Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

GhostofAnakin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10885

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by GhostofAnakin

  1. GhostofAnakin
    But it's one feature. I'm genuinely asking this (no snark intended), but would one feature really make or break the experience for you? For instance, hypothetically speaking, if Baldurs Gate had had a cooldown system rather than resting, would that have completely and utterly ruined the game for you? Assume that everything else remained the same about the game, except it simply had cooldowns rather than resting. Would you not be a fan? This is where my disconnect is. I can't think of one single feature being removed/altered from my favorite games that would suddenly make me not enjoy them anymore. I might enjoy them slightly less, but I can't think of a feature being removed that would sway my opinion of "this is a GREAT game!" to "well, this completely ruined my experience now". And that's fine. But the bolded part above is why I think there's a lot of overreaction. We know next to nothing about the actual details of these features, only that there will be "cooldowns".
  2. GhostofAnakin
    You may end up being correct, but one thing I'll say is your whole assumption is that by saying cooldowns replace resting they mean that cooldown times will replace resting times. It could very well simply mean one system is replacing the other, without the same "8 hour wait period" attached. The cooldown could happen much, much faster (in -game time) than that. Or there could be some other added feature to the cooldown system that "fast forwards" the time you have to wait to use your spells again. This is why I'm waiting for more clarification before forming my final opinion on the topic. Right now all we're doing is speculating on what their somewhat vague statements mean.
  3. GhostofAnakin
    This for me. I think that's the whole appealing aspect of RPGs for me. Building my character's skills so he becomes stronger over time, not just because I'm more familiar with the buttons and keys. Obviously there's going to be player input; the better the strategy (ie. which equipment to wear, what party formations to use, etc.), the better the chances of winning. But in terms of actually deciding the individual battles, I want my character's skill to be the determining factor.
  4. GhostofAnakin
    That's actually true. So perhaps the devs aren't going to make it the same "wait 8 hours" timeframe for the cooldown. But at the same time, it won't be almost instantaneous like a lot of current games. Again, though, I'd like to hear more about how they're going to implement it before I form a final opinion on it.
  5. GhostofAnakin
    So cooldowns are replacing rest? So for example, instead of having to rest for 8 hours, the spells replenish over that same time and are ready in 8 hours? If that's how it works, then I actually prefer that method. It saves having to find a place to rest and allows you to continue to do more adventuring while your spells replenish themselves over that time.
  6. GhostofAnakin
    People really do seem to be overreacting before even knowing fully in what way these two features (cooldowns and level scaling) are going to be implemented. When the project was first announced, the general consensus was "I trust these guys know how to make RPGs, so I'm backing them". What happened to that? Did Chris, Tim, Josh, etc. suddenly forget how to make RPGs in the last fifteen or so days? If you trusted them originally, then trust that they'll be able to pull this off, even if you're a little leery about some of the features announced.
  7. GhostofAnakin
    Looks like this isn't one of my more popular ideas. I probably misspoke (and miss-titled) by suggesting ALL choices should be grey or that no good or evil choices should be included. But I'd just like to see some more variety where certain situations call for decisions that aren't necessarily instantly put into either a good or evil action category. For instance, at some point you come across two factions that are both considered "good" but are given a quest that could force you to have to side with one of them to the detriment of the other. So the player's decision wouldn't necessarily be down to good or evil because you're choosing between two factions that are considered "good". I think Obsidian's capable of pulling it off and making it fit with their overall narrative since they've already done this, as recently as New Vegas. For example, when choosing who to side with at the end, there's not necessarily only a "good" or "evil" option (I guess siding with Caesar is evil, but the others are kind of all "neutral" to some degree because each has its own drawbacks to the population as a whole). I don't know. I think it'd add flavor if there were some decisions that weren't just black and white (good and evil).
  8. GhostofAnakin
    I must not have explained it well enough. Basically, take two games: the Witcher and KOTOR. In the Witcher, you don't make choices that follow the usual good or evil definition, but rather you make one of two equally grey choices. In Mass Effect, you choose good (Light Side) or bad (Dark Side). Each choice is clearly defined, thus making them easy to pick between depending on what kind of character you're playing. In the above two examples, KOTOR makes it pretty easy for you to decide which choice to take if you're playing a Light Side character. The Witcher, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily give you a blatantly obvious "good" choice. So I'm proposing that PE follow more closely to the Witcher's method of giving a player two equally moral (or immoral) choices, rather than KOTOR's hand holding that says "pick the top dialogue option if you're playing a good guy, pick the bottom option if you're playing a bad guy".
  9. GhostofAnakin
    This topic came to mind based on another similar topic, but one thing I'd like to see in Project Eternity is no real "right or wrong" or "good or evil" option when deciding on dialogue choices, or when deciding on what to do in a quest. I'd like to see the player have to choose between two "grey" options, decisions that are neither good or evil, but merely two different options to solve something that have different consequences for each. Too often, decisions come down to "I'm playing a good character, so I have to choose this option" or "I'm a really mean bad ass and so I have to bully this person into giving me all their money after I do their quest". I'd like to see quests where you have to think more about the long term consequences of making a decision, rather than simply picking whichever choice coincides with whatever alignment your character happens to be. This doesn't have to encompass all quests; depending on where Obsidian is going with the main quest (maybe they want certain "alignment" choices to push the story along), it could be restricted to the sidequests you pick up along the way, or even simply be during dialogue with NPCs you meet. Thoughts?
  10. GhostofAnakin
    This x1000. In fact, it should almost be its own topic. But it would be interesting to see PE implement choices that aren't necessarily "good or evil" or "right or wrong", but rather two different options (or more than two) that have different consequences associated with them. The Witcher 2 did this well, where "siding" with Iorveth or Roche wasn't necessarily good or evil, but resulted in quite a different rest of the game. I'd like more options that require the player to choose between two grey area options rather than clicking on the one that corresponds with playing a "good" or a "bad" character.
  11. GhostofAnakin
    On a side note: I do enjoy the main quest. Some of the dialogue is pretty funny.
  12. GhostofAnakin
    Some of these "boss fights" in BL2 are a joke because of how easy it is to exploit the environment versus the boss fights where you're stuck in basically a "room" with the boss. I just took down that massive spacecraft thing called Bunker or whatever with ease, simply because I could shoot at it from a lower level with a ceiling over me, so anytime it shot its weapons, the ceiling and pillars blocked every single shot. So basically it was just a case of me whittling down its HP over time.
  13. GhostofAnakin
    Expandable inventory. Even if I have to pay a lot for it, I want the ability to increase my inventory size.
  14. GhostofAnakin
    I can't believe I forgot the Witcher and the Witcher 2. Great games if you want choices that really affect how the game plays out. And of course FO: NV.
  15. GhostofAnakin
    It especially gets annoying when you've gone through a particularly taxing fight and have zero ammo, but have no chance to look for ammo because as soon as you move new enemies (often the same tough ones) re-spawn right on top of you.
  16. GhostofAnakin
    So Alan, when are you guys going to add more modes for the ME3 multiplayer?
  17. GhostofAnakin
    No fetch quests. Or at least make the quests have a bit more story behind them than "get eggs for farmer and get paid 50 gold and 50 XP to do so".
  18. GhostofAnakin
    The kickstarter (and stretch goals) were fine, IMO. In fact, I'm more than happy with a lot of the stretch goals, and am glad we've reached pretty much all of them.
  19. GhostofAnakin
    They might not be considered "great" RPGs by the masses, but the fanboy in me enjoyed KOTOR I and II quite a bit. I also liked VTM: B, though my comp was a little underpowered so I had some real slow downs in certain areas. I liked DA:O for the most part, and actually enjoyed DA2 except for the railroaded third chapter and ending, and I liked the Mass Effect series -- more action than pure RPG, though -- until the God-awful ending of ME3. On that note: What is with BioWare and its horrible endings? I haven't played the MMO game, but its last two single player games (DA2 and ME3) had really, really bad endings. Not that KOTOR, ME1, ME2, and DA:O had amazing endings, but at least they were satisfactory, if a bit cliche. DA2 and ME3's endings, the latter especially, were so WTF-inducing.
  20. GhostofAnakin
    The enemy spawning really is annoying in Borderlands 2. It makes it difficult to "scout" an area ahead of time to plan my method of attack. For instance, in Lynchwood when you first enter, there's a big section of track that, if you have a sniper rifle equipped, allows you to see right to the end of the track. I notice about 3 or 4 enemies walking about, so I take them out before moving on. I'm moving slowly, again using my sniper rifle to look way ahead to make sure that if there are enemies, I can see them. But at certain points, the spawns seem to just trigger and I'll have enemies popping out of doors literally on top of me. So much for planning my attacks. I end up just constantly back tracking, killing groups, moving forward and spawning new enemies, back track, kill group. Rinse, repeat.
  21. GhostofAnakin
    It's an interesting concept, but I think it would be too difficult to implement. Also, there's a risk that you'd end up being the de facto hero anyway, even if in the story you're not, simply because you (the player) would be the one making all the choices in how the game plays out.
  22. GhostofAnakin
    I mentioned a similar (sort of) scenario in another post, where it would be interesting if events were happening around the world regardless of the player. Some cases the player has an indirect impact on these events (ie. my scenario where the player wipes out a guild of assassins, who just happened to be working for an individual vying for a throne, and thus weakening his position without actually taking part in the battle for the throne), and some cases, like your example above, the player has no impact based on deciding to do nothing, yet the event still occurs. It would certainly make the world feel more alive.
  23. GhostofAnakin
    I think this is a good guess. Obsidian likely has a certain idea in mind of what they want to do, and the only stretch goals they've decided upon are ones that are -- relatively speaking -- easy to add to what they originally planned to do. Having stretch goals that are "visionary" might certainly bring in more money, but it might also cause problems integrating those features into their original plan.
  24. GhostofAnakin
    I think I'd prefer a variation of cooldowns. Not as instantaneous as you see in most action/RPG fantasy games nowadays, maybe it takes a bit longer to cool down. But I don't think it should require sleeping for X hours in order to use your spells again.
  25. GhostofAnakin
    Some of these side missions in BL2 are more difficult than the main story missions. This one mission, where I'm to escort some giant machine to destroy a bunch of statues, is annoying because I have to keep the thing "alive" while swarms of enemies keep charging at it. The enemies aren't even that difficult to beat, but it's the fact it takes a while to defeat some of them ... and all that time they're dwindling my escort's health bar down.
×
×
  • Create New...