Jump to content

Randomthom

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Randomthom

  1. I think Iron_JG has hit this on the head by differentiating between sociopathy and sadism. Evil for evil's sake does exist but only usually among the clinically insane. Evil as a means to an end is far more commonplace and understandable. It's often easier to talk about characters and what better examples do we have than George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (aka Game of Thrones)? Sadistic: Requires no motivation for committing an atrocity. Joffrey, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Aerys Targaryen, Gregor Clegane, Viserys Targaryen Sociopathic: Atrocities are committed against others but only when there is a purpose behind the act. Petyr Baelish, Bronn, Craster, Sandor Clegane, Tywin Lannister, Cersei Lannister, Melisandre, Walder Frey Ambiguous/Conflicted: Are viewed/lampshaded as 'bad people' by others but have honourable intentions/live by a code. Jaime Lannister, Varys, Arya Stark, Theon Greyjoy, Stannis Baratheon Vainglorious: Generally try to act for the betterment of others but usually with an eye on how it reflects upon themselves. Robert Baratheon, Renly Baratheon, Sansa, Tyrion Lannister Honourable: Do the right thing, regardless of the personal consequences. Eddard Stark, Rob Stark, Brienne of Tarth, Beric Dondarrion, Jon Snow, Danaerys Targaryen Good/Evil is a simplistic scale that can't fully explain people's actions AND their motivations, it can only really handle one or the other. In the context of the game, I'd rather the options focused largely on the objective. The means by which you achieve the objective are the moral question that you can pose to yourself and perhaps the NPCs can offer their thoughts on things.
  2. I stick by my 2Q rule. If a game is delayed by more than 2 quarters (~6+ months) then I'll be a bit peeved and my expectations go up. Quality is the premium here, I'm willing to wait those extra few months for a game to be properly finished. Too many games have very rushed endings and content in the game files that don't make it into the final release (see KOTOR2).
  3. To answer the thread title, we probably will, in fact I'd be willing to be that there's already one out there. The reason I'm not sure is that I'm 100% certain that it won't make a good game. at least not in an RPG setting. Good RPGs are about good storytelling and action and a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the gamer. By-and-large we accept hit points as a passable mask over the general state of health of our characters. If there was an element of realism I'd want to add, it would be to a characters combat effectiveness as they approach 0 hp. I'm also a fan of maintaining good control over hp bloat so that high level characters don't have massively higher hp values than lower level characters. This increases the jeopardy and tension in combat.
  4. Arguing with Lephys appears to be something of a pointless venture it would seem. It's not a debate, that would involve some control of nonsense. It's not an argument, that would suggest that someone is right/wrong. It's more akin to bashing your cranium against a brick wall until all your brain cells fall out, & you stop arguing. I'd suggest that Lephys is actually Harry Potter and thus had a particularly traumatic incident in childhood concerning instant-death spells.
  5. I find it interesting that the argument being made against instant-death spells seems to be that it encourages save scumming and reduces combat to a luck-based binary chance. This is the way magic worked in 2nd ed D&D (3rd ed too). As Stun states, spells with binary outcomes are plentiful. If the game casts mass hold on your party and then their fighters beat you to death with sticks while you're helpless, is this any more acceptable to you? If your fighter has maze cast on him then he's pretty much out of the fight. I'd also second the argument that was made by i-can't-recall-who earlier that, by the time you're facing mages with instant-death abilities, you should have some pretty effective tools at your disposal yourself. Also remember that D&D, with it's basis in a dice-based tabletop game, is a game of chance. When your characters become more powerful, what that really means is that your characters gain a higher chance of success and a lower chance of failure with each dice roll. I do understand the frustration of losing a party member to instant-death spells but I wonder if those arguing against it have ever gone on to finish a fight where they've lost someone or do you just reload & try again? I remember losing someone early in the bard mission in BG2 and having to finish the rest of it with no front-line fighter and half of the party encumbered with carrying the dead guy's gear. It made for an interesting challenge before I was able to finish then find a temple to resurrect my fallen comrade (I think it was minsc... and boo). If you're instantly reloading with the death of a party member then I suggest you try to tough it out, it's very much still fun & interesting.
  6. Oh, side question, are you against the inclusion of the Maze spell? (Or non-WotC equivalent)
  7. You realize nothing you just posted has anything to do with instant death attacks? Silencing a Caster in D&D is a viable strategy regardless of what spells they are casting. Even if the best tool they got is "Magic Missile" having a rogue sneak up and stun them is still a reasonable thing to do. There is only one strategy for specifically dealing with instant death spells. Have a protection from death effect on the character. Removing instant death magic has no effect on the depth of combat, it just means I don't need to buff myself to specifically protect against death attacks anymore. I can still cast hold on casters, I can still surround casters with summons, I can still send my weakest party member to distract casters, I can still focus fire casters with ranged attacks, etc etc etc. None of that hinges on them having death spells. I think you're missing his point, perhaps deliberately. You're right, none of those are directly to do with instant death spells. It doesn't stop them from being good tactics for countering an instant death spell. What he/we are saying is that, if death ward is the only tactic that you can see to an instant death spell then you're not thinking tactically. This is the difference between a 'counter' and a 'tactic'. The other difference is that tactics are things you use in the game, counters are things you argue about on forums...
  8. I'll add to Stun's comment above; -Tactics is not whining about abilities that inconvenience you & make the game a bit harder until the developers have them removed. -Tactics is anything in-game that gives you an advantage in winning the fight.
  9. I'm slightly surprised that people seem to think that instant-death spells have only 1 counter (e.g. death-ward-like spells). Here are a few others. Interrupt the spell with damage Kill the caster before instant-death spell is cast Silence the caster Regarding Lephys' point about the trip back to town being an inconvenience, remember that the necromancer who so rudely killed one of your party wasn't trying to inconvenience you. He was trying to kill you. If he was merely partially successful then congratulations, you won. Maybe next time you find a similar situation you might be able to do it without the inconvenience of the trip back to town to resurrect your fallen comrade. You're arguing against "you die or you don't" mechanics but saying that you want "you win or you don't" fights. One of my pet hates in party-based-games is that, at the end of a fight, everybody just gets up & dusts themselves down then carries on. I don't even care that it's not realistic (hell, this is fantasy), I care that it's not dramatic. CRPGs are an extension of table-top RPGs and it was the old IE games that best replicated this experience which is why so many of us stumped up the cash to see PE become reality. I can only really speak for myself though I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I'm bored of games that make it all easy for me. I want a game that is hard, that forces me to think & re-think my tactics. A game that doesn't let me "get away with it" if I charge into a room without a plan. A game that punishes me if I don't make good tactical decisions. A recent example of a game that did all this was the X-Com remake but there aren't many others that spring to mind. I want a game with harsh consequences, I want to be forced to think. Basically, I want the developers to create an EASYMODE for people who don't want a challenge and then focus on making a good game for the rest of us!
  10. I think I fall into the camp that likes the inclusion of instant-death spells. I like the fear-factor they can bring to certain encounters. I think they are only fun if used sparingly however. If every other enemy you meet is a mage casting disintegrate then it gets a little dull but to not have any of these abilities in the game would be a shame imo. There are several good alternatives though. The best simply being limited HP bloat. If there are no instant-death spells then there needs to be other ways for my party to die. If I never feel in danger then I never feel the drama or tension of combat, it's merely a mini-game along the plot-line. I'd like to see some VERY nasty traps in dungeons, possibly instant-death (through massive damage) or very fast poison perhaps. Soemthing I and a few others have mentioned before is for there to be a social stigma attached to the use of some spells. Spells that could be considered evil or taboo. Spells that might result in a cadre of Paladins hunting you down at some later date or meaning some merchants will refuse to trade with you until you have been cleansed. Perhaps instant-death spells could come at a cost to the caster, hp, all of your mana, other debuff. I don't mind them being in there but I'd like to see them as more than just another spell. Harry Potter had the instant death spell as one of the "unforgivable curses" and would result in instant incarceration.
  11. Morgulon, that is stunning, wonderful work! I love what you've done with the portraits, it give sthe UI a very organic feel to it. I've got to agree with some of the previous posters, those who laud the older UIs (BG, IWD, PS:T) over the newer ones (NWN2) are probably suffering from nostalgia, as great as the games were, the UI was clunky. Beautiful but clunky. What I'd like to see is the fluidity of the NWN2 UI (especially the quick cast menu) but in the style of BG2. Customisability is nice but isn't massively important to me for a CRPG. Keyboard shortcuts ARE important to me, preferably ones I can remap myself but failing that, well thought-out ones that I don't need to would be fine by me!
  12. I always loved the Bladesinger archetype and I'll probably try to play something along those lines in PE. Lightly armoured, Longsword in main-hand, nothing in off-hand, spellcaster, agile & graceful. My favourite PnP character was a 3.5ed Bladesinger who retired from adventuring at level 27. Nothing quite like a character with 5 attacks per round who can also cast level 10 spells!
  13. From an in-game perspective, instant-death spells make a lot of sense. Magic is a tool and often a weapon. It would make absolute sense therefore that this "weapon" has been developed by wizards to be as deadly as possible. Perhaps the use of such spells could be considered highly illegal or taboo or simply very difficult to master. Maybe the Gods have deemed them too powerful to be allowed into mortal hands and so are quick to respond to any development of magic of these sorts. Additionally, what about instant death by non-magical means, poisons, massive damage etc. Maybe the solution could be to have lots of instant death (a lá Game of Thrones anyone? ) and it's just something that you have to deal with and treat every fight as if it might be your last. I agree with a previous poster though that possibly the best way to deal with this is simply to control HP inflation. If nobody has crazy-high hit point totals then you don't need instant death spells etc. to create the tension & feeling of vulnerability with the player.
  14. Are you guys still banging on about this silly little point? Why not just agree to disagree, one of you wants to cast the spell yourself, the other wants it as a dialogue option. You've completely derailed the thread anyway, perhaps it would be better for you two to take this discussion to PM or are you waiting for a 3rd party to come in & say I agree with Lephys/Trashman? At least neither of you fell foul of Godwin's law...
  15. As a concept it works and makes sense. From a gameplay perspective I'd be skeptical however, largely because the fixed-perspective isometric viewpoint would sometimes make it difficult to see who is and isn't being targeted by it (unless you introduce a Dragon-Age style AoE that highlights characters affected by the AoE, one of the things I felt DA2 did well).
  16. Tough to call a top ten 'cause I know I'll forget some & a week later others will take their place but here goes; No particular order... Radiohead - OK Computer Counting Crows - August & Everything After Led Zepplin - Led Zepplin IV Guns & Roses - Appetite for Destruction Jason Mraz - Mr A-Z Jeff Buckley - Grace Nirvana - Unplugged in New York Paul Simon - Graceland Five for Fighting - America Town Muse - Origin of Symmetry
  17. Racism/Sexism/Ageism etc. are just forms of prejudice. Prejudice is presumed knowledge about a person/group of people based upon a trait they possess. Usually negative though not always. e.g. Assuming a black person is more likely to commit a crime or assuming a man is emotionally stunted. These are not to be confused with stereotypes which are based in fact. e.g. Men are stronger than women or Chinese people are short. Stereotypes are GENERALLY true though are often broken. Stereotypes are also useful tools for a storyteller to paint a quick image of a character you meet, relying on your knowledge of the stereotype to fill in the blanks that they don't explicitly state. If those sound similar then let me explain the difference; A stereotype is used to fill in the blanks of information about a group of people in the knowledge that most of them will break the stereotype in multiple ways and accepting those breaks from the stereotype as you gain specific information about individuals. A prejudice is assumption that people are they way you think they are, even when evidence suggests that they are not. Prejudiced individuals hold onto their assumptions against logic. With the examples given, it is prejudiced if you believe that Black people are criminals because the vast majority aren't. It is also prejudiced if you expect a man to have poor emotional intelligence, again, because the truth is that most men aren't emotionally deficient. If I assume that a man will be stronger than a woman, I'm basing that on a stereotype. If I then meet a very scrawny man and a female bodybuilder I discard my stereotype. Likewise, meeting a tall Chinese man breaks the stereotype. It doesn't make the generalisation less true, it simply means that it doesn't fit this person. Essentially, the difference between prejudice and stereotype is whether it holds true for the majority.
  18. I think this thread has become slightly derailed onto a very specific and only slightly-related conversation between two people who are (constructively) disagreeing with each other! The issue, as I see it, is the game taking away choice, particularly tactical decisions the player makes e.g. sneaking ahead. Usually forcing the player into direct confrontation, often without much room for tactical manoeuvre, hence the title, bane of squishies. I'd love to hear some of the developer's thoughts regarding how conversations and combat will interact, with particular reference to stealth and forced repositioning. Mr Sawyer has already graced us with his presence, perhaps this could be a section of one of the PE weekly updates...
  19. Got to agree with other posters, I won't mind if they communicate effectively WHY it isn't in the final product. I think they could also offset/mitigate disillusionment/disappointment at X feature being omitted by telling us about the other awesome things they have implemented that weren't necessarily in the original goals (of which I'm sure there will be plenty, even if they are just small things).
  20. Isn't it ManBearPig? Where's Al Gore, he might know!
  21. Just a quick side-note, a lot of the conversation in this thread revolves around the existence of monks in other sources, fictitious & real. A few posts back someone questioned if there were any other examples of monks for whom receiving damage was beneficial. I'd just like to point out that this is a new IP that, while following & using many tropes within the fantasy genre, is not tied to them and is welcome to make up new & original stuff. Regarding the tactical viability of such a thing, a lot of the thought seems to be very much from a human perspective. Turn it on it's head a little bit and you can imagine a hardy race (dwarves?) who might suit this over the traditionally agile monk fighting style or perhaps a religion that requires one to undergo pain before inflicting it, one based around suffering (Illmater in D&D would suit this). Anyway, my point is that, yes, there isn't much precedent for this from other sources but that doesn't make it an illegitimate concept. I imagine that monks will be designed to have some abilities that do not require you to take damage or at least the ability to inflict the necessary wound upon yourself to get the blood (& fists) pumping!
  22. Somehow I missed that when I first read it & it makes a lot of sense. Why, except in a very noisy area or for a conversation requiring some privacy, do people need to be right next to who they are speaking to? It's not the infinity engine as some enemies would spark up a chat as soon as you they could see you... I'd like that as an option sometimes, perhaps with a "come closer" dialogue option where it is necessary.
  23. Lets have a good bromance, non-romantic. Shepherd & Garrus Andy Dufresne & Red Han & Luke Han & Chewie! Bromances can be as memorable as romances and often feel a good deal more real & probably easier to create (because the depth of feeling is never spoken).
  24. Oh... and loading screen tips to show in the dialogue history. I have a fast computer & I often miss what is written in them.
×
×
  • Create New...