Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

Amentep

Global Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6364

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Amentep

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. Amentep
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  16. Amentep
    She'll be a practitioner of "Hug-Fu"
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Amentep
    I see the former as a skill and the later as a player choices.
  20. Amentep
    Generally speaking, my character's skill should dictate the success (or lack thereof) of my choices, and if my choices haven't led the character to be able to succeed in the skill then hopefully I'm smart enough to have a different plan. Too often - using lockpicking as an example - games err on the side of creating a puzzle for the player that high skill only makes easier to solve but players still have to use their manual dexterity with the mouse/keyboard to solve. But sometimes this utterly fails (Mass Effect where it was tedious but relatively easy to bypass most puzzles on skill alone) or annoying where even with a high skill it wasn't terribly fun to deal with (Elder Scroll games). IMO and YMMV.
  21. Amentep
    eh...any project that starts as an "old school" game is going to have a breaking point where fans see it as "old school in name only". I think that goes with the territory. While I may not care if the game is OSINO, I understand why others who backed this for their specific love of particular games in the pitch may not like certain things they feel don't meet their Old School thresh-hold. I'm passionate about games...kinda hard to fault others who are passionate about games.
  22. Amentep
    Not to promote a negative stereotype of women being stupid or something, but... I love how her face is so derp, her sword is missing and the horse looks like "OH GOD PLEASE GET THIS IDIOT OFF ME." That statue's hysterical, gender be damned. This is, I believe, the Joan of Arc Statue in Washington DC. The sword has been replaced now, as I understand it. Her expression is probably done this way to indicate that she was on a divine mission (thus looking heavenward heading to battle). That said, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that while Joan had a sword with her, she usually actually carried the standard into battle...
  23. Amentep
    I thought Arcanum did this right, giving the bonus/penalty for gender but then allowing you to choose a background that would essentially negate it if you chose to, thus allowing you to create characters the way you wanted to in a more fleshed out manner. i have no problem with choosing who my character is having some "effect" to reactions - whether its race or gender - personally. I think so long as the "penalty" in society isn't a permanent barrier (ie the man in the fiercely matriarchal society or the woman in the fiercely patriarchal society can still prove themselves based on their skills). I think it would be frustrating for a player if the effect to gender was to cut off content unless there was additional content they could only access based on their character. Which I think is really the problem having more and more content to address every possible character combo.
  24. Amentep
    I dunno, BG NPCs didn't drop everything they never carried. Beating off a BG bandit didn't lead them to drop their pants for example. Wait, that doesn't sound right... Seriously though, I would like the humanoids to have lootable weapons / armor, but I'm not sure that I'd be overly upset if they didn't either.
  25. Amentep
×
×
  • Create New...