Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
We're not discussing romantic affection. Romantic affection does not by itself constitute a video game romance any more than a handshake from an NPC constitutes friendship.Romantic affection is just a different kind of character response, of which there are already oodles of others in most RPGs.
LOL that's silly. So you're telling me that this is all you rabid Promancers want? Simplistic shout-outs of approval from NPCs every time you do something that pleases them, until you've pleased them enough that they drag you to their bed? "Ooh! you saved that Kitten from a tree! And that's the 7th heroic thing you've said/done! I romantically approve of heros etc!"That goes back to what I said before. The actual result should just be her reaction. If she likes that, she likes that. That is still something you should have to respond to, and not some "you picked the 'your character is totally romantically interested in her' options" situation. You did what you chose to do, for your own reasons, and she reacted according to her character. Then, you react to that. That's how it works.
Uh...Yeah Lephys, that's just about every bioware romance ever written. Tell me again how that's supposed to suddenly make romances better when it never has...EVER...?
Oh indeed. It means that doing that thing leads to success. Yep.Just because someone did something and failed, doesn't mean that doing that thing leads to failure.
-
And what would you suggest as an alternative to this "cause ---> effect" template that defines the RPG genre itself? A love meter, where the NPC's demeanor goes through incremental changes from neutrality to "I LOVE YOU" as the meter reaches 100 based on what the player does/says? Yeah, again DA:O did that. It's the only way to implement subtlety in a video game romance. It STILL fails. It fails because love is not a tangible thing that can be measured and attempts to conceptualize it with a meter just makes it feel gamey.^ False.
1) You can simply not have character written who go "Oh, he was nice? I LOVE HIM, TOO!"
BG2 did that with the Viconia romance. And the result is that it's probably the best one they ever did. But it still suffers from the "WTF! How did I get myself into this?" phenomenon because it's counter-intuitive. Someone who doesn't want to romance her will deliberately treat her like sh*t and the result is...romance!2) Same as 1. Heck, you can even be an ass to people and have characters who find that appealing.
No, that won't work. Obsidian did that in NWN2....and that game had the worst romances in the history of RPGs.So, yeah, just write characters who are believable and make sense.
Oh hey, I hear DA:I is attempting something like that. (you can romance one of your advisors or whatever) Yeah, do tell me how that goes in your game. Tons of people on BSN are already complaining about how dull and shallow such romances turned out to be. Which I assume would be an Obvious result, Since an RPG is about adventuring, and relegating your romance to 'weekend visitation' goes against that.In general, it makes sense that you can only develop a full, romantic relationship with your companions, because they're with you throughout everything that happens in the entire narrative. That being said, it would be interesting to actually be able to have a relationship with someone who doesn't follow you around all the time, who just lives in some village somewhere and can't wait until you aren't on the run/off to fix some crazy thing that's befallen you/wrapped up in world-ending events.
Empty words. PROVE IT. For the last YEAR that we've been having this discussion, you've given dozens of examples of what "could/should" be done, and every single one of those examples have already BEEN done and the results were always the same.... Failure.It's really not that hard to produce a concept of how romantic interactions can be woven into an actual gameworld and narrative, instead of just included as a dipping sauce on the side.
-
2
-
-
Because it overlaps with your examples and you end up with the same problem that afflicts all RPG romances. Think it through.Being nice to people, or mean to people, or making this decision or that decision matters a great deal in many games and worlds and narratives. So, why is romance not a decision that affects anything?
1. Be nice to People- you can't have Romances in a game that also has a "be nice to people" option because that will just result in what we got in DA:O, where people were nice to Morrigan then all of a sudden she's inviting them into her tent and the player is like "WTF, All I did was agree with her that magic is useful and the chantry is wrong, now she wants to have sex."
2. Be an Ass to People - You can't have that in a game with Romances either, since that's the opposite of love and affection. Now, you could counter with: "well, I can be an ass to everyone but the person I wish to Romance". Yep, you sure can. You can be a total ass to, say, Lelianna, and then be nice to Morrigan. And then... see #1.
3. Be Romantic to people - Sure. Of course, this requires that every single NPC in the game be romanceable otherwise it'll be a mindnumbing mini-game of trial and error. That's what Dating sims are about btw. But if the game only has a few romanceable NPCs then you'll either have to know which ones are romanceable (metagaming) and then apply #1; or choose the flirt option whenever it pops up in dialogue (See DA2's dialogue wheel); or apply #1 to everyone and wait and see what happens (Dating sim); Or the game can be designed to give you romance quests (there's the non-subtlety you don't want)
And none of this even touches the REAL issue: Romance writing itself is invariably difficult to do in an interactive medium like a video game. the Player is forced to choose only the small set of dialogue options that the game gives him, and THAT is what differentiates "being nice/an ass" from something far more defined/emotional like romance.
-
Yeah, well, that's just one of the inherent problems with Bioware's idiotic Dialogue wheel mechanic, which has been in every one of their games since 2010. It is designed to solve the problem that many players had in Origins where they'd simply choose the "curious" or "friendly" looking dialogue option then before they knew it, the NPC (Morrigan or Zevran in particular) asks them to bed. So now there's a dialogue wheel that labels every romance dialogue option with a giant Heart so that even the most clueless gamer knows what he's getting himself into before choosing a dialogue option.Now that I've put about 15 hours into Inquisition, and seen the first many romance dialogue options, I think I've pinpointed the biggest (but not only) problem: The dialogue options have their motivation decided for you.
The option might be "That's an admirable quality in a person," in response to someone expressing concern over some personality trait of theirs. And, while that could simply be said in a re-assuring way, it's *dun dunn DUNNNN*, a ROMANCE OPTION! Obviously you're saying that with 73 winks and nudges at the end of it.
Of course It ruins everything else. Romance is now a computerized mini-game, ie. "click here to romance this NPC!" but hey, This is what happens when you try to fit the square peg into the round slot.
Don't hold your breath. The Proof that Romance and RPGs are a bad fit is clubbing you upside the head. You're even noticing it AND describing it, yet you're still willfully holding out hope that someone one day will invent the solution. The fact of the matter is that if an RPG ever does what you're hoping it will do (Treat Romance as part of the world) it will no longer be an RPG, it will be a dating simulator.Haha. Annnnywho. Maybe one day we'll see it actually treated like a part of the world, instead of like "Okay, we're done with dialogue... NOW WE'LL ADD ROMANCE!"
-
In BG1 a mage can use slings, throwing daggers and Darts.Also in Vanilla BG1 what ranged weapon can the mage even use?
Note: Darts can actually be pretty darn powerful for a mage, since the game gives you darts of wounding and darts of stunning. Stunning darts are particularly powerful because they're the only weapon in the game that can stun an opponent. And with darts a mage can have 2 attacks per round. The downside to darts, though, is that they lack the range of slings, so a mage who uses them has to put himself in danger to do so.
-
1
-
-
Can we request that the 1 mb patch be mailed to us?
-
2
-
-
-Not to mention the fact that BG1's level cap was only 8 or 9, while PoE's will be 12It is also not fair to compare it with vanilla BG1 as that was first such game for Interplay/Bioware and OE has experience from making such games now. It is not fair to compare PoE with BG2 size or AI complexity but it is fair to compare to features BG2 had like big spells lists, lots of classes and kits and so on. Putting stronghold into PoE tells you even OE rather compare with BG2 than BG1.
-And not to mention the fact that PoE's Spell levels will go up to 6, while BG1's only went up to 5.
A more accurate comparison would be vanilla IWD1 (before its expansions), where your character could only reach about 13th level
-
There's our first problem right here.DPS
If magic has to be conceptualized and designed only within the constricting confines of soullessly gamey MMO and ARPG terminology, then this entire discussion is hopeless.
You don't get the magic behind magic. And I lack the communication skills to explain it to you. Suffice to say, we're ALL going to need to re-condition our minds and try to erase the DECADE of damage that games like WoW and Dragon Age have caused to the entire RPG genre.
-
I think many of us are operating under the assumption that Magic will be more powerful than a friggin sword or spear - and thus it should come with more restrictions (or 'Punishments', as you call them), as a matter of course.1) Why do you want casting times to be longer for stronger spells? Weapons have unlimited uses while spells have limited uses. Why would you punish a per rest ability even further by making it time inefficient and making armor an even worse choice?
The suggestion was that the more powerful/higher level the spell is, the longer it should take a wizard to cast it. Reason being that magic is supposed to be serious business. Not the trivial, "pew pew", bolt-action nonsense it has become in today's modern "RPGs". Or to put it another way, It should take my wizard a LOT longer to magically open up an interdimensional gate to the 9th plane of Hell to summon forth a Pit Fiend, than to simply cast magic missile. Yes?
-
4
-
-
Oh Boo-Hoo.Yeah, I would also enjoy to go to a forum where I'm constantly blamed for everything I do in order to justify my everyday work, especially if I'm supposed to be busy working on my job during chrunch time.
This double edged sword is... double edged. If by some miracle PoE turns out to be an all time classic, who do you think will receive the lion's share of the credit? That's right. Josh Sawyer. And it will be fully deserved.
-
3
-
-
You cannot ignore the past. Any company reckless and callous enough to discard their own reputation and put out such a thoroughly terrible and remarkably uninspired game like Dragon Age 2 does not just suddenly turn around and give us a classic the next time out. And in Bioware's case the situation is even more obvious, since DA2 was no fluke. Their last three games have been cheap, sub par efforts by even their own quality standards.
You people are operating under an epically irrational sense of Hope. You will be burned again, just like the Mass Effect fans who waited for years in anticipation for that series' grand finale, which ended up being nothing more than an e-bullet right through their hope-filled hearts..... and just like us DA:O fans who were so awe-struck by how good DA:O was that we blindly threw our money at Bioware in anticipation of the sequel, despite all the evidence that Bioware was planning one of the biggest in-your-face cash grab con-jobs in gaming history.
-
7
-
-
Indeed. That's the reason why they did PoE through Kickstarter instead of a giant Publisher: To appeal to the widest audience possible.... the non-hardcore gamer. To tap into Bethesda and Blizzard's multi-millions-strong fanbase. I get it.Just listen to yourselves , how can you possibly expect Obsidan to take you seriously. You are upset because you can't make an all powerful god like character. Balance in this game is probably important to a lot of people. Obsidan is a business and they have to make sure that the game has a wider appeal than a couple of hardcore gamers hanging around a forum. The bottom line , is that the people posting here - including me, do not speak for the majority of players. It's critical that Obsidan (and other companies) understand this, and make a game that will sell. So yeah, they are not likely to jump every time a few loud people cry.
Still not sure why they deliberately chose to sabotage their own advertising campaign by name-dropping games like Planescape Torment and Icewind Dale, though. Those games sold, what, half a million copies each? "Wider appeal" and "PS:T" are mutually exclusive concepts. Obsidian must have garden rodents running their marketing department.
-
1
-
-
Would what be fine? The combat? The classes? Or the castrated magic system?Ok, but you still haven't answered my second, more important question. A game could have a very unique magic system, where magic sucks in combat. Would that be fine?
My personal preference in a fantasy RPG is a powerful, dynamic magic system that is only 'balanced" within itself. But that being said, if developers manage to make all the classes unique, and the melee/ranged/stealth aspects of combat exceptionally good, I'll probably be Ok with the system as a whole.
But we don't need to talk about what-ifs, nor does PoE's combat get the luxury of being passable if it half-asses its magic system but keeps all classes feeling unique. THEY CITED the IE games, and they even name-dropped Icewind dale's combat. Those games were built around magic. Magic was the strong point of the combat in those games. Therefore, they have a high bar to reach and expectations to meet, despite what Josh might think.
-
5
-
-
I certainly can't figure any out from the list of spells that have been released to us. Or at least I can't see any of the 'Stinking cloud + Animate dead combo" nature.Earlier, I asked the question if the spells in PoE, from all of the classes, not just wizards, combine in the same interesting ways as the IE spell system and for examples. I judge by the dead silence from everyone that the answer is no.
I have noticed some cross-class potential though. Mages and Ciphers have spells that can hobble/prone an opponent, and then Rogues can take advantage of the affliction state to do massive sneak attack damage. I suppose we can stand up and cheer for that, at least. But to me that just reiterates the point that mages have been nerfed so severely in PoE that they're now just a support class.
-
Not. A rigidly balanced magic system that adheres to the very same rules, structure, effects and delivery methods that govern melee/archery would NOT achieve #2. There's nothing unique about a class who's attack forms mirror just about every other class's.By that logic, shouldn't get PoE away with a balanced magic system? If you disagree whether PoE achieves 1) and 2) or not, do I understand you correctly that a game that has balanced magic would be perfectly fine if it satisfied constraints 1) and 2)?
And PoE's beta is the quintessential 'Exhibit A' here. In combat, My ranged rogue playthrough did not feel different from my Mage Playthrough, aside from the occasional Fireball my mage was able to toss at the start of a few of the battles. They were essentially the same friggin characters. To be fair though, much of this probably had to do with the fact that PoE has total balance across the board (every class can wield every weapon, every class can wear every armor etc)
It's just DULL design.
-
That didn't happen in Bg2, did it. In BG2, mages were very much omnipotent, as you say, in every role conceivable except perhaps melee (and once you got shapechange, EVEN melee...especially melee lol)You know, I just typed up a response to the points each of you adressed, but for a good part there will be no respectful discussion here, no matter how much effort I put into it, so I deleted it. In fact, it can be easily summed up:
You guys think its great to have an omnipotent class that is basically able to do anything in a game, and that is fine. I think it's not much fun because that makes it a clear better choice every single time, devaluing everything else in the game.
But funny thing... I had more fun with my various sneak build runs (Rogues, Stalkers). Much of that had to do with the increased challenge, of course. But the main reason was because of ROLE PLAYING. People always forget this. Especially the Balance-firsters, like Josh. They forget that we're talking about a ROLE PLAYING game, not some PvP MMO. When you're role playing, the question of: "Is the class I chose just as powerful as the other classes?" is not relevant. It's not relevant because power differentials do not matter. There are only 2 things that matter in a role playing game:
1) Does the class possess enough skills to beat the game/overcome the game's challenges?
2) Does this class feel unique?
BG2 (and all the IE games) get away with having an imbalanced magic system because they absolutely nail #1 and #2.
-
6
-
-
Aah, you're trying to cite total party ability coverage in PoE to.... what a wizard can do by himself in a game like BG2...?Instead of two wizards in an IE games you can have any combination of wizard / cipher / chanter in PoE to more or less get the same number of spells per category per spell level, because summons, crowd control, afflictions and damage spells are all covered with these three classes.
Interestingly enough, that STILL doesn't even things up. For a couple of pretty gigantic reasons.
1) You can Multi-class your mage in BG2. Your mage can literally be a cleric as well. This opens up a 3rd dimension as, your summoner, Nuker, debuffer, crowd controller, afflicter, and single target focusser is now your HEALER and party buffer too. Oh excuse me, I'm selling things short. BG2 lets your Cleric/mage spell caster also be a fighter. So now he's a Nuker, Buffer, Debuffer, Crowd Controller, afflicter, single target focusser, Healer AND TANK.
2) BG2 mages have access to Project Image and Simularcum, 2 spells we have not discussed here yet, because we haven't really needed to discuss them, because no one was crazy enough to continue the absurdity of a BG2 vs. PoE spell comparison discussion to such a comprehensive degree until about a page ago. In any case, Yes. These two spells open up a 4th dimension. No need for another class (or even a second mage), when a single mage in BG2 can literally become several fully functional mages, all of them possessing the ability to cast spells, simultaneously. Excuse me, we're selling this one short too. Ever heard of the famous Throne of Bhaal army of cheese? Let me see if I can run it down for us. In about 4 rounds, a single mage can become 6 more mages, who proceed to summon 6 planetars. Of course, these Planetars themselves are super deadly spellcasters who, individually, can solo any fight in Shadows of Amn. But you've got 6 of them, being controlled by 6 mages, who were created by your Party's ONE mage....in about 4 rounds.
But I digress, Lets talk about a PoE wizard's Hit chance with Fan of Flames!
-
3
-
-
Matt Barton, Razor Fist, Angry Joe and a few others who would have gleefully paid for airfare out of their pockets for the opportunity to go to Paradox or Obsidian studios to take part in this live stream.Are there any prominent let's players whom specialise in the IE games? That would seem to be a lot more of a pertinent personality to judge the game in comparison to its forebear. Mr Cox seemed more suited to capering in the vicinity of an Organ Grinder.
But the decision was made to use this Cox guy instead? Mind Boggling.
-
I agree. I managed to endure it for an hour, but.... no more. Whatever cool new footage I missed in hour 2 will just have to wait until someone gets their sh*t together.Gawd, I can't take it anymore.
Having to listen to that Jesse guys mindnumbing, unfunny comments... mercy.
Good Job vetting your live stream guest choices there Paradox/Obsidian. Next time you might consider finding someone who takes your games seriously, instead of some herp-derp who's putting on a fake Tourette's syndrome act and who appears to have never played a computer RPG in his life.
-
1
-
-
Aaw, that's positively adorable!I'll have to play DA:I before I comment, that's the only way you should only ever start pass judgement on any game....first hand experience, then its informed
I was once all wide-eyed and naïve like that. After all, it's just a game, right. No one ever got burned by being fair and objective, right? So the best approach is always: 'Benefit of the doubt', "keep an open mind", 'play first judge later' etc.
Yeah, that works. Until you actually get burned, and then the real lesson hits you: you instinctively recall that not only did you ignore the warning signs and block out all the *reality* that was being shown to you in the pre-release review videos, but you eagerly gave Bioware $60 and virtually begged them to scew you over.
No, Bruce. The evidence is ALL OVER the place. There's gameplay footage. No one is going in blind so there's no reason to withhold judgement. Anyone who sees one of these gameplay videos immediately recognizes the nauseating cartoonish artstyle that ruined DA2. The silly turbo-charged combat, completely UNCHANGED from DA2. the Ugly, Las Vegas-like Neon lights UI. The uninspired "collect 10 of this item and turn them in" quests, which according to the reviews, completely litter this game.
They did not learn a damn thing from the world wide criticism of DA2. Basically all they seem to have done is take DA2, plug it into a new engine and stretch it out so that it feels like an open world. So instead of 60 hours of mind-numbing crap, they're giving us 120 hours of mind-numbing crap.
I'll pass.
-
1
-
-
Or according to my list, in a comparitable game you could actually summon some skeletons, have the cloudkill you mentioned or make it freeze a bit. Not so interesting somehow.
What? It's not comparable in the slightest, even if we intentionally ignore the fact that UNLIKE PoE spells, just about every single spell on your BG1 list increases in power as the mage levels.
The Wizard list you gave also contains a ton of summoning spells, dimensional spells (like dimension door, shadow door), Invisibility spells of different kinds, Charm spells etc.
Your list also doesn't take levels into account. No, PoE does NOT get a "good enough" pass simply because it decided to take a 1st or second level BG1 spell, nerf its duration down to worthless levels and then present it as a level 5 or 6 super-power.
But forget all that, because the comparison is STILL a joke. PoE's cap is 12th level, not 9 like Bg1's. Perhaps you should dig up vanilla IWD1's spell list, since it'd be a more accurate comparison and then we can scoff at your attempts to compare PoE's "slicken" spell, with Icewind Dale's Power Word stun, or Death Spell, or Smashing Wave.
-
Yep. This is true. And in those rare instances when a review is lukewarm despite the Hollywood level marketing and money being spent on the game, a giant red flag should pop up - that the game will probably be really really bad.AAA+ games always have good reviews. The more money was put into a game, the higher the review scores.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-11-11-dragon-age-inquisition-review
^Eurogamer. They give DA:I an 80, which is an above average score, but the review itself is rather scathing, considering the altitude of the situation here. We are talking about a major release from one of the biggest game publishers in the world. And here's some of what is said about it:
About the early game MMO-like questing:
The first hour of a game is a bad, bad time for it to be resorting to this crap.
About the strategic depth, choice and consequence:
None of this is remotely deep or strategic. When asked if a situation calls for diplomacy, spies or military strength, any of them will work and few require any more effort on your part than actively not declaring "Zhu Li, do the thing!" at an unlistening monitor.
[...]
This is all especially notable because the whole concept, and your position at its head, feels like it was invented specifically to offer interesting moral choices and difficult decisions. Very rarely though are you given a choice whether the best option isn't obvious, and I can't think of a single one that rebounded in an interesting way later on. There's nothing wrong with classic heroic fantasy and do-gooding of course, but here the shades of grey are notable by their absence rather than their intrigue, especially in the wake of other recent offerings like The Witcher 2 and Game of Thrones, where decisions constantly have huge implications. Here, everything remains insular, confined to its own bit of the story rather than being intertwined and paying off when you least expect it. At least, unless I was just unlucky.
And, <ahem> attention Bruce </ahem> About that NPC interaction, depth, and that 'camaraderie' feel:
So...what do you say, Bruce. Are you looking forward to romancing an asset?I had to go out of my way to even say hello. I'd have made an exception and brought Varric along on quests even though I didn't need a rogue, but he and Leliana (now your spymistress rather than a party member) have gone through the same thing as Anders, with much of their humour surgically removed between sequels. Leliana in particular is barely recognisable as the bard who was once up for a foursome with Isabella the pirate queen, and the ambient dialogue in general never got close to the zip of Dragon Age 2's banter or the squabbling between Morrigan and Alistair. BioWare games usually do a great job of making your group feel like family. Here, they were assets.
-
There are several reasons why Sleep in D&D didn't work on creatures who were higher than 4th level.And Sleep is always a game changer. There's a reason why the D&D spell didn't work on monsters with more than a few hit dice.
1) Because Sleep was just 1st level spell
2) Because Sleep has a giant 30 foot radius - it's meant to be used to disable whole packs of Orcs, kobolds, etc.
3) Because Sleep has a massively long duration (5 rounds per level)
4) Because Sleep was unusually difficult to resist (-3 penalty to saving throws)
-
Oh no. It's a 5th level spell, which means your wizard won't be able to cast it until he's high enough to cast 5th level spells. (which I believe is 9th or 10th level)Edit: lol lvl 5 spell? Or is it level 5 caster needed?!
Just to put things in perspective, the power of 5th level spells in the IE games was more along the lines of summoning Elementals; Unleashing a massive Cloudkill that instantly kills anything that's 6th level or lower and makes everything else take 10 points of damage per round for an extended period of time; Mass confusion in a 30 foot radius; Complete immunity to non magical weapon attacks for upwards of 2-3 MINUTES; and immunity to whole spell schools for turns.
So yeah, lets now settle for a 5th level sleep spell that lasts for about 3 sword swings and can only target one or 2 creatures, and then lets pretend that Josh Sawyer didn't manage to suck all the magic out of magic in the name of Balance <gag>
-
2
-
The Official Romance Thread
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Stun
More to the point: It is not unusual to do a good deed for someone (or a few good deeds) and then they react by becoming your friend. But it DOES feel odd to do that same good deed(s) and suddenly they react by falling in love with you. You are operating under the false notion that "love" or "romance" is no different from any other kind of interpersonal bonding. But the fact of the matter is that it's TONS different. Especially in a video game. If a romance in a video game is to feel anything other than 'tacked on', it must advance past the superficial flirting and friendship level. There has to be much, much more.... More time to develop, more situations, more discussion, more emotion, more focus on the '1 + 1 = Us' theme, etc. And not even Bioware has the budget for all that. Nor can an RPG do all this and remain an RPG.
Otherwise, it's best that they save money and time and just implement decent casual sex that is based on implied physical attraction, like the Witcher games do, because at least those can succeed based on both human nature and logic. Not to mention eye-candy appeal <ahem>.