Jojobobo
-
Posts
1287 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Jojobobo
-
-
I find the assumption experienced devs wouldn't know how to manage a project properly amusing. I don't think they'd make stretch goals they know are going to compromise the quality of the game, so there's really no need for concern.
-
1
-
-
As others have said, I'd prefer another race or two than another class. Playing a specific race should nuance the play style of the classes anyway, so in terms of giving players more options I think a race or two more and not anymore classes is the way to go.
-
How is the inclusion of paladins and chanters (the latter of which many people will think of as psuedo-bards) as well as George Ziets who they know is a fan favourite and who will make them more money not a marketing strategy? Don't get me wrong, including all these things is a nice fan service, but for that selfsame reason it will also make them money so as a bottom line I think that is now the stronger motivator than them doing it just because they are all nice chaps. Overall I think the game has been very successfully marketed with the limitted means of kickstarter as opposed to the ad campaign of a major publisher, and for that I'm pleased as more money will help to make a better game on the whole.
-
Well obviously there would be a few more choices, it was just an example; I don't think Obsidian would limit you to making two choices or a non-choice. Still I'm surpised to hear you feel strongly enough as to "hate" those choices. I don't hate black and white choices, I just like it when things aren't so easy on the player.
-
I like grey choices. I think I read some World of Darkness material recently (or maybe I just outright dreamt it) of a monster that was predating on a single town (say killing 20 people a month). The options posed to the players (as I said, I'm not even sure if I've remembered the source or scenario properly so take it with a pinch of salt) were along the lines of:
a) You can sacrifice a baby from the town to appease the monster permenantly. There is no other way to stop the monster from doing what it is doing. By doing this one fairly unspeakable act, you are saving countless lives in the long run, yet the people who petitioned you to help in the first place will hate you for this course of action.
b) You do nothing.
c) You manage to convince the monster to hunt more scrupulously, spreading its killings out over multiple settlements so the "hit" to any single settlement isn't so large - though in fact when you tell the monster of this plan he says he will now kill more people simply because he can get away with more without it being noticed. The town who asked for help thinks of you as a hero.
Which one of these is the morally right choice of action - who's to say? Maybe both a) and c) are good in certain respects (the former provides a long term solution, the latter provides a solution only for the town that was aggrieved) and bad in others (you have to kill a baby, or you are effectively making the monster's predation worse on the whole). Some might argue innaction is also the most evil/good choice (as though you aren't making matters better, you don't have to do anything questionable either).
I don't like black and white choices, as a true white choice ends up with you being celebrated for your good deeds whereas in a true black choice only the player profits - real life and real choices are often more complex. I see sacrificing the baby as the "white" choice above, and yet the townsfolk would hate you for it. By making a difficult decision, I'm guiding a character with a moral compass that I've imagined for them, and by taking that choice despite a lack of reward (either people thanking you or something material) I'm roleplaying. Troubling choices like that, which give me pause for thought and stay with me for a couple of days, are what make classic rpgs IMO.
-
I guess I feel like the update should have given a bit more information about what access to the expansion pack truly meant. If people who have more money are getting access to it sooner than people who don't, then that's not particularly fair. I guess they probably don't mean that at all, but they didn't really clarify what they meant very well in their update so it leaves it open for misinterpretation. I for one would love to pledge enough to get the expansion too, but I lack the funds to get anything more than the base game unfortunately. That being said, if they are offering the expansion at a higher price then it would come out of the box and not giving it to people early they are also not really incentivising people to go for a higher tier either - so it works both ways. I don't think offering more will get the majority of people to increase their pledges either as by now I think most people will have offered what is within their means to give.
-
Wail of the Banshee, because I'm lazy.
-
The word 'Drugs' covers a hell of a lot of things. From Aspirin to Heroin.
I guess if I wasn't being clear enough, I was referring to narcotics - but the word is a bit less widely used than drugs for most people so I went with drugs. Not too many people would even make the distinction that drugs could be something else than illegal substances, because that's what the word is commonly used for nowadays.
I feel like there's an awful lot of modern thinking going on in here when it comes to mind altering subsstances and restricting/endorsing their use. Who's to say that drugs are even illegal ior taboo n the world of PE?
I think a split would be best - maybe more enlightened civilisations are starting to stamp down on drugs (particularly those that adhere strongly to one religion or another) and the more savage cultures use them with reckless abandon. Or to turn things completely on its head, they are frowned upon by savages and used more by civilised people as a mark of how sophisticated they are. I do think that they should be illegal/frowned upon somewhere in the gaming world, if only to make it more relatable to our real world values.
Edit: As for the whole magic being used for drugs thing, I could definitely see a cipher (which is increasingly looking like they will be in the game) making someone believe they are on drugs; and yes maybe using some spells might give such a rush of power that they feel addictive might be fun too, or drugs that are enhanced through magical processes/alchemy. I don't think ciphers or wizards should be able to outright replicate a drug's effects though.
-
Now I do think its possible that you could create a system in which drugs could end up supported intelligently in the game in which there is a really solid utility for the player to use drugs and a defined context for what would be "good" and "bad" drugs or drug use. But I'd think it'd be resource intensive to integrate the elements in the gameplay but balance it against the player who may want to play a character who never uses those options.
That's true, but the same could probably be said for a lot of game features that some people will use fervently and others will pass over completely. I suppose determing whether enough people want a certain feature is key.
-
I think FO:NV tackled drugs nicely, it had some quests dealing with the life destroying ramifications of addiction and plus the fact all the drugs featured in game were actually useful for one thing or another. I don't think I made a single character that didn't use drugs in that game, addiction be damned! Still I would have liked it more if they had included social ramifications to the PC becoming addicted.
I guess they could have addiction being a lot more severe in a fantasy setting, as there would be no easy way to get clean unless they wanted to let you use magic to do so (can't just pop a fixer or see a doctor like in FO:NV). That being said, I wouldn't want drugs in the game if they would eat up too much of the devs time to make workable or just to produce compelling storylines from.
-
3
-
-
I like Leferd's idea, it's an easy way to balance spamming health potions especially if the withdrawal symptoms are harsh.
-
I think something with broad appeal would be a good idea, from a money making point of view. Something like one extra race, class and a minor organisation/faction plus an extra small region (an island or something). Failing that, class based factions might be fun too. Personally I would like more races, because I like that sort of thing.
-
I'd like unprocessed and processed - processed made through crafting. Also, as your player is being exposed to several cultures (some of which may not interact with each other well), they could combine unprocessed drugs from several cultures in unique and interesting ways. Or not - you know, just a thought.
-
So as a disclaimer, this thread should be bereft of real life opinions on drugs as that can be a touchy subject; it should only feature how much potential you think they have to make the game more interesting/fun/whatever. Drugs have always been common in the Fallout series, so would you like drugs to feature in P:E?
I would. I'd like them to be craftable now that a crafting system has been attained. I also think maybe becoming a drug dealer in game might be fun, with visits from regular clients whose lives you're ruining. Addiction (both for the player, his companions and NPCs) has lots of potential for good story material and also interesting mechanics to enforce withdrawal (I'd like to see one that actually shows addiction is taking an emotional toll on the character, or maybe have unique quests/dialog only open to drug addicts). Plus (that I'm aware of) no fantasy game has ever done drugs in detail, despite fantasy settings having limitless options of weird and wonderful things they could cook up. With P:E being an M rated game, they could really make a good job of featuring drugs.
So basically, I want drugs!
Edit: Shucks, I meant to post this in general discussion. If a moderator could move it that would be great.
-
I don't have a problem with the Adventurer's Hall, but I think it should be locked until the game has been completed once. It seems like a bit of a waste to have them develop really interesting storied companions only to steal the focus from them a bit with the Adventurer's Hall, but I do like the idea of being able to make a different team a couple of playthroughs down the line when I've grown tired of going through the same old quests of the storied companions.
-
I can't answer your questionaire because I feel that the minimum starting attribute should not begin at one. Also, I think attributes should have related real-world equivalent or description. I also do not agree that attributes should at all be influenced by class & species but rather by magical alteration and perks that permit a higher than normal attribute. Multiclassing should be perk dependent or be the result of time dilation in the game, where the story passes over a period of time and the characters are presumed to be in training or leisure, whichever the player decides.
What would you have it begin at then? Also I never said a starting character's values should begin at one, it's just the bottom of the range. Usually a race in an rpg game will have a value higher than the lowest possible value as their base for a stat but things like spell effects, their background/history or injury could lower it to the minimum value. Not having one as a minimum value on any size scale seems very peculiar to me, even if it is just theoretical as most characters would not have enough stacking negative modifiers to reach that value.
-
Because Paladin, as a name, title, invokes something more then 'religion zealot' for that, look for Templar. It's one reason I tend to rename 'paladin' to templar in majority of stuff as it's far more malable to be any number of things including Paladin-like. Paladin, however, comes with it a very specific line of thinking. For example, you wouldn't name something a 'Death Knight' or 'Baby Eater' and get pissy if you couldn't play one who was the noblest of spirits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin
http://dictionary.re...wse/Paladin?s=t
Paladin is supposed to be the enbodiment of noble blah blah, goody blah, Lawful Good SOB. I don't really like the class as it's to restrictive with in that. So, yeah, if they go and add that in, I'd prefer they call it a Templar. But then I kinda feel like there priest class is already going to fill that role. In a sense, Cleric in DnD already fill that role. Cleric with a few fighter lvls (or no fighter lvls) can already do majority of the stuff a paladin can do just as well... minus the RP flavor of 'being' a paladin. Ultimately, that's all a Paladin is, RP flavor that does some kinda ok-**** other people do better. But then thats kinda how it is for anything beyond the base 4 if ya ask me... which is good, I like that. But Ranger and Barbarian are far more flexible into fitting a huge array of characters. But if your a paladin - your a Paladin.
I did check out the wiki link before I posted, and it doesn't say anything at all about them restricted in such a way, in fact if anything it does paint them as religious zealots. Besides having a new take on an old class isn't necessarily a bad thing, definitions can change over time.
-
Ironman mode is confirmed, right? I don't see why there needs to be a discussion when all the bases are already covered (Ironman for people who don't like save/reload and want a challenge, regular save and reload mechanics for everyone else). If the whole metric for difficulty thing is what the OP was striving for then it's not very valid, as I can die through carelessness in an easy fight and manage to live through a fight I thought was really difficult. Obviously combat should be as adpative and intuitive (in terms of how the enemies approach fighting you and countering your tactics) as possible to keep a game refreshing and rewarding; it shouldn't be a case of "I've mastered how that subset of monsters fights (or how to be awesome at combat in general) and now they are no longer a challenge" - but that more or less goes without saying. At least that's what I think would be meant by a game having a "steep learning curve" but on subsequent playthroughs "'kicking ass' right from the start".
-
1
-
-
It always bothered me that paladins were restricted to being lawful good; why couldn't they have been a fanatically religious warrior of any religion bearing in mind not all relgions have good intentions? I like nikolokolus's idea of becoming a palidin being more titular than anything, as without knowledge of the in game relgions saying you're a relgious fanatic becomes a bit spurious. Then again, they have priests as a definite class so the logic of this falls apart somewhat.
-
It wasn't entirely cosmetic, I played an explosives build and quite a lot of the explosives you make are unique to crafting. Having said that, it wasn't half as important as it was in Arcanum for a technologist so hopefully they'll make some sort of happy medium. I'm definitely in favour of crafting items that can't be improved (such as making Droch's Warbringer in Arcanum, which was awesome anyway and so didn't necessitate improvement) or can only be improved slightly by a finite amount to avoid the whole Skyrim crafting fiasco.
-
I think subclasses are a good idea; races are going to be subdivided so I don't see why they couldn't apply the same to the classes to allow for even more diversity. At the same time, with cultural and racial diversity already being options it's probably something that should only be implemented if they have the resources and time to make a good job of it.
-
I really like the crafting systems in both Arcanum and FO:NV, however I think that FO:NV's style might be slightly more applicable as a mechanic. In FO:NV crafting was determined by level in a skill (sometimes more than one skill, allowing for synergy, for ex. repair and explosives could be used to make certain sorts of bombs) so this stops players dedicating points into something that they won't feel the benefit of for a while (i.e. in Arcanum, though some of the low level schematics were good, you were mostly after the high end ones meaning that you were sinking in points into technological disciplines for only a small return). It's also more enjoyable to have a practical skill (say repair) giving you options to craft, rather than having a dedicated crafting system that requires points of it's own. Though it's been said that the team will keep combat and non-combat systems separate, that doesn't mean to say they might not have some crossover for crafting (say both a certain level in a ranged skill and in a wilderness skill might be able to let you produce a quieter bow to hunt more efficiently, etc.).
That being said, I think both systems are very nice in their own way.
-
Another skewed poll that is missing viable responses. What about abilities in the 1-100 range?
The "no limit" option was meant to encompass this, as 1-100 is a very high range for your typical rpg, and another way of saying no limit is 20+. A strength score of 57 just becomes increasing dilute and irrelevant (what does it actually mean in practical terms) then having a smaller scale, and if this was the case where would I stop? 1-1000 ranges, 1-1000000? What would be the point in including them? Do you think there is even a slight possibility of the P:E team going that high when there is little to no precedence for it?
I own the PnP World of Darkness system, and I very much like the relatable system it has. At 10 strength - which is typically the maximum at superhuman proportions without any extra abilities (your average human could only have 1-5) - it states that you'd be able to lift a large tree trunk. There you have a real world example of what such strength could do rather than just being a number (diminishing or increaing strength scores also have a practical example listed).
I do very much like Nonek's idea of slow progression, as an adult person shouldn't have an exponential ability to grow once past a certain age. However I do think it's important to remember this is a fantasy game too, so characters probably should be a bit more changeable than in the mundane world.
I guess I only included multiclassing as an idea as Tim said they were "looking into it", maybe Ieo is right and the scope of flexibility in the class descriptions is an allusion to the fact they're are leaning against multiclassing. Still, this is a good way to see how multiclassing should be implemented if it is going to be or just to get a feel for overall support for it anyway.
-
What were your problems with the questions? Not that I can change them now, but it's good to know! I will say that "so" is supposed to be "to" in the second question, and "Range" shouldn't be capitalised in the first.
Hmmm, restricting the range of what classes a certain class can multiclass into (if I'm understanding you properly) is an interesting idea - one that I could get behind. That being said it might hamper creativity a little bit.
I guess I was just trying to get a feel of what other people thought, I don't think any of these options are bad just some are more preferable to me personally.
What do you want the other race(s) to be?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I'd like a merman race, not one with flippers and such but regular people who transform slightly when beneath the waves. Maybe not as a PC race but as an NPC race it might be fun.