Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

quechn1tlan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    115

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by quechn1tlan

  1. quechn1tlan
    Where they did this(Arcanum I think, but not sure)...men get +1 strength, women get + 1 endurance. This is good sexism. No oooh it's happy rape time! for the sake of just being "gritty".
  2. quechn1tlan
    I like polls. *derp*
  3. quechn1tlan
    To quote Max Payne - "there are no happy endings". I don't want to see a hero save the day, get the girl and live happily ever after. I really liked in DAO how my dwarven fighter sacrificed himself( who's more important-a dwarven thug or a king? I also didn't want anything to do with any sort of Omen-like babies). Everyone cried and built a statue in my honour. This was an amazing ending. So, basically, I don't want there to be a ""right" ending a-la Mass Effect 2 where you should save everyone, because, well, you can and this goes into the next installment. I don't think that the protagonist should necessarily die, or make sacrifices for the sake of sacrifices, but the game should have a grim finalle to it with an aftertaste that haunts you for some tome after you beat it. Like in Planescape - in my opinion the best thing for TNO to do is to cut his throat as soon as he gets into the Fortress. But, then, he's a nice guy somewhere deep down and he goes to save his companions from death and in the process dooms himself to the exact thing he tried so hard to evade millenia(or maybe even more, I'm not entirelly sure) ago. What I'm trying to say - in the end I'd like to be presented with a choice along the lines of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", a decission I'd spend some time in pause mode thinking about. And if there is a bright and happy choice - I don't want it to be clearly advantageous.
  4. quechn1tlan
    A little bait and switch, some baseless assumptions and subtle implication that the way you like to play games is "normal". Nice one. Will probably fool many people into thinking that you actually have a point here.
  5. quechn1tlan
    Well, this is pointless. It's like south americans trying to abolish term Americans being used while refering to USA citizens. It doesn't matter what the exact meaning of the term is. Now it is generally used to describe a process of reloading a game multiple times to obtain a more desireable result. Semantics never change anything, just divert attention.
  6. quechn1tlan
    Save scumming is a term invented by people who can't live with a fact that someone is playing the game in a manner different, and perhaps, more effective than they do. Same goes for advocating implementation of rest limitations(I bring this up to stress that I, myself, save every 5-10 seconds, but try to rest as rarely as possible and don't start any threads about limiting rest for others). And checkpoint saving is a sign of a console game with their limitations. There is no good reason to prohibit saving at will(except during dialogues, cut-scenes and combat). Fallout had quick save, BG had quick save. So just stop attracting attention to stuff that is meaningless, let there be quick save feature, like in most of the decent games. You don't like it? Don't use it. It doesn't affect your gameplay in any way.
  7. quechn1tlan
    Well, your posts on 2d view being archaic and your whole point here that boils down to making mostly everything impossible to miss while following the course of the story, show you as someone who is better off with new-age tunnel games ala Mass Effect, FF13 and so on. So I wouldn't expect you to understand why people like just going around the map, "fighting" fog of war. Please don't go around making wild assumptions about what other people enjoy.
  8. quechn1tlan
    I really hated in BG how they badgered you every other day to go to Nashkel and so on. I didn't want to go to Nashkel, I wanted to travel to random useless areas, I wanted to have every sidequest, every non-essential area explored 100% before I proceeded with the main quest. But no, tough luck, pack your bags and go to Nashkel, or else. This was the ony thing I didn't like, hated even, about original BG. In PE I hope they don't implement time limits of any sorts on the main quest.
  9. quechn1tlan
    Well Warcraft 3 TFT has some naga missions. Plus NWN2 introduced pureblood yuan-tis as a playable race. They don't have tails per se(would've been awsome if they had) but in your head you still know that they are snake people. Also HoMM series had naga units since forever.
  10. quechn1tlan
    I know that. It was just an example thinking back to previous games I played. In any case the main point stands. If I screw up - F9\F12 it is. If it is unavoidable without paint coming off those buttons - then no reloads.
  11. quechn1tlan
    Sometimes. I don't reload when I have a way to resurrect fallen party members or if I view their death as a sacrifice: e.g. it is a tough battle I have no means of winning without losses or reloading umpteen times untill all my party members roll for crits or something. Then I'll find a replacement for the fallen party member(s) and be glad that I beat a tough encounter. But if a character dies because of my sloppy actions, like exposing a caster to enemies or not preparing beforehand with appropriate buffs, I reload. No, I don't think dead party member quests should be in the game. And they most definitely won't with adventure hall, no forced plot party members and all that.
  12. quechn1tlan
    I want to express my piece on Fighters. People say that they are boring in DnD. I find them exactly the opposite. For a fighter( not just Fighter class but all melee warriors like Paladin, Barbarian or any multi\prestige class) the hook is not in the vast number of abilities and spells, but their build. Carefully distributing attributes, having in mind what kind of fighter you want, how to distribute your skill and feat points, where to find appropriate gear and how to combine different armor bonuses, what weapon to use. All this boils down to making the most effective character sheet possible or a build that has some fun featureto it. Building your character and then seeing how he\she performs in combat is what makes it fun to me. And casters on the other hand - you can basically put all your points into Int(or Cha), don some underwear and go killing dragons while being almost invulnerable all thanks to a vast array of spells. This is also fun, but in some other way. So I don't want PE to go the DA way and basically make Fighters melee mages who need Str instead of Int and rely on the same vast array of spells, but with no range and called skills\abilities.
  13. quechn1tlan
    I have no strong feelings towards furry races. They don't bother me, but that's because when picking a race i don't really care how it looks, I weigh prerformance and\or roleplaying. In Skyrim, for example, I did play khajit because they had bonuses to skills I needed for the character I intended. On the other hand - I like playing dwarven monks(dwarves in general are rowdy, brash and drunk - that's why I like this race\class combination - it defies general preconceptions) even though dwarf isn't the best race for being a monk. So if there are beastmen with some interesting features\backstory or traits to them-why not? About humans being boring-I consider them boring as hell in a Sci fi setting like Star Wars, no matter what colour they are(TOR, I'm looking at you). But in a fantasy setting, especially DnD one, I find humans very appealing. Especially in 3.5 - there I consider humans wiith their lower inteligence requirements(because of free skill points and therefore less points are needed to be invested in Int),a free feat at lvl one and no class restrictions(since I like wierd multiclassing with lots of splash classes and their prerequisite feats) to be my favourite race. Their versatility wins the day for me. If PE has humans close to that - than I'm most likely playing one. Or a dwarf. I just like dwarves, dwarves are cool.
  14. quechn1tlan
    Yes to snowy areas\mountains, northern forests, tundra and such, and jungles. I also quite enjoy (and there is no such option in the poll) simple lush meadows and plains probably with some crops and\or flowers. Like in Witcher's 3rd Act. I think it was the third. The one with all the peasants and fish people. On the other hand I usually don't like swamps - it's easy to get lost there. Plus they are dark and most often than not I have to adjust brightness just to see where I'm going.
  15. quechn1tlan
    No, it isn't. What he's saying is that melee combatants like fighter, paladin or barbarian don their armour, equip their sword\axe whatever and go on whacking enemies left and right with no worries whatsoever. Their damage is more than enough and their armour makes them nigh invulnerable to simple enemies. If those enemies are boss-ish like, for example, Guardian in IWD2 they get haste and some cleric buffs and then go whack that someone in a couple of rounds. And when you take even the best mage and try doing the same even measly goblins will swarm you in seconds. To be effective as a mage you need to spend an hour putting on every protective spell possible, then, if you're not fighting goblins you need to spend another hour lowering their defences to go through their saving throws and spell resistance. And then, if the encounter featured like 10-15 enemies, you have to rest. So, yes. Mages have greater potential power but this power requires you to literally spend hours on buffs and rest. So if you're not powergaming on some Heart of fury(I think) or Ironman mode, party of mostly warriors is prefferable. 2-3 buffs and you are ready to go punching dragons until the area is clear of enemies.
  16. quechn1tlan
    Why, because you can't live with someone somewhere liking to reload until he\she gets satisfactory results? In FO I shoot and reload untill i hit enemies. Also with no points invested in thieving I steal everything not bolted down. I like it, and it's not a game mechanic that hinders anyone anythere. It's not a feature but a way to play the game. So don't tell others that they're doing it wrong.
  17. quechn1tlan
    Well, have a flag of Morrowind then and don't screw up my favourite class systems by putting sacreligious thoughts into developers' heads.
  18. quechn1tlan
    Oh, my. Yes. Definitely yes. The more prestige classes and class combinations ( ) the better. I just love building unique characters with interesting class combinations.
  19. quechn1tlan
    The poll is stoopid imo. If the game has a great story, interesting characters and locations, some mystery to it, I'm fine with placeholder combat. If gameplay is immersive and challenging I can live with no story whatsoever. But why the hell someone who could do both well shouldn't do it? Why go for "either...or"?
  20. quechn1tlan
    It can be argued almost indefinitely, until Obsidian say otherwise. But for now there is no xp granting system assigned to PE. So making a thread assuming one over another is redundant.
  21. quechn1tlan
  22. quechn1tlan
    Allright then. Just recently I've beaten IWD2 with this sort of party: 1- Paladin n\Fighter 4 2- Cleric of Tempus n 3- Rogue 1\ W. Enchanter n 4- Bard 11\ Sorcerer n (This one I botched. Would be better to have a barbarian or a pure sorcerer or a pure bard instead) Paladin and cleric were front row fighters in heavy armour, Wizard was wielding a heavy repeating crossbow\casting from behind and the bard was mostly just running around giving +1 attack and 2- DR. Plus all three: cleric, wizard, bard were summoning stuff here and there. In BG, since it's not too difficult on D&D core difficulty I tend to choose my party mostly for roleplaying, not tactical reasons.
  23. quechn1tlan
    I can't seem to understand what the thread is about. Some fantasy league rpg, or something? But it's not the point. I'm pretty sure that they said that Paladins are not necessairily religious in PE world and I came here just to say that. I see them close to Sturm from Dragonlance, not Forgotten Realms Paladins.
  24. quechn1tlan
    Speak for yourself, I plan to record all my experiences with those natives and publish it. What, we got ourselves a nerdy version of Hunter Thompson? Would be an entertaining read if someone with enough skill actually did this.
  25. quechn1tlan
    None of IE games worked like that. They ALL gave XP for killing monsters. The only notewrothy game(maybe DS3 or Alpha Protocol had something like that, I never played them, but in any case they are not what PE is promised to look like) made by the developers currently working on PE that had this progression was VTMB. And even it was a First person shooter\ third person slasher, not an IE game. But let's not go there. I stopped reading that thread long time ago seeng how people there(on both sides) won't listen to any reason. It just strikes me as odd when someone takes an opinion and posts is as a fact. Nothing personal.
×
×
  • Create New...