Jump to content

aiqidar

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About aiqidar

  • Rank
    (2) Evoker

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. I didn't mean to imply that the open-world style is incompatible with good stories, but rather that it makes it harder to imbue the "main" quest with any real sense of urgency. Especially if you combine it with a desire to make the game long, and to encourage the player to explore optional content without fear of penalty. This as opposed to treating such sidetracking as a potentially fatal distraction that they pursued at their own peril as in Fallout, which would be more thematically consistent with what the game's telling you. Even in the Elder Scrolls games, the first thing I'd do in Oblivi
  2. I don't entirely disagree with you, but if you take a long, hard look at BG1 you'll find that it actually had a fairly mediocre story and the thing that really made it interesting was the companions, the exploration and the optional stuff. BG2 had a much better story, but even it wasn't spectacular by writing standards and the companion interactions were clearly the highlight of the game. This isn't the fault of the game's writers, though. It's actually a natural result of the kind of game they're trying to make. They wanted to make a game that was long, had a lot of optional content, and
  3. That sounds hilarious. Do you know anywhere that might have some examples of that? I actually own Icewind Dale due to a quirk of eBay, but... Eh, I'm not really in it for the dungeon crawling, so I never installed it. It's been a while, but there is one example that stuck in my mind vividly. In Icewind Dale 2 there's an bit where there's some sort of intrigue going on between a demon and some goblin gang in some underground caverns. If you approach the guys with any normal character, you can get into this whole intriguing back-and-forth between some rival groups and get some quests too
  4. I haven't played a Paladin in this game yet, but Paladins saying weird and crazy stuff would't be out of character for this kind of game. I remember in the Icewind Dale series, paladins were religious fundamentalists that occasionally acted like complete psychopaths if you let them do all the talking.
  5. Yeah exactly. Plus the fact that the game lets you know (if you so choose) the circumstances under which those extra options are unlocked means you won't waste time blindly rolling new characters hoping to see new stuff (or looking it up on walkthroughs which could potentially spoil other things about the game for you).
  6. It's kind of always been like this. In previous games, the options just wouldn't show up if you didn't meet the requirements so you could potentially go the entire game without ever knowing it was a thing.
  7. I play on hard and I haven't had any difficulties per se (though I've since had to take a break from teh game because I ran into that defense stacking bug with Eder and I just cannot play until this stuff is dealt with). But I did notice a lot of very basic AI issues, like targets not being automatically assigned after a kill. So even on easy I don't think you could do without micronanaging, at least with the game in its current form. I suspect most of it will be dealt with after the first patch though.
  8. and dies 2 seconds later, in any kind of challenging fight when backstabbing a key enemy would actually matter Endless Paths are a nightmare with a rogue, unless you make it ranged, not to mention dual wield (staple rogueish combat style) is terrible compared to two handed because most enemies who dont die from one hit have a high DR It kind of works if your rogue's using a ranged weapon. The idea of sneaking into a room containing multiple opponents and stabbing one of them always felt a bit absurd to me so I never really did it in IE games either, unless I was using an actual inv
  9. Planescape and Fallout had it. In Neverwinter with the exploration mode you could walk too. It´s Diablo style games the ones missing it. Pretty sure Diablo 2 had both walking and running. Diablo 3 I can't quire recall though.
  10. I agree, the game could have potentially been much better if they had made a clear decision around "No resting in any area that hasn't been cleared yet" and then built a combat system around that. The only proper solution to the problem of rest-spamming would be to eliminate resting altogether, at least the way it exists in its current form. Yes, it's absurd that people in previous games could rest infinitely in hostile areas, but it's not really that much absurd than being able to rest at all in a hostile area (as in setting up a campsite, as opposed to just catching your breath and patch
  11. It's not about discouraging from combat at all, it's about making the decision about whether or not to engage in combat a meaningful one. It kind of goes to a philosophical issue I've had with RPGs in general. In every game you go through a spiel of "Oh what a dangerous world this is, death lurks around every corner" while at the same time there's the expecation that we'll be able to go everywhere and completely kill everything with not much real effort. That creates a bit of a dissonance that I find hard to ignore. This game was actually a big step forward in that regard because it played
  12. I disagree that the only outcome would be save-scumming. That would only apply if I was going through a playthrough where I was intent on clearing all levels, completing every possible quest and keeping all companions alive. If I was willing to avoid combat, and to accept the consequences of a combat gone poorly (and if I took the precautions necessary to make sure "my" character didn't die), I could easily get through an entire game without any serious issue. And I agree, if implemented it should be toggleable, I would most likely leave it off and go for a more casual combat style if I was tr
  13. I disagree that tactics would be diminished with this added realism. It would still be relevant, but what it would do is change how we think. I.e. we would start thinking in terms of who's expendable and have them face the risks. We would put a great deal of thought into how long the combat lasts, so as to limit the risk of something going catastrophically wrong. And if we're not willing to sacrifice anyone, it would make us genuinely think about avoiding combat, which itself is an important decision which I feel we're not forced to make often enough in games. That said, I don't think it s
  14. That's how I'd handle it. Though in my experience the D&D-based games suffered from the same problem. True, they did have more instakill abilities like petrification etc. but ordinary combat with weapons was generally quite predictable.
  15. The impression I get from reading the combat threads is that this kind of thing is frowned upon. People have issues if you're able to do it to enemies, and they'll certainly have issues if enemies are able to do it to you. My first issue with that is, it's unrealistic. The history of actual combat in this world is one that's largely a story of sudden kills. I.e. a combatant's life would typically end not due to a large collection of minor wounds, but a few severe wounds. Often just a single fatal wound. And even if the wound wasn't instantly fatal it would at least be incapacitating, i.e.,
×
×
  • Create New...