Jump to content

Maddas

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Maddas

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. I disagree strongly. I hate when games provide you with moral dilemmas in which both possible options are clearly stupid. For this example, where's the 'rescue him then turn them all in to the proper authorities' option? Realistically I think dilemmas are a crutch for not-so-great writing. They almost always feel forced. I think we're in violent agreement. My example was of a scenario where you were not necessarily aware that the person being tortured was a murdering bandit. I too, hate when there are 'moral dilemmas' where the options are all clearly dumb. The worst example
  2. Well, to be clear, I don't think anyone is advocating for Project Eternity to be some equivalent of wandering huge walled cities even 50% of the time -- I certainly am not. All the same, I don't agree with a call to 'balance in all things'. It may be nice to see some aspects of a variety of things in Project Eternity, but I don't think it's a requirement, and I wouldn't call for arbitrary balance of city and wasteland, or similar.
  3. Agreed. The problem with "kill one to save many" is that it is based on the premise that you know that killing this guy right now will "save" many later on. And that the "many" had their lives in danger in the first place. For all you know, that cooky witch was full of it. That, and really, whose fault is it? Your fault for not sacrificing the virgin, or the dragon's fault for burning down the village? And why not try to save both? Maybe you can't win everything all the time, but you should be able to try, and the game shouldn't always play out like some sort of greek tragedy where you
  4. If the setting involves a 'civilized' area, then by definition, there will be cities and villages and so on. That's just how civilization arises. Barring 'barbarians' or people or cultures that actively seek to live in the wilderness, it makes sense to find settlements and villages and cities, at least among the typical human populations. I don't believe that this needs to be changed for the sake of 'balance'. On the other hand, if the area is say, more 'mad max' like, then sure, lets do away with villages and cities and keep those down to a bare minimum. Since I haven't played eit
  5. I disagree; even if humor was implemented in some fashion within the context of character perks/traits, stats, or items -- Obsidian would still have the final say on how it's done. Lumping "Yes" and "Maybe" together makes the poll more streamlined, because ultimately it always will depend on how it's done. Having a separate yes option just means that it'll have a small minority of votes and not really show whether or not there is deep opposition to it or not. I don't think any of us (or... at least, most of us) are interested in playing "Beevis and Butthead visit Middle Earth", or even Fal
  6. That could even be part of a quest; the baron's estate denies these claims, needs a doppelganger for public show, and desperately needs someone to undo the curse
  7. Should there be funny (but useful) perks and traits available when creating and leveling your character? And should abnormally low stats/skills (e.g., intelligence) affect dialogue and gameplay in a humorous and not-necessarily-game-breaking way? Finally, should there be items/consumables/wearables that affect gameplay in a humorous way as well? For example, in the Fallout games, there were perks and traits that would give you bonuses (e.g., to defense and bullet resistances) while lowering your charisma (essentially a terminator-like perk) -- or ones that would cause you to leave a bloody
  8. I'd vote for "Hard realism", but last I checked, most third-world nations, hell, most tribal and 'barbaric' regions of the world -- both present day and historically, didn't come chock full of "racism, rape, child killings, sociopathic disorder, and cannibalism" around every corner. And in poorer areas, I'd wager, people are more concerned with day-to-day survival rather than "Who do I rape and kill and eat next?" There's nothing "wrong" with a fantasy setting that has some or all of these things somewhere in the world, but no, I'm not interested in playing "J.R.R. Tolkien Presents: Mad Ma
  9. Why doesn't the poll support multiple options? KOTOR 2 has got no love in the current results, but I would've picked it if there was an option to pick multiple games. (I mean literally, an option to pick multiple games, not the option "Multiple games")
  10. Agreed. Also, there was a study on how most gamers will make 'good choices' even in games where there are no consequences. So I'd rather there be shades of grey or 'different ways of accomplishing' the "good goals" rather than having more "evil" choices that feels forced (or silly... or dumb) I liked that KOTOR2 had less of the silly evil choices from KOTOR1, and I think the Mass Effect series did pretty good overall by managing to keep a dual axis of "good/evil" and "lawful/lawless"
  11. I think having home bases makes sense within the context of a gameworld too... and I liked how Dragon Age: Origins had 'camps' where you could see your party and also some extra people who would come along with you guys. If you're going to travel from place to place and lug around heavy armor and loot and [realistically speaking] food and water etc. -- you're going to need to be able to set up camp, and also have a place for people to stay in when visiting towns or settlements. Maybe without a place of your own, you'd be paying rent at an inn, but it would be nice to be able to own your ow
  12. I never got to play the BG series or NWN in multiplayer; how did that exactly work? I'm assuming other players are either extra party members, or they share control of them?
  13. I could see a character like that having a drastic event to their story line where they purposely try to cause a party wipe by stealing or attacking someone in a very powerful friendly or neutral area. Yes and then they could succed if you are really underleveled or you have to kill them or if you are more corrupt break their spirit even further and re-enslave them to their core. With souls being a big part of this game you could do some really dark stuff Yeah, you could probably have some really dark magic (and characters) based on the whole 'soul magic' concept, depending on
  14. The topic of multiplayer came up here, and I was wondering what the community feels regarding multiplayer / co-op as a potential stretch-goal down the road?
  15. Agreed! I can't edit the poll at this point though +1 I think some of the archetypes can definitely be combined together, and I would hope that all the ones I voted on make it into the game in some form even though there's only 5 or so slots for companions. I'd also love to see a character like Archimedes the Owl in this game too.
×
×
  • Create New...