Sarex
-
Posts
2847 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sarex
-
-
Paladins in PE are going to be more like warlords than paladins. They'll each have a cause, but being pure of heart or following a paladin code doesn't appear to be on the cards. Likewise, clerics seem to be different from the usual paradigm, being crusaders instead of priests, and a sword that is called HOLY avenger definitely has divine implications, the line about pure of heart sounds like it could easily refer to someone who is pure on the eyes of god. As paladins in D&D are tied to the gods even when they don't follow one specific god (and in Forgotten Realms I think they did need to be tied to a specific god to get their powers) this is the conclusion I came to.
But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.I would like the holy avenger, but due to the changes in the roles of the classes I don't think they should be paladin weapons as the class has been disassociated from the religious holiness side of the things and is now more warlordy. I reckon the holy avenger should be a cleric weapon instead now since clerics are now the holy templar class instead.
Yeah, I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying what I read about THAs in their description. It's never tied to a god, it's always a tool for the good against evil.
-
I would like the holy avenger, but due to the changes in the roles of the classes I don't think they should be paladin weapons as the class has been disassociated from the religious holiness side of the things and is now more warlordy. I reckon the holy avenger should be a cleric weapon instead now since clerics are now the holy templar class instead.
But THA was never tied to a deity, its creed was "Only the pure of heart can wield me", and in d&d that meant paladins. I don't know I guess I'm biased, because I love paladins and THA. I guess we should wait and see what kind of world this is going to be, and then go from there.
-
Hell...fukken...YEAH.
I still rememebr the first time I played BG2 (with a paladin) and got this sword.
And the feeling when you upgrade it to +6. XD
The ID2 one wasn't to shabby either. The heart of furry one has 1d8+10, +10 bonus dmg and +30 spell resistance. Then you dual wield it with the vanilla one and just annihilate anything that you meet.
-
Wrong game and could even be copyright infringement
Holy Avenger is based off Excalibur, so there is nothing original in it. I don't even think that the name is trademarked (could be wrong).
-
1
-
-
I'd like to see more iconic weapons that aren't large swords. Some of the less standard fair of weaponry being better represented would be fantastic, I think.
Longinus spear?
-
The what now?
Well... anyway... in general terms I don't mind equipment restricted to certain classes. Generic equipment should be open to anyone (even though it may be impractical), but say, some Sacred Bow bestowed upon some legendary archer by some God of the Hunt should not be able to be used by some tower-dwelling wizards to whom nature is something that happens on the other side of his walls.
'Course that sort of thing might be tricky to implement. Especially if PE turns out to be open-ended enough that it's entirely possible for a wizard to be a master huntsman. But in that case the bow becomes generic and quest-related rather than class-based.
So I guess I don't really have an opinion here. Not a coherent one, anyway.
But then classes become pointless, except for a few bonuses. I think that those who like their wizards to wield axe should just go dual class or something.
-
over powered gimmicky sword associated with lamest class in the universe? meh, sure...but only as 50$ DLC.
Lamest class...You sir are a heathen. Paladins are my favorite class, and if they where so lame I doubt they would have been added to the game.
edit:I see there are some who don't know what The Holy avenger is.
The Holy Avenger is a sword restricted to the paladin class that is usually obtained through a valiant quest.
-
Im a big fan of class restricted equipment. Theres no good/evil in PE so perhaps it would just be called the Avenger?
Given me an idea for another option. XD
-
So what do you guys think is the holy avenger a must have for an IE inspired game or do you even care?
-
Peruse these topics and you'll find that there's more than enough unique designs, even within the plate armour category. In fact, you could probably make distinctive armour sets for a few MMOs from all the pictures we've all been posting here...
I'm just worried how well that will transfer to a small character model, and if it will be enough to make it visualy unique on that scale.
edit: I just clicked on your sig and saw the first post. Now those are the kind of armors that I'm talking about.
Different enough to make them visually unique on a small character model.
-
Really though, the problem comes from a game like P:E declaring a strong basis in historical reality. When you say "this is going to mainly be like real, historical melee combat," then you say "but people are going to have these huge spikes on their armor that are easily hookable by many a weapon -- which you wouldn't want in actual melee combat for various reasons -- just because they convey aesthetic coolness," you run into a bit of a snag. It's not so much that "ALL ARMOR MUST BE REALISTIC AND CANNOT BE FANTASTICAL!", as it is that you're specifically mixing unrealistic defenses with allegedly-realistic combat thrown in. I suppose if they managed to come up with purely fantasy melee combat, in which such spikes weren't infeasible, it wouldn't be so bad.
Ah yes but then we come in to a problem of dual wielding two long swords, or morning stars, or flails etc. What I'm trying to say is, I wouldn't want it to be over the top, but I also wouldn't like it being vanilla too. With the IE games you didn't really have to worry about the look of the armor, because you couldn't notice the difference (except for the colors). Now though with proper animation and a s..t ton of armors that you are going to find through out the game, they are going to have a need for making them visually unique (or at least I hope they will).
@Flintlockjazz and Karranthain
Yeah I guess it all comes down to taste, which you can't really discuss. In the end I think I would be satisfied if they made the special (enchanted(non generic +n)) armors look visually unique, and not just go "chain-mail will look like this, full plate will look like this and leather will look like this" and then just change the color if the armor is unique.
-
That first one (purple armor)'s a little iffy.
It's not the lack of coverage that bugs me, really, so much as it is the fact that the armor appears to be some form of plate/platelike armor. I can see someone being more lightly armored (coverage-wise) AND wearing actual lighter armor, itself, for the sake of mobility, etc. But it's hard to think you'd go through the trouble of wearing heavy plate armor on only 40% of your body like that (not even the most vital parts).
Kind of agree, but for some reason it always stuck with me. Maybe because the art is awesome.
Neither of them are good, the last one is the least bad. Spikes, man, spikes and exposed skin everywhere.
That third armor, is anti-back stab armor. XD
As for the exposed skin, I don't know man, now that they can animate proper character models, I wouldn't be against showing some skin on the lightly armored classes, it can be done to great effect (imagine glowing tattoos and stuff like that(and it would help differentiate the different races)). I mean if they can make the different types of armor look unique, then sure go for the realistic approach, but considering that this is a fantasy game I wouldn't be against an unrealistic look.
What I'm trying to say is that they now have a chance to make the character models look as great as the 2d backgrounds, and I just don't know how that would look with the plain armor I have seen in this thread. (which is not to say that it's not good looking, but to me it doesn't translate that fantasy feel)
-
Personally I don't mind fantasy armor, but I don't like it when it's over the top.
Some examples(good):
-
I voiced my opinion in the announcement post, but I am of the minimalist/modular point of view, in that I think the UI should be as customizable as possible. There are arguments back and forth, but in the end I think it comes to merely personal preference.
As an aside, and I freely admit this maybe me just being surprised/upset that my preference is in the minority, the choice of sub forum for this poll (while technically correct, which, of course, is the best kind of correct) will the end skew the results a bit (namely, those people who most interested in the nitty gritty of the engine and such are often classified as the more 'hard-core' type of player and so on). No offense meant or anything, just a stray observation.
Kickstarted game's audience is a special case. A large portion of them genuinely consider that modern games has moved in a bad direction. UI, combat, text focus vs cutscene focus, design direction in general. Many can't stand these modern elements. On the other side, if someone considers IE games meh and outdated, he shouldn't had donated in P:E.
If someone wanted the IE experiense streamlined and "modernized", he has DA:O. Many of us considered that game mediocre at best, a pale shadow of the IE games, and hope that P:E will be way more "old school" for a lack of better word.
While I am in the old school IE camp, I still consider DA:O to be a good game. It would have been even better if it didn't oversimplify it's gameplay, as can be seen from the "sucess" of it's sequel. Sorry for going a little of topic.
I also liked DA:O.(but the UI was crap) But it had one huge flaw for me to consider it a worthy BG2 successor.
Combat. First of all, all the combat in the game felt like filler. I think Feargus in an interview nailed it. He said that BG was a combat game with story, whereas DA was a story game with combat. Enemy variety(nonexistent),encounter design(bad overall) and simplified mechanics made combat utterly forgetable and a chore after a while. The game would be better if it had 90% less combat, and a LOT better if it had better enemy encounters and variety. I mean BG2 had the best encounter design of every game that i have played, and a huge enemy list. Think Planar Sphere.A simple side quest and it had more monster types than DA and ME series combined.
Other than that it was a good game, but if P:E is something at that level i will be dissapointed. I hope for P:E to surpass BG2, and i expect something on par.
I agree with you on that, as a successor it was a disappointment, as a game on it's own it was good. (Also agree with you on the UI)
Until a month ago I thought the IE user interfaces were great. Then I started to play Torment on PC and BG1 on iPad again. I enjoyed the dialogues and especially the depth of the games: the riddles, the different choices to play, the open world with a ton of quests, the high difficulty level and especially the nice story telling with all those small little details. The graphics were dated and low-res but I could live with that. What really stood out in a negative way was the clunky game interface. I had the impression that big parts of the interface were useless for me and the other half was accessible through a flood of sub-menus and that it was not intuitive.
I was shocked and thought: "How could my memory play those kind of tricks on me?" I played the inifinity engine games 100's of hours and this aspect never caught my attention until last month. The UI really reminded me of my first car which had no electric power steering, drum Brakes instead of discs, a choke switch and other stupid defects/restrictions. The only reason that I still like this car today is because I have nostalgic memories for it. The difference between the car and a Video game is I don't think I want to play a game because of nostalgic memories.
Of course, after a couple of hours I got used to the Interface again but that part was definately the least fun for me.
Or, you know, playing BG1 on the iPad probably is a big deal.
All this 'nostalgia' argument doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody has the stats, but most of the time people who bring up that argument are precisely the people who haven't played the IE games much in a while. I play IE games regularly and also replayed NWN2 and KOTOR2 recently, and there's no question what I prefer.
I currently have the original BG series instaled on my PC, had ID2 and PS:T instaled a while ago. I don't get what you are saying? Never had a problem with the UI in any of the games, and I personaly think that the UI's had a big impact(positive) on the games.
-
1
-
-
I voiced my opinion in the announcement post, but I am of the minimalist/modular point of view, in that I think the UI should be as customizable as possible. There are arguments back and forth, but in the end I think it comes to merely personal preference.
As an aside, and I freely admit this maybe me just being surprised/upset that my preference is in the minority, the choice of sub forum for this poll (while technically correct, which, of course, is the best kind of correct) will the end skew the results a bit (namely, those people who most interested in the nitty gritty of the engine and such are often classified as the more 'hard-core' type of player and so on). No offense meant or anything, just a stray observation.
Kickstarted game's audience is a special case. A large portion of them genuinely consider that modern games has moved in a bad direction. UI, combat, text focus vs cutscene focus, design direction in general. Many can't stand these modern elements. On the other side, if someone considers IE games meh and outdated, he shouldn't had donated in P:E.
If someone wanted the IE experiense streamlined and "modernized", he has DA:O. Many of us considered that game mediocre at best, a pale shadow of the IE games, and hope that P:E will be way more "old school" for a lack of better word.
While I am in the old school IE camp, I still consider DA:O to be a good game. It would have been even better if it didn't oversimplify it's gameplay, as can be seen from the "sucess" of it's sequel. Sorry for going a little of topic.
-
That UI is to much like IceWind Dale 2 which really is a silly game ...
If that's how you feel about IWD2, then chances are the user-interface won't be the only thing you'll be disappointed with in PE.
Icewind Dale 2 was the peak of the infinity games, gamplay wise. The only thing you could give it bad marks for is that it was a little linear. To this day it reamins one of my favourite games. (my favourite from the infinity games)
-
Thanks for making a poll, Keyrock!
And although my firm opinion is that there's room for both of the first points in the poll in PE, I went ahead and voted for the NWN2 alternative, obviously updated for 2014.
Zed: The spirituality of those wonderful games isn't exactly residing in those clunky UIs. It's just your nostalgia getting the better of you.
I think you are really underestemating the role the UI had in the infinity games. That was something that folowed you through out the whole game. I also though that this game represents the resurection of our nostalgia.
-
1
-
-
I really like the Icewind Dale feel for the UI. I don't think that a minimalist UI, like Dragon Age has, is really a good idea. A big part of the Infinity games feeling is the way the UI looked, and I think people are underestemating that. Also as someone said, you could hide your UI in all Infinity engine games.(you can't go more minimalistic then that)
Holy Avenger
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted
What, where? Link?