Karkarov
-
Posts
3108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Karkarov
-
-
Uh I don't know that I agree with this post in it's entirety or that having DRM for this game is a good idea..... However I do agree with the general point of the thread. Just remember that a lot of the major sites a pirate might use will also turn around and back you quite well if you show you deserve that financial support and you are about gamers not profits.
Good post.
PS: Also I hope we don't get into the semantic argument that digital piracy isn't theft because you're not taking anything from anybody. You are, you're taking a sale away from the developer/publisher/retailer.
Well said and absolutely true.
-
1
-
-
It's up. Piracy and DRM.
Mine still doesn't work, and what do you mean specifically by "piracy and DRM"? We knew there was one time online only verification but what else are we potentially looking at?
Edit: Just enabled me to start it. Finally
.-
1
-
-
It's now over an hour since launch and the farthest I've gotten is 'getting download info.' I guess they must have really underestimated just how hard their servers were going to get hit.
To be honest, I wouldn't have expected it either. They got pretty hard when that baldursgate.com site and countdown appeared but the news about an Enhanced Edition wasn't THAT big because everyone was rooting for something bigger. Based on that I would've thought that the EE would just appear and disappear again.
No dice. It is still superior to the original with mods and will ultimately support all the same mods. BG has been one of GoG's best sellers, beamdog should have known better or allowed more competent distributors to handle the game too.
-
As for the other thing, the game already has evil characters revolt and leave if your rep gets too high. In retrospect, introducing a redundant Tiax-specific event was pointless. If people don't want evil characters to leave, then I don't like forcing to down their throats.
Good thing I never wrote NPC's for that project then because my evil npc not only would have left the party but might have even considered down right betraying them as an act of revenge for wasting their time.
-
The reason I hesitate to admit that I'm the writer is that I don't really like the dialogues I wrote all that much. Most of them are fine, but I did two very bad things:
1) I introduced a thing where Tiax leaves the party if your reputation isn't low enough, or else gives you five days to do something horrible or else he leaves. It seemed reasonable, given that he's a priest of Cyric, but for those players who used things like the 'happy mod' to ensure NPCs would never leave regardless of reputation it was basically re-introducing a disliked feature with no way around it.
I don't get it? You wrote him to be an evil ass who would not tolerate people who didn't keep with his ideals and somehow you were wrong? No the people using a mod to circumvent having characters stay true to themselves are the ones who are wrong here. This isn't Barbie Fantasy fun time, it is Baldur's Gate and a Lawful Good Paladin and a Chaotic Priest of Cyric should not be in the same party. The end.
2) I assumed he would always be found in Baldur's Gate Chapter Five, because that's where he's placed originally. Little did I know they would introduce a feature sticking him in the middle of Beregost from Chapter One on. Thus, I freely used references to things like the Iron Throne that the party should know nothing about in the early game.Aside from that, because again I was assuming you would only get him late in the game, I had barely any material for Mr. Tiax that wasn't late game stuff.
Again, what was it you did wrong exactly? You wrote the dialog based on what you knew. It isn't your fault he got placed differently.
PS: We are now 35 minutes past launch and we still can't finish the pre load.
-
1
-
-
Yeap, the release is now officially late. Hopefully they pick the ball shortly.
-
1
-
-
Nice sketch, pretty good pencil shading work.
-
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but I remember quite enjoying it. It was different from the rest of the game, with puzzles and fights that were above the general difficulty of the rest of the game. And, in addition to that, it was entirely optional, like every other side quest in the game.
I suppose one can argue ToB was rushed, that the story was strained, and the Keep was added just to flesh out the amount of gameplay hours, in a cheap way. I've heard it's not up to par with similar dungeons in other IE titles that I've yet to play, which makes me eager to get to them, since I enjoyed the keep
.EH.... I played Watchers Keep and it has been years since I ran through Baldur's Gate 2, which makes my reply slightly more relevant because that much time has passed and it isn't "fresh" in my mind. This is important to mention because I don't remember anything in particular about the place other than some basic story beats, it was kinda long, and harder than the rest of the game.
So since I don't really remember feeling it sucked or was great I can only conclude that it may not be quite as bad as people are making it out to be. In fact it was probably just gosh darn average. After all if I thought it was that bad, I would have remembered a lot more about it. Trust me
. -
The mechanics exist for balance and gameplay reasons. If the devs felt like a mechanic needs to be there then it should be there. If the devs feel like friendly fire should not be a part of the game then that's fine, they are making the game it is their call.
By the same token if they feel like friendly fire should be an option in the game isn't that also fine?
Of course. It is their game, their call. This isn't their first rodeo and I have said it before and I will again. They are experienced game designers, they know what they are doing, and I trust them to be professionals and make a game that appeals to the fans but also stays true to their over all design. To be honest I have played almost every game Obsidian has made and I can only think of one that I didn't really like. That is a pretty solid endorsement as far as I am concerned.
-
1
-
-
Why?
For the same reason a giant 'win!' button in the middle of the screen is a bad idea.
Thanks for answering for me despite the fact that I suspect maggot doesn't get your logic. I do at least.
The mechanics exist for balance and gameplay reasons. If the devs felt like a mechanic needs to be there then it should be there. If the devs feel like friendly fire should not be a part of the game then that's fine, they are making the game it is their call. I will personally find that odd, but I will also know that Obsidian are good designers and likely have built in something else to compensate. Such as aoe's though having no friendly fire may not have beneficial effects like cc, or may do notably less damage than a single target spell, or may only do cc and no damage. Etc etc.
-
1
-
-
I am not sure what to say. You put a lot of effort in and that's cool. I can see where you are going with your idea and for say... alchemy or perhaps enchanting it even kind of makes sense. But it is a bit complicated. I am not a genius, but I consider myself reasonably sharp. When I look at your crafting interface and the first three words in my mind are "What the !@#%?" then maybe the interface needs a bit of a redesign and to look more comprehensible? Worse it almost feels like I would be playing bejeweled or tetris. Which are fine games, but I am not sure they work as a crafting mechanic.
A crafting "mini game" should not actually feel like a "mini game" in other words. Or it should it should at least make logical sense in relation to the activity. For example... A rhythm game being tied to blacksmithing. If you time your swings wrong you "fail" the crafting because you did not properly shape the blade or armor plate. It is somewhat quick, it makes sense, and is easy to understand. Yet at the same time can be hard depending on some basic factors, like speed, number of checks, or complexity of the button input. The best thing though is that it logically applies to the task at hand because any smith will tell you that there is a rhythm to how you strike the metal and shape it.
While writing this post and thinking about the ui of your idea in general it occurs to me that if you narrowed the focus purely to say enchanting and instead of an arbitrary connect the dots sort of thing made it be about creating a specific design or "rune" it would work a lot better. Each material would logically create a certain pigment or texture and certain runes may need to be comprised of specific elements to be powered. Then more complex enchantments would of course need more runes to be effective which would require connecting the runes in a logical order so that they were able to tie into the whole scheme without breaking. For example a "fire" rune could not be powered by "water" element style materials but could be connected to a water charged rune if they were tied together via an "air" rune.
Does that make sense?
-
Options are great if we are talking about things like turning anti aliasing off or on, playing ironman or normal mode, romancing an npc or not. Options aren't so great if we are talking about things like disable or enable the lock pick mini game, make traps do damage or not, or friendly fire on or off. Just because you want to ham fist your way through an area and throw fireballs with no discretion doesn't mean you shouldn't be penalized for it. The devs need to decide the basic rules and method of the gameplay and stay true to those rules. Players should not have the "option" of bypassing an aspect of the core game mechanics just because they don't like it.
-
5
-
-
hopefully this was a more substantial response to your posts and you find something worthwhile in it. no hard feelings, eh?
No problem, stuff happens. My only point is a mini game "can" enhance the game if it is done right. But it does have to be done right. If you have a 0-100 skill system a guy with a skill of 10 should not be able to even attempt a "hard" lock pick for example. To be honest though mini game or not those types of rules should apply to all skills. If you rank a 15 "bluff" on a 100 scale and you are trying to bluff your way past the 20 year veteran captain of the town guard who works the seediest part of the city.... you should probably not be able to do it. The D20 system is good for pen and paper because you obviously aren't going to throw down a chemistry set and tell your player to act out their alchemy check, but that "might" work in a video game.
The biggest most important thing that has to be in there no matter what, hopefully for any skill check too, is the ability to "auto-attempt" the check. The take 10 rules from 3rd Edition were the one thing that I felt no one could argue was not better than 2nd Edition D&D. Nothing in 2nd Ed was dumber than going up to a skill check which literally came down to "anything but a 1" and having to roll. Yes the room for failure added some tense moments sort of, but it was dumb. A master of deception who has 30+ ranks in bluffing should not have a 1 in 20 chance at failing to bluff the local tavern bouncer who has been on the job for 3 months.
Edit: Oh couple things I forgot. The mini game needs to be in real time. Just because I am in a lock pick mini game doesn't mean the enemies around me should just politely stop attacking.
As far as the auto attempting goes it should also be fairly straight forward. 0-100 scale again for simplicities sake... but if your skill is 50% higher than the "challenge" rating of the skill check your auto attempt should always succeed. Example: Lock pick has a rating of 50, you have 76 lock pick skill (one point above 50+50% [25]=75) then your auto attempt has a 100% chance to succeed.
That way you still can't get a guaranteed success on really hard checks but the lower ones you can just bypass the mini game altogether after a certain point. For situations were time may be of the essence just make sure the mini game always take a set length of time to finish when you auto attempt, that way there is still "some" encouragement to beat it yourself though you don't "have to". Thus we simulate the "take 10" rules in a fair and reasonable way.
-
^Cool story.
But, this is a roleplaying game. You're playing the roles of characters who are not you. If your character doesn't have the skill to pick a lock, you shouldn't be able to pick it regardless of how cool a bro you are.
Man that has got to be the most pathetic reply I have ever seen. At what part did I say my character had no lock picking skill in that post? I even end with a paragraph that talks about how you should require certain skill levels to even be able to "attempt" an action to begin with. Of course I could not have picked the lock if I had no lock picking skill, but at that point the presence or lack there of the mini game would be a non issue wouldn't it?
If that is really all you have to say then you need to stop posting in this thread because you have nothing constructive to add.
The character's skill is just that, the character's skill. The player's skill shouldn't enter into it. Look at Oblivion lockpicking for the worst possible implementation. A skilled player can open any lock of any level right off the bat (level 1, no bonuses to lockpicking,) unless it's one of those quest-related "key required" doors, without regard for the character's skill. And then they can complete a low level quest whose reward allows them to unlock every lock automatically without fail, making the lockpicking skill just another thing to grind to get levelled or increase an attribute.
Except, again, I wrote in plain black and white you should require certain skill levels before allowing skill checks. You assume because the situation I discuss happened in Oblivion that I am saying "copy how Oblivion did it", which I clearly did not say. Read my final paragraph again.
Also I hate to tell you but everything is based on the players skill. The best character set up ever made will get crushed if the person in control uses the wrong abilities, or deploys party members poorly. The best trap detection in the world means nothing in Baldur's Gate if the player never bothers to set their characters to look for said traps. Character design itself is based on the players ability to make the right choices that result in an effective character.
It is a video game, player skill WILL enter into it by design.
-
2
-
-
I have been looking for an excuse to play Baldur's Gate again for a long time so I have no complaints. Though I prefer to go into battle wielding my mouse and keyboard, not the stylus.
-
When I go into a dungeon, I expect monsters dying and me looting their corpses and adventuring down. Lockpicking chests and doors and setting off traps. Throwing me into a different game that I'm not expecting can be frustrating. This is why lockpicking mini-games that are forced everywhere are annoying.
Let me tell you a short story...
One day, I was playing this game called Oblivion. I was still fairly early in, not that tough a character but I had some experience under my belt. I had decided to explore this old ruin, Ayelid to be specific, for loot and such. While on the second level I found myself a little outmatched and weakened. I couldn't rest because too many enemies were in the area, whats worse the original route I had taken into the level got blocked off. So I decide to try to scout out a way to get back up to the first floor, heal up, and then come back a little better prepared.
The thing is while searching for the exit I got worn down. I was weak, not as well geared as I really needed to be, and it was clear if I got involved with more enemies I would probably be taking a dirt nap. So when I get spotted by two skeleton warriors trying to find my way back out you can understand I was a little concerned with my situation. I could not stand and fight so I had to run, while doing so I of course got the attention of yet another skeleton. Fortunately I spot a stair case leading up, all that is between me and these stairs is a door that happens to be locked. I turn to look behind me and sure enough I see the shadows of the skeletons not far down the hall moving in for the kill. I check the room with a brief scan and don't see the key jumping out at me, and I simply don't have the time to search for it. I have no choice, I have to try to pick the lock.
This is where it gets interesting. My first pick attempt I mess up and break my pick, understandably I get a little po'd and throw out some colorful language. I give it a second shot knowing the skeletons are now in the room since I can in fact hear them moving behind me. This time I manage to pick the lock, jump through, and close the door back literally as the first skeleton is getting into melee. I run up the stairs and make my way out of the level living to fight another day.
Sure the game had a "save" anywhere system that takes some of the heat out of the moment. That isn't really the point though, this was an actual emergent gameplay situation I went through that was more fun and rewarding BECAUSE the mini game was there. To be specific there are two things that go into any skill check. The first is your characters relative ability at that task, this might be determined by level, skill value, stats such as dexterity, or any number of other esoteric bonuses or errata. The second thing is the skill check itself.
On one hand in the pure mechanics style game like Baldur's Gate or more recently Drakensang: The River of Time you "roll" a theoretical D20 and the RNG (AKA: Random Number Generator) decides whether you succeed or fail. It works, and while it isn't purely luck based you can get screwed and fail a check you shouldn't or very rarely succeed when you should not. The other method though is doing the skill check via mini-game. There is still a certain degree of luck, but it is now in the players hands. Beating a near impossible lockpick no longer boils down to trying over and over until I get lucky and roll a 20. The chances of failing a check I shouldn't just about goes out the window so long as I don't play sloppy.
The key thing, and the reason the mini-game when done right is better, is right in the story. I quote "This time I manage to pick the lock..." That's right "I" the player picked the lock. I saved myself not by getting lucky on the RNG but by keeping my cool, moving fast, and skillfully navigating a mini-game. Yes I would have felt the same sense of accomplishment if it had just been a skill roll and I succeeded, but it would have been smaller than what I got doing it myself. Also the sense of irritation I would have gotten from failing would still fall on me for screwing up and biting off more than I could chew, but part of me would still have said "$#@%#$^ RNG if the roll had been better..." In the mini-game set up if I had failed the blame would have only gone one way.
Also just because there is a mini-game doesn't mean skill is meaningless or you "have" to play the game. Skill should determine if you can even attempt the check in the first place, it should make mistakes more forgiving, and it should allow for greater room for error. For example you don't have to have your pick "dead on" correct just "close". For the sake of sanity there should also always be a "take 10" equivalent in there somewhere for those who are simply so skilled they don't even need to try to beat the check.
-
1
-
-
I don't know playing a mini game to hack a computer in Deus Ex Human Revolution feels a lot more fun than walking up to a treasure chest and rolling a d20 to see if I could open the lock in Baldur's Gate.
If the mini game is well made, intelligent, and still ties into character skills I am all for it. Just rolling a die and saying "you passed your skill check" isn't very exciting. I will never say no to a "chance" to make a game more enjoyable. It is a game after all.
-
1
-
-
Good god, can no one make a decent poll? How about "Is leveled appropriately to reflect their character history and where they fit in the world."?
Some characters should join up at low level regardless of when I meet them, some characters should be high level regardless of when I meet them. Likewise a character like the aforementioned Yoshimo should come in already leveled up. If the character claims to be a master swordsman, then they should be a master swordsman. Not a blank level 1 dude I can turn into a staff fighter if I want to.
Do what makes sense for the character, not what makes the most sense for the game mechanics or the twink. The twinkies already have the adventurers hall after all.
-
1
-
-
Personally I am fine with what the OP says in the first post. I am slightly baffled as to why it was needed to mention Dragon Age 2. You don't need examples of good and bad world building to talk about ... world building. That said like many topics I see on the forum I realize Obsidian is comprised of people who have been doing this for a long time with a strong vision of what they want to do with this game. That said, I trust they don't really need the OP's advice, regardless of the fact that World Building is a key foundation block for a good RPG.... or most good games period honestly.
If I want to learn about or educate someone on good world building I sort of prefer the classics though and I lend them my copy of the AD&D 2nd Edition World Builders Guide.
-
1
-
-
It's hard to imagine that the concept of a lawful good character who always wants to remain within the laws of the land and his god and never falter from the tenets of good as he understands them and almost always carrys a huge blessed sword would not be the most popular and emulated of all options in video games -
I guess it's just because most gamers live this way every day in real life and when it comes to gaming they want to try something different...
lawful does not mean to abide the laws of the land, if the laws are unlawful in view of the "greater picture" (which in DnD have specific alignments) then the paladin fallows only his code... that's the lawful thing for him. The code of the order, the vows, the virtues of his god
Uh no not quite...... it depends 100% on the paladin in question and what cause they are in service to. A Lawful Good 2nd Edition Paladin who is sworn to serve a royal family whose current head happens to be an evil scumbag he will be forced to do evil deeds to a point to keep his oaths. The paladin won't like it, but as long as their lord doesn't try to force them into an alignment death trap (break your codes of morality to stay true to your oath to me, or break your oath to keep your code) they will likely tolerate it.
Example. Forcing the Paladin to execute someone who evaded taxes. The person who did it is crippled and cant work, therefore never had a way to make money. The paladin may run into a conundrum here. But if say the poor crippled tried to steal the money to pay his taxes.... suddenly the paladin doesn't "like it" but he can justify killing the guy.
-
Noone should explode in a cloud of guts blood and brains because they were hit with an arrow.
What about a fist?
By fist I think you meant "Poking people with your finger."
That said I voted minor dismemberment simply because we don't know enough about the detail or size of character models to really know if the full on regular dismemberment will even be visually worthwhile. If it is and they go with that cool beans, works for me. But the full on exploding bodies thing I will pass on, it was so crazy and over the top in BG I didn't find it to be "gore" I found it to be ridiculously hilarious. I felt like I was watching "Night of the Lepus" or "Killer Clowns from Outer Space" again.
-
I am all for anthropomorphic animal people. After all when I decide to make a crazy evil character, which I will do sooner or later, I need someone to hate monger and kill on site for no reason. I can't think of a better racial idea to use for this story than this. Heck, I may even feel good about it on the personal level.
In fact, now that I think about it, if furries make it into the game I am going to need to let's play this concept on youtube.
-
1
-
-
Man there are so many great ideas in this thread, and all I was going to do was mention that they make great paper weights and door stops.
-
Only 52 people voted. Out of 70-something thousand who have backed the game. The numbers are too low to be a reliable predictor. Let's get like 500 people to vote then we'll maybe get a better idea. Maybe barbarian players don't know how to use the forum?Nobody is choosing the barbarian. I wonder why?
It is because it is just, in general, an unpopular archetype. Look at movies and other popular media, how often is the Hero the uncouth savage from the north who wears skulls and bear pelts for clothes while simultaneously seeming to lack in education? Not very often, and this is what most people think when they hear the word "Barbarian". In truth Conan for example was actually pretty darn smart, he didn't become the ruler of Aquilonia because he yelled really loud and was good at killing people. I am sure those talents did help though. The movies have never really done the character justice, but thankfully they also toned down other aspects of those books.
.
.
.
I predict that this board will temporarily die tomorrow.
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Well once I finally got the thing patched I could play with no issue. Other than the fact that it is blatantly missing some graphics options, the ui is too large, and I am not sure I like the ui colors... It is a better version of the game. The fact that the fog of war renders cleanly with a nice appearance and you can now zoom in or out to get the game looking exactly how you want really helps.