Jump to content

Kevadu

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Kevadu

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • PSN Online ID
    Kevadu
  • Interests
    Everything

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. How much RAM does that ultrabook have? The maps are enormous images loaded into memory and each one has several different version (for lightmaps and such) so any computer without a lot of memory is probably going to have issues, although they did say recently they are working on that. 4 GB
  2. Is the performance of the beta supposed to be at all representative of the final product? Because it runs so slow on my computer it's nearly unplayable. OK, this isn't exactly a gaming machine, it's an ultrabook. But it's only like a year old and has a Haswell i5 in it. And I had assumed that since this was a mostly 2D game it ought to still be able to run acceptably. But what I've found isn't acceptable at all. Just scrolling the viewpoint to see more of the map takes forever. Makes the whole game a chore to play.
  3. Permadeath all the way. Mind you I'm not against reloading, but having raise dead spells breaks the immersion for me.
  4. And we still have 23 hours to go. Let's set a whole new record!
  5. So we know that there are going to be Mac and Linux versions of the game, but will there be a beta for them? And if so will kickstarter beta keys apply to it? Or is the beta just for Windows users? I don't run Windows so I don't see any point in getting a beta key that I'm not going to have any use for. But presumably other versions of the game will still need debugging, right?
  6. I like cities that make some sort of sense, and that's always been a problem with underground cities. Even in a fantasy setting I want to be be able to answer questions like "why would anyone build a city there?" and "what do they eat?", and that's hard to do for underground cities. It just seems enormously impractical without any sort of benefit. Cities require food, first and foremost. And it's hard to grow food where there's no sun. But more than that, what's the point of making your city underground? If your setting can't answer those questions, don't make an underground city just because you think it's neat. Making it at the bottom of a massive dungeon makes even less sense. What do people live on there? They can't even trade without the outside world for food and stuff.
  7. You are a small-minded fool. I play all manner of RPGs, never much cared for this particular cultural divide. And actually my favorite sound track of all time goes to an obscure under-appreciated JRPG called Nier. The soundtrack alone makes that game worth playing in my opinion. Some examples (more than I could embed, so I'll just do links): Ah heck, every track in this game is worth listening to. Just go check it out. One interesting thing about the Nier soundtrack is the heavy use of vocals, which is unusual in RPGs but they're in a very subdued and haunting style (in most tracks) so they still work as background music. I mean, the first one I linked to is the standard field music. But it works. The last link I posted is from a boss fight, so you have some idea what this style sounds like in combat. But it's the soft, quiet themes like Grandma and Kaine where this soundtrack really shines. So yeah, I like Nier's music. A lot.
  8. You know, I always saw the blight in Dragon Age more as a force of nature than an antagonist. The real story wasn't the blight, it was about how people responded to the blight. And for that purpose it worked fine.
  9. First of all, let me say that I'm new here but I loved what I read in this thread and registered just to share my two cents. There are some really cool ideas, but here are a few that I don't think have really been touched on: Non-traditional uses of attributes If D&D has done one thing for roleplaying games it's instilled this idea that warriors are strong but stupid, mages are weak but smart, etc. It really doesn't have to be that way. Check out some old fantasy literature, pre-D&D, such as classic Conan the Barbarian novels. Conan is unquestionably a warrior type, but he's not just a dumb guy with a sword. He's smart, he's clever, he's charismatic, he's a leader. He spends as much time fighting using his brain as he does using his sword. The problem with D&D-esque RPGs is that they don't reward intelligence in a warrior class in any way. Sure you could put points into it purely for roleplaying, but you're basically just punishing yourself if you do so since you'll have fewer points to spend on the things that actually matter. If a warrior doesn't have any skills or abilities that use intelligence is it really surprising that nobody puts points in intelligence? But why shouldn't warriors see a benefit from intelligence? Do you really think it doesn't matter in combat? Of course there are larger-scale uses as well, like tactics and planning, but that is usually the player's responsibility, not the character's. But there are still places that should see a benefit. For instance, higher intelligence should mean better perception and an increased ability to spot ambushes, traps, and hidden doors. (I sincerely hope you're not limited that sort of stuff to a thief/rogue class, because that has always been just plain stupid. Even D&D itself stopped doing it.) Even in combat itself, higher intelligence should make it easier to study your oponent's moves and learn to anticipate them. In game terms that could correspond to bonuses to certain kinds of counterattacks, that sort of thing. Note that I don't want to make dumb-guy-with-a-sword unviable. Strength certainly should matter in combat, and some people like playing that kind of character. I'm just saying that there should be more options. And of course the above is just one example. I would really like to see that sort of thinking applied to all classes. Magic should feel magical In your typical computer RPG, the mage is just somebody who shoots fireballs from behind a row of meatshields. He does a lot of damage but is weak in melee. What's the practical difference between a mage and, say, an archer? Not much, really. The mage usually does more damage, is weaker in melee and more easily killed, and has to quaff mana potions from time to time. And that's about it. I want magic to feel like magic. You're bending the laws of nature with your mind. It should be something unique. I want to see spells that take time, preparation (possibly including material components, which is rarely done in CRPGs), and strategy to use but can have potentially enormous consequences when pulled off. Successfully pulling it off should be a challenge, though. This means not only do you have to avoid having your ritual interrupted but also there should be forms of countermagic that other mages can do, whether it be counterspelling or some sort of temporary defensive barrier, etc. There should be real strategy in terms of magic. Wait for the right moment, coordinate with your other party memers to keep enemy mages tied up, etc. But again, the result has to be worth it. Magic should be something spectacular to behold, not just another ranged weapon. I want to know what I'm actually going to say This is a small one, but I think it's important. There is this disturbing trend in modern RPGs to have extremely simplified dialogue choices. Bioware does it, but they're not the only guilty party...Alpha Protocol was pretty bad about this. The problem is that this results in either over-simplistic, one-dimensional choices (obviously good, obviously evil, etc.), or worse the player doesn't actually know what he's really choosing. Sometimes the dialogue goes in a completely different direction than what you thought you were selecting. It's OK to actually write out what the character is going to say in the different choices. It may not be as cool or trendy as a dialogue wheel, but it sure as heck works better. We can read, you know. Morality systems need to die AKA, "Well I might have burned down that orphanage but afterwards I did some nice guy quests in a completely different town so nobody actually cares." Consequences for your actions are great. I see a lot of people stressing consequences and it makes me happy. But how consequences are implemented matters a lot. I've never liked these overly-simplistic morality systems in which you're either the patron saint of do-gooderer or you're a complete psycopath who brushes his teeth with the intestines of murdered children just for kicks. But the worse part is that in a lot of games trying to walk the middle ground results in something that makes no sense. Rather than feeling like a normal, flawed human being you feel completely bipolar. You're murdering townsfolk just to watch them die one day and then rescuing hostages the next...who I guess you're going to murder the day after that. I dislike simplistic moral systems. I dislike the fact that 'evil' choices often border on cartoonish supervillainy and aren't something a sane, rational person would ever choose. I want to see more gray choices, with no obvious correct response. I'm probably preaching to the choir on this, though, since that's something Obsidian is pretty good at. While we're on the topic, it ought to be that you can be the nicest guy in the world and still piss people off. And I don't just mean self-proclaimed 'evil' people. What about somebody doing something moraly gray but not necessarily evil who gets put out of business by your righteous actions? Really, being too much of a goody two-shoes should be an easy way to make enemies. Wow, I wrote a lot.
×
×
  • Create New...