What would you wish on Baldurs Gate 3?
-
rebel3_6_1
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
I like monoliths idea about stuff completely unrelated to the story happening to make it seem more realistic, but they would have to find some way to let the player know that it's not related to him. You wouldn't want to spend 2 hours trying to figure out why the town burned and what you're supposed to do about it when there isn't any point to it.
Anywhere you can find a raving lunatic rambling on about his past and how he received the enlightenment from the toads who hail from the heavens, I'll be there.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
-
LastManStanding
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:12 am
- Contact:
I completly agree with the large scale battles
I would also like to see customized dungeons like NWN
lots of new spells and abilities too
The ability to choose more races like Gnolls, drow, orcs, est.
NO MORE DROW!!!!!!!!!
drow are an overused theme that should be replaced with other evil creatures like dark dwarves or svirneblin or somyhing like that
I would also like to see customized dungeons like NWN
lots of new spells and abilities too
The ability to choose more races like Gnolls, drow, orcs, est.
NO MORE DROW!!!!!!!!!
drow are an overused theme that should be replaced with other evil creatures like dark dwarves or svirneblin or somyhing like that
[QUOTE=rebel3_6_1]I like monoliths idea about stuff completely unrelated to the story happening to make it seem more realistic, but they would have to find some way to let the player know that it's not related to him. You wouldn't want to spend 2 hours trying to figure out why the town burned and what you're supposed to do about it when there isn't any point to it.[/QUOTE]
There are many ways to accomplish that. Take rumors, for instance. They travel fast. On it's way back the party can spend the night at a lonely inn full of backwoodsmen who can't stop talking about town A having been burned down by townfolk of town B, because of an argument the two mayors had or something.
As far as I know that's the way things happen in "The Fall - Last Days of Gaia". You can miss an event because you came to late or to early and it is possible that you won't get a certain quest until you start a new game and play in another way.
There are many ways to accomplish that. Take rumors, for instance. They travel fast. On it's way back the party can spend the night at a lonely inn full of backwoodsmen who can't stop talking about town A having been burned down by townfolk of town B, because of an argument the two mayors had or something.
As far as I know that's the way things happen in "The Fall - Last Days of Gaia". You can miss an event because you came to late or to early and it is possible that you won't get a certain quest until you start a new game and play in another way.
"Some people say that I must be a terrible person, but it’s not true. I have the heart of a young boy in a jar on my desk."
-Stephen King
-Stephen King
I am hoping for 3 things, one of them a "game breaker", I suspect:
1) BG3 remains more of a "solo" version of the RPG line, with a new character. BG2 had a real end. There are already plenty of MMORPG-ish games available, and game design, balance and plot creation for the 2 are worlds apart.
2) The world be alive. This is a real nightmare for the game designers, because there is a tremendous amount of creative effort required to do this with the NPCs, and game designers are not necessarily talented storytellers. This also means using a system that allows the world to react to you, as your alignment is formed/changes/whatever.
3) In addition, for the game to be alive, the plot needs to be able to handle real player choices. This is the insanely impossible task for game designers with a static product. To be honest, real role-playing character paths for differently-aligned characters should be wildly different. They did do a fairly good job of this in BG2, by giving you two motivational options to do close to the same tasks, but even there there were tons of anomalies because the plot was really designed for the good player. I should say, "I suspect", because I refuse to be an active, evil agent in an evolving story (to each his own - I am just showing that the anomalies are based on estimation, not practical experience).
So - I will be happy with 1 and 2 above. If I really want a dynamic world, I will have to find some GM somewhere. I think, though, that I will stick to my original decision 20-some years ago, and live with the dynamic evolving story of *my* life, instead - leaving RPGs to have a beginning, a middle, and an end
.
1) BG3 remains more of a "solo" version of the RPG line, with a new character. BG2 had a real end. There are already plenty of MMORPG-ish games available, and game design, balance and plot creation for the 2 are worlds apart.
2) The world be alive. This is a real nightmare for the game designers, because there is a tremendous amount of creative effort required to do this with the NPCs, and game designers are not necessarily talented storytellers. This also means using a system that allows the world to react to you, as your alignment is formed/changes/whatever.
3) In addition, for the game to be alive, the plot needs to be able to handle real player choices. This is the insanely impossible task for game designers with a static product. To be honest, real role-playing character paths for differently-aligned characters should be wildly different. They did do a fairly good job of this in BG2, by giving you two motivational options to do close to the same tasks, but even there there were tons of anomalies because the plot was really designed for the good player. I should say, "I suspect", because I refuse to be an active, evil agent in an evolving story (to each his own - I am just showing that the anomalies are based on estimation, not practical experience).
So - I will be happy with 1 and 2 above. If I really want a dynamic world, I will have to find some GM somewhere. I think, though, that I will stick to my original decision 20-some years ago, and live with the dynamic evolving story of *my* life, instead - leaving RPGs to have a beginning, a middle, and an end
.
I forgot to mention one thing. I would love to see a changing alignment system like the one they have in PS:T (they had one to some degree in NWN, but that was only based on actions). In PS:T, it was mostly dependent on dialogues, since certain answers would make you more chaotic or lawful, good or evil.
BG2 also already had plot and intrigue that didn't ever relate to the character. Didn't you ever regularly talk to the Town Criers? I did.
BG2 had lots of spells...I wouldn't mind some other ones, but I'm not really demanding in that area. Also, psionics would be cool, though only if proporly balanced, as psionics (esp. powerful ones) are very rare. Also, normal psionists are never as powerful as Mind Flayers are.
I don't really mind too much about subraces, though I would put severe alignment restrictions on some. Drow and Duerger HAVE to evil. The only drow that I know of that aren't evil is Drizzt (CG), Zaknafien (Neutral, most likely), and Jarlaxle (CN- has to be). Very, very rare. So, in the game, if you're a drow, you must be evil. And generally, evil drow are exterminated upon sight on the surface.
I wouldn't mind a 3D engine so much...provided it worked and was easy to use for a party interface. The engine NWN used would not be, as the camera is centered upon the character.
BG2 also already had plot and intrigue that didn't ever relate to the character. Didn't you ever regularly talk to the Town Criers? I did.
BG2 had lots of spells...I wouldn't mind some other ones, but I'm not really demanding in that area. Also, psionics would be cool, though only if proporly balanced, as psionics (esp. powerful ones) are very rare. Also, normal psionists are never as powerful as Mind Flayers are.
I don't really mind too much about subraces, though I would put severe alignment restrictions on some. Drow and Duerger HAVE to evil. The only drow that I know of that aren't evil is Drizzt (CG), Zaknafien (Neutral, most likely), and Jarlaxle (CN- has to be). Very, very rare. So, in the game, if you're a drow, you must be evil. And generally, evil drow are exterminated upon sight on the surface.
I wouldn't mind a 3D engine so much...provided it worked and was easy to use for a party interface. The engine NWN used would not be, as the camera is centered upon the character.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
My problem with subraces is the same as players who insisted on being Dragons, Liches, etc., when I tabletop gamed. The various subraces in the AD&D system are simply too powerful as player characters if played alongside normal PCs. Let's face it - most people who want to be, say, Drow, want to be so because they get 50% MR. There are many ways to bend/break the current BG game engine to give yourself ridiculously unbalanced powers. I see no reason for the game designers to hand out cheese on a silver platter though, because the idea of a well-designed game is to balance gameplay somehow, and that is blatently impossible if you have the option of starting either as a normal race with average powers, or as a cheesed race with super-abilities.
Note that games where the only option is to be cheesed (i.e.: PS:T) work fine - because game balance assumes those abilities.
Note that games where the only option is to be cheesed (i.e.: PS:T) work fine - because game balance assumes those abilities.
Well, this is a good question. Let's see if I can make a list:
1. Please, for the love of whomever it is you pray to before you go to bed, let it have nothing to do with the previous two games, NPC's included.
2. Have it set in the same world, but somewhere that's been previously unused like Calimshan.
3. Latest ruleset would be cool.
4. Subraces would be OK as long as they're balanced and compliant with the dnd rules being used. Something along the lines of IWDII would work I guess.
5. 3D: I could really care less. If doing it in 3D didn't compromise the quality of gameplay go for it, but if it means that I'm gonna have a crappy game with system requirements that according to the box my computer should be able to handle but can't **cough NWN** I can do without it.
6. Explorable wilderness areas. I loved how in BG you could just wander around in the woods for days, which is exactly what I did my first run through because I neglected to read a certain plot required document. I kinda missed that aspect in BGII and IWD.
7. A deep story, with a good variable plotline dependent on the character's actions throughout the game. And a fair amount of non-plot related quests, but keep it realistic, as has been mentioned before. I like the idea of quests with some motivation like Fable said. And to go along with that, as previously mentioned, the alignment system from PS:T would be great.
8. Start at level ONE should be the only option here, and in addition make an exp cap that you won't hit before finishing the game if you're soloing.
9. Make the ridiculously powerful items hard to get, and make it a rewarding ordeal.
10. The option to be able to go through a game sheerly using your powers of wit, charm, diplomacy, and stealth would be nice. Sure it would be tough to do, but make it doable. I know there are a lot of people out there who would like to play a thief or bard that would be perfectly content going through the game killing nothing, unless of course you're required as part of a quest to bring back someone's head.
11. The newer rulesets for dnd make classes extremely customizable from the start, so I don't see a real reason for kits, but schemes kinda like NWN had would be OK for people unfamiliar with the system to get them started. And along the same lines prestige classes would be something I'd like to see.
12. It's a small thing, but someone suggested having limit
ed conversation choices based on class. Like a Paladin shouldn't be able to steal. So what if a Paladin steals, no one cares unless the church finds out, and then they send people after him. That's how it should work. It goes along the lines of how the game plays out is a consequence of your actions. If a paladin does enough bad deeds and the church finds out they'll send a bounty hunter or someone out to retrieve him and if he succums to them he'll be taken in front of the church and dealt with properly. Possibly being stripped of his status, or possibly forced to pay reparations.
13. NPC's with a detailed background and ongoing story. So, having different NPC's in your party will force different people throughout the game to respond differently to you. And each NPC should have some sort of sidequest that unfolds as the game progresses.
14. No battles including armys, gods, or anything ridiculous like that. I'd like to think the average CRPG gamer is NOT a male between the ages of 10 and 15 who wants to find the most absurdly uber weapon and flay everything in his path.
I think that's it. If I think of anything else I'll be sure to post it, but I think I've outdone myself as it is.
1. Please, for the love of whomever it is you pray to before you go to bed, let it have nothing to do with the previous two games, NPC's included.
2. Have it set in the same world, but somewhere that's been previously unused like Calimshan.
3. Latest ruleset would be cool.
4. Subraces would be OK as long as they're balanced and compliant with the dnd rules being used. Something along the lines of IWDII would work I guess.
5. 3D: I could really care less. If doing it in 3D didn't compromise the quality of gameplay go for it, but if it means that I'm gonna have a crappy game with system requirements that according to the box my computer should be able to handle but can't **cough NWN** I can do without it.
6. Explorable wilderness areas. I loved how in BG you could just wander around in the woods for days, which is exactly what I did my first run through because I neglected to read a certain plot required document. I kinda missed that aspect in BGII and IWD.
7. A deep story, with a good variable plotline dependent on the character's actions throughout the game. And a fair amount of non-plot related quests, but keep it realistic, as has been mentioned before. I like the idea of quests with some motivation like Fable said. And to go along with that, as previously mentioned, the alignment system from PS:T would be great.
8. Start at level ONE should be the only option here, and in addition make an exp cap that you won't hit before finishing the game if you're soloing.
9. Make the ridiculously powerful items hard to get, and make it a rewarding ordeal.
10. The option to be able to go through a game sheerly using your powers of wit, charm, diplomacy, and stealth would be nice. Sure it would be tough to do, but make it doable. I know there are a lot of people out there who would like to play a thief or bard that would be perfectly content going through the game killing nothing, unless of course you're required as part of a quest to bring back someone's head.
11. The newer rulesets for dnd make classes extremely customizable from the start, so I don't see a real reason for kits, but schemes kinda like NWN had would be OK for people unfamiliar with the system to get them started. And along the same lines prestige classes would be something I'd like to see.
12. It's a small thing, but someone suggested having limit
ed conversation choices based on class. Like a Paladin shouldn't be able to steal. So what if a Paladin steals, no one cares unless the church finds out, and then they send people after him. That's how it should work. It goes along the lines of how the game plays out is a consequence of your actions. If a paladin does enough bad deeds and the church finds out they'll send a bounty hunter or someone out to retrieve him and if he succums to them he'll be taken in front of the church and dealt with properly. Possibly being stripped of his status, or possibly forced to pay reparations.
13. NPC's with a detailed background and ongoing story. So, having different NPC's in your party will force different people throughout the game to respond differently to you. And each NPC should have some sort of sidequest that unfolds as the game progresses.
14. No battles including armys, gods, or anything ridiculous like that. I'd like to think the average CRPG gamer is NOT a male between the ages of 10 and 15 who wants to find the most absurdly uber weapon and flay everything in his path.
I think that's it. If I think of anything else I'll be sure to post it, but I think I've outdone myself as it is.
"I'll take the stupid one who decided to threaten us, instead of shoot us when he had the chance" - Bao-Dur
[QUOTE=Skuld]<snip>
6. Explorable wilderness areas. I loved how in BG you could just wander around in the woods for days, which is exactly what I did my first run through because I neglected to read a certain plot required document. I kinda missed that aspect in BGII and IWD.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Wohoo - it is so rare I find others who liked these areas as well.
"BG1 feel" - all the way
I felt that BG1 gave a good balance between "plot critical" and "optional" areas to explore.
One could also utilize wilderness areas for quests, if for instance NPCs are "alive". Suppose having to track down a NPC that actually moves around between some areas - all you know is that he is usually living in some area, ie a forrest (which consist of a few/several smaller subareas), and then the NPC could leave tracks behind, which you could use to track him down. The NPCs movements could be either random or scripted for instance by using tracks left by the player.
One suggestion would be to not include the "all-powerfull vision" ... no glowing up enemies and NPCs that you shouldn't be able to see by presing a button (tab).
Sure - items and interacteble objects (chests, shelves etc) are fine enough - but it really kills the mood if you know that behind a wall some 10 kobolds are standing because you can see them by pressing tab. (was majorly a NwN problem - can't remember how effective it was in BG-series).
6. Explorable wilderness areas. I loved how in BG you could just wander around in the woods for days, which is exactly what I did my first run through because I neglected to read a certain plot required document. I kinda missed that aspect in BGII and IWD.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
Wohoo - it is so rare I find others who liked these areas as well.
"BG1 feel" - all the way
I felt that BG1 gave a good balance between "plot critical" and "optional" areas to explore.
One could also utilize wilderness areas for quests, if for instance NPCs are "alive". Suppose having to track down a NPC that actually moves around between some areas - all you know is that he is usually living in some area, ie a forrest (which consist of a few/several smaller subareas), and then the NPC could leave tracks behind, which you could use to track him down. The NPCs movements could be either random or scripted for instance by using tracks left by the player.
One suggestion would be to not include the "all-powerfull vision" ... no glowing up enemies and NPCs that you shouldn't be able to see by presing a button (tab).
Sure - items and interacteble objects (chests, shelves etc) are fine enough - but it really kills the mood if you know that behind a wall some 10 kobolds are standing because you can see them by pressing tab. (was majorly a NwN problem - can't remember how effective it was in BG-series).
Insert signature here.
I don't think that was implimented until TOB and it definitely ruins a lot. It wreaks too much of diablo II. If you missed an item, sucks for you. I can see having some mechanism whereby you wouldn't miss quest items necessary to progress the plot(not sidequests) but the general "vision" we can do without. I agree.
"I'll take the stupid one who decided to threaten us, instead of shoot us when he had the chance" - Bao-Dur
I thought of something else. Actually two things that are sort of related. Give the character more than one weapon scheme like in TOEE. Where they can have a sword and shield, two weapons, and a ranged weapon equiped at the same time and switched back and forth with ease. Sure everyone wants it to be realistic but having to go to the inventory screen to switch from your bow to your sword and shield is just annoying. Well it was for me at least. Now to the other half of this is dualweilding. It should follow the most recent rules, which I believe make it a little more realstic so that even the most wee adventurer(namely halflings and gnomes) won't be running around with Crom Fayer in one hand and Flail of the Ages in the other. Also double weapons would be a nice add-on.
Another thing that may not be important to some, but really being able to customize the way your character looks on the screen. Sure in BGII your half-orc looked pretty badd@ss in the inventory screen but back in the game he was just a human. I'd like to see a plethora of options, more likely if the 3D thing happens which it probably will, like body type, hair style and color, skin color, tattoos, and clothing colors. All of these have been done in one game or another, they just have to be put together. Games I've played with some of the prefered character customizations are Lionheart, Champions of Norrath, and NWN(the options were there, I just wished they were a little more pleasing to the eye). To go along with this good portraits are a must, and I'm a huge fan of IWD style portraits. The ability to import your own portraits should be obvious, but it's necessary.
Wow, I just thought of something else. I'm on a roll today. Different sizes of armour. Anyone who's ever played arcanum knows how interesting this can make a game. If you're going to play an odd sized character you need to accomodate for his/her size buy wearing appropraitely sized clothes and armour. This could lead to the additions of tailors and smiths.
Sure the gameplay has to be superb, but for the package to be complete it has to be aestetically pleasing as well.
Another thing that may not be important to some, but really being able to customize the way your character looks on the screen. Sure in BGII your half-orc looked pretty badd@ss in the inventory screen but back in the game he was just a human. I'd like to see a plethora of options, more likely if the 3D thing happens which it probably will, like body type, hair style and color, skin color, tattoos, and clothing colors. All of these have been done in one game or another, they just have to be put together. Games I've played with some of the prefered character customizations are Lionheart, Champions of Norrath, and NWN(the options were there, I just wished they were a little more pleasing to the eye). To go along with this good portraits are a must, and I'm a huge fan of IWD style portraits. The ability to import your own portraits should be obvious, but it's necessary.
Wow, I just thought of something else. I'm on a roll today. Different sizes of armour. Anyone who's ever played arcanum knows how interesting this can make a game. If you're going to play an odd sized character you need to accomodate for his/her size buy wearing appropraitely sized clothes and armour. This could lead to the additions of tailors and smiths.
Sure the gameplay has to be superb, but for the package to be complete it has to be aestetically pleasing as well.
"I'll take the stupid one who decided to threaten us, instead of shoot us when he had the chance" - Bao-Dur
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one! That really gave me the feeling of being an adventurer! In BG2 every area was plot-related. Oh, man, I think I'm going to install BG now...Skuld wrote: 6. Explorable wilderness areas. I loved how in BG you could just wander around in the woods for days, which is exactly what I did my first run through because I neglected to read a certain plot required document. I kinda missed that aspect in BGII and IWD.
That's exactly what I meant when I said that there should be at least three possible ways to play through the plot. This could allow only-thief, -mage, -fighter parties. Would be great.10. The option to be able to go through a game sheerly using your powers of wit, charm, diplomacy, and stealth would be nice. Sure it would be tough to do, but make it doable. I know there are a lot of people out there who would like to play a thief or bard that would be perfectly content going through the game killing nothing, unless of course you're required as part of a quest to bring back someone's head.
"Some people say that I must be a terrible person, but it’s not true. I have the heart of a young boy in a jar on my desk."
-Stephen King
-Stephen King
-
LastManStanding
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:12 am
- Contact:
I agree with multiple types of gameplay but it would be like you can barge in on the guy eating dinner and chop his head off or you can sneak in and poison his drink like an assasin or somthing not "assasinating" the target runing through his manor killing everything you see and then he is in the last room of the highest level in the highest tower you know.
Well in that particular instance I see what you're trying to say, but in the event that it's a major foe that knows you're coming wouldn't you think that he'd be in the highest part of his tower hiding out with all his minions trying to stop you from making it to the top? I know what you mean though.
"I'll take the stupid one who decided to threaten us, instead of shoot us when he had the chance" - Bao-Dur
-
rebel3_6_1
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
I am going to defend the army thing. I don't think that just 10-15 year olds would want the army battles. I personally find them exciting (granted I'm not much older than 15), and think that they could happen. It might take a good computer & video card to run, but it would be worth it if it was well-done. Countries really have used soldiers-for-hire (Britain with the Hessians in the American Revolution), and I think it would lead to exciting battles, however, I do understand the arguments against the uber weapons. It's pretty messed up on TOB that average soldiers consistently have +3 equipment.
I also think the idea of talking your way through a lot more stuff is cool and agree that there should be a lot of wilderness areas to explore.
I also think the idea of talking your way through a lot more stuff is cool and agree that there should be a lot of wilderness areas to explore.
Anywhere you can find a raving lunatic rambling on about his past and how he received the enlightenment from the toads who hail from the heavens, I'll be there.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
-
Opalescence
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:13 pm
- Location: In the Sixth Door of the Chamber of Doors.
- Contact:
I'm reliving my Planescape: Torment days (as in, the days when I had no life except for PS:T). As such, when I looked at PS:T and then at BGII, then at BGIII, I had an idea. No, not BGIII in the City of Doors, but why NOT have BGIII's "big bad enemies" be extraplanar creatures? The Rakshasa/Djinni theme could be explored a bit here, we had some of it in BGII (Trademeet) and in NWN:HotU (Djinn bottle). I'd like to see that fleshed out a bit more. And of course, there's the whole thing about Psionics, which was, I believe (could be wrong), not available at the time of development of BGII and was neglected by NWN. It adds an entire new direction that we could go in, and I really think it should be developed, too!
Although NWN was ok, I would prefer (and I can hear the howling already) to have BGIII be in the same isometric, top-down view of BGI and II. Besides keeping the tradition of the first two, I really don't think there's anything wrong with such a view, and we all know the saying about what ain't broken. It also gives the developers more time to do other things, like coming up with a truly enthralling storyline (I will worship them forever if it's anywhere close to PS:T's storyline), and perhaps make better casting animations and cooler (and more!) character portraits.
Other things that I wouldn't mind:
1: I know that it's relatively easy to make additional portraits to your current listing of PC portraits, but if they made that even easier, I'd be even happier. Such a simple, easy-to-do thing like an Import Portrait button on the character creation screen could do wonders. If the imported portrait is then copied and pasted into the portraits folder, so that the next time you make a new character, the imported portrait is automatically available to you, even better (and that wouldn't be hard to do either). It saves the player valuable time, though, and makes them happy (well, at least it would make ME happy ).
2: I'm torn about the wilderness thing. While it's interesting that you could wander the wilderness (and if you ask me, if you're the type who likes alot of open, wilderness space where you could wander and occassionally stumble across interesting stuff and yet could get somewhere quickly if you had to, Arcanum is the game to look to for such a system: it's map is HUGE but the World map is extremely well done) I think that BGII's "sectioned" method makes travel faster and easier and far more convenient. You still get random encounters along the way to spice things up, but I don't see the point of wasting memory on alot of empty space. Still, easter eggs hidden deep in the open fields is an interesting and not altogether bad idea.
3: Getting rid of "instaTravel". While NWN's Stone/Ring/Gem/Chocholate Bar of Recall is interesting and convenient, I really feel that it's not ENTIRELY neccessary, and I liked BGII's transportation methods (namely, walking). Since this IS BGIII we should stick to what BGI and II had for transportation options. Perhaps, taking a nod to Morrowind, we could have fast routes between important hubs, but all in all, I really don't like the idea of the instaTravel because, while convenient, I find myself constantly looting everything and then instaTraveling back to sell it all, and then I don't get a chance to take in the storyline much.
4: As opposed to the "reputation" thing, I prefer more solid "rewards" for your actions. If you save a town, you should get more than just a reputation point, the town itself should like you more, and this should be readily apparent in the way the townsfolk talk to you and treat you.
5: Assassination should be possible. I know that this may really break some things in the way BG games are made, but it really seems to me that Hide/Backstab really doesn't seem to kill anything, just hurt the enemy a bit more than if you stabbed him/her upfront. If that is the case I'd rather just be a figher and pound them, because once you're out of the shadows, fine you damaged him but now you're dead meat. I think that they could remake backstab so that, at least at higher levels, if you attack from out of the shadows at somebody's back you ought to have a chance to kill the guy instantly. This will make sneaking alot more interesting, and perhaps to ensure balance, perhaps the chance for instant kill via backstab might be proportional to rogue/assassin/bard level, or something of that sort, and restrict it to only coming out of HIDING, not invisibility (so someone can't just get a few levels of wizard, just high enough to get the spell invisibility, then use that in conjunction with a dualed over rogue's levels to constantly pull off assassinations).
6: Persuade has been done very well over the course of RPG's in general. It's well covered; any decent RPG will have "pursuasion", but BGIII should also include intimidation (perhaps, at the beginning, you can use intimidation to prevent fights by scaring your opponents, or intimidating somebody to give you info), taunting (a la Morrowind, perhaps the "killing somebody without provocation is murder", also a la Morrowind, should be implemented too), and bluffing (lying, deceit, for instance somebody wants you to kill some other dude, but you find out that the other dude's a cool guy and you don't want to kill him, so you don't and let him go, your bluff skill will determine whether you can successfully lie to the quest giver that you DID kill him).
Although NWN was ok, I would prefer (and I can hear the howling already) to have BGIII be in the same isometric, top-down view of BGI and II. Besides keeping the tradition of the first two, I really don't think there's anything wrong with such a view, and we all know the saying about what ain't broken. It also gives the developers more time to do other things, like coming up with a truly enthralling storyline (I will worship them forever if it's anywhere close to PS:T's storyline), and perhaps make better casting animations and cooler (and more!) character portraits.
Other things that I wouldn't mind:
1: I know that it's relatively easy to make additional portraits to your current listing of PC portraits, but if they made that even easier, I'd be even happier. Such a simple, easy-to-do thing like an Import Portrait button on the character creation screen could do wonders. If the imported portrait is then copied and pasted into the portraits folder, so that the next time you make a new character, the imported portrait is automatically available to you, even better (and that wouldn't be hard to do either). It saves the player valuable time, though, and makes them happy (well, at least it would make ME happy
).2: I'm torn about the wilderness thing. While it's interesting that you could wander the wilderness (and if you ask me, if you're the type who likes alot of open, wilderness space where you could wander and occassionally stumble across interesting stuff and yet could get somewhere quickly if you had to, Arcanum is the game to look to for such a system: it's map is HUGE but the World map is extremely well done) I think that BGII's "sectioned" method makes travel faster and easier and far more convenient. You still get random encounters along the way to spice things up, but I don't see the point of wasting memory on alot of empty space. Still, easter eggs hidden deep in the open fields is an interesting and not altogether bad idea.
3: Getting rid of "instaTravel". While NWN's Stone/Ring/Gem/Chocholate Bar of Recall is interesting and convenient, I really feel that it's not ENTIRELY neccessary, and I liked BGII's transportation methods (namely, walking). Since this IS BGIII we should stick to what BGI and II had for transportation options. Perhaps, taking a nod to Morrowind, we could have fast routes between important hubs, but all in all, I really don't like the idea of the instaTravel because, while convenient, I find myself constantly looting everything and then instaTraveling back to sell it all, and then I don't get a chance to take in the storyline much.
4: As opposed to the "reputation" thing, I prefer more solid "rewards" for your actions. If you save a town, you should get more than just a reputation point, the town itself should like you more, and this should be readily apparent in the way the townsfolk talk to you and treat you.
5: Assassination should be possible. I know that this may really break some things in the way BG games are made, but it really seems to me that Hide/Backstab really doesn't seem to kill anything, just hurt the enemy a bit more than if you stabbed him/her upfront. If that is the case I'd rather just be a figher and pound them, because once you're out of the shadows, fine you damaged him but now you're dead meat. I think that they could remake backstab so that, at least at higher levels, if you attack from out of the shadows at somebody's back you ought to have a chance to kill the guy instantly. This will make sneaking alot more interesting, and perhaps to ensure balance, perhaps the chance for instant kill via backstab might be proportional to rogue/assassin/bard level, or something of that sort, and restrict it to only coming out of HIDING, not invisibility (so someone can't just get a few levels of wizard, just high enough to get the spell invisibility, then use that in conjunction with a dualed over rogue's levels to constantly pull off assassinations).
6: Persuade has been done very well over the course of RPG's in general. It's well covered; any decent RPG will have "pursuasion", but BGIII should also include intimidation (perhaps, at the beginning, you can use intimidation to prevent fights by scaring your opponents, or intimidating somebody to give you info), taunting (a la Morrowind, perhaps the "killing somebody without provocation is murder", also a la Morrowind, should be implemented too), and bluffing (lying, deceit, for instance somebody wants you to kill some other dude, but you find out that the other dude's a cool guy and you don't want to kill him, so you don't and let him go, your bluff skill will determine whether you can successfully lie to the quest giver that you DID kill him).
"Unlimited technology from all over the universe, and we cruise around in a Ford POS."
- Agent J, Men in Black
Do you feel the Call?
- Agent J, Men in Black
Do you feel the Call?
-
rebel3_6_1
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
Something I would really like to see is more cities. I don't like the fact that the only city in BG 2 is Athkatla. Imnesville is just a couple of houses and an inn. Trademeet could count as a second town I guess. But I think there should be 2 or 3 cities with several towns. I think there should be at least one new city, maybe calimsham, although I would really like to see Waterdeep, and reuse of some of the older cities such as Baldur's Gate and Athkatla. I also don't wanna see +4 and +5 weapons on the display racks in shops. The only way you should be able to get the uber weapons is by doing really difficult tasks. Fighting incredibly powerful parties, doing extremely long major quests, etc. No level 9 paladin would ever be able to weild the Holy Avenger, I mean, c'mon now. That's kinda ridiculous in BG2.
Anywhere you can find a raving lunatic rambling on about his past and how he received the enlightenment from the toads who hail from the heavens, I'll be there.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
-
rebel3_6_1
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:30 pm
- Location: San Diego
- Contact:
I just thought of a couple of more things. They need to do something to eliminate some of the cheese tactics. Theif traps, for example, are ridiculous. You can freakin kill DEMOGORGON with theif traps. They should either make them far less powerful or give tougher opponents some kind of resistance. Another thing would be to have different opponents behave based on their attributes. For example, creatures with low intelligence would let you lure them out to fight one at a time while creatures with a higher intelligence would realize that someone is shooting at them from the bushes and would all go out to kill him. You should be able to outsmart the dumber characters with tactics while the more intelligent characters would recognize your attack style and respond in turn.
Anywhere you can find a raving lunatic rambling on about his past and how he received the enlightenment from the toads who hail from the heavens, I'll be there.
And no, I'm not on drugs.
And no, I'm not on drugs.