Jump to content

MuseBreaks

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About MuseBreaks

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Israel

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. So the bottom line is to use infinity? Like I said I prefer the isometric view of BG2 or Pillars of Eternity. I dislike the Neverwinter engine ...
  2. Hi all. I have participated in the funding of the first game and got a copy via steam. I really like RPG games and am more connected to Baldur's gate 2 and Pillars of eternity styles, as in an isometric view with a beautiful painting landscape, a group of adventurers and lots of text etc. I would like to learn modding for such games, preferably using pillars of eternity system simply because it looks a bit better then the old infinity engine and has cool stuff like the "events". My emphasize is on plot making, I don't really want to touch or change anything else, not the rules, not the models etc. I just want to create a new plot. 1. Is this something I can do with the available resources I have (an access to the 1st game via funding as said) or do I need to buy/download something else? 2. Is there anywhere a guide for beginners for this? 3. Should I start with the infinity engine instead? Thank you
  3. Hello, I pledged for the game very early and was a bit disappointed from the game when it came out. The most important aspect for me is the plot and companions etc. and I found it quite not interesting at the beginning ad least. Now I want to finally give the game another chance but I want to know first who are the most important companions for the plot, which class should I choose plot wise and game wise, especially when taking into consideration the most important npc's that I take with me. Talking about class I really wanted hunter/ranger, but I heard he is the worst class, so I am unsure who to take now. Another question about companions: In BGII I used to take with me Jaheira, Minsc and Yoshimo (which is replaced by Imoen) almost every run (since plot wise you start with them... you share your destiny with them against Irenicus - and I prefer plot and story play like I said so that is the most logical option - this is for you to understand what I mean that plot is most important for me), when the other npc's changed over time after a while (I took the 5th and 6th npc for a while, did their quest, and then dumped them for another, I took Viconia to the underdark ... and all that was done for plot and story reasons: traveling with all companions). If that is possible in Pillars also.. then I would like to know what is the best sequence. I post here cause I don't mind minor spoilers, just want to get advice for best play through story wise. Thanks
  4. I agree 100% percent. The story and setting are dull and uninteresting and are nowhere near Baldur's Gate 2. I hoped for something epic and we got mediocre at best. I will also add that although I do agree with what you said about the language, I think it's only secondary to the overall plot and setting and such. I could have forgiven the language if there was a sense of the epic feeling and interest I had in the Baldur's Gate 2 plot and setting. But there wasn't, so it's all nothing but one big mediocre gray game in terms of plot and setting.
  5. Completely agree. I'm here for the narrative as well so I hope for a good story and a good ending (good as in emotional, not necessarily "good").
  6. It is quite an annoying issue indeed. As many stated, almost every solution to this question is somehow unrealistic and has it's own ups and downs. However I do think the devs should have made a little bit of a different solution: in the form of magical bags that you can put as much stuff as you like in them and they loose their weight in them, and that's it (and it obviously also takes time until you get such begs for each of your companions and yourself, but through the game you will eventually find 1 bag for everyone). or something similar. I guess what they did is similar ^_^
  7. Completely agree, I prefer quality. If they think this is needed and it is possible financially, I don't have a problem with Obsidian postponing the release date in order to finish up what ever needed (though I can't wait already The example of other Infinity games are proving exactly this I think, since they were not polished in many ways, especially from story and plot perspectives, due to pressure of release date and publisher companies (correct me if I am wrong).
  8. Completely agree. It's nice that they care and develop all these different aspects, but some of us want more story and hope that all this does not come at the expense of the story development
  9. Thanks for the update. I've posted a thread that concerns companions and the plot because this is the most important aspect in my opinion in a story driven infinity game. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63340-party-system/ I really hope that you would be able to make the party-companion-mechanism-plot work really good and fluent. First I think each companion should be heavily important to the main plot-arch and / or specifically and emotionally connected to the player somehow, and not some random encounter with the "hey you look interesting let me come along with you" fashion. In each of the infinity games my core party was always consisted of the same members, those members that were closest to the player, while the rest kept changing. For instance in Baldur's Gate 2, I always took with me Imoen, Jaheira, Minsc and Yoshimo in each play through no exception and the reason is because I felt the four/five of us "are in this together" kind of feeling, since we escaped Irenicus' dungeon together. I never had that feeling for the other available companions. The second issue is about swapping and changing companions. If all of them are important to the player and / or the main plot, there should be some kind of mechanism for us to be able to switch companions whenever needed. It should be some kind of party camp or stronghold (similar to the Dragon Age party camp mechanism) but furthermore there should also be realistic situations which force you to change party members during some parts of the game. This could contribute heavily to the reality and the diversity of the game. Companions are real people and they have their own business and the world is also real, so things could go wrong and your party can be split for example against your wishes. It happens in adventures and that's the fun. Companions should betray you (like the Yoshimo case in BG2, which opened an available slot to take Imoen with you in Spellhold), they should be kidnapped, split from you, leave you for a while etc. These kind of situations would allow you to enjoy ALL of the available 8 companions, bond with all of them and complete their story-archs and complete their relativity to the main plot. Also it doesn't necessarily mean you won't see/play them. If your party gets split by an encounter that is connected to the main-plot in a main-plot dungeon (2/3 party members get separated from the main party in a cave for example), you can still make them available to play each time the player goes to sleep for instance (and the explanation would a realistic dream-vision from the player), that way we still play them and follow their plot and their temporary separated journey is also important to drive the main plot and it would be quite cool
  10. I completely agree with Razsius and I'll also add that the fight cutscene in BG2 doesn't necessarily mean you stand and watch the fight, it may simply mean infinity engine limitation, when in reality what happens is that you try to save her but it's too late when you reach the scene. In any case this can easily be changed by changing the cutscene, not by cancelling cutscenes completely. What if every one of them has high Dexterity? So? Are you saying people with high dexterity can't fall? Your point is simply wrong (and no it's not bad writing if from all the companions, the ones with the high dexterity fell, its just irony). What about replayability? What about companions who don't like one another? Streamlining the plot into Final Fantasy rarely does it any good (from the point of a gameplay value, I mean). I've discussed about it before: yes after 1 play when you find out Yoshimo is a traitor, it might hurt the so called replayability from one perspective, HOWEVER from a different perspective: that fact and story twist made (among other features) BG2:SOA such a great game (better then BG1 for example where the companions didn't even talk and you had millions of pointless companions and tons of so called replaybility to "try and mix them up"). If I need to chose I'd choose BG2 any day over BG1. Companions should more then fight and disagree, however you (the player) should always have the option to cool things down and make them focus on the mission. Again I've addressed this issue: I want to see an adventure and an interesting plot that involves all your companions with lots of conflicts and events that would all come to a conclusion in the end. I'm also glad you stated movies. Yes it's a game and we should have choices and they should more then matter, but there's also a plot and the plot is always always much more interesting when things happen and you don't have control over them (it's also much more realistic). And in any good adventure book that involves a group of party members: like the Dragonlance series for example, the adventurers are in conflicts with each other, they get separated, their motivations are uncovered, but they also change, etc. etc. The key is to mix the free choice and the linear plot and make a good game and plot: just like BG2:SOA was.
  11. I think I explained what I want in almost every way possible... - I also think characters should leave when it's logical (though you can perfectly match the "logical leaving" to a situation where you meet a new character so everything would match perfectly). The cutscenes where the protagonist stared at other NPC's moving were actually very few, short and to the point and they motivated the plot, and made it more interesting. I am totally up for more of them. - AND such scenes could work for what I want: if you are in a cave, and there's a ditch, 1 / 2 of your party members can fall to the ditch (but not die) because of a sudden earthquake (it's a dragon cave and the beast moved) and this is the "logical leaving" and a small cutscene where the protagonist can't do anything! As I've said I am looking for an interesting plot, and the ability to travel with all companions, it's more important to me then: "Assemble a rouge, warrior, mage and priest, while playing a super cool barbarian/monk multi class (and a super special sub-race) and kick lot's of monsters in the ass pointless game".
  12. By the way, if we are already on this issue, then the secondary discussion should be (again) about the party members themselves and their part and role in the game. See I don't want that available party members would be some strangers that we meet and all of a sudden decide to travel with them out of the blue. I want each of them to be very important and connected to the main plot or the player somehow, or to special circumstances that bring people together like being in a dungeon or other original methods. This is important because again, I don't assemble a party in role playing games while taking major consideration to the "well rounding". I do take consideration of that, but only via a minor proportion. The most important aspect for me in party members are how they are connected to me and the plot. In each of the Bioware game for example (and I state them because I really love the emphasize and depths they put on party members and plot) then I always travel with such important party members and if we take the Baldur's gate series as the relevant infinity engine example then as I stated before, in shadows of Amn I always took with me Jaheira, Minsc, Yoshimo and Imoen: Cause I felt they are the most close to me since we all kind of started together in Irenicus' dungeon. It was "us" against "the world" and they each had a reason to pursue Irenicus and save Imoen. Later when I got a chance to play the first BG game (cause I played the 2nd first) I obviously took with me Imoen, Jaheira with khalid and Minsc with Dynaheir, cause that was the "Canon" option (if I wouldn't have known that for example, I wouldn't have necessarily taken Minsc and Dynaheir in BG1 since they had no special connection to the player in the first game). It doesn't mean I don't want to know other party members, I do, and in BG2 for example I traveled and swapped the available slots all the time and each playthrough, that's just how I play "role-playing", it's not only about the "classes" there is a role for the player via a plot and story and THAT aspect is more important to me. P.S. The way to do it, is avoiding the fatal "good" vs. "evil" aspects, and make a grey world with a mature plot, like the GRRM song of ice and fire series, or the conflicted party in the "dragonlance" series, which had interesting and grey characters like Reistlin. That way it would be logical to meet and travel with ALL available party members at some point in the game, while at the end we and the plot and the conflicts would come to a final conclusion. That's why I want the developers to somehow "force" upon us the option to meet and travel with all available party members (while still leaving the option to travel most of the time with 1 party for who ever prefers it like Tsuga C)
  13. No, it came to the exact point and discussion I wanted it to come to. Tsuga C finally started to discuss about what I put my emphasize on from the beginning and the reason I started this thread. He prefers to assemble 1 party and stick with it all the game and focus on well rounding between the classes, and just like Lephys said, he would be very upset to find out that his rouge that he put a lot of time and energy into for example is a traitor that has to leave him after all the effort he put into him (like the Yoshimo case for instance in BG2:SOA). Others also claimed that such a turn of events would cost re-playability (cause we would know what happens to certain party members after the first play). I claim that I understand the issues that they rose, but I still think and prefer characters with depth and special plot events, similar to the "rouge traitor Yoshimo" event (but not only: I gave other examples that don't mean permanent goodbye to party members, but only a temporary seperation), since it makes the game (plot) more realistic and more fun, and it also allows us to experience other available party members and helps us go around the 6 party members lock of the infinity engine. If you have anything further to add to this issue, or support one of the sides above, I would really like to hear, because most of this thread (unfortunately) was about a secondary part of the problem and discussion above: the "camp issue", and not the primary issue which is the conflict above and that is the reason I started this thread to begin with and I don't think this issue was discussed enough yet. I would like to hear all the opinions about it.
  14. Look up "Fallacy of Extension". I am unaware of anything like that being said by either myself or someone from Obsidian. Here's what was said, "All classes start out with bonuses in the skills that their classes most commonly use, but players can choose to reinforce or play against that top. If you want to make a paladin who delights in picking locks, you can do that and get a lot of utility out of the skill -- though the character will never be quite as good as a rogue who specializes in it." What this means is that there might be some doors, traps, chests, etc. that it takes a rogue to open or disarm. You might be able to use force or magic to overcome the challenge in question, but this may have undesirable consequences (e.g. destroying contents, alerting nearby opponents). If they were part of the main storyline, such obstacles wouldn't be game stoppers, but they might make things more difficult for those without a highly skilled rogue. If they occur in an optional sidequest, you just might need that high-skill rogue if you're a completionist who can't stand not being able to do all there is to do and loot all there is to loot. And here's where it was mentioned. And here's the rest of the quote: "We hope that these approaches use the strengths of a "role-ready" class system while allowing players a large amount of helpful flexibility in how they develop characters over a (hopefully) long and fruitful adventuring career." I don't mind that the rouge would be the best in his obvious skills, as long as it doesn't mean we MUST have a rouge in order to finish the game. Again it works quite well with what I suggested: That we would be able to travel for some time without a rouge, because that rouge is part of a realistic and interesting story line and he either had to leave us for a while for his own personal quest, fell into a ditch and we think he died, was kidnapped by the antagonist in a certain dungeon, really died and can't be raised (but later surprisingly comes back to help us) and etc. and etc. And while he is gone we found a new friend to travel with, and she is very nice and funny and becomes part of the group as well ! ^_^ Oh and when our beloved rouge comes back to us, we have a new spot ready because our party had to split up for some reason (because we decided to do that) so now our rouge can meet the new friend we found from before AND we have extra room for new friends we might have left somewhere. Listen. Obviously this should mainly be implemented during the open parts of the campaign, and again only if the player wants to, since most group splitting and etc. should be decided by the player. If the player refuses to accept new members all the time and also refuses to split then the game mechanic would not force (or force less) separations. But we most absolutely should not get stuck with the same people 24/7. In BG2:SOA the game expected you to take Yoshimo to spellhold and that he would be replaced by Imoen. NO MATTER HOW YOU PLAYED IT, and even if you didn't take him to spellhold, Yoshimo was a traitor and lost for ever. These are the situations and events I am talking about and expecting to see in PE (including original solutions for the obvious: "what if you didn't take Yoshimo to spellhold" problem, preferably in the manner I suggested earlier), events that involve your party members and that are inevitable and unexpected (even if only temporary). Not more, not less, and from as many party members as possible: The more the better.
  15. And besides I don't understand your vigorous antagonism. In almost every adventure features that involve a group questing together: books, films etc., they usually get separated at some point until they meet again. It's part of the thrill and fun. It makes the plot more interesting. Some events should be beyond our will and control. It makes us care. And yes, some of us prefer plot over class features. Or more accurately we don't see a reason to force us to take certain classes. Healing and lock picking should not be restricted to 1 class alone each. It has no value at all.
×
×
  • Create New...