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 of this in a recent game I played would be the first Knights of the Old Republic. While a fun game overall, your options were primarily limited between being a goody two shoes and a malevolent and dumb ****.
  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 are continuously punished for trying and the idea is beaten into your skull that if some old kook tells you to murder a village to save the kingdom that you should do that. Actually, more specifically, I hate these false 'moral conundrums' where you are supposed to do something bad to supposedly prevent something much worse from happening later on. To draw a different example, suppose you can rescue a known robber/murderous-thieving-gang leader and set him free -- say, he is being tortured by some unscrupulous bounty hunter whom you don't particularly like. Or maybe the bounty hunter sees you and attacks you. In this case, you could play 'goody-two-shoes' and release the gang leader, maybe even net a small reward and his 'eternal gratitude' -- maybe his gang will leave your party alone! -- at the same time, this action might have adverse consequences for that region in the near future or down the road -- maybe many people will die, and maybe you and your party will become pariahs (if anyone finds out what you did). Overall, that is the sort of moral 'dilemma' I support. It's plausible, and ideally, there would be some chance for you to avoid it altogether (e.g., if you had kept your eyes and ears open for knowledge of robbers in the area) -- and there's some chance to, at least, partially, rectify it -- either by killing him or helping hunt down the gang.
  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 either Witcher titles, I can't really comment on the specifics, but from what I read, it sounded like you were opposed to having more than a few settlements. Either way, I don't think Obsidian should be bending their story/setting in search of 'balance'. I think they should just work on writing a good story and setting instead, as they envision it. (Which, I trust they will do)
  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 Fallout in this game, so the way humor is implemented is probably going to matter a lot to us -- and I was curious to see whether or not people had strong opposition to humor period, or whether or not we'd want it in the game depending on how it's done.
  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 mess wherever you went, or ones that gave you bad luck, etc. A couple ideas that would be silly but might still fit within a Project Eternity world might be: A Tarzan-like Attack/Defense bonus for barbarians that fight naked or in their undies (pixelated); can significantly affect dialog options and wandering around a city may cause swift fines and a difficult time talking to anyone, including party members. Depending on charisma and gender, may result in different reception from other characters -- e.g., you may be thrown in jail for indecent exposure. (Idea from here) A cursed trait that affects everyone else around you, but not so much yourself. Similar to 'Jinxed' from Fallout, but essentially affecting others a little more than yourself. This also makes it much harder to recruit and keep companions (either willingly with you, or alive). Can also affect dialog and plot/story options, for example a seer or tribal elder might chase you out of a village or city on account of you bringing bad luck wherever you go. Maybe even a lot of bad luck, depending on how long you stay in a place -- or maybe this could even be rolled into the overarching plot. As for stats/skills, in Fallout if your intelligence was too low, your sentences would be slurred and speech would take a significant hit. Should something like this be present in Project Eternity? Should abnormally low stats/skills affect gameplay, but not necessarily in a game-breaking manner? For example, if you had really low intelligence, perhaps your other party members (the few you were somehow able to convince to join you) would speak more often instead of you for dialog with other NPCs.. or maybe they'd be more likely to scheme against you or otherwise be more likely to try and use your quest to their own advantage? Similarly, perhaps having low-intelligence might make otherwise dangerous encounters somewhat less dangerous -- perhaps NPCs would believe your character too stupid to understand what they are doing, and less likely to try and kill your character or throw them in a dungeon? Finally, should there be items or wearables or consumables that affect gameplay in a humorous (but potentially useful) way? For example, maybe there's a particular type of food made in the Swamplands of Whatever, which, when consumed, causes the character to smell so badly that their entire party will be forced to follow at a significant distance. Walking into a city square will cause residents to flee, and any attackers with working sinuses will likely hesitate before attacking you, and will always prefer to stay far away rather than be overwhelmed with your 'odor'. Dogs, wolves, and most other normal animals will also opt to run away from you, potentially making it a useful tool when trying to access otherwise inaccessible (or very dangerous) areas. This item might even be part of a quest (rather than something you can purchase in a store).
  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 Max vs. SAW VII" -- and I don't see why the choices have to be split among these options.
  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 own properties in various cities/areas as you can afford and as you progress along the quests.
  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 where it goes. Definitely agree. If there's gonna have to be a female rogue, maybe one with less memorable hair-color -- or hell, maybe a character like Inara from Firefly. I hope the way characters interact with the main / player will expand on how RPG games have evolved over the years... I mean, beyond the Fallout 1/2x and P:T style -- to how characters worked in KOTOR2 and Dragon Age: Origins. So playing evil or goody-goody could have [substantial] effects (including negative) on your party members.
  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...