jezz555

The one thing I object to here is alignment, people shouldn't be able to see your alignment when the look at you, that's what the "Know Alignment" is for, If I'm evil I want to be able to trick people into thinking I'm good and vice versa.

well if there is no resurrection, maybe there shouldn't be instant death either. I mean I guess you could just reload but idk

The way I see it it's pretty simple. You take certain dialogue paths with certain compatible people and they will eventually grow to like you or dislike you, if they grow to like you, you or the NPC have the option to turn that like into a romantic relationship, if you don't want to you can reject them, if they don't want to they can reject you. It's optional, and not a huge part of the game, just something you can achieve if you work at it hard enough and you have the right chemistry. If you wan't to play an asexual character no one is stopping you. What is unbelievable to me in games is that two people can spend so much time with each other, relying on each other and risking their lives together and not develop close or even romantic ties, that's just stupid, I know people who have developed relationships after being locked in elevators, sometimes these things just happen. Furthermore can we drop the whole "fanservice" thing? This entire game is fan service for fans of IE games, why should Obsidian not want to service their fans?(bow chicka bow wow)

but if everything is huge...how can you tell?

Not even in D&D are all orcs truly evil. "But wait" - you say. It sez CHAOTIC EVIL in the monsters handbook. Yea? Well so does the entry for DROW. And we have plenty of non-evil drow running around, now don't we? Aligment is a guideline. It shows a specific leaning of a race. I long for the day when all orcs and drow weren't just misunderstood niceguys.

Quest markers make sense in third person games, I think, because your field of vision is more restricted. PE, with it's isometric view most likely wont have them, and they probably won't be necessary.

You're not making any sense. If the opponent is wearing full plate, a longsword is going to do exactly d.ick against it. You can't slash, hack or stab through plate. So just like with a rapier, you'd have to get the guy on the ground and stick a dagger inbetween the armour. A longsword is a less specialized weapon, sure. That doesn't mean it requires less finesse. (whatever the bloomin' heck that is in your book) That means you don't have to concentrate on just stabbing the guy. But hey, all those guys who entered fencing schools and tried to learn the longsword were just wasting their time. It's enough to just hack at the enemy, you'll manage. Right. (also, a longsword really is a two handed one, so military rapiers certainly weren't longswords in any way) This argument has carried on for far too long as is, but, it is possible to penetrate full plate with a long sword, in fact swords in the late medieval period were crafted with just such a purpose in mind, they just , while versatile, weren't best suited for it. You'd be far better off with a war-hammer or military pick, not a dagger between the armor wherever you got that idea...Furthermore I already explained the term finesse, which you seem to have overlooked, so once again, using a rapier requires you to stab somebody in a specific vital area. Whereas a long sword relies largely on bloodletting, aided by the exertion of combat, regardless of your training if you are relatively strong and you beat somebody over the head with a long-sword they will likely die, if you attempt the same with a rapier...well good luck. Finally your wrong once again in stating that a long sword is a two handed weapon, I don't claim to be an expert, but the distinction has always been clear long-swords are one handed, bastard swords are hand and a half, and greatswords are two-handed. I think your misunderstanding my argument here, my claim was never that martial training in a weapon wouldn't improve your effectiveness with it, I don't think anyone was making that claim. All I was saying is that a long-sword requires less training to be effective and practically none to be lethal, a sword is a sword if you hit somebody with it, they will likely die, technique can help you to be sure, but its a much smaller factor than you are making it out to be. You are aware of that pretty much every single fact you mentioned in this post is incorrect, right? And that there have been sources throughout this entire thread showing you, providing you with information showing how you are wrong? For example, 'bastard sword' is a Victorian term disregarded by basically all credible historians of our time. Long-swords are two-handed swords that were often balanced well enough to be able to be used (clumsily) with one hand. One-handed swords are these days usually referred to as arming swords, but an English master from the 16th century, George Silver, called them short-swords. Edit: Yeah, for more detailed information, check out Merlkir's post above. Great post, linking to some great pages. Did you miss the part were the IE games were based on AD&D? When I say "the distinction has always been clear long-swords are one handed, bastard swords are hand and a half, and greatswords are two-handed" I mean in games, not in real life. I believe I said I'm not an expert on swords, as if you couldn't tell, the terminology is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that, you have two handed swords, one handed swords, and something in between. I simply don't see why any further distinction is necessary.

For many of us who'd rather not see "romance" in games, it's not a matter of your cultural assumption of "prudishness." It's a combination of technical limitations, social expectations, and the resources available to PE. In fact, it seems to me that the obsession with getting romances into a game is far more childish, because the people asking for romances seem to believe it's the highest form of affect while failing to understand it's only a part of the entire umbrella of "love." (Besides the fact that "romance" is the only subset of love that leads to sex. ) There are plenty of other classes of affect that don't make it into games, even the other types of equally compelling "love"; so why only request one most commonly caricatured in mass media? Now, if there were 18 NPCs (like in BG2) of considerable depth like PS:T companions... 9 could have "romance" paths... 9 would have their own character content... I doubt there would be as much controversy over this as there is now. Because, guess what, we have only 8 companions in a party of 6. Then the issue I described in other threads comes down to-- |=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = Y|-------romance content-----------| versus |=====general character content=========|Y/N romance = N| That's my concern. There has to be equal content no matter what "path" a given NPC development goes down. This is generally not the case in game development, in my experience (and yes, I've tried out a number of different game romances in my day out of morbid curiosity). Once again ( ), here is my proposed mechanic for perfectly parallel and exclusive "Y" paths that cover everything, described briefly from a preceding romance thread. The following examples are situated from the companion's perspective. It's very simple! Y = bottom main branch is the starting point for all companion interaction Main branch: get-to-know-you (This really should take up the bulk of the companion interaction over time; then we can get to specialization!) Left branch: romance Right branch: bromance/womance Left branch: younger sibling Right branch: protege Left branch: older sibling Right branch: advisor Left branch: younger sibling Right branch: romance Et cetera. Huzzah! No one ever gets more content in choosing one path over another and both paths are equally deep, meaningful, and immersive. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post and that was my bad, but by "romance" I don't necessarily mean sex. I hate using the term, but I see it as a bit of a strawman that people always posit the idea that romance automatically equates to a sex minigame. I mean I think my character should be able to fall in love with and show affection for a character who he/she likes. She/he doesn't even have to return the affection necessarily, I'm not suggesting it be a points system or "mechanic" as someone up there put it. I simply mean that human beings ( or at least all the human beings I know) experience sexual feelings on a daily basis and if I am to believe in my character as a human being and not just a "strong guy adventurer type" cardboard cutout, he should behave as a human does. Lets eschew the idea of poorly done or cheesy romances, anything can be done badly, that is not a question of romance in videogames but one of your faith in obsidians ability to write convincing dialog. Furthermore I would like to point out that I never said that PE had to include romance, technical limitations are what they are and that is out of our hands I am merely defending the importance of romance in a mature and well told tale, which is what I hope this game will be. I'm not sure what you meant by my "cultural assumption of "prudishness."", a disgust at the prospect of normal human intimacy is prudishness no matter what culture you come from, so maybe you would care to elaborate. Simply put, if my character is running around with a bunch of beautiful medieval babes for weeks on end, and he never even attempts to tap that, I'm going to start wondering if he's a eunuch.

I know what Avellone says about it and I know a lot of you out there probably agree but to be perfectly honest, I am a fan of romances in games and I'm willing to argue in favor of them. People often like to say it's cheesy, or unnecessary or whatever but the fact is, in real life, most human beings assuming your not, some kind of underground troglodyte( no offense to anyone who is) have some sort of romantic drive, even if they have never been romantically involved with anyone. Characters in games or literature or w/e always feel somewhat incomplete to me if they don't at least show some hint of sexual preference. Like it or not, love, or the search for it, is a part of life and while obsession and perversions on the typically romantic relationship are cool and interesting, It comes across as a immature or perhaps a little prudish to me to not embrace what is, a large portion of adult life. Not saying there needs to be romance in this game, but I think it would be cool.

You're not making any sense. If the opponent is wearing full plate, a longsword is going to do exactly d.ick against it. You can't slash, hack or stab through plate. So just like with a rapier, you'd have to get the guy on the ground and stick a dagger inbetween the armour. A longsword is a less specialized weapon, sure. That doesn't mean it requires less finesse. (whatever the bloomin' heck that is in your book) That means you don't have to concentrate on just stabbing the guy. But hey, all those guys who entered fencing schools and tried to learn the longsword were just wasting their time. It's enough to just hack at the enemy, you'll manage. Right. (also, a longsword really is a two handed one, so military rapiers certainly weren't longswords in any way) This argument has carried on for far too long as is, but, it is possible to penetrate full plate with a long sword, in fact swords in the late medieval period were crafted with just such a purpose in mind, they just , while versatile, weren't best suited for it. You'd be far better off with a war-hammer or military pick, not a dagger between the armor wherever you got that idea...Furthermore I already explained the term finesse, which you seem to have overlooked, so once again, using a rapier requires you to stab somebody in a specific vital area. Whereas a long sword relies largely on bloodletting, aided by the exertion of combat, regardless of your training if you are relatively strong and you beat somebody over the head with a long-sword they will likely die, if you attempt the same with a rapier...well good luck. Finally your wrong once again in stating that a long sword is a two handed weapon, I don't claim to be an expert, but the distinction has always been clear long-swords are one handed, bastard swords are hand and a half, and greatswords are two-handed. I think your misunderstanding my argument here, my claim was never that martial training in a weapon wouldn't improve your effectiveness with it, I don't think anyone was making that claim. All I was saying is that a long-sword requires less training to be effective and practically none to be lethal, a sword is a sword if you hit somebody with it, they will likely die, technique can help you to be sure, but its a much smaller factor than you are making it out to be.

Both have there ups and downs I suppose. I wouldn't mind a ToEE style system with rolling for stats myself,but I did play a lot of D&D growing up, so that may have something to do with it.

yeah, realism is good.To me if something would look stupid in real life (like most "fantasy blades" out there) I'm not really that impressed with it in a virtual setting. Balance is one thing, I agree that magic users shouldn't totally eclipse normal warriors in terms of ability, however many games in today's market already feature ridiculously unrealistic things, I think it would be nice for a change if PE went the other route. Some un-realism is fine, but If everything is unrealistic it all just seems rather mundane, doesn't it?

Sorry to be quotepicking, but this is the only bit I'm interested in replying to. No, this is not correct. 1) there were military rapiers. 2) in the time when rapiers saw widespread use, people didn't wear that much armour. Also, "poking" someone with a longsword (in the hypothetical case of one being used at the same time) would require the same amount of finesse, as the longsword won't cut through armour, so you have to hit vital spots as well. You know what's ludicrous? The idea that medieval swords were used to just vaguely hack in the enemy's direction and hope that'll kill him somehow. That ties to the next bit: I'm going to have to disagree with you yet again. Rapier's were most commonly used as a dueling sword, there were military rapiers yes, but they were more or less long-swords that emphasized stabbing, I maintain that your statement was ludicrous. People wear full plate armor in Project Eternity, so the point that "when rapiers saw widespread use people didn't wear much armor" is irrelevant. A long sword requires less finesse because it can slash or stab, and has more weight behind it for hacking blows, it's more versatile and requires less skill, and less knowledge of anatomy to wield effectively, but regardless your entire point is poorly conceived because hell, a broken plastic spoon could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword slice or a rapier stab, depending on what you did with it. TrashMan basically, said what I was going to so I'm not going to restate his point, I will simply end this by saying that knowing a lot about swords, does not mean you know a lot about game design, and lest we forget, this is a game.

*sigh* yeah, dem awesome false stereotypes. And isnt it true? I mean if I put aside man vs man fight and put in man vs eg. minotaur than it makes perfect sense. You will do more damage with 2h, you will attack more times with 2 weapons and you will have better defense with shield. I still see here people lamenting about how was 2H used in history but well, this is not historically accurate world or fencing simulator. Live with it or kill it with fire. No, it really isn't true. 1) 2h swords were only a bit heavier than 1h ones and the power added by the other hand was more for better control than significantly more damage. A rapier stab could inflict a much more serious wound than a longsword slice, so how do you measure damage? 2) 2 weapons weren't a very common thing used in history. And certainly it doesn't mean you attack twice as many times in the same time as with just one weapon, it's much more complex than that. It was something unusual, something not everyone would be prepared to and expect in a fight, that gave you some advantage. (similarly to being left handed) 3) you have different kind of defense with a shield and it protects you from projectiles. This "2h do more damage, rapiers are about finesse (whatever that means mechanically) and shields give you better defense" is just a simplification of reality to fit in a specific ruleset, not a very accurate one at that. It mostly stems from wrong assumptions and ideas people have about medieval combat. But I know, people don't care about learning something about reality, let's just keep doing what everyone's done in the past. You know what? I'd rather kill it with fire then. "This is not a fencing simulator, it's just a game..." - this makes me sick. Yes, it IS a fencing simulator, you're having characters fight with swords and you simulate the result. You're just using it as excuse for familiarity, laziness and ignorance. It's not like anyone is asking to turn PE into a Mount and Blade kind of game, or CLANG. If we have that knowledge and if we have some understanding of those principles, why not apply them? Why not do things slightly differently and possibly better? I'm really not so sure what you mean when you say laziness. Games use a rock-paper-scissors styled system in order to provide an incentive for the use of each weapon, there's nothing lazy about it, it's so you don't just end up with a bunch of characters doing the same thing. Dual wielding was not commonly done, because its much more difficult to parry with a dagger than it is to block with a shield, but people are going to want to do it, and I think its perfectly reasonable that the system should allow for that because historically it was a technique used by some people, if not many. Furthermore the idea that a rapier could inflict a more serious injury than a long sword is ludicrous, rapiers weren't used in military combat, because people wore armor that would snap a blade that thin and because they required much more skill to poke somebody in a vital area id est. finesse. If instead of just shooting down the status quo, you have a better idea, I think we'd all be glad to hear it.

If you want finesse use a rapier, if you want defense use a sword and shield, if you want offense and power use a two-handed weapon, if you want offense and speed dual wield. Thats how its always been, and imo that's how it should stay. A two-handed weapon doesn't have to be a gigantic sword, it could be a smaller one so long as you wield it with two hands. I don't really see the point here tbh

I never got the point of having a walking option. My attention span is far to short to walk everywhere, It takes about a second to admire my surroundings and If I wan't to do so I'll stand still, If I'm trying to go somewhere, I wan't to get where I'm going.

...sounds made up, but I did sort of like reading it.

Like many of you have said, I think the one that's probably the most played out is the "chosen one stops ancient evil" cliche and I think dark souls was a pretty good example of circumventing that. For those who didn't play it, the world is already trashed and you play a lowly zombie who pulls himself up by his bootstraps to either save or destroy the world, I wouldn't mind if project eternity took this route as well. I think it's far better if the player is allowed to become top-dog instead of just being thrust into the world and told your guy did a bunch of awesome stuff before you even started playing him (I'm looking at you, mass effect/dragon age 2). Alternatively it might be cool if they took the fable path, and allowed your character to age as the game progressed, if done right, that, I think could be really awesome, because it is a little hard to believe that your character didn't do anything noteworthy for the first half of his life, before you started controlling him/her and I would like to see my character be old, but still kicking butt at lvl 20.

There don't need to be romancable companions, just give me a well stocked brothel like Madam Lil's in Arcanum and I'll be good.

In defense of the story I would have recommended avoiding the Manga entirely actually. What takes like 250-300 pages of pretty par stuff in the Manga is cut down to 1 25 minute episode in the anime then it just cuts straight to where the story actually starts getting good. I will admit straight out that if I had seen the manga first and started at the beginning I likely would have dropped it. As for the guy being human... uh no not really. He was a child mercenary from like 5-6 years old and has in fact been "cursed" by the "gods" and has a bevy of other things going on. So yeah you are right, there is nothing "normal human" about him, christ sake he has a cannon on his arm. There is a part of the story where he is just a really really skilled normal human fighter but that doesn't start until like volume 3 and ends around volume 12. Even though it is the best arc of the story it is actually a small part of it. Either way I understand why you would come away not liking it from volume 1, to each their own. Why would you hire a child mercenary? Just seems like a waste of money to me.

Why does everybody always bring up twilight. Vampire and Werewolf stories were around for years before it came out, there are thousands of other sources PE could draw on when depicting them, I see no reason why they would even consider twilight.

Hey, at least they're all fully armoured, which is quite rare in itself Good point, but still. The armor in the first of the three pictures looks a lot more functional, and less silly. Largely because of the lack of boobplate. How exactly does the addition of molded breasts make the armor any less functional? If anything the added angles would deflect the kinetic energy of a sword blow better. You might not like the design, but steel plate is steel plate, regardless of what's on it.

Right, and to quote the guy who replied to me and underlined my point about not copying historic real world designs. sez who Anyone who knows anything about the internet knows how to and can find all the reference material they want to look at pictures of medieval/renaissance arms and armor. If discussing medieval arms and armor, or sharing pics of them, is what you want this thread to be about you need to start a new one. This thread was clearly about asking Obsidian to make arm's and armor in game more realistic when I read it. Considering you are the OP I would think you would know that. Not that Obsidian ever had any plans to do something else, their own concept art shows they don't. This isn't Lionheart, it is based in fantasy not reality or a fantasy take on reality. Using any real world military unit designs would be, in short, a really bad idea. Your own reply to me even says you would like to see a real world Germanic Mercenary in full historic attire show up in game. So maybe you should stop quoting other people and be an adult by admitting that is exactly what you are advocating in this thread. This is a pretty stupid argument. Real world cultures developed weapons the way they did for a reason...because they work. Years of trial and error and development of military technology led to a wide variety of weapons best suited to dealing death, they didn't just decide on what looked cool. What is a really bad idea is when rpg's take your advice and think they need to pull every single design out of thin air and come up with things that would never have made it onto a battlefield in the real world because they aren't practical and wouldn't function. This is fantasy, true, but the best fantasy has a basis in reality and presents a convincing world that could have existed had say magic been real, or dragons existed. The bad kind of fantasy imo, and the kind today's market is over saturated with is the kind made by people ignorant of history who design things with the intent that they look fancy, rather than that they look functional.

I mean its essentially the same thing, except that turn based allows you more control. I really would like a ToEE styled system, but Arcanum did RtwP really well so I'm not worried.

I'm honestly not a huge fan of the way they made the monk look. I mean in AD&D monks were supposed to be shaolin monks but by the later editions they just stopped making sense. If he's supposed to be a european styled monk which it looks like he is because he isn't asian, they should have made him look like friar tuck or something but it looks like he's just the typical 3-4th ed white-guy who somehow knows kung-fu. I say make him some kind of dark creepy self-mutilation guy(flagellant) or make him asian or something, because I'm not really feeling the whole old-punchy guy thing.