Jump to content

eselle28

Members
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by eselle28

  1. I blame myself for the poor wording, because I, actually, agree with you Of course, interaction with the characters is, probably, the most important part of PS:T gameplay. What I meant to say is that the variety of choices in party composition was non-existent until the latter stages of the game, so it didn't really feel like you were choosing companions, but rather that the game was doing it for you. Mind you, the player was limited not only by the number of choices, but by availability of those choices as well. The companions arrived at certain plot points and some of those happened very late in the game (Vhailor is, probably, the most striking example of that, but Ignus, Fall-from-Grace and Nordom also joined up with you only around mid-game stage). Now, compare it to Baldur's Gate 2 (I know, I keep bringing it up again and again, but I do think it had a nearly perfect balance between variety of choices and characterization of companions). Aside from Imoen, there were only 2-3 companions that required any kind of significant questing to get them in the party. Basically, you could quickly assemble the team you wanted to spend the rest of the game with right after leaving Irenicus' dungeon. And you were doing it on your own terms, not because those were the only choices around. And before someone mentions "Adventurer's Hall" again - no, that's not a valid alternative, because I could base my choices on degree how I liked or disliked the characters, their backstories or writing, while In case of the AH I'm forced to limit my criteria to classes and stats. This is one of those places where opinions vary. I loved Baldur's Gate II and its companions and in the version of the game that I mostly used, found them to be plenty interactive. However, that was the heavily modded version with a bunch of banter packs installed and generally a talkative mod-designed companion or two in the party. The last time I tried a replay with the version of the game that shipped, I found my party to be awfully quiet and a little lonely, and missed the more dialogue heavy companions I was used to in other games. I don't necessarily think they all have to have their own quests, but I'd like more dialogue than that, even if it means settling for a smaller numer of companions. I would, however, hope for all eight of the companions to be available relatively early in the game and without too much in the way of questing to convince them to join. Planescape: Torment's design worked well for that game, but I'd also like to be able to assemble a party fairly quickly and get moving during most games.
  2. For me it tends to be: 1. A variety of choices when creating my character, both in terms of cosmetic choices and more meaningful ones that will affect how others react to me in game. 2. A varety of ways to express my character's personality. This can take the form of mutually exclusive quest lines or factions, but what's even more important is a good variety of dialogue options. I generally tend to play characters who are somewhere on the good end of the spectrum, so it's important to me that there be different ways of expressing personality (funny, snobby, idealistic, naive, and so on) beyond choosing the good option or the evil option. 3. The ability to really crank up the difficulty settings. 4. The game being modable and having a good community of modders. Nothing can freshen up an old game like a new companion or an extra series of quests.
  3. The Orlan Cipher...maybe just because I know a little more about his backstory than I do some of the characters who have names and portraits. Of the named ones, Sagani seems like she might be an interesting character.
  4. While this is true, its also not quite what I'm hoping for when I hear 'mature content.' HBO and Showtime have a habit of making shows (for HBO, Rome and Game of Thrones spring to mind) which are quite entertaining but are actually undermined by gratuitous sex and nudity. I have no problem with sex and nudity that feels natural and advances the plot. I get annoyed, however, when I feel like I'm being pandered to. If I want soft-core porn, I've got the Internet, guys. Only give me sex when the scene calls for sex, not to fit some kind of sex and nudity quota. Thankfully, I don't think we're at much risk of having that sort of sex and nudity in the game, if only because the graphics involved aren't going to make for terribly exciting nude scenes! (Actually, I'd argue that 3D graphics don't do a very good job of showing nudity or sexuality either, which is the primary reason I'd rather games lean more toward subtle than graphics when it comes to nudity and sexual encounters. I don't mind watching those sorts of scenes in theory, but in practice, they tend to be more humorous or awkward than sultry.)
  5. I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. I have heard and seen this argument before. Horrible thing happened to friend X(or themselves), we should not include or talk about it in media/games because they may relive or is reminded of the horrible moment. Do not think I am insensitive, I do feel for your friend and others like them. However, that is not a good enough reason to not include it. I know people who have been shot, were abused, are addicts, and many other horrible things to them. We might as well remove all that as well because it might traumatize them. No, I am sorry what happened to them, but anybody that affected should not be playing/watching media that has it in it and should honestly get serious help. Sorry if I seem a little crass, but I have seen plenty of white knights/feminists pull the R card (not accusing you of this), when trying to force their ideology views down everybody's throats. They use it too shame the opposition to shut up them up and accuse people that oppose their views as rape supporters. Its sickening they would use a serious traumatic event for their own ideology games and they are the worst scum for doing it. I don't think that rape should be entirely removed from a game because some people may be sensitive to it, and I think there's a place for depictions of it in games. But I don't want the experience of my character being raped to be a necessary consequence of selecting "female" in the character creation screen. That's wrenching a huge bit of character development out of my hands, and it's doing so in one of the most unpleasant ways possible. It may add realism to the game, but in my opinion, it doesn't add fun to it. All it does is take away my opportunity to have a bit of a power fantasy in my game, at least unless I resign myself to playing a gender other than my own. I"m particularly opposed to making things specifically unpleasant for female characters because these sorts of changes make the game far less accessible for people who always play them or who would play them on their first playthrough, and it seems as if many realism advocates want these sorts of options for later playthroughs when they've become bored with other content in the game.
  6. I wouldn't be personally interested in it. That sort of thing is a relief in an MMO setting, but in a single-player game, I want my second playthrough to be harder rather than easier. That being said, I'm not necessarily against it so long as it doesn't change game balance.
  7. I'd rather the mature content be thematic, and based on the developer and the proposed game design and the intended audience, I think that's the most likely. I don't mind violence and sexual content as long as they're handled maturely, and I expect that P:E will have plenty of the former and some of the latter. But realistically speaking, the 2D graphics do kind of limit how in your face either kind of content can be and I don't think that either of those aspects would be what would earn the game an M rating or make it unappealing to publishers. I think what's more likely is that stories about things like genocide, slavery, drug abuse and the like will be taken to their more disturbing conclusions and not cut off at a point where everything ends relatively cheerfully without forcing the player to spend too much time contemplating the subject matter. Instead of freeing a bunch of slaves at the docks or deciding to look the other way, players might get a chance to explore a culture that has slavery in more depth and talk to people directly involved in it. Or perhaps players might be presented two imperfect options and end up finding both choices quite disturbing.
  8. It doesn't look like there are any rogues in the current lineup, and I think that's a class that should be represented among the eight companions. I wouldn't mind seeing a druid represented either - and that would be particularly the case if wizards aren't healers. I'm usually more of an "It's about the character!" person, but I do thik it's a good idea to have multiple representatives of major combat roles so that players who dislike or feel their character would disapprove of one healer have another option available beyond heading to the Adventurer's Hall.
  9. BGII. It's the game I've played the most times, is modable and has lots of exising mods, and generally offers replayability in the way many other RPGs don't. As much as I loved Planescape: Torment, I think that the defined protaganist would make me not want to have it as my only RPG ever. I've enjoyed exploring the story of The Nameless One and taking different directions with it, but there are some character types I enjoy playing that I can't fit into that storyline.
  10. That's an interesting idea. I was picturing a system more along the lines of characters in a particular region only having specific triggers from specific religions. For instance, that character and most people in that area follow God A, tolerate but have some stereotypes about God B, are hostile toward the worshippers of God C, and regard followers of other gods or non-believers with a more generic, "Oh, that's nice," or "Oh, that's kind of weird," reaction. If you go to another part of the world, people might be more familiar with God D or E and have stronger opinions on the matter.
  11. historically, you are incorrect. is more than a few malevolent gods in real world mythology that followers attempt to placate. sedna is a good example if you is wanting am example. ... am hesitant to mention as it no doubt will cause problems. is a good argument that the judeo-christian God were a creation of jewish scholars as kinda a metaphor for chaos of the universe. ever read some old testament stuff and wonder why G seemed like such a wanker? anywho... lots of malevolent gods in rl mythology who gots "worshipers." HA! Good Fun! I think my objection to "evil" gods and religions is more the implementation of them. I think it's entirely realistic to have worshippers who fear and try to appease an evil deity, or perhaps some who try to channel that deity's power. It's just that when translated into games, that sometimes comes across as an entire group of people who are, "EVIL EVIL EVIL KILL KILL KILL DESTRUCTION!" and who don't seem to have any room in their ideology for things like growing crops and recommending that members restrict their EVIL EVIL activities to socially acceptable targets rather than slaughtering all their neighbors. That's not going to work in any society with a lifespan longer than a typical doomsday cult. If the worship of an evil god could be presented in a more nuanced manner, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
  12. I'm strongly in favor of 2D portraits, with perhaps a 3D sprite in the inventory screen showing armor. I think portraits solve a lot of controversies and complaints about characters in the game being too ugly/pretty or too sexualized/prudish-looking. There are enough high-quality portrait sets available that most people should be able to find some that fit their preferences. Beyond that, I think 2D portraits are a nice way to get around the whole "hide helmet option" debate, since they let people equip appropriate protective gear without sacrificing the feeling of being able to see their character's face. And portraits seem to make life a little easier on modders as well, or at least on the ones who like to design new joinable companions.
  13. I'm going to vote for some sort of third option. I think the game should be designed so that the average player won't feel the need to do dull or ridiculous things, but should allow the occasional neurotic to exploit if it really makes the game more enjoyable for that person. I don't think "save abuse" is really that much of a problem. There are already some natural restraints on it - reloading is dull and time-consuming, and most people seem to gravitate toward only doing it after relatively important failures (dying, the death of a companion, a failure to complete a challenge the player knows will be very rewarding). But if typical, not-too-neurotic players really are reloading after every failure to pick a pocket, that suggests to me that either the citizens of that game are carrying around too much money in their pockets for the game's balance or that the penalties for failure are too harsh (entire towns full of people who will fight to the death to punish a pickpocket are a little silly). I'd say the same goes for rest mechanics. If players are commonly resting after every two battles, that suggests to met that mundane enemies are doing too much lasting damage or that there need to be some regeneration mechanics or a bandage/potion/healing spell system. If players are resting for 40 hours at a time, maybe the game needs to recharacterize resting (it doesn't have to mean sleeping, after all, and it seems entirely reasonable that a party might want to simply camp for a couple days to let the archer's sprained ankle heal and everyone else to regain morale). And if a handful of players are neurotic enough to insist on parties at 100% health, despite it being a waste of time and unnecessary, then let them play how they want.
  14. If they don't have the resources for those extra 500 quests, I'd rather do without those 500 quests than see them replaced with 20 repeatable ones. Those work well enough in MMOs, but they tend to be unbalancing in single-player games. To the extent they're included, I'd rather that only the first bundle of wolf pelts is rewarded with XP. If someone wants to go kill every wolf in the world, the subsequent turn ins should only be rewarded with money.
  15. That sounds completely delightful. Aside from just being a very charming concept, I appreciate that there's a distinction between a character's class and that person's job or role in society. The two should certainly relate to each other, but I like that magic users might think less-obvious ways to use their talents and that they're not all just sitting around in wizardly colleges.
  16. I don't like them either, but there isn't Only One Way to solve this problem. They could just NOT have the NPC come over all "please hurry hurry!" at you, but instead present a level of urgency in the dialog that reflects the ACTUAL level of urgency. I don't care which way they go, I just want them to be consistent with whichever one they pick. If there's no time limit, don't yell at us to hurry. This will also have the effect that if there IS a time limit, you'll be able to TELL without them beating you over the head with it. You won't get a situation where some invisible timer starts but you didn't realize it because the NPC giving you the quest sounded like every other "urgent" problem you get. This is pretty much where I'm at when it comes to urgency. I hate timed quests with a passion, but also don't like it when the game tells me something is urgent and it turns out that's not the case. It seems like the most egregious examples can be written around, though - either the game can portray something as needing to be done but doable on a flexible time scale (this works well with mystery plots) or it can describe the problem as something that will take time and preparation to solve and that maybe shouldn't be dived into immediately.
  17. Story. If I had to choose between some sort of pure dialoogue roleplaying game and an old fashioned dungeon crawler, I'd definitely opt for the first one. In a game like Project Eternity that's presumably going to have both combat and story, the two can sometimes intertwine, though. Combat roles should inform character development, and battles should feel like they proceed naturally from the story and aren't just stuck in there to give the player something to kill.
  18. I enjoy odd characters, but I wouldn't want as many as show up in Torment, since the planes were by their nature pretty odd. I think there's also a bit of difference between a game taking place in a universe most people already find quite familiar and one that's introducing a completely new setting. In the former, odd races and backgrounds can seem refreshing. In the latter, I think there's more groundwork to do in introducing players to the game's most common races. So I wouldn't mind one or perhaps two oddballs in the group of companions, but I wouldn't want them to be so common that there's no room left for a elven companion or an orlan one, who could give players some insight on the major cultures they'll be encountering in the game.
  19. I'm expecting that there will be at least some dialogues related to religion. The lore update indicates that some places outlaw the worship of certain gods. If you go singing the praises of Eothas in the Dyrwood or of Magran in Readceras, I'm assuming that there will be consequences. I don't think the game needs to be automatically sensitive to religious belief, though. It's not as if you can tell most people's religous beliefs at a glance, though I suppose people might stereotype them based on a character's chosen background. Generally, though, that seems like something that could be done by allowing religious belief to factor into dialogue choices.
  20. I almost always start by playing a female human spellcaster of some sort. I'll probably try wizard first, since that seems to be a core class and might be a fun introduction to the magic system, though I'd be interested in trying cipher, chanter and possibly druid (that one would depend on the class's lore) in later playthroughs.
  21. I think it has the potential to be refreshing. I'd appreciate it if the difference between my first and second playthroughs wasn't that I took a completely different set of companions, but that I had one or two different ones and their presence in the party radically changed some of the banter, or that my player character made very different decisions and saw different dialogue from my companions as a result.
  22. I don't think it's likely to change the way that multimillion-dollar AAA titles are designed. A lot of PE's design decisions - starting with basic ones like not including multiplayer/coop and not doing a console port - are just not on the same page as what major publishers are doing, and I think it would need to sell exceedingly well for them to look to it for cues. I do think that it might be part of a vanguard of medium-budget games catering to audiences who aren't completely satisfied titles created by big publishers, but who also want a little more polish than can be found in many low-budget Steam downloadables.
  23. That's over the top. One knight dies and becomes a god's right hand man? I prefer less epic, more relatable storylines, honestly. To be fair, Keldorn is a companion character and, well, a paladin. That sort of ending fits well with his character. Some of the other companions in the same game had more down to earth endings, and others were funny or a little sad.
  24. I'd like to see multiple, nuanced endings. There's nothing worse than having open-ended character creation, consequence-based gameplay, and then finding out that it finishes with a Successful Good Ending, a Successful Evil Ending and a Partial Failure Ending. I'm tolerant of that to some extent in games with a set protaganist, but if this is really supposed to be my character's story, I'd like to have a little more control over my destiny. Maybe I don't want to ride off into the sunset. Maybe I'm the sort of person who wants to retire back to my little farm, or to use my success to gain power or wealth. And while I don't mind having a tragic ending as one of the options, it shouldn't be the only choice (and I don't think it will be, based on developers' statements that they'd like us to use our characters in future games). Ideally, there would be some epilogues that could pick up on some of the choices I made long before the final battle, including a few that might not have seemed so terribly important when I was making them. But if that can't be done, I'd at least like a good handful of possibilities for my character to pick from at the game's end.
×
×
  • Create New...