Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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 these kinds of games.
  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 I should reload"). No, it wont. There's nothing heart warming about failing critically when you are playing the game alone, it's just an annoyance. I very much disagree with these comments. I was going to go on a long spiel on how, while it is true those TT memories are more memorable because they were shared, that many gamers still have solo gaming experinces that they love to relive and share with others, both good and bad, and was planning on sharing a few of mine as examples. ...But then I realised I need only *one* example; A strategy game many here have heard of, if not played, that shows just how random bouts of good and terrible luck can imortalize a moment in gaming. That game? X-COM
  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 quite happy if I didn't see it as well. Though, I would be okay with options showing up as a [intelligent] or [Persuasion] or whatever prefix, so long as I had no idea if whatever skill or attribute listed would be high enough to work or not untill I used it (and sometimes, not even then, ala the interrogation of the Centurion in Camp McCarran, where you didn't know if you pick the right options, or had the skill to succed, untill near the very end of the conversation)
  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, just FYI. Correction: Another game using the name and setting of Arcanum is never going to happen; you will never kill my hope of another steampuck high fantasy game ever happening again! Then again, considering the "You will make kickstarter for the dev. money, then we get to publish and keep the IP" story Sawyer mentioned sounds exactly like something Activision would do...
  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 responce to the post I quoted, but I'll admit that a lot of my enjoyment was with how my choices leading up to and including the final mission were all brought together for a finale that usually had some very obvious diffrences because of it. I can also perfectly understand how you would have trouble getting through PS:T; For an IE game, the combat was nowhere near as tuned as it was in the Baldur's Gate series, nevermind IWD, and if you already find BG1 nearly too tedious to play...
  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 for Virgil taking over the conversation with the guy you meet when leaving Shrouded Hills in Arcanum)? I can see that working really well, possibly even better than the SoZ-style dialog, especialy since the party is going to be mostly companion NPCs.
  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 individual members of the group to have specific lines of dialogue based on various attributes. It was up to the player which one to select, based on role-playing decisions and the circumstances of the encounter. If there are options available because of the player's party compostion, how is that exploiting? In your example, a party member who is a cleric could be given a dialogue option that would only be available for him, which might allow free services at the church. That is rewarding the player for having a cleric in party, and having the good sense to choose that dialogue option. Harumph! Not to mention that (and I understand this isn't going to be based on D&D or the like) if you have a conversation in a TT game with the party, it goes almost exactly like it does in SoZ, with everyone pitching in when they "think" thier abilities are what they need for the job. ...and like Dermi said, being able to bring all the persuasive options available to a conversation does not always equate a satisfactory outcome. A smart GM (or designer) should always be ready to throw curveballs like multiple skills checks to ensure success, a "correct" dialog path that isn't always marked with [skill] tags or the like, and yes, simply forcing the conversation to be just 1 or 2 characters in the party as oppose to the whole group. Imagine rolling a stupid half-ogre with INT less than 8 in Arcanum and then using Virgil to handle every talk in the game. Would that be the same game? Would a unique style of gameplay with people's reactions mixed with choices and cosequences still exist? I would think it would be another facet of the many choices you could make to progress in Arcanum, especially since I would think that Virgil would have his own unique dialog options, as will as his own chances of success or failure. The one coversation in the begining where you can let him talk is a near-perfect example: even if you pick as close to the same choices as Virgil seems to, you can't get the same result if it is you who does the talking.
  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, the former leads to a better story) Because of 2, BG was "longer" as you could wander around more. But there's nothing inherently different between the two games that means one should have a better story. I, personally, feel IWD is one of the better, if not the best, realized stories (with a beginning, middle, end, clear plot points and protagonist, etc) that Black Isle / Obsidian has done. And, for me, IWD indeed has the best story ending of any of their games (with the acknowledgment that I've never finished, nor gotten far, in PS:T so I can't fairly judge it) I hadn't thought about endings before in regards to IWD but, yeah, I'm on the "better if not best ending to a story B.I./Obs has done" train. EDIT - yes, above, mentioned PS:T - and yes, BG wasn't mentioned and the BG series was BioWare... it's just that BG and IWD are often compared, and I mostly see it as BG was the story heavy series and IWD was the dungeon crawl, and I feel that's a false dichotomy... IWD was a dungeon crawl, mostly, yes, but BG was more open world exploration. Story wasn't the difference. Anywho, yes, when I say "best of B.I./Obs", I know BG wasn't theirs, and I include in the actual list Fallout's, KotOR 2, Alpha Protocol, NWN2 (not finished MotB or SoZ yet, so those COULD be better), ToEE... I though PS:T and MotB had wonderful endings (epecially the evil one for the MotB) I also thought some of the potential mashups for the final mission/ending of Alpha Protocol were pretty good to, though some of the better ones (like Thorton Inc.) might have been a bit obscure to discover. So I'm not too worried about a bad ending showing up.
  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 things will happen," and more of a "venerate me do what I want to make the bad stuff stop happening," group of gods and goddesses, and that your average person does *not* want to call undue divine attention upon themselves without thinking long and hard of what kind of trouble it will get themselves into.
  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...