Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jerky33

  1. Yes, that's the largest issue. How about you just not award any exp for killing those specific enemies after the quest is completed? And maybe no loot can be dropped from them either, not sure about that one. Been saying this for 3 weeks.. *sigh* I mean, it's such a logical solution... maybe too logical?
  2. Yes, that's the largest issue. How about you just not award any exp for killing those specific enemies after the quest is completed? And maybe no loot can be dropped from them either, not sure about that one.
  3. I still don't understand why you can't award higher exp for solving quests peacefully. Is it because you can do it peacefully, then kill the bad guys anyway? I'm sure there is a solution to that problem that doesn't include taking out all combat experience.
  4. You are pro-quest exp, and I'm pro-enemy exp and the game will have only quest experience so that's that. Like I said, if it's done well, I probably won't notice or care. Regardless of whether or not enemies give experience, I would prefer to have areas be more like Baldur's Gate 1. More nonlinear, more open, more realistic in terms of encounter density (which is to say, not very dense). I would also prefer if areas didn't unlock only if you had quests associated with them like Baldur's Gate 2 did. I liked what I saw in those screenshots from Rezzed, so it looks like they're on the right path.
  5. How is that any worse than being able to become better at diplomasy or picking locks by cleaving goblins? Combat XP has also the same problem. I agree with you. I think that the Elder Scrolls does a decent job of increasing skills by performing said skills rather than arbitrary experience levels. This is a very high level issue with computer RPGs, and obviously the ES system is not going to be used here. It just feels to me that reducing the potential sources of experience can potentially hamper motivation, but it's all about the execution. If they do it well, I don't think anyone will notice/care.
  6. The point I was specifically referring to was the fact that people become better at what they do by actually doing that thing, not doing something else. A fighter will still get experience and become a better fighter for doing a quest that has no combat, and will not receive any experience for actually fighting.
  7. I'm not sure I understand the motivation for removing experience for killing enemies. Is it just because of the grinding aspect to over-level? Because that's a choice that every player can make for themselves. If you don't want to grind to become too powerful for the content, then you don't have to do that. I only did it once in Baldur's Gate 1 out of all my playthroughs, and I wouldn't do it again. And AGX's explanation of a fighter increasing his skill is something else that I have been thinking about. People on here talk about preventing PE from being "gamey", but having experience for only questing is probably more gamey than the other option.
  8. Yeah, this is a big reason why I don't like the idea of no experience for killing enemies. It really discourages exploring every inch of a map for encounters.
  9. In order to foster a sense of exploration, you can't have an encounter around every corner. I think you still need to leave a good chunk of an outdoor map free of threat in order to cultivate a sense of drama. Otherwise it just degenerates into an action game. I agree with this. You can't just have areas packed with stuff, it's just too much. Encounters should be interesting and fun to discover, if areas were packed, it would just get tiresome to explore through everything in every area.
  10. Jokes are fine, but it all depends on the audience. You don't go in front of a gay community and make gay jokes, then say "relax guys, it's just a joke!" You might not realize it, but something you consider a joke is not a joke to other people. Sure, I make racist jokes a lot, but only with my friends, who also make jokes like that and know that they are only jokes. I never make jokes like that outside of that group of friends, because people are easily offended. I don't feel like I'm "walking on eggshells my whole life". Is it really that vital to your life that you make jokes like that in front of people who would be offended by them? All I'm saying is that just because you think one way, it doesn't mean that everyone else does too. You might know what your purpose is for telling a joke, but other people can't read your mind, and therefore don't know what your intention is. Sure, some people may understand it's a joke, but some people might not. They might think you are pretending it's a joke, just so that you can say something bad about them without getting in trouble. Is it worth getting in a nice joke at the expense of someone's feelings?
  11. That kind of problem could easily be solved by an option "disable death animation/scene" or something like that. Yeah, it's nice to leave it up to the imagination, but it's also nice to see professional writers come up with a story about it (otherwise, why would we buy books, we could just imagine our own stories instead).
  12. This part is tough, because if you happen to choose a female for your main character, almost all of the dialogue would have to be different to reflect the fact that many people will be biased against you. If it's not different, then it's that familiar scene in video games where your character is the only person in the world that doesn't follow the rules that all other people follow, and it won't feel natural.
  13. Everytime I play an RPG, I always wonder how the story would turn out if my character dies. I doubt this is something that will happen for this game, but I just wanted to know what people thought of this. After you finish your first playthrough (so the story isn't ruined for you in the first playthrough), you unlock a story of what happens when you die. I understand that this would only be meaningful on the first death of the playthrough, then you'd be skipping it for the rest of the game, but it's still something interesting for me. When you die, there would be a narrative or scene or whatever describing what happens in the future following your death. For example, in BG 1, Sarevok wouldn't have you to take him down, so he becomes the most powerful Bhaalspawn (of course there would be more detail than that). Is it just me, or would you like to see something like this someday in a game?
  14. I guess it's difficult to say, because different styles of kung fu center around different things. There are forms of kung fu that are based on evading and deflecting attacks. There is also the "iron shirt" which trains the body to withstand damage. I don't know if shaolin monks used armor or not. Hollywood just exaggerates what is taught in these disciplines. It's not like there is absolutely no quickness and dexterity possessed by monks.
  15. So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively? That's okay. I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?" I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats. If you've read Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon (if not, strongly recommend that you do) then Raseed is a great monk in my mind. Almost everything in the fantasy genre comes from something in reality. The class names are just a way to group types of people to easily play a game. I'd argue that a warrior is TOO general a term, because it doesn't only describe someone who fights in armor and with weapons. A monk in this case (and most cases in RPGs) would also be classified as a warrior. I think the reason most people are hesitant about this character being a monk is because this character seems like a very blunt, straightforward fighter who jumps into the middle of a melee taking hits, whereas real world monks from which most RPG monks were modeled after were not only strong, but agile and quick and able to evade attacks.
  16. This is so strange. It seems that the situations where crafting to avoid a fight would be extremely limited. It wouldn't even make much sense, unless you have already crafted the thing before the encounter. If not, you wouldn't be able to craft something immediately during the encounter, you'd probably have to leave and go to a smith/lab/whatever to create what you need to create, then come back to the group, who is still there waiting for you. How would you craft a lever in a dungeon? Just stick a metal rod in the slot (insert dirty joke here)?
  17. Just as in sports nowadays, I'm guessing that they would do something to flatten out their chest when preparing to battle. So I'm guessing they would be able to wear standard armor.
  18. Are you implying that people simply look at things from different angles, harbour deep-seated grudges for no good reason, hype things on ground of weird subjective preferences, and like to randomly bash other people's preferences because they have nothing better to do? Surely not on the internet. One interesting thing in that thread: "a masterpiece is something endlessly repeatable and endlessly enjoyable." That's hyperbole, but I'd say that what I said about succeeding on different levels, is what makes "masterpieces" potentially more endearing in the long run than others. BG2 has good replay value because it does a lot of things right, and you can find something new to enjoy for a long time. It would be interesting to hear how many times PrimeJunta has played through PS:T (and did you do it with a low WIS, low INT, low CHA fighter?). I don't know, I guess the point is that that is your definition of a masterpiece. I'm more in agreement with the person who wrote: "I don’t think there is such a thing as a masterpiece. At least not in a universal sense. Everything boils down to personal taste. To some people one film or another may be a masterpiece, but to others it’s an overrated dogpile. Does that mean it’s any more or less a film because of a difference of opinions? I don’t have an answer to that. That way lies madness. I try to avoid using words like masterpiece to describe movies I love. I love them for so many different reasons trying to rationalize that appreciation by seeing if it meets a list of criteria, subjective criteria, doesn’t change the fact that I loved it. I think that’s all that really matters." This quote seems to exactly describe the dissonance between you and Prime.
  19. I don't understand why it needs so much discussion that, to one person, something is a masterpiece, and to another, it isn't. Just like I don't get why Jackson Pollock is such a great artist, but people think his pieces are masterpieces. There is no "criteria" for something being a masterpiece. Either people feel that it is, or people feel that it isn't. The way that a game, or any type of media, makes you FEEL is what makes it a masterpiece, not a set of guidelines that you check off. EDIT: Just for fun, I googled "how to determine if something is a masterpiece" and I found the following discussion (it's about movies, but still pretty interesting): http://mubi.com/topics/how-do-you-know-that-something-is-a-masterpiece Maybe you guys should try to agree to what a masterpiece means first before getting into a 10-page discussion where you are basically talking past each other (although, I have to admit, it was a pretty fun read).
  20. Pointing to Tides of Numenera is not concrete evidence that people who enjoyed Planescape would back it. Torment: Numenera *already* looks a hell of a lot better then Planescape was. I'm glad to see some defenders of BG1, I was surprised to see so many people in this thread dislike it so much. Obviously people have different tastes and requirements for what is enjoyable in a cRPG. I for one loved Baldur's Gate 1, and the adventurous feeling I got from it was far greater than what I got from Baldur's Gate 2, even if the sequel had a better story and NPC interaction. Speaking of which, that was another major factor in BG 1 and 2 that is getting overlooked, and what made them stand out among the other RPGs of their time. You actually felt like your companions cared about you and what you were doing, and had their own agendas (and weren't afraid of letting you know what they were).
  21. Ahhh that Cloakwood Forest song is beautiful... I liked the music in BG 1 better than BG 2. The OP was brave to bash BG in this forum, but it just proves that all people have different tastes.
  22. I guess Baldur's Gate was one of those games you had to play when it came out. At that time, it blew every other cRPG out of the water. It was an amazing game. Like the others before me, I couldn't agree with a single one of your points about the game. I loved the music, I loved the atmosphere, I loved the humor. I think that I even prefer BG1 to BG2 (very slightly). The exploration was a big factor for me, and it was lacking in BG2.
  23. Yes!!! Minotaurs! I love minotaurs. Also, centaurs, gargoyles, giants, cyclopes, harpies, hydras, manticores. Can you tell I like Greek mythology?
  24. I'm opposed to them being unbeatable, because I feel that it would be an arbitrary limit slapped on. I have no qualms with them being extremely powerful and difficult to defeat, but no invincibility please. Firstly, I didn't say they would be invincible, just that it would take an army with siege weapons perhaps to defeat them. I don't know how powerful spells are in PE, but unless there are superpowerful spells, then it would be almost impossible to defeat them with only a handful of people. Also, it's not an arbitrary limit, some things are not physically possible, and some things are. They can be beat if humans have the numbers and planning. Perhaps you can lead an attack on a dragon in the game with a small army at your disposal.
  • Create New...