WotR looks so amazing. The unique downside is that seems to much "crusade to save the world". I prefer morel local focused things. When i mean more "local focused things", i mean, like Kingmaker. The story is about a piece of land, ancient curses, strong link towards the first world, etc.
I like when things are more local than global. For eg, on Icewind Dale, the story is not about you trying to save the world. Is just a small frozen region of Faerun which always had very decentralized small cities/tribal societies and a evil tyrant wanna "unify" the region. Instead of "good vs evil", you have "chaos vs law" and a harsh frozen region with a lot of cool places to explore. Other example is Baldur's Gate 1, you start the game investigating material shortages and local conspiracies.
Most earlier 90s games also had a focus on local conflicts. Dark Sun Shattered Lands has you dealing with one of the city states of a dying planet and the surrounding villagers. Ravenloft with a part of Barovia that got "infused" with the shadowfell. Eye of The Beholder, with a mysterious evil temple(Darkmoon).
And it applies to outside of gaming. Game of Thrones was good when was house vs house and local conflicts, when become a undead army trying to destroy the world by no reason, become boooooring.
42. How are you implementing the threat that the demon armies pose during the crusade? Will there be a timer? Or, will demon armies march against you?
They will march against you. But, there will be no “You will lose in 3 months, unless…”. They’ll go to your house(warcamp?) and burn your villages and sacrifice your townsfolk.
42. How are you implementing the threat that the demon armies pose during the crusade? Will there be a timer? Or, will demon armies march against you?
They will march against you. But, there will be no “You will lose in 3 months, unless…”. They’ll go to your house(warcamp?) and burn your villages and sacrifice your townsfolk.
Yes, a single playthrough will be much shorter. But, you will have much more content that you can access on other playthroughs. Accessing one path may lock you out of others.
This pleases me. I loved Tyranny for that. Whole chunks of the game were only accessible if you played completely differently. Decisions made in the prelude could lock and unlock whole regions in the game. I'd rather do another different playthrough and have a unique experience each time that be able to do every little damn thing in a single run.
Yes, a single playthrough will be much shorter. But, you will have much more content that you can access on other playthroughs. Accessing one path may lock you out of others.
This pleases me. I loved Tyranny for that. Whole chunks of the game were only accessible if you played completely differently. Decisions made in the prelude could lock and unlock whole regions in the game. I'd rather do another different playthrough and have a unique experience each time that be able to do every little damn thing in a single run.
Yeah, but some entire areas being locked off for certain runs "just because" was stupid and artificial. There needs to be good reason for content to be locked off.
Yes, a single playthrough will be much shorter. But, you will have much more content that you can access on other playthroughs. Accessing one path may lock you out of others.
This pleases me. I loved Tyranny for that. Whole chunks of the game were only accessible if you played completely differently. Decisions made in the prelude could lock and unlock whole regions in the game. I'd rather do another different playthrough and have a unique experience each time that be able to do every little damn thing in a single run.
Yeah, but some entire areas being locked off for certain runs "just because" was stupid and artificial. There needs to be good reason for content to be locked off.
I think a comprehensive and focused narrative is a very good reason.
Yes, a single playthrough will be much shorter. But, you will have much more content that you can access on other playthroughs. Accessing one path may lock you out of others.
This pleases me. I loved Tyranny for that. Whole chunks of the game were only accessible if you played completely differently. Decisions made in the prelude could lock and unlock whole regions in the game. I'd rather do another different playthrough and have a unique experience each time that be able to do every little damn thing in a single run.
Yeah, but some entire areas being locked off for certain runs "just because" was stupid and artificial. There needs to be good reason for content to be locked off.
I think a comprehensive and focused narrative is a very good reason.
It can't be comprehensive if entire areas are locked off. There is no reason that say, a rebel alliance trying to build an army would not follow every lead to do so.
Yes, a single playthrough will be much shorter. But, you will have much more content that you can access on other playthroughs. Accessing one path may lock you out of others.
This pleases me. I loved Tyranny for that. Whole chunks of the game were only accessible if you played completely differently. Decisions made in the prelude could lock and unlock whole regions in the game. I'd rather do another different playthrough and have a unique experience each time that be able to do every little damn thing in a single run.
Yeah, but some entire areas being locked off for certain runs "just because" was stupid and artificial. There needs to be good reason for content to be locked off.
I think a comprehensive and focused narrative is a very good reason.
It can't be comprehensive if entire areas are locked off. There is no reason that say, a rebel alliance trying to build an army would not follow every lead to do so.
Actually there is, if you're playing a power hungry monster whose slaughtered thousands and become a lich or demon, good people like paladins and priests of good gods aren't going to work with you. If you're angellic, demons and others seeking power from the situation aren't going to work with you. It makes complete sense to have different branching paths for the extremes and possibly some overlap for the in betweens.
It was also not "Just because" in Tyranny. They had narrative reasons as to why you'd go to some areas and not others and why choices made in the prologue would affect the areas you do go to. In some cases areas were completely destroyed in the prologue. Siding with the rebels actually results in a very different game than joining up with the 2 major factions in Kyros' army and makes complete sense.
I mean, the ability to obtain Lichdom is my favorite thing ever in CRPGs, but only MMVII-IX have allowed this up til now. I'm certain the quests to do so here will be delicious.
I mean, the ability to obtain Lichdom is my favorite thing ever in CRPGs, but only MMVII-IX have allowed this up til now. I'm certain the quests to do so here will be delicious.
Hehe. I never play evil in any game. But reading this made me smile, because a good game should allow us both to get the diametrically opposite things we want from our games.
Having said that, I am intrigued by the potential - even if it takes a mod to get it - of being a "good" lich.
"Oh come on, kids!! No need to be scared. So my arm's falling off and my bones are showing and I walk kinda' funny. But I promise I'm not gonna' eat you!!" Hehe.
I remember when NWN2 came out and my roommate and I were both playing it at the same time. It was funny, he was playing it as a dirty guard and I was working for the thieves' guild trying to clean it up and keep the killing to a minimum. The overall differences in the rest of the playthrough aren't as much, but it is really fun talking about a game with someone and realizing what a different experience they got based on their choices.
I mean, the ability to obtain Lichdom is my favorite thing ever in CRPGs, but only MMVII-IX have allowed this up til now. I'm certain the quests to do so here will be delicious.
Hehe. I never play evil in any game. But reading this made me smile, because a good game should allow us both to get the diametrically opposite things we want from our games.
Having said that, I am intrigued by the potential - even if it takes a mod to get it - of being a "good" lich.
"Oh come on, kids!! No need to be scared. So my arm's falling off and my bones are showing and I walk kinda' funny. But I promise I'm not gonna' eat you!!" Hehe.
I sometimes attempt to play evil but always slip back into being good anyway. Can't wait to have my Super Evil Guy Had-To-Commit-Atrocities-To-Become-One Lich be unable to steal candy from children because it gives me the bad feels
In D&D the ArchLich was first introduced in 2ed AD&D for Spelljammer. These are any good aligned and have a noble purpose. See this page from the FR Wiki.
Ya, Baelnorns and Archliches are D&D stuff. Pathfinder has Demiliches, Psychic Liches and even Lich Shades on Golarion though. As well as one, single Lich Dragon as a "unique" monster. Needless to say all of them are of evil alignment.
@DrHappyAngry "It was also not "Just because" in Tyranny. They had narrative reasons as to why you'd go to some areas and not others and why choices made in the prologue would affect the areas you do go to. In some cases areas were completely destroyed in the prologue. Siding with the rebels actually results in a very different game than joining up with the 2 major factions in Kyros' army and makes complete sense."
The change in narrative made sense, the locking off of areas did not. The only purpose was to increase replays.
@DrHappyAngry "It was also not "Just because" in Tyranny. They had narrative reasons as to why you'd go to some areas and not others and why choices made in the prologue would affect the areas you do go to. In some cases areas were completely destroyed in the prologue. Siding with the rebels actually results in a very different game than joining up with the 2 major factions in Kyros' army and makes complete sense."
The change in narrative made sense, the locking off of areas did not. The only purpose was to increase replays.
Sorry, but it makes complete sense if a narrative says an area was destroyed or if you're required to go to a specific location for narrative reasons by one of the factions. Even if it increases replays, I love that stuff, you get a different experience and can play as something completely different. I love the reactivity it provides and means your decisions have weight. Clearly you don't, and that's OK, but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
I play most games only once. Only if I become increasingly hooked by a game, I can do a second playthrough. The best example is Mass Effect. I played the whole trilogy only once, and that playthrough provided a lot of emotions. Probably, my Fem Shepard and her crew are the best friendship I've ever seen. I didn't want to miss on content during that game and I tried to play "perfectly".
Or the Witcher 3 playthrough. What a ride that was. I was able to experience everything I wanted during the first playthrough.
You know, @AndrewFoley once mentioned it. He once suggested that in SoD the player should have an option to skip a lot of content and go straight to the Avernus if the player just supports Caelar Argent. He said that people above, who have a lot of experience in video-gaming, strongly disagreed with that. I know there are people who wouldn't agree with the approach SoD took. But I approve of it.
The majority of players don't play the game many times. Even two playthroughs is a lot to ask, and only something that hardcore fans would do.
The majority of players don't play the game many times. Even two playthroughs is a lot to ask, and only something that hardcore fans would do.
The target audience of OwlCat is not the average Joe. Is the gamer who love old school experiences.
And OwlCat is delivering what their target audience wants. Replayability and choices and consequences, because there are no much games like it to be played. People who can't stand modern games by having a lot of inconsistencies and nonsensical mechanics, needs that the few games made for then to have replayability, and choices and consequences. So they can play the few games that appeals to then until they can't stand looking to the main menu.
Cyberpunk 2077 is the unique mainstream game who caught my attention but it probably launches only in 2077. I an expecting that it will gonna be great as Fallout New Vegas. And Cyberpunk 2077 seems to have a lot of replayability. And different paths for the same content. Dark Souls is another mainstream game and there are a lot of hidden areas that a player can miss on a single gameplay. If he doesn't pay attention, he can even miss an entire DLC.
Pathfinder is not an easy nut to crack, even for a D&D fan. It took me watching a full 30 minute build video for my Druid Archetype before it really started to open up for me. Kingmaker and this are rich and meaty, but there is a huge wall in front of them only the truly dedicated are going to breach. Once you do, you'll love it, but you can't just waltz into these Owlcat games. But I say this coming from someone who came into CRPGs with the 2nd Edition rules. It was hard for me to transition into 3rd Editon-type games. I hit the "recommended" button on alot of level-ups in the Neverwinter Nights games.
Honestly, I do not buy a game that I can only play once.
I hope the product will have a longer life than that if it´s in my library, and I hope it could offer me more content if I want to start again. Games you can beat in one run, see 100% of the game and discard them to find another one are not a thing I use to seek.
I understand people with that kind of mindset will not find games like Tyranny, Alpha protocol or the first PF game, that requires some expertise or have different paths enticing, but it´s not my case.
I´m not really into the bethesta "You can be the High wizard of the College, the leader of the thieves guild, the head of the assassins, a famous bard, the dragonborn, a dragon rider, etc and also a superb fighter, an incredible mage and an expert in melee combat in the same run because I´m worth it"
Honestly, I do not buy a game that I can only play once.
I hope the product will have a longer life than that if it´s in my library, and I hope it could offer me more content if I want to start again. Games you can beat in one run, see 100% of the game and discard them to find another one are not a thing I use to seek.
I´m not really into the bethesta "You can be the High wizard of the College, the leader of the thieves guild, the head of the assassins, a famous bard, the dragonborn, a dragon rider, etc and also a superb fighter, a n incredible mage and an expert in melee combat in the same run because I´m worth it"
Luckily Owlcat games are not like that
I mean, it's best to put the caveat of Oblivion and Skyrim are like that, as Daggerfall and Morrowind are not. You'd have to play Morrowind at least 3 times to even just experience the 3 main House storylines.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
You liking it does not mean its an in-universe reason. Geography doesn't cease to exist because you made a choice.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
You liking it does not mean its an in-universe reason. Geography doesn't cease to exist because you made a choice.
If the choice is to let demons burn a village, then yes, the village cease to exist.
I love that now there are more consequences for ignoring the MC and not just a game over screen.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
You liking it does not mean its an in-universe reason. Geography doesn't cease to exist because you made a choice.
No you're right me liking it doesn't, the dialogue and narrative do with different goals for the factions needing you to do different things to undermine their enemies. I'm done arguing over this, just don't buy the damn game dude, you clearly won't like it.
Just to throw a spanner in the works, I don't really care either way as long as the story is engaging. What I do care about is please not so many puzzles. There were way too many of them in the previous game. They mostly belong in what used to be called text adventures.
Having various kinds of puzzles is a plus for this Point & Click gamer. But I really could do with less statue puzzles. Especially in poorly lit areas where it's hard as heck to see differences between them.
Note to myself: always have torches inside your backpack. *sigh*
I’m fine with either approach - the issue really takes care of itself for me. If the game is really really good, then I’m going to play it more than once. If it’s not that great, then one play through will be enough.
I’m excited by the idea that WotR will be shorter. KM was just too long. It was a good (but not great) game: I might have been great if some parts didn’t drag as much as they did.
Comments
I like when things are more local than global. For eg, on Icewind Dale, the story is not about you trying to save the world. Is just a small frozen region of Faerun which always had very decentralized small cities/tribal societies and a evil tyrant wanna "unify" the region. Instead of "good vs evil", you have "chaos vs law" and a harsh frozen region with a lot of cool places to explore. Other example is Baldur's Gate 1, you start the game investigating material shortages and local conspiracies.
Most earlier 90s games also had a focus on local conflicts. Dark Sun Shattered Lands has you dealing with one of the city states of a dying planet and the surrounding villagers. Ravenloft with a part of Barovia that got "infused" with the shadowfell. Eye of The Beholder, with a mysterious evil temple(Darkmoon).
And it applies to outside of gaming. Game of Thrones was good when was house vs house and local conflicts, when become a undead army trying to destroy the world by no reason, become boooooring.
68 answered questions in all. A worthy read indeed.
Amazing news. I like time / consequence things but believe that there are better ways to punish than "insta fail"
Sure. But then there should also be real consequences for having allowed your people to get killed.
Yeah, but some entire areas being locked off for certain runs "just because" was stupid and artificial. There needs to be good reason for content to be locked off.
I think a comprehensive and focused narrative is a very good reason.
It can't be comprehensive if entire areas are locked off. There is no reason that say, a rebel alliance trying to build an army would not follow every lead to do so.
Actually there is, if you're playing a power hungry monster whose slaughtered thousands and become a lich or demon, good people like paladins and priests of good gods aren't going to work with you. If you're angellic, demons and others seeking power from the situation aren't going to work with you. It makes complete sense to have different branching paths for the extremes and possibly some overlap for the in betweens.
It was also not "Just because" in Tyranny. They had narrative reasons as to why you'd go to some areas and not others and why choices made in the prologue would affect the areas you do go to. In some cases areas were completely destroyed in the prologue. Siding with the rebels actually results in a very different game than joining up with the 2 major factions in Kyros' army and makes complete sense.
Hehe. I never play evil in any game. But reading this made me smile, because a good game should allow us both to get the diametrically opposite things we want from our games.
Having said that, I am intrigued by the potential - even if it takes a mod to get it - of being a "good" lich.
"Oh come on, kids!! No need to be scared. So my arm's falling off and my bones are showing and I walk kinda' funny. But I promise I'm not gonna' eat you!!" Hehe.
I sometimes attempt to play evil but always slip back into being good anyway. Can't wait to have my Super Evil Guy Had-To-Commit-Atrocities-To-Become-One Lich be unable to steal candy from children because it gives me the bad feels
TR
The change in narrative made sense, the locking off of areas did not. The only purpose was to increase replays.
Sorry, but it makes complete sense if a narrative says an area was destroyed or if you're required to go to a specific location for narrative reasons by one of the factions. Even if it increases replays, I love that stuff, you get a different experience and can play as something completely different. I love the reactivity it provides and means your decisions have weight. Clearly you don't, and that's OK, but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays.
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
Or the Witcher 3 playthrough. What a ride that was. I was able to experience everything I wanted during the first playthrough.
You know, @AndrewFoley once mentioned it. He once suggested that in SoD the player should have an option to skip a lot of content and go straight to the Avernus if the player just supports Caelar Argent. He said that people above, who have a lot of experience in video-gaming, strongly disagreed with that. I know there are people who wouldn't agree with the approach SoD took. But I approve of it.
The majority of players don't play the game many times. Even two playthroughs is a lot to ask, and only something that hardcore fans would do.
The target audience of OwlCat is not the average Joe. Is the gamer who love old school experiences.
And OwlCat is delivering what their target audience wants. Replayability and choices and consequences, because there are no much games like it to be played. People who can't stand modern games by having a lot of inconsistencies and nonsensical mechanics, needs that the few games made for then to have replayability, and choices and consequences. So they can play the few games that appeals to then until they can't stand looking to the main menu.
Cyberpunk 2077 is the unique mainstream game who caught my attention but it probably launches only in 2077. I an expecting that it will gonna be great as Fallout New Vegas. And Cyberpunk 2077 seems to have a lot of replayability. And different paths for the same content. Dark Souls is another mainstream game and there are a lot of hidden areas that a player can miss on a single gameplay. If he doesn't pay attention, he can even miss an entire DLC.
I hope the product will have a longer life than that if it´s in my library, and I hope it could offer me more content if I want to start again. Games you can beat in one run, see 100% of the game and discard them to find another one are not a thing I use to seek.
I understand people with that kind of mindset will not find games like Tyranny, Alpha protocol or the first PF game, that requires some expertise or have different paths enticing, but it´s not my case.
I´m not really into the bethesta "You can be the High wizard of the College, the leader of the thieves guild, the head of the assassins, a famous bard, the dragonborn, a dragon rider, etc and also a superb fighter, an incredible mage and an expert in melee combat in the same run because I´m worth it"
Luckily Owlcat games are not like that
I mean, it's best to put the caveat of Oblivion and Skyrim are like that, as Daggerfall and Morrowind are not. You'd have to play Morrowind at least 3 times to even just experience the 3 main House storylines.
You liking it does not mean its an in-universe reason. Geography doesn't cease to exist because you made a choice.
If the choice is to let demons burn a village, then yes, the village cease to exist.
I love that now there are more consequences for ignoring the MC and not just a game over screen.
No you're right me liking it doesn't, the dialogue and narrative do with different goals for the factions needing you to do different things to undermine their enemies. I'm done arguing over this, just don't buy the damn game dude, you clearly won't like it.
TR
Note to myself: always have torches inside your backpack. *sigh*
I’m excited by the idea that WotR will be shorter. KM was just too long. It was a good (but not great) game: I might have been great if some parts didn’t drag as much as they did.