Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Poor beastiary, Unsatisfying Creature variety "Unacceptable".

Beastiary Creatures Wildlife Animals Monsters

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#81
bussinrounds

bussinrounds

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 50 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Those are actually different creatures though, even though the models might be the same. And that's cool. When someone said 'different colors', i was thinking the exact same creature, just with a different color, in which case I wouldn't be fine with that. (unless it was done very sparsely)

I would be all for taking time from certain other aspects of the game to add creature variety. (if it was really weak, as it is in most all modern RPGs)

#82
Osvir

Osvir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 3799 posts
  • Location:Stockholm, SE
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
Here is a great site for reference... how many monsters did Baldur's Gate have?
http://mikesrpgcente...e/bestiary.html

EDIT: Quick counting I get it to 74. Doing a quick head count I get it to something like "32" unique monsters. <- These numbers aren't accurate, I just skimmed, doing a quick head count.

Edited by Osvir, 13 December 2012 - 10:39 AM.


#83
Umberlin

Umberlin

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 545 posts
You know, quest for glory, if you take it game by game, instead of as their entire five entry series . . . they didn't have tons of monsters. Just a few new ones per game. For an example of why this was preferable let's take Quest for Glory II.

Quest for Glory II had very few enemies, like other entires. and why I bring it up is that it's probably the best implementation of the existing enemies. Each enemy had very specific abilities, attacks, patterns and behaviours to learn and exploit. If you went to the Guild and trained with Uhura, it wasn't just a way to build up your skills, it was a way to learn different enemy behaviours and attack patterns. She'd give you advice as you trained. She'd change how she attacked, tell you how to defend against different attacks and enemies. These were all part of learning the larger system.

The system really began when you got out there and started fighting the enemies. The giant black scorpion could grab you with its impale you with its stinger. The Ghoul drained your stamina, and you would be unable to attack, defend or anything that cost stamina. All this little eccentricities then translated into something more. Those dangerous things; the claws, the tail and other things you could loot off a dead body? They had further use. Go down to the apothecary. He buys these things, specifically, for his business. Why is this important? Well, obviously, you make money, but try buying up his wares in mass. See what happens. He runs out. He needs ingredients to replenish his stock.

Few enemies with specific abilities, with remains that have specific uses, in an economy that needs these remains to make its wares to further your own goals as a hero. Your health pills. Your stamina pills. Your mana pills. Etc. Part of the circle of, um, heroism . . . or something.

-

Yes, you could make such a system with 'more' enemies, but, typically, systems with a mass of enemies have a bunch of very 'stupid' enemies, with uninteresting attack patterns and no real variety. In the end I think I'd rather . . . they start small, make the enemies they have solid, and branch out from there, slowly, paying the attention to detail that each type deserves. If the end result is not that many? I'd still prefer it, because at least they'd, in theory, be well made. They'd fit, and they'd be interesting to fight. Still, it's true, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. Anything that can go wrong . . . I'll just hope for the best.

In short; I'm happy with few enemies, as long as the quality is there. Quality concerns me more than quantity. Be there few, be there many, be there somewhere in between, quality is my concern. If the quality is there, I'm happy.

Edited by Umberlin, 13 December 2012 - 07:50 PM.

  • Kaz and Osvir like this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Beastiary, Creatures, Wildlife, Animals, Monsters

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users