Jump to content

Foefaller

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Foefaller

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. Bards. Extra work on the Captial/main city, loved an earlier idea of a Athkathla/Sigil "City of Adventure" type hub. Would also pay more to upgrade the base we are getting into less The Sink and more Crossroad Keep. Paladins and a darker/eviler archtype (Necromancers, Blackguards, Warlocks, whatever). A massive, multi-pathed caper-type quest in the vein of Ocean's Eleven or an episode of Leverage.
  2. Well, to be percise, we will be getting that adventure hall only if the kickstarter reachs 2.6m. If you are saying the odd are good, I agree (even now, it's seems to be going about 100k every 2-3 days) ...and I don't think I've ever played a cRPG where I had completly control over what the character did in battle and did *not* have total control over the character's feat/skill/level/etc progression. While I can respect the idea of companions being indepent entities with thier own ideas on how to improve themselves, there is already a deep precident of the player having total control in the
  3. Thank you for making my original point, critical hit/miss is a remnant from PnP and should be forgotten in modern cRPGs. Those memorable moments when you slip and break your neck, or slay that ogre with a sling shot to the eye, they are only memorable because you were in the company of your friends who were enjoying the moment with you. That simply does not translate to single player cRPG where you sit in front of the PC alone, no one is going to enjoy the critical hit/miss with you, which makes it feel very empty and hollow, more of a nuisance really ("I failed AGAIN, how the fu....oh I guess
  4. I vote yes. I'm always a fan of a little randomness, even in RTSs (I've put in about 50-100 times more hours in DoW2 multi than I have in SC2 multiplayer, though that might be for other reasons...) I've always felt half the fun is adapting to the bad rolls and doing everything you can maximize the good ones. Not 100% that it should get as far as Arcanum though, with several possible effects on a critical hit or miss beyond damage or lack thereof.
  5. Would it still be okay to show that a choice is a skill limit choice but only if you meet the threshold. Something like [intellect] - I'm smart, so I can say this But if you're not smart you just don't get the choice? KILL IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! KILL IT WITH FIRE, DROP THE REMAINS IN TANK OF ACID, THEN PUT THE ACID IN A ROCKET AND SEND IT TO THE SUN!!!!!!!!!! So you don't want intelligent dialogue at all, or you don't want intelligent dialogue to be denoted as intelligent (the latter being which people were favoring)? I'm thinking it's the latter he's against, and I would be
  6. There are a couple. There is Gladius, a fun turn-based by Lucasarts, that is set in a Romanesque fantasy setting (though it was a console game for GCN/Xbox/PS2, so no PC gamming there). There is also an indie RPG that is set in a after-the-fall Roman Imperial/early Dark Age setting, but I cannot remember for the life of me what it is called. (EDIT: It's the Iron tower game posted right above me) For Action-RPG, there is Titan Quest, something I go back to now again even in this post-Diablo 3 and Torchlight II world. Activision owns the rights to Arcanum. That is never going to happen,
  7. I'm kinda eh about paladins. Based on what was mentioned for Priest in Update #15, it sounds like you could make a Paladin-type character pretty easy. Bards however, have been my favorite class in D&D since 3.0, using the magic of music and a gib tongue to get into (and sometimes out of) trouble is always so fun. ...and if they show up as a strech goal and we don't meet it, I will be very disapointed in all of you. Very Disapointed.
  8. Don't get me wrong, I love Alpha Protocol... but I wouldn't call the endings "great" just because they are so reactive. The ending was good - not as good, IMO, as the multiple endings to Bloodlines, mind you.... I'm currently (trying (hard)) to play MotB. I'll update on how I think the end of that game rates. I really don't believe I'll ever get through PS:T, however. I'm sorry - I love story, text and dialog... but that game is too tedious for me. *ducks tomatoes* Tedious like BG1 was, at least. I said AP's ending was pretty good, not great meaning "not bad" as a responc
  9. This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party. If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that. I guess it depends on if you can see all the battle-related options as *commanding* the party via the main character rather than playing it, even if you do have direct control of what they do and use.
  10. I think that's where I stand. I'm used to, and welcome, companions interjecting and possibly providing success through those interjections. But I'm not comfortable with SoZ style picking and choosing who says what to get the maximum benefit. Unless the conversation system becomes Alpha Protocol levels of complex and companions replace stances. Now that would change my mind. You mean like having "Bob, take it from here." as an option, and then he (or whomever) starts talking with no input about what he says, like an on-demand party interjection (or for a better example, the option
  11. I like the Op suggestions to the "PC always gets all the dialog skills because he does all the talking" conundrum, especially if they can add unique convo options based on who is talking. SoZ was wonderful in that way, not only letting the characters you created pitch in based on their race/class/alignment/gender/skills, but the NPCs who could join your group also had entirly unqiue dialog options of thier own at certain points. This, I don't understand. I have never approached a conversation, either in tabletop or CRPGs, as "winnable". What the SoZ party chat design allowed for was i
  12. To each his own... I thought IWD's ending was completely unremarkable and uninteresting. PS:T on the other hand had some of the most satisfying endings I've ever seen in a video game. ... Yeah, to each their own. I know IWD is remembered as a dungeon crawl, but the difference between IWD and BG were really two-fold: 1 - player made party vs. recruited companions (the latter could, arguably, lead to a deeper or more compelling story - I'd vehemently disagree it means a BETTER story) 2 - more linear story and where you go from where vs. much more free-form exploration (arguably, th
  13. I think that has more to do with the nature of souls in the setting (which one of the updates specificly mention as being the one Big Question the gods have gone out of thier way to obfuscate/hide the answer for) rather than thier willingness or unwillingess to involve themselves in mortal affairs. ...Which seems to me is very willing, based on the fact that "meddling" has been the most commonly used adj. to describe them in the updates. In fact, the use of "meddling," along with thier efforts to hide the nature of souls, also makes it sounds like thier less of a "worship me and good thing
  14. When I play Mage/Wizard/Sorcerer/etc-type characters, be it in a video game or TT, I usually try to make my character not look like the traditional "robes n' hood" wizard. Whether it's to pick up clothes to make me look like a simple or well-to-do traveler (like that Triss concept art from The Witcher 2 already posted a couple of times) or pick up heavier armor normally meant for another class, my chacters never anounce thier skill in magic until things go sideways. Definitly want both of those options avaible when it comes to gearing up any of the spellcasters in my party for this game.
  15. Really? Cause while his personal quest was great, to me it was because of he was a guy with a strong, moral standand without being an arrogant ass, something right out of Tolkien's black and white books. He was a well-written paladin who was an honestly good guy, something that even then had been deconstucted so many times that seeing the genuine article again was refreshing.
×
×
  • Create New...