Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Silver6986

  1. Provided that there are some clues or tales, would you mind having one or more encounters in the game that are either things that must be endured or avoided as no matter how clever, strong, magically potent, and/or stealthy your party might be, you don't have a snowball's chance in the Phlegethon of overcoming it in the game?


    Humble pie: it's what's for dinner! :p


    Absolutely if under the following condition:


    The area that this so called battle is to take place with whatever monster/encounter is able to be interacted with in a following expansion or in the next installment of PE (PE2 or perhaps even PE3 - which I think would be really interesting!), A bit like Watcher's Keep from the BG series, you can access this area either in BG2 (when you may be under leveled/under geared) or ToB.


    I would like this even more so if it was the protagonist that you create it PE, take through to either to PE2 or PE3 and then lay the smackdown, as opposed to the concept that when PE ends you do not continue the adventures of your protagonist from the previous game.

    • Like 1
  2. Should there be any sequels (fingers crossed), I would imagine Obsidian might be more interested in telling several different stories in this universe than in continuing the same story across multiple titles. And looking at KotOR2, NWN2, F:NV, DS3, and even Icewind Dale II back at Black Isle... I think I would actually prefer that. Story-lines for individual games can be continued in expansions, like they did for NWN2 and F:NV, but sequels are a great opportunity to explore other stories and areas of the world.




    And what better way to do this then by playing the son/daughter of the protagonist of the first few PE games who has now reached godhood, as the setting could be in a completely different part of the realms of PE and also then begin an entirely new story arc, imagine if the previous save files could be used to transfer major consequences that were experienced in the previous games which changes the structure of the new game. I feel THAT would make for an epic backdrop for a new PE game.

  3. I think that with all the wealth of experience and knowledge at Obsidian that these guys have it covered to make both an amazing, believable and immersive world that still includes choices that matter and that have real consequences, so a vote for choices and consequences for sure. Not really fussed about stretch goals specifically dedicated to this type of thing, as stated, I have complete faith that OE have it covered.


    Plus Kickstarter only has a few days left to go.

  4. Just one question, re: misogyny.


    In a world that is aware of souls, is aware of souls being reborn, where souls can fracture and split into multiple bodies, where multiple souls can reside in the same body, where souls are not gender-based, and everything is highly focused on the strength of souls....


    ...where a woman could have a pure, strong soul and a man might have a weak, fractured soul...


    ...where religions are vastly different...


    ...would it be likely that the same misogynistic culture would develop as has developed in many of our own?


    Wouldn't the soul be the important thing in this world and not the gender?


    (And on that note, one might question all the other options in the poll, seeing as how this game is not set on our Earth, is not set in our history, so it's kind of hard for it to be historical in the way we would be familiar with.)


    Now that would be an interesting twist, nice point :-)

  5. Biased poll... :/


    Yes, I would like variety. Too many games these days just allow you to kill everything with the same weapon. Why shouldn't the game be allowed to vary and keep you on your toes that way. Why has this gone away?

    Healing undead to kill them, ending trolls with fire or acid, getting that magic weapon to finally kill the opponent that was undamagable. All some of the good parts of Baldur's Gate modern games, including Dragon Age sorely lack.


    Also, I do disagree that if you're send out to kill a village of Werewolves, are stated they need silver weapons/ammo to hit, and you can buy it in that village it even needs silver weapon drops. It's called intelligence. I would love for some games to actually make me not feel like they think I am a retarded idiot.


    So, all in all, the more variety in combat situations and the less "one sollution to solve all" the better... and if that means carrying more swords, so be it. Which RPG this day doesn't have 2 weapon outfits anyway with a quick change between them. Anyone?


    That's a good point, I didn't think of those examples (regarding BG2), but tbh they are not really used all the time either, overall if you really wanted to you could for example have Minsc use dual maces throughout all of BG2 and ToB and you will be fine, if you need to kill a Troll, swap to Bow + Arrows and use Acid Arrows, if you need to slay Vampires then grab some stakes on the way there. That's pretty simple stuff, it's nowhere near as complicated as OP makes it sound.


    That's exactly the sort of thing I would like to see :)

  6. These guys have seen through many games which were enormous. I think they're going to be fine. The game doesn't even have half as many classes as any of the IE games did. So... yeah. I think they're being pretty reasonable.


    And anything they can't fit into the first release, they can add later on in expansions. ...Right? :p


    You said it best :)


    OP everything is going to be fine, Obsidian are pros, I don't think what you have mentioned will be anything worth worrying about as they will have it covered.

  7. Some of the issues suggested don't (from what little we know) seem to have any relevance to the PE world. Like Tech VS Faith - I'm not seeing a reason so far for religions to have any opposition to technology. In real life, religious opposition to technology (which was and is a lot more nuanced than common knowledge suggests) was mainly based on contradiction of doctrine. Since in PE the existence of Deities seems proven beyond all reasonable doubt, why should technological development change that? And disease - given that we've got healing magic that can mend a great-sword wound in a moment, that might suggest disease to be something less of a problem.


    Also, I've never really liked misogyny being a massive theme in fantasy. Not least because a female mage can reduce you to dust just as well as a male one.


    This all depends on a number of factors doesn't it? Say we take what the devs have said to be true with regards to the current landscape whereby there will be pockets of primitive societies, I would be quite happy to see misogynist examples made within such a place (if it is an interactive environment for example). But yes in a more developed setting I can see your point. I guess it depends on just how prevelant magic is?


    I know it is tied to souls, but just how much of the common folk know the potential of their soul and how to access this? We don't know this yet.


    Same with disease, in said primitive cultures this could be a real issue, expecially so if the culture shuns magic.


    I think with everything I voted for I would be happy to see these within the setting of PE, they don't have to be massive, just relevant.

  8. One of the things in Dragon Age Origins was to have injuries as well as just plain damage. Injuries had negative effects on you until removed, which could be done in combat with higher level spells or with injury kits (potions basically) at any level.




    Which sounds pretty much like a copy of what Fallout 1 & 2 have, where injuries are a byproduct of combat and need to be taken care of either by a Doctor, or if you invested in the Doctor Skill enough you could then fix the problem yourself with the use of a Doctors Bag or First Aid Kit etc...

  9. Well looks like my votes are in line with the majority, so adverse effects for both a critical hit or a critical miss (a la Fallout 2), but I voted 'other' as the type of effects should be designed around what is available to the player (weapons of ice, fire, types of spells etc) of which we don't know exactly what these will be yet, especially concerning the balance of the game.


    But hell, any of them mentioned sound great (in theory) :)

  10. I would say "pretend it never happened", whatever the IE games (combined) achieved I feel was far greater then what was attempted at recreating with Dragon Age: Origins, but what did Bioware do after DA:O?? They do a 180 and &^*% it up completely, in many ways going backwards!


    Everything OE need for a reference point they can take from the past, they don't need to adjust to what was on offer from DA:O imo.

  11. I like both !


    Yeah, I'd be fine with either. Having the descriptions of what the speaker is doing (Torment style) is nice, given that the visuals aren't going to convey this information, but the more streamlined BG system gets the job done adequately. Which system would work better for P:E will probably depend on the narrative and pacing of the game. If the game is more combat focused, the sparse feel of BG style dialogue would probably fit the feel of the game better. If the game is more contemplative, then the slower, more detailed approach used in Torment would probably be the way to go. Since I'm assuming this game will be somewhere in the middle, maybe a compromise between the two would be the way to go. That is, a system that doesn't pile on the text like in PS:T but that still includes some description to paint the scene for the player.


    In the end, I'm sure the writers will know which style will work best for P:E. They know the game the best and have a lot of experience with writing dialogue for different kinds of RPGs.


    Well said, I think that would be great :)

  12. Yeah I would also like to mention that tbh DA:O, whilst it could have been a spiritual successor to BG, I DO NOT FEEL IT WAS, as such this includes combat mechanics or subsequently the lack of due to design by Bioware. So I agree with Living One.


    There is just a lot less options to combat with DA:O, it gets really hilarious with DA2 if you consider that some of us wanted the game to further the original concept, not flip it and spit all over it...

  13. I really don't understand what you are trying to say, in every way the DAO system works exactly like the IE system if you want it to OR you can make is as complicated as you want or you can turn it off completely. If you ask me that is a great system to have at your disposal.


    Where are the compromises? The fact that you could let the game play itself with a complicated enough script? That only really works if the combat encounters are not challenging and that has nothing to do with scripts but with encounter design.


    Managing your party yourself is always a much better system if you want the maximum benefit from all abilities of the entire party. The scripts don't interact with each other for example, if one fighter is chugging a potion, a healer could already be casting a heal and it is wasted, stuns aren't chained for maximum effect. However there are many combats where you don't really care about detailed management, killing a few dogs in a corridor, a guard or two in a room, some bandits on the road. You don't need to micro manage everything for that and can let the scripts run along while only controlling one character.


    Personally I found in DAO that on most boss fights I ended up managing the healer mostly, while letting the others do their thing. On some fights I would turn off the AI completely and control everything, I usually did this on boss fights where the boss had some minor monsters to help him. I needed to use stuns and control spells etc to limit the incoming damage but once only the boss was left I switched to controlling the healer and reactivating the AI for the others so they wouldn't just stand around if the boss went out of range etc.


    I don't see how a system that allows various levels of control even so far as total control (script off) implies any kind of compromise.

    This is getting tiresome because I've already addressed all your points previously and more than once.So this is the last time I'll explain why it's either a bad idea or a waste of time to implement this feature.


    1-"Where are the compromises? The fact that you could let the game play itself with a complicated enough script? That only really works if the combat encounters are not challenging and that has nothing to do with scripts but with encounter design."


    I've already explained that the quality of the encounters is low BECAUSE of that feature.You said it yourself:"Managing your party yourself is always a much better system if you want the maximum benefit from all abilities of the entire party."The problem stems from the fact that DAO had to dumb down its own encounters to make itself playable for people who wanted to solve battles with a system that's much less precise(by your own admission).And no matter how good the script is it won't be as good as managing the party yourself.

    And if encounters aren't dumbed down to make so viable such a gameplay option?If they are variefied(they have already confirmed their commitment in this regard) then the players will have to constantly change the scripts wich means that the ''''advantage'''' of not needing to manage the battle goes down the toilet since you'll spend a lot of time in more clumsier menus,going back and forth between various slots rather than simply selecting the needed ability during battle.If encounters are good,then tactics slots won't be enough to win(or at least you'll performe much worse making death more likely later on).With good encounters the scripts might be nice only if they complement active management(thus they should be quite limited)not if they try to be an alternative(like in DAO).

    Basically you either create an option (DAO-like scripts here)and make it viable with all the attached consequences(wich,as explained,are bad in this case) or you create the option but don't make it as viable as it could be avoiding all negative consequences(but in this case why waste dev time creating it then?)


    2-" However there are many combats where you don't really care about detailed management, killing a few dogs in a corridor, a guard or two in a room, some bandits on the road. You don't need to micro manage everything for that and can let the scripts run along while only controlling one character."


    In these cases encounters are so simple that you need very little managing anyway.This, combined with the fact that such encounters shouldn't be 'many',makes the implementation of such a feature an even bigger waste of time for developers.


    Is that clear now?That feature is at best a waste of resources/time for devs or at worst it'll simplify the game.


    Err.. look the devs have already mentioned that there will be modding for this game made available to us (available on Nexus) and the devs will be releasing as much of the data as possible required in order for modding to happen, I also know that there were a number of Mods made for BG1 & 2 in relation to scripting NPC actions (or reactions to situational cercumstances) for people who wish to utilise such a feature, as the original scripts were, if I am honest, woeful and as such I never used them!


    Look it would be nice as a feature for those who want it, as some of the modifications for BG were VERY specific and complex, but if it really is too much work for the devs to sort out, then don't worry, just wait for a modder to do it for you and then THANK THEM for all their hard work.


    I would be very surprised if someone doesn't come up with such a feature down the track if the devs don't implement one (a very sophisticated one anyways).

  14. Colors of the cloth's. No dye mechanic in-game that you have to buy please.


    I loved the Baldur's Gate simplicity of just changing the colors. Apart from that I kind of do want to see some hair customization, then I'm all good. Perhaps a set of 3 different "basic models" for each class/race/gender.


    What I mean is... in BG we got this and I would kind of prefer this (<my suggestion to be>):

    * Human M/F Warrior (x3)

    * Human M/F Mage (x3)

    * Human M/F Rogue (x3)

    * 4 Color Modifications, Hair-, Skin-, 2xClothing Palette's (I would love to see this taken just a small step further, where you can change the color of helmets and armors. In BG you could only change the basic "No Equipment" parts of the character model clothes)


    EDIT: I would love to see some sort of "Wolfenstein" thing with the portrait's. The more damage you take, the more scarified and such they could get.

    edited: correcting myself


    Other then the Wolfenstein idea, I am pretty much with you, some hair customisation would be great, I felt that was sorely missing from BG, especially so when you could see that Drizzt had long hair for his animations in game, yet your character (playing as an elf) could not have long hair!


    I think if done tastefully your "damage over time" idea with the portraits is actually not bad, but I shudder to think about it if done poorly, regardless that's a lot more work for the portrait artist. You could see some form of this with the transition from BG1 to BG2 with the new portraits, the "canon" NPCs that follow you to chateau Irenicus (ie Minsc, Jaheira, Imoen) look somewhat injured compared to the originals in order to give an indication as to the experiences Irenicus subjects everyone to.


    Which is interesting in itself as your portrait doesn't show any signs of damage, obviously I can tell why (you can have a custom portrait foe example), but thought it worth mentioning.

  15. Defintely dialogue only. I mean, this is a video game, right?. Latin 'videre' = to see, to watch. There should usually be very little need for descriptive walls of text like in PST since the whole purpose of a video game is the graphical depiction and representation of the game world and all of its contents. If I wanted walls of text on a screen I'd buy a Kindle off Amazon and be done with it ;) .

    Seriously, it is a sign of bad game design IMHO if a video game requires a lot of descriptive texts. Then the developers have chosen the wrong engine or the wrong technology (or they've just been plain lazy :D ) if they are inept to create a fitting graphical representation of the game's content.

    if you don't want to read a lot of text, I have a feeling this is not the game you are looking for.


    Ah. That comment brought a smile to my face, thanks ogrezilla, very true.

  16. I voted for BG style but hey if the devs can afford to go that way with regards to VO then I am happy, either way, interestingly I think I remember reading in an interview one of the devs mentioned reactive text and a focus on this in particular (like the reactive text seen in Fallout 2 in New Reno).


    So depending on just how much reactive text is used in PE the devs may opt for BG style VO, now if this is true then I would MUCH much rather a heavy focus towards reactive vs PS:T style VO.

  • Create New...