Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dermi

  1. In our current build, we already allow the game to either be paused or dramatically slowed. A while back, a number of people requested the "slo-mo" option because (among other reasons) some are micromanagers who wind up in a constant pause-start-pause-start-pause pattern every few seconds. The slo-mo toggle required virtually no effort on our end and seems to play reasonably well so far.

    And how does it work right now? I mean is this a menu toggle, that sets whole game either to slow-mo or pause, or is it binded to two different buttons? Because I just thought it could be nice to have both modes available binded to different keys, so, for example, I set pause to space and use it as primary function, and yet I have slow-mo binded under different key and use it for less challenging fights, where micromanagement isn't essential. That way player could use both modes on "encounter-basis", instead of deciding it arbitrary for the whole game.

  2. Of course they did, at least BG1. Whole Candlekep area was one big tutorial.


    Well not really... It didn't teach you how to pick locks, find traps or the basics of combat. I guess the tutors were sort of a tutorial now that I think about it... Fine I'll semi concede this point :) That said I'd still much rather have the tutorial follow the BG2 format than BG1

    Don't remember about picking locks, but there certainly was a teacher who was giving the basics of combat in some basement, where he had some illusions of enemies and party members. BIS even made fun out of it in IWD2, where were those adventurers telling stories about their beginnings, like one of them had to fight some illusions in the basement and solved the problem going directly after illusionist ;)

    And I agree, BG2 tutorial was better being completely optional AND separated module from the main game.



    No arguing there, I was just pointing the fact that BG had actually built-in tutorial parts at the beginning of the game.

  3. Tim and I would rather not give XP for general killin' because it leads to a lot of weird/degenerate scenarios, but I have no problem with having quests oriented specifically around killing and receiving XP for achieving sub-objectives/the main goal.


    Sorry, I don't understand the answer. Are you telling me that every single encounter in this game has an objective? What's the "degenerate" bit all about?


    Srsly, this is a big deal to me and possibly others. The XP mechanic genuinely makes me wonder.


    I think what he's alluding to is un-fun "grinding" in a lot of games. For example in some games with encounter locations where monsters respawn and you get XP for killing each monster you could keep grinding that area and boost your levels quickly which could then lead you to be overpowered for the point in the story you're in. By keeping most XP quest based you remove the grinding aspect and keep the story moving.

    Adding to what shibby said, it may be something along Witcher games: in there you get XP for killing creatures, but it's so low compared to XP rewards for accomplished quests, that killing alone won't make you level up a bit. Pretty funny in game about professional monster hunter ;)

  4. No matter how good a swordsman you become there should always be someone better, I'm just not entertained by games that are there to pander to the PCs God complex (unless its populous or something) and level scaling the way its done in Games like Oblivion and Skyrim is just very crude imo.

    Striking a balance is a hard one to pull off but crucial to the experiece I think.

    Back in a days, when I used to read computer games magazines, one had section aimed at tabletop RPG players, called "DM guide" and there said (among other things) something like this:

    "Never let players feel like they're most powerful being in the world. Approach like 'So now we'll storm that castle, take care of necromancer and loot his gold' is reprehensible and should be avoided. Players always should know there is something more powerful than the party, so they never know what will happen next and game will remain challenging for them."

    I think it fits perfectly what you said and in this topic. Being most powerful being removes the challenge, and with that, all the fun.

    • Like 1
  5. I'm not sure, SoZ pretty much let you win any conversation if it's winnable, and exploit each and every option. It would make picking protagonist's skills a bit meaningless. I'd probably prefer NPC's standing for themselves in dialogue when it suits their character; for example, if one of them is a cleric, you get a free pass to services his church provides, or something like that.

    Not exactly. SoZ-style conversation would allow you to pick "the talker", but nobody said his skill would be high enough to pass the check, so it's more matter of proper balance. On the other hand, if it's only PC who is a spokesman for the party, then rest of the companions would serve mostly as battle drones, maybe with exception of thief with his lockpicking and disarming traps ;) It could be just pointless to increase their non-combat stats, if they wouldn't be actually used.

  6. @Pidesco and @Dermi


    I am sorry but no, not really. Those are just not going to cut it. For one they are a grand rarity, secondly the stories are just not as good and having visual representation whether in still screens of nicely drawn art or cutscenes makes everything that much better.

    Nobody said it will be easy ;)


    The more important question at hand here is: why are people who don't care about story and plot driven by player choices here? Obsidian has a long track record for being ALL ABOUT story, player driven plot and multiple endings.....sorry but if you don't care about story why even look at Obsidian in the first place? It makes no sense to me. Not to mention that the Project Eternity description clearly states that Obsidian is dedicated to continuing their tradition of creating good stories and player driven plot and then Chris Avellone has committed to writing a novel so I can't even imagine how someone would think of seriously proposing that the story be shortchanged, diminished or ignored.

    I hope that, given the context, you're not referring to me here. I'm all for good game with deep, compelling story. But it's the game that is key word here. I play games because of their gameplay and plot, so it sounds a bit weird to see people asking "I want to play your game but please, make it as non-gamey as possible, so I can only enjoy story'. It's just not that kind of medium, so redirecting such people to read books or watch movies seems a good move ;)

  7. If you want to enjoy a story, read a book. How is that so difficult to understand?


    I like both gameplay and story, but the POV of people who don't like the former is pretty obvious to me. Books are linear storylines, while cRPG games offer branching storylines, thus being completely different in terms of "enjoying a story". How is that so difficult to understand?

    There is something for them as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebook 8) All branching story, no tedious gameplay.


    EDIT: Shoot, Pidesco beat me to it.

  8. I think there has been a misunderstanding. As his/her profile picture shows the Big Lebowski, I thought of the "opinion" thing to be a suitable quote from the movie. Loved the witcher, love GOG and Poland btw ;-)


    @Arch-Mage Troy and Abed in the moooorning!

    Ah, OK then :) Had no idea since I haven't seen the movie, as you can probably tell. Sorry for making you explain otherwise nice reference to some ignorant, it always spoils the fun (at least for me, when I'm in your shoes) ;).

  9. So.. without IE games there would be no Witcher series or GOG.com.


    That's just like, your opinion, man.

    Not exactly. I'm not sure about GOG, but guys who started CDProjekt said that after experience with publishing games they wanted the studio to move on and make their own games. At first they wanted to do a PC port of Baldur's Gate: Alliance, and when it didn't work out they started the work on a Witcher, who in the first approach was supposed to be a NWN mod. So, in a way, without IE games and Black Isle/Bioware, there wouldn't be a Witcher series.


    BTW, also Poland here, but southern regions, near neighborhood of Kraków.

  10. how do you imagine that you will gain enough XP in for example the pickpocket skill ?

    I'm not imagining it yet, as we don't know specifics of how XP system will work :] So far Tim Cain has just said that they want to reward people for solving the problem and not for just killing things. Also, XP add to common pool, so I can use XP gained through other means to raise the pickpocket skill.


    By one click actions ? It's boring, and there is no fun, no challenge.

    Challenge is in attempt, not in process. It's challenging to try defuse trap and not knowing if my disarming traps skill is high enough to do the job, or will it blow in my face. I don't see a need for additional activities during disarming, it's just dragging the process.

  11. What is the challenge of using non-combat skills ? We all know what the challenge of a fight is, but I don't want those non-combat skills to be easy to use, one click capabilities. Maybe we can imagine some kind of mini-game for stealing, a mini-puzzle game, like the lockpicking interface in some other games ?

    Please, not mini-games. If the skill of my character is high enough to deal with specific problem, then it's all that is needed. I assume my character is skillful enough to overcome any obstacles and can just open that damn lock or pickpocket that fat trader. Minigames are annoying, because in the end it's the skill of a player that matters and not the skill of character he created. It's perfectly fine to have skills working as "one-click", because it'll mean the PC is experienced enough to solve imposed problem and it should be entertaining and rewarding without the need of minigames.

    • Like 1
  12. To be honest, PayPal numbers compared to Kickstarter pledges usually are not that high (euphemism ;)). Brian Fargo got 2.9 millions from Kickstarter and about 100k through PayPal, Revolution Softawre, who recently got funded their new Broken Sword game received around 770k $ on Kickstarter and around 40k through PayPal. I'm not saying Obsidian shouldn't add PayPal pledge option, but compared to amount of Kickstarter pledges it's not something that should keep them awake in night. Of course, "to not have 100k and have 100k makes it 200k", like Esterad Thyssen, king of Kovir (Witcher lore ;)) used to say, but judging by other projects, they can count on getting through PayPal around 1-2% of Kickstarter pledges.

  13. Kicking It Forward is not spending the money gathered through Kickstarter on other projects, but spending the money earned from the finished project. Obsidian wouldn't be supposed to give 180k $ now, but after finishing the game and selling it, 10% of that profit would go for another project.

    Saying that, I tell I'm totally indifferent if they should or shouldn't support KIF. They know Fargo, work with him and know better than we about the idea ;) If they want to pursue it, then be it, but that's all. And Feargus is already supporting other Kickstarter projects ;)

    • Like 10
  14. Well, to be honest, Tim didn't say anything else besides there apparently will be two pools of skill points. He also didn't say that would indicate those pools would have equal amount of points ;) It can be simply made that warrior's like characters have bigger pool of combat skill point, while diplomats can have bigger pool of "non combat" points. Or, those pools could be tied to stats, so character with high strength and condition will get more combat points than non-combat, while character with higher intelligence/charisma will get more non-combat points than combat skill points. We just need to see how it'll work before arbitrarily bashing the idea.

  15. And it's very similar in execution: it just adds another factor (class/time) to the quest that is taken into account when calculating possible outcome. It all boils down to consequence of player's actions. In first example, as a consequence of choosing specific class you have/don't have access to certain quest and it's outcome, while in the second example when you choose to have your time there also should be similar consequence modifying outcome of the quest.

    In other words: you have no problem with being locked out of certain content based on class factor, but you cannot stand being locked out of certain content based on time factor, while both scenarios take place as a consequence of decision you made earlier. Is that right?

  • Create New...