Jump to content

Ffordesoon

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ffordesoon

  1. It's not a bad interview, I should clarify that. It is, in fact, a very good interview. It's just not any different from a good interview you'd read on any other site. That's all.
  2. I don't know what you're talking about. It's fine, but it's not all that different from any other interview I've read on the pro sites. I swear, this weird antagonism people have towards something that's ultimately just another branch of entertainment journalism...
  3. Why wouldn't it only be a non-combat skill? That's kind of what stealth is, isn't it? I mean, I guess there's Batman-style "combat stealth," but he still has to come out of the shadows and attack for a second at some point, and it's not like the rest of the Justice League is being equally sneaky, is it? Maybe there's a way for Rogues to disengage and hide for a little bit, but in general, once your party's seen, it should probably stay that way, no?
  4. Wait wait wait... If a feature is a *good* feature, why would one want to only use it sparingly? No feature is inherently "good," just as no feature is inherently "bad." It's all in the execution.
  5. If the level scaling has no discernible effect on gameplay that I can intuit on my own, it's good level scaling. BG2 clearly has good level scaling, since many people are convinced it doesn't have any scaling to this day. Good level scaling means the game is an excellent liar, and that's all we really want out of our games (and our entertainment in general): to be lied to so convincingly that we believe it. It's only when level scaling betrays itself that it's bad. Because then the game is a bad liar. Latter-day Elder Scrolls games are pretty lousy liars, because everything is dependen
  6. I can't speak for Infinitron, but I'm not sure I understand what "designing an experience" means in this context. That's all video games are: designed experiences. Galaga is designed to be experienced. That's kind of where the whole "interactivity" bit comes into play.
  7. This whole thread is funny to me, as someone who's watched Wasteland 2's UI evolve tremendously over the past couple of months. Every team doesn't have the same exact process, of course, but placeholder assets can stay for a long damn time. I seriously doubt this UI will make it into the final game.
  8. I doubt it. Ragdoll physics practically require expensive middleware and are rarely implemented well. Plus, they lend a feeling of weightlessness to combat that only works if you want the player to feel powerful with every single kill. That works for Diablo 3, but not so much for a successor to the IE games.
  9. I'm as big a fan as you're likely to find on this forum of "action-based skill combat," and I nearly laughed out loud at this. I'm not going to call you a troll. You may or may not be one, but I'd rather treat those who hold differing opinions from my own with respect. But I can think of so many games in the same subgenre with better mechanics than either of those. Dark Souls trounces both of them handily, for example.
  10. MReed is likely correct. I expect a level of interaction density comparable to BG2, which is pretty much a midpoint between Diablo and Ultima.
  11. Not strictly on topic but they are still very much aiming for a point between two stools with Inquisition, at least from everything I've read about the combat. Yeah, but there's clearly far less of the WoW influence in there, which is all I care about.
  12. Considering that Dragon Age's combat is the answer to a question no one asked (that question being "What if the people who made Baldur's Gate played so much World of Warcraft that their brains turned to mush, and then they tried to make a single-player version?"), it shouldn't be that hard. Frankly, I'm kind of looking forward to Inquisition because they're clearly trying to do a single-character third-person action thing, at least in part. I'd rather have an unambitious but fun system than the previous games' weird halfassed attempt at full party control.
  13. @Stun: I was expressing an opinion about the absurdity of "Fighter" as the name of a single class in D&D, a game in which many other character classes are basically Fighter class kits. I realize it's an artifact of the Gary 'n' Dave days, but so is "Magic-User," and that isn't a class now that there are Sorcerers and Wizards and whatnot. A simple name change with no change to the mechanics would make the class distinction easier to understand without reducing complexity one iota, and you could keep "Fighter" as a party role, in the same way that "Magic-User" is a party role. The gam
  14. To be honest, I would do away with "Fighter" as a class in itself in a heartbeat. I'd keep the mechanical role, but the name itself is too broad to convey anything about a character. Which one is more descriptive, "Fighter" or "Barbarian"? Which one sounds cooler, "Fighter" or "Kensai"? I'd rather see Fighter elevated to a party role, and the specific class replaced by "Warrior." And yes, I think 4E's party roles were a smart idea. I don't think it's a bad idea to have "metaclasses" which multiple classes can fit into. It's the logical progression of 2E's increased focus on class kits
  15. This seems almost too obvious, but please let us use any additional mouse buttons we may possess as hotkeys. A surprising number of games only detect two or three buttons on a mouse, and it is infuriating. EDIT: Please note that I have had minimal sleep, and may be making this problem up and/or not thinking straight. If this is the case, please be polite when you correct me, thanks.
  16. @Lephys: I'm pretty sure the reason he finds it lame has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with an emotional attachment to The Way It Has Always Been. I'd strongly advise against any attempts to question his perspective if you value your time.
  17. An internal development studio at a publisher isn't the same as a publisher. Publishers, you know, publish. That said, Gromnir is correct, that was what I meant. I misremembered it, sorry. @JadedWolf: Interesting! I didn't know the Fallouts were rush jobs too. I thought it was just Planescape.
  18. couple quibbles on our part. music w/o gameplay is little different than movie soundtrack w/o movie. sure, you lose some context, but not take too much imagination to fill in the blanks. example: icewind dale theme music for kuldahar or targos. the gameplay would be walking 'round map o' kuldahar an targos. yup, kuldahar music woulda' been less appropriate if we were't dealing with a fey environment, but am thinking even w/o wandering around giant tree, one could be impressed by the soule's efforts. *shrug* and as for planescape... planescape music always annoyed us. is not that m
  19. How does the video game industry still exist, then? Or [government of your choice]?
  20. As I understand it, the system avoids the Hawke problem by never disallowing or altering player dialogue on the basis of reputation. It instead alters the response to player dialogue based on previous dialogue choices. So if you're honest for half of the game, and then you have to tell a lie, it's more likely to be believed if you have a reputation for honesty. It also tracks major shifts in reputation a la New Vegas. So (to be overly simplistic about it) if you play a third of the game always picking the benevolent option, and then you suddenly turn on a dime and pick the cruel options
  21. Interesting that you chose baseball to make your point. Baseball is fair because players are considered to be roughly equal in ability. Some players may be worse at certain things, and others may be better at them, but a game between two Major League teams is exciting because the players are considered close enough in ability that either could win if they played the game well enough. Luck is involved, but the reason we call it the "major league" is because it represents the top players in the sport. This is why you don't see MLB players going up against Little League teams, and why steroid
  22. Well a roquelike game named ADOM that I play has both. Rust Monsters who can destroy metallic items (besides artifacts), water and water attacks of creatures can make metallic items rust, fire/ice/acid/thunder attacks also can destroy equipment. There are also creatures that can disarm you or steal your equipment. So this are not a bad ideas. Not for a roguelike, no. Because roguelikes have no story to get invested in, so there's no reason to be angry when your character is permadead. The only objective you're emotionally invested in is beating a complex and borderline unfair system, not
  23. <3 Every time Josh talks, it's like he's describing more and more of one of my ideal RPGs. One thing I seized on in this interview in particular is the idea of reducing "slipperiness." Which I totally support. One of my biggest complaints with all of the IE games is that there are no ways of defending squishy party members from martial attack consistently. There are ways around it, especially if you have a caster with you or you're good at exploiting the AI's threat detection, but because attacks of opportunity and combat maneuvers and such aren't built into the system, it too of
×
×
  • Create New...