Jump to content
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About BronzeSphere

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator


  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. My question is simple: how strongly are developers morally bound to respect some aspects of the stretch goals? I'm talking about game design propositions like adding in X number of classes or races, etc, and not about purely technical things like translations. Is Obsidian limited to what's has been put forward for the stretch goals that are finally reached? I guess not. But can they, during the development of the game, remove a class that was set to be part of a stretch goal, despite some backers likely to have backed the project based on those expectations? Can they reduce the number of companions, or double it? If the team ends up incredibly inspired with the companions and includes 20 of them (BG1 was close to that, if I recall), would it be, in a way, false advertising to have prompted people to give money to get to 9 companions, whereas those numbers in the final game would mean nothing? In a way, I want the team to make the best decisions for the game, and I think that if a character sucks, it should be removed from the game, even if it means having less companions that what was announced. In the same way, if Obsidian finds the Barbarian class to be pretty silly in the end, I think they should be free to remove it from the game, or replace it with a more original one. If they create more recruitable characters than originally planned and if they are all really interesting, why not remove the Hall of Adventurers (which is a terrible idea in my opinion)? Anyway, just a thought.
  2. I think it would be great. Could perhaps be a non-combat skill too, so one of your characters can adjust wearable equipment on the fly. I also think that not all pieces of clothing/armor worn by an enemy should be lootable. For example, if you kill a bandit equipped with a thin leather armor with a fireball, his clothing shouldn't be in a good shape. It could either be repairable or totally unusuable.
  3. If romances are in, I want them to be dependent on factors unknown to the player, such as: - Stats (some companions may be attracted by brute force, other by intelligence, etc.) - Decisions (moral choices, for example) - Combat feats - Some other weird fetish companions might The key is that romances should be triggered spontaneously and something you have some limited degree of control over. Also, please don't include Bioware-style forced bisexuality. Companions, at least most of them, should have a definite sexual orientation, just like they should be attracted to certain types of personality.
  4. I agree with the first sentence, but for me it's a big no on everything else. Locks of varying difficulty, sure, but players shouldn't be punished for trying something difficult early on. For me, getting locked out of a chest is a reload situation. I want to explore everything everywhere; the game should never close off avenues of exploration for anything other than narrative purposes. For example, if I choose to kill the bandit chief and burn down his hut then sure, the trapdoor leading to his treasure room is buried under rubble and I can't get to it. That's fine, that was my choice. But if I've managed to sneak into the hut past his guards, I should be able try the lock and if it's too difficult for me, know I can come back later. Both reloading because you broke the lock and being given an infinite amount of chances to lockpick without any consequences sound unsatisfying to me, but right now I can't think of any solution. By the way, your scenario made me think that it'd be awesome to be able to carry some of the smallest containers with you in case you can't open them on the spot (ie. a jewelry box). It'd add to the mystery.
  5. Regarding lockpicking: I feel a lot of games rely on a lockpicking system way too much as a way to put cheap hurdles in the player's way. For PE, I would want it to be a restricted skill. Only characters with high DEX (or whatever stat is the closest to dexterity) should have access to it. In real life, if I'm not very good at doing precision work with my hands, I wouldn't be able to lockpick, period. I also feel that lockpicking skill progression should rely on experience as much as skill points. That is, you begin being only able to lockpick easy locks, and if you try a medium or difficult lock, you have a high chance of permanently locking yourself out of the chest (except if you find the key). You gain more and more experience, then you become able to lock medium locks quite safely. At the end, when you're very good at it, the chance of breaking a difficult lock could be reduced to 25%, so that there is always a risk. Anyway, just some ideas. Also, regarding mining: I don't think it should be in the game, or if it is, it should be really carefully implanted. If my character is a warrior or a mage, he likely hasn't spent years in mines extracting minerals and ores, and that's what it takes to be able to mine something out of the ground. Plus, extracting is just the first step in the long chain that leads to having objects forged, so I feel like mining should be left to miners of the world of PE, not to adventurers who have so many other skills to hone. I don't think not having mining will restrict our experience of the game (but I guess that depends on the crafting system, in part).
  • Create New...