Chris Avellone - Teases mystery game

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Well, in their announcing tweet they're stating it'll be a "computer single-player RPG" citing their own website… which doesn't include this part.

It is on the website actually (sorta), you need to scroll all the way down for this:
Since we had been working on the Evil Islands RPG series, back in later 1990th, and we were frantically playing games like Baldur’s Gate, Planescape: Torment, Icewind Dale, it became our dream to make a story-driven single-player computer RPG. Thanks to the recent great games of this genre, we realized that there are a lot of people as passionate as we are about classic isometric RPGs we used to know and love.

Originally Posted by Pessimeister
Bit of an unfortunately derivative title to the game - the twitter description made me think immediately of the NWN module, Kingmaker and various themes associated with "divine right" and whatnot.

Kingmaker is a Pathfinder "module" and what is being adapted by the game.

Originally Posted by azarhal
It is on the website actually (sorta)

Yep, sort of.
Literally they just say that they like single-player, not that they're making one. But it would be really misleading.

Some info from facebook commments:

Initial release will be on PC. We're not ruling out consoles at a later date, but for now, our focus is on a PC release.

It's still early days and we'll be revealing more details over the next couple of weeks. Gameplay will be realtime with pause.

Opportunities for testing will come up soon, but we're not quite ready yet to announce any dates. Stay tuned!

We'll be revealing details about that at a later date.
(asked about races and classes)

The game is still in development, so it's too early to specify any requirements right now, sorry.
(asked about system requirements)

We don't have a date just yet. We'll be revealing more details soon.
(asked about release date)

There will be localized versions. A list of all supported languages is not yet set in stone.

We don't know, this is a completely separate game, made by a different studio.
(asked about pathfinder online)

Originally Posted by NewDArt
That said, I don't think RTwP is the way to go in a singleplayer game like this. It's almost never as good as proper turn-based combat.

Right, "almost". For every single RTWP game that's come out post-Icewind Dale, the best thing I've ever heard about the combat is:
It's serviceable.
The story's good, so I don't mind the combat.
It's dull but it serves its purpose.

Originally Posted by screeg
Right, "almost". About every single RTWP game that's come out post-Icewind Dale, the best thing I've ever heard about the combat is:
It's serviceable.
The story's good, so I don't mind the combat.
It's dull but it serves its purpose.

You should talk to Archangel. I believe he worships all RTwP systems

Originally Posted by NewDArt
You should talk to Archangel. I believe he worships all RTwP systems

Not really. Last good full game RTwP was IWD2. Siege of Dragonspear was also decent as an expansion. And Pillars was average as RTwP.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Kingmaker is what Bethesda games want to be when they grow up.

Funny. I think Bethesda games are quite happy being the real King while MCA and his current company try to eke out a miserable existence from the leavings in the Bethesda dumpster out back

Originally Posted by crpgnut
No. Bethesda likes the money of the everyday fan. Not the spare change of those who think they're elite in some way. Kingmaker may make $500,000. Bethesda doesn't want to be them.

Are you saying Bethesda has no standard and will whore themselves to anyone and everyone for lots of lots of money?

Originally Posted by crpgnut
Funny. I think Bethesda games are quite happy being the real King while MCA and his current company try to eke out a miserable existence from the leavings in the Bethesda dumpster out back

I talked about the module Kingmaker, not this game. The game is called Pathfinder: Kingmaker.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Are you saying Bethesda has no standard and will whore themselves to anyone and everyone for lots of lots of money?

If making games for non-elitists is the same as whoring yourself, then sure.

But you'd probably have to be an elitist to think so.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
If making games for non-elitists is the same as whoring yourself, then sure.

But you'd probably have to be an elitist to think so.

Thats not what he said though but he now edited it!

"Bethesda likes the money of the everyday fan."

But don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with whoring oneself if the price is right. I am not making any moral judgement here

Originally Posted by lostforever
Thats not what he said though but he now edited it!

"Bethesda likes the money of the everyday fan."

Why are you ignoring the rest of the post?

Also, please explain how liking money of everyday fans means you're a whore.

I'm confused about that argument.

But don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with whoring oneself if the price is right. I am not making any moral judgement here

Bullshit. You're applying the word "whore" - which is a moral judgment in this context.

Also, please explain how liking money of everyday fans means you're a whore.

It doesn't and that was the point. Asking for better things does not make one an elitists either.

I agree the word "whore" has a moral connotation but I don't know another non moral word to describe someone who will do anything for money! Escort maybe? This is why I said that I make no moral judgement about someone who will do anything for money.

Well, I see nothing wrong with wanting to make loads of money. The problem is that the games that loads of people want to play often tend to require the gameplay to be "accessible" enough for the mainstream console audience to like it. Which is fine too, but those games are very seldom titles I get any enjoyment out of playing.

Edit: I guess that makes me one of the elitists?

Originally Posted by lostforever
It doesn't and that was the point. Asking for better things does not make one an elitists either.

I agree the word "whore" has a moral connotation but I don't know another non moral word to describe someone who will do anything for money! Escort maybe? This is why I said that I make no moral judgement about someone who will do anything for money.

No, but thinking your own preferences are correct and superior DOES make you an elitist. You know, like saying Bethesda needs to grow up before they can make something good.

I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid.

Liking money and being willing to do anything for them are not one and the same.

Coincidentally, believing Bethesda would do anything for money because they're making games that appeal to a lot of people - would also tend to make you an elitist.

Not a surprise, though. We have a LOT of elitists on the Watch. Seems there's been a bit of a Codexian invasion of late.

No moral judgment there, either

Originally Posted by lostforever
I agree the word "whore" has a moral connotation but I don't know another non moral word to describe someone who will do anything for money!

Erm, I'd do anything for hair, but I'm a graphics whore, not money whore or something. At least not yet.

Put that aside, I popped in just to suggest not trying to fight against "immersive sim" wording defender. Because who knows, maybe in a few years his posts poetry gets popular as Gibran's thoughts.

On topic, sorry guys, some like CA, some don't, some like different types of combat, some don't, etc, I just don't have anything against more RPGs at the market. Singleplayer RPGs, I mean. The more the marrier.

Originally Posted by NewDArt
No, but thinking your own preferences are correct and superior DOES make you an elitist. You know, like saying Bethesda needs to grow up before they can make something good.

I don't understand your logic, I'm afraid.

Archangel pretty much said that people who made Kingmaker module is better than Bethesda to which crpgnut came back with elitist nonsense. Then I followed up with my nonsense about whores etc.

Lot of people here think ABC is better than XYZ, that just expressing a preference and I don't see that as being elitist etc. So I think your definition of elitist is too broad and it will apply to anyone who say A is better than X.

Liking money and being willing to do anything for them are not one and the same.

I am not following you here… I think Bethesda dumped down Oblivion and Skyrim to make more money. You may not agree with that, but lets say you do agree, what would you call that?

Originally Posted by lostforever
Archangel pretty much said that people who made Kingmaker module is better than Bethesda to which crpgnut came back with elitist nonsense. Then I followed up with my nonsense about whores etc.

I'm afraid I can't agree. But that's hardly a surprise.

crpgnut pointed out that Bethesda isn't aiming small, and I agree with him. They're not trying to please elitists exclusively - they're trying to make the best games they can and they're not afraid to appeal to the mainstream by making some aspects of their games less opaque and more accessible.

You can't have huge budgets to evolve your games without appealing wide. CDPR did the same thing with Witcher 3, for instance.

Same is true for Horizon: Zero Dawn - that you're so fond of. You have to make your games accessible when you're spending millions of dollars on them.

Some people confuse that with whoring yourself out - and that's the elitist part. We could call it the ignorant and arrogant part, if that's better.

Lot of people here think ABC is better than XYZ, that just expressing a preference and I don't see that as being elitist etc. So I think your definition of elitist is too broad and it will apply to anyone who say A is better than X.

It's not about thinking one thing is better than another. It's about thinking your opinion of what's better must be shared or the people not agreeing are, somehow, objectively wrong.

It's an attitude, really.

Archangel is smeared in that attitude, crpgnut much less so.

You don't usually strike me as being an elitist, though. Well, maybe a little - but not on the Codexian level.

I am not following you here… I think Bethesda dumped down Oblivion and Skyrim to make more money. You may not agree with that, but lets say you do agree, what would you call that?

I know you do, that's what makes you an elitist in this case. You're unable to imagine that Oblivion and Skyrim were Bethesda's notion of making better games.

I happen to agree with them.

It's not an uncommon train of thought. A lot of people struggle to understand how game developers don't necessarily agree with them about what's better.

Also, a lot of people think that when games reach a wider audience - that must automatically make them inferior.

I don't think like that, but then again - I'm not what you would call an elitist.

You, and so many others, are staring yourselves blind looking at the accessible aspect of these games. You're completely ignoring all the many, many ways they've improved the formula.

It's the black and white mindset thing.

But in reality, it's actually possible to make concessions because of your budget and yet, overall, still deliver an improved experience. At least, improved according to the extremely obvious design tenets that are so important to Bethesda.

I know people have forgotten this, but when Morrowind first came out - it was accused of EXACTLY the same "dumbing down" from Daggerfall - because they'd simplified the character creation system - and made the game so much smaller.

People focused on the concessions.

These days, Morrowind is like the holy grail of Bethesda game design - which is a bit of a joke to someone like me - because my memory is intact.

Looking at all their games, from Arena through to Fallout 4 - I'm seeing nothing but overall improvements and superior games.

The single exception to this COULD arguably be Oblivion, because even I think they made a few too many concessions for that one. I'm not entirely sure it's overall better than Morrowind, even though I had more fun with it.

But Skyrim certainly is vastly superior - and Fallout 4 is superior to Skyrim.

So, from my point of view - Bethesda are taking the best possible route. They keep improving and evolving their games according to their vision.

Doesn't mean I agree with them about every single choice - but I don't go around crying about how they're "whoring" themselves out.

I'm not really that important, you see. I'm just a single gamer.

I try to look at things from a bigger perspective. You should try it

Listen to Todd Howard when he's speaking about what they're trying to do. It really hasn't changed from Morrowind until now. It's the exact same thing.

Why would your notion of a superior Bethesda game mean that they're whoring themselves out because they don't agree? They're the ones called Bethesda - and they're the ones doing all the hard work. They're following the same vision and have been for years.

Amazing that people can be so conceited and truly believe it's all about money for those guys.

Originally Posted by lostforever
Archangel pretty much said that people who made Kingmaker module is better than Bethesda to which crpgnut came back with elitist nonsense. Then I followed up with my nonsense about whores etc.

What, I never said that. What I meant is that Kingmaker module is an advanced quality version of what would be a ultimate good Bethesda game. That is why my sentence meant. I was comparing works, not people.

Originally Posted by Morrandir
Can you tell us a little about that Kingmaker adventure path?

Yeah sure. It's an adventure path so it has six books, each book has a part of a campaign to a certain level range (e.g. the first book is for characters in level 1-4). I read only the first two books because my group hasn't gone beyond the fourth level yet - it takes a lot of sessions to level up.

What I can say about Kingmaker is that it is a sandbox adventure path that takes place in a place called the stolen lands. Being a sandbox is very cool for an adventure path because usually, these "already-made-adventures " are more straightforward wich means less freedom for the PCs.

The Stolen Lands is a wild territory habited by bandits, wild animals, monsters and stuff. The initial goal of the PCs' party is to explore this land and sort of "colonize" it. And this is the cool part because the PCs can go anywhere in a certain range, and as they venture forth they discover lots of hidden stories, places, and stuff - wich I won't spoil for you. It has also some political background about the kingdom of Brevoy in the North, really interesting stuff remembered me of "game of thrones", but it kind of doesn't matter in the PCs' narrative - at least in the beginning. Beginning in the second book you have the option to start a kingdom, and by the look of some screenshot of this PC-game it'll involve some kingdom managing - I just hope it won't turn into a simcity.

I think that's about it.

Originally Posted by Archangel
What, I never said that. What I meant is that Kingmaker module is an advanced quality version of what would be a ultimate good Bethesda game. That is why my sentence meant. I was comparing works, not people.

Ah my apologies!