PsychoBlonde
-
Posts
526 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by PsychoBlonde
-
-
Yeah, and you can totally control six people with that degree of precision! At once!
No.
-
5
-
-
I like them to match, but that being said, I don't want a ton of interior spaces where you can't fit your entire party in the room. This becomes an even bigger problem when you have combat to deal with.
The general problem is that the characters take up way more space than they ought to, and they can't navigate through narrow areas for spit. Solve this problem, and you don't need building interiors the size of a football stadium.
-
I never saw the point, it's just an inconvenience. I do kind of like how Torchlight does it for the majority of items--you don't see the prefix/suffix names when the item first drops, so you have to actually look at it in your inventory to see what the properties are. They use ID scrolls for unique/set items, but you practically find so many of them that there's no need to purchase any.
A method I would like, is if you ID new items by putting them on or using them. I think this would be cool, and it would also force you to actually don the cursed items, leading to hilarious results. It would also be really nice if they were extremely consistent about having unique appearances for different items, so when you find another Scroll of Prot Fire or whatever, you know what it does by looking at the icon. It'd give people a reason to pay attention to what the items look like. And, when you find a new unique, you have that little "is this cursed? Do I try it out?" thing.
-
1
-
-
So I do not want every place to exist purely for the role of story progression, or because quest to do there being why exists. Some places I merely just want to be able to visit for the scenery and atmosphere. You can have interesting things present, a monster never seen before, an item with lore attached at the heart of the location or strange people but what I mean is it should not be a requirement of having a quest at such a location in order for it to exist. I don't want everywhere I go to force the story progression forward or only reason to visit is to pick up or drop off a quest though I know some people prefer such.
I have no problem with this, but have you played Baldur's Gate recently? Most of the scenery consists of green and brown patches scattered with nearly-identical trees. Only a very few of the areas actually have unique scenery.
It'd be cool if they did something like a really big mountain, where there were multiple areas, and when you get to a view point, you get to see this enormous view of the entire thing. That'd be cool for atmosphere/scenery and so forth.
-
2
-
-
Movement speed in BG 1 was actually a little slow which is why it was increased in BG 2. I think the vast open spaces of BG scare off individuals that can't find an npc with an exclamation point sitting around in a place he has no business just chilling in. Nevermind the fact that even the most barren of maps had some hidden treasure in it.
Actually, the road just north of Nashkel has *no* hidden treasure and precisely one NPC to talk to. Most other maps will have one or 2 scripted encounters, that's all. It's been a while since I last played so I've been trying to be thorough.
-
Instead of fully random encounters in the "exploration areas," why not pull from a pool of crafted encounters?
This is more what I meant--have some that are just random "five wolves attack" and have others which are crafted. The random element would be in precisely when/where they show up, not necessarily all the aspects of the encounter.
-
Should being a female knight mean that you had to impersonate a man Joan of Arc style or that you had to prove yourself the equal of the other knights, or that they just all accepted you right away?
AFAIK, Joan of Arc didn't impersonate or present as being a man. She was commissioned by the king of France, who did so knowing she was a young woman. The example you're looking for is someone like Brita Olofsdotte who impersonated being a man to get into the Swedish cavalry (and after dying in battle the king approved her family receiving her pay) or Frances Clalin joining the Missouri Artillery and Cavalry alongside her husband. The adoption of wearing men's clothing in Joan's case (and in the case of, say, Joanna of Flanders) was more practicality than anything else (for a couple of different reasons) as they weren't trying to hide who they were.
I remember reading a statistic somewhere that upwards of 500 women fought in the American Civil War, most disguised as men.
-
Aren't you kind of proving the point that a smaller, lighter opponent can beat a larger one? A lot of it is genetics (which River had top notch to begin with and then was given even better through crazy experiments) which determine the natural strength of one's muscles. Besides, if you're well trained you can pull those moves off even easier in a real fight since, as you said, your opponent will have a lot more momentum (being a telepath doesn't hurt either).
Sure. But keep in mind that my housemate, while smaller and lighter than I am, is also substantially *stronger*. When a man is bigger than a woman, he's usually also substantially stronger. It's the strength that's the advantage, not the height/weight so much. Although strength + height/weight can really magnify the advantage. IF you're dumb enough to try to attack where your opponent's advantage is.
Also, I've developed being a wuss to professional levels, so I'm a really bad example on "fighting" anyone apart from cheap shots and low blows.
-
Are you implying that if, for instance, the Christian god, I am that I am or whatever, would actually appear for real in a public place and start announcing commandments that people would become less religious? Surely not. Believing in a proven God who has actually shown himself is still believing in him.
Certainly. Such a being would probably not even be able to convince a sizeable number of people that it was, in fact, God.
This is also the reason why, the more religious someone is, the fewer defined attributes their deity has, turning from specific descriptions like "Zeus hurls the thunderbolts from the sky!" to "God is omniscient!" which is about as non-specific as you can get. The pagans were fairly secular in their outlook even though they had gods everywhere, heck, their GODS were worldly and spent a large part of the time drinking, feasting, and screwing anything that moved.
-
1
-
-
How is this different from what you have in D&D?
The gods in the various D&D settings are generally unified into a cosmological system--they are a part of it, but have no ultimate control over it. Greek-style gods are somewhat more independent and thus much more erratic and interesting. The difference is subtle but discernable.
-
Did you even watch the video? That chick looked less toned and about the same size as River and she was throwing that dude around rather easily. As for why the opinion of a woman matters; it's because you thinking you know better than women about what is sexist towards them is, by definition, sexism.
Um, yeah, and he wasn't resisting the throws, either. If he actually threw his weight against her, I doubt she'd be able to budge him. I can't budge my housemate when he wants to resist me, and I'm 4 inches taller and seventy pounds heavier than he is--he is just flat-out stronger than I am, even though I lift weights at the gym and he does not. One of the major components of judo is that you use your opponent's momentum against them--the kind of momentum they have when they're actually trying to hurt you instead of just helping you demonstrate various moves. She wasn't "kicking his ass". She was demonstrating several different moves with his assistance.
Granted, it doesn't mean diddly squat in the long run, because winning a fight is more about using your brains to secure an advantage. If I wanted to kill my housemate, I wouldn't try to match strength with him, because it would be futile. It was rather amusing when we did some German Longsword fighting, because he would try to lock blades or match strength, and I'd just let him push past me and whack him right in the gut or the crotch with my sword. The thing is, I was wielding a big-ass sword perfectly well, even though I am flabby and weak in the muscles. I just wasn't hewing limbs off with a single mighty chop! But that's not a fighting style that'd be suited to my physique. Nor does having a bigass sword imply that you necessarily use a strength style. They don't weigh 50 lbs, you don't need to be some kind of bruiser to wield one. You want to see a weapon where you really need to be a bruiser to use it effectively? LONGBOW. Not many women can manage the draw on a real longbow, and there is no mitigation. It's pure upper-body strength with nothing to help you or compensate for it, no leverage you can use and still aim. (Throwing weapons are the same way.) Yet in movies they always give the bigass sword to the man and stick the skinny girl with a bow. Foolishness. Heck, legend has it that the Amazons actually cut one of their breasts off in order to use a bow properly--**** are not an asset here, either.
That's not to say I would declare I'm as fit to join the military as any guy. I'm semi-incapacitated from pain for at least four days every month, which makes campaigns extremely problematic. Hygiene is not a simple matter when you're fighting a war. Granted, not every woman has this problem in the same degree. Nor would this be a problem in every combat situation. But it does add a complication, and complications in wartime can get you killed. I, personally, think men do the fighting because their anatomy is less likely to get inconveniently fubar'ed, and certainly not on a regular monthly basis. Nor can they get pregnant. Facts which almost all fiction about fighting women conveniently ignores.
Heh, if they want to have some realistic male/female stuff in the game, have the female companion periodically get all grumpy and refuse to leave the base for a while.
-
4
-
-
There is a term in programming, "oversimulation". Shamus Young has a post a bit about it, if you're interested. In general I'd say it's something that has to be avoided. I can't help but feel that designing some kind of "beauty gauge" is one of the lowest posible priorities in any program, only slightly above creating a simulation of your character's digestive system.
It depends on what you're trying to simulate. If you're going for really complex interpersonal reactions, a system like this may be worthwhile. Although, I will say that the number of variables you'd have to track for a system like this would be staggering, and generate an equally-staggering number of BUGS. On the other hand, if the mechanics were hidden and complex as the OP suggests, such bugs would likely be invisible. But this could be a very bad thing, because it might make the interactions in the game look and feel completely random. How frustrating would it be to decide you want to romance X character on this playthrough, but to discover you can't because they don't like the tall chicks? Or to be unable to achieve the non-violent solution you wanted because you picked a different deity than on your last character?
If you really want complex interpersonal interactions, maybe you should start assigning characters to be each others relatives, friends, hated rivals, etc. But this would get ridiculous very quickly. If the game is going to feel random anyway, they might as well write the NPC's to believe *whatever* about how your character smells/looks/dresses/acts and just go with it.
Personally, I think a much better method would be to just . . . write complex character interactions. You don't need an unspeakably complex over-simulated global system to do this, but it would help to think of the PC as a character who needs to be written as well or better than the NPC's instead of as a select-o-matic box who only exists as a bridge between NPC dialogs. Give the PC a generic option or two for when people don't like the various personality options, sure. But put that personality stuff in there for the PC.
Here's the kicker--you don't have to get very many effects from it in order for it to be cool. For instance, suppose in one quest sequence you have to explain some events to several distinct groups of people, and you get options with varying deliveries and degrees of spin. However, have it be that if you do the *maximum* spin, the factions compare notes and consider you a liar. Here you've established a definite personality and gotten a definite reactive result from it. Then, later on in the game, have ONE callback to it, where you try to get someone to trust you, but they remark that you have a history of being a liar.
It's like callbacks in a comedy routine. They don't have to reference EVERY joke they've made in the routine in order for it to be hilarious. Nor does the game have to react to each. and. every. thing you do in order for it to feel reactive.
-
Not that I exactly expect Eternity to look like Baldur's Gate, it just struck me how most of the exploration areas in BG don't contain all that much, and the scenery is pretty bland and repetitive. There's at least one area that has zero quest involvement and no interesting scenery whatsoever--the only remotely "interesting" thing on the entire board is a dude who yells at you to get off his lawn.
Granted, due to the pre-rendered scenery, the game has aged INCREDIBLY well. It's the gameplay that feels a bit dated.
Anyway, it occurred to me that one way to improve this issue would be to move the random encounters to be a solely between-areas thing. Then you could make lots of little somewhat-generic (a swamp, a forest, a mountain pass, a campsite, a mini-dungeon) maps with interesting "random" encounters, and focus the main areas more exclusively on dense, interesting content and unique scenery.
There could even be gameplay elements involved with these random encounters, if, say, the mountain roads are plagued by bandits, and you travel through that area a lot and slaughter a ton of bandits, maybe you hear about the roads becoming safer.
Just some thoughts.
-
1
-
-
Must come from my habit of putting ALL the good gear on MY character and only stingily handing out what the NPC's need to survive.
Reminds me of the thread asking for companions to insist on an equal share/just taking things and not wanting to give them to you, depending on their personalities.
Heh, my attitude is: this is MY quest. I don't get to have the the moments of moral turpitude/stupidity/rampant emotionalism/etc. that the NPC's have where I come to save them from themselves and solve their personal crisis. Heck, most of the time when my personal crisis raises its ugly head, they wind up flat on their ass and useless because they decided dumping CON was a BRILLIANT idea.
Hence, I am keeping the good stuff. Because if I depend on these people to save the world, it AIN'T GETTING SAVED.
I don't expect the NPC's to go on about or even necessarily acknowledge how awesome I am. Although I would appreciate opportunities to meet their disdain with my own, or laugh in their stupid face when they're being an idiot. I don't like it that much when the devs always give the NPC's the "last word" in any discussion over ideology, especially when I personally, not my super-awesome fashion-model smarter-than-Marilyn-vos-Savant character, but me, Ms. Barely-educated average human schmoe, could gib their arguments even faster than I gib 1st-level mooks.
-
3
-
-
It sounds like a cool feature, but I doubt I'd use it much. I prefer to set most of my party to operate from autonomous scripts, and there's always a huge priority conflict between scripts and queued actions, so I either wind up cussing people out for not doing what I told them to do, or cussing because they did EXACTLY what I told them to do . . . when I no longer wanted them to do it.
I've been playing the BG:EE, and the only control issue that REALLY bothers me is that it's frackin impossible to time anything. It's sheer dumb luck if you manage to interrupt a caster during a spell, because initiative runs off this weird internal round timer. If you order someone to attack, they may or may not attack right away, even with a ranged weapon. It's infuriating.
Of course, if they use better spell mechanics than the stupid BS of 2nd ed, this will not be a problem.
-
I can honestly say that I have never run across this problem before. Must come from my habit of putting ALL the good gear on MY character and only stingily handing out what the NPC's need to survive.
-
3
-
-
I'd like to see gods as they were at the very dawn of history, when they had numerous names and epithets, legends of their doings in the world, were immortal but apparently not invulnerable, and did peculiarly non-legendary things like raising cattle and getting so drunk they accidentally sealed themselves in a jug.
-
1
-
-
Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.
Yeah to a large degree all you should get for good actions is warm fuzzies. Just like in real life.
I said "altruistic" not "good". The two are not synonyms. Nor would I get "warm fuzzies" for helping ingrates. However, if you like to fuzzy yourself, have at it.
-
I think an interesting idea would be to have a group of unusual elemental type gods:
1. The God of Bones: HIs purview would cover skeletons, teeth, shells, corals, mountains, foundations, fortifications, shields, armor, fossils, timelessness. A martial god that tends more towards mercenaries and those who stand guard or fight for no particular cause.
2. The Goddess of Blood: this goddess is the god of rivers, seas, lakes, swamps, blood, sewers, birth, decay, growth, planting, predators, drunkenness, and turmoil. A very chancy goddess, dangerous both to worship and to ignore.
3. The Goddess of Breath: this is the goddess of wind, the seasons, lightning, snow, deserts, glaciers, extremes of temperature, famine, ships, flying creatures, music, perfume, and cloth.
4. The God of Mind: Sometimes also called the God of the Flesh, this deity is somewhat dual in nature, being both the god of scribes, paper, books, writing, knowledge, libraries, rhetoric, and light and also the god of fire, destruction, carnal pleasures, plague, the stars, omens, metalwork, glass, pottery, and drought.
None of these deities are good or evil in any classic sense. Different cultures have vastly different views of these gods, depending upon which facet they consider to be dominant. A pastoral culture, for instance, might regard the Goddess of Blood as a benevolent mother goddess, while another regards her as the fearsome Leech Queen and yet a third considers her a vengeful nature goddess.
Also, in some areas, there is heretical belief in a fifth elemental god, the god of the Void. Little is known of this god. Some call him the Lord of Souls. Others the King of the Night. If he even does exist, his cosmological purpose and position is unknown.
-
3
-
-
In real life I selfishly pursue the good because the rewards are, in real life, much better.
What sort of "evil" could I perpetrate that would have great rewards? Rob a bank? Most bank robbers get caught. And money isn't everything. I wouldn't look forward to a life spent lying about the source of my wealth. Murder someone? Blech. I'd rather have peace of mind than spend the rest of my life waiting for the consequences of a few cheap thrills (which would not thrill me anyway) to catch up to me.
If you care about "realism" at all, then the "evil" actions in games should *seem* as if they have benefits in the short term but actually turn out to be poor in the long term. Sure, you can rob the storekeepers blind early in the game to get some quick cash. Then, later, you have nowhere to sell your stuff. Join the bad guys to rule with an iron fist? Sure. Later on, they attempt to sacrifice you to their evil deity.
Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.
-
2
-
-
I feel minigames like that fit better in a single-person game: you're the one doing the lockpicking, so you have to actually perform the actions. In a party game, a plain skillcheck is fine by me.
This makes the most sense to me as well. I'd like to see locks get used as part of tactics, also, such as letting your rogue lock doors so enemies have to come around through one particular passage. Or they could break the door down. I'd like to see lock-smashing implemented as well. The Amazing Invulnerable Balsa-Wood Container thing gets OLD after a while.
-
1
-
-
It's one of those things that, if you don't go all the way with it throughout the whole game world, you might as well not have done it. You give someone a swingset and they'll enjoy it as best they can. But, if you give someone a playground, then tell them they can only use the swingset, they're going to be upset.
However, if they CAN get things to that level, then I SAY YAY!
This is actually an area where using mini-games can bail you out. If you design the special encounters as individual mini-games, you don't have to worry (too much) about trying to apply universal rules to your entire game world. So you can focus on the universal stuff that gives you the most bang for your buck.
-
Paladin is pretty much my least-favorite pnp class. I don't really care how they implement it for P:E--if it looks interesting, I'll play one, if not, I won't. I do tend to like charismatic characters in games, though, so I may give it a shot.
As for whether their concept matches up with some concept I have in my head--I don't care. Nothing ruins a gaming experience like building up a bunch of irrelevant expectations beforehand. I'd rather see what Obsidian does with it and decide whether I like it or not based on whether it works well or poorly as a part of their overall class dynamic. Everything doesn't have to use the tired old D&D tropes in order to be good.
-
3
-
-
It's so much more entertaining when the loot launches into the air after you kill stuff, though.
That being said, I'd prefer to have corpses be lootable and then disappear after you've stripped them.
Running
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
I'd like it if all the non-caster types have special movement abilities. Maybe give monks (for example) a Jump style ability that lets them go from one point directly to another point, so they don't have to go around to the ramp in order to get from the higher area to the lower area. Stuff like this could be REALLY useful but it wouldn't be an enormous headache to manage with six people. Give Fighter types a "charge". Maybe casters can teleport or Tree Stride or whatever.