Jump to content

moridin84

Members
  • Posts

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by moridin84

  1. If this happens, then someone didn't do his job communicating the necessary knowledge to the player, who is supposed to know anything relevant their player character knows. Well possibly. If that is the case then there should be no need for this [Lie] tag at all.
  2. Hmm, I think you are missing the point. It's not about "character" or "in game" knowledge but "player" or "meta" knowledge. The secret tunnel is a "character" knowledge thing. Say that in the P.E world raising someone from the dead is impossible. You might say tell someone that you'll "definitely bring back their dead brother" if they help you. As a "character" this would be a lie because raising someone from the dead is definitely impossible, as a "player" you might not actually realise this was the case. As a player, I'll pick whatever dialogue choices I want. The game has no way of knowing if I mean them or not so I don't think the [Lie] tag makes sense. As for locking you into a set of decisions... I think there is a better way to do that.
  3. Hmm, well if you don't want someone carrying 15 claymores you can just make them fairly big so you can't fit a lot of them in the top pack. Adding weight on top doesn't really add much. Take Deus Ex Human Revolution as an example.
  4. Oh so that's a slot based inventory. So yeah, 100% against that. Lists are definitely better than that. It can be a hassle finding everything, especially if you aren't sure what it looks like or where it is so you have to go with the inventory of each single character in your party, mousing over single item in order to find it.
  5. What do you mean by 'slot based'? And yes, if you limited the number of items a player can have there is no need to have categories.
  6. Stopping the timers on buffs is good idea. On the other hand I prefer to have two different types of buffs, long term and short term. Long term buffs last until you rest, short term will run out before or shortly after a fight ends. Actually... has there been a thread on this yet? I might make one otherwise. Anyway. I think that the player should be the 'mouthpiece' all the time, the player is you after all and the other characters are optional extras. Having them interject like in Dragon Age 2 would be cool though. That said, formations being broken and player being pushed into the front is a bad thing and Obsidian should definitely avoid doing that.
  7. Hmm, I'd prefer tags to colour coding options. Colour coding seems... gaudy. One thing I don't get with the [Lie] tag is where you have two options which are exactly the same but one of them has [Lie] in front of it. I've seen it done but I never understood what actually difference there was in choosing one instead of the other.
  8. I personally like this top-pack/unlimited stash system. It's a bit unrealistic but the inventory system in these type of games is unrealistic anyway, they have to it for the rest of the game to work as it those. It's a game, you can't have everything realistic or it wouldn't be fun and this is just one of those things. There are other systems that would work fine as well but one thing I am definitely against is mixing 'weight-limited' and 'space-limited' system. The top-pack/unlimited stash system is 'space-limited' (at least for the top-pack), whereas Infinity Engine games where 'weight-limited' (you had a grid based inventory but you had so much space it was never an issue). Mixing the two complicates things while adding nothing. And another thing, I agree with the stash being a list instead of a grid. Since it's unlimited, inventory tetris makes no sense so there's no point in it being a grid. Ideally this should be a categorized. All, Weapons, Armour, etc.
  9. Isabela huh? Hmm, isn't that double standard though? If she was a guy then she'd be considered a 'casanova' (e.g. James Bond). I mean, if you don't like her personality or something it would be different.
  10. Wait Neeshka was more serious? The character who was always cracking wise? Don't get me wrong, you don't like a character you don't like a character. But Neeshka never struck me as terribly serious ("Questions, questions...go ahead, I'm all horns", "I feel this strange, rosy glow all of a sudden. We don't have to hug, do we?", "And I may have accidentally back-stabbed some people in the past, but if they couldn't see me coming, well, that's their loss") She's super serious. Really.
  11. Then why add it at all in a game based on a tabletop where creative roleplaying, regardless of alignment, can yield rewards. This seems like a copout idea of their intentions, or, if accurate, a copout on their part. Well it was 15 years ago.
  12. That's a dramatic way to put it. At the time Baldur's Gate was created, there were not many games that gave you the option of being evil. Playing "evil" was probably considered to be something of a "joke" play through added because of the alignment system and to give negative consequence to 'bad' actions.
  13. There are plenty of examples in games, books, shows, movies and even real life where teenagers are involved in "save the world" type stories. In many cases they are heavily involved in the "action" or "combat" aspects too. I understand people might not like teenager characters but claiming that they don't "fit" into a game like P.E is crazy.
  14. You serious? What about... Harry Potter (Harry Potter) Simon (Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn) Daenerys Targaryen (A Game of Thrones / Song of Fire and Ice) Claire Bennet (Heroes)
  15. Teenagers are too young to be on a "world saving quest"? Anyone who thinks that is clearly an old person
  16. Well it's true there are probably been a bunch of kickstarters which added stretch goals simply because they reached their target and wanted to give people reason to throw more money at them. On the other hand, there are also kickstarters which ask for the bare minimum and then use the stretch goals too add more cool stuff.
  17. Haha, first thing I thought when reading the title was "Elanee", second was "Cassavir". I truely loathed Elanee's character and Cassavir was really boring and shallow. Alistair (Dragon Age) could be considered to be a similar "whining" character but I liked him. Part of this was because he was funny, another part is because he did he more than just whine all the time. Morrigan (Dragon Age) was a character who complained of your actions when you acted against her personal beliefs but I liked her too. Part of this is again because she was funny, another part is that she actually would argue with you (as opposed to just preaching) and had complex reasons for her opinions. Yet another reason is that she actually had a lot of conversations outside of "I believe this" and "plot".
  18. What you guys are talking about is this http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism
  19. If you are talking about overall feeling of not losing out I'm ok with that, but otherwise I have to disagree: If every option leads to equal outcome no matter what choices you make, it would be quite boring. Instead, when it has been confirmed there is not going to be any morality meter, we can treat every choice individually and don't have to look each of them through polarized good/evil glasses. Again: Why do we need to get rewarded for our choice? In The Walking Dead you made a choice and people could die because of it. Was that rewarding? No, but bad things happen. Seeing the consequence, no matter how bad, is kind of reward in itself and money and items are secondary things if the story is well written. What if in example given by OP you choose to steal the sword, but afterwards get attacked by the villagers who kidnap one of your companions and you could A: exchange the sword for your companion, B: Attack the villagers, which would be very hard fight, free your companion and maybe ransack the village after, C: Attack the villagers, but they manage to kill your companion before you are able to free him, D: Leave your companion to his fate, but maybe he appears later in game, lusting for revenge for your betrayal. These options are definitively not equal considering possible gains and morally not entirely black or white, but I would greatly enjoy making the choice and seeing consequences unfold. I don't mind if my choices lead to loosing money, items or even companions. It just makes it feel realistic and interesting and forces you to think about your actions. If you constantly make wrong choices (I don't mean necessarily the evil ones) the game should give you harder time. P.S. Also, if player chooses to steal, murder and betray, I don't want it to be easy choice. The game should really test your conscience in those situations. Umm, I don't think you are getting my point. I can't think of a way to help you understand either.
  20. It may not be that obvious. Taking one path versus another can have different balance drivers. Giving equal XP for both options might actually be inappropriate. Hence we can't really know if equal XP makes sense unless we see it in a wider context. Sure, sure. However we are talking about a "mentality" when it comes to designing quests, rather than specific quests.
  21. P.E not having a morality system is irrelevant. People want the option to do 'evil' things (murder, theft, betrayal, etc) and not feel like they are loosing out because you get better rewards for not doing those things. This is nothing to doing with people having back/white/grey options,
  22. There is a Japanese "visual novel" called Fate/Stay Night. The story is essentially about the main character getting involved in a 7 person battle royal for a prize. This game has three routes, you unlock the second route by completing the first and the third by completing the second. Participants who gets knocked off early in one route would survive much longer in another, this resulted in each route being dramatically different. I believe that is the concept behind NewGame+ system that the original poster was suggesting. Personally I don't think it "fits" within a player driven RPG. In an RPG the differences between one playthrough and another are determined by the players actions. Creating a single world which is dramatically affected by player choices would be simpler than creating an alternative "NewGame+" world. It would be interesting to see something like this in an RPG but I think it would be really dangerous to do, plus it doesn't fit with the "old school RPG" mentality that this game is being designed with. If we ever see an RPG like this it would probably be in an indie game.
  23. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was written by like, 2 people. And those were the lead writers or something. I'm pretty sure that multiplayer didn't affect that. The game designers/programmers wouldn't have made the face ANYWAY. That goes onto the art team.
  24. I ABSOLUTELY don't think you should have to play a game through twice to get access to all the branching/story arcs. When I think New Game+, I think simply being able to play through the game a second time starting from a much more powerful state. Something like Veteran mode from Alpha Protocol. It's a bit weird though right? Starting the game from level 20 (or whatever is max) instead of level 1 with the rest of the game being exactly the same. If you aren't going to do anything else then it's a bit pointless. "Veteran" in Alpha Protocol is different to new game+. You can choose a different "character" which has extra points (like starting from level 3 instead of 1) and a few different dialogue options at the start of the game. It's more like a (optional) bonus which makes later playthroughs easier.
×
×
  • Create New...