Jump to content

HereticSaint

Members
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About HereticSaint

  • Rank
    (3) Conjurer

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. This has been done to death, unfortunately there's a serious disconnect between the reality of the situation and peoples perceived reality of the situation, I've named names in the past, but I'm over that. It's pretty obvious who we are talking about here though. It really boils down to one point at the end of the day, why is there going to be a distinct lack of one facet of social interaction between characters when all others will exist? It makes it feel more akward, not less (Here's where people try and pin you for wanting some dating sim, or pointing at you as if you are some sexual deviant looking for virtual pornography). There's no good reason to not include romances beside potential limits on development time, just like there's no good reason to not include friendships beside potential limits on development time. That doesn't read as, "Every NPC in the game needs to be your love slave" as much as certain people want to read it as such. Personally I'm a fan of leaving all forms of character interaction and development open as a potential and I think being diametrically opposed to a certain form of it because it may make some people uncomfortable is sort of a cop out. To me it's sort of the same thing as leaving out friendships in a game and going, "Why does your character need to befriend other characters? Are you completely socially inept in real life? Go get some real friends!" It's insulting and not based within reality. This definitely isn't something that will make me hate, or even necessarily dislike the game so much as just make it seem more bland, and less fleshed out.
  2. The OP clearly isn't enough of a history nerd to understand such a broad statement about the effectiveness and application of Leather armor is incredibly ignorant. The effectiveness of Leather armor was derived from many, many factors, just like all armor, how skilled and knowledgeable the craftsman making it was, where the material came from (In this case, what animal it came from), if there was any other material used in combination with it, or used in it, such as metal rivets, underpadding/overpadding, etc. Then, it had to be kept in mind the budget/value of the person wearing the armor, the climate, what type of maneuverability they wanted, if they wanted to be able to protect from glancing blows or full on hits, etc. Lastly, keep in mind most peasants didn't have access to refined metal, but quite a few had access to beasts they could slaughter for their hide and boiling it so it hardens is something that many peasants would've been able to do as well. Making a blanket statement of, "Leather armor is useless" is just as stupid as making a blanket statement of, "Metal armor is useless".
  3. Should there be spells that mechanically work as, "if you don't save versus this, you die", not in my opinion. I much rather the game just control Hit Point inflation and have regular spells (as long as they are equal level spells, cast by equal level spellcasters) be that dangerous. I think protection against magic should be something invested into via character traits/feats/training and equipment just like you need to do to be more durable against physical attacks. To me, that opens up more build options and expands the gameplay. Sure, you can have some ridiculously armored fellow who is trained to have incredibly adept avoidance of melee attacks. But spells will be more dangerous, so you have to rely on your party members using spells to protect said party member against magic. Then you have a range class who has incredible magical protection, but not so much physical protection so you have to be careful of their positioning and be acutely aware of the potential of Rogues and the like sneaking up on them. Or you could have a more well balanced character who can skirmish and take a bit of punishment from both, but if you have an enemy (like a boss type character) who is incredibly adept at a single aspect then they can't just facetank everything they do without backup. So, more or less my answer is, "depends on what direction they go in with gameplay, class and item mechanics". But more no than yes.
  4. I'm okay with pretty much whatever they do if it isn't based around what skills you use. Sure, it makes more logical sense (lol, logical sense in world full of magic, gods, etc), but most sane people who experienced how that can play out in Elder Scrolls IV understand just how god awful such a system can be. Oh man, I didn't jump enough this level, so I get gimped stats, or oh man I didn't run in circles for five hours (hold down forward while watching a movie), I get gimped stats, etc, etc. Basically, it encouraged masochism and anything but sensible and enjoyable play from the player to not randomly become a complete gimp.
  5. See, it's funny, because I almost yelled, "Please, for the love of God, nothing as retarded as Isabella." but then, I, unlike apparently half the people still in this thread realized that Obsidian isn't Bioware and therefore won't completely fail at writing. Seriously, anyone who is mentioning Bioware at this point is either entirely new to this threads (in which case, run while you can), or missing the point. Very few people have said love has to explicitly mean sexual intercourse between two characters and if it's explained in a well written way why there can't be then I'm all for it. However, it the whole world is suddenly chaste then I'd like that explained as well. Having a few romances in the game isn't all of a sudden going to completely hamstring their writing process like some people are trying to argue, either and if you want to state putting in said romances would take several months of writing then I don't see what your problem is unless you completely lack any and all faith in the people writing for this game to get something right, or you (speaking in general terms) are just like, "I don't like romances, so no" (which is a stupid reason).
  6. Gender identity is something you clearly don't understand. Giving children options is important, and shunning a little boy who may want to play with ponies or a barbie doll is no different from shunning some random gay guy. It's pretty clear by your, frankly, quite offensive statement regarding having to, "mix your play time", that you are a very rigid, person, unwilling to expand their view of their beliefs, let alone change them. It's no wonder you want a shallow experience devoid of emotions which scare or bother you in some fashion. News flash, you don't have to enjoy taking it up the butt to realize that it isn't your business to go around town trying to convert any and all gay people you meet. Nor is it your, or any other persons job in here to try and tear down people because they enjoy well written romances in their games. It doesn't happen for people who look for books and novels, it doesn't happen for people who look for movies. I'm sure this is going to get turned around as me forcing romance into this game, yet again, for the umpteenth time, but it isn't. The people who are against romance are worse than religious zealots. Try to convert someone for five minutes, if they don't completely change their world view it's time to start blowing things up. Get over it and get over yourself. If Obsidian puts romance in the game because they deem it a good idea and it bothers you then that is your problem. It isn't Obsidians problem, it isn't my problem, it isn't other people who want romance ins problem. Also, people twist, "wanting" something in a way that is just ridiculous. I want a million dollars, I want world peace, I want a cure to deadly diseases, I want a fix to world hunger and energy cricises. That doesn't mean I demand, nor expect them. I honestly hope you didn't mean to come off as such an intolerant person. Also, if you want such a shallow experience of just slashing at people with an axe, then Golden Axe is probably more your speed. Most of all this thread really needs to die. I realize I don't have to participate in it, but it still exists and some of the **** people say is just ridiculous.
  7. How many times are you going to complain about this same subject? You've clearly been explained that it's going to be this way as far as they know and they believe it to be a good mechanic and idea. Gameplay wise you have absolutely no right to say how it'll work, because, well, the game doesn't even really have gameplay now. Lore wise, they can make the lore whatever they want, it doesn't have to be logical. Maybe Soul magic can't be explicitly controlled for healing because the Gods deem it so, but it does reach a sort of recuperative state that accelerates healing while someone sleeps. There are a million other explainations, you just don't want to accept that the gameplay is going to be different. Not every adventuring party has to have a Priest, astonishing, I know. I'm sorry your love of Priests has gotten you offended by this idea.
  8. Next up: Pushing a boulder around in real life to facilitate the in-game Strength check required for something. Doing double backflips to facilitate agility/dexterity checks. Just saying, that's exactly what you are asking for. It should be shown by default on ALL difficulties, that, or dialogue should never, ever, ever be the least bit vague, at all. Which directly impacts the writing, which is bad.
  9. Not everything has to be a dice roll to be fun, interesting and replayable. I mean, if we are going to start adding random chance to quest outcomes, how about we add random chance that your character contracts a terminal illness and you don't notice it till you're dead two days later. Then, unless the player is really diligent they can't even save scum out of it! Yay! I mean, hell, this even fits in with the theme of this game world not having developed medicine. The only games that need random outcomes on events/quests are Roguelikes, FTL being a prime example of where it's okay, because basically the whole game is built upon everything being a dice roll. This game is not.
  10. I absolutely hate the idea of critical failures both on paper and in practice. A real swordsman doesn't swing his sword around into his own torso on average one of of every twenty attacks. He likewise doesn't fling it 50 ft away because he misses his target. I can more reliably swing a sword than that. Even having to roll a one twice in a row on a D20 to get any real dangerous critical failures is still bothersome. I like critical hits, but I think that chance to crit should be more based on armor than it has traditionally been in the past. AKA: Full Platemail should have an innate critical strike reduction chance that eats a percentage off someones chance to crit. AKA: Archer with 5% chance to crit attacks someone in Full Platemail but Full Platemail has a 80% (or 50, or whatever) reduction in the chance of being critically struck. So now the Archer actually has a 1% chance to critically strike.
  11. HAHAHAHAHA. You think gambling is a poor gold sink, but crafting is a good one. I really, honest to god hope you are joking. As for upgrades to a stronghold/housing, we are lucky to even have those as an option, so a game that wouldn't have these would then have absolutely no potential gold sinks besides crafting then according to you? Gambling isn't about net making gold. You could easily make items that you can only get from gambling that have near to no vendor value but that are incredibly unique or powerful. Much more fun than, "Gather 5 purple flowers, 5 Xander Roots, combine!" YAY, I understand the vast and interesting world of Alchemy!
  12. While people may not like gold sinks, it's the most reasonable answer. If you look at it from a logical sense, when an adventurer is doing a quest that risks his life he is going to want the reward to be worth potentially losing his life, for anyone but an extremely selfless character this could easily mean earning more than a peasant earns in a year for a few hours worth of work. On top of that, when you kill a person, unless you are in some ridiculous hurry you gain access to all they carry on them and chances are if they are a challenging foe they have valuable loot, and if they aren't then it's just a speed bump meaning it's basically free money anyway. If you kill someone in their home you immediately gain access to all of their most valuable possessions, including items that may have taken several years worth of what a noble may earn if that's who you killed, for example. I'll just restate it, the easiest gold sinks are: - Gambling and - Item upkeep for magical items. Otherwise you have to do things that as a player who wants a game that makes sense are an annoyance, such as making it so when an enemy wearing full plate and having several weapons to choose from as well as fine bolts/arrows/etc only drops a fraction of that, if anything, for example.
  13. Money sink options: - Gamblng mechanic - Wages for hireable party members every "X" amount of hours played within the game - Wages for people within your fortress, whether they be merchants, farmers, servants, guards, trainers, etc. - Having some sort of system where you can hire mercenaries or guards from within your fortress or taverns to do certain acts depending on if you are good or evil, making these tacts endlessly rewarding for being repeated would be somewhat difficult though. - Items having a durability and needing to be periodically repaired and maintained. - Having lots of dialgoue options that require extra monetery incentive. - Requiring a tribute at the end of every endless dungeon level to unlock the next level. I'm sure there are a ton more as well, it's just a matter of what they think would fit and be worthwhile in terms of development time and cost.
×
×
  • Create New...