Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Gumbercules

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    234

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Gumbercules

  1. Gumbercules
    I just wanted to add that I really like this idea as a compromise that keeps some of the strengths of the old system as well as your proposed changes.
  2. Gumbercules
    Does anybody have any thoughts on my suggestion to limit the amount of misses that can happen in a row? Reading the formspring, it seems to me that one of Josh's main objections is a situation where the RNG gives you a big long run of misses in a row. In a tabletop RPG, the DM might be able to fudge the numbers from behind his screen when something like that happens. In a computer RPG, you could sort of mimic this by either limiting the number of times in a row that any character or enemy can completely dodge an attack, or the number of times in a row that a character or enemy can miss an attack. The threshold can differ depending on stats and level.
  3. Gumbercules
    I'm not sure if I like the idea of attacks always doing at least some damage, but I have neither the information about this particular game nor the knowledge in general to state anything too vehemently. It seems especially weird for ranged attacks, since one of the hallmarks of fantasy is the enemy troopers who can't hit the side of a barn. I do like the idea of having misses still cause some amount stamina damage but no health damage, as Lephys said. Also, maybe the damage doesn't have to occur for every miss. Instead, have the game track what the RNG is doing, and if it creates too many misses in a row, have it break things up by starting to deal partial damage. That way, you avoid the frustration of too much randomness but still retain some and keep some flavor as well.
  4. Gumbercules
    Although I admit my limited mouse click comparison veered toward reducto ad absurdum, I wasn't trying to obfuscate anything. I'm just saying that when I originally read your idea, my monocle popped out and I spit tea all over my monitor. It really did seem like a weird and bothersome suggestion, and you haven't yet convinced me (or anyone else, it seems, although the sample size is admittedly small) of the idea's worth. I'm still having trouble figuring out how being able to pause at any time gives a clear advantage over a turn-based setup, so can you walk me through that? I mean, once you've given orders to all of your party members, pausing doesn't really help you anymore until they've carried out those orders. So isn't that in effect a turn in a turn-based game, except everything is happening simultaneously including enemy actions? I'd understand your point if pausing more frequently meant your party could perform more actions, but it doesn't. There comes a point where there's simply nothing left to do in a pause, and if the need to babysit the party is eliminated, that point comes sooner and lasts longer than it otherwise would. Well that would be a lot more work, so given the fact that the IE games didn't limit pauses and the developers have never mentioned the idea and so far everyone in this thread that has commented on it has disagreed, I think you probably need to explain it better if you want it to have a chance. Good luck!
  5. Gumbercules
    Regarding line of sight and black areas, I would like for the game to have the black areas, but for their removal to be based on something closer to real-life sight. So for example, rooms you haven't explored yet are first completely black, but as soon as you enter them the entire room is revealed, unless there is something specifically blocking part of the room from view. For outdoor areas, black areas can be revealed through a standard IE-style radius, but make the radius much larger.
  6. Gumbercules
    I didn't vote because my answer is somewhere between options 1 and 2. I think the ideal balance is enough detail to simulate real-life differences while not making such a huge range of variables as to induce decision fatigue/paralysis. I'd be OK with just DPS plus crushing/piercing/slashing, but if they do something like what you're suggesting and it playtests well, then that's even better.
  7. Gumbercules
    I disagree that there need to be boundaries on resources of all kinds, and so do you probably. Should the number of mouse clicks you can make be limited? How about the number of times you get to read the description of what an item or ability does? I'm guessing you would find that kind of thing ridiculous, in which case you now know how I feel about limiting pauses. I would also like to introduce as evidence the entire genre of turn-based RPGs and strategy games, which basically consist of nothing but pauses, yet can still be plenty challenging. When you end up with a situation where you have to issue orders to six separate characters in rapid succession (if, for example, all of their previous abilities expire at near the same time), then yes, that would mostly be "twitchy" gameplay, since it mainly depends on clicking the right places fast enough. And that's fine for ARPGs and RTS games but there's a reason you only typically control one character in the former and a bunch of units with no or limited abilities and equipment in the latter. Not every game has to make use of every skill. If you eliminate the need to pause constantly, then pausing becomes merely a matter of preference. Like to pause rarely? OK! Like to pause a lot? Go nuts! And speaking of giving people options, I would be fine with Obsidian, in addition to Expert mode and Ironman mode etc., adding a checkbox for Limited Pause mode if they feel like it. I just wouldn't want to use it and I don't expect it to catch on in these types of games.
  8. Gumbercules
    I'm guessing it's because you feel it would lead to degenerate gameplay? I don't disagree that a system that requires or rewards constantly pausing to babysit all 6 members of your party is a bad one, but your solution doesn't actually fix the need to pause constantly, if there even is such a need, it just limits the ability to do so. That's a recipe for unnecessary frustration. There are much, much better ways of fixing this problem, some of which the developers have already mentioned: Improve AI and pathfinding so that players don't have to constantly worry that party members will get stuck somewhere, wander off to fight a clearly low-priority enemy, or waste a spell or ability unnecessarily. Allow players to choose the ratio of active to passive abilities for each party member, so that not every one of them has tons of fiddly abilities unless that's what the player wants. This was even mentioned in the update! Allow players to queue up multiple moves, attacks, and abilities in advance. Allow players to toggle a wide variety of automatic pause conditions, such as pausing whenever a party member has killed an enemy and needs a new target (and have seperate toggles for each party member). If all of this is implemented and the player is still pausing every two seconds despite disliking it, at that point it becomes a problem for a therapist to solve, not the game designers.
  9. Gumbercules
    Great article. If Obsidian were to revamp the cRPG approach to combat animations, they would need to start early on in the process (like...now!) and put a lot of effort into solving all of the new problems that would surely pop up. This might be one of those things where we need some shorter, more narrowly focused games to solve the problem first, then big, sprawling RPGs can eventually include those advances.
  10. Gumbercules
    There already is a cost: if you pause the game too often, you'll be wasting real-life time that you don't need to waste, and you'll have a duller, less fun time than if you only pause when necessary. Unless of course you actually enjoy pausing every two seconds, in which case why should anyone stop you?
  11. Gumbercules
    I'm perfectly fine with the abstracted, infinite capacity way that Obsidian is going to deal with the stash. However, I like the idea of having beasts of burden mostly as a cosmetic/thematic thing as well as an indicator of when the party can camp and access the stash as you said. It mostly depends on how big a hassle it is to implement. For instance, if you go from a no-camping area to a camping area without any sort of loading screen or other break, does the beast just apparate out of thin air? Does the game load it for you ahead of time so that you find it tied up and grazing while it waits for you? What if this is a new area that you hadn't seen before? Did the beast get there ahead of you and tie itself up? (I actually wouldn't necessarily mind accepting the beast of burden as just a visual indicator and suspending disbelief in that last example, but other people might) Even if they don't include beasts of burden that serve the game mechanically in any way, I hope we still at least see them in the game in a cosmetic sense. Horses, mules, oxen, and the various domestic and farm animals would have been extremely important in the Middle Ages, so it always feels weird when RPGs skimp on featuring them in the background.
  12. Gumbercules
    I really liked this update. As long as both extremes and the stuff in between are balanced, the ability to build passive buff-based or active ability-based non-caster party members sounds great. The division between different types of equipment storage sounds convenient yet strategic as well. Put me down as someone who hates the idea of limiting pauses. If it's just an option that I can ignore, fine, but if it's mandatory and tied to the story, yuck!
  13. Gumbercules
    If you already pledged some amount, I believe you'll have the opportunity to upgrade to a boxed version once they get the store up and running. If not, then either Ebay or just hope that there is enough demand that they make more boxed copies.
  14. Gumbercules
    Hi Dimitri. Often, RPGs only have one male and one female body type per race, regardless of whether a character is supposed to be young or old, strong or sickly, fat or thin. Will Project Eternity be able to support a variety of body types, or would that cause too many issues with equipment and animation? A related question: if the world-building required it, would Project Eternity be able to support playable races that have drastically different appearances compared to humans? I realize that there are prefectly legitimate design reasons to have every race draw from the same base, but I'm wondering if there's also a tech constraint or not.
  15. Gumbercules
    You probably would have been better off just describing your idea instead of comparing it to the "Second Wind" mechanic, since some people still seem to be taking it literally rather than metaphorically. Dragon Age: Origins already used this idea once, so it's not like this is some radical change. The main difference would be to have it happen more than once, and against enemies who haven't been made uncharacteristically difficult to defeat.
  16. Gumbercules
    I'm sorry if I offended anyone with the LARP comment. I was referring to a specific Venture Bros. scene in which it was portrayed in a mean-spirited but funny way, and didn't mean to insult LARPers in general. I also think that there should be fat characters in the game, but this particular fat Aumaua wizard looked dissapointing for some reason. In general, all I really know is that something feels slightly off about most of the concept art, and it's hard to pinpoint what because it's not strictly bad per se, it just could be better. And usually I'd just dismiss it as being normal for concept art to feel that way, but IMO many of Obsidian's finished games like NWN 2, Alpha Protocol, and Dungeon Seige 3 have similar problems.
  17. Gumbercules
    The warning could still be disguised as flavor text. For example, If the enemies are slavers, they could shout stuff like, "Keep the big one alive, he'll make a great slave!" If they're bandits, they could say, "What a fine ransom you'll fetch!" Or if you want to maintain surprise, the indicator could occur after the player loses the fight, as long as it happens right away so that people don't just reload. Instead of the enemies just standing around while the player party slumps to the ground, have them immediately comment on the situation. Another issue to explore is: how do you balance these fights compared to normal, to-the-death fights? Is it enough to keep them the same difficulty, or should they be tougher so that more people get to see the post-capture scenes. And if they're tougher, how is that justified from a story perspective (or does it need to be justified)? In Dragon Age: Origins there's a fight against a character who captures you when you lose that's tougher than the final boss fight, which makes you wonder why not just send that character to fight the boss if they're so tough!
  18. Gumbercules
    Do you mean for this to be a feature throughout the entire game, or just for certain carefully designed scenarios? If they have to design something like this for every single fight, it would amount to a lot of extra work, plus it would lessen the threat of death. If it's just for a few specific encounters where the enemy makes it clear that they want to capture and not kill your party, then it could be a great idea. But you would have to quickly establish that the party is being captured and not killed so that the player doesn't just reload the game. Edit: Ok you clarified that it's an occasional thing. In that case I like the idea as long as the player is made aware that the rules have changed compared to a normal fight.
  19. Gumbercules
    Agreed! Edair would look much better as a wobbly sludge monster
  20. Gumbercules
    A limited number of enemy creatures and races can work if they make sure to not also limit the amount of combat scenarios. The Dragon Age games had limited bestiaries, but that wasn't why combat would grow boring. It would grow boring because that limited bestiary would almost always attack in the same way. So if you limit the number of species of opponents the player will face, don't also limit the number of attacks, abilities, and enemy party compositions.
  21. Gumbercules
    Alright, I concede that if they really do a good job of tying Edair's seeming blandness into his story and if all the other characters end up looking more interesting and specific, it could work nicely. Shifting the topic a bit, what modern games, if any, should they be aiming for the in-game characters to look like? I admit that part of the reason I've been down on the concept art is because I've been comparing it to what games like Dark Souls and The Witcher 2 have accomplished, but those are 3rd-person games that can and should be much more detailed. I think that DOTA 2, although obviously much more cartoonish, silly, and pandering than what Obsidian's aiming for, does a lot of good work in terms of distinct silhouettes, color schemes, and areas of rest and detail. See their character art guide: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2CharacterArtGuide.pdf
  22. Gumbercules
    Off the top of my head, they could make him: Scruffy and dirty, like Aragorn. Posh and well dressed, but not flamboyant necessarily. So we'd be able to tell that he's upper class, but he doesn't go out of his way to draw attention to it. Someone wearing a mix of styles from various cultures, indicating that he travels around a lot and tries to at least partially blend in anywhere he goes. Wearing common soldier's attire that's functional but not flashy. Wearing common soldier's attire that is flashy, because maybe that's how soldiers are in the Dyrwood. Right now, like many of the PE designs, I can feel phantom traces of some of those ideas, but I think that they would be more interesting looking if they were more pronounced. We pretty much know that Obsidian will do a great job writing his character, and all the others. We can also assume the overal story and the gameplay mechanics will be ambitious and memorable. Those are all things that Obsidian has a reputation for being great at. I would say that the things that they have a poor reputation for are bug-ridden games and ugly or unmemorable designs (at least since NWN2). They seem to be improving as far as bugs go, if Dungeon Seige 3 is anything to go by, plus it's way too early to worry about bugs. So all that's left to worry about is the art. I was happy to back the Kickstarter, and I'll gladly play the game even if the characters end up being stick figures, but if they look great then that's even better. But it still shows that you can have scruffy and dirty plus intelligent. Even when he was the mysterious Strider, it's not like he was rude or belligerent. And Edair doesn't have to reveal himself as the heir to a kingdom to still have an interesting secret.
  23. Gumbercules
    Well, if we take a look at Aragorn up until Return of the King, he could probably fit the profile of someone who's unassuming and keeps a low profile. And although he starts out as more of a Ranger archetype, by The Two Towers he could definitely be represented by a Fighter. So there you have a Fighter who is intelligent, not likely to get into drunken brawls, who has hidden secrets that will eventually be revealed, and who is reluctant to boss others around unless it's important. The thing is, most of the time Aragorn has lank, greasy hair, wears old, patched clothing, and looks like he shaves by scraping a rock against his face. Those are the interesting details that make his design memorable compared to Edair. Edair doesn't necessarily need to have those specific details, but he should still have something memorable about his appearance. I've been thinking about how much the initial designs for the companions even matter in the first place, since we'll be able to change their clothing, armor, and weapons later anyway. I think it actually still matters a great deal. First of all, because it's how we'll be introduced to the characters, so a good design makes for a good first impression. Also, I would love it if Obsidian could find a way to incorporate elements of a companion's initial appearance into any change in clothing or armor. So for example, anything that Aloth wears would be made to look slightly darker and more sinister; Cadegund's armor always incorporates symbols of her faith and hides symbols of other faiths; Sagani always has some tribal furs or jewelry on her clothing.
  24. Gumbercules
    Good point. So is the answer then to minimize randomness and risk, or to just ignore people who save scum and let them play a single player game however they want? What about keeping the idea I proposed on the previous page, but making it an option that you check or uncheck the same as any other optional setting? There's a difference between saying, "Ok, I'm not going to abuse saves. I'll take whatever the game throws at me instead of reloading," and then letting the game enforce that automatically versus having to do it yourself and being faced with temptation every time.
  25. Gumbercules
    Good replies, everyone. I'm kind of coming around on the idea of Aumaua (and Orlans I guess) who are human-based. It depends on how the world at large and the bestiary is constructed. If they go for an approach similar to D&D, Warcraft, China Mieville's Bas Lag novels, where there are tons of sentient, sapient races everywhere you look and many of them look very little like humans, then I would prefer the Aumaua and Orlans look quite different. If it's more like Dragon Age, where as far as we know there are only the three quite similar playable races plus the Qunari/kossith, then it makes sense to think of them as having a common ancestor. So in addition to Homo sapiens we would have Homo aumaua and Homo orlani all descended from the same prehistoric ape. Sacred_path, I was also thinking about making Edair scruffier and more rugged. It depends on what they really mean by "unassuming man who keeps a low profile." It could mean that he just dresses the way that any common soldier in the world would. In which case I would suggest that they make the common soldier look at least a little more interesting (there were plenty of cool designs from the late medieval and early modern eras). It could also mean that he's deliberately dressing less flamboyantly than the common soldier, kind of like how Aragorn's costume was humbler and less ornate than all but the poorest Rohan or Gondor soldier, but in that case they should design him to be rougher and dirtier, just like Aragorn was.
×
×
  • Create New...