Jump to content

Tuco Benedicto

Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tuco Benedicto

  1. The "majority" more often then not doesn't even know what they are looking for. I know plenty of people that can't even tell exactly what they enjoy and what not out of a game they are playing, let alone suggest good features for an imaginary one. But it isn't. It's definitely part of the game mechanics. That's why even books with branching narrative are usually called "gamebooks". Because making choices and facing the consequent outcome is the "gamey" part of them.
  2. Yeah, but it's the interactivity part, with choices and consequences and the world reacting to your input, that makes it worthy and "gamey", not the story itself, which as I said when good it's mostly added flavor (and when it's bad detracted one). I would pick the most solid RPG in terms of mechanics with the ****tiest story over a poor game tied to the most impressive story ever told in a game. If I want quality narrative above everything else, videogames definitely aren't where I look for it. Strawman argument at its finest. Who ever spoke about monster-slaying? And how are MMOs supposed to be a good replacement for a single player RPG? Seems to me you don't even know what you are talking about.
  3. No, this is first and foremost a game, and story never comes first in a game, not compared to game mechanics, balance, user interface, overall fun and so on. Of course, in RPGs, like in graphic adventures, story is far more relevant than in other genres and can add a lot to the experience, but it still is "additional value", it shouldn't ever be the core purpose of the experience.
  4. Nothing personal, and of course you are completely entitled to your opinion, but I must admit that every time I read someone ready to dismiss game mechanics and balance using the "I play for the story" argument, I cringe a little bit.
  5. I can tell you what would boost my confidence in this project even more: mock-up screenshots showing off that they have some clear idea about what kind of art direction they want for this game and that it can actually look nice. Yeah, I realize it sounds "graphics- whory" and all, but truth is: I have plenty of faith in Obsidian when it comes to RPG mechanics and overall design and I won't even bother telling them how to do their job in the very area where they always excelled. At the same time I'm very skeptic about their ability to deliver something consistent in terms of prettiness and high production value, especially on a shoestring budget. So yeah, regardless of how this game is supposed to be "old school and hardcore" (which I'm totally fine with) I'm far more concerned about how this game is going to look and control than I am about how they are writing it.
  6. Yeah, I don't agree with anything you are saying. Beside being generally prettier, I'm exactly saying that IE games to me control far better than NWN 1 and 2 ever did. And I'm talking specifically about the "feeling" giving commands to you men, moving them around, using the UI, etc. Looking "blockier" is irrelevant, as that's simply up to the low resolution used. Also, ToEE in these terms is at least on par with IE games (despise some needlessly clumsy element of the user interface) and generally speaking looks at least as pretty (AND once again better than NWN 1 and 2). It also feels way more close to IE games in pretty every aspect, so I have no idea why you are mixing it with NWN 1 and 2. It'salso funny for me how you claim that NWN 2 spoiled you over NWN 1, as I think NWN2 is by far the most clumsy out of the two in terms of camera control, smoothness, responsiveness, etc. The only things that NWN2 adds over those other games named here are more complex 3D graphics. But it does it with such a lifeless and bland art style (sorry Obsidian, but that's how i see it) that makes it paradoxically the most modern and yet the ugliest of the bunch. On the other hand, a modern game that despise its MANY, MANY flaws nailed that smooth "Infinity Engine" feel in terms of controls, camera, etc. was Dragon Age: Origins with the isometric overview. Of course, that came at the price of a dull ruleset, dull quests, boring dungeon design and non-existent monster and encounter designs. And that's because life is a bitch and we aren't allowed to be entirely happy with something.
  7. WUT? As I said I'm not really into nostalgy for the sake of it, but both NWN and NWN2 look, feel and control far worse than any IE title.
  8. I'm *entirely* for a separate tutorial that you could pick from the game menu. Maybe developers could make it mandatory the first time you install the game, but that's all I feel I can concede. If they want to make it somehow tied to the story they could call it "prologue" or something like that, but the actual campaign in a game should start dropping you in the heart of the actual game. In-game tutorials are inevitably boring, if not even annoying, after the first playthrough. Whoever tried to replay a Zelda game after the first time should know what I'm talking about. And for those who are asking: yes, it was boring even in Baldur's Gate.
  9. While I'm not in the nostalgic delusion that "2D is always better at anything ever!1!" I would gladly buy any (good) game based on a 2D engine similar in every aspect to the old Infinity Engine. Except that I would expect support for higher resolutions these days. You know, 1980x1200 and so on.
  10. This is one of the most crucial aspects in a game that offers what is supposed to be tactical combat. Enemies should be highly differentiated, yes, but also not just loaded with random abilities (i.e. "special mobs" in Diablo). Instead they should be designed to bring specific elements to the combat, that make them very distinctive in terms of identity. Spiders with poison and webs, vampires with level drain, undead immune to fear and charme and/or resisting to non-magic weapons and so on are all valid examples of this principle in the old Infinity Engine titles. Uh, guys, read the OP. this thread isn't about the lore. It's about the mechanics these creatures are supposed to bring into the combat system.
  11. That's what is commonly called "overkill in design". You don't really need half dozen of subsystems in place for something like lockpicking, unless picking at locks isn't going to be the main activity of your game.
  12. Actually there isn't necessarily need of a dichotomy between "serious tone" and some humor. Humor doesn't need to be specifically in the form of some cheesy comic relief. It's entirely possible to have dialogues and situations that have a humorous/clever/ironic side while still being very dark/bloody/serious in general terms. Breaking Bad comes to mind as an example, even if it's an entirely different setting. EDIT: Damn, apparently I was very late with this.
  13. Do you even know what are you talking about? They didn't left Middle Earth, they left their original home (Valinor) to start a fierce blood hunt for the one who betrayed them and stole their Silmaril. And they went far enough to slain other elves, their "brothers", just because those were on their way. They accepted to be *exiled* from Valinor and they disobeyed the Valar just because they were so passionate about their revenge that they just couldn't let it go. Their bloodlust went on for ages before, just after many centuries, decimated by endless battles, some of them started getting old and tired of all the struggle and accepted to go back in Valinor.
  14. I love how people keep namedropping Tolkien as an example of "generic fantasy" and mixing it with what they call "bland D&D crap", when actually Tolkien's work was anything but bland and generic. Sure, it inspired a ****load of highly derivative stuff that re-used to some extent some of its tropes, but that's pretty much all. Wrong. Tolkien's elves, especially in the Noldor tribes (who also had the bigger role in the Silmarillion) were quite fierce and passionate people. In fact, being terrible fierce and passionate is probably their most distinctive trait and the very first cause of most of their problems and tribulations across the ages.
  15. While i can't tell you how much freedom they are going to leave to the player (for obvious reasons) I should point that the exp system doesn't have nothing to do with how forced down to a path a player is going to be. Once again, take Bloodlines as a reference. It's not that anyone is preventing people from wandering in a forest killing stuff. I'ts merely about not giving exp reward for that. Which doesn't mean that there can't be rewards for special monsters (maybe because they are tied to a quest, maybe because you can carve out of their body some kind of trophy that you can trade for some reward). Also, exp isn't the only kind of reward. For instance Killing a Giant Pantherbear (...yeah, I made that up) could simply give you access to its lair where you can loot some awesome item from a corpse. Or its pelt could be skinned/looted and used to craft a valuable armor. OR someone put a bounty on that beast somewhere and sooner or later you are going to get your exp reward anyway, just not for the kill. And so on. There are no issues or limitations that a good design can't dismiss.
  16. not necessarily. You can have exp rewards even for optional content not related to a quest. OR you can have different kind of rewards (i.e. "PHAT LOOT!11!") for that kind of content. Also, let's say there is a dangerous troll chief in a forest. Even if kills aren't strictly correlated to exp rewards, nothing prevent a designer from binding an exp reward to that particular kill, just because it matters.
  17. But that only works for goals that are assigned by the game. If I decide that my character's goals are different from that, do I break the system? i think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "goal" in this context. It's not about what your objectives are as a character or what quests are on your journal. It's about having a set of "achievements" (or "accomplishments" if you prefer a less abused word) that lead to that amount of exp reward. What you are asking is if there will be an alternative path to "Get rid of that guy", which is entirely possible, but that's entirely up to the developers and how they are going to design the content in their game, it's not something related to the system used.
  18. Did you play Vampire: Bloodlines? In that game if your goal is "get rid of this guy", you get exp just getting rid of the guy, it doesn't really matter how you accomplish the goal and what you do on the way to reach him. So, if you kill everyone and then slain him, if you sneak into his house and poison his dinner or if you use a disguise to approach him and then you manage to talk him out of town, you still get the same exact reward. And you get it always just after completing your actual goal. Of course, then you still have to face the different consequences of your actions, regardless of obtaining the same exp reward... But that's another story. It's a great system.
  19. Yeah, not a big deal if it's going to mean a bigger and more content-filled game. Maybe it's even for the better, because any half-competent artist can make 2D background look reasonably pretty on a low budget, while just the most talented can achieve a stunning 3D scenery. As I said previously in this thread, I'm far more concerned about characters models/monsters/animations, as they can have a huge impact in how pleasant to the sight a game is going to be and so far Obsidian never shined much in that aspect.
  20. Weapons should always be lootable stuff, armors should be very rare unless for specific enemies (most of the times the game should just imply that what enemy thugs were wearing went ruined during the battle, if you really care for that sort of stuff) and yeah, beasts should "drop" their pelts/scales/teeth according to how useful that stuff can be and nothing more.
  21. Well, that's also because it wasn't actual art but cheesy photos with some touch-up.
  22. Well, using 3D models for characters and 2D art for their portraits aren't two mutually exclusive things. Personally, I tend to be against 3D animated portraits unless they are executed and animated with stunning quality (i.e. DOTA 2) which I doubt could be the case with this budget and engine. So I'm all for 2D art for this game.
  23. That's not the point, it doesn't make it anything better (even worse in some way) and it's also true just for Baldur's Gate 1, not for the second (with a couple of notable exceptions). Beside, no one was criticizing the feature, we were just pointing differences. Also, Fallout 3 is an entirely different approach from FO1 and FO2.
  24. I'm not sure where did you get that idea. I just want characters that don't look like tasteless clowns, which is something that happens far too often in fantasy games. It's not even a matter of realism.
×
×
  • Create New...