Jump to content

Audiocide

Members
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Audiocide

  1. XP for a passive party member might help with switching around party members, but if they use an exponential XP system, they will catch up pretty quickly anyway. I think it's pretty unrealistic to have them go from wimp to champion while sitting around and doing nothing. I'm also against having all complanions be at your camp at all times. They aren't helping you, so why are they following you, no questions asked? Actually, it might make more sense to have them passively level up if they're out adventuring by themselves in the meanwhile.
  2. I can't agree more with what the OP said. I also like the Morrowind reference: "I am the Sharmat, I am older than music." That text was just wonderfully twisted.
  3. Of course. I was talking about the world in general. Although party members with different faults and weaknesses also makes them feel much more human. But Obsidian's characters were always very solid, so I have nothing to complain about there.
  4. I'm not asking for 11 classes or 20 companions. That's the part I don't care about. What I care about is if the game becomes way too simplified, just like any other recent RPG. It doesn't have to be a 120+ hour game, but I want a deep, immersive game. Fallout 1 had a budget of $3M, I recall Brian Fargo saying. That game was a bit short, but extremely satisfying and replayable. That amount would translate to a bit more today, but Project Eternity is very likely to reach that sort of funding in 30 more days.
  5. I don't mind a small party size, or most of the other stuff. If this game turns out to be too different from the aforementioned IE games however, I'll be majorly disappointed. I think most people actually pledged to see another BG, IWD, or PS:T. Not another Dragon Age or whatever. I love Obsidian's games, but I wouldn't be going out of my way to fund a project like this if there's going to be XP for passive party members, or other beginner friendly mechanics that kills the mojo of almost any RPG I've played in the last decade. I like rich, deep text in spell explanations, for example. I like complex, tactical battles that go beyond mashing buttons. Some kid threw a fit when I called those sorts of games deep, but that's what I want to play, and that's what I'd pay good money for.
  6. Whether people prefer to ignore it or not, the way most people are raised makes them weak. Also genetics. There are hordes of princesses who can do nothing but demand attention when they're in trouble, in hopes of getting saved. There are hordes of beta mommy's boys who will back down at the slightest suggestion of trouble, and complain about it much later. This is the way the world works. I have immense respect for strong specimens of either gender, but they are very, very rare. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland.
  7. I had no idea what "tropes" meant, actually. Not very internet-savvy at the moment. I'm not telling anyone what to do, and I'd be surprised if anyone at Obsidian took it that way. I'm only voicing my observations. I think all the dialogue in Baldur's Gate was excellent, by the way. Not meaning to offend anyone, and not sure how true this might be, but a BioWare employee once told me that they did Baldur's Gate, and Black Isle did IWD and Torment.
  8. Also, pet peeve of mine: choosing the right dialogue options to get laid. A female wouldn't be attracted as much to what you say as what you do and what you are. In a realistic situation, if you're trying to decide on what the right answer is, you'd probably have no chance anyway. Maybe just leave the romance thing out? Of course you can get "laid" with the right answers in real life^^ And omg its still a game you can not be as real as possible. If I just hear they never get animals right.... You can also do that with all the wrong answers if you are the right type of dude, and all the right answers won't help you if you aren't. But that's beyond the scope of this forum so I'm not debating this here. Just stating that the romance thing in RPG games ends up being a little juvenile most of the time.
  9. Also, pet peeve of mine: choosing the right dialogue options to get laid. A female wouldn't be attracted as much to what you say as what you do and what you are. In a realistic situation, if you're trying to decide on what the right answer is, you'd probably have no chance anyway. Maybe just leave the romance thing out?
  10. I agree with this. Going from struggling to survive in the beginning to effortlessly dispatching all but the most powerful enemies towards the end creates a real sense of progression. There's a couple of ways you can play that too. Rushing through the storyline quest and finishing the game at level 15 feels very different to really taking your time and getting there with a level 25 character.
  11. Finding out how the Father character came to be deified by reading his journals in Honest Hearts was the most beautiful thing in New Vegas. Kudos to whoever wrote that at Obsidian.
  12. While I was just a kid when the first Fallout came out, and I did bursts with my SMG on unsuspecting kids in Arroyo with gleeful abandon, I think that sort of thing doesn't fly in games anymore. No matter what rating. I know for a fact that the European version of Fallout 2 (with surprisingly good translations), didn't include children. So that you could not burst on them. You actually couldn't complete a quest, because the NPC was removed from the map. Anything involving children coming to harm will result in an automatic ban in many countries.
  13. Quite agreed. Looking at it in terms of D&D 3.5 rules, I was thinking something like the Knight's Test of Mettle ability. "Any target of this ability must have a language of some sort and an Intelligence score of 5 or higher. Creatures that do not meet these requirements are immune to the test of mettle. Creatures that are affected then make a will save to resist the effect" I'm not at all opposed to fighers or rogues having special abilities. It's just the nonsensical, miasmic flask type abilities that seem unnecessary to me. I was about to add what you just mentioned in my previous post. I can't recall the Test of Mettle ability of the top of my head, but it makes a lot more sense to me. I mean: you could try to taunt or distract someone who's about to smash your mage, but if it's a golem... I'd also rather have characters having class related abilities. Rogues having disabling abilities, but not being strong fighters, etc. All in all, I have faith in the developers. These guys made the games I'm talking about.
  14. I think poorly done animations and voiceovers really take away from the quality of the game overall. Leaving more to the imagination would be the elegant solution if you can't swing Mass Effect 3 level of cutscenes, which obviously aren't easy or cheap. Given the massive amount of dialogue in the games that this project aspires to emulate, it doesn't make much sense. Except maybe just a short intro to a conversation like the old IE games did.
  15. If it's cheaper and more efficient, it could potentially free the designers and artists to work on more, or better quality content.
  16. I never said the idea is invalid. However, you are just reaching about the taunts being magical. Actually, why would you want your fighters to have quasi-magical abilities? Is this because of the style of games you're used to playing, or a desire to have your player character be more powerful overall?
  17. What exactly do you think 3D maps and cutscenes will add to the game's roleplaying value? $1.1M is not a lot of money when you need to employ so many people. They have to prioritize. And just like the poster above said, the people have voted with their wallets as to what those priorities should be.
  18. I think this is the problem right there. The fighter is not a mage. The guy you're fighting is probably going for your mage, because he's the one who can do the most damage in the shortest time. He's not going to give up the juicy opportunity just because your fighter is yelling from the side. It's the mage's job to cast charm, fear, hold, slow, stoneskin, etc. so that he doesn't get squashed.
  19. I've played WoW, though I haven't really spent that much time on it. From what I gathered, it was trying to sort of equalize the combat strength of all classes so that none of them were too weak one-on-one with each other. I'm saying that in a hardcore RPG, it makes the game more interesting if all the classes have distinct roles. For instance: a rogue can't realistically take on a warrior of the same level, but can have devastating backstab attacks and then disappear back into the shadows or get away and rain arrows from a distance. I think the 3rd Ed. rules (at least as they were implemented in the CRPGs I've played) made the classes somewhat less distinct from each other. It did fix some things, however. Abilities such as hamstring makes sense for rogues, and flurry makes sense for fighters, as long as they don't make the two classes indistinguishable apart from the lockpicking ability.
  20. True. I actually played that demo. I'm not against 3D backgrounds at all, if the level designers can pull it off without being limited by the engine's capabilities. The reason I was citing NWN was those limitations. So if Obsidian chose to use pure 2D, or 2D/3D hybrid graphics, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Basically all I care about is a great RPG that I know these guys can deliver.
  21. I agree. The first time I've heard Bethesda was making a Fallout game, I was hugely excited. It sounded like a great idea to explore the Fallout wasteland in first person. And I still think it excelled in that front. The problem with that game was that it didn't feel like Fallout. The characters and the story was just a little too cheesy. It didn't have that same feeling of being an outsider in a FUBAR world.
  22. Wrong. God, you've had 30 posts and you're already annoying the **** out of me. Relax, kid.
×
×
  • Create New...