Shades
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Shades
-
-
You mean the selection of icons that appear above the character portrait when I have him selected right? That's what I've been clicking on, the conversation bubble icon there. And he just says "This trip could've gone better." and the bubble stays there... Unless of course he's meant to just say that?
Hmm, seems Calisca also has one... Ah, I'm guessing those single lines are all they have to say. I was expecting them to just bark what they say when I get to an area and that the dialogue bubble would be for actual conversations rather than single lines. Well, now I know at least XD
-
This is probably something obscenely obvious, but I just can't figure it out.
I'm at the start, I've seen a tooltip that said when a companion wants to talk, they'll have a conversation bubble above their portrait. That seems nice and simple.
So in the ruins I noticed one such bubble pop up for Heodan. Hooray! I click it. He says "This trip could've gone better." and that's it, the bubble persists. I try right clicking the bubble, nothing. Since I need him selected to see the bubble, I now try selecting my main character and clicking on Heodan, it swtches over to him. The same happens when right clicking or clicking on their portraits- well, right clicking on the portraits brings up the inventory.
For the life of me I just cannot figure out HOW to start whatever that conversation is. None of the icons appear to have anything relating to dialogue, the manual says nothing about companions and how to talk to them, and neither does the Strategy Guide.
Somebody please put me out of my misery and just tell me what I'm supposed to do
-
I found one missing head in character creation, and figured I should check all the others while I was at it to see if there were more.
-Female Orlan heads 4, 5 and 6 are not there.
-Male elf head 2 is stark white.
-Male elf hair 10 not there.
-Male moon godlike head 4 not there.
-Not sure if the Cipher Powers that you can choose from on level-up are being displayed by their levels. Because I can click on 1, 2 and 3 and it shows the same ones. Presumably it's only supposed to show those for each level.-When Selecting 'Game' in options menu other option titles vanish though can still be clicked. Same for 'Graphics' and 'Sound'.
Sorry that I've put these all in one bunch, I didn't want to spam the forum with topics for each thing as I'm just noting down anything as I go along.
-
I think you nomancers underestimate us promancers a bit.
I would love to see some of the darker aspects of relationships explored, especially reactions after a romance has failed or been turned down (maybe if your PC is persistent enough about trying to aggressively pursue a romance with an unwilling NPC that NPC will eventually leave the party or stop talking to you completely). In most games the romance interest and PC continue on happily as if nothing happened. Perhaps you could have someone who gets obsessive with a love interest (who may or not return the attention) to the point where they actually hurt the person or try to lock them up or something. Maybe such a thing could tip a character over the edge where they kidnap the PC, run off and start some sort of horror dungeon like mentioned in the interview
There are certainly a lot of different and interesting ways things can go in romances that aren't restricted to the happy fluffy sparkly kind.-
3
-
-
I liked the way I could walk or run, without any sort of annoying side effects in PS:T. The only thing I wouldn't mind is making more noise the faster you go. Otherwise if you drain stamina is your character going to run until they fall unconscious? (and then you have to sit around waiting while their stamina goes up again) Or go into a surprise fight and fall unconscious after one hit? That would just be really annoying. Other penalties would be alright I guess, but they would still put me off using the run ability. Because if I'm using it most of the time it will be to speed up my progress in the game (it's not that I want to complete it super fast, but that my free time is limited).
I won't really care if there is walk or run if there's something where I can increase the frames per second like I could in BG (though that had a limit of 60) and BG2 (no limit, I went right up to 100, woo :D ). Yes it messes up/skips dialogue a bit sometimes, but on my 7th playthrough it made things so much better/faster.
-
Heh, I just thought, perhaps we could have an Order of the Chimera (IWD2 reference) requesting half-breeds in the PE setting
-
I think this would just encourage the 'I want more money spent on this feature that I like and use rather than this feature that I don't like' arguments. And we already get tons of 'I don't want development time/money wasted on that' going on.
-
15
-
-
The thing is would atheism even make sense in a world where the gods actively affect the world and possibly physically manifest themselves?
Sure you can.
The whole "God" thing could be some trick by an egomaniac who has a tad too much power going on, for one.
Or someone could deny Gods in the same sense that we have people that deny the moon landing, or that the world is round.
Or you could have both.
Or some third thing.
Yeah and people who deny the moon landing and say the world isn't round are also idiots and or downright insane. I don't think anyone wants to have a main character who is basically a moron. Maybe if they want to put in a joke NPC it could work.
Really? Then why the calls for having the idiot/low intelligence dialogue? (and I would be quite happy to play an insane character too) As for the world being round and moon landing... Have you been on the moon or in space to see that the earth is round? I'm guessing you've only seen pictures or video footage, so you haven't actually experienced these things yourself. I'm not into conspiracy theories and denying these things myself, but I can certainly see why someone might deny them because they haven't seen or experienced proof of these things enough to satisfy them. And that doesn't mean they are idiots or insane.
It works the same way here. I imagine in the setting very few people have actually experienced direct contact with a god. So most of the 'proof' of gods would be what you've heard this other person saw/experienced (you wouldn't even have photographs or videos to show you proof as we have these days). To me that leaves plenty of room for someone to doubt the existence of gods unless they have one walk up to them directly. And even in that case as mentioned the character may not think that they are gods, that they're some lesser (than a god) but powerful being masquerading under the appearance of being a god.
-
From a logical stand point of if it would be possible, the answer is in some cases it very likely would, examples follow:
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Canid_hybrid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglon
"Looking back millions of years into early human history, current research into human evolution tends to confirm that in some cases, interspecies sexual activity may have been a key part of human evolution. Analysis of the species' genes in 2006 provides evidence that after humans had started to diverge from chimps, interspecies mating between "proto-human" and "proto-chimps" nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:
A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding... A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes. "
I'm sure there are more, but I figure that is enough to say, "It could potentially happen". Important part to pay attention to here is this, "Ligers enjoy swimming, which is a characteristic of tigers, and are very sociable like lions. Ligers exist only in captivity because the habitats of the parental species do not overlap in the wild", meaning despite them being completely cut off from one another they still have the capacity to procreate. It's also fallacious to act as if half-races would eventually lead to there only being one race, all you have to do is look at races in today's world. Sure, there are communities where intermingling is blurring the line between racial differences, but there are other areas where racial diversity is as strong as ever.
It does pretty much boil down to what Obsidian wants then. As for my personal preference, I would definitely enjoy having half-races.
This is the type of thing I was thinking of regarding animal half-breeds. And for a pretty well known one you also have the mule (horse-donkey). It's also interesting to note that they don't always seem to be infertile, sometimes the females can produce offspring.
I'd really like it if that quote/what someone mentioned Josh Sawyer said on the issue (about there being no half-breeds) isn't something set in stone and that they'll change their minds about it. But I wouldn't be surprised if they don't either. I just think that they could do something interesting with half-breeds if they wanted, rather than simply... not having them.
-
Though of course I would like to see half-breeds implemented with some sort of prejudice (or perhaps the equivalent to a charisma penalty? Since both races that the half-breed is part of may find the mixed appearance unsettling if they don't assume they're the other race. And there's the possibility of them not quite turning out right, I don't imagine all half-breeds would strike a pleasant middle between their two races) as you don't really see this in the IE games when playing as a half-elf. I can't recall if half-orcs had much dialogue specific to them. And maybe half-breeds would get different reactions depending on where they were. As someone mentioned in the region that has a mix of human and elves half-elves probably wouldn't be frowned upon.
In Arcanum as a Elf you wouldn't be particularily welcome in the dwarf mines, and people would be stand offish in the normal cities (due to elven arrogence) and dwarves the same but reversed. Half orc and half ogre where very disliked/distrusted everywhere, although there where backgrounds that could help with that.
It made for some really good and interesting dialogue and question
That does sound interesting. I'll have to dig out my Arcanum manual and take a look at trying to play it.
I'm certainly not going to quibble with having variety, and I also don't have any strong objection to half elves in environments where there are already elves. I've played half elves everal times in other games.
To the extent I'm glad PE is going in a different direction, it's because the developers have specified that they're only going to be including 6 races. Including half elves means that one of dwarves, orlans, aumaua or godlike would need to be left out. I wouldn't mind losing dwarves (or for that matter, both elves and half elves), but I think it would be a bit of a missed opportunity if the game cut one of the races that had a little less baggage and that left a little more room for the developers to do something completely new.
It only means one race would have to be left out if half-breeds counted as a different race (and if they're really restricted by that number of races). I'm not sure why they would count as a different race. I'm unsure if the godlike even count as a separate race or if they're just subraces within the other races, I'd be happy to see half-breeds treated the same way (as subraces). As I've said they could even use the existing models with the player being able to choose one of the two parent races that they most resemble.
-
Well sure if we take it to an extreme conclusion, but that is not even relevent here since P:E already has a selection of playable races. I was saying something more like 'give us a limited choice of races but make that choice have a significant impact'.
My point is that if you keep saying fewer is okay it may get to such an extreme conclusion with time (after all DA: O had 3 races, a lot less than the D&D games that came before it, and then DA2 had 1). I'm not saying we should have so many choices for races that we have to scroll for hours to get through them all, just that more choice isn't always a bad thing. MotB had quite a number of races and subraces to choose from and it was a great game. And of course I'm pushing for half-breeds because I like playing them myself and we've already got the standard humans, elves, dwarves, gnome-inspired, orc-inspired and even the equivalent of planetouched as a subrace. So why not half-breeds as a subrace too.
As I've said, half-breeds wouldn't necessarily count as an entirely different race but could be a subrace. Using half-elves as an example, I think in some settings I've seen it mentioned that to a human a half-elf looks like an elf, whereas to an elf a half-elf looks like a human unless they're quite familiar with the other races features and can recognize that it isn't your typical elf/human. So it doesn't have to mean that every person the player comes across will scream 'Oh no! You're a half-breed!' (you could cut down on specific dialogue for the subrace this way). Only those that can spot what they are.
Though of course I would like to see half-breeds implemented with some sort of prejudice (or perhaps the equivalent to a charisma penalty? Since both races that the half-breed is part of may find the mixed appearance unsettling if they don't assume they're the other race. And there's the possibility of them not quite turning out right, I don't imagine all half-breeds would strike a pleasant middle between their two races) as you don't really see this in the IE games when playing as a half-elf. I can't recall if half-orcs had much dialogue specific to them. And maybe half-breeds would get different reactions depending on where they were. As someone mentioned in the region that has a mix of human and elves half-elves probably wouldn't be frowned upon.
-
I am worried because in upcoming Dragon Age 3 developers already stated that there will be no option to be atheistic.
As an atheist I would love to have the option to create a character who also doesn't believe in any deity.
Respectfully, this seems like asking to be pandered to. Being a fictional world with magic, the context of religion in P:E is naturally going to be completely different from our own, whereas "atheism" (as opposed to agnosticism, faithlessness, or a general lack of piety) is really quite specific and quite modern and therefore not a natural thing to import into the completely different metaphysical context of a different world. RPGs can't really get away with forcing you to play your character as a pious member of his/her culture's faith - and I've never seen one try, and therefore don't understand why it is such a burning issue to the melodramatic soapbox crowd at BSN - and it really is quite simple just to not pick zealous dialogue options if you don't want to portray a zealous character. And if you just want to establish that your character isn't religiously inclined, avoiding the appropriate dialogue options really does the job. Requiring the option for your character to endorse actual atheism, and to have dialogue options that amount to getting on a soapbox to bash the general idea of religion, is misguided.
You say respectfully... Then proceed to toss insults such as "asking to be pandered to" (really?, I thought I was just asking for an option, I wasn't asking for the game to revolve around being an atheist or anything), "melodramatic soapbox crowd at BSN" (I don't go to the BSN for the record, and I don't see what I or the OP said as melodramatic at all. You exaggerate, we weren't throwing ourselves around in despair. I also don't see why you're so preoccupied with boxes of soap), "amount to getting on a soapbox to bash the general idea of religion" (nowhere did I bash religion or mention bashing religion, let alone wanting the options to bash religion in the game. I find it insulting that you assume atheism equals bashing religion). I think your definition of 'respectful' may be a little skewed.
Atheism is the rejection of the belief in deities or believing in no deities, right? So if a character didn't see/acknowledge the gods as deities, but some incredibly powerful creature/being instead, would that count as atheism? Or perhaps you have a character who only believes what they see right in front of their eyes. Magic isn't proof of gods, and they've never seen a god in person (I doubt many people in the setting would have), so they don't believe they actually exist (after all magic can be used to explain a lot of things in some settings, especially mysterious and open worlds where there are still things undiscovered). Of course I don't expect to have a huge and detailed range of non-religious choices to choose from, but just one faithless option like you had in NWN2 would probably work in covering it. And who knows, maybe they'll feel like putting in some dialogue that lets you specify what you do/don't believe in more precisely. PS:T was certainly able to fit a lot of text in.
-
There is no real confirmation that half-breeds have been ditched altogether as a concept other than hearsay (no offense to Ausir). Regardless, it doesn't seem as though they will be a playable race.
Moreover, its not so much that people dislike them as the concept has been pushed to its limits. A world where races can't interbreed is fresher than one were outcasts between cultures exist.
I wouldn't be surprised if they have, they've mentioned a number of other things in various comments all over the place. I should have learned from other games by now to set my expectations lower.
Haven't a lot of concepts been pushed to their limits in fantasy though? As mentioned, elves, dwarves... Yet they're doing a different take on them. And I'm not sure that races being unable to interbreed is such a fresh thing, there are plenty of games already where you can't play as half-breeds. And PE will even have the god touched, which may be from gods interbreeding with mortals in the distant past or mortals being altered or magiked by the gods into being a little different, aren't those outcasts? If so they certainly haven't gotten rid of some of them.
Sigh. I'm surprised that so many people seem to dislike half-breeds, but I guess I do have a habit of liking unpopular things.
Well I don't dislike half breeds. I just always prefer cRPGs do fewer things and do them really well. Fewer races mean your race can potentially mean more as the developers have more resources to make each race distinct. So I would prefer we not have half breeds. But that is just me, it seems like a ton of people love lots and lots of choices even if those choices do not actually impact much of anything.
If we take that to its ultimate conclusion though you end up with only humans (and do I need to mention how boring that is in a game that hasn't got a set, specific character that you're playing?). As I mentioned you wouldn't even necessarily need to have different models for half-breeds, I doubt they would take up a huge amount of resources as a subrace of the existing ones.
-
Sigh. I'm surprised that so many people seem to dislike half-breeds, but I guess I do have a habit of liking unpopular things.
Hm, why do people dislike them? Is it because we've seen them in a number of fantasy settings? (we've also seen elves and dwarves in lots of settings, yet we have those... ) Is it just one of those things like romances that people just find offensive? Or because they think races should be separate (in which case oh dear, the races don't seem to be very distinctively separate in terms of regions in this setting, and as mentioned there are a number of different animal hybrids in the real world if you like using real world reasoning on a fantasy game. Infertile half-breeds would be a very interesting option to explore, a shame they've just ditched the lot).
Seems I'll have to finally play Arcanum to play a half-breed in a game I haven't played before.
-
Well that's... Very disappointing.
Half-elves are my favourite 'race' to play (don't like everything about elves, don't like everything about humans, how about a half-elf!), and I hated that Dragon Age didn't bother including half-elves and even came up with that stupid explanation of them all turning out as humans. I was kind of hoping that PE would finally let me play a half-elf again, especially with the D&D inspiration. Thought they might be one of the subraces to choose from (Elf>Half-elf would create a character using the elf model, Human>Half-elf would create a character using the human model, saves creating different models and means it can be applied to a number of part races)... But oh well.
I even would have been happy with having half-races being rare and sterile when they did survive as half-breed animals tend to be.
Eh... Guess I'll have to pick one of the other races.
-
As an atheist I would love to have the option to create a character who also doesn't believe in any deity.
And I may be misremembering, but didn't they say that the gods in this setting had been silent or not interacting directly for a while in the PE setting? If so depending on how long they've been absent I can certainly see the possibility of atheists springing up.
The suggestion of the OP for some who do not worship the gods or do not see them as 'gods' as such seems plausible too.
-
I would only be happy with a level cap if it was set slightly higher than the experience you would acquire in the game had you gone through thoroughly and done every single quest that you possibly could. Basically so that you would only hit it if you'd been spending a fair amount of time killing monsters that respawned over and over again or something similar. If you hit an xp cap during a normal playthrough or a normal thorough playthrough then it feels like you're being cheated out of any experience you would have earned after you hit it.
-
Awesome, congrats for getting over 4 million and 15 levels of the mega dungeon :D This was a great Kickstarter campaign, and I can't wait to see it turn into an even greater game.
-
You are forgetting one thing: that it is a battle/skirmish scenario you are talking about...not a duel. You are trying to rationalise, so let's imagine a real skirmish. And these tend to be fast and chaotic. When you kill an opponent, do you think his friends will just watch you lean over him drill a hole in his skull with your sword? No, as I see it, during a battle a participant that incapacitates an enemy will immediately look around and try to engage a standing opponent, because a standing opponent is much more deadly than an unconscious one. Because at any moment that standing foe can deal that decisive blow that will end your life. In a real skirmish you fight for your life, not XP. This is how it works, if you want to keep it real.
Actually a battle/skirmish is more likely to result in someone getting a sword in the head than a duel would. In a duel everyone is looking at the combat, so if someone is going to die, they could intervene by distracting the person about to perform the killing blow.
In a battle with multiple enemies it is easier for individual combats being overlooked for several seconds. Of course in a game that doesn't happen because we watch health bars and press pause to issue orders and respond to every circumstance.
But consider the logic of a priest being attacked by an enemy archer, the rest of the party are engaged with multiple foes. Meanwhile the rogue just lost all his stamina and is down. The rogues opponent then ignores the rogue and runs towards the priest or any other party member? And this always happens, in every fight? Much more likely the enemy stands on the rogues head, squishes his brains and then runs towards any other party member.
I guess once we see it in action we will get a feel for it, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be a much less realistic system than just having someone die and be resurrected. It depends in every instance on the enemy being stupid and ignoring the unconscious, every single time.
Exactly my thoughts. If I were in a battle and just struck down an opponent so they were lying unconscious and prone, I would quickly stick a sword in their neck/face/chest to finish off the job before moving onto the next opponent. It just makes sense to me. Especially in a world with magic, I mean what if the guy was faking it and the moment I turned away he went and did something (spell, wand, scroll, thrown potion, dagger etc). The only time I could see myself not doing this would be if I had another opponent right next to me that I was fighting, or a ranged opponent currently attacking me. However I still might be able to finish the downed guy off before moving to the ranged enemy.
I do see however that this makes sense in terms of not having any sort of raise dead option (if the enemy went and killed your character as soon as they were down it would probably get pretty frustrating). Just pointing out that it doesn't necessarily reflect what might be done if this were a real scenario. But then this is fantasy.
Thanks for the answers Josh, that clears a lot up. I'll be honest, at the moment it doesn't sound like my cup of tea but I'm pretty set in my ways around stuff like that.
For me, part of the fun of the old games was wandering around, finding cool encounters, fighting and gaining power for me to tackle the next bit of the critical path. This seems like it's a step away from that.
We'll see how it plays. Nothing's set in stone. I've just observed too much post-quest Black Ops slaughter to believe that players are going to behave differently when they can squeeze 1xp out of a peasant's head.
I may have a differing view from Monte when it comes to romances, but I agree with this. (and perhaps I'm set in my ways too)
I like wandering around and seeing what I stumble upon, whether it be a small items hidden, a group of enemies, or some NPC (there's something satisfying about clearing a map).
I think the dragon is a bad example because they're a huge, tough creature that can easily be associated with a quest. But what if say... I was wandering and stumbled across something that wasn't hugely tough, but not trivial either. And at my low level it was certainly tough enough and took effort to defeat... (say a dire wolf, worg or vampric wolf to use a BG example that springs to mind) Then I get nothing from defeating it because it isn't associated with any quest. And if it was it might seem a bit silly and extra work to have a quest for every single dire wolf I came across (assuming there are a number of them scattered everywhere). Would there be a quest for every hobgoblin I kill? Every gibberling? If not why should I even bother to kill them? (maybe I should just run away from every enemy encounter on a map instead, certainly saves me time if I'm not going to gain anything but injuries from a fight)
I think of xp gained from killing a creature to be my character getting better at killing things, learning how to avoid getting hit, strike in vital spots etc. They are perfecting (or trying to) their knowledge of the art of combat through practice, just like any other skill where you get better through practice. Yes perhaps easy things should be worth less xp as you get more powerful (though depending on how much experience we need per level those easy things could end up being a trivial amount anyway), but you could also have enemies not respawning, or not respawning very often.
And as for post-quest slaughtering, maybe it's because I like playing RPGs as roleplaying games where I stick to my characters, but I think I would only do that if I had say an evil character that wanted any extra items the questgivers might have after gaining information from them.
For solving such a problem, how about making the NPCs aware of it happening? If a character has gone around accepting quests and then slaughtering the quest givers a number of times then I'd think word might get around and people would be pretty reluctant to ask that person for help/give them quests in the future. Or perhaps they'll be asked to do something and then the questgiver will have fled so they can't claim their reward because the person didn't want to be slaughtered. Someone mentioned that regular NPCs might be worth no xp too which seems reasonable, though obviously a tougher quest giver who is skilled in battle should probably be worth something for the challenge that fight might provide for the player character. Another thing is giving the player the option of actually double-crossing people like that in-game. I seem to remember a quest in NWN:HotU where I was able to do this and the game actually acknowledged it, I think my henchman even commented upon it being pretty deceitful/sneaky of me to do such a thing.
-
Well they did have the cowkill cheat in BG that summoned and dropped a cow on your opponent. I wouldn't mind something like that but with cats :D
But really, any cats or mention of cats would be great. My cats would approve (by demanding dinner and destroying furniture). That reminds me, if we get a cat in our stronghold it should destroy furniture, curtains and rugs. And leave dead mouse/bird/rat/whatever presents on the doorstep every now and then.
-
3
-
-
Message to Chris Avellone
If people keep asking for romances even though there's a moratorium on romance threads, please do what you do best: make those tragic romances that punish the player. I know how much you hate those sissy happy romances, so I, as a humble fan of your work, implore you to either not give in to the lonely masses, or better yet, to punish them for their ridiculous desire with more tragic or twisted romances as you have in the past. They'll probably be thankful for whatever you come up with, even if you're mocking them as you do it.
You're right, I would love to see romances like those in PS:T (Annah and Fall from Grace) and MotB (Gannayev, don't think I tried Safiya) in PE. I also liked Atton in Kotor2, though I seem to recall something about him not being an actual romance (and I didn't care for... Mical was it?). Interestingly although I like bad endings I didn't like Bishop in NWN2 at all.
If Avellone wants to write tragic and twisted romances with bad endings, then I say go ahead. And I will probably like it, because half the time I make up bad endings for my characters anyway (they go insane or die or are in one-sided relationships or get maimed horribly or broken emotionally or betrayed and ditched by their romance interest or they use their romance interest to further their own ends or... You get the idea. Most do not end well, I am terrible to my characters
) If I'm given tragic romance, I will most certainly take it. With glee.Sidenote: Others however may want slightly less tragedy and the like, which is understandable.
-
I support the idea of lots of cats!
The only thing I can think of that I'd really like would be 2 more cats companions. Though I do think it would be a shame if they can't get to the 15 mega cats dungeon levels that they have in mind.
-
3) Modern cRPGs have streamlined inventories to the point where they don't exist. Often, the inventory is a list of items, plus a weight limit just so that your inventory isn't absolutely everything you come across in the game. Seriously, this is poor design. But I suppose it was to be expected, since games have always incentivized players to do busywork by going back and forth hauling short bows and leather armors looted from kobolds.
However, I'd ask this: why were they hauling so much trash in the first place? Why is "adventuring" so disfunctional in cRPGs? You don't go adventuring for trash, you go adventuring for treasure!
In old school pen 'n pencil RPGs, choosing what to bring with you was a big decision. Too little equipment and you'd be unprepared; too much and you wouldn't be able to run if things turned sour. Deciding how much food and lamp oil was a huge decision to make in dungeon crawls. Getting trapped by a sliding wall in a dungeon with no food is no laughing matter. Actually, any adventuring expedition worth its salt would hire NPCs for that single purpose: carrying things.
So, my third and final question is this: what kind of inventory will we see in PE? Will we at least have backpacks, as in Torment and BG, or are we going to have a list of stuff that enables hoarders to carry every single thing they come across?
3. We will have weight in our inventory system, and with more party members (6) we can make that number much smaller than many newer games. We aren't looking to design something that is annoying however. We'll be playing with getting a bit of a "realistic" feel for the inventory without making it super annoying. Hope this helps.
Glad to hear your comment regarding the inventory. The Infinity Engine's inventory system never felt very fun to me, just... tedious. If it's well balanced to allow the tactical elements of the gameplay to shine through, doesn't frustrate the player, and doesn't require you to spend a whole lot of time playing with it to get to the story, I'll be happy.
So does that mean... A list inventory?
Personally I actually like the IE inventory style... With bags for the different small things and a bag of holding you run out of space a lot less (it would be interesting if you could have pockets on your paperdoll that opened bags for these things like a gem bag and scroll case, meaning they didn't take up space in your backpack).
-
I've seen something like this done in quite simple games with small pixel-art portraits about the size of our forum avatars (for recolouring anyway), however I think it would be a lot more complicated and less feasible for the type of portraits that the IE games had.
Basically the art is going to suffer for it if you had something like this. Because to put multiple hair styles on a portrait it means you either have to have all the portraits in the same pose (which would start to get boring and more like choosing a 3D model head), or each portrait has to have multiple sets of hair to choose from (meaning a lot more work per portrait). Likewise being able to recolour them would mean the colour on your portraits suffers, because you wouldn't be able to have different lighting or light reflecting off other things and onto the hair colour etc very easily.
To get this to work you would probably need to simplify the portraits a lot. Probably ending up with something leaning towards a more comic or cartoonish style. That's my take on it anyway, and I have no idea how difficult it might be to try and put a layered image in where you can change different layers. I would certainly prefer the IE type portraits that we can swap for our own custom ones instead.
Update 93: Patch 1.03 - Important Community Fixes
in Pillars of Eternity: Announcements & News
Posted
Cats in hats! <3 I should make a new character called Dr Seuss.
Regarding the removed backer content... I'm so glad that the backer got to change it to something else rather than just getting nothing when they paid to be able to add something to the game and support it. I'm also glad that said new content makes fun of the whole situation, because it is quite frankly ridiculous (it was a very short, unspecific piece of text and I'm sure anyone could come to a lot of wild assumptions about it by using their imagination).
Equally ridiculous is the way on the other side people now seem to be threatening to not buy the game... Excuse me? You mean you're this concerned and outraged... But you didn't actually back the game on Kickstarter in the first place. And you didn't pre-order or buy it once it released... So basically someone who still hasn't bought the game now, is outraged at a tiny thing being changed (which is equally as silly as those who were outraged at the content itself) and will not buy the game. Okay, go ahead. Don't buy it. You miss out on enjoying an awesome game, and I'm sure Obsidian has plenty of other, rational fans who will be willing to help contribute if there is another Kickstarter put up for an expansion or sequel.
The good thing about solving this as quickly as possible by changing the content is it stops the angry mob from trying to drag this wonderful game through the mud. Of course now there's a whole new angry mob... But as someone else mentioned. This was backer content that was changed, not Obsidian's own content. I trust that Obsidian would be much, much less likely to change their own actual content due to an angry mob.
And now back to the cats in hats, eee! Thank you for the quick patch, and if those cats in hats are a joke please consider making them not-a-joke at some point in the distant future