Jump to content

villain of the story

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About villain of the story

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. The character models only have one shadow cast from the scene's directional light. Per-character point light shadows (especially multiple point light shadows) would get computationally expensive very fast. The characters are lit using dynamic lights placed in scene, but real-time lighting is never going to perfectly match the pre-rendered lighting of the scene. For what it's worth, I think circular shadows in no particular direction might be less jarring. The shadows being, at times, cast against the lighting of the characters' surroundings has a strikingly unnatural effect in the scre
  2. Let's not pass your opinion as fact and anything to the contrary as nostalgia. To this day, I loathe transparent floating interface elements. To me, they lack character. They interrupt view. They are ugly. Imagine if Start button in Windows and all the icons on the start bar were floating at various places on the screen instead, blocking the background in an arbitrary pattern. My enjoyment is actively diminished due to crappy design of UI elements in games like NWN2. An interface element should be firm, present itself boldly and it should compliment the game's visuals through functionality
  3. Considering that the idea originally came from RPG Codex and that Chris Avellone will be playing a copy of Arcanum that was gifted to him by RPG Codex, I think it is only proper that he makes an LP thread at Codex Playground, the glorious LP subforum of RPG Codex. And also make 10-20 minute YouTube LP bites with commentary.
  4. Good thing that she has just enough sense to wear protective gear her right shoulder while leaving her chest bare open; I predict a long and healthy life for her. The face is very familiar, did you base it on a specific person or artwork?
  5. My position, which might have been voiced by others in 26 pages: For creatures: Limit XP you can get from killing one type of creature. Beyond that limit, you will no longer get XP for killing that type of creature. For races: (1) Limit XP you can get from killing with one type of weapon, with the exception of (2) (2) Give XP only for killing those with superior levels, skills and abilities. If the system doesn't distinguish between such fine details, I'd rather not get any XP from kills at all.
  6. And will you perhaps explain the relevance between the game being isometric and the level of authenticity of weapons? I don't see one. Was anyone somehow asking for a realistic physics simulation of weapons or something like that? Ultimately, we aren't asking for "overly" realistic weapons. We are only asking for reasonably realistic weapons instead of NON-RIDICULOUS weapons that has been the staple.
  7. It would be nice if you could sell people into slavery so if you had a hostile encounter during your travels and beat the enemy, you would enslave them and sell them for money or favours. Or let them go free and spread the word of your actions. A slave society will think of you as a lawless heretic, letting the weak go free and upsetting the balance of mankind while a more "liberal" society will look at you more favourably.
  8. is just posting to pick at the OP about something that doesn't really matter. Posting to "pick" at the OP? Calm down and get a perspective. It's merely meant to be a scholarly point of interest for someone who seems to have a curiosity in swordsmanship beyond cliched tropes. Not a call to arms to include historical minutia details in PE. I must, however, add that, being a detailed study in the field of actual research as opposed to armchair nerdistry over internet, it does actually matter, though of course not in the sense it matters to most games or Project Eternity. Classificati
  9. By the way, the OP seems to be unaware of the many longsword classifications. Functionally, medieval and late Renaissance swords today are called divided as one handed, one-and-a-half handed and two handed. You might also find it worth your time to familiarise yourself with "Oakeshott typology", simply for the sake of learning: http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm http://www.oakeshott.org/home.html
  10. I will be overjoyed if Obsidian can do only the following two things: - Avoid resorting to the ridiculous cliche where bigger the weapon, the slower but "harder" it hits. - Amour that actually does what it's supposed to: protect where it requires skill -NOT large damage- to get through the armor to hurt an opponent. I cringe hard every time I see dudes in plate killing each other with lame sword cuts that aren't supposed to cut through anything at all, in films and in games. I will be particularly disappointed if they don't take anything from Darklands -allegedly Sawyer's favourite
  11. Umm, no. That's Hollywood. You don't use a hammer the way you would use a sword. If you did, only then it would be legitimate to say that it's slower due to physics. Different weapons employ different techniques, also based on physics, however, which make up for the relative speed differences. As I said before, that's physics. You can't cheat physics. You move mass either way. And while you don't use them both completely the same, in some cases you do. Even worse for hammers it they don't have a piercing tip, since they depend on large swings, and not short jabs/stabs.
  12. Hey, if people throw enough money at me, I promise to make a very professional romance/sex/BDSM mod that will add multi-dimensional polygamous polyamorous depth to all the major characters in the game, companion or no companion. I already have two very talented guys working for me, one an excellent model and texture artist, the other a brilliant animator. We will bring your wildest fantasies to life in Project Eternity. Can we throw sand into the eyes of the fans of Biowarian Romance?
  13. That's Hollywood-level understanding of the weapons. Current understanding and studies point to otherwise. No, that's physics. Bigger mass takes more effort to get moving. It is slower to accelerate. It is also harder to stop. Center of mass affects balance. Mid-swing a two-handed hammer is just as fast as a sword. But it takes slightly longer to get up to that speed. The difference is minimal tough, but it exists. And it might very well make a difference in battle. Umm, no. That's Hollywood. You don't use a hammer the way you would use a sword. If you did, only then it would
  14. Yes and no. "Giant" weapons, greatswords, polearms and the like were not SLOW for sure, especially not as described in the post you were responding to. They were definitely slowER than their smaller counterparts however. This is in fact one of the main reasons why rapiers (true rapiers - not the smallswords that many people think of when they think of rapiers) came about as a natural progression from arming swords (your typical one-handed "knight's" sword). And even those arming swords were used partially for speed and nimbleness at handling, especially since their lighter, quicker, one-ha
  15. Well, most tabletops are horrid derivatives or copycats of D&D and all the bad things about it. See Codex Martialis and The Riddle of Steel for reasonably authentic martial combat done right without reducing the gameplay to an endless borefest of statistics and rolls. On the contrary, combat resolutions are very pleasingly fast and straightforward in those. RPG tropes, tabletop or otherwise, are a disgrace. Yeah, this. It's all about tactics, not ridiculously false statistics such as speed and whatnot. Also, awesome solution^ there. Congrats to the players.
  • Create New...