Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
LOL
Sleep,The stream showed us the crappyness of wizard. Well he got lucky with criticals but otherwise spells didn't do much. Also boring spells that all just do damage, where is the Sleep spell? Where is Charm Person?
Ciphers have more of the charm powers, and he also just chose a really boring selection of spells. It would be just like if he inscribed armor, magic missile, and burning hands as a level one mage.
Case in Point:
Area of effect: 2.5m radius.
Duration: 10 seconds
And the punchline: Level 5.
In the IE games, a sleep spell that can target a maximum of about 2 medium sized enemies who are bunched together and lasts 10 seconds would be, at best, Level 1, and would rank just a little bit higher than friggin infravision in usefulness.
In PoE though, a wizard cannot hope to unleash such game changing power until he's about 10th level.
-
Bruce, I'm not the least bit curious about DA:I period, never mind the NPCs in it.
I have better things to do this holiday season than waste time on a sequel to the worst game I've ever played.
-
2
-
-
I'm pretty sure I never said it was. I'm pretty sure my point - which you missed on cue - was that there's a vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication, and a wide variety of emotions other than love, but Bioware writers only ever explore Romance. Because it is a crutch to them. They are incapable of going deep with anything else.AGAIN, that is only true if the dev team is void of writing talent and are unable to explore the vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication...and, you know, other human emotions.
I don't understand why a romantic relationship is somehow outside the "vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication."
-
And I corrected you.I said there's no reference for how magic should function.
There IS a reference. And Obsidian chose to cite it when they asked us for funding. 5 games. They referenced them by name.
Tolkein.I mean, if those 5 games are something to point to as a reference for magic, then what did the developers of those games reference before those games were made? D&D? Okay, what about before D&D was created?
Not sure how your questions can be answered any more directly than this. We are discussing fantasy tradition. But the problem is that the community here is multi-generational and "tradition" to a younger gamer means games with watered down, "pew-pew" magic, like what we see in WoW, Dragon Age, Skyrim, Witcher, etc. Such gamers cannot conceive of anything else. In their minds Magic is nothing more than another attack-form.... equal to a fighter swinging his battle Axe, or an Archer shooting arrows from his bow, only more colorful.
But the rest of us remember back when magic was much, much more.
-
4
-
-
I'm sorry Lephys, but try as I might, I cannot get myself to accept such a dull, modern-gamer's mindset.I was being sarcastic, to illustrate that "Because it's magic!" provides absolutely no basis for why magic should not be aimed. Keep in mind that that works for the "shouldness" of it being aimed, too. There's just no restriction either way. It's a completely fictional thing based on nothing. So there's nothing to really point to and say "See, this is how it should function!"
Magic is special. Magic deserves its own set of rules. Magic is different from standard fighter weaponry. It just IS. There's no reason, other than the soulless desire for Balance and to appease today's Zero IQ console gamer, for it to be governed by the same system that dictates the hit/miss/graze/crit of a f*cking sword or Axe. Josh Sawyer is tragically wrong in his viewpoint on this matter, and so are you.
PS: And there certainly IS something to point to that says: "see? that's how it's done". In fact there's 5 things to point to.
1) Baldur's Gate 1
2) Baldur's Gate 2
3) Icewind Dale 1
4) Icewind Dale 2
5) Planescape: Torment
So there.
-
The 'realism' argument? What does that have to do with anything?Obviously, in real life, magic isn't aimed. So making it thus in the game would make much more sense. u_u
When the scope of the non-uniformity is a single spell out of a pool of about 350, Yes. I believe that registers as a giant 'who cares!' on the spell system judgment scale.So uniformity isn't any better or any worse than non-uniformity?
It competes fine in its present state already. Don't assume my opinion of Minor Sequencer is shared by even a notable minority. It's not. I have met people who have flat out told me that minor sequencer is comparatively overpowered at level 4. After all, a 12th level wizard can load it up and fire it off with 2 save-or-die spells (chromatic orb x2).The spell wouldn't be better able to compete with those other spells due to the example change?
But lets not lose the point. My initial post on the subject is changes I'd propose based on my personal tastes. I am NOT claiming that the spell's current state is flawed. At all.
-
1
-
-
Uniformity. Because its two big brothers (spell sequencer and spell trigger) both store 3 spells, and because minor sequencer is a 4th level spell and thus must compete with utility powerhouses like Stoneskin, Improved invisibility and teleport field.For example, (talking about just BG2) I'd make Abi-Dahlzim's Horrid Wilting incur friendly fire. I'd give Skull Trap a larger AOE. I'd make Black Blade of Disaster 8th level. I'd make Minor Sequencer able to store 3 spells instead of just 2. Stuff like that.
I don't understand. You don't think it would improve it at all, but you'd specifically make Minor Sequencer store an additional spell? Why would you do it, then?
Yes, but not for the reason you're implying. If it only stored one spell it would be a misnomer (a sequence of...1?) It would also be worthless, since it'd be silly to use a 4th level spell slot store a single 1st/2nd level spell.And if something like that wouldn't be an improvement, then what even constitutes the opposite of an improvement? If it only stored 1 spell, instead of 2, would that be worse?
-
Maybe you did. Obsidian gets points for clever use of vague language in a sales pitch in any case. From the Kickstarter:This game was backed so much because obsidian said itll be successor to infinitz games. And those games big point of interest for MANY people were powerful mages. Whatever the **** sawyer wants in his dream game can **** off since the game people backed was successor to infinity stuff.
LOL, really, I must have missed the requirement that there be completely overpowered god like mages when I signed up to back POE. My bad
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 suitably vague and open to all sorts of interpretation... enough to keep a semantics discussion alive 2+ years later. But there are 2 things here that are crystal clear and NOT disputable in the slightest: 1) Magic is purposely overpowered in all the IE games. It's what made combat in them intense and fun; 2) Obsidian name-dropped the IE games in their very mission statement on day 1.
They didn't need to explicitly promise an overpowered magic system, because such a promise was clearly implied. And that is why we've got a few people here today calling them out for it - and why it's reasonable to do so, given that the magic system they have developed for PoE is so intentionally anti-IE spirit from the ground up.
-
1
-
-
I suppose. But we're quibbling over pennies in a room full of $100 bills. IMO, Spells should not be governed by the accuracy stat. magic is not a sword, or a bow. It's MAGIC. There is already enough cost incurred with it (casting instances are limited; casting can be interrupted; opponents get saving throws)What do you guys think of these damage figures? Do they feel appropriate?
Until the delivery system is fixed, any discussion about what the spells actually do is kinda premature.
-
2
-
-
For the 3rd time... there's a counter to EVERYTHING in BG2.Thanks for being needlessly condescending. I know that you can revert the spell effect after the battle. How does that help you during the battle, however?
If you want your guy to be back during the battle, you either have it memorized or you don't. If you don't know if the enemy has access to the spell, you memorize it in case he does and if he does, good for you, if not, spellslot wasted.
And that's true for all hard counters. Either they are applicable or spell slot wasted.
To protect against Imprisonment during a battle, any intelligent mage will cast Spell Immunity (abjuration). It will grant you immunity to imprisonment for many, many rounds. It's a 5th level spell, which means your mage/wild mage/sorcerer will have access to it (many copies of it, even) several dozen hours before ever facing anything that can toss an imprisonment at him.
And in case you're thinking to yourself: "well, it seem silly to waste a spell slot on a spell that will only come in handy in very rare (almost never) instances when someone might Imprison you".... Nope. Spell Immunity has several uses in BG2. A good mage will always have it at hand anyway. The fact that you can use it to protect you from Imprisonment is actually kind of trivial in the grand scheme of things. When I play a mage in BG2, I typically find myself using its enchantment version right at the outset of any major battle because I dislike getting disabled by mind effecting spells.
But I digress. Here I am ranting again...in an obnoxiously offensive debate that shouldn't be happening. There is no comparison between BG2's magic system and PoE's "magic" system. One is gloriously awe inspiring, while the other is an insult to the very concept of "magic" in a fantasy RPG.
-
2
-
-
AGAIN, that is only true if the dev team is void of writing talent and are unable to explore the vast, vast pool of interpersonal communication...and, you know, other human emotions. I hate to repeatedly cite Bioware (because they're hardly the only guilty party) but, again, they have evolved to the point where they must use Romance as a crutch, because they are not able to create deep, engaging NPCs without it.Lephys is right Stun, we know that Romance is not necessary. But it enhances the interaction between party members
And Exhibit A of this is Dragon Age 2. the 4 party members that aren't romances are: 1) Your Sibling, 2)Aveline, 3)Varric, and 4) Sebastion. All 4 of them have remarkably dull plotlines, and despite the fact that their occasional one-liners can be humorous and flavor-full, there's simply nothing to those NPCs. On the other hand, the Romanceable NPCs are far deeper and much more engaging. This is not a coincidence, and DA2 is hardly an exception to the rule.
-
I can't think of one. Not an improvement, at least. I can come up with some changes though... but they'd be just that: changes. They wouldn't make the system better. And they certainly wouldn't be 'fixes to a flawed system'.So magic in the IE games was flawless, Stun? There wasn't a SINGLE improvement you'd make to it?
For example, (talking about just BG2) I'd make Abi-Dahlzim's Horrid Wilting incur friendly fire. I'd give Skull Trap a larger AOE. I'd make Black Blade of Disaster 8th level. I'd make Minor Sequencer able to store 3 spells instead of just 2. Stuff like that.
-
No sale. Magic in the BG games was not "flawed". And there's no such thing as one class rendering another "pointless" in a single player ROLE PLAYING game.I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now. But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent:
Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee,
rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years,
a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example),
a clumsy spellbook system,
wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless,
a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points),
a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders),
plot invincible enemies you run into at night,
a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2,
an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese,
vastly superior and inferior strongholds,
etc.
Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions.
Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad. It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment.
And roll or die saves are a terrible idea. They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring. There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in. It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.
Also, fleeing enemies don't need to be melee'd, when you can employ a little bit of intelligence and destroy them with magic, or any ranged attack.
Other points:
-Imprisonment is not an example of "killer save requirements", because there IS no saving throw for Imprisonment.
-There's no such thing as a "game breaking spell" in a game that has hard counters (anyone with Free Action is immune to web, for example)
-Not sure what "apm cheese" means, but again, there's no such thing as impossible in BG2's system. There's a counter for EVERYTHING. That is why the system is void of flaws, save for the worthless opinionated variety that gets frequently spouted by the fools and haters. (I didn't like the spell book system! Save-or-Die is crap! Bards suck! etc.)
And finally this: The IE games were single player party based RPGs. And PoE will be the same. This *alone* makes discussion of class balance worthless. WHO CARES if class A is more powerful/useful than class B? What difference does it make? Even if you're a strict powergamer who will only play the most powerful class, you'll STILL be using a party of different classes. And if you're just a role player, power differences won't matter at all since it won't be about power, it'll be about roleplaying your class.
-
6
-
-
It's the truth...despite your silly goalpost-moving example. I can give you a laundry list of RPGs that would have been better off without combat.I dare argue combat is unnecessary in RPGs, purely because putting God of War's combat into every RPG would be a terrible decision. *nod nod*.
As for romances, that's the truth too. And I cite Bioware. Romance has become a crutch for Bioware NPC writing because Bioware writers lack the ability to write deep, compelling NPC personalities without it.
-
Oh indeed. I've been playing, replaying, and going back to playing the BG games for about 15 years now. Why? Well, I thought the reason was obvious. Because I love those games. Always have. Because just about everything about them was fun.... especially the combat.
I must have just forgotten how much they sucked.
-
5
-
-
Yep, and this was something that people complained about on Day 1 of the Beta release. There are only 2 types of wizard spells in PoE: Damage and Buff. Lame. Very, very soulless and <ahem> Modern </ahem>. This is one aspect of PoE that isn't doing a very good job of spiritually successor-ing the IE games, where mages were absolutely amazing.Played as a mage through all IE games many times. It's my favorite class by far... Tried it in PoE. It's no good.
And not because of the magic system, but because of an extremely generic spell selection. Wizards should be able to do literally everything - levitation, teleportation, item creation, creature summoning, illusions, charming, divination, the possibilities should be endless and this is what makes wizards interesting. In PoE wizards have none of that. Combat-wise, they've got AOE and ~1 CC spell. And a few literally useless cantrips (I mean it, they ARE USELESS, no tactic exists that could employ them). Such magic...
But there's a reason for all this. We'll talk about it below.
Of course it was intentional. When you prostrate before the shrine of Balance, it becomes a sin to do what you're asking them to do. For example:I don't understand if this is intentional (somebody really hating that class) or mages were just given to a guy who doesn't understand/doesn't want to understand the beauty of this class, but the job is done. Congratulations whoever did it.
1) You can't give Mages summoning spells because then you'd render both your chanter and your fighter redundant.
2) You can't give Mages invisibility spells because then you'd render stealth redundant.
3) You can't give Mages save-or-die spells because then you'd render the entire DPS-combat spreadsheet redundant
4) You can't give Mages spells like Dimension Door because that would unbalance the engagement mechanic, and it would trump those fancy Ranger and Rogue escape skillz.
5) You can't give mages 'hard counter' spells like Protection from Petrification, Spell immunity, and globe of invulnerability because that would be 'unfair' to... um.... monks, and barbarians and any other class that doesn't get spells.
This is an OLD, OLD gaming philosophy issue that some of us have been debating with Josh on since way way back. He simply does not understand the true appeal of magic and role playing. In his mind a game that makes all classes "equal" MUST be better than a game that makes some classes more powerful than others because, you know, if you make mages too powerful then everyone will just play mages. In the meantime we *role-players* shake our heads and say: WTF!
-
12
-
-
Because even in the context of "Role Playing", you know full well that these words ring hollow even in your own ears. Death is not permanent in most RPGs - and - most RPGs are set up in a chapter/act structure and the player knows that if he's in chapter 1, there is no chance that the adventure can 'end at any time'. Instead, he/she gets the opposite feeling: That he's in for the long haul.As I have often said imagine a scenario where you are on this epic quest to save the world from some sort of diabolical entity where everyday could be your last, you have this group of people who are prepared to die for, you face daily tribulations and there is a mutual attraction between yourself and someone else. Now you spend many nights around a campfire reflecting on the days trials..why wouldn't Romance flourish or at least be a consideration ?
Lets be a little more real now. Romance can 'flourish' in any situation. There's no point in arguing whether or not it can make sense in a story-based video game. The only relevant question that should be asked is whether or not romance can make a given RPG any better. I'd argue that it won't, IF the writers can do a good job of fleshing out the NPCs and giving them personalities that do not necessitate mushy drama-based sucker-punches to the player's heart-strings in order to feel "deep".
-
These activities would be governed by your attributes (Constitution; Dexterity) not your level. If a High level is required to avoid falling off a bar stool and dying, then such a game has far bigger design problems than just its XP system lolNot necessarily so - if it is to be an alternative then the possibility of alcohol or food poisoning , falling off unsteady barstools
At the bar? We were discussing the 'unfairness" of not being rewarded XP for roleplaying someone who just wants to sit and drink. Not for someone who wants to engage in sex.engaging in risky sex
That would be combat, and thus be rewarded with kill XP.the threat of bar room brawls
-
It's completely fair, since any game that lets you sit at the bar and drink - day in and day out - will never place your character in danger for doing so. That is to say, a level 1 adventurer who wishes only to sit at a bar and drink, does not NEED to gain levels. His continued survival is guaranteed.Really, what happens when you don't do quests (maybe because you're the kind of adventurer that doesn't give a dime bout other people's troubles) and you just explore the world's most dangerous, monster-infested places.
You're gonna be seriously under-leveled ? Isn't this unfair ?
Unfair? What if I want to just sit at the inn and drink beer because thats the kind of adventurer I am - I will be seriously under-leveled - is that fair?
The same cannot be said for combat or questing.
-
2
-
-
Because there is no tomorrow?Then why are people and creatures alike all getting engaged like there's no tomorrow?
6_u
I think the answer is in Sawyer's statement. He said they didn't have the resources to do romances correctly. And he's probably right about that. Obsidian does not have a staff of Harlequin novel writers, like Bioware does. So any romances they would have attempted for PoE would have probably sucked ass, like they do in every Obsidian game. And that's, You know, the opposite of correctly.I'm going to take issue with Sawyer's statement about not having the resources to do romance correctly. Romance is simply a facet of a character - and didn't Obsidian set as a design goal, highly reactive NPCs with their own unique personalities and developed story arcs? How does one distinguish, resources-wise, between an in-depth PC-NPC relationship and a romance? In my mind they are one and the same. It's though Obsidian completely forgot about their own experiences working on games eg PS:T, where love - both amorous and platonic - was not a mere appendage but a central conceit woven into the plot, the NPCs, and their interactions with TNO.
PS: there's no such thing as a platonic romance. If it's platonic, then it's a friendship. And Obsidian did not rule out friendships in PoE. It's a good bet they're in.
As for PS:T, well... Take it up with Chris Avellone? He's not the lead writer for PoE. He's got a limited role in the game's development so any romance he would write for the game would have been minor and peripheral at best. (and a waste of talent, but that's just my opinion)
-
1
-
-
No, you can't separate the game type from the XP method. The IE games give XP for kills because combat in the IE games is far for dynamic and involved. You have a dozen or more character classes that are defined by how they get the job done in combat, whether it be via spells, or melee, or archery, or back-stabbing, or party-based strategy etc. There's role playing IN the combat of those games, and thus it had to be rewarded. And that's why citing shooters like Deus Ex simply doesn't work. The entire design philosophy behind those two types of games is drastically different. XP systems are NOT one size fits all.I totally understand that they're different games, yet their XP system is not type-bound. It can infact be used pretty much every single game, heck even a RTS, or a racinggame, anything really! So I don't quite seem to see the argument "you want it to be like Deus Ex. It wont be, it will be like IE" not understanding I'm not even talking about Deus Ex, just it's experience granting system... and yes, that it would work perfectly fine on an IE-title.
In fact, I'd argue that attempting to fit the kill XP square peg into the round RPG hole can taint even the greatest RPGs. Take Planescape Torment, for example. Black Isle decided to use the same XP system for that game that they used for Icewind dale. And it was a glaring flaw. Kill XP hurt PS:T. It didn't need it, and all that including it accomplished WAS to promote grinding in a game that wasn't at all designed to focus on combat.
-
5
-
-
I agree. It's all in your head.
-
2
-
-
Lets start from the beginning:
How exactly are you coming to this conclusion?PoE is the beginning of the reintroduction of this inspiration.
-
Yeah, but that's thing. A Great story but crap combat/game mechanics gives us something.... Ordinary - something that wouldn't, at all, at stand out as unusual today. Witcher 2 had a great story and crap combat.So in your opinion, the only measurement of inspiration in a video game is... a good story?
No.
But it is of utmost importance in a role-playing game, that and how that story intercepts with characters, as are those characters to begin with.
The equally in par aspect for such a rpg is combat, where Obsidian will most likely fail to deliver. You can see this even now, in the BB. One can dream, however, that this won t be the case.
The reverse is also true. Great combat and crap story is also very common in games these days. I'm currently on my 3rd playthrough of Divinity: Original sin. It fits perfectly here. The Combat is excellent, but the story and the NPC characterization is just shy of non-existent. I could have written a better narrative on my lunch break. And I'm no writer.
I don't see either of these as proof of some profound industry resurgence in inspiration. And you touched on it: PoE is probably going to end up being a very typical Obsidian game: That is, it's going to hit it out of the park with its story, but strike out with its combat and gameplay mechanics. And that's okay. Most of us backed PoE knowing full well who was developing it. I personally, however, was hoping for something at the level of the Baldurs Gate games, which had Great stories AND Great combat. <-----there's MY definition of true inspiration.
The Official Romance Thread
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Stun
LOL A con artist who smiles humbly and says: "Yesterday I was lying, but today I'm telling the truth, please trust me!" deserves no consideration whatsoever.
And if I were you, I wouldn't trust these pre-release reviews either. These are the same organizations that that gave DA2 near perfect scores before it was released. Remember when Escapist called DA2 "the RPG of the Decade"? Remember when PC gamer gave it a 94 and exclaimed: "Best RPG combat ever"?
No thanks. I'll wait until about April of next year, and then I'll see what the gamers themselves have to say about it on Metacritic. If it gets a 9.0 or higher, then maybe I'll entertain the notion of picking up a copy....assuming, of course, that I'm quite through with Witcher 3 and POE.