Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

mcmanusaur

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    601

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mcmanusaur

  1. mcmanusaur
    Generally speaking, fetch quests should indeed always be optional and have the kind of interactive depth that Lephys mentions. However, the notion of questgiver-less "rumors that evolve into quests" isn't exactly a novel idea. The Elder Scrolls games have been pushing this concept as long as I've played the series, and from what I've heard GW2 took questgiver-less fetch quests to a whole new level. It's probably because Skyrim has about 185 versions of the same "My ancestor/my friend/I lost/left his/her/my [quest item, likely an heirloom with sentimental value] in [generic dungeon], please help Mr. Adventurer!" fetch quest. I prefer fetch quests that can be handled rather painlessly, ideally without leaving the overworld, such as simply running an errand between two towns.
  2. mcmanusaur
    I'm sort of using "wilderness" in a loose sense here to mean any undeveloped land (which nine times out of ten in an RPG will entail combat encounters), although what some of you are saying is historically accurate with regard to European medieval society, and I wouldn't mind seeing an RPG that mimics that more faithfully. However, I don't think that's the only conceivable outcome, especially when you take the fantasy elements into account, not to mention that the extant sociopolitical systems in PE might differ from those of real history. For example, is the social distribution of capital- mundane, magic, or otherwise- comparable to the inequity of feudalism? At any rate, though I'd certainly like to see more peaceful rural areas, I think exorcising all wilderness from the overworld is the wrong move in the long run. Does it really make sense for loads of conspicuous baddies to hide out in dungeons at the same time that the guards keep the overworld spotless and monster-free? Wouldn't they eventually die out at some point, or get purged from their hiding places? Or do the civilized races only feel that their properties and territories are limited to the surface? At least if you have some wilderness, or at least a frontier, you have a source for the evil, rather than it seeming like monsters are playing a perpetual game of sardines in all the dungeons. This isn't to say that an underground scourge of evil creatures couldn't be interesting, but if we want to have a lot of dungeons around (which isn't nearly as high a priority for me as it is for some others on this forum), surely they should be situated in a manner more convincing than that which suggests that all these dungeons were simply left lying around so that roaming parties of adventurers would have something to do? Of course, I am a proponent of a somewhat more smooth gradient than is featured by most RPGs, or else I wouldn't have made this thread. However, I find it a bit contradictory that someone could seemingly wish for an overworld that is both wilderness-free and packed with crunchy dungeons. Although it is very possible for dungeons to exist in civilized areas, I think that generally the amounts of wilderness and dungeons should be directly proportional to each other.
  3. mcmanusaur
    I think a sentient book (tome* ) could be interesting as long as it wasn't voiced by... well, whatever you'd call the sword's voice acting.
  4. mcmanusaur
    Of course it should, as I acknowledged in the OP, and the question then primarily becomes about which kinds of regions one wants to have most of in PE, and secondarily whether there are any kind of gradients that are inherently unrealistic.
  5. mcmanusaur
    I generally agree with that, but with combat the primary focus of many RPGs you can easily see why this is the case. I think the idea of "true" wilderness (areas yet to be mapped or explored by NPCs) can be very interesting, in opposition to the "perpetual state of semi-wilderness in every town's backyard" that many RPGs fall under. If you have frontier regions, that makes for stimulating wilderness, but transforming the little forest between two peaceful villages into a monster habitat reserve is a bit dubious. It's no accident that some of the poll option details (regarding fortified perimeters and outer rings of palisades) aren't too far away from describing wartime scenarios. Even if Skyrim has done the civil war thing now, I still think it has interesting potential for creating cultural/geographical contrasts that are believable. I do agree with your points, and I'd like to see something like this. Indeed. And one would think that there could enough highwaymen and brigands to make things interesting even without there being monsters everywhere. But yes, realistically there's little chance we'll see something like that in PE with its fantasy ethos and supposed combat focus. Someone said that the player character is a stranger to the playable area, which could suggest that this is a more frontier-like region. After all, you do have that expansive region of forested ruins whose name I've not committed to learning yet.
  6. mcmanusaur
    Edited the poll to add "very smooth" options, since the "relatively smooth" options are decently popular.
  7. mcmanusaur
    It's sorta funny, and I suppose this is better than an RPG taking itself too seriously, but in general I find things like this to be needlessly silly and slightly immersion-breaking. More subtle meta-humor (I label it this due to the use of modern slang and fantasy genre sensibilities) on the other hand, I can appreciate, but at some point I don't understand the point of putting in all the effort to make the world immersive if you're going to stick in stuff like this. I don't know, just my two cents.
  8. mcmanusaur
    I believe we've discussed this issue indirectly before, but I wanted to make a poll about it. This may seem like a small thing, but I think it's things like this that greatly determine the overall "feel" of the setting (comfortable, uncertain, risky, etc.). Keep in mind this only applies to the overworld; there could be hidden entrances to dungeons in areas considered "safe". Obviously this kind of thing would vary a bit from town to town depending on where they were located (ex. on the frontier, or in the heartland of a political state), but I still think that many RPGs demonstrate a pattern of quite abrupt (to the point of feeling artificial) transitions between civilization (urban centers) and wilderness (everything else), leaving civilized but rural areas out of the picture, so I am curious to hear other people's thoughts.
  9. mcmanusaur
    I personally don't believe said features are inversely related any more than any other two features are in a zero-sum game where development resources must be allocated, but fair enough. The view that there is a dilemma of flexibility between these aspects of the player character is at least incorrect hypothetically, because previous choices in addition to the later choices can only compound the overall degree of "choice" in the situation. Sure, when you have a game like PE that's being written in a traditional fashion, it may be difficult to flesh out what becomes an exponential myriad of potential character paths, and even if you manage to do so you'll end up with an inconveniently long list of dialog options for every choice; refining this list of choices is my logic behind defining the character in advance.
  10. mcmanusaur
    What, no hand-holding quest markers? I remember having a discussion nominally about this somewhere with regard to Skyrim, and someone insisted that RPGs need quest markers because people who are bad at navigating should not be disadvantaged by RPGs... but for me that's part of the RPG package. Anyway, I think this is a must-have/given.
  11. mcmanusaur
    I agree, and (perhaps my inner skepticism of dating is surfacing here, but) I almost find myself compelled to suggest a system with a bit of randomness. I know some players would hate the idea of a dice roll at the beginning of the game invisibly limiting their character's potential unequivocally, but it almost feels realistic to me. Perhaps someone has already suggested this, but here goes: Low roll: Perhaps one or two moments of flirting if you really work for it, but otherwise none of the companions are romantically interested in your character, but perhaps in each other. Medium roll: A random companion (assuming their sexual orientation permits them, but not taking the PCs orientation into account) can be romanced, if you play your cards right. High roll: Potential for a love triangle involving two companions (with the same orientation limitations as above), again only if you play your cards right, but absolutely no threesomes. Of course, this could result in instances in which your male character's only chance is with the bisexual male wizard companion, so your character is either into that, or better luck on your next playthrough. Personally I would still likely end up ignoring the romance options, but this just seems more interesting than choosing from the same group of companions who will be interested on every playthrough no matter who the PC is. This is just conjecture, and as for Project Eternity specifically I'm content with romances playing a minimal role as I have said before.
  12. mcmanusaur
    There are certainly enough people here for whom what you said does apply, but I guess it should be said that theoretically the core narrative of RPGs should achieve the things you are looking for. However, I do believe that allowing the player to create their own narrative (so to speak) by granting freedom and interactivity can add a lot to this dimension, which is why I tend to lobby for a less linear and more holistic experience. I'm not disagreeing with you, but as I imply above, I could see the same argument being made in reverse, in that the narrative- if you manage to immerse yourself sufficiently- should theoretically involve all of the emotional turbulence and personal growth that some believe to require the inclusion of romances. I'm not saying that I believe that entirely, but I could understand someone making that point, and there are arguments both ways about how romances might enhance or obstruct narrative.
  13. mcmanusaur
    But you got the memo about how all RPGs should focus heavily (or exclusively) on combat for no other reason than "that's what other games have done", I assume? There have been games who adopt a shallow version of the "life simulator" approach, and while they're generally very imperfect I don't think it's a case of them betraying the ideals of the RPG genre, as the traditionalists on this forum would have you believe. I personally would like to see cRPGs take a more holistic approach, which makes it difficult for me to say "no" to romances completely. However, in my experience the implementation of romances leaves much to be desired; it often constitutes another mechanic revolving exclusively around the player character, and these are a big RPG pet peeve of mine. I'd actually be quite content with seeing a few of the companions develop romantic interest in each other for a change- rather than sitting around and waiting for my character to flirt with them- because often I really don't feel the need to get my character romantically involved.
  14. mcmanusaur
    Pretty much what everybody's thinking about this discussion right now, I reckon. I think there are certain people whose opinions are now known, and there are still plenty of people who didn't voice theirs, so maybe give them some room instead of filling the thread with endless bickering. TBH, macnasaur is a well known troll, who escaped the banhammer for his previous threads by some miraculous occurrence. His threads are not to be taken seriously and are best left ignored - he gets bored, goes silent for some time and then comes back with a new load of BS. It is true that I have occasionally posted in a facetious manner akin to "trolling", but in the long run such instances comprise a small minority of my posts here. That said, "trolling" for its own sake has rarely been my goal in doing so; rather, I have often intended to explore game design in a more satirical manner or parody other threads on the forum, and I consider it just another way for me to communicate my point about Project Eternity, RPGs in general, or the community here. However, given that many posters in this forum- such as yourself, quite evidently- demonstrate the knee-jerk reaction of discrediting everything someone says as soon as they exhibit deadpan humor, which is my opinion a bit absurd, the frequency of me posting in that manner has dropped off significantly, since at the end of the day my main objective in being here is intelligent discussion (which I believe can happen facetiously or seriously, but others may disagree). Thus I beseech you to not bring such irrelevant ad hominem arguments into the discussion, and I assure you that if you continue to do so I will simply not acknowledge you, for at that point you will have become the "troll".
  15. mcmanusaur
    I don't dispute that but I'm still curious about the evidence for the claims that combat is the integral part of an IE game. Sure, combat features prominently in most of the games (mostly due to the fact that other mechanics aren't well developed), but saying that the presentation and controls and everything else are tailored to tactical combat is another matter entirely.
  16. mcmanusaur
    But isn't the ruleset one of the greatest determinants of how a game "plays"? How else would you define "how it plays"? Just based on the inclusion of features present in IE games, and the exclusion of those absent therein?
  17. mcmanusaur
    I was never sure what the "crafting skill" represented, whether this was equivalent to smithing and armor/weapon maintenance, or some sort of general mechanic... but I guess now that it's been removed it doesn't matter. I didn't like the idea of a skill called "crafting" but I still don't know enough about how it would have worked to be able to tell whether I'll miss it or not.
  18. mcmanusaur
    In my opinion, there should either be a consistent system with a relatively equal number of specializations to choose from for each class, or they should just make the classes specialized enough that there's no need for sub-classes.
  19. mcmanusaur
    Nope. Last time I checked it out RPGCodex just looked like a place where people obsess over Bioware and flame each other over who's been on the forum the longest, and where discussion of theory is very limited. I think that in the interest of the discussion having a chance to move forward, we might just leave it at "other people have a few reasons why they think regional pricing could be in the game, but Sacred_Path doesn't see any of those as valid" rather than continue arguing when you clearly insisting on framing the question very differently. Here you go completely misrepresenting the essence of this suggestion YET AGAIN... No one has asked for 200% costs, and in the end of the day the goal is for the player to think to his/her self: "Hey, the local price of stuff sort of makes intuitive sense based on geography. It's kinda cool that the setting takes such steps for the sake of immersion. It doesn't revolutionize the nature of the game, but it's a nice touch."
  20. mcmanusaur
    I'm not going to say I disagree with this, but I would be curious of examples demonstrating that this is the case.
  21. mcmanusaur
    My sources tell me it's either that or "loafer chauffeur", so take your pick. It's just a title after all, but I sort of see where you're coming from.
  22. mcmanusaur
    Note how nowhere in this thread have I said anything about wanting anything other than the usual amount of money, which neither qualifies as "out of money and likely to get stuck" or as "flooded with gold". But of course you would again pigeonhole my argument into one or both extremes; I'm not sure what else I expected honestly.
  23. mcmanusaur
    I'm out until then.
  24. mcmanusaur
    It's justified in the same manner as any other mechanic that might add to immersion; either people want it (because they want more immersion) or they don't (because they're more concerned about gamism or something silly like that). I would assume the fact that geography doesn't work in a linear manner is a matter of immersion that 95% of us can agree on. 1. I never claimed that, and I even clarified in my last post that you were misinterpreting what I said, which is- for the third time- that regional pricing has the same general effect (i.e. creating immersion) as many other mechanics, and that many of your arguments against it also apply to those other mechanics. And yet, you still claim that's what I'm arguing! I guess that makes you the idiot here, hmm? If one mechanic worked exactly like another mechanic, they would be the same mechanic, so no, that's not what I'm arguing. Now thank you for your valuable contribution to the conversation. 2. I told you where to find your examples already. 3. Yes, religion is irrelevant to a discussion on regional pricing. Or would you like to waste more of my time by contesting this? Irritated counter-suggestion: L2Logic
  25. mcmanusaur
    I don't see why you couldn't still have multiple starting locations; did the player arrive by intently sailing into the province's main port town via city A, or did they instead shipwreck while en route to B and wash ashore at C by accident? Did they move by land along a safe and well-traveled road from place X, or venture across a perilous frontier region (i.e. desert, tundra, etc.) from region Y? Did they arrive while in the captivity of slave traders, fleeing a bounty due to prior criminal activities, or on their own accord hoping for better living conditions? I still think that there are a lot of possibilities there, without reducing the character's narrative viability further.
×
×
  • Create New...