Jump to content

JohanKris

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About JohanKris

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Travel, hiking, football, writing and etc and so on.

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. I say it again. Internal consistency. the world must follow its own rules and the things it has set up, just make sure those things to contradict each other or change for no reason.
  2. Yes, that's something to hope for. As long as they have any reactivity at all it should make them feel on par with companions. Probably to much for this project though. apart from NPC dialogue about things like their race, profession or equipment. Like "I would only trust giving that information to a dwarf, like your friend Gurka there".
  3. I'd say that's very well what I did. While companions may have assumptions and may be outspoken about the game world, created characters presumably will have none, and no life in the world to speak of. Would it irritate me to have a mix of both in the party? Slightly I guess. That a game only gets worse if you miss out on content seems a pretty arbitrary opinion of yours. But going with it, one thing that could make the game worse is if the inclusion of the Adventurers' Hall makes the devs slim down the number of "full" companions - say, 5 companions, and if you want more you can use the A
  4. This is actually a plausible outcome. Deserts are not always hot, they just lack rainfall. There is plenty of frozen desert in Asia. I can't remember any desert in direct connection to tundra though, as most tundra regions of our world see enough precipitation.
  5. Apart from dialogue, companions could have personal quests, leanings towards certain factions etc. All that is speculation right now. I'd just find it somewhat... strange to have mute puppets and fully scripted companions in one party. I'm not saying it's a design flaw, nor that they should remove one of these options. If anything, I'm hoping that they make characters from the AH a bit more seemingly possessed of their own will than they were i.e. in BG so the contrast isn't so stark. But you said that both approaches don't mix well. what you say here is not a argument of why they don't
  6. I think you need to expand on that. What in the game is affected by this? Remember that player created characters don't impact on the world apart from combat (or possibly some skill use), which makes their exclusion or inclusion a non-factor as for what is in the game compared to if it was with only pre-written companions. They just have less dialogue
  7. As a lover of maps and creating words this is almost a dear subject for me. Sure when I was a teen and created worlds they tended to not make much sense in many ways. Now it is important for me, every little detail. Nice. any big difference in elevation or highlands? Internally consistant. Which goes for most things in the setting unless you aim for comedy. So you might have a magic cloud eternally raining on a mountain and therefore many rivers start from it. But if your world has a magically altered weather that is totally random, then it makes no sense to have a desert or
  8. Immersion? if you create all characters you can imagine them any way you want. As for Bg there hardly were much of "interactive characters", sure you could talk a big with them with a very few choices, but that was it. I came from games were you made your own party and I sure did that in BG too. Half the IE games there was no companions to talk about at all.
  9. It is a imagined effect. Imagination is what you make beyond what is there and what is told. Therefore your decision isn't about imagination, it is about reason. You reason what is the best or in this case most fitting choice. Games in their imperfection just gives you a baseline to follow and if your imagination fills out more, fine. The more things you imagine about your character, the less will the game aknowledge it. Unless you bend what you imagined into what is. Could work, if game follows some archetypes that you can play. Normally it is just nice person or ****. but what can w
  10. Well in most fantasy games the world is pretty harsh and filled with bandits and hostile monsters, so of course no one would care if you are walking around fully armored. An armed traveler wouldn't be suspicious. It would only be suspicious if you were trying to pretend to be a villager dressed like that. If the chances of getting into a gunfight in real life were the same as the chances of fighting bandits and monsters on the road in a fantasy game then no one would be surprised to see people walking around in bullet proof vests. As for fantasy yes. But the full plate kind of armou
  11. I don't know Jeasun. I think they could benefit from free cleaning, massage and commuting.
  12. The answer for nudity is of course obvious. If it fits the setting. Sex is better to exclude. Unless it is based on stats of course.
  13. but one of the first sex games of them all... simply called "sex games"... was a twitchy realtime game were you rythmically turned the stick back and forth. This is not some new feature! But that game did feature naked men too, so I guess it wasn't really a appropriate game. Was really awkward.
  14. I'll just give a short answer to this one. Interesting quests and/or interesting choices
  15. But Jarpie, in how many games has it really been like this? I would say that the clear "romance branch" part of the companions in the Bioware games is clearly less than 50% (and they are almost the only ones doing romance). I played most their games and the bulk of all companion dialogue is aside from any romance. It is just a few sentences, which is why they suck to begin with. I don't see why it really hurts, even if I would prefer to only have this if it is really well written and well-done. Then the romance would be as pointless and shallow as in Bioware games and several in her
×
×
  • Create New...