Obsidian General Discussion Thread

[Duraframe300]

Obsidian did not make SP:TSoT a fun game. Matt and Trey made SP:TSoT a fun game. Obsidian made it playable.

Nope

You guys are seriously underestimating Obsidians work on that game.

I am not underestimating anything. Obsidian had creative input for mechanics and gameplay. South Park Studios were responsible for everything else in terms of creative input, including voices, music, and a ton of art assets. Ultimately, South Park Studios - Matt and Trey - had the final word on everything.

The game is fun because of the characters, story, and jokes. These are accredited South Park Studios, not Obsidian.

Nope

Like just nope.

And yes on the Matt and Trey thing that they had the final word on everything. At the same time Obsidian didn't just have input on mechanics and gameplay like you continually seem to insist.

In fact thats just factually wrong.

 

[Zed]

Obsidian did not make SP:TSoT a fun game. Matt and Trey made SP:TSoT a fun game. Obsidian made it playable.

Nope

You guys are seriously underestimating Obsidians work on that game.

I am not underestimating anything. Obsidian had creative input for mechanics and gameplay. South Park Studios were responsible for everything else in terms of creative input, including voices, music, and a ton of art assets. Ultimately, South Park Studios - Matt and Trey - had the final word on everything.

The game is fun because of the characters, story, and jokes. These are accredited South Park Studios, not Obsidian.

Nope

Like just nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS_oKzycp7w
Don't have a breakdown.

 

[Duraframe300]

Obsidian did not make SP:TSoT a fun game. Matt and Trey made SP:TSoT a fun game. Obsidian made it playable.

Nope

You guys are seriously underestimating Obsidians work on that game.

I am not underestimating anything. Obsidian had creative input for mechanics and gameplay. South Park Studios were responsible for everything else in terms of creative input, including voices, music, and a ton of art assets. Ultimately, South Park Studios - Matt and Trey - had the final word on everything.

The game is fun because of the characters, story, and jokes. These are accredited South Park Studios, not Obsidian.

Nope

Like just nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS_oKzycp7w
Don't have a breakdown.

Lets do this

Lead Writer - Eric Fenstermaker (But, huhu I guess he did absolutly nothing right? *hurdur*
Multiple Design Leads including multiple Level Designers
Multiple Artists including Concept Artists (Hey, theres actually cconept art swirling around from Obsidian artists with a lot of the details)

That list doesn't prove what you think it proves.

Not to mention voice production and music as well on Obsidians side. Theres an entire presentation on what the sound designers at Obsidian created to make Matt and Trey happy.

 

[Zed]

I see you edited your post.

And yes on the Matt and Trey thing that they had the final word on everything. At the same time Obsidian didn't just have input on mechanics and gameplay like you continually seem to insist.

In fact thats just factually wrong.

That's not what matters. What matters is that Matt and Trey made the game fun. This is my point. They wrote the characters, the story, the jokes.


YOU were the one to write "B....But Obsidian ONLY did the mechanics", you complete retard.

 

[Sensuki]

Eric Fenstermaker seemed like he had a good sense of humor in his PE update ....

 

[Duraframe300]

I see you edited your post.

And yes on the Matt and Trey thing that they had the final word on everything. At the same time Obsidian didn't just have input on mechanics and gameplay like you continually seem to insist.

In fact thats just factually wrong.

That's not what matters. What matters is that Matt and Trey made the game fun. This is my point. They wrote the characters, the story, the jokes.


YOU were the one to write "B....But Obsidian ONLY did the mechanics", you complete retard.

Oh did I?

Nope. Horeshit. Newsflash: Games do not only consist of mechanics and script-writing.

I'm not the one desperatly trying to deny Obsidian any responsibility for the fun parts in South Park-.

 

[Zed]

Lead Writer - Eric Fenstermaker (But, huhu I guess he did absolutly nothing right? *hurdur*
Multiple Design Leads including multiple Level Designers
Multiple Artists including Concept Artists (Hey, theres actually cconept art swirling around from Obsidian artists with a lot of the details)

That list doesn't prove what you think it proves.

The list proves that they had very little creative input. Like I've argued for: SPS made the game fun (as in "haha these jokes are funny" -> entertaining game), not Obsidian.

 

[Zed]

Nope. Horeshit. Newsflash: Games do not only consist of mechanics and script-writing.

I'm not the one desperatly trying to deny Obsidian any responsibility for the fun parts in South Park-.

You wrote that. You are quoting yourself.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Plane tickets (to Irvine, California)!

 

[Sensuki]

Crooked Bee rly?

 

[Duraframe300]

Nope. Horeshit. Newsflash: Games do not only consist of mechanics and script-writing.

I'm not the one desperatly trying to deny Obsidian any responsibility for the fun parts in South Park-.

You wrote that. You are quoting yourself.

Yes, I wrote that games do not only consist of script writing. South Park had lots of funny things in the game that wasn't just in voice.

 

[Zed]

Nope. Horeshit. Newsflash: Games do not only consist of mechanics and script-writing.

I'm not the one desperatly trying to deny Obsidian any responsibility for the fun parts in South Park-.

You wrote that. You are quoting yourself.

Yes, I wrote that games do not only consist of script writing. South Park had lots of funny things in the game that wasn't just in voice.

You have a shitty sense of humor.

 

[Duraframe300]

Lead Writer - Eric Fenstermaker (But, huhu I guess he did absolutly nothing right? *hurdur*
Multiple Design Leads including multiple Level Designers
Multiple Artists including Concept Artists (Hey, theres actually cconept art swirling around from Obsidian artists with a lot of the details)

That list doesn't prove what you think it proves.

The list proves that they had very little creative input. Like I've argued for: SPS made the game fun (as in "haha these jokes are funny" -> entertaining game), not Obsidian.

No, it doesn't. The only thing it does is show how little you know about what designers actually do.

 

[Duraframe300]

Nope. Horeshit. Newsflash: Games do not only consist of mechanics and script-writing.

I'm not the one desperatly trying to deny Obsidian any responsibility for the fun parts in South Park-.

You wrote that. You are quoting yourself.

Yes, I wrote that games do not only consist of script writing. South Park had lots of funny things in the game that wasn't just in voice.

You have a shitty sense of humor.

Thanks.

 

[Sensuki]

Nate McDorman - Programming Intern http://www.linkedin.com/profile/vie...me&authToken=cku3&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name

 

[AN4RCHID]

lol

 

[Duraframe300]

New Art Intern Lindsey Laney - Art Intern.

Previously worked at Jason Fader's Iocaine as a concept artist.

 

[Crooked Bee]

This is like the epitome of nerdiness

http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.info/2014/06/rewarding-degenerating-gameplay-lessons.html

Rewarding Degenerating Gameplay: Lessons from Gijón and Pernambuco

This post is about game design. Just bear with me.

In the 1982 World Cup Group stage, the West German and Austrian teams found themselves in an odd situation. With the Algeria-Chile match already played, the West Germany-Austria meeting would be the final match of Group 2. Based on the point spread of all four teams in the group, West Germany and Austria knew exactly what results would allow both to advance: a marginal (1-2 goal) West German victory. After West Germany scored in the first half, both teams settled into what was effectively pantomime. For the remainder of the 90 minutes, they politely passed the ball in their respective halves of the field, opponents occasionally making halfhearted challenges - but no real scoring attempts.

The strategy was transparent to everyone, from the announcers to the angry crowd. Though popular culture condemned the match with names like Nichtangriffspakt von Gijón (Non-Aggression Pact of Gijón) or, even more pejoratively, the Anschluß, it ultimately allowed both teams to progress out of the Group stage. West Germany made it all the way to the final.

To half-solve the problem in subsequent World Cup Group stages, FIFA scheduled the final two matches for any given Group to take place concurrently. In the case of West Germany-Austria, it would have prevented the teams from building a strategy based on the outcome of Algeria-Chile. However, FIFA didn't really fix the underlying issue, which was the design of how teams accumulate points in Group and how those points determine who advances out of Group. And now, on Thursday, June 26th, it's possible we could see a repeat of the Non-Aggression Pact of Gijón at Pernambuco, Brazil, when Germany faces USA. As in 1982, due to the point spread between Germany, USA, Portugal, and Ghana in Group G, both Germany and USA will advance in the event that they draw - regardless of the results of the Portugal-Ghana match happening simultaneously. Given the widespread condemnation of what occurred at Gijón in 1982, it's unlikely to happen again, but nothing in the rules would prevent it.

When designing the rules for any challenge-based game, regardless of the form it takes, it's important to consider how the structure of the rules may promote working against the spirit of the game. What designers allow players to do may inadvertently reward behavior that even the players themselves find to be boring and unenjoyable. If these behaviors are advantageous enough, players will gravitate toward them with increasing frequency until they become the de facto "correct" tactics and strategies for play. One of the most commonly-discussed features that produces this effect is save scumming. Being able to save and load your game at any time is extraordinarily valuable for players, if simply for convenience. However, the way save/load works in conjunction with other mechanics can strongly promote reliance on save/load to overcome difficult situations.

As an example, many role-playing games use virtual dice to "roll" a check when attempting to overcome a single obstacle, such as a locked door. In such cases, the player typically has one "try" on any static obstacle. In practice, they effectively have as many tries as they want as long as they are patient enough to reload. This type of interaction doesn't test players' skills in any new way, it doesn't ask players to attempt any different tactic, and given the "one try" system the designers put in place, it seems to go against the spirit of what the designers were trying to accomplish. While players love succeeding at overcoming obstacles, the percentage who love doing it via save/load is probably very low. Even so, that's what the game's design promotes doing for the best outcome.

By writing all of this, I have no intention of placing any blame or fault on the players. In challenge-based games, designers present obstacles and create the rules and tools for overcoming those obstacles. Players can hardly be faulted for finding and taking advantage of shortcomings in how the systems interact. In the aftermath of Gijón, both teams had to deal with the anger of World Cup fans - especially fans of the Algerian team, who had been denied a chance at moving on due to the West German/Austrian collusion. And there is no doubt that the players who suited up and went on the field that day did not spend their young lives dreaming of strategic pantomiming. Still, FIFA's rules promoted that behavior - and still promote similar behavior. A repeat of Gijón at Pernambuco would produce justified howls of outrage. Still, a paraphrase of the old maxim applies: don't hate the players, hate the game design.​

 

[Sensuki]

I don't fully agree with the last paragraph. Especially in a competitive environment if you are jewing/abusing broken game mechanics to win you are a faggot, simple as that. It's not as big of a deal in a single player RPG because the only person you're affecting by doing it is yourself.

More importantly, the comparison between the "Gijon" match and save scumming to pass a roll is not a good one. What those teams did is essentially match fixing.

You could take away draws from Soccer, and the same thing would still likely occur with Goal Difference. This type of thing not only happens in Soccer but in many competitions.

In the Australian Premier Call of Duty 4 league last year, there was a match which was deemed "fixed" by the two playing teams, proven by some chat logs and match demo review. The teams had worked out what the score needed to be for both teams to advance into the finals (one team was 1st, the other team was 5th, needing 4th place to progress) and they ended up winning by the exact score they needed to make it.

It's no real fault of the scoring system because it used a Wins > Rounds W/L Ratio rule (equivalent to a Percentage) which is pretty standard for competitions where you can score points for and against.

Wouldn't have mattered if the secondary progression was ratio or rounds won/lost, there's no real way you can avoid match fixing.

Sawyer's point is more to promote his idea that thresholds are better than dice rolls, but the comparison isn't the best to drive the point home when you think about it. It doesn't matter what you change the scoring system to, teams will still do that.

That's absolute bullshit to not blame the teams for doing something like that.

 

[Infinitron]

Sensuki The issue of "who to blame" is obviously highly contextual. For example, in real life, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. You can't get away with murder if you claim to not have known that murder is illegal.

But that's not really critical to the understanding of his post, which is to demonstrate by analogy how the rules of a game can incentivize unfun gameplay.

 

[Sensuki]

But that's not really critical to the understanding of his post, which is to demonstrate by analogy how the rules of a game can incentivize unfun gameplay.

I already said that

In my books if you try and abuse the rules to unfairly gain advantage / try to win a competitive sporting competition then you are simply a dirty faggot. I don't care if "because the money" or whatever or what the rules are or if final decisions are subject to human error. There's no two ways about it for me.

Such a result is nothing but a hollow victory.

 

[Infinitron]

In my books if you try and abuse the rules to unfairly gain advantage / try to win a competitive sporting competition then you are simply a dirty faggot.

Well, it's a matter of cultural expectations. I can imagine an alternate reality where save-scumming in videogames became widely excoriated among gamers, such that people would be ashamed of doing it, so ashamed that "designing around it" wouldn't be necessary.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that reality. Almost nobody feels bad about reloading until they pick the lock on their first try, or until the enemy boss fails his saving throw vs Disintegrate.

That said, I think one reason why Sawyer-style anti-save scumming design isn't more common is console dominance: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...mming-less-common-among-console-gamers.87698/

 

[Sensuki]

As I said in my original post. Save Scumming in a single player game has nothing to do with match fixing in a competitive environment. It's a real stretch to make any sort of comparison.

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the current way games are designed. I had an encounter in Knights of the Chalice that I had to savescum to beat because I had got myself in a bad situation with three party members on 1hp and one on full HP (vs the Mage Encounter in the Orc Fortress), I had to reload that over 100 times to beat it without any party members being permanently killed. Then I had to savescum the rest of the encounters in a similar fashion all the way up to the next rest point. The final fight in the room where the rest location appears was insane. I have absolutely no idea how I was able to beat that with a half health Knight and 3 x 1hp clerics/wizard but I did. I had a blast doing that, after winning both of those encounters I was like FUCK YEAH CUNT. It wouldn't have been challenging or fun if I was able to get it the first try.

I'm not averse to "a new way" of doing things. But it's not like the current system doesn't work.

 

[Infinitron]

It's not save scumming unless you have to do it to get a lucky streak of good rolls. If you changed your tactics each time, rather than relying on the RNG to finally grant you victory, then that's fine.

 

[Sensuki]

It was part tactics, RNG and AI. The deal breaker was one of the wizards getting the chance to cast Fireball on any of my 1HP characters. My Fighter had to get the first initiative roll (which happened 1/20 times or so) to be able to get close enough to drop one and get an AoO vs anyone else who tried to cast spells. This forced the AI to move further down the passage away from my other characters. So I save scummed until my Fighter got the first initiative roll and then attempted those loads only.

I'd call that save scumming, and I don't see anything wrong with that. In a system where initiative was a flat thing, I'd be forced to pretty much load an earlier save, or start again. In my opinion save scumming to get the perfect initative roll was way more fun than having to replay an entire section of the game again.