Kilroy_Was_Here
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Kilroy_Was_Here
-
-
Money is always easy to get!
Talking sword, do you have any advice?
"Advice, eh? Well, besides working a little on your swordsmanship. Besides that, I'd have to think. Hmmm... find someone rich, and kill them. Find someone richer, and kill them, too! Hack and slash you way to fortune! Woo-hoo!"
-
The reason why you were able to get all of the portraits for random NPCs in a mod is because whoever made the mod got a bunch of art they don't have the rights to and packaged it together. Doing/licensing all your own stuff is an entirely different animal. I think much the same effect can be achieved by giving every NPC their own name, rather than 'farmer' or 'soldier' or something generic.
Maybe having a greater variety of portraits to choose for the PC, or a variety to pick for each companion might be more realistic.
-
You mean it's not already included? What an oversight...
-
I liked the relationship (don't laugh) in Metal Gear Solid 3 between Snake and Ocelot. After they first fought and Snake easily beat him, Ocelot spent the rest of the game trying to improve himself in order to gain defeat Snake and gain his respect.
Technically, this could also be said to be his motivation in every subsequent MGS game as well.
This leads to a remarkably tenacious antagonist who constantly seeks to prove himself against you. Even should the world be torn asunder, a character like that is still compelled to seek you out for one last challenge, if only out of pride.
-
1
-
-
What worries me about the companions is that they are all tied to a tier that also includes a new race and class. To me that means one token companion per game race. It's directly stated flat out that the new companion(s) will be of whatever mystery class is part of that tier.
The personality of the limited number of DA companions aside you had: one warrior, one offensive mage, one healing mage, one melee rogue and one ranged rogue (not counting Shale or the dog because they don't have standard character classes). In DA2 they spiced it up with two warriors, not counting your sibling (one two handed and one sword & shield). So if I didn't like, say, the melee rogue the game offered I either had to: do without, be one myself, or make the other rogue into a poorer substitute.
Even in BG2 there was enough variety that you were never limited to only one choice for a given class. I'm hoping that won't be the case here either, but what I see right now says otherwise.
-
1
-
-
I think it's too early to know if the April 2014 (which itself is only given as an estimate) is realistic or not.
Either the engine they choose to use can be easily coded to make the game, or it can't.
Either lots of crippling/crashing/annoying bugs will pop up late in the development process, or they won't.
Either all the content they want to include is ready/balanced/playtested as the release date approaches, or it isn't.
Probably the first real indication we will have about the state of the game is when the donor beta starts and we start to hear what shape the game is in.
-
I wonder if you get to choose what kind of soul the PC has at character creation (combined, fractured, pure, divine-touched,etc) and that would determine some of their abilities or be required for certain classes.
Also on the arcane 'shield', I'll bet that the shield blocks attacks going both ways so that the magic user would need to take it down temporarily in order to blast someone. Otherwise how could you get through one if you don't have a gun?
-
2
-
-
The difference is that in 'non standard game over' scenarios you can't continue past that point (and typically aren't allowed to save anymore) but in 'unwinnable by design' you go on often never knowing what went wrong.
-
I believe you are talking about something like this? http://tvtropes.org/...innableByDesign
Usually ideas like that exists only in adventure games since in an RPG there are so many mechanics involved. IE: a battle that was made unwinnable because of earlier plot choices might appear to the player to be a difficulty spike or a need for better equipment.
Yes
But making something unwinnable is not unheard of in RPG world. And it's possible too.
Several RPGs like Shadow Hearts, FO1, FO2, FO New Vegas, Persona, and even Planescape Torment, which PE is based of, have several game over subplots.
Oh, so you mean this? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NonstandardGameOver
I thought the Persona 3 one was great because the two ending paths are almost identical to the game characters, only we the players know.
-
1
-
-
There have been some pretty amazing player houses created by Skyrim mod authors.
My favorite is Build Your Own Home
I'm hoping for the option to build a home through a sort of crafting system, ideally in a way that is highly customizable according to your character concept and playing style. It would be great if there is a way to incorporate quests into the process of building and expanding your home, or quests related to NPCs that might reside in your home.
Or if you didn't want to customize it yourself, merchants would sell 'starter sets' like in Fallout 3 based on certain concepts.
-
1
-
-
How about a system like NWN where the mob's name is color coded based on your relative levels?
You learned pretty quick it was time to leave when AWESOME MCAWESOMESAUCE hit the scene...
edit: Had an additional thought. What if whether you knew what 'color' someone was depended on your skills or if you had heard of them before. Sort of like a DnD knowledge roll. That could make for hilarity if you thought something was really scary when it wasn't... (or vice versa)
-
Makes sense if it could be done in the engine. The Infinity Engine literally had one template for 'fighter male human' so only the coloring of the skin/hair/clothing could be changed. Ever see Minsc without a helmet? He has white hair because the engine didn't have a bald model and white was the closest thing to blend in with his body.
-
I believe you are talking about something like this? http://tvtropes.org/...innableByDesign
Usually ideas like that exists only in adventure games since in an RPG there are so many mechanics involved. IE: a battle that was made unwinnable because of earlier plot choices might appear to the player to be a difficulty spike or a need for better equipment.
-
They can't use the PS:T alignment system (good-neutral-evil and lawful-neutral-chaotic) because that was the D&D alignment system and they no longer have the license to use it even it they wanted to.
-
The traditional fantasy races in it are kinda the point in a way. They are going to put their own twists on all of them/subvert them.
Maybe dwarven women will have long beards and men will be clean shaven?
-
BG2 was unique in that most of the game was cool sidequests. You get out into the world and the main quest becomes:
NPC:'get 20k gold and come back and see me'
PC:'Um.... ok.'
That's the essence of Chapter 2, and most of the gameplay (60+%) is in that single chapter. Want to bust some slavers? Wolves attacking a village? Harpers kidnapped Monataron? (Not Montaron... you bastards!) Just about every area has interesting stuff to do in it, none of which is connected to the main quest except maybe getting you closer to your 20k. Have yet to find any game that does this so well.
-
1
-
-
There can still be a lot of variety within a standard fantasy setting. I've been reading the Pathfinder Advanced Race Guide and there is a lot of interesting concepts there.
Plus, existence of guns in a fantasy setting implies steampunk. Steampunk implies magical clockwork mechanisms. Magical clockwork mechanisms implies some kind of (semi-)intelligent mechanical creature. Since guns are rare these would have to be even more rare: possible companion?
-
I'd like to vote for something between option one or two. If it is possible to kill a companion any time, or at least try to kill them, it should trigger a conflict-driven scene which varies depending on a range of factors (e.g. their personality, where you are in the plot, what you know about them, what they know about you, etc). They may demand to know why you are trying to kill them, fight you, try to get away without fighting, or what-have-you. The event should impact other characters who are aware of it and care about you, the companion in question, and/or the morality of anyone involved (or general morality of killing).
That scene would make sense if I attack them frontal. But what about if I take them by surprise or sneak up on them?
Then there's a puff of smoke and it turns out you backstabbed a log. Then they kill you from the shadows...
-
What happens a lot in betas nowadays is that some players will find out that some feature they really wanted was cut/minimized/implemented in a different way and react by bashing the game up and down the internet just because their pet peeve was stepped on. This is inevitable anyway, but there's no reason to encourage it more than necessary.
Plus, the people who donated less are generally less interested in the game. (I know that some people would like to donate more and don't have the money but let's set that aside for the moment). People less interested are more likely to give feedback like 'this needs to be just like it is in [generic recent release x]. Since I don't want playable pandas I want to avoid this.
-
2
-
-
For some reason I'm recalling the beginning of Seiken Densetsu 3 (the Japan-only sequel to Secret of Mana that never got localized because Square hates you). You picked one character as your main and 2 more as your party, out of a pool of 6. The primary character got the full unique intro that ended up with them needing to go to the Holy City. When you met up with the other 2 you got a slideshow with the highlights of their intro (which would have been full and playable if you had picked them as the main instead) as they explained their own reasons for needing to reach the Holy City. Even the characters you didn't pick show up as NPCs when appropriate.
Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the companion characters had a more personal connection to some of the starting locations than others? Using Dragon Age: Origins as an example, what if the city elf's cousin, dwarven noble's friend etc were companions for all PCs but would have a special relationship with a PC from that origin?
Might be a lot of work for too little gain though.
-
Something tells me that by the end I will have spent more money on this than any game before...
I REGRET NOTHING!!
-
7
-
-
In Bioware's defense, didn't Morrigan's romance actually hugely affect the plot?
In the same manner that any plot device affects BW's plot...it didn't.
You romance her, you get one extra sentence when she ask you for a child.
You don't romance her, she still ask you for a child.
And the world kept on turning.
And there's the rub re: Videogame Romances
It's frivolous filler meant to satisfy some juvenile urge and that is all. It doesn't help make the game any better or deeper or realisic or IMMERSIVE. It simply makes the lonely person playing the game who says "I want kiss my graphic sprites" the beautiful and overwhelming sensation of companionship that can only be had from a few clumsily-written lines of game-text coupled with tiny graphic icons. Awesome.
That's just like... your opinion man...
-
1
-
-
In BG I nearly always killed Imoen, because I really hated her one liners. So I want same option in Project Eternity too, if my copanions hit my (character) nerve they may die by fireball thrown in one second rage
.Aerie is far more annoying.
But Aerie will eventually sleep with you if you put up with her annoyance.
-
Wouldn't slings be much less effective against people in armor? In order to get any kind of range you'd need to mass-fire the bullets into the air and arc them back to the ground; would that velocity be enough to cause damage? I'm honestly asking... I'm not an expert on medieval weaponry.
I thought the most powerful pre-gunpowder weapon was the mace because it actually did more damage to an armored opponent. One hit to his dominant arm and he was done for, one hit to the head and... well it wouldn't be pretty. And swinging a mace is pretty easy compared to a sling or bow.
What makes a villain you love to hate?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I like Grahf from Xenogears. (If you've played it, you've noticed already
)
Trying to avoid spoilers here... Grahf was a man who defined himself in his ability to protect something, but in the end he failed. So he went on a quest to attain ultimate power. He acquires this power and becomes immortal but can never go back and reverse his own failure. So he goes around and tries to awaken others with his gift of 'power' which makes those affected insanely destructive.
I liked him because he never wanted any glory or recognition, and avoided taking the center stage except to block you when your goals interfered with his. In being reactive like that, he makes a good foil for most heroes who are proactive in their efforts to 'save the world'.
PS Plus he can take out giant robots with his bare hands; and who can honestly say they don't respect that?
PPS He also has epic theme music. That should be a requirement for video game villains.