motorizer
-
Posts
260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by motorizer
-
-
Turning into an awesome superman who can just wade through hordes of enemies without taking a scratch just sucks the fun out of the game, most RPGs are more fun (for me) early on when you are more vulnerable and have crappy equipment.
The exception to this, and therefore in my opinion the way to go is gaining cool abilities and perks that are fun to use
You should be a better fighter(or wizard or rogue) because you can use your abilities and skills to gain an advantage, not because you can soak up damage and hit things for 10 zillion HP
something that adds fun rather than numbers
And I don't want a low level bandit to cease to be a threat just because he is stuck on 10 hitpoints and you have 100
I'd rather he could still do you some serious damage if you don't use the blocks, dodges, special attacks, spells etc that you have gained and he hasn't
drawing on your experience in other words
- 1
-
Whilst as Sensuki said, there are no health potions in the game, I do often wonder in these type of games why are you carrying 300 bottles of stuff around with you?
Having one bottle of a given potion and just drinking some of it when needed seems a bit more realistic to me, apart from the inventory space aspect there is also the fact that trying to move silently with 300 bottles on your person could become something of a problem.
- 2
-
Universal Voice-over
Both Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale had voiced incantations for spells, usually one per school of magic
Whilst i have mentioned a few times on this forum that I'm not a huge fan of magic, I did like this touch in BG 1 & 2, and it's something hardly anyone ever seems to do
I do think that worst voice acting in many of these games was actually the choice of voice sets you got for the player character, I seem to remember struggling to find any that I liked. Would like to see more variety and quality there.
-
IMHO a game should have the following regarding loot:
1. You can take/sell just about everything not nailed down, but most things are of piddly value.
2. Inventory space is limited.
3. The really cool **** is only available at incredibly high prices, or as a result of special encounters/quests
4. Gold has weight. It keeps you from accumulating huge amounts. If you have too much, open a bank account, use writs of payment, or buy/keep high value things like magic items or precious gems.
The beauty of such a system is it makes the payoff for selling vendor trash almost not worth it. For the obsessive-compulsive players who want to sell everything in the game, it still exists as a option. But most players, as they gain levels, will reach a point where it's just not worth it to pick up non-magical items anymore - as it should be.
I agree with all this except partly 3, the really cool stuff should be obtained from encounters, puzzles etc...no legendary items in shops please
Arthur didn't go down the shops to get excalibur, the one ring wasn't on offer down at the jewellers...
I'd prefer the a lot of the so called legendary stuff in shops to be charlatans selling fakes...could still be useful fro what it is, a sword is still a sword, but turns out not necessarily to be the legendary artifact their outlandish claims said it was
a bit like all the people selling pieces of the one true cross in the middle ages
-
If such a game were to exist I'd like them to kinda go the valkyria chronicles route for perma death where if you're down you're down for the fight. But if an enemy then reaches your body they will finish you. If an ally reaches your body they can stabilize you and call in a med evac. Heck you could get rid of the med evac and force you to stick around and guard fallen party members for a bit of additional strategy.
That isn't a realistic combat mechanic though, it's just a different one.
realistically you would try to avoid fighting altogether unless you had no choice or were damn sure of winning
-
Real world physics don't allow for much bigger creatures than elephants anyway.
.Were we on different physics then when Argentinosaurus roamed the earth?
You do have a fair point though in that there are plenty of animals around today that you just wouldn't take on with a sword, if you didn't want to get turned into jam, and I do wish monsters in games were as formidable as they would be in real life, even if it meant actually fighting them was a fools errand
beating the dragon(dinosaur) that is terrorizing an area could involve building a trap or digging a pit rather that steaming in with a sword and shield like a tiny armoured crunchy snack.
-
The biggest problem I have with this is the question of what happens when you encounter a big enemy - would a fight with a traditional fantasy fire dragon end a second in when he wiped your entire party with a single breath?
I'd be quite happy with having to find another way of dealing with a dragon than a straight fight..
or possibly needing to raise an army to fight it
A world with realistic combat mechanics mean you cant just beat everything and win every fight.
- 3
-
What they need to avoid doing is making all the l;evels follow the same basic structure
There should be some linear and some non linear, you shouldn't go in knowing what to expect because you've already done some dungeons.
Pretty much every dungeon in skyrim comes round full circle to give you an easy exit as soon as you've found what you went in for, to the extent that as soon as you have it you're looking for the quick way out that you know is there, after a while it felt lazy
I agree that you shouldn't need to backtrack the way you came (unless it's changed considerably by some event) but there should be a bit of variety in how you get out, where the objective is, and how linear it is.
- 1
-
I kind of dislike the way RPGs always turn into a crap collecting simulator.. I'd be happy with a realistic inventory limit, but I know I'm in the minority there
Trading in a more realistic and meaningful way, such as buying a shipload of goods and sailing it to another port to sell...or running a trading caravan would be a much more preferable way of trading and making cash to me...or hell, even looting and robbing other people's caravans or ships.
-
That diablo 3 screenshot filled me with horror, I hadn't really been following the game, but have they really strayed that far from the original concept?
from the PE screens I've seen so far I love the art style, but yeah I'd be happy if they toned down the pink and purple
-
There is only one world heavyweight boxing champion (per sanctioning body...perhaps that's a bad example )
and no matter how much practice most people get, they will never get there.
I don't want to automatically end up as the most powerful person in the world as in skyrim etc... I think I'd actually enjoy the game more if there were characters/creatures who could easily beat me., that would make me think more about strategy and planning
I'd like it if a person was just a person...set health..minor stamina upgrades with fitness..and most of the gains in levelling up came from increased skills and perks
If you start the game as a weakling with 3 strength, it would be stupid if you could somehow become stronger than everyone else by levelling up
-
Love these shots, especially the detail on the characters
-
Personally? Very little. In terms of raw stats increases.
I don't wanna see a HP inflation. No extra HP per level. Only if you spend attributes on CON or feats.
But skills? Yes.
The problem with your question is that "strong" is subjective. What is ones "image" of power?
Traditionally it has all been about pumping NUMBERS and getting higher NUMBERS so your NUMBERS are bigger than your opponents NUMBERS.
To me that is a very shallow portraly of power. Given that skills/feats increase the tactical applications of a character and his potency in combat, I really don't see the need to overdo it with stats.
In other words, tiny increases. I wanna feel more pwoerfull becuase the character is more SKILLED, not because he now has 10000 HP.
This
-
I'd like to see new abilities, perks, better critical chance etc...when levelling up rather than a load of extra hitpoints or something.
I wouldn't mind if the hitpoint/attributes were static or almost static. Id rather have the levelling up do something noticeable rather than change an arbitrary number which makes no difference to gameplay because they'd only make high level enemies stronger anyway to compensate
- 2
-
I'd be okay with a mechanic similar to recent Bioware games though, where "killed" characters are simply unconscious and can be revived provided you win the encounter. Particularly because most people before this mechanism used to just reload when a party member died anyway. It would still mean you'd be highly unlikely to wade into (as an example) 40 goblin mooks, who would likely kill all of you due to sheer number of attacks and flanking bonuses (regardless of how low-level and inexperienced they otherwise are).
I hate this, it's just removing choice from those, such as myself(sometimes), who would carry on and accept the consequences...without really adding anything for those who would reload except for a few seconds of their time.
I see it as a symptom of the dumbing down of RPGs
- 1
-
Gameplay trumps realism.
/thread.
True enough, but having something which feels real can add to the gameplay experience, standing there taking hits like a bullet sponge can make the enemies feel less dangerous, which makes the combat less rewarding and makes the threat of the enemies seem more trivial.
- 1
-
I hope you can stand on a fleeing enemies cloak and cause him to fall in a slapstick manner.
-
PS. don't know about Arma (haven't played the game) but fps's are the same way as rpgs are in their own genre. They have a realistic simulation of a gun fight but keep in mind that it must make sence gameplaywise too, since this is only a game. That's why you can run all the way without getting tired, survive multiple bullet shots etc.
That's why I mentioned arma, it's not like other FPS's
you get tired, you can die in one hit, you can get hurt, you can't carry a million bullets and can only carry one rifle and a sidearm, the scale is realistic and the map huge so stuff actually can be miles away..... etc..etc...
It adds tension and fear and it does make you play the game at a slower, more careful pace.
but as I said...not for PE, it would be a complete redesign...but I would like to see someone do it...
-
Why does magic need to have "mystique," though? Why does it need to be special?
Note that I'm not arguing against either of those portrayals of magic, but rather the idea that those are the only "valid" ways to portray magic. That's certainly the easiest way to make it interesting, but it feels kind of arbitrary to say that's the only way. And does it even need to be "interesting" from a lore perspective?
I understand that the classic high fantasy wizard is a wizened old fellow who has spent his life studying the proper applications of "the magicks," and there's no inherent problem with that archetype. Wizards in D&D match it to a tee, and I absolutely get the argument for carrying that aspect of D&D over into PE. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be carried over. I'm speaking about fantasy games in general right now, not necessarily PE.
With that said (and you should take it as read from this point on), I think a world in which magic is commonplace and acknowledged as such could easily be just as interesting as a world in which it's rare, and that the "magical" feeling its rarity gives you could be replicated in other ways.
Look at, say, kung fu movies. Everyone in a kung fu movie is usually able to do some small amount of kung fu, but kung fu masters are as rare as wizards, and their superhuman displays of skill are appropriately astonishing. The mooks who can do some basic punches and kicks are so ubiquitous, and so easily trounced by the hero (who is often a journeyman of local renown, not a true master), that we are instinctively unimpressed by them even if they do stuff that would be impressive in another type of story. And we are likewise only somewhat impressed by the journeyman hero's kung fu when he or she goes up against a master.
(Yeah, I know, CTHD isn't technically a kung fu picture, and Li Mu Bai isn't technically a master, but it serves well enough as an example.)
Now apply that to a fantasy universe. Pretty much everyone can do a cantrip or two, and there are some moderately accomplished spellslingers, but the best of the best are on a whole other level, and inspire the awe reserved for any caster in a fantasy world with "rare" magic. Ergo, some people are special, some people aren't. Same as usual.
There is, of course, the argument that magic as a whole would become less "special" in such a universe, and I agree with that argument. I also don't think it's particularly important for magic as an abstract concept to be special unless that's the world-sense a storyteller is trying to evoke. The important thing is not to get into A Wizard Did It territory, where magic can simply fix everything. But when that stuff happens, it's a flaw in the world-building of a specific storyteller rather than an inherent flaw of magic as a concept.
So there is no confusion, I will reiterate that I'm not saying commonplace magic must be the order of things in PE's world. My point is simply that there is no inherent problem with commonplace magic unless you just hate it when magic isn't "special." Which, you know, I get, because I too have pet peeves, but any pet peeves you have are kind of your problem. I loathe Will Smith to an irrational degree, but I can still admit he's talented, and I can watch and enjoy his movies. And even if I couldn't, I wouldn't say a movie is garbage just because Will Smith is in it. I just wouldn't watch the thing.
I agree that a world with commonplace magic could be interesting. The problem is, in a society chock full of magic you'd see peasants and the like begin using magic for all sorts of labor-saving reasons. Why drive the ox yourself if you can charm it? Hell, why not convince the guy down the street to make you a golem to do the farmwork?
You see where I'm going. In a world where everyone has magic, it won't be used for merely parlor tricks and combat. It will be used for everything, and society will stop looking high-medieval and look more like some weird dreamland version of the Industrial Revolution.
Which would be a totally awesome setting, but not what's being done here.
and as I've said before it wouldn't be called magic or thought of as magic if it was commonplace, it would be just something you do.
an example (in reverse) is in the recent series of game of thrones where Gilly thought Sam was a wizard because he could read.
things are only thought of as magic by those who don't understand them....
-
Resting should be in, but you shouldn't be able to spam it,you can't sleep if you're not sleepy
-
I'd like to see an RPG that does for fantasy RPGs what the arma games have done for FPS's... a huge realistic world with realistic combat
I'm not expecting it from this game though, it's not really in their plan
Sui generis is doing away with hitpoints, and has physics based combat, will have to wait to see how it works out though (another game I backed on kickstarter)
- 1
-
resources being limited,
I'm pretty neutral on the romance thing, I think this is the first time I've looked at this thread....however, this always makes me laugh
362% on kickstarter of what they actually wanted to make the game, plus whatever they've made since...people are tripping over themselves to hurl money at obsidian, as well as other studios like inxile and double fine, yet every suggestion is always met with "Nooooo...limited resources" it just seems to be an excuse to try and stop them adding a feature you don't want.
I know they are not limitless, but how much do you think they need? $10million? $1billion? .....they didn't seem to think so.
As far as romances go, as long as they are well written and optional then I'm fine with them
-
@motorizer:
But as I said, that's a problem with execution, not the idea. if everyone (or most people; enough that it's commonplace) can do a bit of magic, but only five people can do crazy magic like flying, surely flying would still inspire wonder?
It would, but it would still inspire LESS wonder than if no one could do it.
Either way, magic (for me) should be "magical". Otherwise it isn't really magic.
The frequency and itensity can shape a different atmosphere of course, but I personally feel that overly high-magic worlds loose something.
Me too,
there is no way that anyone in game should ever call something that every one can do, magic...that just ignores the definition of the word
Also, one of the main reasons I dislike magic in RPGs is the lack of imagination or innovation...it seems like we have been casting the same reskinned laser beam spells for 25 years now and it just feels stale and uninspired.
If I was designing a fantasy RPG I would most likely still include magic and magicians, but I'm fairly sure I'd slap an outright ban on any energy bolt/fireball/lighting bolt/shoot lasers from your fingers spells...people complain that the same old fantasy races keep cropping up, but the magic is much worse.
I'd like to see spells that use the environment and what is there rather than creating energy out of nothing...and I'd rather attack spells be stuff like opening up the ground and swallowing enemies or turning the plant life against them...or creating a golem from the soil/ice/sand/whatever is there..or spells that twist an enemies flesh and turn them into a deformed slug thing...
anything but another bloody fireball
rant over.
- 1
-
If you don't want to play "magic" user then why you want to play a game where magic is everywhere ?
from what i heard in PE even fighter will have special abilitis to cover their "uber human" powers. The same for mages ....
I sudgest you to play GTA or mass effect as a solider ... in fantasy setting magic is in everything even in enchanted swords ...
Because I like the settings and the creatures etc..and I like the infinity RPGs, I'd prefer a setting where magic is less common but there isn't one...mount and blade is about it for non magical fantasy settings....
what I don't like is being railroaded into a playstyle because the devs did some fancy effects.. I want fighters to be fighters, and rogues to be rogues
Yeah sure..tell me to play shoot em ups and action games instead why don't you? why don't you go and cast spells in dishonored instead?
What I don't get is why people want magic to be so common that it's mundane, surely if you want to play a wizard then you want that wizard to be something special? wizards in fantasy literature are generally something rare and to be feared or held in awe...gamers tend to want it to just be a job.....
How much stronger should you become when levelling up?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by motorizer
It didn't really work like that, it was more of a pointless escalation of hitpoints and weapon damage on both sides, which led to you being able to swat lower level enemies like flies, despite the fact that they were supposed to be armed and armored men
but generally the numbers get bigger but nothing really changes, with the exception of the new skills and abilities
so why bother making the numbers bigger?
It is a few years now since I played an IE game, but that's kind of how I remember it