![]() ![]() Would be a nice touch for those that lost 1 of those 3 ![]() but get joined by Aloth Eder or Palegina IF THEY DIED in poe1. otherwise.Ī memory or dream or vision where you quest alone. perhaps such woulda' been an ideal place. poe1 were gonna have some kinda "memory dungeon" involving grieving mother and durance and the watcher. the spirit maze in watcher's keep from tob? yeah. Thus game should switch to solo-play (or smaller party) during those parts, since solo-play has certain advantages over party-play that would simply make gameplay and immersion better at those points, if designed well.the only situation where we can see a switch to solo being appropriate is when gameplay significant changes to solo-specific. But sometimes there are some parts during the story (like, in my opinion, that final, fourth chapter of PoE main story) where party looks more forced upon than it makes sense to be present. Vast majority of the game should be designed for a party of five, of course. No, no, I am not suggesting that the whole game should be played solo. And before offering OOC choices like upscalling, factor in first if player's party has to have five members to begin with. Sure, most of the time, it should be party of five, but when it makes sense to be less or solo due to story, then it should be made so. I would say, for PoE2, don't stick to party size as some sort of dogma. If more is needed due to unexpected difficulty, one could always create custom character or two in Stalwart tavern and there also wouldn't be a need to spend resources writing somehow vanila companions into that campaign. Further more, perhaps there wouldn't be need to offer player that, rather annoying, choice of upscalling foes in White March (whether AI would be allowed to cheat or player would be a tourist) if only Zahua, Devil and then Maneha in part two, were available companions for White March campaign. That way, it would have been more intense, more interesting, and would overall fit better in the story and its general mood. In Pillars of Eternity, I think that whole fourth chapter of the main story should have been solo only and designed with that in mind, perhaps even for each class of the main character, individually. In Baldur's Gate 1, I believe that whole second visit to Candlekeep should have been either solo-play or two-people party (main character and Imoen). I think that, if some part of the story makes most sense to be played solo, then it should be designed as solo-play. On the other hand, the biggest advantage of party-play is a lot more choices in combat, chance to experience different classes and party members, and various party interactions in dialogues and the story. To me, it is also somehow, relaxing and refreshing to suddenly have only one character under control for a little while. However, I think this is a nonsense, as in truth each one has its strengths and weaknesses.īiggest advantage of solo-play is full, undivided control over the combat and various item strategies, and real chance to see how well can main character stand on it's own. It's almost like there is (or at least was) this unwritten rule where solo-play in serious party based RPG is perceived as pure blasphemy. Both should be respected and made to complement each other in a good story. Common arguing whether 'party-play' is better than 'solo-play' or vice versa, is wrong in my opinion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |