Karkarov
-
Posts
3108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Karkarov
-
-
I would like to see neither. Instead of following a cliche I want my Elves in PE to actually have some depth and be more than just a Tolkien throwback or a blatant attempt to go in a totally different direction. I have no problem if Legolas and Elrond (figuratively speaking) show up as long as there is also a Elf who loves the City, one who drinks ale with the best of them and not because of some insane racial superiority, and Elves who are manipulative or greedy out for themselves, you get the idea.
Shelve the idea of a racial concept and let Elves be individuals like Humans. Of course the stunties still need to be short little buggers with beards for brains who are only good at digging holes and getting drunk though!
(just kidding, about the Dwarves anyway.... mostly)
-
@ Karkarov; While I am not sure what game that's from I am sure there are better ways to think of to finish and make it satisfying.
After all, this is OE.
Funny you should say that. Mr. House is one of the Main potential Antagonists of the game Fallout: New Vegas. It is made by a company called Obsidian.
-
Not sure I agree with most of this. Leveling up based on weapons seems redundant when they have already said they are going to use a class based system. Also what happens when you want to make a character who wields a two hand mace but the only decent weapons you find are axes? Should there be skills that require a specific "type" of weapon setup? Sure. Like you cant use skill X if you aren't duel wielding, or this move requires a shield. But you shouldn't be gated off based on what weapons you have equipped at any given moment. Yes it makes sense to require a player to use maces to get better with maces, but in game terms it is fairly limiting and not that much fun for the player.
You also should not be able to change class just by changing weapons. This works fine in many games, such as the recent Dragon's Dogma for example, but this isn't that type of game. You have a six person party for a reason, all your bases should be covered without the need for your main character to have three different classes under their belt. I don't feel like there is a strong reason for this game to have multi classing at all to be honest.
I like a lot of what you post here, it is some cool stuff and there have been games that I enjoy that went with a similar route. I just don't think this type of method would be ideal for PE. Especially when you factor in that we already know there will be classes, you will be able to buy armor/weapons and craft, etc etc.
Also some things are a little ... illogical. Any player choice that results in you running with fewer than six party members should obviously result in more exp. Regardless of what it is you are doing you did it with fewer people, same exp split fewer ways is more exp per person. Why do you need a small party to be "non lethal?" Why is a party of three rogues more effective than one that is six rogues? Also we already know the exp will be objective based, so you won't get exp for picking pockets or passing speech checks unless they lead to objective completion. If you did it would be sort of bad because that encourages the type of play they have already said they don't want in game. IE: The guy who runs around and picks every single npc's pocket just to raise his pick pocket skill or max out his exp, or tries to fast talk every npc for no reason to just get more speech skill. Again, realistic, but very gamey and less fun but more grind.
Again lots of interesting things here, but I am not sure these ideas will work well in PE.
-
2
-
-
Why need bossfights anyway... are they really climactic?
As often I feel they are just the biggest of chores. And talking would be preferable to fighting.
Avoiding the entire conflict by not even *having* a final boss-fight/monster... that would be great
Yeah, because walking into House's penthouse, casually stepping past him without even saying hi, and pressing a few buttons on a computer console felt very climactic and satisfying.
-
Maybe with a party size of six having a "talking option" won't be strictly necessary, but I don't think that it'd hurt anyone's gaming experience to have one available--brains over brawn and all that. If you don't like it, don't use it.
It has nothing to do with necessity.
I want the primary enemy of the game to at the very least be just as charismatic as any character in my party. I want them to have a set of convictions and a motivation that they believe and follow no matter what anyone has to say about it. I want a Villain with an actual backbone who is worthy of the title "Villain". Meanwhile the Brain's over Brawn argument also doesn't apply. Why is it the Villain can't be as smart, or smarter, than you? Why is the idea of taking out a person who has hopefully caused a lot of misery for you and people in general considered to be "the dumb option". Hell a good Villain, one who is charismatic and intelligent, would actually be pretty much insulted by some idiot adventurer even thinking he could just "talk him down".
A wise man once said "A Hero is judged by his enemies." I would like a worthy enemy, that's all. I don't want a Transcendent One, I want a Jon Irenicus. Or even better, a Moriarty.
-
They (samoans) got some awesome tattoos. Samoan warriors especially.
When I read the racial text for Aumana Samoans is pretty much what I was thinking. They live on coasts, live off the ocean, and are generally very very muscular dudes due to their lifestyle. They also happen to be bipeds ;p.
-
1
-
-
One thing that will piss me off is if I get this great story, this awesome build up, and then get to the end to face this penultimate foe who hopefully has been a thorn in my side throughout a large portion of the game.... only to be able to talk him down into killing himself or giving up. That is one cliche I don't want to see, and it is a cliche. Why should the mastermind of this whole plot, your main opposition, be such a weak willed punk that some half baked argument gets him to give up. It worked in ME1 because Saren was being controlled from day one, it has never worked for me any other time I have ever seen it used. Give me a villain or shall we say ... opponent who is actually worth fighting and at least has the strength of character to believe in what they are doing.
How many times is this actually an option in a crpg? Among the IE games, we have one game where you can talk your way through the end, among the Might and Magic games we have none. Even in the Ultima series (in those where there is a main villain/opponent), you can't talk the enemy away. I am sure you have other examples where this is possible, but are they so common as to be a cliché? I don't believe so, but please give me some numbers we can work with here.
http://tvtropes.org/...eMonsterToDeath
Yeah this has definitely never been done in a story before. That's why there are like 3 subcategories of this one trope. Hell even worse, if you look at the video game examples. Specifically in PS:T, the NWN Underdark Expansion, Fallout 1, Fallout NV, and Arcanum you can do this to the last boss (or bosses in NV case). If I count games where you can only do it to major enemies, though not the last boss themselves, I would basically be listing every game Obsidian has ever been involved in save maybe one or two.
I would say that makes it pretty common in Obsidian games. To be even more clear, they list eight games in their kickstarter pitch video. Half of them have a last boss you can talk to death.
-
Wrong. Muscle memory and CNS adaptation become embedded essentially forever. CNS adaptation does not go away, even in complete amnesiacs. Whereas magic, in these games is not a purely mechanical procedure. Also, ligament and muscle strength remains, even if all memory is lost. Finally, if you lumber around like an idiot, that's still better than rambling random **** (spell attempts) that have absolutely no effect. Boom shaka-laka.
Okay sure. So why did my character who you claim used to be a bad ass fighter suck as a fighter when the game started? I thought I kept all muscle memory regardless of amnesia? Meanwhile in D&D 2nd edition did you know a level 1 mage is no worse at swinging at an enemy than a level 1 fighter is, the difference was all in stats and gear options. Since you can't have decent strength at character creation anyway if you want a good ending this is sort of moot though.
"boom shaka laka?"
Granted, BUT! In the real world, physical training is still far more accessible than "arcane" training. First, let me defend your point somewhat for the sake of clarity and truth - most people underestimate the **** out of physical training - the value of good teachers, proper conditioning, the time required (i.e. not being a peasant working a **** job), the proper nutrition, the equipment, etc. However, it is still at least somewhat available to the uneducated. Whereas spells, to me, are something like the equivalent of advanced missile ballistics, with radar tracking, anti-radiation capabilities, etc. That is, fighting is readily effective at every level. Science (or magic) is not effective until a very high level.Right, because magic missile doesn't work until you are level 10. Also magic is considered a skill in D&D, not something you go get at the local library. The fact that tons of mages in multiple campaign settings were also poor, lived alone in the woods, had little formal training, etc, sort of invalidates your point. That and the fact that there is no such thing as "arcane training" in the real world. If "arcane training" is learning how to use a ballistic missile system and or maintain one then you probably had to join the military, and the military doesn't care what social class you came from.
So, what you are saying is that the D&D system is **** in this regard, and PS:T should have taken MORE liberties? Agreed!No not really, actually my point is you are just plain wrong and make a lot of assumptions about the class, and apparently also have no idea what the actual rules of D&D are. Nowhere in D&D was there ever any kind of rule or even insinuation that only educated people became mages and only idiots became fighters. That is your own misconceptions at work. In first edition D&D you could even be a Cavalier (IE a highly trained fighter belonging to or serving a noble house) and the class actually had a higher int requirement than a mage. Go figure.
1. They sue for everything and anything, if you pay attention.2. People like you love their D&D, so it's good for marketing, even though some of get a bit upset (i.e. you).
3. Fixed alignment? Fixed class. That's pretty stupid, if you ask me. ESPECIALLY since PST gave the option, but made it pretty painful to switch classes. Pretty realistic imo.
1: I don't remember Black Isle getting sued of PS:T's lack of faith to the campaign setting. In fact I don't think TSR is really in any shape to sue anyone since they no longer exist.
2: People like you also assume they know things about others. I haven't played D&D in almost a decade and am quite happy to hear they are not using D&D rules for this game. It isn't my problem that PS:T's mechanics were a step in the wrong direction.
3: Fixed Alignment, not a feature of D&D. Sorry if you were lawful good and stabbed a fruit vendor to death for no reason in real D&D the DM made you change your alignment. Hell strict DM's would give lawful good characters alignment warnings for simply not telling the whole truth, or even a "white" lie. But then you never played real D&D so you wouldn't know that. D&D also had multi classing, later on prestige classes, and all that that entails. You could definitely "switch" classes if you wanted to. You just didn't get to magically turn the time you spent as a fighter into mage levels. Whether your character had amnesia or not.
-
Simple fix. On a side quest you simply make it clear to the player they have a deadline, tell them what it is, then leave it to the player. If they don't meet the deadline then they fail the quest and get whatever consequences may go along with that. The deadline needs to be sane though, like at least a full in game day which will probably be like an hour or more of actual play time. Longer would be preferable.
Story wise you just the old tried and true method. You make it abundantly clear to the player that if they accept this quest/complete this goal it will lock them into a set chain of events. You get to the plot point, you see you are going to be locked in, if you want to do other things you just don't bother with that yet and do your own thing. If you do it then bam, you are now locked in to a specific set of events and you don't get a choice about doing them or not.
Irenicus laying waste to an elf village and you have no soul? Well get ready to go to the village because they game isn't going to ask, it is going to make you go there.
That solution may seem harsh, but it also makes perfect logical sense and if the story is done well and written correctly it will work. It would be better if they find a way to not need these sorts of events though. Well for the main story anyway.
-
Part of it is also how many people get inspired by characters from fiction. How many times do you find the roguish swashbuckler who happens to know a couple of spells? Or the scholar-mage who can pick up a sword without slicing off his own fingers?.. Or the renowned fighter who left scarred from war retires to a monastary and becomes a monk... The kid who grew up on the streets as a thief, but then becomes some famous warrior adventurer..
The problem there is the character in fiction almost always has abilities that don't exist in game or don't work by the rules. Drizzt was a great example, in the novels you would think he was the most bad ass dude of all time. In actual game, he just a high level ranger. Also characters in literature also benefit from having stories about them, in many cases being what is called a Mary Sue. In PE it is not going to be all about your MC and you won't be a Mary Sue.
That said, everyone in PE has access to power over their "soul". So who is to say your Rogue won't have some spell like abilities? It is perfectly possible they will. It is already confirmed Mages can wear full plate and be on the front line, if they will let them wear full plate I don't see them saying they can't use a long sword. The renowned fighter is simply a guy who swore off his part life to become a monk, you make him level one and make him really old, done. Since he swore off his old life all those skills don't matter because he wont use them, you probably lost some hp, but oh well. Lastly the kid who grew up as a thief to become a mighty adventuring fighter and champion of good? Who said being a thief requires you to be a rogue? You don't need any of Rogue skills to case a store, wait for the place to close, then get in by breaking a window. Not as "smooth", but it worked and you are definitely a thief.
I consider the whole concept of multi-classing and prestige classes to be nothing more than an indication of what is fundamentally wrong with character generation on D&D-like games - the plain classes are too limited, so this is an attempt to fix the problem.
Personally I think the whole system is wrong. I prefer role-playing games which have no classes as such, but a "point-buy" system of some sort, so you can evolve your character in any direction you like, and gain any skills you want - however, that may be too complicated to implement properly in a computer game.
Well said. This is another discussion that is assuming this game will make all the same mistakes 2nd ed D&D does with it's character design. There is just no reason to expect that. I am sure there will be issues, but they are unlikely to be the exact same issues.
As for the kind of system you are talking about though... Check out an MMO called The Secret World. Almost no media or fanfare around it at all simply because it is made by Funcom but it does more to shake up standard MMO design in the first 30 minutes than any other MMO on the market. To give you an idea, there are no classes, you actually have to move in combat sometimes, some quests actually require you to think making you do everything from break simple codes, translate morse, research 16th century painters, some of them even have you visiting real webpages set up to represent in game companies to search employee databases. I wish they have gone for the full monty and completely eliminated the tank/healer/dps paradigm but considering any character can be any of those roles and you can switch your skills literally at any time I think it is good enough for now.
-
Actually, why not just give less XP at hard and more XP at easy and things will start getting hard or easy soon enough?
More gold from missions at easy and less at hard and you'll have to make do with less stuff at harder levels.
...
And no smart enemies at hard level, stupid monsters at easy.
If there's different levels of intellect in the game, make smart enemies act smart and stupid enemies act stupid.
That'll be a whole lot better way to justify the effort, adds immersion and variety into the game no matter what difficulty level you play.
Best post I have seen all day. Well said.
-
Which is exactly what they are doing.
Truth be told, we don't know what they are or are not doing with regards to these classes yet, so this statement is a bit premature.
Actually no, we know exactly what they are doing. This thread is based on the idea that these three classes will be lifted from D&D, there is one problem 90% of the posters on these forums still don't seem to get though. This game is not based on D&D. I can only assume you misunderstood my last three sentences, so what I am saying is this.
The OP's problem with these classes is 100% based on problems those classes had in D&D. More specifically, a series of computer games created on the basis of the D&D rules. Thing is, this game, is not using D&D rules. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe any of these issues will exist in the game. Most of these issues are also a byproduct of D&D class design, and again, not D&D so it is unlikely to suffer from the class design issues of D&D.
EDIT: I will go one step farther. Later on down the line it is very possible these classes, and others, may run into design issues. As of right now though we know basically nothing about character design in this game except that you have stamina and HP. That really isn't enough to start theory crafting on ranger design flaws. Now months from now when they start releasing details revisiting this thread may make for a viable discussion. Right now though it seems sort of silly since this game is not going to be using the ruleset that created these issues in the first place.
-
2
-
-
Gameplay there may be a handful of people, especially on this forum, who won't care as long as the story is good. But if you actually want your game to be a financial success it needs to be fun to play, not just have a good story. Part of a good story in this type of setting is going to mean that somewhere in there you are probably going to have to fight "something" or work really really hard to avoid it.
Personally I think it is silly to go through all the effort of creating this world and it's mechanics if there will never be any combat. Logic dictates that 75% or more of the mechanics and rules governing this game are pretty much going to be only for combat. That is how it is in D&D, that is how it is in Vampire: The Masquerade, that's how it is in pretty much every RPG ruleset I have ever seen.
One thing that will piss me off is if I get this great story, this awesome build up, and then get to the end to face this penultimate foe who hopefully has been a thorn in my side throughout a large portion of the game.... only to be able to talk him down into killing himself or giving up. That is one cliche I don't want to see, and it is a cliche. Why should the mastermind of this whole plot, your main opposition, be such a weak willed punk that some half baked argument gets him to give up. It worked in ME1 because Saren was being controlled from day one, it has never worked for me any other time I have ever seen it used. Give me a villain or shall we say ... opponent who is actually worth fighting and at least has the strength of character to believe in what they are doing.
-
1
-
-
As long as combat is fair and the saving system is open I am all for tough death rules. But if fighting one standard group of enemies leaves me 25% or more down every single time I hope Obsidian realizes I will find a way to back out and heal up regardless of how time consuming it is.
-
The problem with all three of these classes is there is no real reason for them to exist.
A Fighter who chooses to specialize in unarmed combat can literally get 90% or more of the same skills as a Monk.
A Ranger is just a Fighter who specialized in either duel wielding or bow use and spent all their skill points on rogue skills. Oh and an animal follows him around.
A Druid is just a Cleric with different armor/weapon restrictions that has chosen to worship nature and focus all their spells on having a nature theme. Literally. Other than Wild Shape a nature dedicated Cleric could do all the same things.
That is why they always felt sort of half done in D&D. So my advice would be to totally ignore the entire D&D system and just do something new. Which is exactly what they are doing.
-
What about the Amauna racial text says giant armored lizard man exactly? I must have missed the memo.
-
Also, you just woke up as an amnesiac - are you more likely to remember how to swing at people or the details of arcane languages? If anything, this is an interesting look to what happens to the upper class if they are placed in a situation where their status symbols are lost and their services are not in demand, as there is no large industry / need for delicate analysis. They have to survive on a primal level, which they may be **** at, even though generally, they are far "above" these people in society.
If by swing at people you mean flail away like an incompetent oaf then yes you will probably remember how to do that. If you think learning how to properly parry an enemy thrust so you can counter with a riposte that will hit vital organs is something you can do without years of practice and study well... there are lots of real world martial artists and students of medieval swordplay out there who will gladly educate you on how wrong you are. PS: In ye old real world most people who actually practice, study, and specialize in real medieval weaponry and combat also happen to be mostly from the upper class and highly educated. Knight's in Medieval Europe for example pretty much came from the upper classes only and I bet they got a real solid education for back then too. What I am saying is "being a fighter" does not equal "being an uneducated moron who no speak gud".
Nor would you want a Wizard representing your "party" in most conversations. I mean after all who is the "common man" going to relate to more? A Wizard who spent his entire life with his nose in a book and has a superiority complex or a mercenary sell sword who spends three nights a week singing songs and drinking ale with commoners down at the local tavern? I sure know everyone loved that Raistlin chap in those Dragonlance books.
Lastly the argument of the game being better because it did not follow D&D rules is so dumb I actually had to read it twice to be sure I got it right. Especially since multiple people seem to be making it. If you aren't even going to bother following the ruleset you had to pay a licensing fee to have in your game then maybe you should have saved some money, not been a pretentious moron, and just made the game without that ruleset in the first place. I am sure TSR would have been fine if they had just used the setting (which they weren't faithful to either, no idea why) and just not used the actual "mechanics" of D&D.
Also I appreciate all of you constantly making comments about PS:T that are downright false. No, no mage would teach you magic in the hive. But I ran into plenty of Mages in the Hive, some of them even talked about how they knew and or used magic. I mean how did Ignus (a mage living in the hive) wind up in his situation? He pissed off a bunch of other mages (who lived in the hive) by being a pyromaniac. Also the Hive isn't a Ghetto, in the actual campaign setting it is supposed to make ghetto's look like Martha's Vineyard. But again they weren't really faithful to the actual campaign setting.
-
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I just say that the game is not overrated.Me(and i imagine the others who think this is the best IE game-for the record its my secont favorite, i slightly prefere BG2) acknowledge the game faults. I say that despite the flaws this game is a masterpiece. The only sin of the game is that as you say there isn't balance among the playstyles. But how many games truly are balanced? Fallouts? The evil choices were a joke. Evil players have 1/3 of the content a good character has.Many games offer a non combat approach, but without exceptions the combat approach was better in terms of XP and loot.Torment just has them the other way around
Okay well any Elder Scrolls game from Morrowind up would be a good example. Morrowind itself is so open you can actually break the story and still beat the game, it is just really hard. Deus Ex Human Revolution released last year is another good example, you could shoot your way through that game but you could also kill no one outside of forced moments, get through entire levels without even being seen, and there were many moments where making the right choices in a conversation could make big changes for how you approach a level. Also the recent Fallout games like New Vegas were very open ended and had a very diverse set of playstyles you could use to get past most things.
Drakensang The River of Time which I recently played through even had multiple moments where you had different options on how to proceed. For example at one point you had to get a group of pirates to stop harassing an elf village. You could have done it by disrupting the crew and conning them into mutiny, you could have just walked up and started killing, you could even try to negotiate on the pirates behalf. I never tried it but theoretically you might have even been able to steal what the pirates were after directly.
I am sure there are plenty of other games out there to draw from.
If you claim that these things make P:T a failure as a game, I wouldn't really argue with you. If you were to claim these things mean it would have made a better book than game, I would argue with you.
Maybe not, but using Adventure game mechanics would have served the story far better than using D&D 2nd edition did.
-
You guys have played Obsidian games made in the last decade right? Their "usual writing" hasn't included text descriptions of what the player is looking at in a long time. In PS:T it was needed because frankly the graphics sucked back then and half the time you literally could not get a good detailed look at something. Today if you want the room to have a granite slab covered in disgusting oozing corpses graphics are fully capable of doing exactly that and the player can tell that is what they are seeing with a glance.
Copying BG or PS:T is not a good idea. Many if not most of the mechanics decisions they made back then were hardward, software, and technology driven, not design based. There is no reason to include a text description of a character if the model is good enough that simply seeing it up close will show you on it's own.
Also showing emotion on a 3D character model is actually very easy. You create a animation for the emotion such as "angry" on a wire frame. Then you go to the character model, slap that emotion on, and bam it is done. You can copy that same emotion to every character in the game if you want. You only have to make it once. Want your characters to have more personality? Make 5 different "angry" emotions, it really isn't that hard. Someone has already even linked a video on these forums somewhere showing how easy it is to apply animations to a model in Unity, a guy literally walks you through taking a model from just existing to being able to run, walk, slow down, turn, and jump and it all looks good and works. Then he just does a copy paste and the next thing you know a midget goblin has the exact same movements. The whole video takes like 15 minutes.
This isn't the 90's anymore. Making a high quality 3d model and animating it is not half as hard as some of you seem to think.
-
1
-
-
I'm not saying the battles wouldn't be tactical or enjoyable, or that there'd be absolutely no difference between classes or attacks.
I'm saying that the class differences would become more superficial and thus the party building would lose an aspect I enjoy.
Personally I agree. Your prior posts do sound like 4th Edition D&D, a game I refuse to play because it is watered down and homogenized beyond all belief. Classes need to be balanced but they also need to be distinct and have a very clear feel that goes beyond how they do or absorb damage.
-
Prestige classes, sure sounds good. Done right they serve a good purpose not only for powering up the player but also tying in lore and maybe even different organizations of the world itself and getting the player more involved in it.
Multi-Classing.... no. It was a dumb thing that only came into being in D&D to make up for a rule no one ever followed to begin with. That dumb rule being that non humans had level caps and only humans could actually reach level 20 in any one class. That way it gave people a reason to play high level Elves for example because even though they were only level 12 fighter they could also be a level 8 mage as opposed to saying "well you got to 12 in fighter, your character can't level up anymore."
-
You have no idea how much I want food-based magic now.
I could point you at a Manga that would likely change your tune very quickly ;p.
Developers seem to be scared of making magic what it should be: the most frightening power one can wield. The damaging spells are also too much oriented at Fire among the elements IMO. I really want a mainly Water element using battle mage.
How about no. Magic is stupidly overpowered in every Infinity Engine game. Ever hear of creeping doom, power word kill, maze, a million and one spells that equal you cant hurt me, time stop, do I need to go on? In BG2 my party only had two people in it who couldn't cast some type of spell, there was a reason for that.
-
Torment was more linear and has fewer choices i give you that, but not in the degree you seem to think. I have completed the game with all classes.Sure, even with fighter if you want to have interesting dialoge options you have to raise your inteligence and wisdom at least to 16. And its true that the combat was the worst of all IE games except BG1.But in a game where the optimal way to finish it was to not combat anyone and finish the guests through dialoge and the end goal is not to kill an army but to rediscover who you are it make sense that the most important stats to be inteligence and wisdom. Like it or not the game was all about the story and the writing and not for combat. I understand if you want a combat focus character the game is not for you, but in what the game wants to achieve it does. And for most people who have played it its one of the best cRPG games of all time on par with BG2. Its not "overrated", it may not be the kind of game you prefer
You said what was wrong with the entire game without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with being combat oriented or not. I don't care if every single objective in PE can be cleared without drawing a weapon one single time. But to quote you "...in a game where the optimal way to finish..." is wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no "optimal" way to play a well made balanced RPG, that's the whole point of why I don't like PS:T. Creating your own character, making your own choices, and progressing through the game on your terms, not the games or the Developers terms. That is a "good" Role-Playing Game.
There is nothing wrong with a forced stealth situation, or a forced diplomacy/investigation section, or even forced combat. But when 50% + of your game is forced diplomacy/investigation you had best be making an adventure game or you are doing it wrong.
-
Or it might just say that BG's high fantasy adventure had more mass appeal than the weird PS:T. The fact that more people played BG doesn't mean the majority of those who played both agree (or that this would be particularly relevant anyway). In any case, the "game" in PST is not really separable from the "story".
Yeah.... maybe. If it weren't for the fact that I don't really like the Forgotten Realms as a universe and Planescape was by far my favorite campaign world I would agree. Let's just say one of my top complaints is how unfaithful Torment is to the source material. Using Berk in a sentence doesn't mean you are in Sigil, you could be in a crap dive bar in london too.
Care to explain the "bad design decisions" ?
If you mean the "no armor-no swords-18 inteligence for dialoge" i disagree. The game is the better for these
No not really. Also I can't help that you have no sense when it comes to game design. Removal of options in an RPG is never a good design move. Forcing the player to play a specific way in an RPG is never a good design move. PS:T does both without even leaving the character creation screen. Unless of course you don't mind being a subpar character who sees less than half the lore/story (only reason to even play it), being forced to get the bad ending since you missed half the story, or being forced to be a mage since it is literally the only viable class choice, too bad you have to be hours into the game before you can actually be a mage.
Why was it a game that took place in a city located at the center of the universe with doors leading literally everywhere had fewer options and more restrictions on where you could go and how you could play than one that started in a backwater keep in the middle of no where?
PS:T is the ultimate expression of "substance" over "quality". It doesn't wash for anything other than effete snobs and fanboys.
What is the class you will be playing first?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Karkarov
Uh I will play a Fighter because that is just how I do it on the initial character. Later playthroughs I will probably look at Paladin or maybe Cipher depending on how that class turns out.
Pretty confident he would fall as a Fighter. He spent his entire life mastering one weapon and seemed to have dumped all his skill points into Intimidate.