Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

ogrezilla

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    882

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ogrezilla

  1. ogrezilla
    There is a difference between features that have problems and features that are problems. Timed quests are by their very nature bad and unfun. Getting some quest, doing your very best and having the game tell you a couple hours you invested were for nothing because you didn't beat some internal timer is not my idea of good game design. Having the game tell you to hurry the hell up and ignore game content to get things done is not good game design. Punishing players in this way in not a fair challenge. You give a sense of urgency through narrative devices not through internal timers. All of us have enough deadlines and urgency in our lives. Lets not let it bleed into our virtual entertainment. I disagree. Timers that cause you to lose if you don't finish in time are unfun. Timers that create consequences if you don't finish on time can be great. You never need to see a clock show up in the corner. You never have to know you were being timed. You might just play through the game thinking you are always a step behind and that is how it was designed. You keep finding towns burned down. But the story still progresses.
  2. ogrezilla
    That, coupled with what is called a 'degenerate rest system' were flaws of design, true. But let me point out that there was the occasional urgency in BG: Jaheira and Khalid might quit on you prior to Nashkel. Likewise with Xzar and Montaron. A lot of people don't know that, I believe, because many recent tweak mods remove that feature. And that's the difference between a nostalgic and a reasonable person. I love the IE games for what they were good at and I don't believe they were perfect. Many of them had pathetic C&C outside of combat. you just said the old IE games aren't perfect. I love you so much right now.
  3. ogrezilla
    this is why I don't think they should be the norm. Occasionally having timed quests is cool. Having one after another feels like you are being forced though. It's a case of bad quest design more than bad mechanics imo.
  4. ogrezilla
    part of the experience could be seeing what happens if you aren't able to save this woman from the bandits. I hope it is literally impossible to see the entire game in one play. That said, I don't want to see a 5:00 clock show up in the corner and then have a timed action sequence. I like the idea of being able to go save her right then and as long as I am actively working towards that (I haven't left the general area) I can still do it. But if I go back to town and have a few drinks at the pub, then by all means there should be consequences. The quest shouldn't just disappear though. I should be able to go to the bandits hideout and find out what they've done with her. Maybe they have beat her up. Maybe they killed her. Maybe they sold her to slavery. Or maybe it was all a big ruse for her to escape her mundane life and join her bandit lover.
  5. ogrezilla
    yes to this. many times yes to this.
  6. ogrezilla
    Do you do the urgent quest before the time runs out, or do you put it off and fail? That seems like a pretty clear cut choice to me. I think his point is that if I am in town A and have never even been to town B yet, I shouldn't be able to miss things happening in town B that I have no way of knowing about yet.
  7. ogrezilla
    Because roleplaying requires context. If context dictates urgency, but the mechanics don't, then you're robbed of a roleplaying opportunity. If you don't even act according to the story in spite that Gameplay and Story Segregation... then you're doing many things, except roleplaying. And in that scenario, I do believe his way of 'actually roleplaying' is preferable. Like I said I don't like being forced to do things or miss stuff because I'm taking my time with something. If the game presents me with a clear choice, then sure, but if it makes me mess up without giving me any obvious clue that things will advance without me then it's ridiculous. I don't think his roleplaying choice is more valid than mine, that's entirely subjective. You only think that because you agree with him. If I wanted to play a linear corridor game then I'd go play Final Fantasy 13 I very much agree with the bolded part. You should only be punished for inaction if you know about the situation. Really, its a matter of designing the story. I hope the story is designed in such a way that you are given plenty of chances to take your time. Occasional bits of urgency are great to keep things interesting though.
  8. ogrezilla
    really, I just want the mechanics to match the story. Don't set up a scenario where a dragon is about to destroy the village and then give me as long as I want to get to it. My preference would be to only use that style of threat occasionally and not as the grand overarching story, but if it is used I want to see the urgency that should come along with it.
  9. ogrezilla
    So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time? It should be possible to do something that gives you more "time" then. Someone mentioned a shortcut through a hideout or something. I think you could get the same outcome you want without every having to use a rigid clock timer. Completing this guys quest takes time. Walking away from the burning farm takes time. But reading through my conversation options carefully doesn't take away time. To clarify, in case people getting the wrong idea: I'm not, and I don't think anyone that wants timed quests are, talking about the concept of "I've only got 1 hour of REAL time to do this quest". I'm talking about the idea of giving people days or weeks of GAME time to do these things. Game time would pause any time it would normally pause, such as during conversations, map transitions, while the game is naturally paused, etc. It really depends on how its implemented. It would have to be very skillfully done and preferably not too often. I don't want them to tell me I have 60 game days to complete the game. Put me in a town with an impending barbarian raid, and I'm ok with having a few game hours or days to get some stuff done. I don't want to come to a burning house and be told I have five minutes to fight through these fire demons, get to the top of the house and save a little girl. But I'd be perfectly fine being told this girl needs saved right now. Then I can go save her or not. If I leave to go to the shop for some fire resist potions, its too late. Basically, I want the urgency to influence my decisions but I don't want timed action sequences.
  10. ogrezilla
    So you're perfectly fine with some sort of arbitrary limitation on what you can do within a set period, rather than being limited by time and being able to potentially complete everything if you play smart and manage your time? It should be possible to do something that gives you more "time" then. Someone mentioned a shortcut through a hideout or something. I think you could get the same outcome you want without every having to use a rigid clock timer. Completing this guys quest takes time. Walking away from the burning farm takes time. But reading through my conversation options carefully doesn't take away time.
  11. ogrezilla
    Yes, but why? That would only be keeping people from playing the game they want the first time. Because if the story strongly includes the companions, keeping them out of the party could cause you to miss quite a bit couldn't it? I guess my thoughts on this are assuming that's the case: that companions will be an almost necessary component of the story.
  12. ogrezilla
    Could it be an option that is unlocked after completing the game once?
  13. ogrezilla
    In other words, coming up with a more creative way to project urgency - one that doesn't involve quest timers. Yeah, I've been arguing for this since... Idk, page 4? good deal. I think a rigid timer in the form of a clock in the corner would be bad design for a game like this as well. But I also think the ability to fail or even miss a quest because you chose to do something else instead would be very interesting and would add to the immersion of the game. Letting the farm burn should be the consequence of a decision, not of a clock. I think we agree.
  14. ogrezilla
    I think its a good idea, but shouldn't be specifically time linked. The parallel quests sounds better. I don't want to miss an important NPC because I spend too much time in the last town talking to guys before I even know this town exists. But give me the choice of helping that NPC now or doing some other quest now, and I could see that working. Game events would cause the urgency, not a clock. Oh man, that thief looks like he's breaking into that house. OH MAN! The blacksmith is giving out free stuff! What do I do?
  15. ogrezilla
    How, exactly, do they break immersion? How do they not? You're focussed on a friggin clock, instead of the game world. I can think of nothing more retardedly arcade like Then don't show the clock. Have the game world and NPC's imply that if you don't act quickly, the quest will be failed. It would completely ruin the immersion of the situation if I'm standing next to a burning farm with a woman begging me to go save her son and then I could then go browse the weapon shop only to come back and find the building and/or NPC's in the exact same conditions they were in before I left. The world should feel alive, not like its waiting around for me. There doesn't need to be any sort of clock. The game could be programmed so that as long as I am at the burning farm, all is well. I can check every drawer of that farm for treasure if I want. But if I pop back into town to hit up the pub, I would return to find the farm burned down. No timers needed.
  16. ogrezilla
    either is fine as long as I feel substantially stronger at the end of the game than the beginning. Given the choice, I'd rather more level ups than finishing at level 7 though.
  17. ogrezilla
    I agree with this. If there is no Light Side or Dark Side points, the characters should just react based on what happens. Say I need to find a way to infiltrate a group of thieves. Say a woman wants me to get her necklace back from the same thieves. She gives me a key or password or note or whatever to get into their hideout so long as I promise to get it back. If this was Kotor, I would have options like "Yes I'll help" and "(lie) Yes I'll help." One gets LS points and one get DS points. Take out the points, and you don't need both options. Say one way to complete the quest is to steal back the necklace and give it to her. I didn't lie. Another option is to steal the necklace and then just go sell it. But maybe the shopkeeper knows whose necklace it is and tells her I sold it to him; thus revealing my lie. Now he refuses to do business with me. But if I wait to sell it to a vendor in another town she would likely just think I wasn't able to get it back for her. I get away with the lie.
  18. ogrezilla
    I completely agree with this. I will not be mad if it takes me an hour to make a character. With a creation tool that deep I would make characters that I may never even play.
  19. ogrezilla
    point buy > Rolling > Questions imo. Rolling doesn't add anything but how long it takes for me to get the stats I want. But at least it does let me get what I want eventually. I don't like the idea of questions; I want to build the character as precisely as possible.
  20. ogrezilla
    I fully support a mega dungeon.
  21. ogrezilla
    That's the issue right there. In a P&P setting, you're free to use your imagination and figure out clever ways to bypass and disarm traps. In a CRPG, you're limited by the game system which consists of: 1) Select Rogue 2) Click Disarm Trap Trap rooms, where you have to solve a puzzle to proceed, are good. Traps you can place in combat to add a tactical option are good. Traps randomly littered around dungeons are just tedious busywork that tries to justify having a rogue in your party (or horribly punishes you for not having one). All it does is needlessly slow down the game. This sums up my thoughts pretty well. I don't have a problem with traps. But I don't want them to feel like busywork.
  22. ogrezilla
    definitely agree. "tanks" should have to literally get in the way. Maybe let them knock guys over or something.
  23. ogrezilla
    this pretty much sums up my opinion of the problem
  24. ogrezilla
    why can't my mage intimidate him with a fireball? why can't my rogue intimidate him with a dagger to the throat? I was just giving examples. No reason why there can't be even more intimidation methods. ya sorry I think I realized that after I responded haha
  25. ogrezilla
    I would like a system where things like intimidation could be based on each classes main combat stat. Warriors can have strength, rogues can have dexterity and mages can have whatever they want to call it, but I suggest not calling it intelligence. That way characters who are great in combat still get some social options. Most other social skills would be based on intelligence and persuasion or whatever they want to call them.
×
×
  • Create New...