Jump to content

Umberlin

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Umberlin last won the day on December 14 2012

Umberlin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

397 Excellent

About Umberlin

  • Rank
    (5) Thaumaturgist
  1. Absolute nonsense laced with either outright lies or a complete inability to read. I've given exact explanation multiple times, in nearly every post in this thread covering: 1. Why I think such things don't work in the games they're in. Where? In posts where I admit, that even games in which such systems 'do' have a place (not this game, and not this genre) I point out actually flaws in the system. In some cases I've pointed out a person being able to pick even the master locks in the game, without having more than the starting points in lock picking. I've also given an opposite example o
  2. Ah, the usual, "I have no legitimate counter, so I'm throwing around basic English 101 Elements of Arguments dismissals in order to lure the spotlight away from that fact" approach to discussion. You can challenge it all you like. It won't make action RPGs into RPGs. At the end of the day most action RPGs rely so much on the player and twitch, and gut basic RPG elements to such an extent, that even, yes, as a sub-genre, they barely resemble the core RPG they spawned from. Everything and anything from, 'I can overcome the fact that my character can't pick locks by way of this mini game' to 'I c
  3. Because they aren't RPGs. They're action RPGs (and the RPG portions remaining are just BARELY there, especially in regard to nonsense like Mass Effect). Get that through your head. Action RPGs are not RPGs. The difference is obvious an action RPG is more reliant on the player, but it's an entirely different genre for that reason. Obsidian, by their own description of P:E, are making an RPG. Not an action RPG, just an RPG. That means the twitch elements, and elements that let the player overcome the numbers - like lockpicking mini games - have no place here. The character picks the lock. Not
  4. No, the action is your characters, you, at most, in a true RPG, give the command. That's it. That should be the absolute end of your input. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to pick the lock. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to swing their sword. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to move to a given location. These actions are theirs, their abilities based on the numbers telling you what the character is, and dictating what they can do in the world. The extent of your input is the command. Commands that mean nothing, and should
  5. Remember that a dialogue choice won't succeed/won't appear without the statistical values there required for your character to come up with it, or to pull of saying it properly. This extends to combat, you might try and move ten tiles, but if your character on a numbers level can only move five, well, it won't work. These numerical values dictating what your character is, and what they can do, are essential to proper roleplaying otherwise you have those, "and then I sprouted angel demon ninja wings and cast ultimate super death nova" type players running amok. You might tell your character
  6. It should be wholly dependant on the character's skill, and the extent to which you've advanced said skills. The entire process of failure or success should be on the character's skills and statistics, on the numbers, not on player skill. Ever. No matter what we're talking about. I want an RPG, not a twitchy action game. You are not the character. You are playing as the character and all your failure or success should be dictated by what the character is capable of, not what you are capable of. No mini games, no multi-tiered nonsense. Just go up to the chest, or whatever. and search for a
  7. Funny you make it sound like it's only me, when, the reality is, the major portion of the gaming community have no care or want for such modes. Such modes, and the hardest difficulties are always the least used, least played and least cared about. Outside of the scope of a few loud mouthed elitists, and a few not-elitist, but very hardcore gamers, that is. Any time, manpower, effort and resources they could spend on a mode so few will use, let alone care about, could be infinitely better spent on features that the majority will actually make use of. It's the old MMO only 5% of players ever see
  8. A waste of manpower, effort, time and resources better spent elsewhere.
  9. Diseases at their most immersive, for me, in games, are when they also bordered - or outright were - at their most annoying. Different types of diseases, and poisons, in my mind, rather than, 'one poison' effect and 'one disease' effect as many games do, allow for a more balanced application of 'both'. You get your lighter, less impairing and less resounding effects, but also your rarer and nastier, more clingy, effects, at the same time. Balance out different effects with concepts like rarity of the disease or poison and the manner in which they spread/afflict, keeping things like duration an
  10. I dunno, did changing the gender make them suddenly okay by you? Male chars as I've seen them in games tend to have more twists to them even if they're meant to portray an archetype. When you offer a straight yes, or no, to a yes or no question, it doesn't usually bode well for what the actual answer would have been without the provided further explanation. Funny, I always despised Wrex and Minsc. If I had to pick one out of the two it'd be Wrex but, honestly, in the ME context I'd take Mordin any and every day over Wrex. Wrex? Meh. Sometimes I let Ashley shoot him. Sometim
  11. The Origins were one of the few worthwhile points of DA:O, and all of them getting shoehorned into the headache inducing at worst, boring and tiresome at best, greywarden storyline, was . . . sad, because any one of them was more interesting than that. You could be winding your way through Dwarven politics, and their intrigue, and it would be great - you'd be having all sorts of fun - and then the story would slam into a wall, the greywarden wall, and the rest of the game was agonizingly scraping your face along that wall. Logan was probably the only character in that bloody thing that was a s
  12. Honestly if we're talking younger heroes, then it's not at all a bad thing unless they're badly handled, badly written and such. The age is rarely a problem one way or another, they can be any age. You see the same issue in aged characters, though, bad writing, or their game mechanics not matching up to the writing. When you have characters in their twenties and up characters starting off with no skills, or very little, it always bugs me more than any young character I've seen off on a quest. A young character is often a good eye to look from, to introduce you to the world, be it the main char
  13. I also think that she coud be a little bit older ... Funny, I more often find myself wondering why characters that are older than children/teenagers in games, on these 'epic' quests have next to zero skills, sometimes not even starting at level 1, being somehow below that.
×
×
  • Create New...