Information Divinity: Original Sin Kickstarter Update #49: Alpha Release Date and Video, Live Stream on Friday

[Raapys]

You know you've crossed the line, when its not fun any more.

Well, it's also not very fun never hitting an enemy since you decided to not put any points into combat skills. Does that mean combat skills should be dropped?

I understand Sawyer's solution is to have separate pools for combat and non-combat skills. Now that's thinking outside the box.

Not really, removing choices and consequences and letting characters be good at everything is very common these days.

 

[tuluse]

I understand Sawyer's solution is to have separate pools for combat and non-combat skills. Now that's thinking outside the box.

This is how Age of Decadence revision 4 is working too.

 

[Davaris]

You know you've crossed the line, when its not fun any more.

Well, it's also not very fun never hitting an enemy since you decided to not put any points into combat skills. Does that mean combat skills should be dropped?

I understand Sawyer's solution is to have separate pools for combat and non-combat skills. Now that's thinking outside the box.

Not really, removing choices and consequences and letting characters be good at everything is very common these days.

Is a game meant to be fun or not?

 

[Raapys]

Is a game meant to be fun or not?

While you may feel that specialized characters and having to make sacrifices in some areas to gain advantage in others is boring, I don't.

 

[Davaris]

Is a game meant to be fun or not?

While you may feel that specialized characters and having to make sacrifices in some areas to gain advantage in others is boring, I don't.

So you would make a choice that leads to you not enjoying your time in a game and despite not enjoying yourself, you would continue to the bitter end?


I take a different view. A game is meant to be fun, so it should be designed with that goal in mind. If a game isn't enjoyable, then you have failed as a game designer. If you go to the extremes, too easy or too difficult, then game is not doing its job of entertaining the player. So you must take the middle path and that's not easy to judge.

 

[Raapys]

Is a game meant to be fun or not?

While you may feel that specialized characters and having to make sacrifices in some areas to gain advantage in others is boring, I don't.

So you would make a choice that leads to you not enjoying your time in a game and despite not enjoying yourself, you would continue to the bitter end?


I take a different view. A game is meant to be fun, so it should be designed with that goal in mind. If a game isn't enjoyable, then you have failed as a game designer. If you go to the extremes, too easy or too difficult, then game is not doing its job of entertaining the player. So you must take the middle path and that's not easy to judge.

No, I wouldn't make such a choice, I would consider carefully and pick the one I thought I would be the most happy with. And someone else might pick a very different alternative that they thought they would be happy with. And my opinion of a well-designed game is one where both of us are happy despite making different choices and getting different consequences.

 

[Davaris]

No, I wouldn't make such a choice, I would consider carefully and pick the one I thought I would be the most happy with. And someone else might pick a very different alternative that they thought they would be happy with. And my opinion of a well-designed game is one where both of us are happy despite making different choices and getting different consequences.

A game is not about offering unlimited choices (like a simulation), it is about offering a limited amount of interesting choices like chess for example. Offering uninteresting choices that will effectively end/break the game early is redundant, since no one will ever play them through.

 

[Raapys]

No, I wouldn't make such a choice, I would consider carefully and pick the one I thought I would be the most happy with. And someone else might pick a very different alternative that they thought they would be happy with. And my opinion of a well-designed game is one where both of us are happy despite making different choices and getting different consequences.

A game is not about offering unlimited choices (like a simulation), it is about offering a limited amount of interesting choices like chess for example. Offering uninteresting choices that will effectively end/break the game is redundant, since no one will ever play them through.

Exactly. And one of those interesting choices is whether to be good at combat or to get an edge in other aspects of the game. Even more so in party-based games where the chance for diversity is even bigger.

 

[Davaris]

Exactly. And one of those interesting choices is whether to be good at combat or to get an edge in other aspects of the game.

That depends on the strengths of your game. If you can make a good game both with/without combat, then offer those choices. If you can't offer an interesting choice, then design it out.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Offering uninteresting choices that will effectively end/break the game early is redundant, since no one will ever play them through.

How do you define uninteresting and game breaking? Because if we're talking Sawyer, he would say.. either remove the technologist from Arcanum because it's not as strong as the mage (so nobody plays it lol) or remove the mage because it's too strong.

Instead of "fixing" games with stuff borrowed from MMOs and D&D4, and worry so much about balance maybe developers should focus on actually creating games. You know like the games we already have and we liked, but suddenly someone who's never done anything of note in their life is saying are bad and must be fixed.

 

[Raapys]

Exactly. And one of those interesting choices is whether to be good at combat or to get an edge in other aspects of the game.

That depends on the strengths of your game. If you can make a good game both with/without combat, then offer those choices. If you can't offer an interesting choice, then design it out.

Agreed, but at that point is there even any reason to offer non-combat skills if you're not gonna have it as a focus anyway?

 

[Davaris]

Offering uninteresting choices that will effectively end/break the game early is redundant, since no one will ever play them through.

How do you define uninteresting and game breaking? Because if we're talking Sawyer, he would say.. either remove the technologist from Arcanum because it's not as strong as the mage (so nobody play is lol) or remove the mage because it's too strong.

Well that is subjective. You would have to test repeatedly and listen to your players. If they aren't enjoying themselves, you are doing something wrong.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well that is subjective. You would have to test repeatedly and listen to your players. If they aren't enjoying themselves, you are doing something wrong.

That is exactly what he's doing. Listening to Obsidian's test players who, just like all test players, are retarded.

Also, yes a larger problem with IWD was that it was tuned for people familiar with AD&D. I was there for the entire QA process. There were fights that Kihan Pak and I breezed through on the first try that infuriated and completely blocked testers. Let me repeat that: there were professional game testers whose job it was to play AD&D CRPGs who were completely blocked by fights in the original IWD, unable to proceed. In contrast, other testers and some developers (notably Kihan and I) had little to no difficulty with these same encounters.

IWD tuned for people familiar with AD&D. Retards can't play it. It's a problem with the game.

 

[Raapys]

It's odd they wouldn't pick testers from their targeted audience though. Maybe they just don't take that part seriously enough.

 

[Davaris]

Agreed, but at that point is there even any reason to offer non-combat skills if you're not gonna have it as a focus anyway?

If you can offer good choices besides kill, why not?

You can have the option of a scientist that can't fight, in a world bristling with thugs and guns. A scientist that can't fight and has no protector, isn't going to last long in such a world. Is that an interesting choice to offer the player? Maybe make him a Dr Evil character with minions to protect him. Or make a laboratory simulator. Or a scientist that can both think and fight. Players want to be the hero after all.

 

[Haba]

So you would make a choice that leads to you not enjoying your time in a game and despite not enjoying yourself, you would continue to the bitter end?

I take a different view. A game is meant to be fun, so it should be designed with that goal in mind. If a game isn't enjoyable, then you have failed as a game designer. If you go to the extremes, too easy or too difficult, then game is not doing its job of entertaining the player. So you must take the middle path and that's not easy to judge.

That's the player's choice to make, not the designer's. Playing a Tourist in *Hack can be a fun self-imposed challenge or a horrible mistake. Rolling Ashen Empire in Dominions with a pretender that has no death magic can be a game breaking mistake or a gambit. The game should warn the player but not remove the choice. That's good design.

 

[Davaris]

That is exactly what he's doing. Listening to Obsidian's test players who, just like all test players, are retarded.
.

I think AAA companies know their audiences very well. If they didn't, they would go broke pretty quickly. Problem is I am not their audience. I expect nothing from big companies and haven't since the Fallout fluke.

 

[Angthoron]

It's odd they wouldn't pick testers from their targeted audience though. Maybe they just don't take that part seriously enough.

I'm guessing their interest is more along the lines of finding outright bugs at this point, and testing on a wide range of hardware, rather than take feedback on balancing/design. Which is, in my opinion, a good thing, because every motherfucker out there knows how to make games/write books/run countries better than the people actually doing it.

 

[Davaris]

That's the player's choice to make, not the designer's. Playing a Tourist in *Hack can be a fun self-imposed challenge or a horrible mistake. Rolling a Ashen Empire in Dominions with a pretender that has no death magic can be a game breaking mistake or a gambit. The game should warn the player but not remove the choice. That's good design.

Offering a choice that breaks your game is redundant.

 

[Haba]

Not when the definition of "game breaking" is that "a complete retard isn't able to progress past this challenge". I.e. those days it is "game breaking" when not every possible build and/or character level can not beat optional fights.

 

[Angthoron]

Not when the definition of "game breaking" is that "a complete retard isn't able to progress past this challenge". I.e. those days it is "game breaking" when not every possible build and/or character level can not beat optional fights without reloading a couple of times.

More like that.

 

[Infinitron]

How do you define uninteresting and game breaking? Because if we're talking Sawyer, he would say.. either remove the technologist from Arcanum because it's not as strong as the mage (so nobody plays it lol) or remove the mage because it's too strong.

Instead of "fixing" games with stuff borrowed from MMOs and D&D4, and worry so much about balance maybe developers should focus on actually creating games. You know like the games we already have and we liked, but suddenly someone who's never done anything of note in their life is saying are bad and must be fixed.

Roguey

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well.. thanks bro, but sometimes I prefer not to have that particular monkey on my back, so to speak.

 

[Black]

the technologist from Arcanum because it's not as strong as the mage

Wrong, ffs.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Don't tell me. I'm just saying what most people, which is who developers seem to listen to, are saying.
Regardless, that's no the point. Even if the technologist is weaker, or even considerably weaker, it doesn't mean it should be "fixed".