[The Mega Dungeon and consequence]

A bit wasted potential, but I do appreciate the clarity in that there's no need to play it.

 

Sweet catch, Sacred

[The Mega Dungeon and consequence]

I didn't purposely create the same thread three times. I hit 'back' after creating this thread and it must've created duplicates. It's been explained in this thread already. Sometimes accidents happen. What are ya gonna do?

 

Also, I'm not 'whining' or being 'mad'. I'm just explaining that the dungeon is supposedly a big deal, but the world doesn't react in accordance to it. I'm not going to spoil anything from BG, but before you enter Watcher's Keep, everyone there sort of knows who you are. You're a very specific heroic/villanous figure with quite the reputation behind you. There's this group that specficially wants your help, not just anyone's. It's just really weird to then meet a Noble, who supposedly keeps himself well informed, thinks you, a very notable person to say the least, can be threatened by soldiers without a crystal armor It's kind of silly. At any rate, I don't think I've gotten enough story/dialouge value from doing that much grinding, unlike most other side-quests which for the most part has a better balance.

 

One last thing. You're being kind of rude, and there's not a point to that. Relax man. No one here is out to get you. You can debate without negatively portraying other people.

[The Mega Dungeon and consequence]

Well, I recently completed a long and very boring section from Baldur's Gate 2. The section was called the Watcher's Keep.

 

It was an 8 level long dungeon with a lot of random and soulless combat/puzzles. It was very long and boring and with no real relevance to anything outside the dungeon. I could literally have skipped it and nothing would be different.

 

Then why didn't you?

 

The place was added for people who like big ass dungeons with lots of puzzles and combat.

 

There was no sign saying nothing would be different. I made that point already if you read the whole post.

[The Mega Dungeon and consequence]

It was an 8 level long dungeon with a lot of random and soulless combat/puzzles. It was very long and boring and with no real relevance to anything outside the dungeon. I could literally have skipped it and nothing would be different. When you leave that place, you're not more famous even though there's a reputation system within the game. No one will react differently to you. In fact, the first thing that happened when my character returned to the city was that a human noble called my character a common dandy. The noble then proceeded to threaten my character with his low level hench-men. I wanted to tell him: "Dude. I'm a pretty big deal from BG 1, and also, I just travelled to the bottom of the famed Watcher's Keep and killed whatever was lurking down there with my bare hands. Stop messing around. You're just being silly now."

Wait, you're unhappy because, despite all of your accomplishments, the nobility is still snobbish toward low-born peasants like you? Guess what, me bucko... that's normal.

 

... Must avoid.. spoilers...

 

EDIT: Also, sorry for the duplicate threads, gfted1. Thanks for removing them Must've been a browser related problem

[The Mega Dungeon and consequence]

Well, I recently completed a long and very boring section from Baldur's Gate 2. The section was called the Watcher's Keep.

 

It was an 8 level long dungeon with a lot of random and soulless combat/puzzles. It was very long and boring and with no real relevance to anything outside the dungeon. I could literally have skipped it and nothing would be different. When you leave that place, you're not more famous even though there's a reputation system within the game. No one will react differently to you. In fact, the first thing that happened when my character returned to the city was that a human noble called my character a common dandy. The noble then proceeded to threaten my character with his low level hench-men. I wanted to tell him: "Dude. I'm a pretty big deal from BG 1, and also, I just travelled to the bottom of the famed Watcher's Keep and killed whatever was lurking down there with my bare hands. Stop messing around. You're just being silly now."

 

But no, nothing was different. All you get is xp and loot. Ergo, all you get from that place were numbers and items with certain numbers to them. If developers insist on including a grand mega-dungeon with just a ton of random stuff to it, then please, make that random stuff matter. The Watcher's Keep subtracted from a feeling of urgency in the main story-line. I would be way more happier if an NPC or two had stressed: "Listen, your main goal would benefit from an expedition down there. I know it's a tough decision considering people are dying and waiting for you, but this is important fo' real, dawg." I would then have a feeling that spending time down there mattered.

 

I do like the brilliant story you get from these games. There's almost no comparison. So the plea here is: If there's going to be a long dungeon dragging the players from the main story, then make it matter. Or at least have the common courtesy to have sign on the front saying: "yo bro. If u skip dis dungeon noting will be different."

[Unwinnable Main Questline?]

Why not both? I want multiple endings ranging from cheesy happy to abyssic depressing.

I suppose that's fine, but honestly if happy endings are just a form of pandering to hypersensitive individuals, must we include them at all?

 

 

Troll opinion is troll opinion.

 

"I suppose that's fine, but honestly if happy endings are just a form of pandering to undersensitive individuals, must me include bad endings at all?"

 

Works both ways.

 

The coolest thing to do is having both. Not just one of the mentioned options. In a game about choice, there should be many outcomes, or there's not any point in inculding choices to begin with.

[Do NPC Companions level up with you even when they aren't in your company?]

This is a feature for Expert difficulty and Iron Man difficulty, the two things I won't play. I'm all for something called FUN.

 

I don't mind recruiting folks I won't use and shove them into my spaceship. "Get in there, you stupid jerks." "Aaaah, but it won't fit!" Even though they end up on the B-team or even C-team, I still like their dialouge. I'm probably just a class that's incompatible with their skills often enough. Sometimes I bring along characters I don't like, but who are extremely useful to open locks for instance. In my first game, I might have been lucky enough to be the tank, and have room for all the cool people. In the next game, I might be a rogue or a mage, and I will need to replace my favorite for a tank since I now fill the role of my favorite. I'll put them by the camp and go: "I might be going with miss Cass and Veronica, but I'll secretly be wishing I was with you, Craig Boone! <3" And he'll slowly nod and go: ".. Gay..."

 

Anyways.. Maybe I'll have the companions gathered in the camp/castle spaceship/underwater hotel/whatever, and suddenly, one from the C-Team goes up to me and says: "I know I haven't been fighting for a while with you, but I was wondering if you could help me do this FUNNY quest of bla bla bla?" And then I'll go: "Awesome! I can't wait to do it and see the outcomes! Sounds FUN. Let's do it!" "But first we need to fight a bunch of people." "Well.. Alright, I don't carry around equipment appropiate for you. I give my best stuff to the people in my A-Team and B-Team. Are you at least the right level?" "..." "Well, do you want me to put on my iPod, drag you outside and kill random mobs for a few hours?" "..." "Are you flippin' kidding me!?"

 

So spending time leveling up everyone or whatever isn't fun. It sounds like grinding, which should never be a necessary aspect in a game. There should only be enemies obstructing your path and you need to clear a way through, or avoid it, whatever. I know some of you equivelate fun to limiting yourself and punishing yourself, but isn't that just busy-work during your third-fifth play-through? Doesn't the the true fun lie in good impactful dialouge options, responsive combat mechanics, satisfying feeling that an attack feels like an attack? What about good sounds and visuals? Doesn't unleveled companions belong to the expert difficulty perhaps and Iron Man difficulty for people who REALLY want to limit themselves?

[Exponential Health Gain]

I don't mind the sudden HP/Mana recovery.

 

It's like.. "Ah, I'm losing I'm losing.... No wait! There is hope! *Kills a trash mob*" "Hah, why did you waste a precious attack round to kill a minion and not me, the boss, nyah!?" "Because I only needed 23 experience points to level up! BOO YAH!" "Oh noesh! He's getting HP back!" *Insert heroic battle theme*

 

It's a rarely a dramatic moment like this happens, but when it does.. Man it's so satisfying. In many games this doesn't make sense, but it's epic as all hell that you just run with it. Actually.. what game had that bit where you leveled up, and a cool explosion of energy came from you, knocking everybody back, and there was an epic music playing whenever you did?

[Just Donated!]

Welcome, brother from another mother *Fistbump* Glad to have you with us

[Forton is a Joke!]

Well, if Forton wasn't a joke... he is now. And a meme.

[On Pacifism & the nonlethal takedown]

Didn't unarmed attacks deal subdual damage in NWN (unless you were a monk or had the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, that is)?

 

In general D&D, yes. NWN the computer game, no.

 

Mrm.. there were certain scripted special fights that stopped when the enemy reached low HP. You could now offer the enemy mercy, or to kill him in a very evil manner. Though you could offer mercy to some, you did kill a lot of enemies.

[Druids, Monks and Rangers - Issues]

Okay... In BG 1-2 and IWD monks weren't that powerful from my understanding. That was fixed in in newer DnD rules and NWN1-2. Monks are capable of having great gear (Robes for armor), and kick ass feats. I didn't much care for the loot drops in NWN 1-2 though, but I did PvP a lot. I built a lot of overpowered characters in the toolset, but I did so within a set of rule restrictions. I stuck to legal item restriction limit. My level 20 monks had gear common that was equivelent for a level 20 to own. In the toolset, you had an automatic measurer which kept tab on how powerful an item was. Certain servers wouldn't let you enter if your gear was above that measurer. This made it impossible to make items that had maxed out AC, resistance, absorbation, true sight, haste, access to infinite numbers of all spells in the rulebook. You could make an item like that, but that would be a level 100000 item. But my point is this. A level 20 monk with level 20 gear was easily on par with any other level 20 class with level 20 equipment in terms of PVP/Combat. In fact, monks have rediculously high save roles and are great anti-mages, provided the mage isn't controlled by another player who knows a lot of pvp tricks and is already buffed up. But monks have many strengths and can dodge/survive/resist all kinds of spells unlike a fighter/barbarian/rogue who are very vulnerable to mind-spells. Monks eventually gain full immunity against mind spells, even though their resistance for those kind of spells are already higher than most other classes.

 

But yep.. In-game loot for monks could still be muuuuch better though. Too little, and too poor selection. No real imba items to be FOUND, but could be made easily in the tool-set.

[Armour & weapon designs - a plea (part II).]

Looking forward to seeing monks pound some sense into people clinging to their 'realistic' full plates. We also got magical gear and spells that can render all 'practical' looks meaningless. That's marvelous considering PE is a fantasy game.

 

Hm? Oh yeah. "You can kiss our non-armored cod piece, you stinkin' no good armor-lovers!" Hehe, nah just kidding. I like realistic armors too. It's important to pick a consistent theme. However, I want the really rare armors/weapons to look high fantasy-like and not necessarily practical. We're playing a fantasy game so I'd like to see a lot of variety. Games are meant to be fun after all. I also want the important NPCs to wear high fantasy armors to stand out and to physically portray their uniqueness from a normal soldier/citizen... Unless it's an undercover assassin, but it won't be revealed until much later that the baker is a hard core killer. In that case, it would be best to have an unassuming appearance.

 

This is something I would like see a more seasoned adventurer/leader wear.

 

 

I'm also a fan of the Fire Emblem clothes. Not so much the anime faces though.

 

 

I also think we need a mandatory plate bikini in every RPG. I'm not expecting it to be very functional or practical, but there should be one according nerdfest rule: "54". However, if it happens to have kick ass magical properties then... awesome. Actually, I'm just going into extremes because I think a majority of people here are allergic to fun. "No. Your opinion in clothing taste is outright wrong!" "No. You're wrong!" "I keel you" "No, I keel youuu" >

[On Pacifism & the nonlethal takedown]

I think most RPGs are fine as they as they are.

 

In KOTOR 2, nameless Siths in masks, who are trained expert assassins and have killed many before, volunteerly attacks you, a Jedi. Their training says you're a capable opponent, and they know what they're about to get into. They have every chance to back away, but still choose to ambush and attack you. It's not a morally wrong choice to pick up the Jedi weapon that they predicted you would use, and slash them down in an expected fashion. They got EXACTLY what they wanted to see from you, and someone has to bring justice to them. Enemy guards who attack you on sight usually have enough 'evil points' to warrant a swift execution from you since you don't have time to perform a mass arrest. "I am the law!"

 

However, I'm happy that with more three-diemensional characters, you can give those a chance to back off. I like in games, where enemy soldiers sees you easily wailing down their companions, and instead of fighting you, they start a dialouge with you, sharing a desire to flee from you.

 

EDIT: Still. Having the options Frisk just mentioned are very welcomed. I generally do avoid bloodshed whenever possible, just for the sake of life preserving.

[I need Ironman mode because I have poor impulse control]

I have seen many arguments about ironman mode and save scumming, etc.

 

I want to have ironman mode in this game because it will help me to avoid reloading games when I should be paying the price for my decisions. Too often, if an auto save at the beginning of the level is available I will reload it because I really messed up and dont want the character to die or face the music.

 

I dont think ironman mode and clever programming should be dedicated to countering save scumming. If people want to get some sort of ironman accomplishment by End Process save scumming / save game back up system, whatever. No big deal.

 

I just want two options:

 

1) standard auto save system that allows me to reload, perhaps for my first play through while getting to know the game.

 

2) ironman mode for when I am ready to really give it a go with no easy way to reload a game. This gives me a real nervous, edge of my seat feeling when making big choices in the game because I know they are final, at least for that character's story.

 

I don't think anyone said there shouldn't be an Iron Man mode. I'm not gonna use it, but that doesn't mean others can't enjoy it.

 

If someone said: "I don't like this optional mode therefore, none shall use it! Make it not available. Nyargh" then that person is off his/her trolley.

[Mature themes]

Hm, yeah, those are some very valid points. I respect them completely and feel free to carry on

[Mature themes]

A right use of rape in stories .. You know what? I'm actually not a fan. It removes the entertainment value for me. It's just a very distasteful story-mechanic and I sort of become bored and uncaring at that point. Rape isn't a mature thing. In fact, it's just the exact oposite. It's an immature tool used by a person who can't attract the other person by being his/her natural self, or maybe he/she is just trying to insult the victim. Rape isn't a big deal to me. In truth, rape only devalues the person commiting the act, not the victim. I feel the criminal isn't worth a second thought at that moment he does it. Theft, murder, tresspassing, and other crimes may have justified reasons behind them. Killing can in many unique situations be justified and glorified, but there is no moral high ground for rape. I for one don't need a game to imply rape or show it to know someone is a villain. Rape is just a side-product of other crimes like assault, slavery, and so forth. The rape adds nothing to the game aside from de-valueing the villain. Really, having rape for the sake of being 'mature' is childish, and it's sort of messed up that people want it. I learned about rape when I was 4-5 years old, and to be careful around strangers. I knew about that stuff long before I knew about attraction and that marriage isn't a super-glue to keep two people together.

 

Besides, victims of rape in real life just want to kick back and enjoy a video game. They don't need a reminder that triggers an uncontrollable feeling of guilt and remorse. I've read some of certain victims' thoughts on the matter, and even though they can logically understand that they're not at fault, they're still subconsciously and emotionally disturbed at the mere mention of the word 'rape'. That's a bother I'm willing to spare them. It's not like saving the victims in the game, ignoring them, or making matters worse for them, will give real life life victims a good feeling. It's not a thing they overcome. It's like a mental wound. It's a condition they need to manage the remaining time of their life. So yeah, no to the rapey-thing just because the game is rated 'mature'. More often than not, being mature is about showing a little restraint. I get somewhat miffed that people hear "mature theme" and associate it with "rape" when real kids in less fortunate countries face daily trauma. If you don't know what I'm talking about then go read about how grown terrorist soldiers around in Africa systemically enters villages and rapes little girls/boys before brainwashing their broken will to become child soldiers. You can then suggest you want to see that in a game, but I done my homework and can manage without, and I'll be a little upset if you can't too.

[Mature themes]

I will win teh shecks and see 1 seconds of boobies for teh lulz

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

S'not like anything we say here will have an effect.

 

Flippety flappety floo.

[Emotional Impact]

I am all for "emotional impact" as long it is not forced and you can change and influence the event. As example the DA1 situation with saving/killing/etc Connor was well done, while I truly hated the Mass Effect 1 choice that gets forced down your throat about having to let one of your 2 companions die on a certain planet.

 

Deus Ex 3's Missing Link standalone did this just right in my opinion, you get into a situation where you are offered the chance to either rescue dozens of innocent prisoners who got abducted to be experimented upon, or you could rescue a Doctor who is able to give you evidence of the wrongdoings of the local leadership which the average prisoners can't provide.

While a third option isn't named this is not an "either - or" choice like in case of the ME1 Tuchanka event, where you are not given the option to just say "**** you" and heroically rescue everyone, no, while the option to save everyone is not mentioned in Missing Link, you can still go and find a hidden room where you can blow up something to rescue both the prisoners and the doctor.

 

Another badly done "emotional impact" from the Mass Effect series is in ME3 where you are supposed to feel sad/guilty about seeing a kind die whom you can't save. The very lack of chance to save it is already a negative in my book, then comes the returning visions using the kid's image which just made me pissed off at the Bioware developers instead of making me feel anything remotedly similar to sadness.

 

So my opinion in short: Well done emotional impact is good, just don't try to force us feel sad/bad about some event where we didn't have a chance to change/avoid things, plus if possible, also consider POSITIVE emotional impact, instead of trying to make everything more "griddy/dramatic" by trying to pull the "tears/guilt card". (which sadly seems to become "the new black" in games recently)

 

True. I didn't think saving Connor was emotionally important for me, but I still liked the quest. The Connor situation was properly established and then the game looked to you, and asked what you wanted to do. There were some arguements for killing him and against killing him. You could do whatever you wanted within reason. But yeah, sometimes games fail here. If a game offers you many choices, but then takes it away at character defining moments, then the game has failed. You've already mentioned a few good examples, but yeah, there are definetly many badly written choices... Especially when children characters are involved. It's so easy and lazy to use the "Child in danger" scenario to force your character into a specific situation. Suddenly, the chaotic evil black guard is forced to do a momentary 180 alignment-change because the writer thinks he can justify forcing the player to feel sorry for a poorly established child-character, incidentally much like Mass Effect 3's did -.-

 

That reminds me of the Jimquistion episode: Think of the children

http://www.escapistm...of-the-Children

 

It argues that a character should be established properly before being given a role, like "Kid in danger and you should emotionally care." To really do it well, a part of it is making it real a choice you can ignore, add too, or harm. In a well done scenario, you're not forced to look after the kid, but if the kid happens to be really cool, then the game asks you a question: This kid does this and this, do you like her enough to care about her? If not, awesome. You can ignore her or be outright mean to her. You're also free to leave and do whatever you want. However, if you do decide you like her enough to care for her, you intuitively include her thoughts and feelings in mind before making a decision. The real kicker is that a writer can't force you to like someone/something. That's why I like games that offers a lot of dialouge options and choices. I love the having the abillity to exclude things/people I don't like, and include people I do like. Obsidian happens to be expert at just this feature so I really look forward to the game

[Emotional Impact]

True, but I think it always comes down to having the best actors, the best writing, and having a lot of time to tend to production of the scene. If one spends a lot of time perfecting a scene, the better it usually becomes. On that note, seriously George Lucas, stop putting so much pointless crap in front of the camera that it's hard to see what's going on. You needlessly over-compliate too many scenes that should be simple.

 

Anyway, I think it's just a matter of keeping things realistic with the production schedule. There's just not enough time to make all the scenes look/sound/feel this one. I tend to forgive games for this because I know the technology they use is still experimental. It will take many years before computers will effortlessly and flawlessly make something look exactly as one planned.

[More Sub-Forums?]

Optimizing the forum is cool with me.

 

Not on the top to do list, but in the future I wouldn't mind seeing more threads posted in the right categories.

 

Mmm, systemizing and diagrams....

[Parties in Cities]

Yeah, true. As I was writing about the weird nature of barging into random's people's home and looting their stuff, I did recall Baldur's Gate. I had forgotten that the families there did complain if you took their stuff. I had forgotten because Dragon Age was supposed to be the spirtual successor, better in every way, but Dragon Age is like a step backwards in that area lol

 

But you're right, a lot of games are handling that aspect pretty decently already. Still, there is something off about stepping into people's home randomly. Maybe if was established more clearly that you could be invited into commoners' homes to gather information I would be happier. Because as it is with RPGs as of late, a lot of times there is a part where you come to a big city, and that's when you just turn on your song-list and mindlessly start looting people's homes for 20 minutes. It feels a bit like a mandatory chore. And I'm just not for doing the same thing over and over. That's just a cheap technique to prolong the game and make you feel like you're accomplishing more than you really are. I feel the same about really long dungeons, like the Deep Roads and the Fayde from Dragon Age Origins. That's really not a moment you want to go: "Damn. I left my iPod at home." Most of it is just mindless slaughter, and even with cheat codes, it still takes some hours to clear out. Geeze.

 

So I'm definetly for new ways to remove tedious grinding and chores with more fun interactive role-play. I like the idea of sending your party around the city. Maybe the companions can fast-travel to certain areas in town not accessible for the protagonist. This would create different a experience when controlling your companions. Maybe they know of places that you don't, and you won't have time to learn about them because your character is so focused on the quests. He has specific people to see, time is of the essence. This also creates an artificial feeling of vastness, but without being annoyingly big. It's somewhat efficient and optimized, so you can get back to do doing awesome quests. This also makes companions useful and entertaining outside of combat, and it would be fun to watch two party members of your choice work together wether they are compatible or not. Maybe you put two party members together who don't have good chemistry. That would be highly amusing to watch them try to work together while gathering information, or selling and buying items. Maybe they didn't gather too much information because they were too busy arguing with each other, but maybe since they're both angry people now, they get way better prices because the merchants can't really mess with them too much. This would give the leader the opportunity to check out the important main quests, like checking out the more popular areas and do his thing while the others are away.

 

Again, these are just rushed thoughts that I just came up with based on my own preference. After thinking about this, it doesn't sound like the greatest ideas, but maybe others got better ideas from this. Others might think: "No thanks. I just want a proper huge city, and I like to explore places and get shweet loot." That's fair enough, but personally, this is why I prefer Obsidian games over Oblivion/Skyrim. I want a smaller but smarter built game with well written memorable characters with great depth, just the right amount of combat without getting bored by its' repetiveness, some side-missions, and a cool main quest. This is good pacing. I don't want what Skyrim/oblivion offers, which is shallow written npcs, just a ton of random loot that offers no intelligent feedback, and a pretty generic main quest that is overshadowed by way too many unmemorable, unimportant side-quests.

[Parties in Cities]

Well, one thing that I always found weird was that in a lot of games like Zelda, Dragon Age, KOTOR 1, is that you can just run into a house, loot it clean, and the family living there doesn't even care. I actually think it's a little weird to enter random NPC's houses to even get a quest. In real life, no one really barges into random people's home and ask if they need help. If a random person is in a random person's home like that, he/she is probably there to steal/loot. I would like it if only 2 out of a 100 houses have a quest in them. In most cases, the people/families in there would insist that you leave, unless you're in stealth mode. However, it would be funny if you try to rob a house.. and you walk into a house where everyone's dead, and the place is already looted... and then a guard comes and find you at the scene of the crime lol Or maybe you find an empty house leading to a thieves' guild.. or just once or twice there's a person who actually needs help, but mostly, houses are to be looted.

 

This is an opinion I just made up. I haven't given it too much though, but I'm just contributing to the conversation for the sake of contributing

[Redundant class abilities in PE]

I would like to see synergies as well. For instance, that Rogues are compatible with Mages.

 

Rogues squirt some sort of oil on their enemies to make them lose balance and get lower attack rate and accuracy, but this also makes the enemies extremely vulnerable to fire spells, like fireball. Or enemies who are magically turned to stone/ice would be very vulnerable to a crushing blow from a warrior etc