.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Adhin
-
Posts
459 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Adhin
-
-
Yeah I think SPECIAL actually would fit pretty well into that though I don't like mind being wrapped up entirely into Intelligence, one reason I like DnD attributes a little more. Though I guess in away perception could double as that since the word its self can mean abit past just what you physically see with your eyeballs. Either way it lacks a direct stat for what amounts to common sense. That's what Wisdom was for DnD and, as far as im concerned? that's a pretty big thing with people. Lotta folks lack it, others got it in some extreme amounts. SPECIAL has no way to track that, but can track... luck, of all things heh.
I like how special functions though, as I said, max limit, pick your thing in char creation and then thats 'you' for the game, which makes a lot more sense then constant growing stats. Which is the key part of it I liked most. Personally, I hope they come up with there own unique stats (that don't have to spell a word).
-
I personally hope they go with a attribute system close to Fallout (though perhaps not the same stats), or 1st/2nd edition in that the attributes you pick are what you have from then on. It's more of a definition, and I'd be ok if that was changeable with a re-spec as long as that was limited and built into the world somehow (as they have mentioned). I thnk 3rd Edition actually gets a bit to much outa hand with how it is now, I'd of prefered to see stats becoming mildly more useful due to lvling then gaining more attribute points every 4 lvls.
In either case I'd look at DA2 as a prime example of not how to handle attributes and items. It just causes a lot of pointless progression. DAO did a bette rjob, but you still had a ton of attributes to spend and it kinda mucked things up. I kinda feel like less is more in stat growth but not in the actual number of stats. 5-6 is a good number of em, 4 or less and I start to wonder why they even exist.
-edit-
Oh and, also in relation to Fallout. How you could 'upgrade' your self, permanently in FO:NV was great. Also you could sacrifice a perk for the sake of increasing a stat which I kind liked as each point ultimately was worth it if you really needed that extra point. Either way I wouldn't mind some growth via levels just... not ever level, try to keep it from getting out of hand. When a higher lvl has twice the STR as a maxed STR lvl 1 you just gadda wonder wtf is going on. I mean that kinda dmg boost should be skill based via combat experience, not cause secret found a hulk potion and injected that **** into your veins.
-
1
-
-
Ahh ginger elves, that amused me waaay more then it should have. Imma go out and say they probably have souls. They're body/soul may have other kind of a tie to it but considering the player can be 'any' of the races they're doing and they all witness the same 'event' that causes whatever to happen... I'd imagine, ultimately, everyone has a soul, and are all generally in the same boat as it where in that.
DnD, for instance, Elves had souls still, they still got sent to the outerplanes and all that. They where all subject to that kinda stuff. I think the difference between soul and spirit, in the way your thinking is more... I'll use Tolkien as an example. Elves could be viewed as a more tangible soul (or a spirit) they always exist, they're immortal, they don't really pass on... 'soul' doesn't leave the body and all that. When the elves left or passed on it was some weird other worldly thing going on there and they're physical forms where moving with them?
I dunno it's all kinda weird stuff but generally that's how I'd explain the difference between a soul and a spirit. A soul and body are seperate but co-exist as a living creature. Spirit is a tangible, existing soul with out a body that ... exists on...**** man I dunno its weird. Either way im sure they got souls since what I said earlier.
-edit-
Ahh though all that aside, Soul and Spirit are definition wise about th esame thing. Spirit is the seperated, incorporeal form of a person (or thing I guess). So yeah, they all got souls.
-
Im a big fan of more neutral choices but, some issue I had with Witcher and a few others is there idea of 'neutral' is make both seem like the most awful pointless choices and force you to pick between the 2. Skyrim's war quest is a good example of it. They don't make either side look even REMOTELY appealing unless you somehow buy into either sides propaganda. I liked how Alpha Protocal had some shifting stuff based off the order in which you did things, and how you treated people with in that. That was just a list of games from Obsidian I really liked but wish they ahd more time on to polish things out more, and really hoping this one gets that time.
Either way the second they force a 2 sided choice where both options suck is the point where I tend to just stop enjoying it. I think a good way to handle 2 sucky choices and still make it enjoyable was with BG2. You picked between a bunch of cutthroat thieves, or a secondary, shady faction that's been murdering the thieves who... live in a graveyard (and turn out to be vampires). Looking at it from an outward perspective, both options seem horrible but they're presented in game in a more enticing way that doesn't 'make' them seem like horrible options. At which point your picking between 2 options that seem like they could be fun and ... to me that's 2 play throughs staring me in the face at that point.
But yeah if they take the Skyrim approach to making all the sides look horribly awful as there idea of 'neutral'... give me a third option that lets me just screw up both sides for all being crap.
-edit-
OH! Derpy-derp-derp... in relation to the ACTUAL Op question. Yes to delayed Consequences hah, kinda forgot to go with that. Alpha Protocal was my only real example to it. Also kind of liked how Witcher 2 did some of that but ultimately I didn't enjoy that game in the slightest. Just didn't enjoy the combat, and halfway through the game it just... well. I didn't enjoy the game, which is kinda sad since I was looking forward to a less self-sensored piece of material. I sware if I see another story with some naked creature that has magical hair-stranged magically ducted taped to her... I mean just don't write the story that way! It's not that hard! Meh... things and stuff.
-
Yeah true there Caerdon. Range is just, not part of the equation in these games, it's all very 'shoot directly at' instead of volley war stuff. Literally no point taking in war tactics to any of this stuff. Also, something else to keep in mind that's completely out of you know, reals stuffs and things? The games all based off Souls and the like, and folks gain power (or can) from that. I'd say the whole japanes archery priest thing or, arcane archers in DnD... I could easily see some kinda ehh, soul enhanced archery being used as normal archery like skills in this game which could really kinda change all kinds of stuff in relation to the 1 on 1 thing (or small group combat).
And, really, none of that has any comparison to anything we have other then made up stuff so. I kinda get the feeling all the classes will use that kind of stuff. DnD non-magic based classes already kind of due but never directly explain it (like gaining health regen for epic lvls). Least with there soul thing, regardless of class of combat role focus they have a good reasoning for any of that kind of thing they decide to add in. It's something I'm looking forward to at least.
-
Yeah, yumi style of shooting is good in it's not really power based but more precinion. I mean even today you see folks who practice yumi style of archery and they can put an arrow through eye shaped targets rather consistently but it's not a very quick style. Also the kind of 'plate' samurai wore just wasn't even close to the kinda stuff we're talking about for this game. Soo many more openings to exploit.
As for the post above me, you can say anybow is superior to crossbows as far as rate of fire and distance is concerned. The smaller bolts and time it takes to reload a crossbow ultimately make it the weaker of two over time. Only reasons guns won out was advancement in better powered, faster speeds with the actual projectile which started puncturing armor far more regularly and, like the crossbow, anyone could fire it with little training.
Either way definitely not the be all end all of whatever. Nothing is.
-
Speed. Bullets move a **** load faster then an arrow. All it comes down to, weight difference is just the shaft behind that arrow head, and the speed doesn't make up the difference. Bows are effective in old-timy combat because just... sheer volume. That and most bows where of about the same pull around 60lb, untill you get to england longbows. They'd get up to 200lb-ish. Those where some powerful bows, but where still war time stuff, basically group artiliary to be used against personel.
OP should actually go look up arrow vs armor tests, doesn't really pierce as easily as one may think. And even super low grade stuff may pierce but its not 'like paper'. It's mroe around to half an inch and bending the metal in which will... get really painful but isn't going to down a person. Granted, second shot into the same spot would but that's like waiting for lightning to hit the same general area twice.
-edit-
Ahh and as someone mentioned, depends on the era for gun piercing armor effectively. They used breast/back plates rather consistently after guns for quite awhile. Advancements in powder and the like is what ultimately did plate in but that wasn't an overnight thing. The guns they're using in the game I doubt have great plate penetration, and like I said above other then english longbows most bows had bad plate penetration.
Even in relation to english longbows your talking a low chance, with special arrows and a volley including a assload of people. Once you go into a 1 on 1, bow loses 99% of the time with a full plated person.
-double-edit-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Xp56uVyxs
here's a reletively good example of arrow vs armor, using 100lb longbows (lower end scale but still high up there) vs mildly stronger breastplate (though it's kinda flat and not angled much). More angular plate would of just done a better job at deflecting vs 'taking the blunt' of the arrowsl ike that but, that aside, you can see how eventually you'll get an actual direct penetration given enough hits. Chances of a single arrow piercing a properly made breastplate in a 1 on 1 fights just minimal. If That archer is going to win that fight it'll be via the helmet visor, not by shooting at the bulk of the armor.
-
3
-
-
@Thulean: Depends on your quiver but you can carry a good 20-40-ish in a quiver, can have multiple quivers.
I chose all limited and I'd like to add (as has been said before in this thread) adding the ability to pickup arrows from corpses would also be a nice addition.
-
Yeah, it's kinda funny but DA2 is this bizar mix of great changes and godawful missteps. Looking at it now, I prefer the moer complex skill system they have in place compared to DAO rather...copy-fest. Mages had everything, Rogues had most the warrior stuff, and both had a small amount of there own warrior or rogue only flavor. In the end DA2 did a much, much better job of giving all classes a lot of diverse options as far as skills go and the ability to customize with in that. The big misstep I see, in comparison, is they pigon holed it to much. if you wanna be an archer you 'have' to be a rogue, want to dual wield? have to be a rogue. Can't be a warrior for whatever reason, and vice versa... wanna use a sword and small shield? Gadda be a warrior! Though they only really had 1 kind of shield. It was to 'forced' down specific paths with no diversion with in that.
Plus they went to diablo-y on how stats where handled and items and all that and it kinda kills the attachment you get may get with items you find when every other lvl a basic items beating out your magic item. It's an issue you had in ME1 to some extent and they realized and tried to address that in ME2 (but went to simple, which is where ME3 tried to shift it up). It's something DnD and a lot of PnP games do in general that a lot of cRPG's have abandonded for whatever bizar reason. But ultimately that 'base' item grind (not just higher magic values but actual base item stats) literally kills any attachment one may have.... and im kinda getting off on a tangent there sorry.
So right, DAO vs DA2, DA2 other misstep in relation to combat was just the animations and overall feel of it. Removed the isometric camera on PC for whatever reasons. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who played it on a console as, my computer for the past... 12 years hasn't changed up till this year so... I had to deal with DAO on a console just to play it. Trust me when i said I'd of prefered that in isometric but I still enjoyed it even with the kinda make-shifty controles and forced perspective.
Anyway add to that the poor and constant use of wave-monster spawning (which isn't bad at base, was just over used, poorly) amongst other things... any anything DA2 did good ultimately gets overshadowed by all the other 'wtf' stuff.
-
I voted for what I thought best fit what I think but the last questions I didn't really have an answer. Ultimately the changes in DAO are, in my mind at least, superior to old BG games but it was ultimately a more complex system and allowed for character customization where old ADnD was less about character customization and more about exploration and story. I kinda feel like you can do both and that's what 3E ended up doing for that series in my mind.
So, I ultimately picked newer RPG as being better in relation to that (at least with DAO as my example) but I think, combat aside, BG1-2/PST all did a far better job on the story and overal enjoyment of my experience. But that was inspite of the very simple combat and lack of character customization. I mean in BG you pick your class, you roll for stats (which is a poor system in my mind for RP'ing, point based like NWN just works better) and race. That's about it.. yu don't do much past that, can't pick skills and whatnot 'after' that. It's just HP and THAC0. IWD2 though using 3E rules really let you just get intot he meat of characters which was a 'blast' to play in an infinity engine.
So, out of all the infinity games, IWD2 was my favorit 'combat wise'. It had all the fun customization in characters, mechanically, that I crave... but BG2/PST had the more engrosing story. Granted, IWD2 was very linear and designed as a tactical dungoen crawler, not some mind blowing RP adventure with crazy companions and all that fun stuff. I think a lot of folks may pick BG or an infinity engine game based purely off the overall experience and not no the merits of the actual nuts n bolts of the combat its self. Also, with that, just how a game feels outside of your customization options means a lot to your enjoyment of it.
I think ADnD rules are kinda... weak. Lack customization out side of you making up your own class 'kit' but you don't get to do that for a cRPG. But Baldur's Gate 'feels' right, feels good, so even the overly simple stuff just works. Good example are diablo clones, original Diablo, D2, all felt right to me with what they where doing, and I ultimately haven't really liked any of the diablo-esks games to come out since. They always are a bit floaty. DAO kinda had a floatyness to it that ultimately lacked the more punchy feeling I got in BG2 as well.
So If I could get that same feeling I had with an infinity engine game, but with a bit more complex character customization like 3E/DAO/DA2 (DA2 had great customization but to much forced weapon sets per class)... well, I'd be pretty damn happy with that.
-
3
-
-
...right your making less sense now with your word making. Anyway as per Teo... I agree on the skin-tight stuff. A lot of that just gets out of hand, looks kind of creepy. The picture I linked is a primary example of what I mean by acceptable 'boob armor'... not to be confused with bikini armor which is all bad.
-
Yeah, not a teenybooper, nor am I refering to Aribeths jiggly armor. Like I said, DAO. 100% Fully covered, same kind of stuff they've already shown in there concept art. Get off your imaginary moral high horse. There is nothing wrong with it, it's not even remotely degrading. Lemmy reiterate this I am not advocating bikini armor. I think that's pretty much garbage if that's how chain and platemail looks on all females because 'lol fantasy'. Its pretty bad. It's also not what there art direction has shown.
As far as im concerned if they go a DAO, or hey, I dunno, all the infinity engine games version of armor.. im happy with that. It's a fantasy game, it doesn't have to be super realistic.
-edit-
Also, that's not schooling me. That is EXACTLY what I am talking about, exactly what I am promoting.
http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/image/21142609298 <--- THIS is ****ing boob armor and it looks great in a fantasy setting and it's part of the crap you just linked as a good example.
In fantasy its about making it look nice, and 'reasonable' with out going all crazy half-naked nonsense. Sadly the half-naked gets used way to damn often in relation to plate or chain. It shouldn't. But that above picture? perfectly reasonable and its some nice looking fantasy armor.
-
*sighs* I dunno if your trying to joke with me or your all really that blind.
-
They're not misconceptions, nor do I think 'boob-armor' is a super realistic thing that would of happened in excess if women back then where more heavily into the war related stuff (yeah, there where some but it was limited and they used existing armor if any). My only point is, in a fantasy setting, have 'boob armor' like in DAO isn't a bad thing. And that's not a misconception.
-
I don't see the issue with boob armor, even after reading that one armorers thing about it the only issue I could see he came up with was based off his, apparent, misunderstanding of where the HEART ACTUALY IS. In which case the boob-place actually protects the heart extremely well. Granted the center of her chest would take more direct blows but thats the front ribcage line, not her heart. In the end as long as putting on full plate doesn't result in half naked I think the issues rather minor.
Oh and that guy actually used mass effect as a perfect example of 'how to do it'. So again... yeah. Boob armors ok, bikini armor isn't. It's pretty simple, and it's something the infinity engine games didn't have an issue with, nothing Obsidians done I can think of has... so pretty confident they aint gonna mess that up. Also there concept art already had fully covered up girls (granted, yes, boob armor but c'mon...). Also if this is a 'its not fare to women' just... read that armorers article again.
You got 0 historical records of anyone making armor specifically for a women ni the first place of that kind. It's a fantasy game. And I know plenty of women who like that stuff. Your personal opinions aren't the be all end all.
-
You can't play the game with out metagaming, via its very definition. You can roleplay, or not, but unless you intend to never level up or look at weapon stats, good luck.
-
ADnD is a prime example of what you said you don't like, Mad. They had no character customization outside of attributes and what magic you wanted to have memorized. They're was no character customization via level. Unless you just meant you hope a healer isn't a requirement and as such any class combination can 'get the job done'. In either case I agree DAO did a pretty good job of having defined classes but allowing you to customize their roles how you wanted. Though I think Warrior and Rogues where way to similiar, and I generally liked DA2 'skills' setup better, though I disliked how forced DA2 did things so much weapon wise.
So, with that, I'd say more like DA2 then DAO, but more DAO/PnP where your not limited by what you can use. The very fact mages use armor-armor in there world I think bodes well for us in that we'll probably be getting a more flexible DA like setup then 2nd edition was. Seriously I loved BG series, but that ruleset was freakishly linear, only really trumped by some over seas cRPG where your only allowed a specific weapon depending on class... guh which is so horrible.
-
Sounds like it'll be story based, but I would like it if it was some kind of background trait, perk, whatever you select on character creation. OR part of creation you select due to the event. Either way I'd rather it not turn into some weird soul harvesting game unless that's what the event does to you,g ive you the ability to consume souls. Though at that point I would say it would end up being character progression and.. not everyone would be doing that so wouldn't fit to well with companions I'd wager. Also, I'd imagine, you'd be viewed as a horrible monster to be destroys if your removing peoples souls from the whole cicle the world has going just cause you collect/devour them.
Basically no on stat, yes on background lore of your character and maybe some passive state stuff in relation to that. From what they've said (and of course, could change) looks like the different kind of souls aren't race dependant though (to what luckmann said). Otherwise wouldn't be as important as folks would just view that as a race thing not a soul thing.
Either way having that as some kind of character creation process I think would put an interesting take on things, kinda like birth signs in TES. Just... the kind of soul you have and any benefit/negatives that come with it. Could also tie into NPC behavior and generally how people view you. Just another fun hook.
-
I like the approach there going with, pre-rendered 2D backgrounds, 3D stuff for monsters, objects, maybe soe other bits in game. It'll be a blend, generally speaking that should fun pretty solid on even older systems. That and once you start mixing it, going balls out on the crazy effects that usually make 3D games look crazy good will have less of an effect considering half the games 2D based stuff.
That said I would like it to be a good sized game at least in terms of overall stuff to do and time spent. PST/BG length that kinda thing. Don't think art direction will have to big of an impact on that considering its an isometric game. No reason to go insane on each individual monster graphic since your not seeing any of it super-close up. I mean, think DAO, but with a fixed perspective and 2D backgrounds instead of 3D. That could look awesome (with a bit better art direction) and run smooth.
-
I mean skill picking as in when you level up, not selecting from spells in your wizardy spell book. Anytime you level up your starting to weigh options about what that'll mean 'for' your character and how it'll effect them. Your going outside of things to edetermine where they're going, your basically playing god with a fake thing. And yes, taking healing skill because he got better at it, is metagaming. USING it once he has it isn't.
Also ouch for not being good int hat I didn't run into any issues playing ToEE? Maybe you read what I said wrong. And yeah, cooldowns well, Like I said, if they where changed in that the timer changed based off combat vs non-combat make sense, or at least somethign to show you've recovered. That is in no way an advocation 'for' cooldowns. I think there a lazy concept and quickly go into 'CD rotation' for most efficient combat damage and all that BS. Then you stop thinking tactically in this kind of game and just get into your button rotations... fine for MMO with giant ass bosses and 20+ people dealing with it (where you at least have people to talk to to keep you from passing out). But yeah horrible in most situations.
As for the utility spells lemmy quote you from another thread 'you lack imagination'
Think about it this way, anytime you switch spells anything you casts effect disipates, and you can only do it outside of combat. This would make it so if you want those buffs, or those things that you'll be using in fights where its important. As for your example? Folks can do that and did in BG via 'resting' instead. All im saying is (and a dev was the one who mentioned this) it's just a method of switching with out needing to rest for 8 freakin' hours everytime. Also, I think the spells you listed as **** for a mage. I think theres generally more interesting utility spells that don't completely take over existing game skills like detecting traps, picking locks and so forth. That's probably one of the biggest issues I had with DnD, spells had a tendency in there overall expenasiveness to allow you to be that jack of all trades and generally be almost better then the specialists whos life revolves around it.
in conclusion, if you have a lockpick skill ANYONE CAN TAKE.. why the **** do you have a spell that also does that? It's just redundancy for the sake of moar-spellz and lowers the whole reason to have the skill in the first place.
-edit-
Just my opinion of course we don't have to agree (except that im right, ha ha haa)
-
I'mma go with what Trashman said, more or less. I prefer a system that, generally speaking, your improvement comes from how much you know and how much you can generally take on at once but ultimately things you where dealing with at lvl 1 can stillt ake you out, given they have the numbers (and it makes sense). I mean the idea a rats any kind of actual enemy outside of them brain psionic rats in PST always seems kinda silly.
For that I prefer actually non-scaling HP. Everyone has the same base general HP, it changes due to stats and perhaps some kinda class-archtype. Can't remember where I posted this but in something I was working on (or technically still am) Basic setup was 150hp for say a priest or general class-like character. Warriors where 200, Mages where 100. Also had a low-regenerating mana system in place so mage/warrior was reversed in that total but we dunno what they're going with in that.
Anyway point is, HP never scales up other then via a constition, stamina or vitality stat, whatever it ends up being called. This allows you to still make a very beefy, tanky character that has an 'easier' time dealing with bigger enemies or groups of enemies but generally speaking what the difference from lvl 1 to 30 is literally just 'what you know' and other stuff increase such as chance to hit. Getting better armor, being more aware of stuff and having an easier time evading attacks as a consequence of that.
Ultimately I think some kind of HP growth for everyone can, and does make sense as you'd get more use to pain and just dealing with wounds after awhile of constant combat. But some games just take it to an extreme. A lot of that in DnD is due to Constition giving HP value on a per-lvl basis. Got 30 Con? Great that's +10 hp per lvl! When, I think DAO did that, actually. Con was just static HP boosts but you still gained some HP per lvl.
Anyway... less scaling in survival stuff, more emphasis on stats over lvl in relation to that stuff. Make it more about what skills you know and can use vs just quadding dmg and getting 100x the hp you had at lvl 1.
-edit-
I can also say with some authority being involved with a HP system like that. It works out extremely well, and some stuff in number still remain a huge threat down the road. Granted most of those can be taken out with a well times fireball but that kind of thing is to be expected. Just an example of a character knowing something from experience they didn't know back when they had to fight them at lower lvls. I do actally use the +10 per con, base hp of about 100-200 (depending on class). Low lvls plays like lvl 10-ish DnD, 20+ plays bit more simular minus some chars getting the 800+ hp you could get in DnD from over 20 heh. Think my Barbarian at 20 had like 600 or something in 3E rules, was kinda crazy. But in either case, going from 300 (20 con, 200 base hp) to 600 is MUCh less of a jump in numbers then PnP where it would of been 17 hp vs 600. Thats a giant HP different, absolutely 'massive'.
And as Trashman said, it just means the lower lvl stuff is balanced more around like what DnD is mid lvl.. works out great.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame
Anytime your doing anything outside of the actual stuff related to what your character would know, is metagaming basically. It's just a stupid semantics things, people decide to only use it for stuff they think is bad instead of all the other crap they do that's good. The word, isn't, bad. It's just a term used for all the extra stuff going on. You play a super low int character leading a group and still use good tactics? Metagaming. So, srsly, who cares?
As for ToEE I did play that and I didn't run into that issue as often yeah. Ultimately it comes down tot his, I will use the system and enjoy it for the game it is. I still think its an incredibly stupid system, but I'm not exactly a binary organism here. I can enjoy stuff I think are incredibly stupid and arcane. I understand 'why' its that way, and that's simply its the easiest way to handle spells when dealing with PnP. ALL Of DnD 3E+ is setup the way it is because its EASIER to do while your dealing with a PnP setting and don't have a computer to deal with stuff for you. D20 is a good example, BAB with the D20 is super, super speedy in determining if you hit or not. Everything is basic adding.
The whole number of fireballs or whatever spell setup is a very easy way to deal with spells in a non-computer based game as it's simpler easier to keep track of and not worry about another pool of numbers that you subtract things from everytime you do something (HP). Psionics is I think the only other class that actually has a pooled number you end up subtracting or adding to depending on whats going on. Probably the most involved in keeping track of 'stuff'. Also the way a Wizard works, or a Sorcerer with in that, matchs up easily with all the other abilities, spell-like or otherwise as they often use a per-day setup as well. I still think that's kind of silly as people aren't that binary. In that instance, cooldowns make far more sense though they're also kinda simplistic in that you'd think a say, 30 second cooldown would take less time while your not in combat as you'd 'recover' faster from fatigue. Somethings just walking for a bit can get you back to normal. In DnD its literally just 'go sleep for 8 hours', as the only method.
Frankly, i'd want just as much restriction or 'more' put on a different system, but have it be a bit easier to ease up on things as far as how you go about recovering, at least in the short term stuff. In the other thread like this, Swayer mentioned having a bunch of pre-set stuff that you can swap easier then when resting, or even just while your not in combat so you have that Wizard flexibility with out having to rest for 8 hours every 5 danm minutes. Which i think would remove a lot of the frustration from resting all the time and still have that kind of in-combat restrictions you need for balancing something as crazy as a Wizard.
-
@Trashman: That's true enough I guess, I just don't think it fits with any RPG world I've ever been a part of, it always seems mildly opposed to the ideas of it. In the end I just don't like the system, I'm perfectly fine with using it, I just think it requires far to much foresight to use well. It's kinda like playing chess with out knowing the rules. A lot of infinity engine encounters in BG where actually built around the idea of ganking you immediately on first run in with it. It was some bizar way ot getting you to know what your going up against so you re-load and prepare ahead of time for the fight its self. The fact they actually thought about it that way and designed the encounters with the idea you'd die, get that knowledge of what the fight is in the process and 'reload and prepare for it' just always felt kinda stupid to me.
One reason I tended to set up most people for front line fighting to try and mitigate that as much as possible, only ever had 1 mage. Also helps that the spells you find in cRPG tend to be less about the utility RPG stuff and more just dealing with combat in a variaty of ways. Either way, I think the systems crap, just my opinion on it.
As for 'metagaming is bad' is... silly. Metagaming exists in every RPG. RPG's are games made up OF metagaming. Picking skills? That's metagaming, hating on that just cause of the word metagame makes no sense. Granted I think theres good and bad metagaming, more so when you get outside of single player games and get into more RP related stuff (multiple people) but that's unrelated to this. Ultimately there aren't to many single-player related things that're bad when talking about metagaming. It's all just part of the game.. though, as mentioned above, I dislike the gank-encounters -> reload -> prepare with gained knowledge of whats up ahead. Feel like that's less fun on the initial go through but, ultimately, it's the kinda knowledge you ahve on your 2nd or 3rd play through anyway so... more of a time waster.
-
Yeah I agree for the most part, I think you'd want some more fantastical looking 'designs' on stuff for artifact like weapons or armor. But generally speaking stuff that just looks a bit more useable would be nice. And it is 3D models for stuff this time so that should mean they can do some custom assets for some more unique weapons and armor in mid-later game stuff. But what really, really gets me.. is the 'effects' you get on weapons.
For that, look at Dragon's Dogma PLEASE. It was so beautiful and simple in that. your whole weapon didn't look like a thousand torchs just because you had 4 fire dmg. When your weapon was enchanted with a fire spell the 'blade' glowed orange.. just the blade! no crazy fire flailing all over, no gaudy fire frail that lasts for seconds. Just a very elegant, pleasing, glowing blade. Also had some super-feint sparks when you swung but, really, they did weapon enchanting in that game, visually, perfect in my opinion. Was just beautiful.
Will elves have "souls"?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Mmm, ginger chicks, the haunting succubi of are world. They can have my soul any day (usually).