Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by descalabro

  1. Yes, I completely agree. It felt so frustrating to beat some hard challenge so I could obtain the materials to craft an item that sometimes I kept it just for the sake of it. I would eventually sell it, but it really was frustrating.
  2. 1) I don't see how. It was never said that hte setting is swimming in magic 2) Why would it be bland? Plenty of games feature exactly that. I hate the notion that CRPG are becoming so loot-centric. I guess it's the MMO/Diablo influence. That mastercrafted sword I had made by the master smith in town? It served me trough the game faithfully. Why should it be "bland"? A weapon that served your from beginning to end..that fact alone makes it legendary. Even better if you can customize such weapons (apperance) or simply because you wielded it for so long, you get a bonus to it because you're so familiar with it (easily done by tracking number of kills/strikes for a specific weapon) I agree with Darkpriest, having the same magical gear during the whole game gets tiresome. It feels great to find magical items, even when they are cursed or your race/class can't use them. You read the description and you feel it's an awesome item, but you later realize that item was nothing when compared to other ones you end up getting. It's also cool having to decide which magical item to use for each situation, and having to decide which magical items to sell, because sometimes an item is so cool you hesitate on selling it even if it's not that powerful. I usually prefer items which have some kind of power (fire, ice, acid, enchantments, etc) besides the + atributes. So it's also a matter of combat strategy; I remember once playing a Black Isle game in which you had to switch to normal items because that particular beast couldn't be killed with magical items, and that added a clever touch to the game. In IWD it made more sense to have magical items because normal ones got broken with use. In BG2 you would find a lot of them, but you still felt great satisfaction when there was one that could be of some use instead of being just one more magical item. Lower level magical items became a burden at higher levels, and that also made things interesting. Besides, if the game is well balanced, and has the right amount of magical items, and the right difficulty getting them, they will only make the game more interesting, and I don't really see a problem if you end up with a lot of them as long as they are relevant and fulfill the gameplay advantages I described. Magical items can make some truly epic battles where you have to consider them for strategy purposes.
  3. I think what's most important it that they don't give away too much information. I can understand they showed a lot of levels from the mega dungeon, for example, because they knew it would be a good way to get more funds, but now that the game is funded I hope they won't reveal anything else specific about the game. It's enough to me knowing how many companions we'll have in the game, I prefer to be kept unaware of their story and portraits until I play the game.
  4. well. Let's see how well the game mechanics will work once the game is completed. I think only then we may or may not guess future cRPGs will have some of those changes applied. In what concerns the effect of Kickstarter on future games, I have no doubt that this is going to continue bringing big changes, not only RPG-wise but for games in general.
  5. It's a small poll. Forum polls aren't very good scientific indicators at all, so don't get so fixated on that. You know, your post sounds just like those people who were against adding translations as part of a stretch goal. Notice, I said "part." The point of adding this to a stretch goal, just like the translations, is that the goal pays for itself. There is no waste. (At least, we hope Obsidian doesn't waste it.) I guess you're right, and like I said, I'm glad the game's going to have live recordings. I should point to the first poll about this subject, where Bell's post is shown: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61018-would-you-like-to-see-orchestral-score-as-a-stretch-goal/page__mode__show I hadn't even listened to those samples before. The second one sounds truly amazing, but getting such results from a virtual instrument is truly a challenge, and it seems to take longer than recording it live, even though it's obviously cheaper.
  6. First of all, I'm not weeping for anything, i'm merely expressing my opinion, because I'm old enough not to weep for a computer game. I hope you are too. And second, as I have posted before, there were valuable sub-options for people who voted "yes" and for people who voted "no". Because if one person votes for "no live music", then he should know what the alternatives are as to what Virtual Studio Technology allows. And if one doesn't know, then there's a whole internet world of information about it. And I would never be so arrogant as to trying to convince someone he's wrong for wanting something, I just feel this poll was biased because the voting options were not well balanced, and no one cared to explain the potential of VSTs. You know, most people used to complain about digital photography when it came out, and now even those people use it. Is it as good as analogical photography? No, but most people can't tell them apart. Of course I'm glad this game is going to have live recorded music, but I have my concerns about that being the best option to spend money on. And I have every right to have those concerns even though it's up to developers to decide. This is "general discussion" about the game forum, and that's what I'm doing: discussing.
  7. VSTs do not mean synthesized music: synths can be either analogical, fully electronic or VSTs (either sampled from one of the previous or completely generated from pure sound waves inside the computer). Games for which composers have used orchestral VSTs usually don't have any relation to synths at all. I wish people would be better informed about this.
  8. Well, it's true, you did fail to understand the poll: 41 votes for no inclusion of live instrumentation 101 votes for some kind of live instrumentation 25 votes not caring Just for the top poll. Then you're just pointing out how biased this poll was? Thanks for showing us that. What was the bias? The break-out was suggested by Bell because small ensemble/solo is a lot cheaper than orchestral. A "no" option is clearly included. I'm just pointing out your failure to understand numbers. A poll like this is biased because you have 1 "no" option, 3 "yes" implied options and 1 "don't care" options. First poll section should merely be 1 "no", 1 "yes" and 1 "don't care". THEN we should have the specific preferences for options "no" and "yes". Examples for "yes": 'full score', 'small ensembles', 'just the required musicians for instruments which don't sound as natural when sequenced'; examples for "no": 'synth based music', 'mostly plucked strings and percussion/piano', 'full score of virtual instruments' etc.
  9. Well, it's true, you did fail to understand the poll: 41 votes for no inclusion of live instrumentation 101 votes for some kind of live instrumentation 25 votes not caring Just for the top poll. Then you're just pointing out how biased this poll was? Thanks for showing us that.
  10. I fail to understand why Obsidian is going to spend money with live instrumentation if they reach 4million considering most people on this poll voted NOT to spend money on that and also considering Justin Bell said "It's impossible to fake, though you can get *pretty* close with virtual instruments." You know, most people can't tell the difference when it's done right. And very often the recording of ensembles gets worse results than those recorded for VST's purposes. Maybe they wanted it from the beginning and they thought the other options got enough votes, but on the other hand they've always made it look like this game would be a fairly small investment in which any dollar would count, and considering how close to the real thing VST's have become lately, it really makes me question how much of these poll results are they taking into account. Maybe they'll just record some strings so that articulations sound more fluid. I hope they won't spend a lot on this, because the votes didn't ask for it...
  11. IWD had a completely different atmosphere from BG. I enjoyed some locations in Fallout too, but the visuals rarely allowed them to stand out. That's what usually happens with tiled games, there rarely anything unique in the visuals.
  12. small ensembles usually don't have enough "aural" dimension to dungeon and exterior areas, and medieval instruments seem to work better for some city streets, fairs and taverns. And a large ensemble is too expensive, that's why I voted for virtual instruments I wouldn't even mind a completely synth based soundtrack if it was done properly. How's that for old school atmosphere?
  13. I just hope they don't show us the whole dungeon, because they're already showing too much as it is.
  14. That's pretty much what I feel too. It wasn't a very complete game in the sense BG2 was, but instead it specialized in extreme locations with either freezing cold caves or burning hot lava pits. And the way they managed to insert temples and lush palaces inside these elements was stunning to me. The entrance to Dorn's Deep with the glowing mushrooms and the sorcerer's iron lab; the sorcerer's tower at Kuldahar! the horse-riding statue at Easthaven temple! So many enchanting places within a fairly small game. I felt it was the darkest of Black Isle games, and yet it was the one where magic seemed to be more present. So far PE looks like it's going to be a cross between IWD and BG, so let's wait and see.
  15. Although I voted I think this poll is coming way too late. As for the voting options available, I don't think they are that interesting (19th century settings, for example, would be awesome). Anyway, I feel that a completely different experience would require (or at least would be favored by) a completely different setting, one closer to Fallout or something a lot more futuristic which would allow a whole new world of possibilities of in-game technologies, gear, skills and philosophical approaches to dialog; also, I for once would really like to see what the artists would do with a futuristic setting in pre-rendered isometric art; I guess I'll be waiting for STASIS to come out even though it's not an RPG (I don't think Wasteland 2 will be that interesting artistically). I've said this before: the only good reason I find for Obsidian to be setting this game in the typical phantasy world is the nostalgia factor. Otherwise I think they are missing a really big chance to explore a visual style which has yet a lot to offer. About the crafting, I'm not sure I understand it properly, but I really liked obtaining objects to craft or enhance my gear on IE games, and that was good enough, because any minor upgrade I could get felt awesome.
  16. the way they did it in IE games was pretty good: models looked simple yet pretty bad ass and gear looked like it was meant to do what it was supposed to do, and the epic factor was enhanced by colors (sometimes animated to really cool effects), item descriptions and high quality sound effects. Having said this, I think the problem you're referring to concerns 3D games where there's a lot of gear design possibilities. I don't see much reason to be worried about this question in PE or any similar game.
  17. Well, in IE games too much weight made your characters walk really slowly and it mattered enough, but I do agree that even in IE games you usually didn't have to make big decisions about what to carry. And items like those magic bags inside which you could fit so much stuff should be extremely rare and hard to obtain/purchase.
  18. Well, with games like IWD2 and BG2 it was different: those games already had an enormous list of creatures available from previous IE games, whereas in this case they have to design and animate all of them from scratch. To me what matters the most is that every visually different creature requires a different killing method/tactic, besides having a good deal of monsters which can be killed with normal weapons, I hope to see some really unique creatures akin to their geography too, and I also hope to see some really BIG monsters to defeat. Makes things all the more epic. I wasn't very hopeful about how the game would look but I was positively surprised, so I'm trusting Obsidian on this matter too.
  19. Not really. Combat is very important, specially in a game where you control an up to 6 members party. Combat gives real meaning to gear, skills, gold, etc, and monster variety, more than visual variety, means tactical variety and gear variety. We must go back to those book/board games: imagine how boring it would be if every fight had the same monsters described. If combat is just filler why not go for an adventure game instead of a RPG? I hope there will be a good variety of monsters with different methods to be defeated.
  20. I started by pledging 20 bucks. When updates started being posted I decided to upgrade to 80$ so I could get a boxed version of the game (+15 for shipping). Back when BG came out I wasn't fast enough to get the original boxes for the game nor its expansion. I got big boxed versions of the games but not those which looked like books. And I think having the game's box, the world map, etc, is part of the RPG experience so I wanted to have the original box this time. I don't know if it will be a big box like in those days or if it's going to be a smaller one, but I'm not counting on a DVD box. And I think the expansion should definitely have a boxed version too. Downloadable versions are ok, they spare the environment and make things easier for gamers and publishers, but it just isn't the same.
  21. I've always liked the way Commandos games looked (except Commandos 4). I also recommend you Spellbound games like "Desperados", "Robin Hood: TLoS" and "Chicago 1930". I really enjoyed the atmosphere on Robin Hood, and adding to the great graphics, the game had impressive physics involving combat and scenario interaction.
  22. Check out Baldur's Gate 2 in HD, 1920 x 1200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl9A4bSTsTo It's like playing Sim Ant. ^^ Unless you have a really big screen to keep the textures organic, resolutions this large tend to cut the atmosphere to me, because the action's focus is switched from the characters to the scenario, to a point where you start feeling too much like navigating a map instead of exploring a world. The charm of a torchlight in a small corridor is lost with really big resolutions. I see the point in fitting a bigger area onscreen for fighting purposes, but more than that just takes away some of the visual charm.
  23. Well, I remember the first time I was to travel to an island, in Tales of the Sword Coast, I was pretty excited just with the fact that it would be an island. There's always something mysterious about an island. But then there's the question of how the action is going to proceed in the island, and what kind of landscape/buildings will it have. Usually I prefer cities or dungeons (or a very busy landscape) to explore, because deserted planes where there's only battle end up taking disk space without adding much to the game. There's still much to explore with the island concept I think; TotSC was ok, and the island in IWD:HoW was mostly a waste of time. My favorite so far is Spellhold Asylum, and it's not exactly an island. (note: you should use a spellcheck when you create topics. No offense)
  • Create New...