Jump to content

Kal Adan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Kal Adan

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer
  1. True. However, there is no reason not to do so if people want it. Pillars of Eternity were made against odds, because Kickstarter project showed there is a significant market (or demand) for that kind of game, while the others (mostly big publishers) were saying: "these games didn't die out for no reason" or "this won't sell". That's why I like the idea of a Kickstarter: it helps gauging the market and the idea for game/mechanic, etc.
  2. I wouldn't mind a full voice acting (Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption or Legacy of Kain series gained a lot from it), but it HAS to be GOOD and requires superb dialogues to begin with. For a game like Pillars of Eternity? Too much people to voice them all, so I am willing to settle for partial VO. Not really. As long as DLCs add cosmetic content or add something that wasn't possible for the main game and is fully optional to the main experience there is nothing wrong with asking for a DLC.
  3. I liked KotOR 2's story, but maybe so because I liked the idea of my character being important - a general, playing a major part in war/history - and I stood up for that legacy and choices my character did in the past, actively arguing it was the best course of action both as a character and a player. I suspect if someone didn't sympathize with player character's past actions there could be a disconnect ("I didn't want to do it. I didn't do it. It wasn't me. Don't blame me for that"). There were some personal elements adding to that: like why the Jedi Council stripped you off your powers, etc.
  4. I am not questioning whether Iron Man is winnable or not (although I think it's winnable. Only it'll take a lot more time - or foreknowledge - to win). I am questioning what results it does produce due to mechanics that are in game. You could apply this to a normal game without Iron Man. You died to an encounter? Load a save and buff yourself (or pre-buff, since that's the name of the thread). All Iron Man does is amplifying the problem, because it's not just "load a save" but "make a new character and sacrifice X minutes/hours/days to reach the spot you died", etc.
  5. You're missing the point. Problem ain't - from my perspective - that it'd be tiresome to pre-buff. Problem is the system does not convince the player (especially the one used to rest-spamming and spell-spamming) to play better in other way than discouraging him (in an annoying way, thus simply annoying him). Good system should either straight up punish the bad play (like Souls' series do: there is no room for mistakes, because punishment for failure is going back to square one) or encourage change. For example: I'd like to play without being able to save/load, but the way the engagements a
  6. It's less about them needing to pre-buff and more about them being able to as a rule ("In any true RPG I can do this, so I should be able to do this in this one, or this isn't a true RPG" kind of argument). I am not against pre-buffing as such, but I think the game lacks good system to make it more meaningful than just being tiresome for those who use spells left and right.
  7. It's not an assumption. This system has been made as a reaction to what people did in the past.
  8. I play with them off - I don't want to pick choices by being suggested what kind of responses by stats unlocked for me.
  9. I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.
  10. I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether. People
  11. Balancing game around (pre-)buffing means it's mandatory for anticipated overall experience. It also means you need someone to buff you. I like PoE system over going back to DnD. It doesn't really restrict you (you still can put buffs on yourself, only in combat) and isn't a requirement if you run with different setup than one basing on buffs.
  12. I am not seeing it. I mean, yes, NPCs interject in conversations, but there is no reaction from the other side (another NPC I talk with). It makes it feel fake for me. They "do interact with one another", but I didn't see anything bigger than how Dragon Age: Origins NPCs interacted with one another: just exchanging a couple of lines. I don't have a feeling like party is going to break up, because NPC1 hates NPC2. In fact, companions don't even pressure you to get their quests done, while In Baldur's Gate II they were reminding you of them and even taking action, by leaving your party. That gav
  13. I have the same problem. It's most likely a bug that needs to be fixed. That or perhaps I need to finish an expedition for Wenan first...
  14. I am not going to try and convince you. The fact that you try - hard - indicates that you find it cheating. It should be enough of an answer to you. What you do with that is up to you.
  • Create New...