Foefaller
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Foefaller
-
-
We will be getting an adventurer hall, so if you want moldable companions just head there instead of using the in-depth ones.
Everyone wins that way.
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.
-
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").cRPG's are based on Pen& Paper games. Where the most memorable sequences are those of fortune or misfortune. Any one with a favorite Pen &Paper moment will probably tell you something going incredibly wrong or good.
No, it wont. There's nothing heart warming about failing critically when you are playing the game alone, it's just an annoyance.Those events will make their moment more exciting. When a sudden mishap will fire up your brain cells to control the damage or a sudden luck will ignite hope against dire odds. In the end people will probably be thankful for that. Because it breaks the routine.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
-
1
-
-
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.
-
-
- Weapons or armor that break or gets worse over time
[intelect 8 / 15]- Shown skilllimits for dialogue-options (I really would like to say that, but sorry, I am unable to
)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)
-
you know, everybody always does the medieval fantasy setting...but just once i'd like to see a fantasy setting based on pre-medieval times such as the Roman Imperial/republic era. I don't think that's ever been done.
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.
On that note, I'm still hoping to see the Arcanum 2 Kickstarter
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...
-
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.
-
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.
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...
-
I would love the option of sending my companions to talk to people. Say there's some drunk I need to get some information from, I would love the option of sending the bosomy rogue companion to talk to him or to send the big scary fighter to go threaten him. I would have to have proper relationships with the companions and maybe have to deal with the possibility of them not doing exactly as I would like them to do. Maybe don't even let me see the conversation, I just have to take their word for it when they come back and tell me what happened. Would add a very different relationship where you have to earn trust with companions.
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.
-
I think that's where I stand.I like the idea of companion interjection. I don't want direct control over what my companions say though.
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.
-
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.
I'm not sure, SoZ pretty much let you win any conversation if it's winnable, and exploit each and every option.
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.
If there are options available because of the player's party compostion, how is that exploiting?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.
-
1) crap ending
interplay/black isle/obsidian has been consistent world-beaters in one category. is not storytelling, game stability or engaging game mechanics. nope. the obsidian guys tends to do lousy endings. really. the only game from these guys in which we had a genuine satisfying conclusion were, oddly enough, iwd. now, perhaps we can blame publishers for the way kotor 2 were concluded, but most o' the rest o' their catalog is equally anti-climactic. so... avoid craptacular endings. number 1. biggie.
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.
-
2
-
-
Based on this line in the pitch video, "If the gods won't answer it's for us to decide," I'm not so sure this is going to dovetail with the world they have in mind.
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
After Andrzej Sapkowski, black/white settings are pretty boring. By the way, Keldorn is interesting because of his personal conflicts and quest, not his outlook on life. It's the conflict that's interesting, not the naive paladin thinking.
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.
-
1
-
-
It's funny how this sounds like one of those "generic plot starters" from that "every Bioware game has the same plot" thing. I don't mean to imply that Obsidian redoes the same thing over and over, it's just this is so generic sounding, like it could describe a bunch of different games. I mean, it's not like they've done this hook before - wait a second, that's the plot to Mask of the Betrayer! And KotOR 2! And Fallout: New Vegas! Obsidian you hacks!The Set-UpThe player witnesses an extraordinary and horrific supernatural event that thrusts them into a unique and difficult circumstance. Burdened with the consequences of this event, the player has to investigate what has happened in order to free themselves from the restless forces that follow and haunt them wherever they go.
It's a tired RPG cliche, yes, but it's the best way to set up an RPG with a completly custom character without having to assume, and likely force, certain backgound/motivation/race/etc choices on your character.
I liked most of the story, buuut elves and dwarves?
Yea, even if they are different, I have to be honest that I am dissapointed with using them and not something completely new. Now we know two of the limited race selection slots and companions will be them. Also, the opening premise sounds a bit...er...generic. However, it doesn't give enough detail and details are important so I wont judge.I think most of us will be more excited when we have info about the other races, However, if one of them is an ogre I am pulling my funding..just kidding...maybe.
I am interested about the magic system, could we have some info and the type of magic we will be able to use. Also, is there any non combat magic? I feel that combat magic is all we ever get and it would be nice to have something beyond fighting magic.
Oh, one other thing, will everybody treat you different based on who you are (race/sex/occupation)? Or will people just ignore that and treat you the same regardless. I hope the former personally.
Would you prefer if they were call Tuatha De Dannan and Dwerrows instead?
...but if you are going to have slim, pointed-eared long lived humanoids and short, stock and typically hairy ones in your setting, you might as well call them something people are going to know.
-
I would like to see a mix of saying the right thing (ala DX:HR) and stats. Accually, Arcanum is a lot like what I have in mind; you had a persuasion stat for coversations, but you still needed to pick the right options with no up-front idea if that would be the right dialog option.
Last part is the important IMO. I would love it if all the conversations were like the Centurion captive in Fallout: New Vegas, where you were not aware if you successful or not until it was all said and done.
-
I'm sure if they made 10m, heads would explode.
Half of that, 5m, seems like the upper limit of what's possible.
-
I'm 99.999999% sure Fall from Grace is outright stated to being a succubus.
A chaste, Lawful Neutral succubus, but still a succubus
I remember her telling the story, that she was a child of succubus, thus she was sold to the Devils for torture.
None of which makes it impossible for her to be a succubus.
I mean, where do else do you think succubi come from but other succubi?
-
In PST, the races of you party were as followed:
Tiefling, Githerzeri, Succubus, Modron (think sentient geometric shape, with machine parts) Human(oid) who is a living conduit to the Elemental Plane of Fire, a suit of Armor animated by the ghost of the guy who used to where it, and of course, a floating skull.
Other races met included Alu-fiends (half-succubus) some devils, a couple of women of an unkown race who could shaped reality by describing events as if reading it from a story and a whole slew of other things that absoluting did not include elves and dwarves.
In other D&D games tiefling is one name for mixed breed with demon or devil. Fall from grace was HALF demon, because her mother was a succubus. She herself was a half breed.
Morte - human's skull.
Dakkon - gith.
Anna - Tiefling
FFG - Tiefling
Vhailor - human ghost
Ignus - human mage
Modron - brain fart.
I'm 99.999999% sure Fall from Grace is outright stated to being a succubus.
A chaste, Lawful Neutral succubus, but still a succubus
-
So did the lack of classes and races hurt Planescape Torment?
Just saying.
PST had at least 3 races. Haman, gith and thiefling, but only humans were playable, because TNO was human. So I could go with 3 races as long as two of them are not elves and dwarfs.
Besides when you promise to deliver a new original IP, people hope for new and original stuff. I know it sounds preposterous, but it just might work.
In PST, the races of you party were as followed:
Tiefling, Githerzeri, Succubus, Modron (think sentient geometric shape, with machine parts) Human(oid) who is a living conduit to the Elemental Plane of Fire, a suit of Armor animated by the ghost of the guy who used to where it, and of course, a floating skull.
Other races met included Alu-fiends (half-succubus) some devils, a couple of women of an unkown race who could shaped reality by describing events as if reading it from a story and a whole slew of other things that absoluting did not include elves and dwarves.
-
1
-
-
Is anyone else thinking that every class will have magic of some sort? In the video they mention that magic comes from exceptionally strong souls, and your party is made up of strong souled individuals. If every class has magical abilities unique to them, it definitely fixes the whole "fighters have nothing to do in combat but auto-attack" issue.
Considering Sawyer's mention of peoples souls, and how they are connected to magic, I'd like to see all the class have some sort of magical ability. Maybe the warriors-like class(es) might not be good at it, and there could still be a mage or mystic or whatever class that's good at it, but it kinda sounds like being able to use magic is the first noticable feature that seperates you from joe peasant.
Why yes, I do :D
-
To be honest, I'd rather have three really flesh-out races, that the world react to, that have unique gameplay and options, their own agenda or ways to solve quests than ten tacked on just for the sake of it, with only changed skin color and height. Think Arcanum: playing a half-orc or half-ogre was vastly different than a gnome.
that said, the stretch goals do look banal and poorly thought-out. Not because they offer things that should be there from the start, but because they are badly constructed from the bussiness point of view. I really hope the further goals will be more interesting, like mod support, or the psionic stuff OP wrote.
To be fair, they probably had to iron out the stretch goals at least 48 hours earlier then they thought
But yeah, I'm fine with *just* three-five races, even if they are elves and dwarves and whatnot, as long as the experince of playing as one race is distictive compared to playing another.
-
The Kickstarter video where Josh Sawyer talks about it makes it sound like the soul, along with being tied with magic, is related to a person's drive or will.
Does that mean that a person with a "broken" soul was someone whose will was broken? Does this mean a person's magical capability can be dimished because of mental trauma, or that you can't force someone to use magic against thier will?
Would that also mean that an ordinary person is capable of having a "mother lifts car to save her child," moment, where thier magical or supernatural ablity goes well beyond what they are normally capable of if something or someone precious to them is threatened?
-
Instead of Elves and Dwarves, I want Tuatha De Danann and Dwarrows
Joking aside, yes, let us play races that wren't brought to modern fantasy by Tolkien.
)
Yea, even if they are different, I have to be honest that I am dissapointed with using them and not something completely new. Now we know two of the limited race selection slots and companions will be them. Also, the opening premise sounds a bit...er...generic. However, it doesn't give enough detail and details are important so I wont judge.
Your vision of the 2.7 Million stretch goal
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
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.