Giubba
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Giubba
-
-
pathetic fanboyism.
-
Creativity and free spirit are good but if they are not tempered with common sense they became silly.
.....MAGIC. You're aware this is what we're talking about, right? Are you aware magic is a work of fiction and is not governed by the laws of physics?
Magic must answer to the law of its fictional universe and as someone pointed out on page 1 this is not the case.
-
2
-
-
Creativity and free spirit are good but if they are not tempered with common sense they became silly.
How many kids when they play became superduper heroes who can do anything ? The muscular mage is the same thing it's a naive stereotype.
-
I was searching this post since the muscle mage debate started, finaly i found it. :D
Its a short but interesting read about mages and physical fitness.
Its from the Steve Jackson Games forum, from the user D10000, enjoy:
Sorry for the text background color but I have no clue how to change it.
Myth v. Stereotype, or "My Wizard Wears Plate and Has a 14 Strength"In another thread on plate armor and spell casting I got off on a Semi tangent relating to magic user stereotypes and their conflict with magic user's in pre-D&D fantasy (this also overlaps and parallels Elves).
When I think of wizards I think of Odin, Mercury, Gandalf, Feanor, Elric, Kane or Simon Magus. Do any of them strike you as a skinny old bookworm? In many, many settings physical vitality is a prerequisite to surviving or excelling at magic use.
To me, a mage is either 1) a superior being or 2) a man with a particular skill set which is for no reason incompatible with him being 7 feet tall and able to kill with an axe, especially if he's an adventurer. I mean, even computer geeks in the army have armor and know how to shoot guns, and adventuring is way more dangerous. If Bookmouse wizards exist they're doing bookmouse things, not getting their hair clipped by throwing axes in some hellish pit.
Another example is the sorcerer Xaltotun from the Conan story "Hour of the Dragon", who is almost physically perfect in addition to being a super sorcerer. I feel like the weak wizard is more a projection of modern bookworm stereotypes than most genre literature that went before. There's some evidence that good looks, physical fitness and brains often cluster in the same individuals I real life, though obviously not always it makes evolutionary sense (it makes sense to evolve attraction to traits that are associated with the genetics for physical and mental fitness). Though it's not exactly fair I think plenty of us have met the straight A trackstar who became a stockbroker, or someone like him. IRL there's no guarantee of balanced CP, even if PCs are for character creation reasons there's no reason NPCs should be.
Now put aside the character point issue for a moment (this is one reason I like random character attributes, and I've rolled them in GURPS before) it seems to me that somewhere the public image of wizards changed to be a lot different than Magi, wizards and sorcerers of the past. Sure, they're often ugly or anti-social, but wizard from Mazdaran to Baba Yaga are noteworthy for freakish, superhuman vitality. The difficulty of killing and keeping a wizard dead is central to many mythical plots from Iran to Scandinavia, and those are just the ones I'm familiar with. And characters not explicitly identified as wizards, but who use sorcery and magic, are often quite vital; I.e. the virtually-unkillable-except-by-brute-violence elves of Poul Anderson's the Broken Sword, where the Elf jarl is hung over continually burning coals with no food or water for weeks or months and recovers in a few days, or Tolkien's Elves and the Norse Ljosaelfar and Vanir, our the Finnish shape shifting smith-heroes. To pick an explicitly wizardry example, probably the most archetypsl 'wiz-ards' ever look at the gods of magic and knowledge, Odin or Mercury. One a god of war and kingship, the other of athletic speed; neither bookish or easily outdone in a fight.
So the only character you are able to quote as being both great wizards and great fighter are gods,godling, or mary sue character?
Stop try to justify the unjustifiable.
-
Yeah. This.If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.
Josh, one of the things that I think you aren't taking into account when dealing with PoE numbers in general (i.e. not shifting the numbers to negatives and positives and only making things positive, or large numbers, or decimals) is that these "complex" numbers are easy for the computer to crunch but become hard for the players to comprehend in terms of magnitude and implication. 1000% bonus damage? What does that mean for a player? 10x damage makes more sense. Same with other numbers.
I really think you should look back at how you're implementing numbers and while considering that the computer can crunch those numbers for you, people have to actually make informed considerations with those numbers and keeping the numbers manageable will go a long way in usability. If people can't make calculations in a first-order model quickly, it's tough to truly understand that system.
Ultimately, present the information in a way that most people could understand it.
But mostly the problem I have is that there's no meaningful consequences for dumping a stat to 3. If you build a fighter with 3 Might, you shouldn't be receiving a 10% bonus to base damage (especially with a melee weapon). You should be receiving a significant penalty to damage. Your Greatsword should do less than its base.
You can chalk this up to "ok, so we just need to tweak the values a bit, stop whining trololol!!", but we all know it's more than that. The decision to eliminate stat penalties IS part of the "No-bad-builds" design goal. Tweaking the numbers so that dumping a stat carries significant build penalties would go against the design goal.
This!
Really i'm not playing the troll right now, but you really cannot see the Stun's point?
-
He's right, though. Fallout 3 isn't a very interesting game. New Vegas is pretty good, but the original game is pretty much like Oblivion.
I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.
Gandalf is good with a sword. What he's saying is that Gandalf is basically a half-god. Gods in general can be simultaneously great at everything.
Not half, lesser god and you got the point mate.
-
Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.
"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.
Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."
Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed
But he's still inferior.
Lemme do another comparison and guess which game I'm citing: Fallout New Vegas, cause I'd have sex with that game and take a bullet for it. <3
Anyways, you know what ultimately is gonna set apart two characters in New Vegas with 100 Melee Weapons skill? Perks. The game was admittedly poorly balanced skillpoint-wise for level 50, for obvious reasons (initially capped at 30), so capping skills was pretty easy.
So doesn't that destroy roleplaying? Won't my Legionaire skilled in Melee weapons and unarmed tactics be just as good with energy weapons as my Brotherhood of Steel paladin and vice-versa? No, because perks. Perks made all the difference between "competence" and "mastery." 100 Melee weapons without a perk just means you deal considerable damage with melee weapons. A character with all the perks though...? They can't be knocked down, they knockdown on hit, they do massive damage to blocking opponents and they attack faster. You put two characters with 100 melee weapons against each other while only one has perks, the unperked one doesn't have a prayer.
Same concept here. Yes you CAN go melee with a sword as a wizard....but why would you? A Wizard can't knockdown with a sword, a Fighter can. Likewise a wizard can already cast from range and auto-attack with a staff, so why would you diminish his ability by making him melee? You wouldn't.
And to top that off, what law of the land ever claimed a character like Gandalf cannot possibly be competent in swordplay? That's nonsense. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be physically capable aswell. That little trope came into play to reinforce RPG mechanics, as replay value and varied character playstyle are a cornerstone of RPG gameplay.....But we HAVE the varied gameplay here! The Fighter and Wizard are both capable of things the other is not! Just because they have a common ground in that both can wield a sword competently does not mean they're the same; you'd NEVER create a wizard with the sole intent of him meleeing with a sword because that's madness. Likewise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think wizards are capable of taking the weapon talents that award increased skill with that weapon type, so they'd fall behind in that regard aswell.
So wtf is the issue? Dear god, your wizard can use a sword without accidently cutting his **** off! Surely this is a crime against humanity!
Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff.
But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .
Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.
BUT WHY WOULD YOU MELEE?
That's the point, you wouldn't. The magic you can dish out as a wizard is far superior and you get a magic auto-attack with the staff. Why on earth would you even make a swordplay-focused wizard? You wouldn't, that's the point. So you're complaining a concept is POSSIBLE even though it's completely counter-intuitive....you know, just like statting a wizard full with STR in a D&D game.
But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .
I have no idea what any of this even means and I hope you realize how hard you're missing the point if you're citing some LoTR lore as a reason why Gandalf wouldn't be good with a sword.
Never played Fallout 3
Holy crap yes i totally would, i could deal both physical and magical damage at the same time in theory i could be able to bypass any kind of damage resistence in the game.
About the lotro sutff: i wasn't really clear but anyway my point was you involuntarily mentioned a character that has literaly no possible restrain because it's bloody god (a lesser one but a god nevertheless), so you saying why Gandalf cannot use a sword? Well duh he's a freaking god of course he can do anything he want.
And yes i never played fallout 3 i'm not a particular fan of elder scrollish game and as i said post-apocalyptic stuff is not my forte.
-
It's magic, Giubba. They made up the magic system. They get to make up the rules through which it works. If in their system bulging muscles help channel magical energy in a way that makes spells do more damage, then that is perfectly logical and okay. As others have pointed out, it would even be nicely aligned with a whole bunch of mythologies from Conan the Barbarian to Persian folktales which associate magical ability with exceptional physical capability.
Also my muscle wizard is named Bulbous, and he definitely casts with muscles. Deal with it.
Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation.
And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one.
While the description of a wizard as a sad nerd that somehow his nerdines made him master of the World is more believable...
Yeah,right
Translate with a studious of a science that require hundreds of hour of study and specific training that do not leave much time for physical practice than that yes is correct.
And what about the sad nerd stuff?
Guys even in books author try to avoid mary sue character like the plague, do you think there is a reason or not?
-
Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.
"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.
Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."
Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed
But he's still inferior.
Lemme do another comparison and guess which game I'm citing: Fallout New Vegas, cause I'd have sex with that game and take a bullet for it. <3
Anyways, you know what ultimately is gonna set apart two characters in New Vegas with 100 Melee Weapons skill? Perks. The game was admittedly poorly balanced skillpoint-wise for level 50, for obvious reasons (initially capped at 30), so capping skills was pretty easy.
So doesn't that destroy roleplaying? Won't my Legionaire skilled in Melee weapons and unarmed tactics be just as good with energy weapons as my Brotherhood of Steel paladin and vice-versa? No, because perks. Perks made all the difference between "competence" and "mastery." 100 Melee weapons without a perk just means you deal considerable damage with melee weapons. A character with all the perks though...? They can't be knocked down, they knockdown on hit, they do massive damage to blocking opponents and they attack faster. You put two characters with 100 melee weapons against each other while only one has perks, the unperked one doesn't have a prayer.
Same concept here. Yes you CAN go melee with a sword as a wizard....but why would you? A Wizard can't knockdown with a sword, a Fighter can. Likewise a wizard can already cast from range and auto-attack with a staff, so why would you diminish his ability by making him melee? You wouldn't.
And to top that off, what law of the land ever claimed a character like Gandalf cannot possibly be competent in swordplay? That's nonsense. Just because you're smart doesn't mean you can't be physically capable aswell. That little trope came into play to reinforce RPG mechanics, as replay value and varied character playstyle are a cornerstone of RPG gameplay.....But we HAVE the varied gameplay here! The Fighter and Wizard are both capable of things the other is not! Just because they have a common ground in that both can wield a sword competently does not mean they're the same; you'd NEVER create a wizard with the sole intent of him meleeing with a sword because that's madness. Likewise, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think wizards are capable of taking the weapon talents that award increased skill with that weapon type, so they'd fall behind in that regard aswell.
So wtf is the issue? Dear god, your wizard can use a sword without accidently cutting his **** off! Surely this is a crime against humanity!
Never played Fallout 3,i'm not on post-apocalyptic stuff.
But anyway do you realize that Gandalf is a Maia aka the lesser rank of divinity of Ea? Just saying .
Why i would? Crap if i can make a character that makes the same amount of melee dmg of my fighter added with the magic dmg of a wizard who need cc ability i will be able to blow the sorry bastard ass out of his next 3 incarnation at very least.
-
It's magic, Giubba. They made up the magic system. They get to make up the rules through which it works. If in their system bulging muscles help channel magical energy in a way that makes spells do more damage, then that is perfectly logical and okay. As others have pointed out, it would even be nicely aligned with a whole bunch of mythologies from Conan the Barbarian to Persian folktales which associate magical ability with exceptional physical capability.
Also my muscle wizard is named Bulbous, and he definitely casts with muscles. Deal with it.
Prime sorry but i will never ever buy this animeish explanation.
And Conan the barbarian as example of believability is not exatly the best one.
-
Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.
"Muscular wizards do not line up with my stereotype of wizards, therefore the core mathematical mechanics and design of the entire system is flawed.
Also, I am incapable of opening up a dictionary and checking possible definitions of 'might.' Send help."
Putting aside that yes it doesn't align with my vision of a wizard, the primary reason i'm opposed to the concept is that is ridiculous pretending that a system that allow the existence of a character that can hurt like a fighter class and cast ,at the same time, the same amount of spell with the same effect of a vanilla wizard is nothing but inherently flawed
-
People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...
When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.
If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.
And that's the reason why they didn't.
The point is that this is a balance problem and not an inherent flaw in the core mechanics. I think what he is saying that they will tweak the impact of the attributes until they do have the desired impact.
Well no the system is inherent flawed for the sole reason that it want to make playable and viable build that do not have any logic (muscle wizard) and in doing so it opens the door to even bigger flawed build like the one Msxyz described in his post.
-
2
-
-
People who still defends the core mechanics should really try this little experiment...
When a PC build with all attributes kept to the minimum (not using the fifty something points awarded at the creation phase) is equally viable than a character with the points well distributed, then there is something fundamentally flawed in the core system, something no amount of re-balancing can easily fix.
If you adjusted the bonus scale for D&D's attribute system to go from -1 at 3 and +1 at 20, you would get the same outcome you're talking about, though -- and that would be a balance issue, not a fundamental mechanical issue. It may be that Might grants too little of a bonus from point to point, it may be that wizards' spells simply do so much damage that a low bonus doesn't have a large impact on their viability, or it could be something else.
And that's the reason why they didn't.
-
1
-
-
What is your reasoning that strength adds damage that bows do? Archer's strength determines only how strong bow they are able to use not how much power bow can put behind arrows that are shot with it.
And if magic adds physical damage that character do should that damage be determined by character's strength or intelligence? And what is reasoning behind you choice?
And how attributes should work otherwise in your system, meaning what attributes there should be, what they should do and reasoning behind them? As it is easy to demand changes in system but it is much harder to actually make them work in the game as intended.
Regarding bow: bow strings have a certain amount of kg of pull that they support, so a stronger bowman can pull further the string and transfer more force to the arrow once shoot, while the amount of force that a crossbow transfer to a bolt is only given to the physical structur of the crossbow itself.
Bu this is an abstraction because if you apply to much force to a bow string the string could snap or a bowman with a certain level of strength could always pull the string at his max capacity, it's simply another method for calculating bow damage (with some actual logic on his side).
For the rest: i'm not fairly sure what do you mean with magic add physical damage, you mean like in a lot of anime? Do we really want to move this game over the JRPG area?
And lastly:
Str:govern everithing that require physical force
Dex:given or taken as it is in poe
Con:Health
Int:govern everything that require insubstantial force like magic,intelligence(the mind,the psyche call it as you want) rapresent the will that people put in controlling something invisble and insubstantial
I would use only those attribute, the rest would be only a series of skill.
-
1
-
-
Yeah a stat that govern also the damage done by rifle.
So might govern physical,magical and the caliber of the round shoot by rifle and/or damage done by missile weapon in general it makes so much sense.
It make same way sense why one stat make you hit more accurate in melee and same time gives you ability carry more stuff, or stat that gives you ability to hit more accurate with missile weapon also make you better to dodge things and etc.
Attribute systems are always abstractions which is why they never can accurately represent reality.
There are various level of abstraction and might went from the "suspensions of disbelief" to the "bull****" area.
Imho Might should be removed put strength in his place that govern physical and bows damage, intelligence regulate magic damage/effect and crossbow/rifle do not get any attribute improvement to the damage.
-
1
-
-
Yeah a stat that govern also the damage done by rifle.
So might govern physical,magical and the caliber of the round shoot by rifle and/or damage done by missile weapon in general it makes so much sense.
-
2
-
-
Obsidian should just deprecate the attribute system and replace it with a bunch skills and traits so that we can build our party.
It is so simple in design, you could just cut it out and nothing would change anyway.
But balance!
-
1
-
-
Just a quick reminder to anyone who feels betrayed by Obsidian, accuses them of false advertising and says that they basically promised Baldur's Gate 3 and now they do all these changes and *gasp* have ideas of their own.
This was the pitch:
"Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
"Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment."
That's it. That's all they wrote about the influence of IE games on the game design. There was no mention of the attribute system they were going to use or anything like that.
So they repeat every 3 word titles of game based on D&D and how they will make a new game that take everything that was good with those titles made with D&D and incredible people are pissed when said game doesn't share basicaly nothing with those games made with D&D , ****ING A INCREDIBLE.
I was making a post if someone could ask to that **** of Sawyer why they put baldur's gate,icewind dale and torment on the ks page if they thought the core mechanic that moved those game sucked but we all know the answer, they wanted money they got it.
-
4
-
-
@Glubba JES has been extremely upfront about his design goals and his understanding of what an IE game spiritual successor means. He gave several video interviews during the Kickstarter, he had blogs here on this very site, and on Formspring. If you were at all interested, you would have easily found all that information.
That you thought it was going to be d20 despite them stating the contrary on the very first page of the KS says something about the research you did before pledging.
(The fact that you don't appear to know the difference between AD&D 2e and d20 says something else.)
EDIT
Everything relased before the closure of the kickstarter campaign was nebulos and focused on how the project was based on BG,IWD,Torment.
Magicaly the kickstarter campaign end and the detail of the real game start to pop up.
-
1
-
-
Not being a D&D-like game (or d20 if you just prefer to stick to OGL) has been known for ages too.
I like d20 but it was never promised. So I ask again: In which alternate universe?
They actually said they do not have a D&D license and do not want to make a d20 based system in the very beginning.
How hilarious and sad would it be if Obsidian's kickstarter wasn't so successful because Obsidian's fanbase is THAT large and THAT loyal, but because the kickstarter page spread like wildfire and somehow everyone interpreted it a different way, with the universal connection being everyone thought "Obsidian's gonna make a game just like from the good old fashioned golden years of gaming," cept everyone had a different interpretation of golden years?
Why hillarious and sad? It's what happened.
Not that Obsidian's name didn't genarate trust, but the IE games (which indead everyone translated in their minds as "the parts i liked from IE games") were the main draw. A p.much obscure company like inXile with a bad catalog of games and no fans made similar amounds of money promishing the same. And i know people that don't like Obsidian's games that pledged because they liked the IE games. (and like Obsidian devs because they made those 90'-00' games in the first place, even if they don't like their newer ones).
And that's why some backers will be angry at Obsidian no matter what they do. IE experience means completely diferent things to people. Some liked IE games despite D&D, and want a new system. Others liked IE games exactly because they were D&D and if you remove that, it leaves nothing of value for them. Others liked IE combat, others hated IE combat. etc.
The Ideal solution would be for Sawyer to be upfront about his design goals and be spesific about the things he didn't liked in IE games and wanted to change,
but this would affect pledges negatively. So they focused their pitch in the things they liked about IE, and the backers filled in the blanks with their Ideal version of an IE game.
Spot on.
Why hillarious and sad? It's what happened.
Not that Obsidian's name didn't genarate trust, but the IE games (which indead everyone translated in their minds as "the parts i liked from IE games") were the main draw. A p.much obscure company like inXile with a bad catalog of games and no fans made similar amounds of money promishing the same. And i know people that don't like Obsidian's games that pledged because they liked the IE games. (and like Obsidian devs because they made those 90'-00' games in the first place, even if they don't like their newer ones).
And that's why some backers will be angry at Obsidian no matter what they do. IE experience means completely diferent things to people. Some liked IE games despite D&D, and want a new system. Others liked IE games exactly because they were D&D and if you remove that, it leaves nothing of value for them. Others liked IE combat, others hated IE combat. etc.
Plus they weren't as clear as they could have been during the KS. They left a lot of things open to interpretation and did little to correct people who where getting the wrong picture. Only after it, did they start to solidify the image of PoE.
Now I'm not saying the guys at OE did this on purpose, but it's what happened, for better or for worse.
As far as i am concerned they did on purpose.
-
Did you only read the first paragraph?
"...a new RPG system, entirely new art, new characters and animation and whole lot of lore and dialogue." (Source)
(Also, none of the games they listed are d20 system.)
HAHAHA pathetic
Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment.Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.
I may fail at reading comprehension, but I always read that as 'the combat will be fun and intense, like Icewind Dale's combat' instead of 'the combat will be exactly like the IE games.' Unless you also read "take the central hero, memorable companions [...] of Baldur's Gate" to mean we're revisiting the Spawn of Bhaal.
Well looks like you are right from a certain point of view. They collected 4 milions dollars promising specific characteristic from beloved games franchise when they mean "Well no in fact we wiil make a game with nothing in common with those games but we need money so yes we put those title as lure, kthxbye".
-
Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment.Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.
STFU please.
-
1
-
-
If Obsidian forces us to do quests for xp; I want my money back. If this claim is true; anyone whom gave money to this project on the basis of the IE experience is entitled to a refund in full. Not a single IE game did something so awful and game breaking.
OBSIDIAN! DONT GO DOWN THIS ROAD! GIVE US OBJECTIVE OR KILL XP! LET US EXPLORE AND HAVE FUN!!!
Oh look, another kill-XP proponent who has an extremely narrow definition of the IE experience.
Actually I'm a proponent of BG-style exploration and non-quest level progression. Whether they achieve this through kill-xp or objective xp doesn't really matter as long as the basic effect is achieved.
There is nothing narrow about not being forced to do quest in order get xp for an IE game. Can you or anyone in the world give me even one example of a play through of an IE game they ONLY got xp from a quest? Xp is not some trivial detail; it is central to the game's system. Are you suggesting that the leveling system (Which is fueled by xp) isn't important in a game about leveling up?
Closest thing is Torment but even Torment had a certain amount of fight.
-
Radical Idea: Kill anything unique about the game and make a game we've already played before.
Exactly what we paid for.
In which alternate universe?
In the one where their punt on the kickstarter page
Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity
Instead i've paid for Sawyer private RPG who loooks like doesn't share nothing with those games.
The First Impressions Thread
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
First impression let's see......
Create a new game ok
Watch the cutscenes ok
Reach the first conversation....game crash even before reaching character creator
2nd try
Reach char creator and complete it
Move to the game
Nice first impression game seems more polished and involving than POE 1 beginning
Pass the very first sequence and reach the first map and....i start noticing strange stuttering and freezing,drop in the frame rate etc.
After a couple of minutes game crash
3rd try
Load the savegame
Went inside the first cave
Spent some time inside and game freeze for a good minute when i finish levelling up for the first time with my char.
I DID NOT uninstalled the game but god dammit i was close to do it, i thought that with poe obsidian finally move on from they ****ing trend of releasing game bugged to kingdom come.
I guess i'm gonna complete a POE game first so some patch will roll in and i hope it will fix some ****.