Jump to content

Sylvius the Mad

Members
  • Posts

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sylvius the Mad

  1. It's usually a bad thing when class synergy has to be specifically programmed in. I vehemently disliked DA:O's explicit aggro system. It felt like I'm mind-cotrolling my opponents.

    While that was a bit silly, it wasn't tied to class. A character of any class could wear heavier armour and draw more attention.

     

    DAO is an example of a game that doesn't limit combat roles by class. The BG games don't, either. If you want to build a party around Viconia and 5 wizards, you can do that, and the party can still be effective.

  2.  

    Not necessarily true. The developer is responsible for planning and managing the work (and if necessary limiting its scope) such that a game can be completed within the allowed budget and time frame.

    I recall a time when RPGs were never released on schedule. Because RPGs are hard to make.

     

    Games should be released "when they're done." That used to be BioWare's standard, years ago.

  3. This isn't a feature I generally like. I think classes should be designed to make sense within the setting, and then the players can work out how they want to use those classes together as an effective group.

     

    For example, in D&D-based games many different classes can adequately fill the role of front-line warrior, including some non-warrior classes like Clerics. They might not all be as good at acting like a front-line warrior as a Fighter is, but that can be compensated for with the rest of the group.

     

    Similarly, in DAO a character of any class could fill that front-line warrior role. Warriors, obviously, did well, but Rogues and Mages could both, depending how they were built, do the same (Rogues were arguably better at it).

     

    The tendency, which I mostly blame on MMOs, to force each class into a specific combat role is something that I think harms the coherence of the game's setting. Class abilities should not be so narrow as to appear obviously designed.

     

    So I'm very much hoping that Project Eternity will not rigidly define classes by their intended roles in combat.

    • Like 7
  4. along the same topic, even though I don't like controlling exactly what companions who are already in the world say, if the game does allow us to have user created companions I would fully support having complete control over them. At that point you basically have multiple PCs

    In a party-based game, I think we always have multiple PCs. Just some of them are pre-generated (like the PCs in tournament gaming you see at Gen-Con).

  5. It really depends on the game I guess. It works in Baldur's Gate, but it wouldn't work in PS:T.

    True. PS:T wasn't written in a way that would have allowed it (though, again, according to Gaider neither was BG2, and it worked just fine).

     

    But if Obsidian plans for such an option in advance, they can write the game such that it works.

    Potato/Potato. Point just being that they should be considered integral parts of eachother. Seperating between them on principle would be a horrible decision.

    Granted. I agree wholeheartedly.

    Indeed; If there is an Aerie character, she shouldn't have the option of saying "Stop teasing me and just put it in!", or anything along those lines.

    See, there I disagree. If Aerie says that, that tells us a lot about her personality. The shyness could be a facade, or perhaps she's more psychologically damaged by the loss of her wings than she thinks.

    All options in conversations should be appropriate for that character. Sometimes these would be general things identical to what the PC could choose, sometimes it would be just a little bit different, and sometimes it just plain shouldn't have the same options.

    I think that choice should be left to the player. Avoiding lines that are out-of-character for the speaker is already a huge part of conversation-gameplay. When choosing which line your PC will speak, you avoid those lines that don't suit him.

     

    I see no reason to prevent the player from having the pre-generated party members from saying anything at all.

    Clearly only the PC should have access to the widest range of options, since his or her character would be entirely undefined; murderous or noble, you'd have the full range of picks. Keldorn, Dak'kon or Kaelyn the Dove never would.

    Unless they would, in which case they're now different characters.

     

    I refuse to concede even that the companions are the same from one playthrough to the next. Perhaps in one playthrough Keldorn wouldn't utter menacing threats, but in another he might.

  6. This is 1 person's story. There's no f reason to allow a party generation. You cannot explain it, it goes against OEs idea of NPCs being important. When do you decide who's the main character in the game? And if you change your mind in the middle the game?

    So don't play it that way.

    Adds replayability? HOW?

    By letting us try different party constructions. An all Wizard party is often quite fun, but if we're limited to the pre-written party members then we probably can't ever do that.

  7. that would certainly be interesting. Honestly, without playing SoZ its hard for me to say. As long as we can't force the characters to say things they wouldn't actually say I'd be cool with something like you described though. Basically, I don't want to control their personality directly. If they strongly disagree with the PC on a topic, the options I have for them in conversation should reflect that.

    Absolutely. If the party takes a position the party-member will not support, then I would expect that party member to object, and probably leave the party if the party refused to change course.

  8. I perceive the PC as me. I perceive the rest of my party as separate people with me. I can't control what people with me say. I can try to convince them, but I can't make them.

    That's where we differ. The PC is not me. I'm the player. I don't even exist within the game's reality. So having the companions talk isn't an instance of the PC making them do something, but instead an instance of them agreeing to do something the party wants them to do.

     

    And I get to decide whether they agree.

    SOZ style is poor here espciially with npcs. I'd love ifn the npcs can interject themselves in convos but the PC shouldn't be able to 'select' them to do so.

    The PC doesn't select anything. The player does.

    PE is you create one characetr and you have joinables join your party. They are individuals with their own minds.

    Just like Baldur's Gate, but BG didn't force the PC to act as party leader or party spokesperson.

     

    So clearly that's not mandatory.

    This isn't IWD or SOZ where role-playing doesn't really exist and you are controlling a multi headed monster.

    Roleplaying exists in IWD and SoZ. It's just not the player in control of one character only. IWD and SoZ, in fact, solve the incongruous problem that exists in games like DAO or NWN2 where the player controls everything about all of the party members, except during conversations.

    I guess it depends on if you can see all the battle-related options as *commanding* the party via the main character rather than playing it, even if you do have direct control of what they do and use.

    Then it shouldn't work when the PC is unconcious. But it does. Therefore, I'm playing the whole party.

    ya, a little of that and a little of just separating gameplay from story.

    Gameplay/story segregation is the devil.

    • Like 1
  9. I would love the option of sending my companions to talk to people. Say there's some drunk I need to get some information from, I would love the option of sending the bosomy rogue companion to talk to him or to send the big scary fighter to go threaten him. I would have to have proper relationships with the companions and maybe have to deal with the possibility of them not doing exactly as I would like them to do. Maybe don't even let me see the conversation, I just have to take their word for it when they come back and tell me what happened. Would add a very different relationship where you have to earn trust with companions.

    This would drive me nuts. I'm not playing a single character - I'm playing the party.

     

    If I'm only playing one character, then I shouldn't get to decide what skills the other characters use, what tactics they employ, what equipment they use - any of that.

  10. I really don't think it's that kind of game, Sylvius. The companions will have autonomous personalities - why do you think there are so few of them planned? It's gonna be like Planescape Torment.

     

    Obsidian would have to write unique dialogue for each companion, for every single NPC in the game.

    They clearly wouldn't. They already write generic responses for the PC. Since they don't know the PC's personality, they can't inject it through dialogue. Those lines would therefore work just as well for the companions.

     

    Similarly, the companions aren't speaking on their own behalf, so there's no reason for their personalities to be expressed at all. When acting as party spokesperson, they're speaking on behalf of the group.

     

    There's no need to change how the game is written at all. This is purely a mechanical difference.

    The PC is just one more member of the adventuring group.

    In games like these, PC is protagonist, main force in the story.

    From the point of view of the party members, there is no story. So why should their behaviour be constrained by it?

     

    I have yet to see a game where it didn't make perfect sense to allow any party member to speak on behalf of the group. Forcing only the PC to do it, expecially when the PC isn't well-suited to the role, is lunacy.

     

    What if my PC has crippling social anxiety? How is he supposed to lead a group or drive conversations? Forcing the PC to be party leader or party spokesman is a gigantic limit on roleplaying freedom.

×
×
  • Create New...