Jump to content

RogueBurger

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About RogueBurger

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. Then play the game, restrict your actions to your arbitrary scale of choice, and have fun! The beauty of freedom is that you can you're perfectly free to give that freedom up! But as long as the freedom is there, everyone choose their restrictions personally. Why must your choice of restrictions restrict everyone else? Enjoy your character however you want! And everyone else can do the same.
  2. I'm confused about where the issue is. If you like to plan out your character to a t, why wouldn't you stick to that? If you don't want to play a know-it-all, why would picking know-it-all answers be something you'd consider? My contention is that games hide dialog choices because of a system of numbers that might not be consistent with the character I want to play. I'd rather they showed all the dialog options (and the more in depth the dialog system, the more there will be) and let me devise my own system to determine what my character can and cannot say. And there could be a built in system where you can specify if you want options hidden automatically (like all options classified as evil, or intelligent, or intimidating, or whatever), that way if you know for sure there is a dialog construct you'll never use, you won't have to see it. But that's still a choice you get to make, not one the game makes for you. And how exactly, pray tell, would you balance the game around this special snowflake philosophy? Cheat codes for everyone? Same way game are NOT balanced all the time: difficulty levels. Balance means something different to every single person playing a single-player game. You give templates that are classified as easy, medium, and hard. But you give people the ability to ignore that. The key is don't restrict. Give people tools to do what they want, and do it well. Don't force them to do something they don't want just because you think that makes the game too easy for them. If they can clearly see what an average person looks like, then they know full well they are making a demi-god.
  3. It's quite mind-boggling to see the absolute rejection of an open system. It takes a very close-minded group to reject something like that. The thing is, a non-restrictive system would not change the way you play your game in the least. You can use whatever arbitrary rules you want! If you really believe that Fighter with full strength and constitution shouldn't be able to have a full charisma as well because that comes out to more than 32 points on some arbitrary scale, that's fine! Play your strong fighter, and restrict yourself you non-charismatic dialog and actions. The person who is okay being a strong and tough fighter who is also charismatic and intelligent can play that! A fantasy world can be whatever you want it to be. Build it from the ground up so that you can be the character you want to be, and let the game adapt to that. They can develop organically together.
  4. If when they say isometric, they mean true isometric projection, then no there would be no zoom or non-parallel camera movement at all. If, however, it will be running on a 3D engine with a isometric-like perspective, then there is the possibility of zoom. I prefer the former though.
  5. I don't understand what's impossible about it. It's like you don't trust people to play the game how they want to play it. I don't think anyone's not going to play it the way they want to. If someone wants to adhere to a strict character sheet that they developed, they'll do that. If someone wants to pick whatever dialog choice they think will be most interesting, and not roleplay at all, they'll do that. Everyone's happy! And hell, the game could even have an optional setting to turn on only dialog choices of the types you want, so you can build your own custom restrictive personality that the game knows! The set of possibilities is so much bigger when you don't force restrictive systems on people! If you read all of my posts, I've been advocating a reactive system of in-game relationships over and over. It's the other side of the coin I'm talking about here: defining your character. Why can't the game trust you to define your character as you see fit? Why does it even matter if the game can trust you or not? Cheat codes are as old as video gaming itself. Give people the freedom to define their characters at every turn, not just at the beginning of the game into a one-size-fits all mold. If someone takes advantage of the system and plays a completely illogical character, why is that a problem? They had fun playing the character they want to play. Everyone is free to play as restricted of a character as they want, and everyone is happy with their character. No one is stuck making compromises and developing a character they don't feel captures the soul of the character they really want to play. Why? I remember playing hours of Age of Empires as a kid typing in cheat code after cheat code, and I had a blast! Games can be whatever you want them to be. And by taking the arbitrary rules of conversation and stat restrictions out of the hands of someone else who doesn't know your play-style and putting them into the hands of each individual player, you can have players craft their own game, craft their own rules, their own limitations. You can have every player playing the game and character they want to play (within the confines of the game's framework).
  6. Because restrictions can be challenging. Just tell me, did you like Oblivion? If you want restrictions, restrict yourself! That's the whole point! If you build a game with X number of restrictions, you have X number of restrictions, the end. If you build a game with open-ended system, you can play the game however you want. Maybe you want to play a character who is normally super eloquent, but can't say two syllables together in front of women. You have the dialog options for that and you can manage your character's personality yourself. Maybe you want to play a half-orc (or whatever the token brutish race is in the system) who is actually very intelligent, but prefers to hide it and speak like a 3 year old like the rest of his kind, but occasionally if you win over his trust, he'll break out and have real conversations. The possibilities are endless when the game doesn't arbitrarily restrict you to the molds it thinks you should fall into. And as long as the options are there, you can still play all those typical modes. I'd give vanilla Oblivion a 7.0/10; the stat system was quite broken in my opinion. Fully modded with my slew of choice mods, 8.9/10.
  7. Because it's not a adventure game? Next thing I could say is that I don't need attributes and my character will just bend these iron bars because that's what I believe he should be able to do. If you want to roleplay a brute, why should the system arbitrarily prevent you from doing that? I've played BG2 runs where my stats were modded to they're max, because if I want to play a demigod I should be able to. The restriction of the game engine aside, why does the game have to hold your hand? Are you scared that you won't stick to the character you're roleplaying just because the option is there? It boggles my mind that people want restrictions. I want a roleplaying game that is more open, not more restricted.
  8. Why does that need to be a stat? Give me 10 dialog options to choose from, and make the more nervous sounding one have a negative impact on the innkeeper. I don't need a stat system to tell me what I am and am not allow to say, I want to say whatever I want my character to say and develop his personality myself.
  9. I may be dense but I do not understand what you mean - could you elaborate a little? I assume you mean the second paragraph? Essentially I don't want to see my conversation stat rolled against an NPC's conversation stat to produce either a percentage of success or a pass/fail dialog choice. What I want to see is instead of my character having a bluff stat (or charisma stat, or whatever other stat) I'd like my previous actions and dialog choices to determine whether I can bluff an NPC. If I do shady things around town, and the innkeeper has heard mention of me around the bar, I want that to affect his trust of me. If I killed the last town's innkeeper, I'd hope that would go towards making him quake in his boots, or maybe the exact opposite happens and he'll pretend to trust me but try to poison me. The possibilities are endless as far as the actual content of the relationships, I would just like to have every NPC react to how I've played my character in the 5/10/50/100 hours of doing things in his or her world, as opposed to reacting to some number I set before even starting the game. I envision every NPC having access to different amounts of knowledge of and experience with the player, and everyone of them having their own personality which takes those events and develops a complex relationship with the player that is non-linear and hopefully much more organic than a simple stat roll.
  10. For the first section, I want clean, straight-up dialog like the first example, but I want narrative descriptions as well. They would both be separate for me. None of the above for for the second section. I want to see a qualitative dialog system instead of the usual quantitative system. I dislike conversation and persuasion stats with a passion. I would love to see a relationship system within the game that is based off building a reputation within the game itself (not on a character creation screen), and where each npc reacts differently to that reputation based on their own disposition and how much they've actually heard and seen.
  11. I wonder if anyone even reads these...

  12. NWN and NWN2 are full 3D, they are not isometric under any definition of the term. You have the ability set the camera to a certain angle to emulate an isometric view, but that doesn't make it an isometric game.
  13. All they would need to do is work out a financial arrangement for the outstanding sales, and then GOG would provide codes to Obsidian who would then distribute them to everyone who bought one. I don't see that being a problem.
  14. Yeah, as I understood it, the whole idea is to go isometric like the IE games.
  15. Torchlight 2 in a couple days!

×
×
  • Create New...