Jump to content

Pintash

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Pintash

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator

Profile Information

  • Location
    Tasmania, Australia
  • Interests
    RPGs
  1. Yeah I get a lot of what you're saying. The whole 'threw away the quest item' thing happened to me when I played Planescape: Torment. After carrying some item around forever I finally decided it wasnt of use and chucked it in a random box somewhere... Took me 2 hours to find that damn box again. It sucked, but it was good at the same time. The relief I felt when I found the item was a much bigger emotion than you get from other games. I made a mistake, I had to take responsibility for that mistake and fix it myself, not have the game automatically hand me a replica quest item, or not let me drop it in the first place. I was treated like an adult. If I lose my keys, no other bastard is gonna find them for me. I stuffed up, I fix it. Honeslty, I hope we have consequence like this in P:E. If not, then at least in new Torment. That's you, inXile. I just think the lore needs to be in the world. Maybe even offer exp for finding lore like DA:O did. It was a good idea but not executed well. It encouraged finding it, but not reading it. I feel like the people that actually take the time to read the lore are the ones who should be rewarded. Not the ones that only click on a useable object. You know how in fantasy stories there's almost ALWAYS a scene where a wizard or scholar or something has to find some dusty old tome he has hidden away and it tells of a prophecy or some such. I like this idea and think it should be used a lot more in gaming. Why not give us a bunch of quests that REQUIRE us to sift through lore - from a library or a wizards collection of old tomes - to find the information we need to advance in the quest. If the lore is elegantly presented it would not be a chore to do and it would be a great way to encourage the reading of lore. You give the player a choice of books and from the title they can more than likely decipher the book they need, then all they have to do is flick through until they find the relevant information. I know your average COD/WOW gamers aren't going to like a concept like this but then P:E isn't being made for them now is it? I guess the trick is; let US the players decide what's important to us. If someone decided a piece of lore isnt important and ends up missing a quest because of it - BAD LUCK! His problem. If the inquisitive among us get that quest because we wanted to read the lore - GOOD ON US! Also... if I see one pop-up on the screen related to a quest I'm gonna flip. I know I just finished the damn quest. Alright? I just played it out! Don't need some shiny arse crap on the screen to tell me!
  2. No one has touched, yet, on WHY new games have things like a codex. With-out actually asking the developers directly it seems to me the logical reason would be because modern games are entirely voice acted. All NPCs have a voice these days. It's what we as a gaming community expect. So they would have been faced with a problem: Do we give the lore to the NPCs and pay through the arse for the voice acting? That much voice acting would cost a pretty penny. Not likely. Do we give the lore to the NPCs and just have it as text? This is certainly not a hard thing but brings with it other questions. Does the lack of voice acting break immersion? Are the players going to read it anyway? Do the players want a massive list of dialogue options to sift through? Do we just house this information in a codex and let the players that are interested read it at their own will? Seems the logical winner when creating an 'accessible' (we all love that word... ) game. From a personal stand-point I did not real a single piece of the codex from DragonAge: Origins and that was without my favourite game of its year (and probably the year after). I love lore. LOVE IT, and yet I didn't read a single piece of it from my favourite game. Even in Mass Effect I only listened to the voiced codex entries. Yet in older games with no (or very little) voice acting I read EVERY SINGLE bit of text I can get my hands on. That is me personally, but I think it's all about the game and how the game presents the information. Codex doesn't work for me, but at the same time I don't want to lose that immersion that voice acting brings by having pages of text from NPCs that would otherwise have a voice. The advancements of gaming have certainly brought some negative side effects with them that threaten some of what we as gamers hold dear. That's for sure. My personal solution to the matter would be that every town/city has a library of some sort, whether it be an actual city library or the personal library of the town scholar. This library has different sections of lore. A section of the people of the town. A section on the surrounding lands. A section on the history of the place. And so on. This could be set up in a dialogue box, just like normal conversations. This OR a you can just talk to a town scholar for all the information. Either way I think the information should be found in the world rather than in a codex, but not overly scattered. You keep the immersion this way and your characters gets to learn this information and maybe even find some hidden quests from it.
  3. Well to be fair at no stage did I suggest that a PC can (or should be able to) create a +5 weapon AND imbue it with magical properties. Nor is the imbuing in the way that I have described any sort of learned feat. It's something the PC is capable of because of who he is. It's the results of having control of ones own soul, knowing a certain skill/magic/whatever and being able to transfer that knowledge to an inanimate object. It's more the having the magical properties of a weapon imbued by someone else I dislike. For the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. The other thing is the re-forging idea fails on principle. To re-forge a weapon is to make it as it was made before. It does not improve upon the original. Only recreates it. Also, for a smith to improve the weapon would mean to change it. Say you have a steel blade that was a family heirloom and you've used it since your journey began. You decide to take it to a master smith to improve it for you. That smith can't turn your blade from a lowly +1 to a +5 without changing it. Suddenly the blade you have become so familiar with is different. Perhaps is heavier due to a special alloy being used to sharpen it's edges. You no longer know the feel of the blade like you once did. You still have some familiarization with it but not on the level you once did. Losing familiarity with your weapon is probably a small price to pay for it to be improved so much, but there should definitely be that price, in my opinion.
  4. This doesn't really make much sense to me to be honest. The concept of choice in regards to how the weapon gains familiarity bonus completely destroys the immersion the mechanic is trying to create. If I bought a sword tomorrow and practiced with it for 30 days I wouldn't then get to make a choice on whether I hit harder with it or slice faster with it, would I? Not to mention you can't use a great sword as a piercing weapon no matter how hard you train with it. The way I see this working is if you made that choice when you first use the weapon. 'I want to learn to swing this great sword with great force and inflict heavier damage upon my foes.' This could then tie into the special effect part more realistically. For example: Choose power and eventually you get something like: 'you have now learned to swing your great sword with such power you have a greater chance to interrupt your enemy's concentration checks.' Or choose precision and eventually 'you have now learned to swing your great sword with such precision you have a greater chance to land a critical strike.' I don't think it should include things like life steal though as that is more of a magical effect.
  5. I think this kind of thing can be found in almost any western RPG ever made. Honestly it's so common I'd never really considered it. Now you've gone and done it; it'll annoy the crap out of me every time I see it now. I like this idea, though. It adds some nice realism and immersion. It would also give the player a sense of power and accomplishment. Not only that, but it shows a sign of respect - or fear - from the NPCs of the world. A reactive world is ALWAYS more immersive. If implemented, should it be confined to just the knife vs full plate example? I mean, a considerably skilled knife user could probably still beat someone in a full plate. It's mobility against defense really. If something like this was in the game I'd like to see it be a by product of your actions in the game. For example you've just murdered a petty thief in cold blood. Too great a punishment for a minor crime. An action like this might make the rest of the town/city's underworld become far more wary of you. The lowest ranks might flee at the sight of you. Large groups however may still feel they have power in numbers and only the top ranked among them feel they could best you in a straight up fight. It could be an interesting mechanic. It would need some sort of equation to work as suggested. Something involving a level comparison, a gear comparison and a fear/respect check. I don't know how reactive Obsidian intends to make the people of the world but if there is a system that will be in place I wouldn't think the above would be that hard to implement on top of it. The other thing is the player would need some sort of compensation for their actions. If you avoid a fight due to the enemy's fear of engaging you, you would need to still receive the exp you might have otherwise missed. You also have the problem of loot. It's an opportunity lost in that regard too, the power-gaming type of player won't like this. This could be easily overcome by making it a toggle-able option. As an example the Fable series had a somewhat reactive world in the sense of your actions. If you were evil they responded to it with fear. If you were good they responded with praise. Yet I can't think of a game where this extends to your enemies. Surely the enemies of the worlds of RPGs are not so cut off from the rest of the worlds they inhabit that they have not heard about the hero of the story and his exploits. A system like this could be a big step forward for RPGs as a genre.
  6. Honestly I'm happy with both. With today's tech 3D animated portraits will look absolutely fine. However, there's something special about having a cool 2D portrait. The biggest issue for me is, IF they opt for 2D portraits - and I suspect they will - PLEASE give us an in-game option to import (and crop) our own.
  7. I think - and it seems to be the general consensus - more creative implimentation of the basic elements is what we really crave. Something like the [Drown](http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Drown) spell is certainly more creative use of the water element. Personally I've always liked the idea of introducing quantum mechanics as a magic into fantasy rpgs. What I didnt realise though is this is had literally always been the case. Stop and think about it for a second. Where does that fireball come from? How does a wizard just conjure up a fireball out of thin air? Well first he'd have to turn part of that air into something flammable. Once he's changed the molecular properties of the portion of the air in front of him, then he must create a spark behind the flammable air (again molecular manipulation) before it dissipates to create the explosion of flame. Even after he's created the explosion of flame he still has to funnel it towards his target or it'll just blow up infront of him. I gather this is not a thought that goes through the mind of your average rpg gamer, after all the laws of physics and magic aren't things often thought of as co-existing. So I assume learning different spells is essentially learning different combinations and ways to manipulate atoms. Thus the mages power is limited. One thing I've thought about, though, is; if construction and manipulation of atoms can be learned then why can't the decontruction of atoms be learned too? Think Scar from Full Metal Alchemist - if you've seen it (if not, you probably should, anime fan or no). Not sure how this could be used in game without being incredibly over-powered. Perhaps it could be tiered in such a way like: Molecular deconstruction - iron. Molecular deconstruction - steel. Molecular deconstruction - mithril. Molecular deconstruction - adamantine. This could be used to deconstruct a piece of enemy equipment, disable a Golem or even destroy the lock on a door. It would certainly need limits. Again I'm not sure how you could limit it enough to keep it from being over powered or on the flipside limit it to the point of being underwhelming. Certainly an interesting concept though. Lastly - Gravity magic is always fun. I think it would be a hard thing to implement into an IE engine style game, though. Displacement itself requires a full set of animations to everything susceptible to it so as to make it visually appealling. Knockback you can get away with as it's not a huge displacement. It's not hugely noticable. However if you were to fling an enemy from one side of the screen to the other without the appropriate animation I'd look aweful and destroy immersion. Things like a slow mini blackhole (slow pull effect to a central point) could work without need extra animiations to be created. Either way I can't see it being implemented unless it's done correctly and if it is to be done correctly it'd be a big job and unlikely something obsidian is willing to put fund into considering all the other priorities.
  8. Thank you. I've only been very interested in P:E for a short time, but I've read up on basically everything there is to read up on. Wish I had of heard about it while the kickstarter was still going, would have liked to contribute. Not sure how I missed it to be honest. I'd like to become a vocal member of the active community! Honestly I'm not sure I like the familiarisation mechanic in any form. It just seems like it would be too abusable, unless restricted by strict boundries that would probably make it a pointless mechanic in the first place. I think I prefer your tweak as my biggest concern would be punishing a player everytime they switched weapon. Perhaps a legendary weapon starts of as little more than a mid-tier magic weapon and once fully unlocked releases a type of legendary effect unique to that weapon. This example may have been used before but I'll use it again: Weapon starts off doing minor fire damage (say 1d6). First unlock becomes 2d6 fire. Second unlock add a burning DoT effect. Third and final unlock splashes the fire damage and the DoT in a cone behind the target. If a mechanic such as this was implemented there should probably be a feat to allow for souls to be understood at a quicker rate. It should probably be more easily attained by the fighter type classes.
  9. Ok, so perhaps I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. Can I assume what you want is to be able to - over time - create that +5 weapon and also have the familiaristion benefits you've built up over time? I wasn't saying that gear doesn't matter. I think at some point I actually said it always will. There's always optimal gear. I meant something more along the line's of 'hey I just found this great +4 full plate but I prefer the look of the +2 full plate I already have. Yeah you might get hit afew more times in combat but it's not a massive punishment for the choice you made. Where-as wearing leather instead of a full plate when you're a fighter with little dex is certainly going to hurt you a lot more. Still is the ability to create a character that doesn't get punished for using the same weapon though-out the game intrinsically the same as being able to create a character that doesn't rely on gear at all. You're saying you don't want to be punished or have a mechanic that doesn't hurt you as much for making a choice that, in almost all games of this type, would normally punish you mechanically. I guess the forging (etc.) arguement comes down to personal preference. If I was to use one weapon though-out the entire span of the game I'd prefer any improvements to be my own. It's my weapon and everything about it resonates who I am and what I've accomplished with this weapon. Not just: 'Hey dude, I really like this weapon, I'm attached to it so... can you make it so it's actually good!' As I said though that's just how I'd prefer it to play out.
  10. So... This thread has captured my imagination. Great discussion guys. Through-out the day I have read the entire thread - start to finish - and now feel compelled to add my two cents. There's too much I wish to quote and there-for am not going to quote a thing. So where to start... Firstly I think part of what OP is going for is the feel that a PC doesn't necessarily need great gear to become powerful/unique/heroic/whatever you want to call it. This is something I strongly agree with. If I'm to use what is possibly my all time favourite game as an example I'll talk about the Cleric/Monk/Sacred Fist build in Neverwinter Nights 2. This build is something noone could deny was incredibly over-powered. The fact is you could literally become an imovable object with while wearing absolutely no gear what-so-ever and still do incredible damage. This is what made it my favourite build. Not because it was over-powered but because it didn't rely on gear. That's the part of DnD rules I've always loved. Some classes (not all) could scale incredibly well on levels alone. This is something I strongly favour and something I hope will be an option - and not something limited only to casters - in P:E. This is also fundamentally something I think OPs familiarity mechanic could help to achieve. The problem with this in NWN2 was that it then ended up making characters like the before mentions Cleric/Monk/SF incredibly overpowered with good gear as opposed the poor fighter with similar gear but no spells to enhance his power on top of it. This is where the balance of that game failed miserably. I don't want to see the same thing happen with P:E and I'm thinking you guys can agree on that. Basically the beauty of the DnD system was that in most cases the majority of power given to any class came from the class and the levels that class achieved more-so than the gear it used. This is something I feel in integral to this game. There's always going to optimisation through gear, that's unavoidable but it should not be too punishing on the player that makes the choice to use a less optimal piece of armor because they prefer the way it looks. Now to come back to the familiarisation of weapons. A lot of ideas have been thrown around and almost all of them have their merit but the one I like the most and the one that I think thematically ties in to world obsidian are attempting to create is the soulbound magic weapons. This is something I was thinking off long before I read Jarrakul's suggestion. I think I've probably taken it a step further, however. Now I know Trashman made the arguement that focusing too much on the core theme of the game can be a bad thing - and I agree - I dont think that's at all the case here. It's been stated that all the magic/power of this world comes from a person tapping into their soul. This is something we can assume from the lore we've been given. This is also why the idea makes perfect sense. So if we assume all magic comes from the manipulation of ones soul a magic weapon must have a part of (if not the entirety) of the soul of the person who imbued it with magical power in the first place. Simply put; Magic weapons have a soul. So to unlock the power of this weapon one must learn to understand the soul bound to it. I think this is an amazing concept and not something I can recall being used before. It probably shouldn't be too long of a process to unlock a magic weapons full potential otherwise it'd be punishing players too much for using new gear. Now, I want to take this a step further and talk about the familiarisation aspect. Say a PC has used the one weapon for a very long time, he's become familiar with it. Is there any reason he can not make the choice to imbue the weapon with a part of his soul? Say he's a wizard, why can't he use a fire spell and imbue the weapon with it's powers? If some heroic warrior from the past has done something similar I see no logical reason why not. There must however be a drawback to this. He's giving up part of his soul. Literally ripping that part out and giving it to the weapon. If he choses to imbue it with the chosen firespell he should then lose access to that spell for good. After all that part of his soul no longer resides within him. This, for me adds a VERY interesting game mechanic. It's power, but at a cost. Now there's the balance issue. The wizard can use his fire spell but the poor fighter doesn't have one. The magical soulbound enchantments would have to be class-specific. A fighter might choose to add a rush attack ability to a weapon, and thus the weilder rushes a distance to attack any enemy he targets. It's basically a crafting system when you think about it, but comes at a great cost. It's a HUGE decision to lose a spell for good to enhance a weapon. Huge decisions like this in an RPG are, in my opinion, what makes the games. That regret you might feel for wasting that spell you could now really use is just as powerful an emotion as the excitement of putting your own soul into a weapon. The next question is one of limitation. Obviously you're facing huge balance issues if you allow someone to put their soul in a weapon that is already magical and thus contains a soul. As the lore we have been given says though multiple souls can exist within one entity but has chaotic results. If the players so chooses to imbue an already magical weapon with a piece of his own soul it must come at an ever greater cost. Perhaps his soul drives the original soul out altogether. Perhaps his soul fights constantly for domination fot he other soul and the powers of the weapon are in constant flux. Perhaps they find a happy medium and something like a 2d6 acid weapon infused with a 2d6 fire spell becomes 1d6 of each. The thing I feel this system achives and something that has been in hot debate over the course of this discussion is that it can allow a player to still scale into the later stages of the game with his weapon of choice without too much of a massive punishment for doing so without relying on enhancements like smithing, re-forging, other forms of imbueing. I think this is important because it still feels like YOUR weapon. YOU put in all the work to get it where it is. Not some black-smith, or some wizard with imbueing powers. I'm sure there are some cons to this you'll point out but it's probably the way I can best see this working and fulfilling all the requirement to not disrupt the balance of the game.
×
×
  • Create New...