Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Gizmo

Members
  • Content Count

    979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

285 Excellent

About Gizmo

  • Rank
    (7) Enchanter

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge

Recent Profile Visitors

2,870 profile views
  1. I resumed my Disciples 3: Renaissance mid-game save from 2014; I realized that I have two unplayed sequels to this game.
  2. Once, a friend and I were walking to his car, and were stopped by a passing kid (10-11 or so), and he asked us, "Do you guys work with computers?" My friend said, "Yes". The kid then said, "I wanna work in computers!". This impressed my friend, so he asked the kid what interested him about computers. "I wanna get paid all that money for just clickity-click-click", the kid said, while pantomiming typing on a keyboard. Yes there are bad students.
  3. Certainly Xan was intended to annoy, but he had the enchanted sword as incentive to keep him around.
  4. Xan Certainly he was intended to annoy, but had the enchanted sword as incentive to keep him around.
  5. Not only in the cell, but the cell is welded shut, and the PC has the option to question how and where he was able to hide Boo during his capture & imprisonment.
  6. Ah... I'm used to playing 6-8; 4 was a real let-down in WL2.
  7. ? It's integral; why would anybody want to play just one PC—especially so in a Wasteland sequel?
  8. A Grimrock clone in the Pillars setting? Funny, but I wouldn't mind that, or even a PoE blobber done in the style of the BT:classic remaster. I do think that the Pillars special text encounters would fit quite nicely into a game like that; as well as the inclusion of high quality quality portrait & encounter art.
  9. Why would anyone do this in an RPG? It defeats the point, and creates narrative problems where the PC has completed tasks that they [after reset] were never capable of doing to begin with—because their stats are different than before. This also means the reverse, that they can do tasks they were not suited to. This is like the Captain America film, but without the super-serum. He lives his life with a small frame, and low physical stats, then suddenly he's completely different—without any explanation, and in the case of RPG mechanics, very probably of different mental and social faculties... which could mean that their education would be different; that they could literally have already have used skills they never learned. Respec is terrible for RPGs.
  10. More of the same. *I wonder how many gold prospectors ever may that complaint when finding a vein?
  11. I would consider a spin-off title being a game that offers the same IP in a different format; familiar, but not the same core game play. Fallout 2 is nearly indistinguishable from Fallout at a quick glance—it's actually too close. You can see where the new sprite content was rendered with the wrong lighting & material settings, such that it doesn't match very well. It's practically a standalone expansion. But it's Fallout gameplay. FO:Tactics has the turn based combat, and great improvements to it, but it's not otherwise Fallout 3 material. It's funny but InXile's Wasteland 2 seems to be based more on FO:Tactics than Wasteland; I'd class WL2 as a WL series spin-off that's close enough to almost pass for a Tactics sequel. FO3 is Oblivion with with an IP reskin, plain and simple; not even a TES spin-off, because it's practically the same game repainted with a new campaign. FO3 seems like a FOBOS spin-off to me, because it's very easy to look at these two, and see the first —a lite iso-style RPG, and see the second as derived from the first, and made first person, with the world treatment being shockingly similar IMO; especially as pertains to the Brotherhood becoming the knights of the wasteland. FO4 I didn't play, but I have seen videos and reviews of it. I think they took the many forum suggestions seriously and were able —at least as a machine— to do the power armor properly & plausibly... though I don't know the specifics of its wear & tear, and protection, and of course... one would have to ignore their crafting & modding aspect of the game entirely. No PC would know how to make alterations to power armor... the very attempt is out of character—so that kills the roleplaying right at the start. Even the Brotherhood of Steel could only polish and cosmetically modify the armors. FO4 seems like a shooter with multiple paths. Based on the Fallout IP, but not really Fallouty, or very RPG-like. They appear to be following a pattern of simplification; trying to eliminate the last remaining vestigial RPG aspects over the long term. Presumably to make a 100% reaction simulation; to remove even the concept of roleplaying a PC (which not everybody 'gets'...), and instead offering simple player substitution. IE. "What you would do if you were there". No roleplaying at all. It's a badly skewed version of the Fallout IP world setting, but it's still recognizable. I'd call it a FO3 spin-off; offering the IP setting, but radically different gameplay. *Incidentally, I'd call FO:New Vegas a FO3 spin off too, but in this case, it's the reverse of Bethesda's typical treatment; it further complicates it with depth, and brings it closer back to the series proper. NV was still developed on the leash, so it's closer to FO3 than it is to anything else in the IP.
  12. Fallout was dead as of Fallout 2. FO:Tactics was a nice spin-off, with better combat than the original games (if you switch from the ghastly default combat, and enabled turn based mode). FOBOS was not a nice spin-off. FO3 was a FOBOS spin-off. *Don't believe? FO4 was a FO3 spin-off.
×
×
  • Create New...