motorizer
-
Posts
260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by motorizer
-
-
Fallout 1 and 2 had "fade to black" sex scenes....
Nothing wrong with them in an isometric RPG.
-
1
-
-
What are you talking about? ignore who?
The person I quoted. Neo6874.
It appeared as though he had posted some other response, then pulled a pseudo-delete edit (the closest thing we can do to deleting our own posts) by posting "(actually... ignore me)"
I was ignoring him, It was a joke...
ho hum...might try another one someday....
-
1
-
-
Do I acknowledge your command to ignore you, thereby doing the OPPOSITE of ignoring you? Or do I pay attention to you, thereby obviously not ignoring you?
AHHHH!!! *rips out hair*
What are you talking about? ignore who?
-
My favourite save system is actually the one on mount and blade, where it autosaves pretty much every time something happens, overwriting your previous save. I believe sui generis is planning something similar.
No save scumming there, and no having to go back half an hour because you had to turn the computer off and go out.
It has to be impossible to get yourself into an unwinnable situation though for that to work. and the save game system has to be very robust.
-
I do wonder what an RPG with an auto-save system (without being able to make saves yourself) would be like.
Shadowrun Returns uses a checkpoint save system if you haven't tried it yet.
Shadowrun Returns is a nice enough game, but players consider the checkpoint saves to be one of the major faults. Once you proceed to the next level you can't redo your choices. One clusterf*ck and you may need to replay an entire level or be seriously gimped if the mission has multiple levels. Choose the wrong companions or bring the wrong consumables and at best: play the same level again and again until you succeed, or at worst: you need to restart the whole game.
Personally I'm fine with it... it's more fun to me to have to live with your choices and for them to mean something..... and for there to be a bit of tension in the game...
If you have to save scum then the game is too hard and the save scumming is an infinite lives cheat. (baldurs gate at level 1)... shadowrun was a bit on the easy side if anything..it would have been way too easy if you could save anywhere.
and what is the point of ever even having a fail condition to anything if you can just keep doing it again till you succeed? might as well play skyrim and never fail at anything....
-
I'd like the custom companions to have no personality at all, apart from a certain type of voice of course. But essentially being able to make a party with characters who don't always bicker and fight with me is the main reason I even want the feature.
I understand that, but when I said I wanted them to have some personality I didn't mean bickering and fighting with you, I just think the odd comment would go a long way to making it feel like there are actual people following you rather than mindless puppets. the comments could be expressing thoughts about your location or situation..it doesn't need to be an opinion beyond "it's dark in here" or "I've got a bad feeling about this" or similar comments
I know for a fact I will never use them if they are just silent PCs
I'll have a PC, I don't want 5 more.
Not too bothered about this though really, just my thoughts on the matter.
-
1
-
-
I'd like the adventurers hall characters to at least make the odd comment about your actions/surroundings even if they are not fully fleshed out characters with a backstory, so yeah, some personality would be nice
and I agree it would be nice if it played a role even if you don't make characters there
-
the problem with this would be if you only get good weapons from loot and that in the second half of the game there are say 10 enemies that might drop above +2 weapons that you are proficient in, and one of the final encounters requires a +4 weapon or higher. now for the first half of the game you have been getting pretty much only greatswords, so you specialized in them and was really good with them. all 10 of those that may drop the better weapons failed to drop greatswords, and as a result you have to fight the battle that needs a +4 or better with a weapon you can't use very well, which of course makes it harder, using up more resources than normal, and since you run around with roughly the same combat ability from early levels as you do at higher levels, the second half of the game drains more resources than the early levels when they don't expect you to need them as much. so then the game goes from super easy, to super hard, all due to dice rolls.
That's what playtesting is for.
name one game that is dependant on RNG rolls that the dev didn't realize that something creative should be done to ensure you didn't auto fail a playthrough every so often? keep in mind one person not failing doesn't mean anything. if the odds of auto fail is .1% and the game sells 100,000 units in its lifetime, and each unit has an average of 5 playthroughs, then 500 playthroughs will auto fail (most games sell more than 100,000 units BtW).
No, you name one game where you had to go back to the start because a random item didn't drop.
there should be no encounter in the game that is reliant on having a certain weapon which is a possible random drop, whether you get the item or not shouldn't really matter...sometime I fell like people are just trying to make up problems.
-
1
-
-
the problem with this would be if you only get good weapons from loot and that in the second half of the game there are say 10 enemies that might drop above +2 weapons that you are proficient in, and one of the final encounters requires a +4 weapon or higher. now for the first half of the game you have been getting pretty much only greatswords, so you specialized in them and was really good with them. all 10 of those that may drop the better weapons failed to drop greatswords, and as a result you have to fight the battle that needs a +4 or better with a weapon you can't use very well, which of course makes it harder, using up more resources than normal, and since you run around with roughly the same combat ability from early levels as you do at higher levels, the second half of the game drains more resources than the early levels when they don't expect you to need them as much. so then the game goes from super easy, to super hard, all due to dice rolls.
That's what playtesting is for.
-
I'm red-green color blind so making the selection circles something else is just fine by me ... and I honestly have no idea how blue is immershun breaking whilst green or red somehow enhance "immershun"
It's pretty simple. I want them to be the same as the IE games, simple as that.
That's not really answering his question. "Immersion" in a video game is that feeling you get when the game sucks you into its world. When your attention is fully on what's going on -be it during combat, or exploration, or dialogue. Saying "because I like the way Baldurs Gate had green circles under my characters" does not explain why Blue circles will suddenly break your attention span. Or to put it another way, if the color of the circles under your characters is breaking your immersion, then the game is probably failing in other ways and you're not even realizing it.
Me personally, I can't think of a more trivial issue than the colors of the sprites lol. Incidently, A couple of the IE games (IWD2, PS:T) allowed you to play with them turned off, ie. no circles at all! And the others allowed you to adjust their size and brightness so that they were barely even visible.
I hope you are able to turn them off, I always did in the old games, I don't think they are necessary and the less UI the better for me.
-
I didn't mean completely random, I meant how mount and blade does it, each soldier in that game has random gear picked from a list of items appropriate to both their class and their culture.
you end up with a coherent group of soldiers who are individuals rather than clones.
Skyrim does similar.
-
2
-
-
Not reading all eight pages because... seriously...
I don't see what value having killable kids really adds. If it's for "BUT MY IMMERSION!!!!!" well here's a little trick I like to do:
I don't try to kill any kids and then as far as I know they're exactly as vulnerable as everyone else, oorah.
On the other hand, I can see downsides in terms of the rating of the game and the corresponding sales problems associated with having a higher rating that prevents some members of the population from legally purchasing this. I get the whole "BUT DON'T CENSOR YOURSELVES" thing but, is this really the thing you want to save from censorship? Child killing, really? Let's face it, Catcher in the Rye it ain't.
Ehh, methinks you're overlooking the fact that what's actually being "saved from censorship" is not child killing on the player's part, but child vulnerability. If a child cannot be harmed, then you cannot ever need to protect that child. You can't make difficult choices ("Do I focus fire to let that kid get out of the streets where battle is ensuing? Or do I just fireball it to go ahead and take out 5 of those orcs?").
What would be ridiculous is "I want the world to be populated with children whose vulnerability never amounts to anything in the gameplay/story besides my ability to flippantly decide to end them." But wanting kids to not be immune to danger is not the same thing as wanting to kill children.
This is pretty much it, I never intentionally killed any kids in fallout 1 or 2 in any of my playthroughs, but some did get hit in crossfires or by critical misses, both by my side and the enemies.
I vote for them to be killable but with strong in game consequences if you do (especially when no enemies are present or you have attacked them when not already in combat) It is possible to check if you were aiming at them or if it was a critical miss that hit them, so it should be possible to have the locals realize it was accidental.
However, if they are invulnerable I understand the reasons and won't complain.
-
The voices in the IE games sounded unnatural to me, like the actor/actress was trying too hard to sound like a caricature of a class. And there were too many overacted hammy war cries etc.....
Some natural sounding voices please.
-
2
-
-
I can't wait for the sense of awe and wonder as I find a flamey sword...I can put it on the pile of other flamey swords I've found in every other fantasy RPG I've ever played.
Actually I don't mind if the legendary weapons are magic or not, powerful or not, as long as they are interesting. And the main thing for that is an interesting history.
I would prefer magic weapons to have a downside of some sort though, rather than just being an obvious better choice...think stormbringer....
or, on a smaller scale, a fire sword could burn your hand..
-
In that case, it did even less.
-
I prefer to have weapons be legendary narratively rather than in item strength. The old IE games were pretty good at giving items backstories even if they were 'only' moderately powerful, and I think that's the way to go.
This
Excalibur never really did anything that any other sword couldn't have done, with the exception of getting stuck in a rock, it was a symbol.
Weapons with a small bonus and a backstory are the way to go, rather than making something so powerful you feel you have to use it.
-
Enemies should drop what they actually have (actually i'd rather they not drop it but it stays on the corpse, someone;'s armour falling off when you kill them is a little bit silly)
loot in other sources could be partly random
Enemies like rats shouldn't drop anything (that's if we are fighting rats yet again...I kind of hope not)
A little bit of randomness in the equipment of basic bandits etc...would make the place feel more real than if they had a bandit "uniform"
-
1
-
-
I loved those incantations, It's miles better than the silent casting of most games.
-
Whilst it could be cool, you do have to ask the question..
If they're that legendary, why are they in bits?
-
1
-
-
As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.
Reality?!? What? Anyways, those impossible fights are so sweet when you figure out how to win them, I would argue that they where a big (if not the biggest) part of the IE games. I still remember the Chimera fight at the ice temple in IWD2, or my first dragon in BG2. To tie in on this, why would you get the same amount of xp for doing something that is hard in this example a "hard fight" and for sneaking past the enemy. In my opinion that is just encouraging people to quit from those impossible fights, and go for an easier route.
When i said reality, I didn't mean "reality"
What I'm saying is...it removes a strong incentive for the player to roleplay an insane suicidal maniac....
-
I kinda like the idea of not gaining XP from defeating foes. Makes you wanna avoid some combat situations and consider a different approach. I used to play Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and we would be awarded with experience points just after some major events would be brought to an end. Not for every kill we would get, maybe just for some very important and story related boss's's's'sss... What I mean is that you play your role as in a theater, not simply hack n' slash everybody; there you put politicians.
As I said in the "coward" thread no xp makes retreating a more viable option, it would stop players staying to fight impossible odds that no sane person would actually attempt in reality, because there would not be the huge xp reward that some games would give for this.
-
The lack of combat xp is a good thing for this IMO
Since there is less incentive to fight on when anyone in their right mind would retreat.
-
There should be some fights you can't win. Sometimes retreat should be the best option, and it should be by your choice rather than being forced on you like the infamous mass effect "loss" against the ninja bloke.
Lord of the rings = lots of hiding and running away
Star wars = lots of hiding and running away
If you can beat everyone it kind of negates any sense of a threat from the antagonists.
-
4
-
-
That's actually a good idea.
Or, you know, they could make a choice of whats important and whats not. Whats that word you guys like to throw around? Oh yeah, TACTICS. Now to counter the inevitable "hoover" effect of people picking up everything they had to devalue it to almost worthless. Tell me what was gained here. Sure you can pick up every object on the continent but it isn't worth anything so whats the point?
I agree, and there's always the possibility of simply having less loot (that doesn't equal less objects in-game, just less combat/magical equipment). I've personally never bothered making multiple loot-hauling trips, but I'm disadvantaging myself by not doing that (or so I hear).
Tolkein kind of skirted around the 12 trips back into Moria that the fellowship made to collect all the goblin's crap.
Or could it just be that stories and adventures aren't about collecting rubbish and selling it to incongruous shops that buy more than they sell.
-
2
-
Game classification (mature or not ) ?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
Yep, it's pointless to speculate about women's armour when women didn't fight and there is no historical armour that was made for women, if you were going for full earth realism, then it would be pretty pointless allowing you to create a female warrior... but no one wants that, and luckily it isn't historic earth...
not really the right thread for this discussion though.