Jump to content

Plutone00

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Plutone00

  • Rank
    Obsidian Order's Scout of the Northern Wastes

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  1. Banner Saga did not have codex system, there were no "lore items" to be picked up in the game and there was no dialogue aside from story-related. So the only way for devs to tell more about the world was to include descriptions on the world map. IMHO this was not right way to do it since the only time you are required to open the world map is during tutorial. Travelling itself keeps going on on its own: caravan just keeps walking in a straight line the whole game without world map prompts. I never opened the world map during the game and ended up not caring about the world that much since I was not properly introduced to the lore. I agree that there should be additional info on the world map. But it shouldn't be the only place to learn about the world. Overall Banner Saga is not a good example to follow in that aspect.
  2. It would be nice if Perception stat affected the view distance. Rangers receiving a bonus to view radius would also make sense.
  3. Sometimes you're gotta do what you're gotta do. If you cater for your companions all the time, then you are simply a yes-man without mind of your own and do not deserve to be put in decision-making position. Unfortunately a lot of games are built this way: choose to agree with this guy or that guy and one of them is going to hate you after. As far as DA goes, DA2 was a step in the right direction. You could actually disagree with companions and explain to them why they're wrong. They were still not happy, but they listened and understood. The only problem I have with friendship/rilvalry system is in the end they are almost completely the same. You still have the same events with slightly different dialogue. Influence system should not restrict the player to be a yes-man, but there're gotta be consequences. Both for ageeing and disagreeing. Sometimes agreeing should have negative consequences, just as disageeing should pay off down the road. I think Obsidian had the right idea with AP. There were story benefits to both negative and positive reputations with people. I hope PoE adapts a similar system.
  4. Consortium. Pleasantly surprised about quality of indie games nowadays.
  5. I was just the way you you phrased it. Making a "personal profit" at funder's expense is not the quite the same as working.
  6. Which in turn paid their own salaries, so they are making a personal profit anyway. No, they are not. They are just paying their bills. What kind of job do you have IRL anyway? Are you making a salary? If you are doing your job for free, then what do you do with your living expenses?
  7. I'd just take canon companions since I like the characters I travel with to have depth. Traveling with custom made companions feels kinda empty to me.
  8. It's a good thing in itself, of course. I would gladly give a good example of carry over done right if there was one. Many RPGs with choice-and-consequence system besides ME, DA and Witcher attempted that challenge: SMT (original + spin-offs Devil Summoner and Avatar Tuner), Suikoden (original trilogy), Growlanser (original trilogy), Galaxy Angel (original trilogy), even Fable (Which in the end didn't carry over anything besides previous protagonist's gender and kingdom flag. But Peter Molyneux breaking promises won't suprise anyone anymore) and they all failed to deliver turning into TV series so they've changed gears and future installements became stand alone titles still utilising choice-and-consequence system. Most of them turned out for the better, because of it. Once again, I'll give Growlanser 4 a plug here. So obviously making a trilogy that keeps track of player's world changing desisions and truly changes in reaction to them is problematic to say the least. Been done in Avatar Tuner. As a matter of fact it almost turned out exactly the way you describe, but that particular part (and every "affectable" part for that matter) did not affect the world as a whole, there wasn't even a slightest change in the story itself. And that was not even a trilogy, just a duology with supposedly much less limitations of choice. That's exacly the problem with every game of this type. They offer decisions that they can't follow up on. Then they start downplaying them or downright ignoring them so choice-and-consequence system loses meaning and a whole thing just turns into a TV series: season 1, season 2, season 3... Do it right or don't do it at all. Design decisions that can be carried over and followed up on, but do not make them such small scale that they do not affect the story at all. Nobel comitee should take notice and put up a bounty for this. Though I doubt it would be claimed in near future as this kind of RPG trilogy is very hard to do, it's uncharted territory, a no man's land. Yes.
  9. Good to know. So forgive me if I'm a little frustrated if I see that people (not just you) don't read my previous posts cause I'm tired of reapeting myself to everyone like a parrot and Infinitron claiming that I'm highjacking his thread. You keep preaching to choir. I'm not in the mood to go through this whole thing again, so I'll just copy some stuff from my previous posts. Let's face it, as I've said before, episodic stories with savegame imports have never been done right. Because there's a limit placed in both the original game and the sequel from the get-go: sequels simlpy must happen and for that to be, all pieces of trilogy have to be built a certain way. In the end the choices you make don't matter and you pretty much follow the same path and arrive at the same destination no matter if you are a hero or villain across multiple games. Look at Witcher or ME. It's almost like you are watching TV series, only you are sitting behind a keyboard and not on your couch. It would make sense if PoE protagonist's story continued in expansion if developers aknowledged all the choices protagonist made and went from there: good guy continues hero story arc and evil guy his own. But there is no need for DA-type world state save from game to game (and it did not work right with DA2 anyway). It's not doing devs or the games themselves any favors. Aside from the shared lore, the games should be independent. Let's be ralistic here - nothing hurts more the freedom of choice in games, than the sequels and the more seqeuels there are gonna be, the more those games will look like a bad TV series. It's a simple geometric progression.Sequels can still be done with different stories, but not a single story butchered into pieces and spread across multiple games, that do not keep track of it anyway. And I would really like to wrap this whole thing here if you don't mind. This whole disscussion has ran full circle about 5 times.
  10. M4-78 becomes available only after you finish Korriban so you can't change it up, obviously. My pesonal KotoR2 route though has always been Dantooine (since it's easier to build a good first lightsaber there because of a crystal cave) - Nar Shadaa - Onderon - Korriban (because Ludo Kressh's tomb opens up only if take Korriban last). Just give him lots of ion weapons and construction kits.
  11. Dammit you guys Don't you see? If it takes a high level character to fight dragons in Pillars of Eternity's system, then that means that, like it or not, you are not going to fight a dragon in this game's story. By defining the game as a low-to-mid level experience, they're already excluding certain types of quests and storylines and making the experience "incomplete" by a certain definition. You'll HAVE to import your character to the sequel to do those sorts of things. What Mass Effect did isn't relevant here because ME rebooted its character system for each game and there was no common frame of reference for Shepard's power between the games. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for my part in what's happening to your thread, mate. However I can't take responsibility for highjacking as it takes more than one guy to do it. There is a middle ground, of course. But you've seen the track record. Devs nowadays just take a single story and chop it into bits. You did not miss "the point", you missed the point that I and others have pointed out which I have to point out to you now and repeat myself, because you did not take time to read all the previous posts (and I didn't blame you for this since it's a lot of text and kinda boring read) and you just assumed that you got the point. And now you're agry with me for pointing it out... All your points bellow have already been discussed at some point or the other, but since I'm the one who made most them, it falls to me once again to take point and make program accessible to new viewers. That's what I've been talking about all along. There is no such law or commandment (that I know of at least) that prevents a proper transfer of player decisions to the sequel. Yet every time someone (and it's guys like Bioware with lots of brainpower and big budget) attempts to do it, the whole thing gets botched. The desisions (important ones) are not aknowledged and and if they are, it's done in such a twisted way to make them meaningless in the end. You still end up with exactly the same story whether you import your save or not. It just turnes into a bad TV series, only you are watching it with your hands on a keayboard. (Supernatural, which is bad example; but bad is kinda the point) In season 3 there is the drama of upcoming "important" desions, the protagonist is struggling because he sold his soul to the demons, he's got 1 year left to live so he's got to change the world before then and finally time runs out so he is "permanently" trapped in hell just to come back at the very first episode of season 4 to a world that barely chaged and the stuff from the previous season is almost never mentioned at all. (Remind you of something? - ME) Once again, that's what I was talking about all along. There are many successful examples of stand alone titles with choice-and-consequence system, but there no examples of successful choice-and-consequence system in trilogies. I don't want PoE to be a lab rat. Let's be realistic here if Bioware couldn't do it with their big budget, Osidian has a much lesser chance with their current crowd-funded one. Trying to be another DA would only hurt PoE at this point. I hope you understood now that you've been preaching to choir. Please take time to read the whole topic carefully before posting from now on. I say that without any malice. Thank you.
  12. And you know I'm right. It doesn't even matter what order do you play ME games in or even if you skip everything and just play ME3. The story itself won't chage at all. Shepard starts as level 1 character every time and all his acomplishments are the same whether you imported save or not. So he starts fresh everytime, a "nobody" you could say. Correct, there shouldn't be. Clarification: talking about games whith choice-and-consequence system exclusively. As I've said before, do it right or don't do it at all. It will just create more headache for the devs and render most of player's choices meaningless which renders the whole choice-and-consequence system meaningless and therefore the prequel game itself is meaningless. They can do different stories with other protagonists on a different plane/timeline/whatever but taking a single story and butchering it into pieces to spread across sequels and dlcs is an absolute no-no. You can attempt to argue anything you want, which is pretty much what you are already doing. Just be careful that I does not turn into arguement for the sake of one, as it stands rather close now. That is what I was telling all along. Established franchises like D&D have their own lore which significatly limits what can happen in the game and there is nothing more harmful to choice-and-consequence system than that. With new IP Bioware operated without such limits and they blew it twice (I know they are trying to fix DA with the keep system, let's see what comes of it) And I don't want Obsidian to repeat the same mistake. And you are not? Let's not start finger pointing on top of everything. We see such neglections in every IE game except Fallouts. But as I've said before, besides being under D&D restrictions, Torment was a game from another era and today's standarts do not apply to it. I do? Where? I know it's easy to get confused with large topics like this, so please read whole thread carefully before posting. No, you are comparing them. If I was doing the comparing it would be to Growlanser 1 or Star Ocean 2 (they both came out in the same year as Torment in fact) which are much better as far as choice-and-consequence goes and set an example how it should be done. What truly does not make sense is me talking about Obsidian focusing on their new IP without worring about what may or may not come in the future and you replying with this... Troll much? No, I'm hoping for another Growlanser 4-like game. It had lots of combat, but a solid plot with choice-and-consequence system and branching story arcs. It's an example how such games should be done. But since devs most likely do not pay much attention to japanese stuff, I'll settle for Fallout 2-like as far as choice-and-consequence is conserned. Your problem is you assume too much about your interlocutors and devs both. As a backer I have a right to voice what I want in the game. But I have no illusions. I have not asked for anything unreasonable that haven't been done before. In fact I'm making their work easier by saying not to try to be another ME or DA, cause even the originals with big budgets have not worked out. There are many successful examples of stand alone titles with choice-and-consequence system, but there no examples of successful choice-and-consequence system in trilogies.
×
×
  • Create New...