Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Amentep

Global Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6281

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Amentep

  1. Amentep
    To my mind it was pretty clear in the pitch that PE was only being developed with the PC in mind. Ergo, I don't mind it being PC only. In the same sense, when a developer announces a really cool game for the PS3 I don't demand it on the X-Box 360 or the game is for a 3DS and I don't demand it also show up on a PC. Because sometimes it just makes sense to make the game the best it can be for the platform the creators want to work on. Not everything can be a dessert topping AND a floor wax, like New Shimmer.
  2. Amentep
    Right; I agree I never ran out of ammos so for the most part my dedicated archer (usually a thief) usually fired arrows. In certain occasions I went in for close combat by choice but rarely and even with limited ammo the few times I did run out I didn't feel the character was useless (which is different from Mages w/o spells and their resource management). In fact the only problem I had was hording specialty arrows (and even then there were just some situations it was obvious to use them in). I'm for fletching and recovering arrows though!
  3. Amentep
    Taking a wild stab based on the Sir Tech game credits, Brenda Braithwaite did playtesting on the English transation / version.
  4. Amentep
    I've heard that before but posting there I never got it. Was it the fact we all tended to be in on the same jokes? Were people actively rude or uninviting?
  5. Amentep
    With the caveat that I don't know how archery is going to be in PE... I'd argue that the value in archery characters is whether you want them to be less useful or more useful in a combat situation. There are scenarios in the IE games where the best strategy is to have all the characters attacking from a distance. To me the question with an archer was never "Awesome" with a bow & "Useless" with a short sword (or whatever) because the archer characters could still add value to a fight (unlike say a mage with a sling who tended to add very little to a fight). So the management aspect of limited arrows - to my mind - is about where / when you want that character to be at their most useful - which isn't that dissimilar to when / where does your mage unleash the high level spells. And even with limited ammo in the IE games I never felt the need to hoard ammo (unlike spells). yes the walk back to might be tedious but it was generally not something that was needed; I usually had more than enough ammo for the situations or had utility by switching weapons.
  6. Amentep
    I don't think it HAS to be as good as any game. I want it to be good when I play it though.
  7. Amentep
    I'd totally love for it to be Turn Based, but RTwP was expected by me based on the IE hooks. I thought Josh here yesterday said he didn't forsee much, if any, level scaling being used in PE. Has that changed since yesterday? I'd argue that "the game they originally promised is already subjectively different" would be more accurate. Their stated goals is to change things for the better but keep their functions the same with the changes - as I understand it from the lengthy thread Josh was on yesterday. To my mind until we see how this implementation works the changes appear to be radically altering the "old school IE"-ness (thus its subjective). Once we see how it works if it does work demonstratively differently it'd become an objective difference. But I understand where the apprehension comes from about the changes. And I appreciate when people can articulate the things they see as "pitfalls" to their view of what "Old school isometric RPG" should be; while I think designing a game via forum posts would be a bad idea, I don't think that negates the benefit of feedback. The sales pitch of an "Old School IE like game" is already going to be different things to different people so what it means to us has to be made clear. I'm pretty sure that they indicated that they had pitched other party based based fantasy RPGs and gotten no interest; that this idea they didn't bother with and went to crowdfunding. But I may be misremembering.
  8. Amentep
    so when you run out of arrows in a game like icewind dale, do you really enjoy walking back to town to buy more? Does it actually add any value to the game? I mean, its a minor enough hassle that I really don't mind keeping up with arrows. I just don't get what is enjoyable about it. Seems like realism for the sake of realism to buy arrows for your elf. I voted limited but I really don't mind unlimited; but generally speaking I rarely ran out of arrows in IWD (partially because I usually had other players carry some for my archer characters). But even when I did I didn't feel that my archer had become useless switching to an alternate wepon (just not as useful).
  9. Amentep
    Kangaxx kicked my rear a few times before I figured out a strategy against him. Since it was optional fight, I had no problem with it being as tough as it was; probably feel differently if it had been the middle fight of the main quest or something.
  10. Amentep
    And that is my deterrent to playing sloppily. But there's an assumption built in there that the only way you could get into that situation is if you played sloppily. I've been in games where despite my planning bad rolls have led me to exhaust more spells that I had planned on in a fight. Now maybe this is just because I'm not hardcore enough, but in my experience it happens. At any rate does it really act as a deterrent? And what point is a deterrent built around something that could be part of random chance (unless we're talking about removing the possibility of spells being interrupted and lost and other measures to ensure that no random chance could deplete resources) move from being encouraging smart gameplay to just annoying the player? EDIT: And doesn't the fact that the player isn't experiencing success encourage smarter gameplay without a 6 minute walk?
  11. Amentep
    I would have planned more carefully (conserving spells), to avoid such a situation. To be fair, you could also just continue on hoping that tactics and other PC/NPCs skills in the party will make up for the limited usefulness of the mage (which is what I usually did in the IE games when I played them) But that answer nor yours is really answering the question as asked since the question is about a situation where you HAVE used the spells and that you CHOOSE to walk back, so what good is the experience of walking for the player?
  12. Amentep
    Weight limits usually involve I keep this OR I keep this. Or "Do I keep going knowing I'll have to forgo some equipment or travel back and sell equipment now" In the scenario described, there doesn't seem to be an option for the player; its cake or death. I'd think the goal wasn't for the player to feel like they have to twiddle their thumbs for X minutes. Beyond that, its hard to say what would be "worse gameplay" since we'd have to be making assumptions on how Project Eternity's gameplay runs with precious little information.
  13. Amentep
    Are their flowers that we can smell on the way to the campsite? Can we stop to smell the flowers? While I don't think I'd be terribly put out by this every now and then (30th time in a row I'd hate) there's no benefit to the walk that I can see. Yeap, that's my concern. There hasn't been a developer post stating that "A mechanic will be available that immediately resets all the cooldowns" (whether that is "wait()" or "rest()" or something altogether different). Until I see such a post, I think it is far more likely that the intent of this feature is exactly what it seems like: to prevent players from rest spamming. The best way to do this is to make cooldown timers that only respond to the passage of real-time. This is 100% reliable at solving the "problem", after all. Of course, this leads to a much more serious problem, of people leaving the game running overnight (or during dinner, or while they are at work) to reset cooldowns, but hey -- surely the developers aren't that silly, are they? I'm not entirely sure that Obsidian's path to eliminate in-game rest spamming by the characters is to encourage outside-of-game rest spamming by the player. I think the goal of eliminating rest spamming would be to create a system in which the players would feel no need to rest after every encounter?
  14. Amentep
    I actually don't disagree with the gist of your points, really. My only point is that if "...soldiers carr[y]ing chest pieces and helmets" have chest pieces that consist of a jewel in the belly button, lets not say its armor - unless it is magical armor. Because as mundane armor the odds are pretty high that any blows that hit are going to strike an area left unprotected.* Now I'm for player options and for NPCs to wear what they want and frankly if mage or even rogue types want to wear something practical or sexy it makes sense. But if a character loots some breast plate that covers chest and stomach and puts it on their female character and it suddenly becomes a metal bra...well I can see where there's a logical disconect between form and function. *and frankly if it did hit right there, I think you'd still be experiencing some issues regardless of what protection it afforded.
  15. Amentep
    I know, I've read that many times. I'm just not convinced he's talking about the same multiplayer that's the issue here. Okay if you've read that then you read the earlier quote from Tim Cain where he indicated that they were considering multiplayer if it didn't distract from the development of the SP game, yes? So what you're saying is that - despite developer quotes that indicate that indeed multiplayer was going to detract from the single player game and so they decided not to do it, that you don't believe him and still insist that multiplayer like you want is easy to implement and should be done? Or am I missing something?
  16. Amentep
  17. Amentep
    This is wrong. In real world Armor evolutionize from fullplate to lighter Landsknecht armor, from Landsknecht armor to Cuirass covering only Torso. Armor covering whole body is stupid idea. I recall - and I'm not an expert - that real world armors became lighter and more torso centric because mobility became more important as artillery use rose and close combat became less favored due to that. In that light it makes sense that armies would need to be more mobile and switch to lighter armors that left arms and legs mobility. That doesn't change the fact that if my armor on my chests covers only my nipples, a blow to my chest - from a sword, from a pike, from a gun - isn't going to be stopped by my "protection", therefore the idea that it is armor that provides protection (unless its magical) doesn't follow.
  18. Amentep
    How did you defeat Sarevok? By cheating (the one fight in all of the IE games I never did honestly). ...'Tep, I's shocked... ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... Well I tried it honestly, and failed; again I don't think it was my mages spells at fault - in fact I did what I've heard others do - I used Dynaheir to summon monsters after using some distance attacks to take out the three henchmen. It was just repeated bad luck, usually getting within a few HPs of taking out Sarevok but getting a bad roll or something. That is until I CLUAConsoled in a few dozen Drizzts that is. I've wanted to go back to do it honestly but have never managed to get to that point again in BG1.
  19. Amentep
    How did you defeat Sarevok? By cheating (the one fight in all of the IE games I never did honestly). *I should add me cheating was not because my mages didn't have the right spells in place
  20. Amentep
    I doubt you're the only one. But I imagine you must understand the system fairly well. Definitely better than I did back in the day. Spellcasters were some of the worst for me. Did I have the spells prepared that allowed the rest of my party to even do damage? Did I have enough dispels or breaches. I loved the battles when I played them, but they also felt swingy, too dependent upon those breech/warding whip/dispels to land and remove the right protections. I think at one point I just decided "screw it" and would use gate slightly off-screen. Then there were other fights were the dominant strategy was to summon as many monsters as possible and pick the enemy off from range while he was distracted. But that seems more a flaw of encounter design than preperation. So I think you make a fair point. Maybe I was just too unfamiliar and the battles didn't really telegraph themselves in advance well enough. I never found this to be the case (but usually only played on normal, not the harder setting either).
  21. Amentep
    I must be the only player who ran through the IE games with only very minor adjustments to the spell casters picked spells. For the most part not having a spell wasn't a TPK in the IE games and the only times it might come close you were usually signaled beforehand by the game what you might need. Therefore I usually kept the most utilitarian spells for my spell casters - even in BG 2 when my PC was a mage.
  22. Amentep
    I would say it would be good. Others may disagree, but I'm all for INT or INT/WIS stats reflecting what my character should know and not being able to come up with the right answer because I happen to know what walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon and three legs at night. But I like low INT dialogue anyhow (and think, reasonably, there should be high int dialogue as well).
  23. Amentep
    She'll be a practitioner of "Hug-Fu"
  24. Amentep
    I can't really give an answer. For example, Wiz8 allows the opponents to break party ranks across a 3D field. Old Wizardry you fought a group of opponents all on one field. The new way radically altered the efficacy of area affect spells for the player - something I *hated* in that game. I still liked the game, though, and I can't fault them for thinking - "hey, we don't have to keep doing the same thing now that technology could allow us to do other things". They just didn't come up with a satisfying "other thing" to me. I'm probably okay with the system as long as its balanced and fun to use; I'm not terribly beholden to a particular way to resolve combat.
  25. Amentep
    While I'm certain there are some people are against armor "cut outs" because of prudishness, I'd say most people arguing for realistic armor are actually working from the idea that armor that doesn't cover more than a 1/5 of your body isn't armor, its decoration. I'm not against sexy clothes or even decorative garments made of chain or plate. But realistically unless they're forming a magic barrier around your character, they really shouldn't have any effect on your ability to deflect or withstand a blow.
×
×
  • Create New...