Vault Dweller said:Useless stats = poor design. In Fallout or PST all stats were pretty useful.bylam said:Because high stats = useful in any situation, but terrain/time/random effects cannot be predicted. A simple example is bullding a powerful fighter. You choose a background that ups your strength stat and lowers your intelligence stat. Because you know that you are a fighter you know that you have little need for intelligence.
I hardly see how it is poor design to allow people to flesh out their character's past. If you choose "desert fox" with no real idea how much desert there is in the game are you really just hoping for lots of desert areas to help you win teh game? Or are you saying "this is how I want my character to be, come what may?" I say it is the latter.Vault Dweller said:Poor design again. You are not choosing a gameplay style, you simply hope that your "desert fox" background comes with enough matching desert areas. It's like deciding to specialize in a specific weapon type in the IE games and hoping that you will be able to find such weapons in the game.Now apply that example to a strength bonus/penalty given/taken based on a forest environment. Until you play the game, you have no idea whether it is mostly forest or urban or mountains or somewhere in between. So the choice to make your character have a bonus/penalty when you have no idea when/where/how often that penalty will be applied is a role-playing choice/consequence rather than a uber gaming stat boost.
I'm not referring to TOEE commercial success or anything, I am referring to the way in which the viginettes were created. They were linear one solution situations that may as well have been cutscenes. They provided nothing significant in either story or choice and frankly, I can't even think of a poorer way to implement them. If Troika had wanted to show how badly viginettes could be done, they certainly acheived their goal.Vault Dweller said:Spectacular failure? Do explain.Surely not if the "something" puts others off trying out the idea because it was attached to such a spectacular failure.
Chinese Jetpilot said:I'd rather they dropped the RPG stuff (which, from what I see, seems to be lackluster anyway), and instead make it an Adventure game with an angry, belligerant SOB Commander Shepard; verbally and physically abusing and berating his squad and crew at every opportunity, grabbing their collars and yelling at their face every single conversation.
Any game where you can dismiss a few stats because you know that they will not affect your gameplay is poorly designed. All stats should be useful, and disregarding a stat and making a 6CHA fighter should be penalized. Thus, making stat choices should be as meaningful as choosing a background.bylam said:Vault Dweller said:Useless stats = poor design. In Fallout or PST all stats were pretty useful.bylam said:Because high stats = useful in any situation, but terrain/time/random effects cannot be predicted. A simple example is bullding a powerful fighter. You choose a background that ups your strength stat and lowers your intelligence stat. Because you know that you are a fighter you know that you have little need for intelligence.
Not sure why that is relevant. I'm not talking about useless stats, I'm talking about the difference between a background which adds/penalises stats (like your +100/-100 example) and a background that is based on unknown game factors. One can be chosen with a fair insight into how it will affect the game, the other is chosen without such foresight and thus is more meaningful to creating a character with a real personality.
Not win the game, obviously, but gain some advantages/disadvantages in certain areas if you want to put it in specific gameplay-related terms. Adding a background that doesn't affect anything in the game (i.e. choosing "desert fox" in a game completely devoid of deserts) is fanfiction. So, yes, if the game offers 3 backgrounds: forest ranger, city boy, and underground rat, I'd fully expect to see these three meaningful areas in the game with all the advantages/disadvantages and not just hope that the game may contain a 2-minute walk in a forest. In other words, I think that background should be as predictable (in general ways) as stats and skills.I hardly see how it is poor design to allow people to flesh out their character's past. If you choose "desert fox" with no real idea how much desert there is in the game are you really just hoping for lots of desert areas to help you win teh game? Or are you saying "this is how I want my character to be, come what may?" I say it is the latter.Vault Dweller said:Poor design again. You are not choosing a gameplay style, you simply hope that your "desert fox" background comes with enough matching desert areas. It's like deciding to specialize in a specific weapon type in the IE games and hoping that you will be able to find such weapons in the game.Now apply that example to a strength bonus/penalty given/taken based on a forest environment. Until you play the game, you have no idea whether it is mostly forest or urban or mountains or somewhere in between. So the choice to make your character have a bonus/penalty when you have no idea when/where/how often that penalty will be applied is a role-playing choice/consequence rather than a uber gaming stat boost.
I disagree, but opinions are subjective by definition.If Troika had wanted to show how badly viginettes could be done, they certainly acheived their goal.
I uninstalled NWN long time ago. Care to explain your ideas?See my NWN module "The Changers Mistake" for my own take on viginettes. It isn't a great module by any means, but it shows how effective viginettes can be in filling out a characters backstory.
Agreed. But it isn't what I was getting at. My original point was that being able to choose a background (whether it affects stats, situations e.t.c) is still a step in the right direction for Bioware.Vault Dweller said:Any game where you can dismiss a few stats because you know that they will not affect your gameplay is poorly designed. All stats should be useful, and disregarding a stat and making a 6CHA fighter should be penalized. Thus, making stat choices should be as meaningful as choosing a background.
Vault Dweller said:Not win the game, obviously, but gain some advantages/disadvantages in certain areas if you want to put it in specific gameplay-related terms. Adding a background that doesn't affect anything in the game (i.e. choosing "desert fox" in a game completely devoid of deserts) is fanfiction. So, yes, if the game offers 3 backgrounds: forest ranger, city boy, and underground rat, I'd fully expect to see these three meaningful areas in the game with all the advantages/disadvantages and not just hope that the game may contain a 2-minute walk in a forest. In other words, I think that background should be as predictable (in general ways) as stats and skills.
Sure. Obviously limited by the DnD ruleset, I created a module which begins with a choice presented to the player in a dream. The choice was based on race/class and alignment. The choice was presented along the lines of "If the guild of (class) was at war with your people (race) with whom would you side?". When the player chose, they would awaken in their bed in their chosen area.Vault Dweller said:I uninstalled NWN long time ago. Care to explain your ideas?See my NWN module "The Changers Mistake" for my own take on viginettes. It isn't a great module by any means, but it shows how effective viginettes can be in filling out a characters backstory.
You have just become gay for reading that. That's okay. Here, enjoy.Kingston said:VGCats
actually, that would be quite cool and original...Surgey said:More Shepard yelling pix tbh. I lol'ed.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to this game. Say what you will, but it's still not Todd Howard.
Also, I don't see the problem with what he said. He said your character would feel special, not that he'd be the savior of the universe. I know you could gather that, but I don't think that's what he meant.
Besides, I'm sure you'd enjoy a game where every dungeon and house has been looted already and every monster has been killed because you're not the only adventurer. How's this for an awesome story:
Hero: "I'm off to stop the evil prince from waging war on the outer continents! I would like to purchase some rations for the road!"
Barkeep: "Uh... what prince?"
Hero: "Um. You know. The Dark princ-"
Barkeep: "You mean the one those group of adventurers already killed?"
Hero: "What?"
Barkeep: "Yeah. Adventurers passed through here like 10 weeks ago. They were way cooler than you."
Hero: "Why am I playing this game?"
Right, I'm sure that in a world filled with treasures in undiscovered dungeons and evil sorcerers in high-reaching towers, it makes so much sense that you're the ONLY one who decides to go out and get that treasure and slay those wizards. Either that or thousands of adventurers have gone before you (and will after you) but only you will succeed because you're the Chosen One.Surgey said:Besides, I'm sure you'd enjoy a game where every dungeon and house has been looted already and every monster has been killed because you're not the only adventurer. How's this for an awesome story:
Hero: "I'm off to stop the evil prince from waging war on the outer continents! I would like to purchase some rations for the road!"
Barkeep: "Uh... what prince?"
Hero: "Um. You know. The Dark princ-"
Barkeep: "You mean the one those group of adventurers already killed?"
Hero: "What?"
Barkeep: "Yeah. Adventurers passed through here like 10 weeks ago. They were way cooler than you."
Hero: "Why am I playing this game?"
Jasede said:You have just become gay for reading that. That's okay. Here, enjoy.Kingston said:VGCats
sneep