Jump to content

Umberlin

Members
  • Posts

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Umberlin

  1. But in traditional fantasy, like Conan, the men generally wore full armor. Yes, they wore so much full armor that Conan spent large portions of the Black Stranger naked or in a ragged peice of cloth he'd tied around his nethers, while fighting picts in little more than that, and usually that little more being incredibly strange. The truth is, while there are plenty of actual uses of armor in his books, they're far - far - from the rule. Generally considers the idea that it happened more often than not, and, it's true, there's plenty of armor abound in the Conan books, on men or otherwise, but there are plenty of completely unarmored, naked or 'strangely' armored men in those books. The amount of nudity and 'revealing' armor and 'revealing' garb on the men in those books is part of the reason the revealing stuff on the women isn't noticeable. Because it's all around, and everywhere. Heck, going back to the Black Stranger the opening of that book has him in just a tattered, dirty rag tied around him dangly bits. Seriously, that book is full of naked or barely dressed men and women of all ages you name it it's there, and it's not an exception amongst the Conan books. Howard liked his nude and skimpy men in those books every bit as much as the nude and skimpy women. I'm not really for skimpy armor, but I am not for 'armored' either. I don't even like calling it skimpy because it's not skimpy as much as, well, let's go back to the Picts and some of the other oddly armored, or unarmored, peoples in the Canon books who existed along side armored peoples and cultures in that setting. Skimpy is relative, but some just didn't wear armor or only wore 'some', and I'm not talking about women here. That's not fiction. That's reality, people of differing levels of technology exist at once even not, and in our past, some never embracing armor of any sort, and still to this day being unarmored. There are parts of this world, even today, still so primitive some people seem to not even realize they exist, and they exist right along side cultures with nuclear arms and shotguns and assault rifles. They existed right along side cultures with swords and plate armor and chain and so on. Part of the weird thing with fantasy RPG fanatics is they look for this 'proper' armored model in games where 'people are wearing practical armor all the time', so often, where it didn't even exist in our history, and certainly shouldn't in a fantasy. Armor sounds great until you realize how many cultures got by just fine without it. We have kevlar now, but for a long time when firearms were first developed people stopped bothering with armor entirely. Why? Because it no longer mattered, and it's important, in my mind, to think about the power of a firearm . . . now think about the power a Wizard in most settings weilds. In many ways it's the same issue. That armor that didn't work against a musket or cannon ball isn't very likely to work against a fireball or lightning called down from the sky either. Of course we have gameplay balance to consider, and that's why they do work in fantasy RPGs, but if we're talking practical on levels beyond a game . . . I'm sorry, I'm putting my money on the guy with the gun or the guy who can create fire from thin air over the moron with the plate armor and a sword anyday. Still, getting back to the armor, here's the thing. I like armor. It looks neat. I like clothes. They look neat. I like robes, they're neat too. I like the conservative - full covering - stuff more for myself and my characters, true, but I also have no problem with the other end of the spectrum, the supposed skimpy stuff, and the middleground in between the two exteemes. I firmly believe in 'something for everyone' and I do think you can create clothing/robes/armor and arms in every tier for both extremes, as well as the middleground, in any type of gear you might need to present a person with. Let them make the decision for themselves, pick what they like for themselves and create different factions in the world that speak to these different tastes, so everyone has a bit of something close to their heart, to their taste, and the only people left out are the extremist that loudly insist: "No only this is right nothing else is allowed but skimpy!" Or "No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Practical!" Or "No only this is right nothing else is allowed but Conservative!" Or ""No only this is right nothing else is allowed but the middleground!" Or whatever else didn't manage to make up on the spot. Anyways, I know only some of that had anything to do with your post . . . the reply is mostly because your post inspired the line of thoughts, rather than an actual direct response - but you inspired me, be happy or whatever.
  2. Ever played Gothic II? Southern Baptist Fire Mages (I'm being unfair, they didn't all have southern accents). I love that game so much, despite some of its voice acting decisions. So do I, and anything Russian really.. but I have genetic and ancestral reasons for being incredibly biased toward such things.
  3. Racial bonuses can cause issues like that, but, having 'background' traits can often fix such issues. Background traits allow one to realize, when making a character, statistically, that what may be 'general' for a race isn't not all encompassing. Many people do many things for many reasons and have vastly differing talents regardless of racial qualities - this is due to their background, be it their upbringing or training or just plain ol' anomalies on the mental, physical or overall genetic level.
  4. I liked NWN's Beholder familiar . . . it was adorable. Anything that looks like a horriifc abomination from some ungodly eldritch realm, really. I never like the typical 'hey looks its an insect/animal' or 'its a larger than normal animal/insect' types. And the imps? I just would prefer a familiar be a character, not just this mindless thing, and its the worst with the Imps or anything that looks like it should be able to communicate on some. Mind any familiar should be able to communicate, but, again, so many just have familiars as these pets . . . that aren't even as good as anything else you'd summon. The deifing factor for me, at least, would be their interactions - since they wouldn't just be dumb animals, but intelligent things - even if they were visually animals/insects, they'd still be more aware than that. As someone that always likes Wizards a familiar always felt like it should be a far more major thing than most games with familiars make them be, even in settings they would be more than the games present them as, for the player character at least. NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer outlined what had been bugging me about familiars, especially, in that Safiya had a familiar who, in comparison to my own, was an actual character - however limited. It also wasn't a gerbil, which was a plus. That's just me though, which, really, means my opinions are worth all of about nothing.
  5. I think it was Gothic II that seemed to handle this fairly well. For a game where the houses didn't have doors, in a lot of cases, it was surprisingly hard to get in a house. Houses were a legitimate thing that NPCs protected, and they didn't like it when they caught you invading their homes. Playing a stealth based character, that snuck into homes, and stole things, was legitimately challenging. I'd add 'stealth' characters not just going 'invisible' to the list now . . . I can't agree more an approach where you typically rested at an Inn, and resting elsewhere was either risky or forbidden is a great thing, and I've only seen a few games out there do it well. I really liked the Quest for Glory series for this sometimes, though it wasn't perfect. I think Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines, as one example, did this right early on. True, it did devolve into combat later, but a great deal of your early content could be solved socially. It didn't have to be, but it was 100% viable in about the first . . . say, half, of the game. Before the sewer. There is another thread where we talked about intent, action and consequence. I like the idea of your intent being read by your friends/allies in one way or another, but I also prefer it when strangers who have only heard of you, and vaillains, look at your action/consequence rather than your intent. They likely don't even know your intent, so, really, why would they, especially in the case of a total stranger who has only heard about you prior, but now comes across you. They look at the consequence of your actions, and judge you on that. Good intentions can have horrific consequences, and a person of ill intent can . . . actually do good, if not intentionally, in terms of the fallout of their action - in some cases. Of course the opposite is true, and obviously things should never be black and white or good and evil in an absolute sense. I'd like to think after Light/Dark side points and the Paragon/Renegade system we're ready for something that isn't insanely polarized.
  6. If anything Paladins in P:E should be . . . what? What you decide? What you think they should be? Why? Who are you? What exactly makes your visions of what they should be more appropriate than the vision of the people actualy making the game? What's more fitting than their reimaginings of the various fantasy elements, such as classes? What you're saying "should" be might be appropriate for Paladins of another setting, but, why would it be appropriate for P:E if that's not the vision of the world, its peoples and so on? I'm not making a statement, nor am I telling you that you're wrong. I'm not even saying that another viewpoint is right. I'm simply asking a series of relevant questions.
  7. Why would they be worthless? Weapons have worth. The uses for them and the materials they're made of have worth. This isn't a question of whether they do or not. They do. Why wouldn't they? If people sell them, they have enough worth to be bought. If people sell them, then people buy them, and thus they are worth buying and selling. The end. I don't actually disagree with what you're getting at, mind you, in fact a lot of what you're saying is quite interesting. It's just that one point . . .
  8. The amount of ways in which I can so no, and the reasons for doing so, number in the tens of dozens. In the case of the reason that involves me, personally, it's that I do my financials on a wholly different e-mail than the one I use for forums. I donated because I wanted to, because I genuinely care about these types of games and want to see more of them, not because I was going to get some 'bragging rights' style reward for doing so.
  9. If I ever get to write a game, you'll be on an air ship, and it will crash in a primitive land. When you crash you'll be the only survivor. The people will come from miles around, and proclaim you're the chosen one, who has come from the sky as in the prophecy. Then they'll start arguing semnatics about what you're the chosen of, who chose you, and what you're destined to do. Then they'll start arguing and yelling at each other. Then it'll get violent, and they'll start fighting you and screaming at you to support them, and that the others are the vile anti-whatever you are. Then they'll all be dead, having killed each other off. You'll then be alone there, standing in the midst of the carnage - very confused. Then the game will get on with itself and have absolutely nothing to do with anything that just happened.
  10. Fate destinty chosen one blah blah blah dark lord blah blah blah dark army blah blah blah destroy and or take over the world blah blah blah . . .
  11. You've never seen someone complain about FF sequels? Apples and oranges, very different thing here. If you can't see why on your own I don't know how to explain it to you. This is every bit as bad, in my eyes, as opening up Black Isle studious again . . . with none of the Black Isle people involved. This isn't a sequel or a 'Torment' like game or anything of the sort, it's just name dropping to get attention for a completely unrelated project. You might want to say, "Well that's Final Fantasy" but you'd miss the point that, "Well that's Final Fantasy," Their games were never meant to be direct sequels (until they started doing that with X-2 and XIII-2). One of the first things pushed by this "Torment" game is that it "is" a sequel . . . part of the "torment franchise" despite not being a sequel, or even having access to any of the same resources. If I were looking for a Planescape: Torment game i'd sort of expect it to be set in Planescape, and have some actual links to the game. This game has no such links, they legally can't have such links. So really what they're saying is, "We're going to try and make this game like Planescape: Torment" only "it won't be Planescape: Torment" at which point the only reasonable response, in my mind, is: "Then you should sever all ties, not tout it as a sequel or any of that other nonsense, and just make a game, with its own 'not a cash grab title' and say that it was simply inspired by Planescape: Torment." It's all in the wording. They could have presented it as something inspired, in the same vein, which is what you're hoping it is. That would be fine - but they didn't do that. They went the cash grab, name dropping, 'look at me look at me' route . . . and it's despicable.
  12. Or not. If you tweak them you lose the people that found them interesting as is. You gain no one, the other types already had their interest. If another form doesn't exist you don't have that additional audience. Your take on this sounds like everything that is wrong with board room game development. Still subjective on a person to person basis.
  13. I can't say I'm excited or even hopeful in the least. It sounds like a cash grab off the title, until I see something that proves otherwise. I just hope it doesn't turn out to be as shameful as re-opening Black Isle studious with . . . no black isle people involved. Anyways, what little is there doesn't really sound like something that I'd associate with Planescape: Torment in the least. It's not even a Planscape setting, so, really, the 'name drop' of "Torment" and comparisons, insistence that it's another 'torment' game . . . comes off as even more of a soulless cash grab.
  14. The thing with the concept of this thread, is that more the half the time people note characters they liked, or loved, from BG or BG, or quite a few games, they're the ones I typically couldn't stand. I typically ran these characters off when I could, or outright killed them, or just treated them badly when I couldn't get rid of them. Which characters a person likes is subjective, and the ones I liked someone else may cringe at. So the basic idea of the thread is inherently, irreparably, flawed. You don't know who will be liked, and some you may not like others may absolutely adore. Your essential push with this thread comes down to things like: Which sound good in theory, but, really, if you think about it, who decided that those characters weren't likable enough to be party characters? Would the rest of us agree? I don't think you can handle such a thing in such a way, because the variety of party characters in a game is 'because' people have different tastes. The ones you don't like? Someone else loves them. Pushing characters 'you don't like' off as true NPC or what have you doesn't do anything but deprive 'people that aren't you' of something they'd enjoy. Half the fun of a game like BGII is the different personalities, and how they interact and conflict. Taking characters out because they bicker, or because you percieve them as annoying, doesn't do anything for everyone else. It only does something for 'you' and games aren't made for 'you' they're made for an audience with varaible viewpoints and tastes. Some people here really like Minsc. Personally I wanted him dead. I wouldn't want him out of the game though, despite that, because it's not just my viewpoint of character and their likability or usefulness that matters. In regard to usefulness specifically . . . they don't actually have to be. I can name times when I've played through a game purposefully with characters that were weak, or flawed in some way. Usually because I just wanted to see what would happen. I hated that little Gnomish Bard in NWN2, but I still used him in one playthrough just to see it play out, and was entertained, despite wanting him to die horribly painfully and screaming.
  15. I still think any polarized good/evil system in a game, but it a a darkside/lightside or paragon/renegade or any other example one could come up with is inherently flawed beyond hope and repair. Sure, a game can be good despite such systems, but the systems themselves always could have been more adaptable to individual morality and the perception differences between stranger, friend, ally, foe, villain and so on - recognizing that an intent is one thing. A consequence another. And the viewpoint of such things variable based on context, individual observer or individual who has simply heard of an intent/action/consequence.
  16. Can you really judge by intent if you don't know a person? The random person on the street, if they don't know you, isn't going to judge the intent of your action but the consequence. Something to keep in mind in regard to have a 'party member' views you by an intent, versus how a person who has just 'heard of you' judges on the consequence of an action, regardless of intent. It's most notable that intent of an action, and consequence of that action, don't always match up, nor should they.
  17. I always like choice, consequence and the like but any brand of absolute, polarized, good or evil separation of paths tends to annoy me. Choice is more complex than that, and consequences easily go beyond that, and can differ wildly from intention. Luckily, from what we know, P:E won't be doing the 'good' or 'evil' alignment thing. Thank you Obsidian.
  18. I feel like languages need to be implemented well, and have real implications for one person not understanding another. Missing out or misunderstanding and so play a big part in multicultural interactions, and it's important to make it feel and work right to achieve the various nuances. I'm not talking about implementing a language here either, that's another beast entirely, I'm talking straight consequence your 'replacement for a simple lore check' passing or failing, and the consequences need to be there, solidly, in my mind, if such a system where language (even if the languages aren't developed, only implied to exist) matters and exists in the world - especially if it exists in a mechanic sense. It can't 'just' be a system, the system has to work with the whole package of game systems; dialogue, missions and the rest. In terms of your actual suggested mechanic, I see a certain portion, however large or small, of people potentially getting annoyed with it. Not to say there are not people with grievances against the lore check route to language. I simply see the lore check route as the one less likely to cause annoyance on the larger scale. I'm not sure you need to turn checks into a mini game, I'm not even particularly fond of games that turn lock picking/hacking skill checks into a mini game. Such mechanics, for me, often just bring the game to a grinding halt, and offer nothing I enjoy while doing it - as most said mini games are as mind numbingly boring as they come. I'm not saying your suggesting one of 'those' mini games, but, the little scavanger hunt for slabs could all too easily become annoying busy work in the eyes of some, especially if they wanted to partake in said content. I'm not sure it being decoded in a new game plus would help either, as some players might not be willing to play again in a newgame plus mode, especially if annoyed by such a system. Still, I think your heart is in the right place, and I'm not saying it's a terrible idea. I'm just not sure it would go over well with a larger audience, or even myself after prolonged exposure. - For the record I despised the language hunt in FFX, and despised the game as a whole, save for its combat system, which, as far as turn based systems go, I was quite fond of.
  19. I'm telling you what I prefer. I do not find random trash encounters in any way interesting or worthy of my time, regardless of how well implemented they are, and several games have implemented them very well. I adore SoZ, and I still do not find random encounters worthy or remotely interesting, let alone rewarding from a gameplay perspective. I can live with them, don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world, and I don't despise them, they're just . . . forgetable and unworthy of note, even at their best. Telling me I can have both seems silly. I know I can have both. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you realized we could have both. The last thing I would want to post is a comment about encounters in PE that you already were aware of that would make me sound silly. I just wanted to make sure you knew we could have both, but as you mentioned you already knew this. So my comment is moot, I hope I didn't sound too silly. I'm just teasing I get your point. Don't worry, despite your sounding silly I do now realize that you didn't want to sound too silly, and that you get my point - my point being that I was aware of your initial point prior to your note of said point in reply to my original response to the thread. Luckily you seem to have fully comprehended that we both realize that we can have both and are not limited to having one.
  20. Yes, you can have both, plenty of games have done it to varying degrees of success. I'm not dismissing that. I'm telling you what I prefer. I do not find random trash encounters in any way interesting or worthy of my time, regardless of how well implemented they are, and several games have implemented them very well. I adore SoZ, and I still do not find random encounters worthy or remotely interesting, let alone rewarding from a gameplay perspective. I can live with them, don't get me wrong, it's not the end of the world, and I don't despise them, they're just . . . forgetable and unworthy of note, even at their best. Telling me I can have both seems silly. I know I can have both. If they're in I'm fine. If they're not I save time, and I'm still fine.
  21. Anyways . . . I'm not going to claim I'd have been wholly happy or sad in regard to this. I see the good reasons for why they came up with it, and even agree with them to an extent. However . . . I'd also have missed it a bit for my own reasons - I like characters being punished for overstepping their bounds, not even being able to hit something as a result. I'm okay with this though. I do understand that low level miss miss miss fest concern, so, if they'd gone as described, at least I'd have understood the logic. I sort of agreed that some players do actually like making that very mobile character capable of avoiding most attacks, or deflecting them somehow, but I also understand Obsidian can't cater specifically to the min maxers, and the late game. I've seen glance systems used well. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one . . . but I don't have to it seems, with some of a further things said on the subject. The note about 'health clipping' in regard to the DA2 Dragon battles is wholly valid though. Those were mind numbing and tedious affairs that were boring within seconds of starting them, and they lasted well beyond that, even with a very well equipped/powerful party. That is not something I want to see in "any" game, be it this game or otherwise - regardless of system. - Overall? Color me intrigued with the extra information provided beyond the initial questions, and in this thread. Glad Sawyer decided to talk with us, too bad I missed it, still wrapped up in the holiday stuff even up to the third. Guess we'll see how it all pans out. - A critical miss resulting in something like your character fumbling or falling or even dropping their weapon, as mentioned above, does sound interesting. I'm not sure I'd actually enjoy it, or find it feasible . . . but it is interesting to think about.
  22. What's less surprising is the lack of love for Barbarians. Give us more information about these guys, Obsidian! Not my thing, but, yeah, they do need more information no doubt.
  23. I can say with certainty that I always prefer pre-determined, well thought out and iintricately crafted, encounters that mean something in comparison with any brand of random encounter. I'd rather come up against an encounter where my opponents have specific goals and motivations, even if they aren't a part of the larger narrative. I'd prefer their styles of attack and their manner of approaching a fight with me reflect such things, be it a question of mobility or group tactics or both, as well as tactical approaches such as flanking, surrounding, and making it harder for you as a player to use certain types of counters/attacks/movements of your own (be it through their ability use or their actual positioning, be that positioning in terms of line of sight/cover or by staying in a range of your party that prevents use of your area effect abilities). I like the idea of an environment playing a part in what encounters are present and why, as well as presenting terrain complications and locational hazards.
  24. I'm not sure Osvir, I'm just not sure I see the point, or such a thing happening at all. I don't remember disliking anything in Mask of the Betrayer to such an extent as you've suggested . . . are you from a parallel universe where good things are bad? o_0
×
×
  • Create New...