Jump to content

DreamDancer

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

62 Excellent

About DreamDancer

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Writing, Gaming, Dreaming

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  1. I think this is an interesting proposal and kinda ties in with their seperation of combat and non-combat skills. In a typical game where you have just one pool you can indeed do a lot of side quests and/or main quests that involve mostly leg work or social skills and gain 1 or 2 levels, then spend all points in a fighting skill and suddenly youre a veteran fighter without having drawn your weapon once. I admit, I have always hoped for a seperation of social exp and combat exp, social in this case meaning everything from quest objective exp, to solving puzzles and succeeding in dialogue ski
  2. I don't understand where people get the notion that having a character that isn't super powerful or even god like is equal to him being weak or average. Its right there in the poll choice you selected: Yes, but that's what I don't understand. Power does not need to be tied to combat performance, and I assume that is what the OP means when he talks about characters being weak or average. As I explained before, power can be expressed in different ways but when people talk about powerful they usually only mean combat. I picked that choice because I don't have a problem with "real
  3. Hm, I think I usually encounter exactly the problem sacred describes when it comes to cheap/RP skills vs "good"/useful skills. For example there is always one character in my party, who is completely specialized in all the fluff skills that do nothing for combat but a whole lot for lore and dialogue/Rp scenarios. Guess what, that character is always my own. So when I gather a party around me it is nice to imagine they are there to protect me. All the great gear goes to my companions and compared to my PC they are way above my league. And I am totally fine with it, because I can play exactl
  4. I don't understand where people get the notion that having a character that isn't super powerful or even god like is equal to him being weak or average. I assume we are talking power visible in game mechanics, right? Like typically in combat situations where the fighter can later on slice through half a dozen ogres simultaneously or the mage levels whole buildings with his spells. While I admit that it can be fun to be able to do that, the true power rise I want to see is usually a bit more subtle and hidden. I could care less for godlike spells or abilities if my character's power is visi
  5. First of all: Excellent thread. Definitely going into the Meta-Gaming here, because it basically comes down to the question: How do you approach a game? It's about style and personal preference really. I bet you can ask a dozen people how they play a game and come up with 12 different answers. How we play a game, how we engage with its mechanics and the game world it presents is less of a technical issue and more of an emotional one. Why? Because we play games to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, don't we? If we don't like certain game mechanics (like the excessive buffing prior to an
  6. I really would love to have different outcomes of battles other than the usual Game Over/Reload Save Game or Victory/Loot Dead Bodies. And it should definitely go both ways, meaning that it would be pretty cool if you had some options what to do with foes you defeat, like sending them to prison, selling them off to slavers, offering them a job in your stronghold, etc. Not having death and only death at the end of a conflict means giving the game world more depth in general, because the victory or death approach shouldn't be the only solution in an otherwise complex narrative setting. It wo
  7. Just listened to the Interview from Total Biscuit with Adam and they talked abot the Megadungeon and confirmed a few important things. So it seems that the dungeon will be optional and it is meant to be for those who love dungeon crawling. I am happy for those who enjoy this activity but personally I will just skip this and leave it for the end maybe, when I feel I have nothing else to do.
  8. I had such a situation in my playthrough of DA:O where I played as a rogue and later on got Leliana and Zevran joining my entourage of companions. We pretty much had the same expertise when it came to rogue related tasks, so going purely by game mechanics they were dead weight. But that's where personality comes into the equation. I liked the way they were written enough that I thought they were fun to hang out with, so I could hear their comments and sometimes snide remarks which usually made me chuckle. In other words, they were good company, so I had them in my party when I set out to do qu
  9. It makes a lot of sense if companions are a lot more experienced or better than your character, although only in their respective areas of expertise. I mean, that's what a traditional adventure group is after all: a team of highly specialized individuals that combine all their strengths to create a very powerful force. Beyond pragmatic reasons though there is also the social and emotional aspect of why people group up. On the most basic level it is because they like each other enough to be willing to travel together and feel safer than if they were alone. Now when I pick the members of my
  10. I would be very happy if the mega dungeon holds any meaning except an opportunity for XP and loot. I'll admit it right here: I dont like dungeons or dungeon crawling. Those passages where you stumble through endless caverns or catacombs are my least favorite part of an RPG. There is a reason for that though, aside from preferences. Dungeons usually serve no other purpose than making a quest last a lot longer than necessary. Need to go talk to that bandit leader? Great, but would you please first fight through his extensive cellar hideout, then his secret underground lair and then his even more
  11. I thnk we can all agree that the perception of concepts like good and evil are subjective and relative. That being said I would side with the people here who don't want the game to judge your decisions at all. No artificial moral meter, no alignment scale, no renegade or paragon points. Because good and evil wll always be in the eye of the beholder. Personally I always found it silly, that certain professions automatically assume that you are evil. Think black mages, necromancers, warlocks, demonologist, etc. If you weren't of an Something Evil Alignment you couldn't even pick those profes
  12. I agree, an "evil" person usually doesn't travel with a band of merry companions saving the world. He is in it for himself. A game that really played well with a concept of "evil" was imo ME and ME2. Going renegade didn't mean you went overboard with stupid-evil actions. It meant you were less likely to grant mercy. It meant caring less for the well being of others. It meant having an overall darker perception of the universe reflected in your actions and what you said. There was that great scene with that evil scientist in ME1 where you and Garus finally caught him and then the game p
  13. Granted, but some of us may see no point in missions where we are not rewarded. I suppose that's were good and evil comes in. The good guy helps the beggar just because, the evil guy demands the last shirt off his back so his time isn't wasted. True, but in reality games rarely make sense in that regard. The good guy helping the beggar would indeed do so without expecting any kind of reward and the game should not reward that action beyond a heartfelt thank you from the beggar. Now what happens in most games in the case of an evil guy, is this: He also agrees to help the beggar, doe
  14. Now come to think of it...it is also pretty weird that we have come to always expect some sort of reward in these kind of games. I mean, even the poorest beggar will eagerly hand you his last shirt if you did him a favor. That is of course an exxageration but you know what I mean. It feels too contrived sometimes if you get a material reward every time you do someone a favor. At the very least you usually get a small amount of coins. I don't think it has to be that way and rewards should usually be consistent with the situation at hand. And I agree, rewards shouldn't be tied to some artifi
  15. Indeed, the reward already comes from being consistent in your character and roleplay it in a believable manner. Just going by the loot a quest or NPC might reward you with is more likely a power gamer or min/maxer approach. Which is totally fine, have done that myself in the past, but it's not as fun as staying true to a character concept and sometimes suffer the consequences for it. Like being very altrustic and usually leave empty handed. I really like situations where it's not clearly a good or evil choice but generally just a mess and you understand both sides. Like in ME2 when decidi
×
×
  • Create New...