXile certainly isn't worried.

 

[Athelas]

Copyin IE games mechanics. No engagement mechanics, hard counters, Combat rounds, etc.

What im talking about is the limited skill pool. While its true we didnt have any in IE games, this was a superb opportunity to make a good skill system, something better than what we got i NWN.

First sentence: The game isn't enough like IE games.

Next sentence: The game is too much like an IE game, why can't it be more like Fallout.

 

[Seaking4]

It all depends on Obsidian's expectations.

The Army of Butthurt Backers MIGHT end up preventing PoE from becoming a runaway hit like Divinity: Original Sin was, but if they're happy with a Wasteland 2 level of sales, they have nothing to worry about. inXile certainly isn't worried.

Has Wasteland 2's score really been that hurt by backers? I mean, from what I've read the 7.5 or whatever it has seems to be the general feeling towards the game.

Yes I know Steam has it at 85% approval but that's actually kind of low for Steam. F:NV and South Park are in the 97% range. Even D:OS has a 93%.

 

[Lhynn]

Copyin IE games mechanics. No engagement mechanics, hard counters, Combat rounds, etc.

What im talking about is the limited skill pool. While its true we didnt have any in IE games, this was a superb opportunity to make a good skill system, something better than what we got i NWN.

First sentence: The game isn't enough like IE games.

Next sentence: The game is too much like an IE game, why can't it be more like Fallout.

Yeah basically, why cant it take the best parts of IE and add the best parts of other games?
How the fuck is this contradictory in any way, shape or form?
Why must it create a new system that doesnt really work and add to that some half assed features that were better implemented in other games almost two decades ago?

How is this hard to understand?

 

[Infinitron]

It all depends on Obsidian's expectations.

The Army of Butthurt Backers MIGHT end up preventing PoE from becoming a runaway hit like Divinity: Original Sin was, but if they're happy with a Wasteland 2 level of sales, they have nothing to worry about. inXile certainly isn't worried.

Has Wasteland 2's score really been that hurt by backers? I mean, from what I've read the 7.5 or whatever it has seems to be the general feeling towards the game.

Yes I know Steam has it at 85% approval but that's actually kind of low for Steam. F:NV and South Park are in the 97% range. Even D:OS has a 93%.

It's just a theory. I know that the game was hammered with low user metacritics almost immediately after release. For all I know, that could have been D1Ping Steamtards who were pissed off about the graphics...but my impression is that these sorts of games usually get a more understanding reception in that department.

Now look at D:OS's user metacritic. That's a game that had a much rosier and more optimistic pre-release period. *shrug* It's not a sure thing, but it makes sense. We'll see what happens with PoE.

 

[Athelas]

Yeah basically, why cant it take the best parts of IE and add the best parts of other games?

There is such a thing as a budget and scope. Even so, PoE has a lot of Fallout-y stuff (faction reputation, plenty of non-combat solutions, etc.) The game that does all the things you're asking for doesn't exist, since you're asking for it do all those things near-perfectly.

Also, a heavy focus on 'skill gameplay' doesn't mesh well with a party-based game, since it removes the dilemma of what skills to max that would be present in a single-character affair.

 

[Lhynn]

There is such a thing as a budget and scope. Even so, PoE has a lot of Fallout-y stuff (faction reputation, plenty of non-combat solutions, etc.) The game that does all the things you're asking for doesn't exist, since you're asking for it do all those things near-perfectly.

True, but im not asking for much, a combat thats at least good as IE games, and a skill system thats not pointless, because you only have 5 skills and how many party members?

Also, a heavy focus on 'skill gameplay' doesn't mesh well with a party-based game, since it removes the dilemma of what skills to max that would be present in a single-player affair.

It really doesnt have to remove said dilemma, Most blobbers deal with it well enough, making character creation a choice in team members knowing that youll always be missing something.

 

[Night Goat]

Is there a Pathfinder RPG in the works?

That would make sense, wouldn't it? So, obviously, it's not happening. Instead, they're making a Pathfinder card game for tablets, which will be immediately lost and forgotten among the thousands of other mobile games.