Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


3 Neutral

About JR.9613

  • Rank
    (1) Prestidigitator
    (1) Prestidigitator
  1. The Orlan designs look really nice... I did think of the 70's Hobbit movie when I saw them (the Wild variant at least), but I don't think these are anywhere near as bad as those. I am just glad that there is going to be a shorter race, because I could never bring myself to play a D&D Halfling (They aren't Hobbits, people!). As for the Paladin information, I think it will be a nice change. The whole Paladin-being-devoted-to-some-random-god thing had no depth to me because the gods that the Paladins served never had much back story. I don't know if it makes me care enough to play a Paladin though...
  2. Metaphysics in video games has always been something that has interested me (36 Lessons of Vivec is amazing). I am not entirely sure why, but it is most likely the slight insight into the writer's mind and how their world-view(s) influence the story of the game that makes the topic so interesting for me. I was even more excited about P:E when I found out about the part that souls play in the world, and I am interested in discovering how they are explained in the story in more detail. So my question is, how do you feel about the inclusion of metaphysical topics in video games (and P:E in particular)? Do you think it strengthens the story and makes you consider things you have never thought of before? Or that it makes things overly complicated (which it can do at times) and only serves to confuse and make things even more obscure? Also, I understand this subject has the potential to lean toward more religious topics, so try to keep it civil... There is no need to make this something it isn't, so just to say it again, this is about metaphysics IN GAMES/FICTIONAL WORLDS.
  3. I agree with that, but in the case of a Holy Avenger it not only is inconsistent with P:E "lore" (no good vs. evil alignment), but may also fall under D&D licensing. I am not saying that class restricted weapons shouldn't exist, but that there is a better way to implement restrictions in general. I think another problem is that there weren't many other class restricted weapons that were as good as a Holy Avenger (at least in the case of BG2) which made it unbalanced to say the least. As for the PC being the "Chosen One", I'm not so sure about that... I recall an update video (I think an early one) talking about how the story is the PC witnessing an event and trying to figure out what he "saw"... Edit: I found it, the video is in Update #3 on the Kickstarter site, but I don't want to post it here since it is kind of off topic.
  4. To begin, everything made sense to me and, to my understanding, you got your point across. I agree with most of what you say except for a few things. You say that "Adding side rooms does not make a level non-linear" and I agree with that. However, the same can be said about adding an extra path (or three or four) through the dungeon. I don't think that having multiple paths through a dungeon really matters if the decision of which path to take doesn't matter. If it is a decision between fighting a goblin boss or a ghost boss then I don't think that a dungeon can really be considered non-linear, because, in the end, it doesn't really matter and you probably won't even care in a week. I would much rather have a "linear", but fun and compelling dungeon with memorable fights than play through a non-linear dungeon where the choices you make don't really have consequences. What I am saying is; Quantity ≠ Quality.
  5. I think that, as long as you inform everyone of the real life languages that inspire those in P:E, it shouldn't be too hard for someone to find out how to pronounce anything they have trouble with, if they actually care enough to learn. However, as many have already said, a grammar rule/guideline would help significantly if the resources are available (I would assume they are if the time is being taken to do this in the first place).
  6. I don't think forced restrictions add character or interesting game play experiences.. I made a suggestion in another thread that I think would allow item restrictions (and other restrictions) to be in place IF the player wants them. Being able to choose a restriction or freedom, and having to deal with those consequences throughout the game, is much more interesting to me, and would make it possible to take RP'ing a little bit farther with things like phobias, etc.. Something else I would like to add is that I don't feel that overly powerful "easter egg" items are needed. In most cases they are taken and exploited (I know, it is a single player game, but still...) and it takes away from the fun of the game for me. I know that I don't have to use those items, but being able to obtain Carsomyr so early in BG2, even with the paladin restriction, was too easy-- and then the sword made it that much easier... Again, that is my opinion, and if it were my choice I wouldn't have it available so early or at the very least a version that is not so powerful.
  7. It matters a lot to me. I think that the author's context is important and I wouldn't mind at all with having to take the time to learn how to pronounce things that are not immediately apparent. Like Gumbercules said, I value having the languages being distinct, and it isn't the end of the world for me if I screw up saying something as long I figure it out eventually. I do appreciate that you are willing to take the time to add depth to this aspect of the game and I am looking forward to it!
  8. They would have to be done right, so it would still be beneficial and even encouraged to mix and match pieces. I don't think having one "master" build per class would be much fun, but maybe that is just me. If this were implemented, however, I would want trinkets/jewelry to be included, not just armor. Getting off-topic though, sorry.
  9. I don't feel the need to add the Holy Avenger in particular, I think other memorable/iconic weapons would be equally interesting (for those who recognize them). However, as Sensuki pointed out, some of those items may fall under the D&D license, so if anything were included it would likely be more of a reference than an item actually being represented.
  10. I understand what you mean, but I don't think that those restrictions should be mandatory. I think something like TES: Daggerfall's character creation would be good, where you can choose certain advantages or disadvantages that increase or decrease XP needed to level up. The bonuses or consequences of those disadvantages/advantages could be something other than needing more XP, of course... 6:34 into the video is where it starts, if you don't know what I am talking about. You can see the dagger on the side increase and decrease as he choose the different bonuses. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-gyH9n-8Ck[/media] There are flaws with this system (choosing weaknesses that your race is immune to), but nothing that couldn't be fixed.
  11. After reading this I thought that a "shared" inventory space between party members might be interesting. You would pull up a character's inventory screen and transfer an item(s) between party members without having to drop an item, move the character, and have another character pick it up. Those two things combined would be useful.
  12. My biggest concern is the possible lack of innovation under the excuse that P:E is meant to be like the IE games. The flip side of that is that I'm not sure what my specific concerns are (not all of them at least) and innovation for the sake of "being different" isn't necessary either, which is why I said that I am most likely thinking too hard. In the end, I don't think it will be a problem, but it is something I am worried about.
  13. Although it is nice to not have (as many?, if any at all) equipment restrictions, those aren't my biggest concerns. I am sure it is just me, but I hope that other game mechanics aren't left too similar to the IE games if they don't need to be or can be improved. What I mean is that I don't want some aspects of the game to be left the same just because it saves time and money and have it be justified because of the (possible?) excuse that P:E is meant to be like the IE games... Like I said; I am probably thinking too hard and shouldn't worry, but who knows.
  14. While instant death for situations like these would definitely add to the immersion and realism, I feel like any situation where this would be usable would be restricted to scripted events or, as Jajo said, would "trivialize the content" if an abundance of spells or skills were available that incapacitate an enemy making them vulnerable to instant death. I think both should be avoided equally. There is more in the spoiler, but I use a quest from BG2 as an example and I would rather be polite and not give anything away, no matter how small it might seem.
  15. When it comes to rewards (loot, gold and xp) I think that it is important to balance the cost of "living" in the world and the setting/story in each area with the quantity and quality of the rewards your character(s) receive. By "living" in the game world I mean that literally. The best example that I can think of are the inns in BG (the second one in particular). The best of the best for sleeping arrangements in those inns were the "royal" suites which cost only 16 gold (if I remember correctly) and, by the time the players made it out of the starter dungeon, these rooms were no longer considered expensive (from a player's perspective). This made absolutely no sense to me considering a drink from the same inn could cost up to 30 gold. My point here is that rewards that are actually rewarding are nice, but they should be balanced in consideration of the world economy to make the game more challenging and better from a RP perspective.
  • Create New...