.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Merin
-
Posts
618 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Merin
-
-
I don't think it's trolling, considering how the game bombed on charts, hard.
Not that reviews matter much, but just for the record -
Metacritic: PC
Critics - 72, Users - 7.5
Not steller, but not "bombing hard."
Bombing hard would be closer to at least Game of Thrones Genesis if not Postal III. Those games bombed hard.
It would be more accurate that Alpha Protocol garnered a mixed reception, the median opinions being that it did some things great and some things not well enough for a decent game overall.
Given that in modern gaming press 10 means excellent, 9.5 means good, 9 means OK and 8 means that the bribe money got lost in the mail, 7 is pretty bad.
In the same way that getting a C on an assignment is bad. If you're a straight A student, or have jerks for parents, that C can be nasty.
But you passed.
And the 72 or 7 is an average... meaning there are 90's and 9's in there as well as 1 42 and about 43 below 5's.
Another way to look at those scores - users were 233 positive, 17 mixed, 43 negative. That's pretty good as far as I'm concerned for "people generally liked the game." Far cry from "no one cared."
-
Merin, I think you gave an interesting idea about point splitting on your thread http://forums.obsidi...implementation/
I would just say have the combat and non-combat skill points poll sizes differ according to your attributes or your class.
Instead of being based on perks... which I'm not even sure if they'll be in the game.
This way you could still have room for some min-maxing.
Thanks for the shout-out.
I tried purposefully to NOT define how those points would be attributed, or even hazard a guess at what Obsidian is going to (or could) chose to do about levels, classes, etc... trying to only focus on the combat / non-combat breakdown of distributed resources for character creation and development.
That other stuff is interesting and important too, but I was going for a narrower point.
Maybe too narrow? I dunno.
-
I don't think it's trolling, considering how the game bombed on charts, hard.
Not that reviews matter much, but just for the record -
Metacritic: PC
Critics - 72, Users - 7.5
Not steller, but not "bombing hard."
Bombing hard would be closer to at least Game of Thrones Genesis if not Postal III. Those games bombed hard.
It would be more accurate that Alpha Protocol garnered a mixed reception, the median opinions being that it did some things great and some things not well enough for a decent game overall.
-
Watching form afar used to be romantic... then, around the late 90's, it became "stalkerish."
Clearly there's need for protecting people from real stalkers... but in the realm of fiction, I think it's a bit much to jump on a common trope and call it creepy.
Meh. I thought like that before, but people made me realize she watched over him for twenty damn years at least, and since he was a child to boot.
It's on obsession territory, and therefore, it's "stalkerish", on the unhealthy kind.
The stalker problem comes from obsession and intent.
If simply watching others without their knowledge or permission is considered stalking, you'd find a healthy chunk of the populace as stalkers.
There's a line. Elanee, as far as I'm concerned, wasn't even close.
Course, I am biased in this situation. I'll just say Mason and see if anyone knows what I mean.
Although people didn't really care about Alpha Protocol's women. I wonder why.
I cannot speak for others, but I thought all the characters in AP were great... and I loved Mina, Scarlett, Sis and, yes, even SIE. I'm hard pressed to think of a BAD character from AP, personally.
-
If there was one thing I didn't like about Bard's Tale and the SSI games was the moving in first person.
So I would prefer not.
As others have said, it's largely a moot point for Project Eternity anyway.
-
Yes, a public thanks! Thank you!
-
There are at least three other threads on this. Just saying.
Voted anyway. My preferred option is being able to create my own party.
-
Obsidian has said that they are going to separate out combat and non-combat skills, so that the same resources are not spent on both.
This has lead to some cheering...
...as well as some concern.
The concern seems to chiefly come from those people who, at first glance, you would assume would be happy about non-combat skills getting to not be overshadowed by combat skills. I know I was.
But it became clear - one cause for worry was the possibility that there'd be no way to make a more non-combat oriented character (or a more combat oriented one, for that matter.) And this makes a kind of sense - that is a possibility, that the character creation becomes so cookie cutter as to be "choose you weapon style, choose your source of power, chose your non-combat skill" generic of a template where the choices are different but the characters are essentially identical sized and shaped lollipops of different colors and flavors. Many players want to have one character a lollipop, but maybe another a tootsie pop, and mayber a third a popsicle...
eh, let's abandon that metaphor.
The question remains - will players be able to make a more non-combat oriented character now that you can't spend the resources put aside for combat on non-combat? Now this is potentially (in my mind likely) a non-issue - Obsidian will design a great system and we'll all love it.
Unless their intent is for combat and non-combat to always play equally. And maybe that's still the problem, especially in getting to design your own character.
Balance, I'd argue, is important. Any race or class or combination of such should have the same maximum potential - you don't want one class choice to be gimped as compared to another. Some RP'ers who aren't trying to "win the game at all costs" won't care that their RP choice is not the most effective on a spreadsheet via statistics. But many players will be concerned, and this should be a worry - hence balance.
Again, any race or class or combination of such should have the same maximum potential... and I'd argue the same minimum potential. But there's this whole range inbetween for players to customize their character, where you can make purposeful (for challenge or for RP) "less effective" choices.
And inside of this thought process I found one (of I'm sure many) potential solution to the concerns of those worried about the dividing of resources into combat and non-combat skills.
(yes, here's the point I'm getting to)
When creating your character, regardless of race or class, one part of your shaping process could be chosing if your character is combat oriented, skill (what I'm going to call non-combat from this point forward) oriented, or balanced.
Think of this like have a choice of one of three traits at creation, a la the Fallout series.
If you choose the combat oriented trait, you get fewer skill points but more combat points (however Obsidian is going to divide up those abilities). Your character is now better at fighting but less good at the not-killing-things, not-absorbing-damage. And figure your thief or mage or cleric (or whatever classes) abilities are similarly divided into "fighting abilities" and "non-fighting abilities" for the sake of this discussion.
If you choose the skill orientend trait, you get more skill points but fewer combat points (basically the reverse of combat oriented.)
And, clearly, chosing the balance (or maybe default or no trait) will keep the distribution of those resources at the base, normal, average level as considered in the game world and mechanics.
These traits could even simply be a few of the options in a Fallout style trait mechanic overall, in fact.
Well... would this solve those concerns, and would you like this idea implemented (or at least something like it)?
-
3
-
-
A big old no.
Rewards for winning a fight as solving the encounter, yes. Rewards being larger for tougher encounters, the amount based on how challenging the fight was, yes.
So, in effect, yes...
but in essence, no...
and here's an example of the no. You can't try to gain entry to a building (the goal of the encounter), shoot down two guards but flee when four more prove more than you can handle... and still get XP for the two guards. You didn't succeed - killing two of the guards wasn't the goal. No XP.
It should be an equal amount for sneaking past the 6 guards, bluffing your way past the 6 guards, bribing your way past the 6 guards, or slaughtering your way through the 6 guards.
You, in effect, will almost always get XP if you choose to kill your enemies who are obstacles to completing your goal...
but just the KILLING doesn't give the XP. Achieving the goal does.
This gets murky when your goal IS killing someone or a group... because, essence and effect, you are getting XP for killing, but I hope the difference is still clear. And it'd be my hope, anyway, that you would still have other options with said target (let them flee and report them as dead, recruit them into your party perhaps instead, or lie to your quest giver convincingly enough after having not even approached the target.)
-
I don't need slavery in the game... that sounds weird to want it...
but if they delve into the subject of slavery in a mature fashion, I'm all for it's inclusion.
If it is included I would like to see different cultures different takes and views on it.
Ancient Rome's slavery was nothing like colonial America's slavery, the obvious example.
-
-
I apologize. I certainly didn't mean to imply anything inappropriate about those who enjoy the romances. I certainly didn't mean to imply that only those without significant others and/or are in bad relationships are the ones who enjoy the romances. Again, my apologies.
I also have a daughter.
I didn't think you meant it as an insult... it didn't read that way.
Don't worry about it.
That line of reasoning you alluded to, in simply trying to rationalize your own lack of desire for the inclusion of romance, is often used as a derogatory comment... but you didn't come across that way.
-
I would, however, take exception to diaper sex in the tents. If they just let the screen fade to black and let players use their imagination it would be a lot more subtle and appealing (at least to me).
I have zero problem with M rated games using nudity and/or sex.
But I don't need it. And, overall, I'm an advocate of "fade to black" in almost all cases.
Even more to the point, I'm an advocate for most games to not even get to the "fade to black" moment... personal preference.
But I'm very happily married, so I guess romance in games doesn't hold the same appeal to me as maybe some others.As am I. Fourteen years now. I have a daughter. I don't think this is really relevant. It's like saying that people only play GTA because they haven't managed to go out and steal a real car yet, or an FPS because they haven't gone to war yet and got to shoot real people yet.
Being lonely or in a bad relationship is not necessary to enjoy romance in entertainment media. Just like being a satan worshipper isn't necessary to play Dungeons & Dragons, despite what the media in the 80's told everyone.
Soldiers play FPS. Football players play Madden. You don't have to be lacking something in real life to enjoy experiencing simulations of it as well.
I don't know, I'll just leave it up to the good folks at Obsidian.
I think most of us, regardless of pro or con, agree with this.
The ones who'll be the problem, pro or con, are the ones demanding their way.
-
2
-
-
Temple of Apshai shout-out, woot!
-
No offense to the The Sharmat, but I do feel it is kind of unfortunate that the thread that gets to stay the discussion about romance is the one with this weirdly worded and intentioned poll.
-
1
-
-
I don't need a morality meter... but I want there to be consequences.
If someone runs around murdering others and stealing things, bad things should happen to them.
Just like if someone runs around stepping between bullies and victims, bad things should happen to them.
-
This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -
but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.
If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.
Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.
You should think about the fact that when you are in combat, your brain is also part of the process. A good strategy in combat means victory. Success is a balance between your character statistics and your skills as a player, your ability to understand the mechanics of the gameplay and use that knowledge to succeed(try to send a mage with low hp and no armor in close combat, for example). So, the dogma of saying "I want to have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine", is something you should recognize that is limited in scope.
I get to choose what my character does... but not if he succeeds.
In role-playing, at least in my opinion but I know many other RP'ers believe this as well, you are trying to decide what your character would do in a given situation. But you aren't trying to decide if they succeed.
So, using your combat example, I think my character would swing his sword. I tell the game to have my character swing his sword, and whether he hits or not is decided by his stats. I don't want to swing the sword for him (like TES games or DA2, for example, which still uses stats to determine overall effect but still.)
Similarly, my character comes to a computer that is encrypted. I decide that my hacker character, who has a high level of hacking skill, will try to break the encryption. Then the game decides, based on his skill, if he succeeds. I don't want to solve a word puzzle or mini-game... as fun as those can somtimes be (BioShock has ones I enjoyed) I'd rather not have them.
So, yes, I make DECISIONS for my character on what they will try to do. My character, I'm shaping their personality. But I'm not also acting like the master of proficiency and probability - I don't want to be my characters hand, nor the dice for that matter.
-
Like KotOR - press the X button the hand-holding NPC tells you. Whatever.
-
For the love of replayability - a stand alone tutorial that teaches you how to play the game that you can choose to play or not.
Preferrably a separate thing in the start menu but, at worst. like KotOR 2 where you can skip it.
If anything kills replayability of a game like, say, Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age 2 or... okay, those are bad examples of games you'd want to replay, but good examples of annoying forced tutorials at the start!
-
1
-
-
dlux, I understand your frustration.
Believe me.
But calling them "whiners" isn't productive. Don't sink to that level, it weakens your argument.
-
1
-
-
It sure seems like some of you guys are pretty free with other people's money ...
It's an opinion on whether we think they should or not.
Kick It Forward is voluntary. And they get to choose where they donate that 5% if they choose to donate.
I'm not going to hold it against Obsidian if they choose not to pledge - especially since they are already donating to several projects on KS.
Now Tim and DF, however... last I looked they hadn't donated to anything, so if they don't pledge either... I'll be a little less enthusiastic about supporting their next KS.
KS is a community of mutual support, not a marketplace of competition. Part of the attraction for developers is the freedom to not answer to a publisher, yes, but also the support they feel from each other. Often the biggest donators to KS projects are other KS projects - and for video game developers specifically, other video game developers.
-
There is very little I like about NWN's design, so by default I have to choose BG's UI.
That said, as dlux said, I think the DA:O UI is better.
-
I know I'm getting it - but I want rarity of magic. The fighter with the magic sword should feel darn lucky!
-
This is personal preference, not a decree from on high -
but, for me, I want to play a cRPG to create a character, select that character's abilities... and have that character succeed or fail on tasks based on HIS skill, not mine.
If he has a high agility and many levels of balance, I shouldn't have to manually maneuver him over a beam... he should be able to walk it based on his skill.
Conversely, if my character has a personality of a rock I shouldn't be able to mini-game him into convincing by argument a guard to let him pass.
-
2
-
Romances, yay or nay?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Merin
I'm for romances if the designers want to include them in their story.
I'm NOT for them as a stretch goal. Adding a race or class, alright, that has some affect on story and design, but existing characters and such just need to be adjusted a little. If they have 6 companions already and suddenly feel, despite not writing in romance initially, that they need to shoe horn it in because of donator demand... stuff has to be re-written and original concepts need to be changed and suddenly you worry about each group being represented and....
ramble off.
I'm for well written romances. I'm even for PC / NPC interactions (yes, these are different things.) But if the devs aren't wanting to include this in the story they are telling, they should stick to their guns.
That said, if they are wabbling and still in the early draft of characters - I'm voting for romance.
Of course, Obsidian's record for romances tends to tilt heavily in the prostitution direction... as in they have lots of prostitutes in their games!