teknoman2

as i said, the difference is: PC: the keyboard and mouse can adapt themselves to any UI and gameplay type Console: the gameplay and the UI of the game have to be adapted what the pad can do you decide what is the better control system for a game

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense? Yeah, converting 2D images to 3D; what idiot would try something like that? We're amused. we are not talking about video's here, but about 2D static images seen from an almost top down perspective. so yes, adding 3D support in scenes with no depth makes perfect sense

and let's not forget that there would be nothing in the game to use 3D vision on, since 70% or more of what is in the screen will be 2D where do people come up with these weird ideas that even an idiot can see that they make no sense?

giving my opinion to the poll options 1. it was good but way too random. you could get something very good at the start of the game when you could not afford it then you would have to spend days upon days of advancing time to get it in the store again when you needed it and could buy it (or the oposite: items that could be useful earlier and never apeared before, just pop up when you are at max level and no longer need them). if they add it they should give it some progressivness, making sure that higher level items come up in the store more often when you are of higher level 2. it was good just to define your initial stats, but after that the character was as if he just poped into the world from another planet. even if he was supposed to have boarded the airship at Caladon to go to Tarant, he seemed not to know where either of the cities were or if they even existed. it's like the past you chose for your character just disappeared at the start of the game 3. that was well done, but could use a little more refinement 4. maybe the best implemented feature 5. didnt really liked it... made time in the game look trivial. my first playthrough lasted over 3 years in game time 6. that was nice. and i liked the persuasion system too. you had to have both the skill and some knowledge of the subject to successfuly do it. if you tried to talk the guard into letting you in the "Boy's" mansion, you had to dig up some dirt on him to know what lie NOT to say. not a click to win option 7. this will be in eternity 8. see 1 9. it was nice, but the problem was, that most of it you had to just blindly go around the map hoping to stumble upon it. see 5

well the poll options are definatelly limited. to balance the game there will obviously be tradeoffs. wearing a leather armor will be different from wearing a full plate, but there will be reason enough to choose either for your character. besides the obvious weight of the armor that limits the overall weight of the items you can carry, heavier armors should also make the character move slower. light armor should allow to fully use your dodge skill with less damage resistance, while heavy armor should give almost imunity to some damage or weapons, while taking away your ability to evade attacks. if stamina is used for the use of skills, heavier armors should increase the stamina loss. since all spells come from inner power, armor should not restrict their use, but a mage with plate mail, can't avoid attacks and has a greater risk of getting hit and having his spell interrupted. sneaking with metal armor should also be impossible or very hard at least since metal armors are noisy and shiny. that's just a few things that may work, but i think a full time brainstorming veteran game designer can come up with something better than what any of us can come up with after a few minutes of thinking. unless we get a nuclear bomb sized moment of inspiration

real time destruction is, if not impossible, very hard to implement in any way in this game. however there is no reason for which after you leave an area, to find it completelly different when you return (just one extra map that loads instead of the other if some condition is met). you leave a vilage to the mercy of a demon, you come back the next day and you find burned ruins. you go into a building and have a huge magical fight, you come out of the building and you see flames coming out of the windows and roof (it just takes a decal, added by script when you complete the quest in that building).

well i certainly did not like the dice thing... it was way too random. and considering my luck, i tend to get lots of 10- rolls in DnD based games, while the enemies get lots of 15+ rolls making combat a traumatic experience im all for flat stats. the less combat and other game mechanics are based on seer luck the better.

while what you say is true and i agree with this method, the check decides not if you say it right, but if the other guy is willing to listen to reason or buy your bluff. in that case the best thing is to have, besides the skill itself, circumstantial modifiers. if you speak to someone who trusts you, and you need 8 intelligence to use a certain response, he listens to what you say. if he does not trust you, you can use the responce at 8int but it may not work, but it always will at 10int. if you have lower than 8 int, you simply are not smart enough to say that thing

well i prefer not to have an indicator that says [click to win]. i want it to be a test of my own intelligence to understand what responce is based on my character's intelligence.

it would be fun but not applicable in this particular game. however i could see it happen in DA3 that uses the frostbite 2 engine.

Various RPGs have various ways of calculating the damage done by weapons and various ways to present it to the player. In DnD you get 1D8 for damage, and that practically is a more elaborate way of saying 1-8 damage. Would you like to see in a weapon's stats 1D8 or 1-8? Personaly i prefer the second since it's the same thing but more clear, however i never liked the idea of weapons doing x-y damage, so i'd rather see a system where the weapons have flat damage and it's the character's stats that determine if the weapon does more or less damage than it's base. What do you all think?

the reason they dont want to make a console version, and almost no developer wants, is that the pc version has more fexibility on how it's made. you can use any engine, with any programing language and create any kind of game with any kind of interface. any pc will be able to run the game (provided the hardware have the necessary power) and the combination of mouse and keyboard will adapt itself to the game mechanics and interface, making controls intuitive (so long as the devs didnt complicate things themselves by adding useless combinations of buttons where a simple click could sufice) in console you have to use specific programing, adapt the game to the hardware and adapt the mechanics and interface to the limited functionality of the pad. so the developer cant make the game he wants but only what the system allows him to do

also it is highly efficient in making both 3D and 2D graphics, so they dont need anything extra for making the landscapes

the point of the whole discussion is: the highly versatile combination of mouse and keyboard, allows for fast, precise and eficient control of the game and its interface, whatever that may be like, while console controlers require a certain type of game control and interface setting to work efficiently, otherwise they tend to be problematic in developer terms, that means that making a game for pc only, they are free to make it any way they want, without having to compromise on the design in order to accomodate the limited and inflexible pad as a control method

....Which is something I already addressed in the context of Fallout (it's called Damage Threshold,) in the very post of mine you just quoted. i didnt read you post though not all of it anyway

I liked Fallout 1/2's system that combined both Damage Resistance (percentile reduction, cannot negate all damage taken) and Damage Threshold (subtractive reduction, can negate all damage taken if it is below the DT,) there's a strong argument for that being unbalanced in the wrong circumstances, but if there were an armor degradation system in place, the DR/DT ratings would gradually decay as the armor takes damage. New Vegas came close with its DT system, but I didn't like the fact that a minimum amount of damage always penetrated. If some stableboy with a **** broom smacks me in the head while I'm wearing a good helmet, I don't want to take a single point of damage unless it was a critical hit that bent my neck in an odd way, leading to a minor sprain and a few days of ache (unless tended to.) That implies that any/all attacks will penetrate that suit of full plate, though. Damage Resistance is not the ideal solution because the idea that every kind of attack will penetrate that armor and wound the wearer is a given in it. Like my broom example from before, a set of full plate armor vs. the stableboy's brush will necessarily have to leave you taking damage. Let's say this broom swipe does 1 HP damage. Your armor reduced that by 50%, but unless there are decimals in PE, it's going to round up to 1 HP, meaning steel plate armor has no effect against wooden broomsticks. that would be easily solved if instead of a percentage they put a fixed amount of damage absorbed by the armor, like in FNV. so a leather armor would block 3 damage, allowing for up to 85% evade chance if you have the stats for it and a full plate would block out 15 damage per hit allowing for up to 5% evade

i think a combination would be better. each character should have the ability to evade attacks, based on his agility and/or some skill. some items, like shields, boots of avoidance or bracers of defence should add to the evade chance, while actual armor should have a limit to how much evade they allow, with heavier armors allowing none. obviously the heavier an armor the more damage it can block from each attack. so the padded cloth armor, would give no evade limit, but only 3% defence against damage. the leather armor would cut your evade by 15%, while reducing damage by 8%. the chain mail would reduce your evade by 50%, while reducing damage by 20%. the full plate would reduce your evade by 95% and damage by 50%

gentlemen: the witcher 2! if you use 80% of that speed (Geralt is a mutant with increased strength and speed so his swings are faster than normal) and keep the non fancy moves, you get a perfectly realistic attack animation for a human wielding a 2h sword

i dont argue with that, but i think the best option is to have all paths available for solving a quest require an equal effort, with varying but balanced rewards based on the outcome, except for xp that will always be the same. now if you are a dumb barbarian but you decide you want to solve a quest by talking, you have to save, try, fail, load, retry, reload and so on until you succeed. it takes more effort because you try to use skills on which you have not invested, should it pay more? if it did, a guy who invested heavily on his social skills, would breeze through the quest and get more than the guy who, having invested in combat, solves it with violence. a barbarian, would not be able to talk 2 feuding families into making peace, so he would just kill one (easily since he is a war machine and they are civilians) and get paid by the other, getting 500xp. a silver tongued chanter however would be able to do it (easily if he has the skills) and would get also 500 xp. then the chanter would get a bonus quest because of what he did, that the barbarian would lose, gaining another 500xp. however the chanter would not get access to a certain dungeon where only a barbarian can enter and gain 500xp by clearing it. of course if you have a silver tongued barbarian, you can have access to both, however a barbarian who invested in social skills, will probably not have the combat skills needed to clear the dungeon

So basically if someone rushes through the game skipping sidequests, because he plays an impatient guy that doesn't like to stride from choosen path, should have at the end the same amount of experience as someone that plays game thorough?! That's just stupid. Even the mercenary can be stupid, killing a guy because someone said so, or smart, bargaining for better deal and choosing the better option for himself. Taking the easiest solution should be less rewarded than digging deeper in to the plot. That's how every good RPG was designed. In fallout 2 you got the quest to deal with Gecko situation from president of Vault City. You could simply kill the ghoul or repair or destroy the reactor plant and even going deeper as to establish a beneficial connection between the two settlements. If those two approaches were rewarded the same amount of experience when one require actual thinking and the other just shooting stuff that would be beyond idiotic. If someone likes to just kill everything and rush through the game that way, that's ok. But don't expect to get the same benefits as people who like to think and enjoy story, setting and sidequest, no way hose. Even in PnP extra effort is awarded with more exp. And there is no excuse - but I play the idiot that doesn't know other words than quest, kill, yes, no in RPG. That's your choice and bear the consequences. of course not. if the total amount of xp in the game is 200k, then 100k will be from the main quest and 100k from side quests. if you do not do any side quests, you will have 100k xp at the end of the game, with the level that comes from that amount. the gecko example is poor. your reward for solving the quest given to you at vault city, was always the same no matter the way you solved it. if however you chose to solve it peacefully, you would get some more quests along the way and that increased your profit. that is different than saying "if i kill the guy they asked me to kill i get 1000xp, if i talk to him i get 2000xp". no matter how you solve the quest you must get 1000xp. what could happen if you talked to him and finished the quest in a peacefull maner, is that you could get another quest from the guy you spared, worth another 1000xp.

and that is all i had to say

i think you 're missing the point. if you reward something more, then you give incentive to the player to abbandon their chosen play style in favor of that extra reward. i play the cold merc that does anything for money, no questions asked. to stick to my chosen path, in your example i would just kill the target on sight. but if i know that i wil get rewarded more for playing Ghandi i would be very tempted do that... it is a form of roleplay to decide based on the size of the reward (my favorite in fact), but it's not who my character is in that particular playthrough. i should not get penalized by the game for playing that way. besides why one option should be considered hard work and the other lazy? killing a guy in the middle of the street would invite all sorts of trouble. to kill him stealthilly in his house would take careful planning and patience. so killing one or the other would not be much easier than talking them into trusting each other... it would just take a different kind of skill set

I don't agree, the E example i making the statement that "being stupid is stupid" style There can be more options like killing one guy and killing the other after he shows you to treasure etc. Which would get "being evil and smart" as best option for this quest. Why killing the guy for 10% of share should give the same exp as killing the guy for 50% with bargaining? Or taking the longer road to achieve more? For me the more I get involved and the more options I tried to finish the task the more reward should I get. Thats the way RPG works since PnP! The repercussions for any approach should of course also vary. of course, but if the repercussions do not penalize you later for choosing the highest reward solution, then we fall to the trap of having a play style that is better than the rest for every quest. and that invites power play killing role play in the process.

i dont think it should, but if it did, the variation should come in conjunction with what the result of your choice will be later on in the game. in your example D would be the hardest to achieve, therefore it should have the highest reward, while E would practicaly get you no reward at all, making the gameplay biased toward the "being the good guy is better" style

Disagree. If all paths result in the same reward, then the best path becomes the fastest path. There's always a best path. Worse, that just makes the choice of approach trivial. It becomes Mass Effect 2 and 3. It doesn't really matter what you do, you end up with the same result anyways. They should get different rewards because it's unreasonable to assume that all approaches have equivalent difficulty in achieving them. Talking someone out of something may be significantly more difficult than stealing it from them, and killing them might be alot more difficult than either (Or might be easier). The reward should reflect the difficulty in achieving the results with the path that was chosen. IMO, making all approaches equivalent ultimately makes the choice of approach irrelevant, and thusly makes the option to choose irrelevant since you're going to get the same thing no matter what you do. you can add a hundred variables besides the reward when it comes to show the result of the actions the character performed. it doesnt have to be the reward itself. but even if it is the imediate reward that changes, the variables are still there changing what you can or can not do later. you can do things to maximize your reward from your current quest, but that may block out your access to other more rewarding quests. in the end it's all about balancing the game to keep any approach from being a better choice than the rest.