Amentep

I thought they said that objectives were what made up quests, not quests themselves. Am I misremembering?

SSI's Phantasie in 1985*. Loved being able to get monster party members. *I'm guessing Atari's Adventure or SwordQuest: Earthworld don't count, really being puzzle games.

it is junk when you look at what it could sale for vs the weight vs how long you have to carry it to sell it vs the quality of your sword and whether you have any use for it. Mind you in a game you don't feel the weight of the junk you're carrying, but that's why encumbrance systems exist, so that people don't carry everything that's nailed down because they either might someday need it or because they can get a shiny copper piece for it. In reality, though, people aren't going to carry 7 swords and 5 full suits of armor for 700 miles to sell. But the problem (IMO) isn't the inventory or the encumbrance system in games that encourage such action, its the economy.

I found BG2 with multi-player tedious as everyone had to wait for people to get done with vendors and forced dialogue and all that every time you hit a town. I understand people enjoyed it, heck I actually enjoyed it myself - but that was because I was playing with friends and got to hang out with same, not because I thought the actual implementation of multi-player in BG2 worked well.

In reality (even if your reality was a fantasy world) looting bodies would take a significant amount of time; most armor would probably be damaged, a lot of the weapons would be too. If you found a lot of significant weapons, how do you carry the swords back to town? You might have a few pack animals (if they weren't killed in the fight) so you might loot a few things to sell, but carrying 30 pounds of weapons over several miles sounds like more trouble than it'd be worth. Frankly you're more likely to pry the large jewels from the chieftain's sword handle than to bother with the sword itself, because it weighs so much vs the amount you could get back. Lets say you do take the time and carry back 10 swords to the nearest town though. Who would you sell the 10 swords to? The blacksmith? Does he have a market for 10 swords? Does he have the money to pay for 10 swords? The local guard? Do they have the money? Do they have the need? In other words you might be able to loot 10 good swords from a defeated group but there's a very possible chance that you wouldn't be able to do anything with them unless you plan to travel from town to town. The problem is that ultimately this is all an abstraction. The reality of this situation is you'd probably take what you immediately needed (to repair or replenish your own supplies) and what was the easiest to carry and sell for the most profit. And leave the rest because carrying 30 pounds of swords 10 miles is going to be a pain in the ass with the real possibility that you can't do squat with them once you arrive. But the game version of the situation is that a lot of players want to min-max what they can get out of every encounter. Which is why we have people doing quests peacefully and then psycho-killing everyone for xp or in this case taking month long trips back and forth between dungeons they've cleaned out because it affords them a lot of spending money and there's no time penalty in most games.

The problem with this scenario - IMO - is that the player actually shouldn't have a choice in this; either the statement that the character is a Cleric with the appropriate background is true or its not. Adding the "lie" tag serves no purpose. Where it might be purposeful is when the dialogue is for future events ("Yes I promise to go on a pilgrimage to Dustham's Proclaimer chapel if you let me into you vault today" essentially Wimpy's "I'll gladly repay you Tuesday if you buy me a hamburger today") The problem with this is if you stated a [lie] dialogue but then actually do it (or conversely state a truthful dialogue and forget to do it) then the lie tag is meaningless. And why its meaningless is because lying is partially your intent and partially your veracity. But a game can't really understand your intent. It can understand your veracity (Player promised to pilgrimage to Dustham; 17 weeks passed, state is now "lie" => player now in poor standing with Clergy unless they make amends or explain why pilgrimage has been delayed). So to my mind the game should be designed - in situations where bluffing or similar come into play - to test the veracity of what the player says rather than their intent.

I wonder why.... I'm crazy? They're already doing it? You can't leave me hanging like that...!

I think that's well and fine, I like more shop choices. I'd argue that there should be some realistic limits to what you can sell back; how much money is on hand at each shop and so on. if a small town blacksmith only sells 3-4 swords a year, why is she going to buy the 57 you got off the orc horde? Where is she getting the money for them? Why would the hatter buy a wand? What would he do with it once he had it? Where would the fletcher store the 10,0000 arrows you looted from the elven warband if she bought them? If the leathersmith buys 50 wolf pelts today, why would he buy another 50 from you a week later? Mind you I still think having to have armor fitted before you can swap it to another character is a fine idea but I seem to recall many thinking it too much; but it forces a lot of choices on the player if there's a limit to the value of armour they can sell back and will cost them to refit it. The player has to think about the inventory (and maybe, just maybe, not be encouraged to carry everything under the sun "just in case").

xp isn't the only way to increase your skills though. You could create a system where there is no levels, and completing quests netted you new traits/perks that modified your base skills (which, as there are no levels, never change) based on how you completed the quest or met objectives. This is just my perspective but I think that we're a little hung up on XP/stats in computer RPGs as opposed to the roleplaying (usually choice & consequences). Your mileage may vary, but I think this is why I tend to be neutral on whether XP for kills or XP for quests is "better". I'm more interested in is the system that we have balanced and works for the game than is it superior/inferior to other models.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth - I thought I was misreading what you stated and wanted to make sure that I had; my memory was that you were okay with three valid paths as long as in making three valid paths fighting wasn't made invalid (the fear about cost in expenditures in fighting vs rewards). So the question was asked for clarity on my part not to accuse you of anything (sorry if it came out like that). Right, but I'd argue the poor implementation of combat made the xp reward a terrible motivation to engage in combat if it could be avoided (in this case, combat was unattractive so the xp reward didn't outweigh the tedium for me).

Of course for me - and I'm willing to try this and see if its fun - the bigger problem is the limitations with in game economy that allows the player (or encourages the player) to sell every single item they find in a dungeon. But this may be far to complex an issue to address in games currently.

Um...there's a lot of other systems than awarding XP; completing sidequests could still net you something that would be of worth to your character (titles, reputation, guild/faction status) without giving you a +1 to hit because you leveled. Not saying that's what I want, but I could see it being done.

I'm personally torn on the inventory system to be honest; weightless systems are okay, but - even understanding the system is an abstraction - they tend to favor trading up to more and more ridiculous things because they're the most value. Your fighter is carrying their equipment and some healing potions and maybe a situational weapon or two... ...and then the dining room table and chairs from the estate of Lord Pompusarse because it'll fetch the most money. Inventory is an odd beast and I think personally I favor ones that are more "realistic" system than abstract. I'd argue that you're actually not really making a choice beyond situational choices. Of course, arguably, this could be seen as aligning the choice a fighter makes (what armor, weapon, skill talents) to equip for an encounter more comparable to the choices a magic user would have (what armor, spells, spell talents).

Are you now arguing that instead of the problem being the possibility that sneaking and being diplomatic could become superior pathways to fighting that the problem is that fighting is no longer the superior pathway? Planescape: Torment was heavily based on combat? Combat was the worst thing about it and usually just tedium between the good bits. That said I'd love another Icewind Dale game. Unfortunately I'd imagine the BG and PST fans would be up in arms about that...

Unless, you know, the game he played when he was small was Planescape: Torment which had no co-op play. And was an IE game. And excepting the fact that, very early on in the Kickstarter campaign, they said they weren't looking at making a multi-player game. And despite it being an option, I'd argue Baldur's Gate didn't really support co-op either, since it was such a crappy multi-player experience - but YMMV.

I didn't expect PE would have any similarities with any D&D other than being "fantasy". My expectation of PE was not defined within a framework of what was (or wasn't) in D&D or really in the IE games themselves; maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I couldn't see a game being able to be both Planescape: Torment AND Icewind Dale at the same time.

Okay, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here anymore. But I thought Neeshka was funny (which is why I usually took her along in NWN2...)

I'm pretty sure the YJ and GL decision has less to do with ratings and more to do with merchandising money. YJ's toyline did poorly and GL never rated one. I watched PARANORMAN last night. It was funny and really didn't go where I expected it to based on its premise.

gfted's going to the Adventurer's Hall (Haul?) and his party is going to be Hoover, Dyson, Bissel, Eureka, Dirt Devil and Filter Queen.

I vote Noober/Neeber as well. Wait Neeshka was more serious? The character who was always cracking wise? Don't get me wrong, you don't like a character you don't like a character. But Neeshka never struck me as terribly serious ("Questions, questions...go ahead, I'm all horns", "I feel this strange, rosy glow all of a sudden. We don't have to hug, do we?", "And I may have accidentally back-stabbed some people in the past, but if they couldn't see me coming, well, that's their loss")

huh, wish I'd known that when I played it. It was fun, but not as repeatable (IMO) as other Snowblind games. And its a bit short.

The clock never stops*; the officials keep track of time for injuries and add it on to the end. Anything else is done on the clock. If the guy was just some jerk who grabbed the ball, I'm not entirely sure why Hazard was red carded, to be honest. Particularly since the intent would seem to be to do what happened - force a tie which Swansea would advance from due to tiebreaking/advancement rules. *I believe there are some US affiliations that allow time-outs; my memory though this isn't really the norm.

I never played Star Ocean 1, so I can't vouch for it - did play 2 though. I just remembered actually enjoying searching through town to find where everyone went so I could see if I was going to get any extra dialogue.

They could make it like the Route 66 TV show; you travel along a specific highway where at each stop you have the possibility of being embroiled in some storyline or another...

Sorry the only report I've read on the incident reported the dude was a "ball boy". They didn't have ball boys when I played HS football/soccer/whateveryouwanttocallit but you know I went with what the report said.