Jump to content

BasaltineBadger

Members
  • Posts

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BasaltineBadger

  1. Children should be killable. I found it laughable that a game where you can detonate nuclear bomb in the middle of a city doesn't allow you to kill children because it's creepy. They wouldn't because it's not a AAA heavy marketed game, and would have to actually play it to find out abut childkilling, so they will be quit just like they were with Fallouts, Baldur's Gates and NVN's.
  2. It may not be as unique as PS:T but it doesn't sound like its a generic fantasy setting either. Which has resulted in a lot of outcries of its own, I've noticed. So far the only new thing I've seen is the vaguely described matter of souls. I don't count extending the timeline beyond the usual middle ages to the renaissance a significant change. Don't be so judgmental. Arcanum also had standard fantasy races but managed to do something great with them.
  3. To maintain power? Power from/ over what? How? Over the people. They are probably either powered by faith (like in Discworld) or just powerful who are very mortal and need followers because of their limitations.
  4. There are almost no specifics about gameplay and story, so it's no wonder people are talking about stuff like that, and both issues are highly controversial LGBT because LGBT is always controversial, romances because of people who want to know how Tali's sweat tastes like. @Drowsy Emperor: Proving that romances aren't necessary in RPGs doesn't require posts that long, just some name dropping. Fallout, BG1, ID, ID2, Morrowind all were good without them. On the other hand I wouldn't call PS:T a game without romances just because it doesn't have standard Bioware's juvenile ****fest. The people clamoring for romances are so persistent only a foot long post will keep them at bay. For 10 minutes anyway. But it does nothing to convince people who want romances but don't think they are essential (like me), and people who think they are a must won't be convinced no matter how long a post is so it's a waste of time to waste energy like this.
  5. IMO: -every recruitable NPC should have unique sprite like in PS:T, elf party member should be distinguishable from every other elf immediately -PC can look generic, but I'd rather have him have one fixed unique look (which means two sets of sprites per race), like in Bloodlines I'm not that much into customization, especially face customization because I usually end-up with rubbish.
  6. There are almost no specifics about gameplay and story, so it's no wonder people are talking about stuff like that, and both issues are highly controversial LGBT because LGBT is always controversial, romances because of people who want to know how Tali's sweat tastes like. @Drowsy Emperor: Proving that romances aren't necessary in RPGs doesn't require posts that long, just some name dropping. Fallout, BG1, ID, ID2, Morrowind all were good without them. On the other hand I wouldn't call PS:T a game without romances just because it doesn't have standard Bioware's juvenile ****fest.
  7. I think this is the most important bit besides mages wearing amours. It implies that warriors might get access to some spells or spell-like abilities, which would balance their limited combat options.
  8. This whole immersion thing is complete utter bull****. It is an opinion not a fact that you get more immersed in a game if it has first person perspective and real-time action combat. I get much more immersed in a game if it's text heavy and has rather abstract combat system. For example in Fallout, I shoot an enemy and get a gritty description of what is happening to me, because of that combat feels real to me because I know that I shot him and he dodged the bullet or was hit and the description reflects that. On the other hand in New Vegas I run up to the enemy shoot him in the head, I clearly see that he got shot right in his face, but nothing is happening to him. This is immersion breaking for me. And using firs person perspective is a choice not an evolution.
  9. First of all I doubt that with 6 party members talking yourself out of trouble will be necessary. In games like Bloodlines of Fallout you could have trouble while travelling alone or with AI controlled companion, but when you are controlling 6 of them you should be able to complete mandatory encounters. Personally I almost never talk myself out of combat, it's just clicking button to skip interactive content (combat), i only use persuasion when it gives better results like in the Torment ending.
  10. If you voted 'no' you said you wouldn't sacrifice romances even if they drained that many resources. You misread the poll. EDIT: In fact I'm seeing people that said they're against romances being in the game voting in the poll, despite the fact that the question was only polling people that were pro romance. I guess I suck at wording things. Sorry,I've misread that, gonna change my vote. Thanks.
  11. If they drained that many resources they would have to be overblown and would get in the way so no. EDIT: On the other hand I'd vote yes if all of the party interaction was at stake. I'd want more dialogues with party members and multiple companion quests per character, with an ability to affect them in some way (like teaching force in KoTOR 2) even if it means some towns of dungeons got cut from the game because of that.
  12. Voted no on the first two questions, romances would have to be humongous to drain signifficant part of both gameplay and design resources. It's an RPG not The Archers: The Game. I mean seriously what the hell. Normally romances include some dialogue and optionally companion quest (that can be accessed without romances). What do you think standard RPG romance looks like OP?
  13. Gold is probably much more common hence less valuable than in real world.
  14. I would like to see -Substance abuse. For example: powerful mage abusing dangerous drug that boosts his abilities for the sake of the community. If you make him stop his city won't grow much but he'll live long enough to do some significant magic research if you don't his city will grow to be a major power in the region but certain branch of magic will never be discovered because of his premature death -Black magic used in noble goals. For example a certain tribe sacrifices their own people to gain power form demons to fight off the invaders. The sacrificed people are agreeable -Witcher like dilemmas when someone is going to get hurt, possibly a person you like -Situations when it's better to support evil people for long-range goals. Like doing quests for evil organisation in order to gain it's support in an upcoming battle and saving many people in the process. The quests should require player to do things that are clearly morally wrong (like murdering a good priest) without a third option where player may fake doing quests like telling people to go into hiding and reporting that they are dead.
  15. It would be just another meaningless layer of micromanagement, you could solve every weigh problem easily by dumping all extra gold in your house or exchanging it for gems.
  16. I would like human to be in equal position to other great races. The "humans are very weak and aggressive right now but they are very adaptable and gain more power to the surprise of older races" it has been done to the death and I'm sick of it. Also, since elves and dwarves are very similar to people perhaps they should be connected somehow, instead of usual "ancient race/gods created humans and then barely modified them and created elves and dwarves because apparently the weren't very creative" Elves might be humans who decided to live in forests and were affected by spirits living there etc.
  17. No they are not. Dwarves are bearded muscle men who value tradition, honor and hard work while halflings are clever and mischievous people who would like quick income and lazing around. Gnomes on the other hand are just introvert dwarves.
  18. No the game should only feature white Anglo Saxon Protestant heterosexual male characters. Do you not realize how bigoted it is to not want minorities in games? Or they should be but shouldn't ask for it? Let me just get back to the back of the bus with Rosa Parks then. Calm down, he just meant Obsidian should put them in if they want to, but that they shouldn't try to force gay characters in just to satisfy LGBT lobbies.
  19. Perhaps we could roll cleric and monk together and get western cleric who fights bare handed because his magic/philosophy doesn't allow him to use weapons.
  20. The romances will probably be in, Obsidian will probably try to subvert big heroic cliche ("great life" quote suggest that) so they'll probably implement some romances with tragic endings. Something like Madison romance in AP. No I'm sure Obsidian is just waiting until the kickstarter is over before they announce no romances. Too bad that's Obsidian, not EA games. Better withdraw your money now if romances are so important to you and not playing RPGs, because I don't want to hear a lot of complaining when they announce they don't have the resources to invest in romances. Romances are just a nice addition, not a requirement for me, and if Obisidian didn't want to include romances they would say that they don't see place in the story for them instead of coming up with a pathetic excuse like that. They would also probably announce it either before the kickstarter closes (when they decide to give more details) or during the development (if they haven't decided yet) instead of waiting for kickstarter to close like some shady publishes. I didn't imply shady practices, I just meant they would wait until after the kickstarter to announce there would be no romances. And if that happens the "I gotta have romances" crowd is going to complain about donating money to the kickstarter. If Obsidian knew that people are looking forward to romances they would announce it as soon as they knew for sure that they won't be in. That's the reason while they are respected unlike certain other game RPG company that promised that their game ending won't be about pushing 1 of the 3 buttons. That's why I'm letting you know. Some of you don't like RPGs and won't want to play this game without romances so withdraw your money and get it out of the way now. I'm sure Obsidian can do without a few hundred pledges from the hardcore sex simulator crowd from Bioware. You have to be really dumb to think that someone who don't like RPGs pledged their money, seriously. But of course everyone who wants romances is a incest loving, gay Bioware fanboy, right? I wonder if you even read your own posts before sending them.
  21. I don't think that there is setting where gay people don't fit in. It's not like they disappear just because they aren't popular in the area/era.
  22. I'm not a big fan of thieflings and whatever their good counterparts were called. I surely hope that the greenskins ogres or giants are playable here.
  23. The romances will probably be in, Obsidian will probably try to subvert big heroic cliche ("great life" quote suggest that) so they'll probably implement some romances with tragic endings. Something like Madison romance in AP. No I'm sure Obsidian is just waiting until the kickstarter is over before they announce no romances. Too bad that's Obsidian, not EA games. Better withdraw your money now if romances are so important to you and not playing RPGs, because I don't want to hear a lot of complaining when they announce they don't have the resources to invest in romances. Romances are just a nice addition, not a requirement for me, and if Obisidian didn't want to include romances they would say that they don't see place in the story for them instead of coming up with a pathetic excuse like that. They would also probably announce it either before the kickstarter closes (when they decide to give more details) or during the development (if they haven't decided yet) instead of waiting for kickstarter to close like some shady publishes. I didn't imply shady practices, I just meant they would wait until after the kickstarter to announce there would be no romances. And if that happens the "I gotta have romances" crowd is going to complain about donating money to the kickstarter. If Obsidian knew that people are looking forward to romances they would announce it as soon as they knew for sure that they won't be in. That's the reason while they are respected unlike certain other game RPG company that promised that their game ending won't be about pushing 1 of the 3 buttons.
  24. @Jiraboas I was meaning to ask this question long time ago but why are you writing your name under every one of your posts. Everyone can see it's you, your name is over your avatar. The romances will probably be in, Obsidian will probably try to subvert big heroic cliche ("great life" quote suggest that) so they'll probably implement some romances with tragic endings. Something like Madison romance in AP. No I'm sure Obsidian is just waiting until the kickstarter is over before they announce no romances. Too bad that's Obsidian, not EA games. Better withdraw your money now if romances are so important to you and not playing RPGs, because I don't want to hear a lot of complaining when they announce they don't have the resources to invest in romances. Romances are just a nice addition, not a requirement for me, and if Obisidian didn't want to include romances they would say that they don't see place in the story for them instead of coming up with a pathetic excuse like that. They would also probably announce it either before the kickstarter closes (when they decide to give more details) or during the development (if they haven't decided yet) instead of waiting for kickstarter to close like some shady publishes.
×
×
  • Create New...