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
    No problem. It doesn't, because I figure that with the isometric style they'll be probably not much larger than the old sprites were, so it'll likely be about the same level of perceivable detail. I could be wrong about that, of course, and then I'd want more options. Skin and hair colour I definitely think should be changeable, and I do think that having at least one or two different options for hair and facial hair would be a plus -- but I'd be fine with just one hairstyle. I suppose my main point is that if there is a portrait, I rely on the portrait to represent what the character looks like, and then I just want the model to not conflict with that in too noticable a fashion. After giving it some more thought, height and build are also things that I think would be nice if they are there, but I probably won't miss them too much if they aren't. none of these are deal breakers for me either certainly. I figure it isn't asking too much to expect something on the level of Temple of Elemental Evil customization.
  2. ogrezilla
    anyone feeling weighed down with an extra copy of wasteland 2 need only ask and I will help ease your burden
  3. ogrezilla
    this is a very good point. The first few levels really are pretty dull combat-wise because of a lack of abilities and spells. I really hope we don't go through most of the game that way. Screw that. I'd rather it be more like the BG series personally Project Eternity (BG1 TotSC-ish level progression, maybe a bit more - 12 D&D levels sounds great) PE:2 (BG2:SoA-ish level progression) I don't want to feel like a demigod after one game, let alone even two ~_~ AND I believe the problem you are describing will not be present in this game, I think they're going to be taking a leaf out of D&D 4E's book and have more things to do available at level 1 and getting something each level, rather than just health and attack bonus. That's fine. I don't need to be too powerful. I just don't want to be bored. So I guess I was really just agreeing with the bit about getting to the fun stuff. I said before I prefer more levels, but I am perfectly fine with them being pretty small steps in power. I just feel like more small levels gives us more precise control when shaping our character throughout the game. And I don't want to spend half the game with barely a handful of spells available.
  4. ogrezilla
    for what its worth, they aren't going to be sprites. Yeah, wrong word there. I know that they are not going to be actual sprites, but the right term for it escaped me at the time (long day) -- thanks for pointing it out, though. I suppose just going with "character models" would've been better. Anyhow, my basic opinion on the matter is still the same. I figured, just wasn't sure if being 3d models would change your opinion at all. I still want to be able to make different human males (and every other combination) look like different people beyond just hair color. A few basic options like skin color, hair and facial hair would be plenty.
  5. ogrezilla
    on disc content really is the worst. I don't mind smaller DLC packs, but when they were clearly finished and withheld purely as a money grab it makes me mad.
  6. ogrezilla
    for what its worth, they aren't going to be sprites.
  7. ogrezilla
    kickstarter is not a store.
  8. ogrezilla
    its all in the terminology. Want smart AI that picks targets intelligently? Absolutely. Want aggro mechanics? NO KILL IT WITH FIRE!
  9. ogrezilla
    everyone is so negative anymore. i don't see the point in thinking like that.
  10. ogrezilla
    this is a very good point. The first few levels really are pretty dull combat-wise because of a lack of abilities and spells. I really hope we don't go through most of the game that way.
  11. ogrezilla
    as long as the encounters aren't any different because of the choice of save system I don't see a problem. And there is no reason the encounters should be designed differently because the act of saving has no direct effect on the gameplay. You are 100% capable of limiting your own saves if it makes your experience more enjoyable. And it has absolutely no effect on you when I save mine. Again, forced limitations on saving do not have that workaround. Everyone is forced to use the limited system. With a mechanic like resting its different. The balance of the encounters would be different based on different resting rules because it has a direct effect on the game in the form of health and spells. But saving has no direct effect on the gameplay so it should have no direct effect on the balance of the game. If it does, that's a problem of design and not a problem of the save system. Luckily for me, I am on the side the designers have gone with way more often than not. We can debate all day, but I am about 99% sure we won't see limited saving outside of ironman mode. Except for no saving in combat or mid conversation. That I could see and even endorse.
  12. ogrezilla
    Maybe not intentionally, but users of the Steam version will presumably get patches through the Steam client, and users of the GoG version from their GoG.com account page, so in order for users of the boxed version to get them, Obsidian would have to set up a PE download area on its own website or something. So it's not about them arbitrarily excluding some users, it's something that would require them to spend additional work/money. or a very simple "search for update" feature in the game.
  13. ogrezilla
    I completely understand the idea of attrition adding to the game. But saving whenever you want doesn't diminish that. If I've made bad decisions and come to a point where I can't advance because I'm low on supplies or health or whatever, I'll have to load an older save. If I get through three groups of enemies just fine and screw up on the 4th and die, I don't want to repeat the first three again. And I can still simply not save as often. That option is always available with a save anytime system. Limited saving does not have that flexibility. I'm not trying to say my thinking of "repeating content sucks" is more valid than yours either. I disagree with you, but you are more than entitled to your opinion. To answer that question about balancing mechanics, I would say it depends on the mechanic. There is no blanket answer that covers every mechanic.
  14. ogrezilla
    I look at it like this. We are talking about 2 major options. 1. Limited saving. You can only save at certain times or places. People that want limited saving are happy; people that want to save whenever they want are not and can do nothing about it. 2. Save whenever you want. People who want to save whenever they want are happy. People that want limited saving are completely capable of limiting when they save. there is no reason the game needs to be designed differently for each. It could be; but it doesn't need to be.
  15. ogrezilla
    I am not asking if player freedom is important, I'm asking wether its more important than balancing game mechanics since you can pretend the 'exploitable' (which is a fallacy unto itself, since the player isn't exploiting anything, he's playing the game as it is: badly designed) parts don't exist. But back to the second question. When you died, did you fight that same battle or was there some cheesy, unbalanced 'skip the battle' button? Yes, that freedom is better than the alternative. And when I died, I fought the same battle. I really don't think I get your point. And what is the alternative? Repeating combat because you made a bad decision? Well, you did fight those same battles more than once, didn't you? I don't want to repeat the battles I have already won.
  16. ogrezilla
    I am not asking if player freedom is important, I'm asking wether its more important than balancing game mechanics since you can pretend the 'exploitable' (which is a fallacy unto itself, since the player isn't exploiting anything, he's playing the game as it is: badly designed) parts don't exist. But back to the second question. When you died, did you fight that same battle or was there some cheesy, unbalanced 'skip the battle' button? It's not a matter of freedom for me. Its a matter of having to repeat content or not. And when I died, I fought the same battle. I really don't think I get your point.
  17. ogrezilla
    I think the freedom to save whenever you want should be a basic part of a game's design, yes. Limiting saving to outside of combat is perfectly fine too. I honestly don't know if you could save in combat in the IE games because I never tried to do it. Honestly, I think a game should be designed to be played. Saving is just something to add on top of that. I see no benefit in getting killed and reloading at the start of the cave compared to getting killed and reloading in front of the fight where you died. And yes, I died in IE games.
  18. ogrezilla
    Depends on the abilities. Remember, in 10 hours you'd see all six party members gain a level. How all those abilities work together creates many possible permutations. so if a game is a pretty lengthy 50 hours, you'd want to finish the game at level 5?
  19. ogrezilla
    All of those examples are things you can simply not do if they bother you. Its very easy to just not reload if you fail a pickpocket attempt. I think we want to hear examples of the save system negatively influencing other design choices that you simply can't avoid. Personally, I felt like the classic infinity engine games were designed with no thought to the save system. You played the game and you saved when you wanted. They didn't leave out traps or pickpocketing because you could just save and reload to always get the desired result. It was very easily abused, but only if you chose to abuse it. I can't think of anything that was designed to make up for the save system. Do you believe this sort of player freedom should be a basic part of a game's design? Do you believe that any unbalanced and exploitable game mechanic isn't bad design simply because the player can pretend its not there? I think requiring players to repeat content that they have already gone through is worse design.
  20. ogrezilla
    no. that is definitely not the question. It's about things in game that you can only access if you are a kickstarter backer. Such as the kickstarter only in game pet. I personally have no problem with a cosmetic pet. But if they were to include things like characters or dungeons, I would not be happy about that.
  21. ogrezilla
    All of those examples are things you can simply not do if they bother you. Its very easy to just not reload if you fail a pickpocket attempt. I think we want to hear examples of the save system negatively influencing other design choices that you simply can't avoid. Personally, I felt like the classic infinity engine games were designed with no thought to the save system. You played the game and you saved when you wanted. They didn't leave out traps or pickpocketing because you could just save and reload to always get the desired result. It was very easily abused, but only if you chose to abuse it. I can't think of anything that was designed to make up for the save system.
  22. ogrezilla
    you aren't pledging money to fund wasteland 2 or the expansion. you are pledging to fund project eternity and if you pledge enough they are giving you wasteland 2 and a PE expansion for free.
  23. ogrezilla
    design the game so every fight is difficult instead of as a series of mediocre fights. that solves a lot of it. say no to trash fights.
  24. ogrezilla
    teasing all week? its monday haha
  25. ogrezilla
    not using facebook for some amount of marketing is just a bad decision in this day and age. there's just no good reason not to use it as a company looking to get its name out there.
×
×
  • Create New...