After an hour I found Ian's character is sheeit.I probably spent an hour trying to find Ian's character sheet
After an hour I found Ian's character is sheeit.I probably spent an hour trying to find Ian's character sheet
Presumably that'd explain your tag.When you get stuck in Fallout, you know that you are much something greater than an idiot.
Remember the "Save the Baroness" mission in Blackguards? It was a fairly easy battle, but she would be killed unless you reached her in 4 turns - something supposed to be an optional challenge.People don't like being locked out of content no matter how hard the game's logic has to bend backwards to entertain them (I still remember that post about a player being butthurt over getting a QUEST FAILED: HELPING THE POWDER GANGERS prompt when he shot their leader in the back of the head. How come the game didn't give him a warning he couldn't do quests for a dead character? How inconsiderate). Restricts roleplaying freedom.
Maybe he ran far too many caravan runs?Dozens of hours?
I did get stuck in my first playthrough of Fallout. One of the Blades decided to loiter in a doorway and would not move. He was blocking access to Razor, and there was no push command until Fallout 2, so I ragequit. I was an idiot though as I did not think to super stimpack him to death or plant a grenade. There's always another way in Fallout.When you get stuck in Fallout, you know that you are much something greater than an idiot.
I misread that as "My father beat me as a child, and I was a pretty stupid child."Man, I beat fallout as a child, and I was a pretty stupid child.
That's just the last door he couldn't get through. He didn't say anything about previous obstacles.
After 67 minutes, I realized I couldn't get back into the Vault and went the other way. Why would they put a door next to you if you aren't supposed to get in? Very poor design.
I was just about to say this. I think the entire runtime my first time though, blind of course, wasn't longer than 12h. It's a very short game.Dozens of hours?
That's just the last door he couldn't get through. He didn't say anything about previous obstacles.
After 67 minutes, I realized I couldn't get back into the Vault and went the other way. Why would they put a door next to you if you aren't supposed to get in? Very poor design.
I had a full party of paladins in my first fallout play through.
Having played PoE, I cannot imagine the level of autism required for someone to proceed this way. Every locked door has a key nearby and traps are just "eh", Sawyer himself admitted that they are there more to set the mood than to actually challenge players.The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea.
Did anybody read the article, or just read the thread title?
I had a full party of paladins in my first fallout play through.
What's a paladin?
So what if you "waste points?" I don't understand the problem. You play the game, and your idea of what is useful or not useful evolves as you play. That sounds more "organic" than every skill being useful, and every problem being solvable by every build. Shouldn't the usefulness of the skill be dependent on the player style of play, or doesn't that enter into the decision?This problem is also similar to how some skills in games are throwaways. Since htey have so little vaue in the game, points spent are wasted.
:DWhen I played Fallout, I didn't know putting points into survival was bad. I didn't know I made a bad build until after I had completed the game.
It would be more organic if they just took all doors out. I mean, if they have a lockpick skill, that means at some point one could fail, and that would = bad build. And if I had to travel to town to add the NPC, who would automatically open the door, why should I have to do that? What does that add?The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea. It's like the mercenaries which they added in Everquest (an mmo). The only trouble I have with it is it seems umm hokey? I'd rather have to search for NPCs to hire who have the skillst I"m looing for. Or maybe just make it so the game can be completed with a less than perfect build. By that I mean just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to lockpick it. It can be a side attraction (which I might see if I replay).
I'm pretty sure if I read an article about anything and realized the author made up the supporting info, I'd be a little, I don't know, suspicious. Why should I trust the authors point, after he obviously lied to me? Aren't you curious about why the author lied to you? What does he stand to gain by doing so?I think the meaning of the article is a good one and has a purpose. The focus on the reference the article writer uses to make his point should not take away from the point. If one just devotes more than a few seconds to loking.
What is most bizarre is that despite them feeling need to make obtaining outdoorsman skill possible without skill points there aren't any serious penalties for having a low outdoorsman skill.Did anybody read the article, or just read the thread title?
What the article is about is how the makers of Pillars of Eternity wanted to reduce or eliminate "bad builds" or having to plan character development in advance. I understand the "bad builds" part. For example, when I played Fallout, I put a lot of points into Survival. The problem with that's you can easily train Survival by buying books, but other skills aren't as easy to train. I was wasting points. This problem is also similar to how some skills in games are throwaways. Since htey have so little vaue in the game, points spent are wasted.
Well having to go to an inn (to hire/pay a rogue and then return) to open a locked door means being side tracked from your adventure. But the same thing is true in Fallout if you don't have a crowbar or dynamite or lockpicks: you have to get them somewhere. The difference is in Fallout you might not have enough strength or mechanics skill to open the door, whereas in the example given for PoE you'll always be able to (if you can pay the small fee). However, someone else in this thread said traps and locked doors are so trivial in PoE you never have to go to an inn to create a rogue for them, so being side tracked isn't a problem. The ability to hire a class you create at the inn is just a backup means to solve problems (while allowing high customization).(...)It would be more organic if they just took all doors out. I mean, if they have a lockpick skill, that means at some point one could fail, and that would = bad build. And if I had to travel to town to add the NPC, who would automatically open the door, why should I have to do that? What does that add?The article gave an example of how a player might deal with a trap or locked door in Pillars of Eternity which is beyond their skill set. Instead of grinding lockpicking or restarting the game, the player goes to a tavern and creates a character (for a cost) which can join their party. This allows them to deal with the problem. It's a nice idea. It's like the mercenaries which they added in Everquest (an mmo). The only trouble I have with it is it seems umm hokey? I'd rather have to search for NPCs to hire who have the skillst I"m looing for. Or maybe just make it so the game can be completed with a less than perfect build. By that I mean just because I see a locked door doesn't mean I have to lockpick it. It can be a side attraction (which I might see if I replay).
I'm not saying I agree with the article. I'm saying a lot of palyers out there might agree with it, therefore, it has a point. I think themost important point, if it has any, is that bad builds can be a problem for some players, even if they don't know it. If a game can eliminate bad builds without ruinig the game, why not do it? And the other point about wanting to make the experience more organic, so players don't ahve tgo min-max their stats/skills, is a good one too.I'm pretty sure if I read an article about anything and realized the author made up the supporting info, I'd be a little, I don't know, suspicious. Why should I trust the authors point, after he obviously lied to me? Aren't you curious about why the author lied to you? What does he stand to gain by doing so?I think the meaning of the article is a good one and has a purpose. The focus on the reference the article writer uses to make his point should not take away from the point. If one just devotes more than a few seconds to loking.
:DWhen I played Fallout, I didn't know putting points into survival was bad. I didn't know I made a bad build until after I had completed the game.