marelooke
-
Posts
1508 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by marelooke
-
-
And I agree, rewards shouldn't be tied to some artificial morality system, although purely based om difficulty isn't always right either. If it makes sense that those you helped reward you with something very valuable, ok fine, but dont give out artifacts like candy, just because the quest required a bit more effort to complete.
XP is very valuably I'd think. Something like (thinking really black-white for a second, just go with it, okay?) the good guy goes to hell and back, so gets loads of XP (cause he went through loads of effort) while getting relatively small rewards from the questgiver; while the bad guy just murders the questgiver and takes his stuff so he gets more gold and items but much less XP.
That said, the more grey the moral choices are the better, I think KotOR2 made an interesting attempt in that direction.
Wouldn't an evil guy generally not want to be an adventurer since that's a rather ****ty profession. Hitman, mercenary, enforcer, bounty hunter; those are all more likely ways of life for someone with the kind of skill set an adventurer would possess.
Since we're talking about what a "real" bad guy would do and all.
That's where the story comes in I'd think
-
I got Divinity 2 in a Steam sale, then somehow ended up on the founder of Larian Studio's blog. It's a company that obviously does what they do because they love doing what they do, they've been through some seriously rough times it seems and from what I've read it's half a miracle they're still around.
I never actually played Divine Divinity, it's bug ridden reputation always put me off, but that apparently is mostly a thing of the past as it seems these guys keep on supporting their games well after release (sounds like a certain company that tends to bring out "enhanced editions" of their games...for free even, wth?
). What I had seen of D2 and what I had read about the company made me shell out for the Anthology (them being countrymen sort of helped too I'll admit) and what struck me most is this passage by their founder (literally last sentence of the Preface):We couldn't have come this far if we didn't have a healthy dose of idealism in us, and I hope that will never fade away.This sounds quite like a certain company we know (*hint* the name starts with an "O") and alas, unlike another company we also know (name starts with a "B")
As for the quality of the games, I'm pleasantly surprised by Divinity 2 so far, combat can be quite frustrating at times but overall it's good fun, wouldn't put the stamp "great" on it, but "good" definately. There's some interesting mechanics to the game (giving up XP to read people's minds for one) and flying around as a dragon is great fun (but like the Larian guys I'm a sucker for dragons so ymmv)
-
Since there's a pretty big shortage of modern titles I'm really enjoying (unless I missed something somewhere) I've started going through my backlog (there's some on there that I won't even admit to not having played
).Having some fun being a dragon currently:
Though I'm playing them in reverse order, apparently Divine Divinity is isometric and pretty good now that most of the bugs have been ironed out.
-
Wait, there are people that voted "no"?
I would probably vote "no" if I were to vote, but I won't as it's no for me to decide what people should like (or what Obsidian should make), though "Would you buy AP2?" would be a definite "no". The AP concept was nice, the story and characters no doubt were (it is Obsidian after all). But the gameplay was seriously broken as far as I'm concerned.
I've tried getting into AP numerous times but I just couldn't get past the gameplay issues (and some, imho of course, bad design decisions). In fact, I've never given up on a game this early in (that I can remember anyway) and certainly not one that I KNEW had a good story. But between the clunky controls, the savepoint system, the terrible minigames (I hate them in general and the AP ones were especially bad, though I can't right now recall why. Color based maybe?) and the timed dialogues (this pretty much was a total dealbreaker, unfortunately I didn't know before purchase) it was really hard to find a reason to keep playing.
Maybe I ought to give the game another try but judging by the general reception I doubt much has been fixed since the original release so I dunno.
-
Lol, so true in regards to fallout 3.
Still people are right, Bethesda didn't know what they were doing, you could tell as you played the game. They seem to have been trying to get better with the DLCs (Zeta no included)
Still doesn't make it a bad game.
I think they'll have a better grasp of plot elements with Fallout 4. They can create interesting characters like Serana in Skyrim, the first real fully fleshed companion they've made.
I never said Fallout 3 was a bad game, but it is a bad Fallout game for reasons already mentioned.
I've never encountered that companion, and of the NPCs I encountered in Skyrim were hollow shells compared to hundreds of other RPGs. So they were able to create one NPC that actually had some depth to it? Excuse me if I don't break out in applause.
Serana was added in the Dawnguard DLC (who's main story isn't exactly stellar even though it does contain interesting tidbits). Same as Katria. They are probably the two most interesting NPCs in Skyrim. They're nowhere near the level of a Viconia or Kreia (or insert some of your other favourite NPCs here) but they're pretty good for a Bethesda game (insofar I know, Oblivion, F3 and Skyrim are the only ones I've played). While they lack the depth I'd like you can actually care about them. If they keep iterating on this they might actually start creating characters that have a soul. That is, once they manage to upgrade their AI to a level that makes them actually useful to have around (or at least not a total hindrance).
I have mixed feelings about F3/NV, I like the F3 *world* better, the feeling when you enter some ruin that it has history, hell, history is all over the place. I sort of missed that feeling in NV, of course the setting is a big part of it, the capital wasteland is still at a standstill while New Vegas has actually started rebuilding a new world. On the other hand the characters in NV were loads better as were the quests.
All imho, of course.
-
Wizard. I always start out as one (if they're an option). How long I'll stick with him depends on how well they're done though. In BG2 I didn't really play anything but a Wizard, in Skyrim I didn't last very long as pure caster on the other hand.
-
I usually reload,unless it's someone I'd want dead or really don't care much about (I remember Viconia thwapping Keldorn right after I obtained Carsomyr and I went "Meh, didn't like that git anyway").
Usually I do sort of get attached to my party members, at least if they're properly fleshed out. I mean, really, Minsc dies. You wouldn't reload...? I thought so
Being able to ressurrect dead party members is rather nice, for me it often created the challenge of completing fights without anyone dying (or, even worse when sticking to BG series references: getting Imprisoned). But if I don't ressurrect them they should stay dead, none of that KotOR-style nonsense where they cheerfully get up again after battle.
What are you playing now?
in Computer and Console
Posted
Jedi Knight starts out really weak imho, with very "petty" dark side choices (and the light side wasn't much better) gave up on that pretty quickly. Inquisitor was good fun though, the amount of stupid evil wasn't even that excessive. Agent starts out strong but I've heard complaints about the later parts.
As for myself, managed to finally pick up NV again and finished Old World Blues. Them scorpions, I still don't have a proper tactic for them (unless spamming stimpacks and abusing the AI getting stuck counts as a "tactic"), they don't seem to have a really weak spot that I can hit reliably and there's only so many pulse grenades I had access to...