Eternity Avowed - Obsidian's first person action-RPG in the Pillars of Eternity setting - coming February 18th

[Roguey]

Dark Souls did prove that players don't want to have it easy either. I doubt this game will be a success just because it caters to some handicapped people who can't come to terms that getting attacked by multiple people means taking hits from more than one direction.

Every time a westerner makes a Souls-like, it's awful. You don't even want them trying, they don't know how to make good action games, let alone a good difficult action game.

 

[Beans00]

Most people don't find that fun and "realism" is not a goal in most games. Especially Avowed, which is intended to be a casual power fantasy RPG for the masses, a fantasy flavored Outer Worlds.

Why do you think no one at all is hyped for this game?

 

[thesecret1]

If multiple enemies swarm the player, then the player should just die, like in real life.

Most people don't find that fun and "realism" is not a goal in most games. Especially Avowed, which is intended to be a casual power fantasy RPG for the masses, a fantasy flavored Outer Worlds.

Maybe read the rest of the post before replying. People don't find Dark Souls or Mount & Blade fun? Really? And if it's to be a casual power fantasy, why not go more arcade? Kill 20 enemies at once with a swing of your mighty blade – tons of games like that, none needing to have each enemy "waiting for his turn". You can go more realistic, or you can go more arcade, but what games like these do is some aborted hybrid where everything is semi-realistic up until more than one enemy attacks the player, at which point they all get cold feet. That this situation occurs at all just shows that the design is flawed. If you have a situation where you NEED to have enemies waiting for their turn to hit the player, then that means that encounter is badly designed in the context of their combat system.

 

[Melcar]

There is a balance between difficult and being outright frustrating. A game can be hard but still a joy to play.

 

[Roguey]

Why do you think no one at all is hyped for this game?

Going from the online reaction, you'd think Outer Worlds bombed instead of going on to sell 5 million copies despite being available on Game Pass.

People don't find Dark Souls or Mount & Blade fun?

Dark Souls isn't trying to be realistic either and M&B does nothing-numbers.

And if it's to be a casual power fantasy, why not go more arcade?

Most games don't want to be Dynasty Warriors either and that would be inappropriate for Avowed given the setting.

 

[Harthwain]

Every time a westerner makes

1) It is not about being "a westerner" or not. It's about being a developer with a soul who knows what he's doing. Which is why indies is where it is at. Also, The Surge was pretty good.

2) Dark Souls is simply a great example of a game that doesn't hold your hand. You are supposed to scale the wall until you succeed.

 

[Roguey]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

 

[thesecret1]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

Incidentally, you're retarded. The two enemies aren't waiting around, shuffling in a semicircle while cheering each other on, waiting for their turn. They attack as soon as they can irrespective of how many enemies are currently engaging the player. There are no "turns". If there were 10 of these skeletons engaging the player at once, it wouldn't make these two attack with any lower frequency.

 

[thesecret1]

This is the "more realistic than dark souls" kinda combat we're discussing (timestamped for your convenience):

 

[Harthwain]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

Two enemies attack literally at the same time at 1:58 (timestamped):

Spoiler

 

[Melcar]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

Two enemies attack literally at the same time at 1:58 (timestamped):

Spoiler

There is a slight pause in their attack animations. I guess it depends on your definition of "attacking at the same time".

 

[d1r]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

Absolute bullshit.

 

[Beans00]

Why do you think no one at all is hyped for this game?

Going from the online reaction, you'd think Outer Worlds bombed instead of going on to sell 5 million copies despite being available on Game Pass.

People were very hyped for outer worlds(outside the codex). It was at the peak of the anti bethesda backlash for fallout 4/76.


With Avowed basically no one is interested in this game.

 

[KVVRR]

Is there anything stopping the devs from just giving the player a quick "shove" button on a cooldown that works for several enemies at once ala L4D? Enemies in that game instantly aggro and swarm you from all sides, yet you're not supposed to fight them when you're ganged out like that, you shove them and look for better positioning. It might make early game combat mind numbingly dumb if not managed accordingly but I mean... it's not like that's new for Obsidian games.

 

[Melcar]

People will compare it to BG3. It's just how it's going to be. Independently if the game is good or bad, it will just be compared to BG3. The same for Veilguard. Or any modern "RPG" that comes out from AAA studios. Until a game comes along that dethrones BG3, either because it's a "better" game or through time after BG3 is forgotten.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Yeah, the mechanic is used in many games, and it always looks stupid. Asscreed comes to mind where enemies form a circle around you and go at you one by one, their friends probably only there to cheer them on or something. Personally, I think it's ultimately a consequence of poor enemy AI. If your enemy AI is poor, yet you want to add difficulty, the easiest solution is to just throw more of them at the player. If your average combat situation is then a 1v5, you need to create such crutches. Had the enemy AI been better, 1 or 2 enemies would present sufficient challenge, and there'd be no need for this.

It was used in Dark Messiah of M&M too.

 

[Melcar]

It always reminds me of those old HK action movies. The difference there being the medium (movies) and fancy camera tricks.

 

[Roguey]

Incidentally, you're retarded. The two enemies aren't waiting around, shuffling in a semicircle while cheering each other on, waiting for their turn. They attack as soon as they can irrespective of how many enemies are currently engaging the player. There are no "turns". If there were 10 of these skeletons engaging the player at once, it wouldn't make these two attack with any lower frequency.

Do tell, do tell.

From's enemies are certainly more aggressive than most other games, but it's fair. If it was unfair, they wouldn't have the acclaim they do. In their 20 years of existence, Obsidian hasn't done aggressive hardcore combat for hardcore gamers.

The only fast-paced action game they did was Dungeon Siege III and I and a few others were the only ones to like that. The people who made that one no longer work there either.

Two enemies attack literally at the same time at 1:58 (timestamped):

I've read that there's a bit of randomness to it, but it doesn't happen a lot. There are no situations like say, unpatched Witcher 2 where 2 enemies will just bat you back and forth until you die and there's nothing you can do to escape the death loop.

 

[ColonelMace]

Forbidding the enemies to charge you from offscreen isn't necessarily a bad decision, but the dominant paradigm among developers regarding enemy AI seems governed by the feedback from their QA departments, which are tuned for the mass market.
I listened to a podcast involving designers from Ubisoft who explained that a good AI is actually one that satisfyingly lets itself die at the hands of the player, and I get what they mean by this, but they picked Uncharted as an example of a ruthless/efficient combat AI, to illustrate that it can make the game less fun for the player. And I find it weird because I remember Uncharted gunfight to suck specifically because of the gameplay, not due to the enemy's AI. Having enemies in FPS/TPS engage in encircling the player has never been frowned upon from as far as I can remember. It's always been lauded.

So, this concern about being fair to the player is legitimate, but it ends up pushing designers to overkill the problem, and you're let with an unorganic experience. There are other ways to adress "unfair" AI behaviour than to simply make it incapable of outmanoeuvering the player. I always kept a fond memory of MGSV design in this regard (albeit I haven't played it since release, so I might be misremembering it) : the AI toughens up reactively to your preferred approach, equipping the opposition to better respond to your modus operandi.
The problem with the "unfair" and "ruthless" over-efficient enemy AI argument is that it sounds like little more than an excuse.

This being said, I don't think enemy AI is that essential to a good experience. The fun can come from the gameplay itself, or the pacing, etc.

 

[AfterVirtue]

Indeed the "enemy waits its turn" is terrible, unless it is, "player use foortwork to avoid being swarmed". But it can't be done in every situation, i guess. May be foolish, but to keep it "realistic", that being attacked by many enemies means being attacked by multiple directions, and keep it "fantastic", that you are playing a hero that indeed can face multiple enemy at once in melee and win, can it be used something like F.E.A.R. - Max Payne? To show the "heroic" quality of the character brief bursts of slow-mo that you have to manage and footplay because, at the same time, yes they are going to try to swarm you and beat you to death?

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Dark Souls did prove that players don't want to have it easy either. I doubt this game will be a success just because it caters to some handicapped people who can't come to terms that getting attacked by multiple people means taking hits from more than one direction.

Every time a westerner makes a Souls-like, it's awful. You don't even want them trying, they don't know how to make good action games, let alone a good difficult action game.

Salt & Sanctuary is a 2D Souls-like and quite a good game.

 

[BrainMuncher]

Whatever passing interest I might have had in this game is gone now knowing enemies take it it turns. It's not like that this particular thing is a deal breaker on it's own but it reveals the attitude of the devs. Listen to how confidently they state their shitty opinions, as if they are based on well-established science and refined over hundreds of years.

"You have to make sure you're giving players full awareness of the area around them," she says.

Yes it's called graphics and sound. with those two things you can have full 360 degree awareness. They don't need mr clippy

"hey there, it looks like you're being shot at, would you like me to put some more distracting bullshit on the screen??"

There are some clever solutions to help you know exactly what's going on at all times despite the first-person perspective. Your companions will aid you in battle by shouting out warnings, and you'll see directional indicators to show where enemies are coming from – think of the ones in Call of Duty when someone starts shooting you or a grenade lands nearby.

Ah yes Call of Duty, the pinnacle of RPG gaming. Good to see obsidian is taking inspiration from the right sources. "Clever solutions" bullshit, there is nothing clever about having companions that won't shut the fuck up during combat, that makes it worse, because now I can't hear the sound cues over their obnoxious screeching.

"It helps the player feel the pressure without feeling like they're being hit from all directions by things they can't see," Patel explains.

Why can't they see them? Are the enemies invisible? Are they fucking blind? Are we making action games for blind gamers now?

Additionally, the enemy AI is programmed not to swarm you and attack from all sides at once. This shouldn't mean you'll never get flanked or snuck up on, as the systems mentioned above will ensure you always know what's going on around you. Just don't expect a room full of enemies to surround you and charge in while you swing your sword wildly.

Why would you be swinging your sword wildly, are you retarded? What happened to magic spells? Why wouldn't you cast entangle or something? Have we done away with magic, is this call of duty swords or something?

So, this concern about being fair to the player is legitimate, but it ends up pushing designers to overkill the problem, and you're let with an unorganic experience. There are other ways to adress "unfair" AI behaviour than to simply make it incapable of outmanoeuvering the player. I always kept a fond memory of MGSV design in this regard (albeit I haven't played it since release, so I might be misremembering it) : the AI toughens up reactively to your preferred approach, equipping the opposition to better respond to your modus operandi.
The problem with the "unfair" and "ruthless" over-efficient enemy AI argument is that it sounds like little more than an excuse.

It's not "unfair" to have multiple enemies attacking at once

When was this ever a problem in an RPG?
Was it a problem in BG or Fallouts? No. Might and Magic? No. Bethesda? No. Any FPS ever made? No.
Was it ever a problem, in any game? wtf

Even popamole games pop multiple moles at once, my god

designers from Ubisoft who explained that a good AI

Ubisoft lol, wtf does ubisoft know about good AI. Next let's listen to a tranny podcast about how to be a real man

No this concern is not legitimate at all, it's complete bullshit made up by retards

 

[AfterVirtue]

Why would you be swinging your sword wildly, are you retarded? What happened to magic spells? Why wouldn't you cast entangle or something? Have we done away with magic, is this call of duty swords or something?

Exactly Also, you can... should have... crowd control, spells like entangle, as you say, but options for warriors/other classes should be available and part of the gameplay. I don't get the kind of mentality that brings to "one at the time is the right solution".

 

[Berengar]

Incidentally you're misremembering Dark Souls (timestamped video)



Look at what's happening there. The two enemies never attack at the same time, they just attack one after the other without much pause in-between, plenty of idle animation-to-disguise-not-actually-attacking there as well.

Incidentally, you're retarded. The two enemies aren't waiting around, shuffling in a semicircle while cheering each other on, waiting for their turn. They attack as soon as they can irrespective of how many enemies are currently engaging the player. There are no "turns". If there were 10 of these skeletons engaging the player at once, it wouldn't make these two attack with any lower frequency.

also want to add that in this particular section a 3rd guy is up top waiting to cheapshot you with a fire bomb while you deal with those two.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Don't get upset BrainMuncher , this is Carrie's first RPG, and she is "only doing it ironically" anyway, because she is actually into fantasy novels, which she also seems to write ironically, but what can you do.

Josh at least had a passion for RPGs even though his innovative theories were like that of the nerd kid at the table, people were largely playing around him and trying to ignore his output.

But Carrie is, what, in her late 30s or early 40s and still figuring out what she is good at. She definetly doesn't want to play or design videogames.

Sorry I descended into rambling.