Sacred_Path
-
Posts
1328 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sacred_Path
-
-
You still haven't explained what makes it a sci-fi trope rather than a fantasy trope, and/or why it would be wrong for P.E. (even if it's just one out of many cultures represented in the game). Please explain!
I didn't say it's wrong for PE, in my first post I quite clearly said I don't really care about gender (in)equality in PE. I was asking if it's not more of a sci-fi trope because I haven't encountered it in fantasy books (which I read) as much as I've seen it referred to in sci-fi books/ movies (which I don't read/ watch).
-
A matriarchal society doesn't have to be misandric. Just like a patriarchal society doesn't have to misogynistic.
Except that's exactly what I was talking about. And when I said 'old' I did not mean 'not contemporary'.
But for the sake of argument... I think if you play out gender inequality in a game there's no way to not make it a bit demeaning in nature, otherwise the whole thing doesn't affect the player. If you want to portray an archaic patriarchal society it just begs to express views like 'women aren't built for physical labour or warfare, so they must be kept in the house' (and I'm not even going to argue if that is truly misogynistic, that's semantics).
-
For instance, pre-proto-Indo-European societies are often depicted as matriarchal/gynocractic in fiction (mostly because of the widespread cult of the cthtonic "Mother Goddess").
O really? I thought we had moved past that since the 80's but my overview of general fiction isn't wide enough to argue that.
BTW I was talking about the 'Amazonian women enslave/ abuse male drones' kind of trope, not any old variation of matriarchy
-
I think some sexism is good but I'd try and balance it if at all possible since I feel that it's generally woman always getting the shaft. For example I know that in one book I read that handling money and bartering was seen as unmanly, in another it was reading that wasn't something men did. I'd rather see culturally related sexism along those lines rather than the typical men do the fighting women make the babies sexism.
Of course this could all work the other way. We could also see matriarchal societies, where men are the ones facing discrimination.
isn't that more of a sci-fi trope?
-
not to sound childish or threatening but i WILL withdraw my pledge if there are more of these polls.
-
1
-
-
I'd guess gender equality and other anachronisms (i.e. environmental awareness/ sustainability) are to be expected. It always seems a bit ridiculous but it doesn't bother me so much that I'd advocate against it.
-
lots of good *cough* ideas for Forton
I think he's my favorite character already
-
This might be completely OT, but what do you identify as his moral perspective?
Hmm... perhaps: "purity always prevails"... but it's somewhat more complex and hard to put my finger on why exactly does it bug me so much. He seems both extremely naive and hypocritical at the same time.
if I had to find something naive and hypocritical about his writing i'd say that slaughtering people never seems to take a toll on his protagonists (who indeed are in some way redeemed/ pure as he always tries to get across). The fact that they almost always prevail I'd blame on the circumstance that I think he intended his writings to be inspiring (though I guess you could also call it moralizing).
I still relished the books when I was younger, and who can't find a weak spot in their heart for Druss? :D
-
In a game, due to its interactivity, the journey is very much the goal; different from novels and movies. In a game with stellar gameplay, most ends become acceptable.
I expect three things from a well-done ending:
- logical consistency: does not contradict most of the information you got both ingame and metagame
- coherency: ties up a number of loose ends (not necessarily all, particularly not those your characters wouldn't be informed about ingame)
- surprise: if you started the game with the premise of destroying the big meanie and thereby save your world and yourself from destruction, and this is what happens first and foremost, the devs were doin it wrong. This is not to say that it must be impossible for you to expect what will happen, but it should at least be guesswork at best.
Other than that, I don't have any expectations as to how my characters will be treated in that final cutscene. And i definitely wouldn't want the devs to feel obliged to deliver a certain ending because i paid for it.
-
- David Gemmel. I understand it's largely subjective, but his writings simply disgust me. His completely outdated moral perspective, inability to create complex plots and characters, this whole "heroic fantasy" stuff which is intellectually on about the same level as 300... ugh. Although I admit I'm extremely biased and could only manage to read Legend. It was punishment enough.
This might be completely OT, but what do you identify as his moral perspective?
-
would be cool if there were many implements that could be used in the established ways, not just torches but pickaxes, ropes etc. Unfortunately PE isn't that kind of game (Thorvalla might be)
-
good thread gentlemen
try reading it while drunk
-
I reiterate this and I might add, "don't make companions more awesome than characters from the Adventurer's Hall".
Again, like I first said, this is all dependent on how awesome you make them. Obsidian has no control over this.
That wasn't really my concern (if I mess up my chars I'd accept that). What I'm getting at is that companions should play by the same rules as your created chars, they shouldn't have more skills/ feats than a self-made character of their level, and no unique magical equipment.
-
1
-
-
1) "Obsidian Entertainment and our legendary game designers Chris Avellone, Tim Cain, and Josh Sawyer are excited to bring you a new role-playing game for the PC. Project Eternity (working title) pays homage to the great Infinity Engine games of years past: Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."
In the pitch video, the name ToEE is dropped, and it was an option in the poll on the website. Also Icewind Dale with its combat heavy gameplay is a good example of an IE game where balance matters.
2) It's not about copying the flaws of those games; it's about realizing that perfect balance is not really that important to the core audience so making sure that every option you add is balanced is a waste of resources. Design the game to be played one way and then add a bunch of options for the people that want no FF, permadeath, limited saves, etc. If those options make the game really hard/easy then whatever; it's the player's choice to play that way, let them.You pretend to know what the core audience wants, but you can't back that up. I personally doubt most people who'll buy this game would say "I don't care about balance at all! All I want is OPSHUNS!"
Ensuring game balance is a waste of ressources you say? What kind of trolling is that?
-
Because even if it does take away time and money from other things the added sales gained from making a game that appeals to a broader audience will, in the end, outweigh the cost.
While we cannot doubt that gameplay options take time to implement and balance, we can very well doubt that more options will make the game appeal to "a broader audience".
Will any RPG fans skip over this game because you can't turn off friendly fire, if it has a gripping story and solid mechanics? I'd say no. Conversely, will non-RPG fans buy this game because you can turn permadeath on? I'd say no, not if the game's overall features aren't attractive by themselves.
All things considered, I'd say a buttload of options will only appeal to habitual RPGers, and will mostly just intimidate and confuse people who aren't familiar with the genre, so in the end it will limit rather than broaden general appeal.
Beside that, "wildly out of balance gameplay" isn't exactly the kiss of death for a single player story driven game. Baldur's Gate had some ****ed up balance with certain classes, and kits especially, being okay at best and others being straight up broken. Hell, PS:T was even worse with one of the three classes being borderline worthless (thief), another making the game stupid easy combat wise (fighter), and the last providing the only reasonable access to half of the story/dialogue content (mage). If they were multiplayer games then those would have been serious issues, but they weren't so it was hardly worth even mentioning (and most people didn't even notice the issues, if they ever did, until they'd replayed the games multiple times).Two things:
1) This is true to some extent for BG2, because combat mechanics never was its strong point. From what we've heard about the classes, PE will offer more tactical depth than BG2 (ToEE was cited as an influence), and that makes balancing more important. Of course flawed balance often only becomes noticeable until you've experimented a bit with the game (not even necessarily replaying), but that's hardly an excuse for bad balancing.
2.) There's no reason to copy the flaws of its spiritual antecessors, but there is every reason to try and improve on them.
-
I reiterate this and I might add, "don't make companions more awesome than characters from the Adventurer's Hall".
-
Y' know, having a tier with physical items makes me feel better about myself/ less bad about pirates. They don't get for free what I got for my money. I'm p. sure this is true for a number of people.
I also have high hopes that many people who sway between pirating and buying will end up paying because they respect Obsidian/ this particular project because it caters as much to the consumers as possible.
-
1
-
-
Gqaal Dal'ub, God of Incessant Strife & Retarded Arguments.
I admit this idea was influenced by several forums I frequent.
-
On the risk of repeating myself, I hope the devs will present a strong coherent vision of their game, rather than one overflowing with options.
Still, some options make more sense and are more meaningful in terms of balance (i.e. permadeath) than others (i.e. friendly fire).
On the argument of wether a game whose creative vision doesn't suit you is worse than one where everything is controlled via options, I can only say the devs have listed several games that serve as an inspiration for PE. Personally, I've liked all of them, and that's why I'm p. sure I'll like PE (and more options wouldn't change anything about that). So, what if I bitch and moan about hitting my own peeps with fireballs someplace mid-game? I'd still prefer that over having some dumb friendly-fire-off option. That is, I'd trust the devs to balance their game around the fact that ff will happen, and I'll probably learn to live with and appreciate it. And mastering it will give me proper satisfaction, because I know I've succeeded at playing the game as the devs intended it.
-
2
-
-
Just putting it out there you're also sacrificing your artistic integrity by adding too many options.
Come at me bros
-
3
-
-
...because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place
Why on earth should a game be "meant" to be played in a particular way? I consider that very idea to be nonsense.
Because the devs have to have some standards in design against which things are balanced.
Example: Wizardry 8
I like 'expert' difficulty, but several things become unbalanced. Monster resistances go up so much that direct damage spells becme obsolete, melee is much more effective. Critical strikes become way more important than raw damage. Several classes (like mages) become obsolete because of low HP. Heavy grinding becomes mandatory for skill gains. All this makes expert difficulty more of a gimmick than a real option.
In a game w/o options (apart from technical stuff like key bindings and graphic detail) you know you play the game in the way the devs intended (= which they considered as balanced).
-
A god of technology/ innovation who is at odds with numerous other deities (i.e. of nature).
Also a Trickster is pretty much mandatory
-
"Optional", in my opinion, often equates to bad design.
A game should be played the way it's meant to be played, make it well designed and people won't feel the lack of particular "optional" features they might want, optionally, of course.
This. Also too many options can make you feel like you've never beaten "the game", because you have no idea how it was meant to be played in the first place
-
1
-
-
The fact that there's an Ironman mode solved all of that for me. I'll play on Ironman, and people who want to use save-scumming are free to do that.
-
1
-
Sexism?
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
isn't that a sexploitation trope...
that's all folks!