villain of the story
-
Posts
48 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by villain of the story
-
-
Zed, Malekith: I stand corrected then!
I had no idea that an interface could muster such a level of atmosphere to a game. I agree entirely with Keyrock, if anything, those interfaces were clunky back then, and they are downright disturbing nowadays. I've been playing through IWD2 and Planescape recently, as well as BG1, and it all just feels off. Then, as soon as I try NWN2, I feel free to experience the game first-hand. Perhaps it has something to do with my playstyle. I rarely use the pause-function, so NWN2's system fits me better perhaps.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, good design and good aesthetics without being a detraction or an obstruction and interacting with it should give a punch. It should not try to be a shadowy figure lingering in corners and whispering in your ear, always reminding you of its existence that it tries to pretend away like when you are panning/manipulating the game view because you can't see that one guy blocked by the minimap on the top right corner, or that door on top left behind the floating quick items or whatever.
When that happens, then the UI has failed. No single element of the interface should make you a slave to itself. When you have to pan/manipulate the game view, it needs to be a holistic need where the entire UI feels unified. In this aspect, modern GUI design is an absolute mess without character, function or form.
In my book, any affinity for these GUI abominations is the same as punks who litter their windshields or rear panels with stupid stickers. And when I'm buying a car, if the salesman offers me free stickers to "decorate" my car and say it's the new trend, I'll punch him in the face*.
Just say no to modern GUI abomiation, rotten to the core.
*: I will want to anyway.
-
1
-
-
Chris Avellone is playing Arcanum to raise funds for the $4.0 million dollar stretch goal you helped us reach for Project Eternity. It's installed and he’s ready to start playing – we here at Obsidian wanted to know how you’d like it played!
- Let's Play Document/Blog
- 10 minute Let's Play Youtube video bites
- Streamed on Twitch
- Format doesn’t matter to me, just enjoy it.
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.
-
3
-
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?
-
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.
-
The problem, as I see it, is that this is going to be an isometric game. I don't think having overly 'realistic weapons' really suits that kinda perspective.
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
Classifications don't really change what swords are and how they're used.
Of course not, it's the other way around: the different ways things are or have been utilised lead to classifications and they help us understand things by putting things into perspective. Once again, not relevant to most games or PE here.
As mentioned, the use of "longsword" for one handed swords is a DnD trope, HEMA people use it for swords handled mainly with two hands. Larger swords are usually called greatswords, or swords of war.
Cool story, bro.
Does it matter? Nope.
Which just got cooler.
An oh wow, you know of Oakeshott's typology, gee, you must be an expert. Or not.
Don't be that guy.
How many people here actually remember which type is which?
HERE, of all places? I would expect a total of zero other people to even know of such a typological study. It's pretty esoteric even by the standards of most students of medieval martial arts.
I don't.
Well, we can't all be perfect, you know. After all, I doubt even the medieval fighters were so very aware of it all, so don't sweat it.
If I wanted to communicate a very specific type of a historical sword to someone, sure, I'd go see an Oakeshott website and find out which type of pommel, crosspiece and blade it is.
Good for you. I hope you will find it useful under the unlikely situation that you will need it.
Does it do anything for PE? Not really.
Indeed.
Still, thanks for those links I guess, some people here may be not aware of this.
Some? I doubt if even a few is.
Bottom line, I don't know why you thought of my links to Oakeshott with regard to PE and gave such a knee-jerk reaction, even though the links were explicity addressed at the OP, since he showcased a deeper interest than cliched tropes. So the next time, try to keep the attitude in line and there will be no hostile derailments.
Note: quote block limit is ridiculous.
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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 RPG- in terms of damage and weapon mechanics.
-
1
-
-
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 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.
Of course, absolutely true. But all things being equal, different types of weapons, produced with the same level of quality and craftmanship, can not be compared and rated as "better or worse balanced than each other" which is how I interpreted your previous statement. A fine sword is just as balanced as a fine axe or mace or hammer or halberd or whatever.
Nope, it's not.
The center of mass for an axe will always be higher, making it inherenlty less balanced.
Umm yes, because you don't use an axe like you would use a sword therefore it cannot be less balanced. Different physics = different techniques for maximum efficiency.
You could argue that the specific functions that specific weapons serve when used with maximum efficiency may or may not match one another due to physical differences but that's a far cry from "balance". Every tool, whether a construction tool or a weapon, is made to have its own internal balance for maximum efficiency in its intended utilisation, therefore you can not rate any tool based on the criteria that apply to another tool. You can't say that a simple household hammer has better balance than a crowbar because they are different tools made to serve different purposes. Their fields of use may overlap and then you can compare and rate their usefulness in those particular fields of use. But saying one is better balanced than the other is a mediocre understanding of what physics is. Physics isn't a WIN button that provides all answers in one package.
To try and get some perspective, try to think of it like this: "a sword is inherently less balanced than an axe because when you use a sword like you would use an axe, you wouldn't be as effective as you would with an axe".
The underlined latter part is an undetestable fact but it doesn't make the former part true.
-
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.
Try to play nice in the sandbox.
Can we throw sand into the eyes of the fans of Biowarian Romance?
-
2
-
-
Speed depends on weight and balance.
Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.
Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.
It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.
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 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.
A weapon cannot be slow and cumbersome (eg. poorly balanced) to use.Actually, they can be poorly balanced.
People used not only what was best, but also what they could aford. Some used makeshift weapons, some used weapon made by sub-bar blacksmiths.
Some weapons were made to be used by masses of dirty pesants and survivabiltiy was not a big issue. As long as pesants take some enemeis with them, that is.
Of course, absolutely true. But all things being equal, different types of weapons, produced with the same level of quality and craftmanship, can not be compared and rated as "better or worse balanced than each other" which is how I interpreted your previous statement. A fine sword is just as balanced as a fine axe or mace or hammer or halberd or whatever.
-
2
-
-
This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.
I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.
Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.
I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.
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-handed nature freed up the other hand for a shield as you mentioned. So I'm all for seeing relative speed differences between weapon types, but nothing along the lines of "this sword attacks twice every round, that greataxe attacks once every 3 rounds" sorts of differences.
Of course. There certainly is a relative speed difference but the main point is that it's not always about "speed" as all weapons employed a wide range of techniques developed to handle a range of other weapons. Eg. look at those videos I put. A pollaxe wasn't made to "hit hard" with its edge only. It's a complete polearm package that serves several functions employing a lot of techniques common to all polearms plus a few of its own. You don't just "hit with the shaft", you do whole lot of other things with it which puts it up against other types of weapons as well that negates speed differences up to a point. So I'd say that as much as a person with a polearm might have hesitated facing someone with a rapier, someone with rapier might have hesitated facing someone with polearm just as much because it's not only about speed.
As for rapiers, I'm not sure of the "main reasons". I've always attributed it to firearms gaining a foothold as infantry weapons and armour slowly disappearance from the battlefield, becoming more and more niche and such, the need to carry lighter and more flexible blades. I might be wrong.
Your points on armor are definitely valid as well - the main issue with wearing heavy armor was not an issue of speed, it was an issue of endurance. Most skilled fighters (and in this I can draw directly from modern RL experience and observation) in even full plate can move almost if not as fast and nimbly as they do in nothing but cloth - they just can't keep it up for hours on end without a break. Given what we know of the combat system so far, I would much rather see heavier armors lead to an increase in rate of stamina drain/fatigue, rather than a loss of dex/agility.Absolutely. Alas, I'm pretty sure that Obsidian won't introduce that kind of penalty.
Ideally, I would discourage against wearing armour at all times and instead, carry it with you and wear it beforehand when you are anticipating a fight and if you are caught unprepared, you make the best of what you have. Or wear it all around and suffer fatigue and whatnot.
-
2
-
-
Morning stars are a certainly cool type of weapon - a bit of innovation, there. I could see the speed and such being different for different qualities, but again, I think this is established pretty well in most tabletops: lower quality/bigger weapons tend to deal greater damage (or realistically, chance of being deadly with one cut) but are somewhat harder to manuever. The whole reason a halberd or long axe might be chosen over a spear is that the spear is really a plunging sort of motion; you either hit and impale for quite a nice mortal wound in most cases, or miss/divert, and scrath them if you're lucky. On the other hand, a pole axe is a swinging, extended chopping, which puts a lot of force in a circular, range of motion that forces the foe to move a bit more to avoid.
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.
Pole weapons as a whole give the reach advantage, with the drawback of not so easily being used in very close quarters, or in narrow passages. I remember one case where we had a few characters break the hefts of their long weapons so we weren't facing these drawbacks.Yeah, this. It's all about tactics, not ridiculously false statistics such as speed and whatnot.
Also, awesome solution^ there. Congrats to the players.
-
I'd also like to add some examples that prove that, quite often, historical weapons are anything but plain looking :
One of my favourites is the flamberge type:
I've long been puzzled by this form but once I understood the reason, I couldn't help but love them:
The term flamberge, meaning "flame blade", is an undulating blade found on both long blades and rapiers. When parrying with such a sword, unpleasant vibrations may be transmitted into the attacker's blade. These vibrations caused the blades to slow contact with each other, as additional friction was encountered with each wave.I can see how that would help against enemy pikes among pikemen formations and how it would hamper and possibly disrupt the winding movements on blade and the counter-attacks of an opponent in a one-on-one sword fight. If your opponent had such a blade, you couldn't wind or drive your own blade up or down on it upon contact for a counter attack without disrupting your technique and risking yourself.
Then again, using such a blade would most likely require extra training as well. At any rate, it seems to be a pretty late development to have had any impact on the martial trends of the period.
-
1
-
-
Speed depends on weight and balance.
Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.
Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.
It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.
That's Hollywood-level understanding of the weapons. Current understanding and studies point to otherwise:
A weapon cannot be slow and cumbersome (eg. poorly balanced) to use. There is no "attacks slow, HITS HARD" in real life. A single cut or a shallow stab could be all it takes to kill a person. You couldn't afford to be slower just because you were somehow supposed to "HIT HARD HURRRR" while your opponent will be faster, "hit LIGHTER" and still end up killing you with a simple cut.
If a weapon is poorly balanced, it's no weapon at all. These people didn't fck around LARPing ridiculous tropes. They meant business and business was kill-or-die. Most importantly, weapons served special functions. They didn't go around like "oh hey, the enemy has sword so should I take the sword or the spear? gotta weigh the ups and downs". They didn't invent bat**** crazy weapons because they were bored. They had to invent them to face newly emerging threats and develop the tactics to handle them.
-
4
-
-
There's a fine line that one must strike, I believe.
Purely medieval type armors, purely practical, while I find them interesting, I also find them incredibly bland and boring to look at for the most part.
As far as weapons and the like, they're all too often quite plain as well, with little enough to differentiate between them, and are often not used in the way one would imagine, or hold up nearly as well in actual combat.Could that perhaps be because of lack of your understanding of them? Medieval+renaissance periods saw possibly the widest range of martial weapons with unique capabilities, designed to adapt to the quickly changing landscape of warfare and with them, wide methods of fighting any of which has yet to be mimicked in a computer game (though a few pnp RPGs have realised them well with excellent results, such as Codex Martialis and The Riddle of Steel).
The other end of the spectrum is no better. No, I don't want my character to look like he's wearing a neon plastic castle. I don't want his greatest enemy to be doorways that fail to accommodate for the fellows who like to have 5 foot spikes jutting out in all directions from their armor. I don't want to be swinging Big Ben at somebody, for that matter, either. The realm of the absurd is not something that meshes well with immersion, in my mind.I think most of the artists that got their conceptual work in the D&D books and whatnot have typically done rather well at this (not always), striking the right balance between practicality, realism and the fantastical. That is, they didn't bother adhering to strongly to any one of those three principles. They provide a little something more than what one would normally see in the real world without taking it so far that it loses all connection to what one would associate with reality. I found that level of variance from the norm to be vastly superior to what, say, WoW does, or Dragon Age 2.
Being the kind of game it is, with the people that are working on it, I'm quite confident they'll strike the balance just about right.
I would have never thought that I would have something positive to say about Bethesda but one thing they did sort of right with Oblivion and Skyrim is the design of armour (except for the highest tier armours, eg. Glass, Daedric). They are mostly, mostly, very reasonably designed and proportioned and more rooted in authenticity than most other games.
-
4
-
-
I'd love to see two-handed mace's (cudgel's?) or giant swords, but my character should be almost dragging them and attack very slowly (Unless having a ridiculous amount of Strength). Giant weapons generally, within reason and with realism/authenticity taken into consideration.
EDIT: One tactical aspect of this could also be to buff my Warrior a lot with a Chanter, making him even more capable of wielding the two-handed weapons. So if he attacks super slow without buff's, I can buff him so he attacks "slow" or even "average".
In other words it would almost be a disadvantage having a giant weapon, because it'd need an upkeep of 2 characters. However, tactically the two handed weapons could be advantageous (as they should be) against a large crowd of enemies (sweeping and cleaving attacks).
This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.
I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.
Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.
I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.
-
3
-
-
Gary Gygax. And neither wrote any romances for their games. (see, I can do it too! R00FLES!)
In DMG 1st edition there was actually a table to generate random prostitute for a character.
Good to know that you hold romance on the same level as prostitution. That almost sounds like an admission of something but I can't quite put my finger on what.
And a lot of D&D novels and modules involve romance.And a lot of them don't. I was talking about Gary Gygax in particular, though. You don't have to weasel out by shifting focus.
And about argument. It's good idead to respect games, that started an era of IE games that Obsidian is trying to recreate.Yeah, so is mine and mine negates yours.
Please, produce real arguments, not drivel.
-
3
-
-
I don't hate dislike romance the way it was in PST but I HATE it the way it was in Bioware games in general where characters exist merely to appease the player's and only the player's sexual preferences and don't have their own individual integrity where all it takes to bed a character is to play the ridiculously gimmicky gamist system to "unlock" "sex". No one calling himself liberal or progressive big on social justice or whatever should support that kind of disgusting gimmicky tokenist attitude towards romance, sex and maturity in general. BioWarian Romance is the antithesis of these things.
You should choose your words more wisely. BG and BG2 - are Bioware's games. And there would be no PST or IWD without BG.
Uh, and the point is? Is there an actual argument in there?
Also, you should choose your words more wisely. BG and BG2 - are D&D licensed games published by Interplay. And there would be no BG or Bioware without Interplay or D&D, and no Interplay or D&D without Brian Fargo or Gary Gygax. And neither wrote any romances for their games. (see, I can do it too! R00FLES!)
-
4
-
-
Josh Sawyer on romance: http://www.rpgwatch....hread.php?t=953
I don't hate love in game stories; I just hate reducing love to shallow, masturbatory fantasy indulgence. Maybe that's all love is to some people, but I think that's a pretty narrow view. Ego-stroking is very popular in CRPGs, which is one reason I don't feel comfortable doing CRPG writing anymore.I appreciate that people wanted more romance options in NWN2, but sometimes I think that people want there to be romance "victory" conditions for all companions. I think that can diminish some characters. For instance, if Shandra and Qara had their own romance plots, I think some people would still want Neeshka to be "romance-able", regardless of how Neeshka's author felt about the character's place in the story.
That bugs me. I don't like the idea that you can "win" everything or get everyone on your side. I'm also not fond of the idea that romance always has to resolve with a "fade out" to implied coitus, but that's another issue.
I'll re-state what I wrote before: I want romance to receive either less or more attention in games. Anything worth doing is worth doing well, especially when it's something with so much emotional potential. But I certainly don't want to go the route of harem anime, which is total fantasy indulgence and gross pandering.
And just for fun, here's Bioware writer Patrick Weekes' somewhat amusing reaction to that: http://www.rpgwatch....98&postcount=32
AMEN!
Now, if you want Bioware romances, well, knock on Bioware's door, perhaps? Not every game needs to be dragged down by the same kind of sexist tokenist drivel.
However, I'd LOVE it if you could "romance" companions and they committed suicide or left your party because of how cookie-cutter flat and boring the player character was.
-
Okay I see where you get your number from, I agree. We should have ( the first part is always the main character)
- 2 x Straight relationships: Male - Female and Female - Male
- 2 x Gay relationships : Male-Male and Female-Female
Thats not too hard to implement I hope ? Other games have done it successfully
God, romances should be included when they are appropriate, not as an arithmetic function.
People are suggesting that if you include Romances there would be "far too many combinations"
I am merely saying that only 4 combinations should be needed to keep almost all people happy.
Not enough. I want every combination of those plus transgenders plus all the races plus all the cultures. Don't want to give a message by leaving out some of them now, do we?
I don't hate dislike romance the way it was in PST but I HATE it the way it was in Bioware games in general where characters exist merely to appease the player's and only the player's sexual preferences and don't have their own individual integrity where all it takes to bed a character is to play the ridiculously gimmicky gamist system to "unlock" "sex". No one calling himself liberal or progressive big on social justice or whatever should support that kind of disgusting gimmicky tokenist attitude towards romance, sex and maturity in general. BioWarian Romance is the antithesis of these things.
Look at Fallout: New Vegas. There is a wide spectrum of representation of various sexual orientations and though you can attempt to flirt, or in Biowarian terms, "to romance" some of them, you don't get to "sex" anyone because there are greater objectives which the characters recognise and most importantly, they have individual integrity. They won't bend over just because you are the player and must be appeased to, to boost your ego and provide a false sense of feel-good. They don't exist to appease the player, they exist on their own for their own reasons and had you not talked to them extensively, you wouldn't even know of their sexual orientation.
That is how it should be done. And that is an Obsidian title.
-
11
- 2 x Straight relationships: Male - Female and Female - Male
-
I'd rather have OE spend resources somewhere else than on different camera angles.
Like personal pets or player housing?
Yup, like the others, I rather have 4x more beatiful crafted areas to go around in, then that time spend on making one area rotate.
Also it would add in the difficulties of 3D games, that from some angles you just can't see jack.
Sigh... It doesn't work like "a scene from 4 directon vs. 4 times more areas". A 2D background is a 3D scene rendered to a 2D image from an angle plus post-rendering touches to make it look better. 4 renders of a scene = you change the camera in your 3D scene and render it to a 2D image. It does, however, mean 4 times the post-render work but that could be as easy or difficult as one might guess.
If the area is designed with one angle in mind, they can make the play area never obstructed, and still add it up with many things, that might block the camera if you rotate. So they probably would also need to lose detail for this to work, making it an even bigger "no"I am not following the logic here. But IE games had their share of areas that were confusing because view of some areas were blocked by structures.
It is however correct that if they decide on an angle early on, they will make 3D details in scenes to be visible from that one angle, which is a valid concern but is ultimately irrelevant because as I said earlier, this is only a question of WANT, not "thinking for developers".
It's not that I'm annoyed by disagreements but poorly thought, invalid or irrelevant arguements.
-
Rotate camera should be good in 3D enviroment but PE is 2D isometric view, so I don't want to rotate option. I prefer isometric camera without it.
Have you even look at the videos for an example?
I prefer 2D to 3D any time of the day in this type of game. It doesn't mean that it has to be a dogmatic affinity heavily absorbed in nostalgia, disregarding new possibilities of improving the base model.
But if you prefer it that way, that's as valid as it gets, of course.
I had no idea that an interface could muster such a level of atmosphere to a game. I agree entirely with Keyrock, if anything, those interfaces were clunky back then, and they are downright disturbing nowadays. I've been playing through IWD2 and Planescape recently, as well as BG1, and it all just feels off. Then, as soon as I try NWN2, I feel free to experience the game first-hand. Perhaps it has something to do with my playstyle. I rarely use the pause-function, so NWN2's system fits me better perhaps.
Update #61: In-game Art
in Pillars of Eternity: Announcements & News
Posted
Maybe we could have the option to switch between the two? Shouldn't be much trouble, I think.