Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About MinotaurWarrior

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. It really depends on the level of graphical detail they're going for, which we just don't know at this point.
  2. Basically, just what the title says. I assume this game will be use table-top inspired mechanics anyway (since it's ment to capture the feel of the IE DnD games), so could we maybe get those rules released for our use in a nice, presentable PDF as a stretch / backer goal? Perhaps this could be released just a few months before the base game is released (when you guys are in late QA or something), so as to build up some more excitement just before game is released. I feel like I've seen a couple of other CRPG developers do this recently, but I cannot for the life of me remember who they were.
  3. I agree with exponential curves (or perhaps fibbonachi curves, or something like that), but I really disagree on the point of big numbers. To me, 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 feel the same. Sure, I can compare them and say, "One billion is one thousand times as large as one million," but that's an intellectual point for me, not an emotional one. On the other hand, if I start out getting five experience points for killing a goblin, then I get twenty five for killing an orc, then I get one-hundred-and-fifteeen for killing an Ogre - that feels huge. I can really picture the difference, y'know?
  4. I'd like something like this - but as an added feature, I'd love it if there was a keyboard shortcut to turn the AI scripting off for the currently selected chracters. Give us flexibility.
  5. Exactly what the topic says. How much more powerful should a max level PC be, compared to a level one PC? Personally, my preference is for an experience where normal enemies at the start of the game (wolves, drunken street thugs) are simple minions at the end of the game, but always stay relevant. Something which could pose a threat to you at the start of the game should never become an insect for you to crush, imho. One way I'd really love to see this implemented is by having none of the PCs attributes automatically increase. Unlike in, say, DnD where a fifth-level fighter automatically has five times as much health as a first level fighter, I'd like to see a situation where you have to put points into Constitiution (or whatever) to increase your health (and by doing so you'd be choosing not to increase your attack power or accuracy). By the end of the game, I think a reasonable (not min-maxed) PC should be able to be about 2x as powerful (double all the important stats for his class) as a starting character, + have a lot more options (special attacks, spells, et cetera).
  6. I really like Minotaurs, as you might imagine. I'd like to see a race of vegetarians with strong social unity among the females, and fierce competition and frequent violence among the males. Both males and females would be nothing to mess with: tall, horned, and thick with physical power. Because of their herd nature, they'd be capable of true egalitarianism at higher populations than humans or elves - thriving towns of a few thousand could get by this way - but it would not be in their nature to unite different communities into a larger heirarchy. The strongest bulls would be dominant in their community, and not easily allow anyone to rule over them. War among Minotaurs would be rare, and done by champions - the strongest bull of one community fighting against the strongest bull of another. When humans, elves, or dwarves invade their lands, Minotaurs are often disguisted by their apish barbarity. The Minotaurs would be given to deep rumination, not idle displays of cleverness or invention.
  7. I think this really should depend on the scope of the adventure. Are we going to be futzing around with kings and queens, defending their realms from dire threats? Then at that point, my party should be suited out with the best of the best magical equipment. Are we working on our own, with no patrons, nobody to support us, fighting monstrous foes who have no need for enchanted baubles? Then maybe we'll be able to scrape together a single suit of enchanted armor by the end of the game. What I want in this area, like in all areas, is internal sensibility. Kings should be pooping in enchanted bedpans. The fiercest of bandits should cherish his weakly enchanted dagger. The sworn guardians of the Hermit-Sage of Al'Nurath? Each is equipped with a spear, shield, hauberk, and amulet of bear summoning.
  8. That's really a position that doesn't make sense in a medieval context. What does it mean to free the eunuch slaves who ran the Ottoman Beuracracy? What does it mean to free the serfs who were tied to the land their lord owned? What does it even mean to be free in a medieval setting, when your life is foreit for anyone powerful enough to take it, when a king can strip you of your property and exile you from your homeland, when 80% of the population must spend their lives toiling in the fields for the other 20% to be able to do anything else? But it makes sense from a cRPG POV. And having the possibility to do something and see its impact on the game world, to me at least, is lots of fun. I agree that having an impact is really fun, but I'd prefer it if we had impacts that actually made sense, in conflicts that actually made sense. So, for example, say that we're dealing with a conflict between a top-down divine monarch who appoints lords who own serfs, and a germanic style monarchy where heads of households gather at Things and elect Lawspeakers and Shire-Reeves and Chieftans (who then go on to elect Kings / Emperors). Then, sure, you can side with the germanic-style state and think of yourself as promoting freedom, but while you're at it you're probably sowing chaos and instability, and you're not really changing that much. The heads of household will still probably have farmhands who can't vote, and the higher positions will still probably stay within one family most of the time. And what will most often decide how people vote at the Things and the other assemblies? The threat of force, and family loyalty. Compare this to, say, the simplistic conflict we had in BG:II:SoA, where there are Yuan-Ti peddling children and pit fighters for the enjoyment of the Ultra-Rich. Some may prefer the latter, and that's fine, but I'd prefer the former.
  9. That's really a position that doesn't make sense in a medieval context. What does it mean to free the eunuch slaves who ran the Ottoman Beuracracy? What does it mean to free the serfs who were tied to the land their lord owned? What does it even mean to be free in a medieval setting, when your life is foreit for anyone powerful enough to take it, when a king can strip you of your property and exile you from your homeland, when 80% of the population must spend their lives toiling in the fields for the other 20% to be able to do anything else?
  10. What I love about Loghain is that he was so nearly right. There really was no evidence that this was the Fifth Blight, it really was the best tactical decision to retreat from the battle of Ostagar, the Orlesians really were trying to take over (by somehow getting rid of Loghain's daughter and marrying an Orlesian Royal to Cailan), and the Grey Warden's delayed lighting of the signal flare really did look like treachery. Arl Howe was a **** but he was loyal, something the Coussland's may not have been. This is what I love in an antagonist. Someone who I don't hate. Someone who I can come to respect and maybe even admire by the end of the story. Letho from the Witcher 2 is another great example of this. Yes, Letho has been working against Geralt from day one, yes, he made Geralt's life incredibly difficult, but no, he is not evil. He's the only one in the whole game who is fighting for Witchers. He's the only one fighting for the rights of Geralt's kind. Similar defenses can be made for all the potential "villains" in that game.
  11. I liked the balance struck by DA:O, where the elements feel like they're there, but don't obscure so much of the screen.
  12. 18. My favorite cRPG? Baldur's Gate Trilogy (1+2+ToB). But I'd like to give special mentions to Morrowind + Mods, for devouring so much of my time in middleschool and having such a fascinating setting (my personal issues with the writers aside), and Alpha Protocol for just being such a fine display of excellent craftsmanship. AP is really the shining example of how to handle choices in a mission-based RPG. I think the following is an accurate list of the cRPGs I've played, in order of when I first played them: Final Fantasy X Morrowind KotOR KotOR II Oblivion Bladur's Gate 2 Neverwinter Nights 2 Baldur's Gate 1 + TotSC Fallout 1 Baldur's Gate: ToB Fallout 2 Vampire: the Masquerade: Bloodlines Jade Empire Fallout 3 Alpha Protocol The Witcher Deus Ex Dragon Age: Origins Risen Mass Effect Mass Effect 2 Dragon Age: Awakenings & DLC Dragon Age 2 The Witcher 2 Arcanum Planescape: Torment Fallout: New Vegas Skyrim NWN 2 expansions Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Deus Ex: Human Revolution And now I'm currently playing Icewind Dale. This list excludes several of what I'd consider RPG-like games.
  13. Right, so ignoring the whole "virtues of feminism" debate, I'll just quickly state my opinion and leave. It's quite nearly as damaging to our culture to ignore historical persecution as it is to support current stereotypes. You wouldn't set a story in the fantasy Antebellum South and have racial equality as the norm, nor would you have workers rights in the fantasy Industrial Revolution (Arcanum did this right, imo). On the other hand, historical supression of women has never stopped women from becoming great figures: in Egil's Saga, you have women's lives being decided by men wholly and entirely, and you also have Queen Gunnhild going around being awesome. This should be recognized. I'd prefer to see a situation where the opression of women is displayed, and the consequences of this evil are shown, and in spite of this great women work their heroism and villainy across the world.
  14. Actually, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning was considered a success. The problem was the 38 Studios was also developing an MMO, which was funded by the state of Rhode Island, and the new Governor (who was opposed to the project from the start) decided to screw them over. Every time I hear that story, I'm surprised. I just can't get it to stick in my mind that, yes, Rhode Island was funding the Amalur MMO.
  15. hold your horses there young'n! I don't want an entirely silent game... I can't even fathom a BG2 with a silent Irenicus. Blasphemy i say! Yes, but the scale is completely different. PE is going to have VO accents, compared with a AAA title, where they have to record a half hour of just villagers shouting at you as you walk by.
  • Create New...