Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Sacred_Path

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1328

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sacred_Path

  1. Sacred_Path
    How does it "not relate" to the game world if you have to deal i.e. with parts of a lock of a chest in that game world? Elaborate (or maybe not) So you have problems with any action that pauses play? Especially in RTwP, right, lollercakez? (That's not even mentioning that you can always implement it without pause) Again, if it has been done repetitive and simplistic in the past, noone's to say it can't be improved. What detailed lockpicking adds to the game subjectively is up to your opinion; objectively, it adds challenge. You're contradicting yourself. In a party based RPG, obviously you're controlling a group, so what's your problem with controlling your thief's share of the work? Unless you're advocating for full AI that picks locks automatically (and fights automatically, ressurects automatically, etc... so you can leave the PC alone for a while and come back when the game has beaten itself). Seriously though, I didn't advocate for character skills to be left out, so the success of picking a lock would still rely on the skill of your thief friend. Alas, that's so rarely seen. Which is one reason why I personally would like to see dexterity (as in my own dexterity) based lockpicking. And why exactly should that barn be outfitted with a lock in the first place, hmm?
  2. Sacred_Path
    I take it, you're not a fan of twitch elements in your games/ anything that requires reactions etc. Fine, why not design lockpicking with puzzle elements. Hello riddle chests in Betrayal at Krondor (very simplistic, but this is only an example). The goal is to make the game more interesting, more interactive. I'm tired of the usual "nothing requires thought/skill except combat" in CRPGs. Also not to destroy your little argument (*cough* strawman), but surely you don't want to liken IE stealth to actually well done stealth simply because in both cases, buttons are pressed.
  3. Sacred_Path
    Because an IE successor means you have to have a dozen traps in one room? Because a megadungeon means every room will be trapped? People have such curious associations with IE. I don't care how often it's been done wrong; I want to see it done right. But this is an argument that has been made often on this board. It was pointless and boring in Wizardry 8, better but still not very good in Wiz 6. It was interesting in Return to Krondor. But then, the same could be said about stealth. So many games with lackluster stealth (hello IE games!). Still, I trust OE they'll do a better job about stealth this time. Simply clicking a button isn't the answer/ not a design fit for ETERNITY (see what I did there?).
  4. Sacred_Path
    And how exactly is it detrimental to minigames when they are only part of a challenge? Strawman; in a game where lockpicking/ disarming needs some effort, you won't find 10 of them in one room. Basically, with minigames, you're getting quality instead of quantity. They are used more rarely and with more significance when you can't just strew 5 of them onto a floor. That, and there's one more element of the game to master (which is what attracts me, sorry storyfags). The CRPG genre would profit from concentrating on doing things that you can emulate well on a computer; tactical combat, lots of statistics/ calculations, and minigames. Otherwise they will remain bland imitations of PnP.
  5. Sacred_Path
    for the love of god, no. TES games are hiking sims with no degree of balance whatsoever, so it's fine there. I don't think this would fit in anywhere in P:E though.
  6. Sacred_Path
    I don't really care for any of the above, so I'll just repeat my own ideas: Make class abilities mostly stackable, so it won't be a waste to have 2 or 3 of the same class in the party: If that means making them mostly offensive, so be it Make some skills truly powerful and epic (like Alchemy) even if that means raising the associated costs (balance issue) Make gold sparse, but create a few good money sinks if players do acquire a surplus Allow basic item crafting (ammo, potions) but leave epic items to NPC blacksmiths. Maybe allow for casters to imbue/ enchant items temporarily Connect the two cities in some way, don't make one of them obsolete later on Bind the megadungeon into the surrounding countryside, with quests etc. Make it part of the main plot, even if only levels 1-4 Implement buffs in a way that high level casters can't cast them all the time (when they have them on cooldowns); i.e. make buffs high level spells only, or have drawbacks (like being fatigued after Haste)
  7. Sacred_Path
    There's no reason why the only minigame in the game should be combat. However, the rewards for skills that use minigames should be higher than for those that only take a few clicks.
  8. Sacred_Path
    so 12 or 13 people are creating the game that I will replay the most in the next 12 years.
  9. Sacred_Path
    which is of course another reason why one should buy this through Steam
  10. Sacred_Path
    I've always said we need more drug-induced monologues
  11. Sacred_Path
    If it really comes at absolutely no cost to the devs then why not. I think people reacted negatively because advocating for the Steam version to be anything other than, well, your average Steam version when the game will be readily available in physical and digital format elsewhere makes you look a bit clumsy. Especially for a single player game with no achievements.
  12. Sacred_Path
    Let's break down your run-off-the-mill CRPG stats: STR: melee damage, carrying capacity, ability to bash containers DEX: thieving, evasion, ranged combat END: health meter, stamina, resistances INT: skill/ magic related CHA: ditto WIS: " " I think we can also expect a good number of non-combat skills, as they get their own pool of skill points. Talents/ feats can just as well pertain to sneaking, diplomacy and spellcasting.
  13. Sacred_Path
    Noone is talking about taking the option to kill anything away though. You just don't get the usual reward (XP) for it. There's nothing about that the objective XP system couldn't handle though. Turn around in the middle of a quest? Fine, you probably already got some objectives done. It's more of a question of how much choice the game is designed for, rather than what the XP system is.
  14. Sacred_Path
    Does it occur to you there should be ways to play the game... wrong? *gasp* I know I know, there's the school of thought that proclaims "but it's an Urr-Pee-Jee!" therefore whatever you do should be viable. I think that's ludicrous. You could roleplay a character that kills any NPC in an IE game, but it would cause you to lose the game. That's alright. If you choose to never actively pursue any objective in a game with objective XP that might lead you to being seriously underpowered. That's ok. There's player freedom but there's also design and the skill (not just will) to play the game effectively.
  15. Sacred_Path
    I don't have major problems with the IE XP system at all, I just think objective XP is better. Yes the no ressource cost thing was one thing that was problematic about combat in IE that will be fixed, but on top of that, you're now given the choice of how you want to deal with an encounter. Which is actually like a free lunch for everyone who doesn't have major problems with stealth. Again, sneaking by wasn't even an option most of the time in IE (unless you were playing oddball games like lone ranger/ party of svirfneblin in IWD2). Do you really have an opinion like "I'll never sneak by an enemy ever, not even on my 4th playthrough!" ?
  16. Sacred_Path
    Ressources were often not spent at all in IE games because rest spamming took care of most of your needs. Rarely were you forced to use potions or wands when you could cast all your buffs and plenty of healing spells. Also stealthy play was not a choice most of the time because you needed those XP. Therefore, like I said, the obvious route was killing everything and going everywhere.
  17. Sacred_Path
    Why you *wouldn't* want kill xp in a "combat focused" game baffles the hell out of me. I think we should be able to agree on the fact that XP should be given for overcoming obstacles. Therefore, if you have to i.e. bypass enemies to get to the other side of the map (from where you can unlock a new region), then getting there is worth XP. Some want to make it sound like "walking around will give you XP! It's the downfall of the Occident!!" In IE games the routine would be: kill all monsters on the map for XP and loot, then do the rest spam, then move on to the next area. P:E hopefully makes it much more of a choice if you want to spend ressources on clearing maps and getting to other hostile areas.
  18. Sacred_Path
    the utter inability of kill XP proponents to understand why anything that's not a kill should give XP amuses and baffles me.
  19. Sacred_Path
    but if you're roleplaying, why shy away from the consequences of said roleplaying? The only exception I can see is if behaviour that's basically pre-determined behavior will definitely lead to you dying/ losing the game (like roleplaying a thief in a game where pickpocketing is a sure way to screw up the game). Though even then... if I was bent on roleplaying I'd just stick to chests in that case.
  20. Sacred_Path
    1. smashable doors y/n? 2. no Auamaua/ Orlan exclusive armor? q_q
  21. Sacred_Path
    Wait Neeshka was more serious? The character who was always cracking wise? Don't get me wrong, you don't like a character you don't like a character. But Neeshka never struck me as terribly serious ("Questions, questions...go ahead, I'm all horns", "I feel this strange, rosy glow all of a sudden. We don't have to hug, do we?", "And I may have accidentally back-stabbed some people in the past, but if they couldn't see me coming, well, that's their loss") No you're right in that they tried to make Neeshka funny. However, female characters are very rarely intended to provide comic relief, which is often the one thing that makes male archetype characters bearable (Korgan, Minsc and Jan, just citing BG2 examples)
  22. Sacred_Path
    I dunno, did changing the gender make them suddenly okay by you? Male chars as I've seen them in games tend to have more twists to them even if they're meant to portray an archetype. Minsc and Korgan are dumb grunts, but the first's grumpiness is offset by his love for little rodents, while the other has some of the best "quibs" in the game. The streetsmart girl probably comes to mind because it's such an Obs staple, and to me Neeshka and that tiefling from PS:T are imprinted on my mind as some of the most annoying characters of all time. Maybe the problem is that female characters are often designed in a much more serious tone than their personalities warranted? I find them lacking in ambiguity, often. *shrug*
  23. Sacred_Path
    Tough chick who is tough because tough. Streetsmart girl with a sharp tongue. Powerful female mage/cleric who's so covered in mystery and intrigue she even ties her shoes in the dark. This compilation sexist? Deal w/ it
  24. Sacred_Path
    IIRC ancient scholars commented on the tradition of "show" fighting being prevalent among the Celts, both the "mock combat" and the serious kind. They lacked the architectural underpinning of Roman arenas, of course.
  25. Sacred_Path
    So you are going for some realistic reference point in the language. When I looked up the companion's names there was a tendency for them to reflect Irish/ Scottish family names, but only so slightly that I though it a coincidence. You'll definitely want to make this more prominent.
×
×
  • Create New...