Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dan107

  1. In other words meaningless grinding, killing random mobs for XP. Yep, fun, fun, fun.
  2. I say option one. I want to be able to switch companions in and out of my active party whenever I feel like it.
  3. I actually really liked how restricted the classes were in 2E. A paladin was a paladin, a druid was a druid, etc. You couldn't really mix and match the different classes and that gave them a certain mystique. With 3E that all went out the window and classes just didn't feel special any more. I think that a class should be more than just a collection of stats, it should be an archetype. Something unique, something that stands apart from all other classes not just in terms of functionality but in terms of roleplaying as well.
  4. Better example: DA:O. For a game that prizes itself in its C&C (best quest design its one truly great feature), it botches replayability with third options or stupid dilemmas. For one, due to circumstace in a major quest you're prompted to choose between killing a child or allowing his mother to sacrifice herself to save him. Alas, there's a third option without any bad consequence at all. Lol, as I was writing my post I was thinking of that exact quest as an example of how NOT to do it. What a cheap copout it was for what should've been one of the better dilemmas we've seen in a game. That and the sex scenes in underwear. If you're gonna show sex, show nudity. Doesn't have to be gratuitous, but for god's sake don't make it look ridiculous like in DA.
  5. The most important thing to me is that this game not have those ridiculous saccharine make-everyone-happy endings to major quests and the game itself. That makes a story seem fake at best and moralizing at worst. There should always be trade-offs and sacrifices for major decisions. For an example of a good mature setting, I don't think you have to go any further than Game of Thrones. It doesn't shy away from sex and violence, no character is perfect, bad things happen to good people and bad deeds often go unpunished. But it isn't ALL doom and gloom either. There are moments of levity, justice, and kindness in a fundamentally selfish and unfair world. That's exactly how I want this game's tone and style to be.
  6. I say as close to photorealism as possible, with plenty of variety in locations. DA2 certainly had a style but it was probably one of the most boring games visually that I've ever played. Everything just looked too similar. Even the areas that were supposed to be different, i.e. city vs. wilderness, ended up having the same claustrophobic angular look to them. Compare that to The Witcher 2 which wasn't particularly stylized but is hands down the best looking RPG ever made and really makes you feel like you're walking through a living, breathing world.
  7. Never was a big fan of having those ridiculously large inventories that are a D&D staple to begin with. So I say keep it realistic. You should only be able to carry the armor you have on your back, your primary weapon, a backup weapon and some potions/bombs/scrolls/etc for when things get really hairy. Picking up everything that isn't bolted down then dragging it to the nearest town to sell is neither realistic, fun, nor particularly epic. I want to play a hero, not a junk peddler for crying out loud.
  8. Damn! I never thought of that! You are right! So it is settled then? Shall we go for a Linux only game? After all, it is free (and it is free), and you can install it on any computer, so it shouldn't make any difference to you. It honestly wouldn't. Problem with that is that the vast majority of people that use computers have and are comfortable using Windows, so that's the default choice. My whole point is just design the game for the most common OS and call it a day. Obsidian isn't about to dislodge Microsoft with essentially an indie game, which is what most of the people supporting a Linux version seem to want.
  9. Please, I beg of You, read the stuff You are commenting on, not to mention opening a new topic for. The goal for $2,2M is: I'd say You haven't read the w hole thing 'till the end, but the massive content upgrade is mentioned before the linux support, so I have no idea how that could've happened. No need to beg, I did indeed read the stuff I'm commenting on. The fact that there are other aspects coming with the update is irrelevant to the subject. Resources are still being dedicated to a Linux port that could be spent on even more game content. Disregarding the asumptions in there, I invite You to answer - to Yourself - these three questions: Why is the following dedicated, why is it small, and do linux users want to run windows for theire games? I'm sure Linux has its advantages when it comes to programming or whatnot but why on earth anyone would really care about what OS they're running while gaming is really beyond me. How can staring at the homescreen of one OS vs another for the 2 minutes or so that it takes your computer to load up and shut down possibly affect your gaming experience in any way?
  10. Full PC parties don't really work well with story driven games where interesting companions are one of the main, if not THE main, pillars that the game rests upon. A player created party only makes sense in a game where the main focus is tactical combat. Having said that, I do support having a large amount of control over companion builds and roles in the party. When you pick up a companion you should at the very least be able to allocate ALL of his skill and ability points, and ideally even select from several classes for him to develop into.
  11. So I noticed that one of the stretch goals is a Linux version of the game. Now is that really the best use of resources? I know Linux has a very dedicated following, but it's quite small, and just about every gamer running Linux also has a Windows PC for games. Wouldn't it be better to take whatever time and money you intend to spend on a Linux port and use it instead to add more content to the game -- more quests, companions, locations, etc? Seems like that's something that would be enjoyed and appreciated by a FAR greater number of people than a Linux version.
  12. I can live with almost every option presented, but like someone above said, I should NOT have to choose between playing a tough idiot or an intelligent wimp. In Torment I ended up using a save game editor to buff all my stats so that I could see all the options in the game that were available through dialogue without being a pushover in combat. I'd like to see the game designed and balanced in such a way that you always have a number of options to deal with most situations. Intimidate if you want, persuade if you want, or kill everyone if you want, but make sure that the player has the ability to make that decision on the spot. Do not design stats in such a way that I'm forced to always pick only one option and am locked out from the rest because of stat destribution or prior unrelated decisions. After all very few people in life approach every other person or situation in the exact same way, so let us pick the best option on the spot without being gimped by the game system.
  13. Lol, lets not get personal here. The only reason I even mentioned it is that someone asked. I'm sure there are some women out there tougher than ME, but I'm not nearly as tough as the toughest men. As far as realism goes, that's not tangential, that's my whole arguement really. Say what you will about chainmail bikinis, just don't say you don't want them because they're not REALISTIC. I want them because I find that scantily clad women make my gaming experience more enjoyable. Nothing more, nothing less really.
  14. Stat penalties don't make much sense in a game. If you were to implement them realistically, you'd have to gimp women to the point where they are not viable as fighters. And if not for the sake of realism, no point to have them there to begin with. And yes, the idea of female fighters in an adventuring party is indeed an absurd concept. Exactly as absurd than having women on an NFL team for instance.
  15. It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic. Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise. Fallout: New Vegas was a video game designed by... wait for it... Obsidian Entertainment. In this game there are no stat penalties for playing as a women nor as a man. While not realistic this was most likely done to not limit a player's options and allow to play whatever role as whatever gender. Project Eternity is an upcoming video game designed by.... the exact same people. Why would they suddenly decide to limit the player's options in such a way when it is so rarely done? The only game I can think of with stat penalities is Arcanum which gives a +1 to strength for male characters and a +1 to Endurance for female characters. Oh I absolutely agree. It doesn't make any sense to include any stat bonuses or penalties in a game. Let people play however they want. But don't say that you shouldn't have skimpily clad women in the game because it's UNREALISTIC. Sexist, childish, "I DON'T LIKE IT", etc, are all perfectly valid reasons. Once you mention REALISM however, the only logical conclusion is that women shouldn't be there to begin with. How they're dressed doesn't really matter.
  16. We are? Do you feel the 100,000 orcs we've all killed in various RPGs were the best of the best? No, but I feel that the 6 people in our party that cut down those 100,000 orcs were indeed the best of the best. REALISTICALLY, no place for women in that party at all. From a fantasy perspective, by all means go nuts. Just don't bring realism into this.
  17. It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic. Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise.
  18. See, here's my thing. Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people? Something like that. We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people. Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men? Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic? I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this. Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible! Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.
  19. Less utility is not the same as no utility. Women tiring more quickly in heavy armor does not make heavy armor useless for women. But that's the point. She's exceptionally large and could beat many average men due to being a very above average woman. A man her size would have her once again at a physical disadvantage, but most men aren't her size. And any trained man? Really? A 5'3 man that weighs 110 pounds should, nine times out of ten, beat a 6'5 woman that weighs 220 pounds? Lol, fine I suppose a big woman can probably beat a midget more often than not, but not a well trained man of average size. And in the case of adventurers, where we're dealing with the best of the best, that's even more pronounced.
  20. That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women. Adventurer. Not human. Adventurer, tovarishch. Person who wakes up in the morning, looks at a picture of a dragon, and says, "Yeah. I think I want to hit that with a stick." Anyone in the "adventuring profession" would as a matter of necessity be an above-average human being (or elf or snorlax or whatever). Imagine at least one woman existing at the far end of the bell curve, perhaps? Sure. But the male adventurers aren't ordinary men either. They would be at the far end of the bell curve as well, and that far end is a lot further for men than women.
  21. That's where you lose me. No, that's where you lost yourself. The setting you estabilished on the last page made a point of equalizing men and women warriors, which most likely includes physical aptitude (after all, that's your argument for why women and men aren't equal in real life). For some reason, you choose to interprete that as armor having no inherent value anymore. Instead, as you should, its best to assume that, as physically men and women are similar, they should be able to wear similar armor. Therefore, there's no reason for the chainmail bikini. I see what you're saying, but my arguement is consistent though. Once you've established that a women are equal to combat to men, the whole idea of combat becomes unrealist (as if it was terribly realistic in RPGs to begin with). So it's a purely stylistic decision. A woman beating a man to death in full plate is not a whole lot more likely than a woman beating a man to death in underwear.
  22. She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do. Lol, yeah, a little.
  23. That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women.
  • Create New...