HeedlessHorseman
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by HeedlessHorseman
-
-
Also, don't diss the purple (I always saw it as more of a pink, but whatever!) it's a delectable colour to type in.
I agree. Typing in colors is fun. Your color does seem pink-ish to me as well.
-
I would like a baby dragon companion.
Aside from that I want big dragons. Dragons that take up a map just for their body.
-
Aren't I just a fountain of delights. :D Just because there's a tie-breaker that resolves some questions, that doesn't mean it'll get you to a good outcome. Even just with these 3 nestings there are so many possible outcomes (particularly if you add sideways options like "turn the guy in but refuse to let him be executed") that knowing the truth won't necessarily help you decide what to do, possibly even AFTER you know what the outcomes are.
Okay, I like that. I guess I tend to expect tie-breakers to end in everything being rosy. I do like the idea of ostensibly good options.
Although I still want choices without any factor that tips the scales in one direction. I don't think the majority of choices should be like this, just some of them should be. I am talking more about a moral quandary than an evidentiary one. The previous Witcher example seems like an evidentiary one. At the moment I cannot think of a good moral quandary, but if I think of one I will post it.
-
I generally find the whole "moral quandary" thing to be incredibly difficult to implement well. If they give you a simple black-and-white choice (save the baby vs. eat the baby), there's no quandary. If they give you a choice between two bad things (kill innocent person A or kill innocent person B), it's still not a quandary because there's absolutely no criterion for deciding something like that. The best you can do is pick the one you like and move on. Oh, you can agonize over it if you wish but the end result will be as if you flipped a coin anyway.
If you really want to make the player squirm with indecision, you need to confront them with options that all have something positive going for them, but also all taste REALLY BAD. Do I violate my explicit orders and let this nice-seeming dude go? How do I know he's telling the truth about his lack of involvement? What if I know my boss is crazed for blood and plans to have these prisoners executed out-of-hand? What if the group he's with is guilty of some truly heinous crimes and they DESERVE to be executed out-of-hand? And then what you do is you hide information that the guy is ACTUALLY like the right-hand-man of the boss of this criminal organization you've just raided somewhere 14 levels deep in a really obscure and complex conversation chain with his ex-wife's sister three towns away. Only the sister clearly hates the guy's guts for leaving his wife so it may just be the venom talking . . .
It's even more fun if you make it so every new thing they find out makes the problem WORSE and not better. If you're in a nice mood you might put a tie-breaker in the game somewhere, but make it involve them running back and forth between 3 or 4 locations and reading people's journals or breaking into their home or something. Now THAT is a QUANDARY.
That sounds absolutely wonderful to me. Although without the tie-breaker. I agree that moral quandaries are hard to implement. But I think their sparsity is primarily due to only a minority of gamers actually wanting them in their games.
I have a tendency to expect something like what you wrote when "ambiguous moral decisions" are advertised in a game. Unfortunately, I am perennially disappointed. I hope that will change with this game.
-
I've always been partial to the absent-minded professorish wizard.
-
3
-
-
Oooh don't you start: now you just know someone's going to make a thread to lobby for a baby-eating quest in PE! Or chain of baby-eating quests
I'm tempted to do that now.
-
If I play the beta, I will play a psychopath with multiple personalities. That way I will not be doing anything I would in the normal game. I will try killing as many people as possible. Basically, I will try doing things that most people would not.
-
"Eat the baby", huh?
I think that quest passed me by! XD
So you haven't played A Modest Proposal: The Game?
-
1
-
-
I agree. I want more obviously good and evil decisions. Most games tend to give justification to the major evil decisions (if there are any). Or "evil" basically amounts to being a jerk.
With the assassin's guild in Oblivion, I felt they tried to make it palatable. It seemed like you were only killing other "bad" guys.
However, I also want moral quandaries that the player will struggle with. I have not found any game which had such a decision. Although, I tend to give my characters a code which they live by. That tends to make most decisions easy.
-
1
-
-
I agree that the game should use unpaid volunteer labor. Unfortunately, many people would decry what I consider to be unpaid volunteer labor as slavery.
-
Only if they have an option where a team of teenagers and a talking dog pull up in a carriage and eventually expose your nefarious schemes.
The game needs to have that anyways. They should be joinable companions. Or, possibly, a rival adventuring party.
-
I should be able to play the super-sexy Baron Harkonnen. Instead of being supported by a device, he should be supported by magic.
-
If there is an option to play a real estate tycoon, then there should be the option to have ridiculous hair.
I also want the option of summoning (or dressing up as) a monster to scare people out of their property. That way you can buy it cheaply.
-
If done right, then this could work. It would require the game to be fundamentally different than most other MMOs. The plot would have to be integral to the game, rather than just a reason to kill things. You would not see people doing the exact same quest that you are. The game's plot would come from the interactions of the various players, rather than a script. You wouldn't find a group just to be able to kill big things or get better equipment. Basically, it would be similar to a table-top game, just with many more people. The game would be one large "roleplaying server." It would require a melding of the minds between both the developers and all the people who play the game. I think it is unlikely that such a thing would happen, but if it does, then it could redeem MMORPGs.
-
1
-
-
I'm getting some crappy stuttering when watching full screen video or listening to iTunes. It's only with this OS and kinda makes me want to reinstall 7
That's strange. I haven't had problems doing those two things. Although I have had problems with the computer slowing down while doing other things.
-
I'll be honest, I'm still pissed that they made Link right-handed.
I didn't like how they did that either. Being left-handed was iconic for Link.
I completely agree with this topic. Left-handed characters need to be in this game. In fact, the social system should be structured around a person's dominant hand. Left-handers should be at the top. Ambidextrous people should be in the middle. And right-handers should be at the bottom. It mirrors real social systems as the majority of people are at the bottom, with a few at the top.
(Alternatively, I remember reading that in the past left-handed people were considered satanic. That would be a interesting detail if it was included, especially considering that gods are known to exist.)
-
I am in favor of unapologetically evil antagonists. As well as the obviously crazy ones. I find them much more entertaining than ones with some justification.
I am tired of the fallen hero archetype. As well as enemies who escape just as you would kill them. And ones who are constantly just outside of the player's grasp.
Finally, I do not want the game structured around the antagonist. I want it structured around the protagonist. Ideally the main antagonist (if there is one) will be determined by the player's actions.
-
That needs to be accompanied with this:
-
An additional note: Kickstarter is now handling credit cards themselves instead of using Amazon Payments.
Are they still taking only 5% or did they up it to 10% to "compensate" for Amazon not getting 5% any more?
If they still take only 5%, then god dangit if this had happened before Project Eternity, Obsidian would have about 200,000$ more in the budget.
I was mistaken. For UK projects (which Sui Genesis counts as even though it is Italian), Kickstarter handles credit cards directly. However, for US projects they still use Amazon Payments.
-
I remember reading something which said the game starts with the main character witnessing something horrific. That could be what spurs the protagonist into adventuring. Before that they could be almost any regular person, like a farmer or a noble.
-
We should also try to not make the game ableist. Some of the companions should have disabilities.
-
1
-
-
I like this idea. I enjoy playing characters who are older than 20.
Plus we could have fight scenes like this:
-
Wouldn't it be refreshing for this to be a joinable NPC? With a Big Fat Romance. Oh, yeah. Oh hell yeah.
It is perfect that he is also wearing skimpy armor. Fat, romanceable, and in skimpy armor- the Project Eternity forum trifecta.
-
2
-
-
I am going to make my Forton a sumo wrestler. That way he will live up to his true potential. Plus combat would be more entertaining to watch.
One more thought: if a person is fat enough they can be used as an impromptu boulder for rolling down hills at enemies or as a siege weapon. A really fat fighter could take out most of a group of enemies.
The Obsidian Order of Eternity wants YOU! part 6
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who had difficulty with it.