480 réponses à ce sujet

[krasnoarmeets]

I come back only to find my thread was hijacked by rules lawyers.... awesome.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I didn't think it was a good thing that I basically was forced to have a rogue in my party in the first Baldur's Gate. If I want to build a party like I want to then let me. If I want to see what happens if I go all Warrior, let me. All Mage, let me. Do not punish me for doing that as it makes it seem that there is only one way to play the game, either do it correctly or not at all.

[Rzepik2]

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I come back only to find my thread was hijacked by rules lawyers.... awesome.

You should be in awe. This is pure RPG.

I didn't think it was a good thing that I basically was forced to have a rogue in my party in the first Baldur's Gate. If I want to build a party like I want to then let me. If I want to see what happens if I go all Warrior, let me. All Mage, let me. Do not punish me for doing that as it makes it seem that there is only one way to play the game, either do it correctly or not at all.

It's possible to play without it. It's much harder, but this is important part of D'n'D rogues - unique non-combat benefits.

Games should punish you if you're doing silly things. That's the whole point since Pong. If every strategy is good, there's no strategy at all.
Of course, if you really want to, you can solo BG with a friggin bard. It's hard, but possible.

Modifié par Rzepik2, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:40 .

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I didn't think it was a good thing that I basically was forced to have a rogue in my party in the first Baldur's Gate. If I want to build a party like I want to then let me. If I want to see what happens if I go all Warrior, let me. All Mage, let me. Do not punish me for doing that as it makes it seem that there is only one way to play the game, either do it correctly or not at all.

But then what is the point of having multiple party members? If you are going to make a game where you control many people who can do the same things then you might as well just make the player control one person, the whole point of having multiple party members is to have different classes and skill sets that compliment each other and have party members that can do things that the others cant so that between everyone in the party you are equiped to deal with whatever situation you come across, if one person could do it all then what is the point of having a party (from a gameplay point of view and not a strength in numbers point of view).

Also did Baldur's Gate force you to have a rogue? I know the game was easier with a rogue and you get access to more loot but really did the game force you to take along a rogue?

Modifié par Mr Mxyzptlk, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:50 .

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Rzepik2 wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I come back only to find my thread was hijacked by rules lawyers.... awesome.

You should be in awe. This is pure RPG.

I think what his point is that the rules of the game arent what made Baldur's Gate great and originally wasnt what this thread was about. I could care less about the rules if the game has a good setting, characters and story.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Look at it this way.

Last time I played BG I had Kolgrim, Myself as a Warrior, Minsc, Viconia, Imoen and Dyanheir.

Fairly well rounded.

But say I wanted to just have a part made up of Kolgrim, Myself, Minsc (who is a ranger but damn powerful), Shar-teel, Ajantis and Kivan.

This party would be heavy on the combat. Almost no support. Now I am pretty sure that I could do quite well in Baldur's Gate using this party (however not having a Thief character can be extremely problematic as traps spawn up everywhere, however that isn't near as bad as BG2 in some areas).

Why would I want to build an unbalanced pary? To play the game differently. Now there I have 5 front ranged fighters and one who is primarily an archer (hell I could replace him with Viconia to go all out at 6, but she is a Cleric and that kind of defeats the purpose). This is for added challenge, or just to play out of curiosity.

Its the same thing as making a character who is nerfed in all areas except for Strength which is maxed. Just applied to a party. Now the game itself shouldn't be linear in level design where I would be unduly punished for not having a Thief or a mage in my party (indeed BG does this well as I really did not use Dyanheir at all outside of giving her a sling).

I could build a balanced attack, or I could build an imbalanced attack. It really is similar philosophy to building a starting character. If I play as an all fighter heavy, in BG anyway I would miss out on loot and would have to take heavy fighting routes. While with a Thief I could cut corners and get special items. This opens up branches.

Dragon Age does not really allow for this and it also can be problematic when you do not have a Mage in your party.

I mean, sure I could go all fighter (whcih I can't go all mage or all rogue).  Say I make myself a warrior, use Alistair, Sten and the Dog.  Now that can be four tanks, but the game itself is designed it seems like you need a mage for either crowd control or to provide constant regeneration.  Until the later levels when you finally can get some impressive skills for your warriors or especially rogues (dual hand weapons are good for this).

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:57 .

[krasnoarmeets]

Mr Mxyzptlk wrote...

Rzepik2 wrote...

krasnoarmeets wrote...

I come back only to find my thread was hijacked by rules lawyers.... awesome.

You should be in awe. This is pure RPG.

I think what his point is that the rules of the game arent what made Baldur's Gate great and originally wasnt what this thread was about. I could care less about the rules if the game has a good setting, characters and story.

Precisely. Plus you can have the most awesome rules system in existence and it still won't make up for a weak story/setting, poor atmosphere.

[AlanC9]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I didn't think it was a good thing that I basically was forced to have a rogue in my party in the first Baldur's Gate. If I want to build a party like I want to then let me. If I want to see what happens if I go all Warrior, let me. All Mage, let me. Do not punish me for doing that as it makes it seem that there is only one way to play the game, either do it correctly or not at all.

Of course, forcing players to have a balanced party was an explicit design goal of D&D. 

I'm not sure it's possible to balance a game for unbalanced parties if classes function very differently. Even if it was possible it would be very hard, and I don't see how it's worth the effort.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:42 .

[krasnoarmeets]

Who else is going to pick your locks, pick your pockets..? What's wrong with having a rogue in the party anyway?

[PoopyStuff]

I played the original game all until my party members got up after combat and regened health like wolverine.

I then ...  swore never to play this peice of garbage until there was an alternative.


Will Dragon age 2 have this horrible flaw?
Will we finally get a true successor to baldurs gate?  or more mass effect wannabe gameplay where people can't die in combat.

[nightcobra]

PoopyStuff wrote...

I played the original game all until my party members got up after combat and regened health like wolverine.

I then ...  swore never to play this peice of garbage until there was an alternative.


Will Dragon age 2 have this horrible flaw?
Will we finally get a true successor to baldurs gate?  or more mass effect wannabe gameplay where people can't die in combat.

then you might just want to pass up on DA2, you'll be sorely missed:whistle:

[Razhathael]

PoopyStuff wrote...

I played the original game all until my party members got up after combat and regened health like wolverine.

I then ...  swore never to play this peice of garbage until there was an alternative.


Will Dragon age 2 have this horrible flaw?
Will we finally get a true successor to baldurs gate?  or more mass effect wannabe gameplay where people can't die in combat.

You quit the game because of a different game mechanic than an other game? I know it's meant to be BG's spiritual successor and all but...

It might be better you never play DA then, you'd just pick out every flaw because it isn't like in the good ol' days. Not meant to sound offensive, but it's the truth.

[PoopyStuff]

the reason they are called the "good ol" days is because they were good.



having a sword go thru your party members head, and then he gets up afterwards and his health goes to full isn't what I would call "rpg"



baldur's gate is legend

Why? Because its good.



People die in combat... they don't get injuries 100% of the time, and are able to continue on.

immersion is the name of the game people.

and DA has none.

[Razhathael]

Right. Whatever floats your boat then. Personally gameplay for me is just a very good addition, and it's the story and dialogue/character customization that makes an RPG for me. I played NWN2 a while back, and will go for BG/BG2 soon, so no I'm not all about graphics and the game being new. Just making sure.

[Bryy_Miller]

PoopyStuff wrote...
People die in combat... they don't get injuries 100% of the time, and are able to continue on.
immersion is the name of the game people.
and DA has none.

While the regenerating health did annoy me, I don't think that it's such a huge deal that it should "throw you out of the game". Immersion isn't just one feature. And even though they didn't die - they certainly die WITHIN combat, and they get all sorts of negatives for broken bones. So it's not like there is no consequence.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 07 octobre 2010 - 09:01 .

[AlexXIV]

The problem people describe are hitpoints. A system introduced with AD&D based games and pretty much the worst system for any RPG. It basically works like a shield in Mass Effect, and doesn't make any sense in a medivial setting. But it seems the majority of people are not bothered by it, so oh well it is a game mechanic. Nowadays game mechanics and story are two pair of shoes anyway, in RPGs.

[Merced256]

According to these forums BG2 sucked horribly in every possible way and that blood, sex, and violence are the new ****.

Also, many of the original systems put in place by the original RPGs were there for a reason. Scaling. If my character, as well as the enemies scaled so poorly in health then you reach a point where you either one shot them or they one shot you. In addition to that, your defenses would have to scale up to a point where you were practically invulnerable because to be any less meant instant death. Sounds like a ton of fun doesn't it? Until you do die that one time and get pissed because there was a .001% chance you'd actually get hit.

Also if your going to say there is no need to scale to that point, then what exactly is the need for levels, stats, skills and abilities? You know, those things that help define a RPG for the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Modifié par Merced256, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:04 .

[tmp7704]

AlexXIV wrote...

The problem people describe are hitpoints. A system introduced with AD&D based games and pretty much the worst system for any RPG. It basically works like a shield in Mass Effect, and doesn't make any sense in a medivial setting. But it seems the majority of people are not bothered by it, so oh well it is a game mechanic. Nowadays game mechanics and story are two pair of shoes anyway, in RPGs.

Not sure if this is so much of a problem or really "worst" system -- the alternative of having misses / parries / dodges until someone actually scores a blow seems to be extremely frustrating/annoying for the players when experienced first hand and that's just if they face "streaks" of 2-3 such events.

Also given hitpoint system is utilized in other combat-related genres (beat-em up and hack and slash games) and there doesn't seem to be much complaint about it there... again, it doesn't seem to be as much problem as it's made here.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Merced256 wrote...

Also if your going to say there is no need to scale to that point, then what exactly is the need for levels, stats, skills and abilities? You know, those things that help define a RPG for the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

[Merced256]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Also if your going to say there is no need to scale to that point, then what exactly is the need for levels, stats, skills and abilities? You know, those things that help define a RPG for the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

Yes, yes, we all read your drivel in the now locked thread. Yet at the risk of having this one locked for the same reason i'll just point you to the line where i said:

the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Modifié par Merced256, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:29 .

[Merced256]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The problem people describe are hitpoints. A system introduced with AD&D based games and pretty much the worst system for any RPG. It basically works like a shield in Mass Effect, and doesn't make any sense in a medivial setting. But it seems the majority of people are not bothered by it, so oh well it is a game mechanic. Nowadays game mechanics and story are two pair of shoes anyway, in RPGs.

Not sure if this is so much of a problem or really "worst" system -- the alternative of having misses / parries / dodges until someone actually scores a blow seems to be extremely frustrating/annoying for the players when experienced first hand and that's just if they face "streaks" of 2-3 such events.

Also given hitpoint system is utilized in other combat-related genres (beat-em up and hack and slash games) and there doesn't seem to be much complaint about it there... again, it doesn't seem to be as much problem as it's made here.

Exactly, because it can't be done particularly well or in conjunction with a system that also allows a player to be relatively as powerful at levle one as they were at level 100.

Mount & Blade is the most recent game in memory to do something like this, but slap on some rusty plate armor and you're good to from level 1 to the level cap basically. Then again its combat is FPS and defense is entirely reliant on player skill.

Modifié par Merced256, 07 octobre 2010 - 11:33 .

[Bryy_Miller]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Also if your going to say there is no need to scale to that point, then what exactly is the need for levels, stats, skills and abilities? You know, those things that help define a RPG for the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

This is a video game. It runs on numbers.

I don't get it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

tmp7704 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The problem people describe are hitpoints. A system introduced with AD&D based games and pretty much the worst system for any RPG. It basically works like a shield in Mass Effect, and doesn't make any sense in a medivial setting. But it seems the majority of people are not bothered by it, so oh well it is a game mechanic. Nowadays game mechanics and story are two pair of shoes anyway, in RPGs.

Not sure if this is so much of a problem or really "worst" system -- the alternative of having misses / parries / dodges until someone actually scores a blow seems to be extremely frustrating/annoying for the players when experienced first hand and that's just if they face "streaks" of 2-3 such events.

Also given hitpoint system is utilized in other combat-related genres (beat-em up and hack and slash games) and there doesn't seem to be much complaint about it there... again, it doesn't seem to be as much problem as it's made here.

Hit points (and shields and parries and biotic powers) are just mechanic for telling a story.  They shouldn't be confused with something important to the game.

I ran a lot of AD&D games where we used Hit Points as "Luck points."  Your characters would declare what they were doing through initiative and they'd mix it up with the NPCs and the monsters.  As monsters attacked you, your hit points might go down... but it would be a bad ding to your armor (2-3 HP), or a bloody nose (4-5 HP), or a good long slash along a leg or ribs (10-12 HP).  I would give my players some leeway in how they got hurt.  I'd say something like "The orc lunges in with a overhand slash, just grazing you" and the players would have a second or two to yell out what happened.  They'd be like "and I get a slash on the cheek" or "it cuts down the middle of my shirt" and that was that.  We'd keep going.  But I was telling a story with those game... none of the PCs ever died unless they wanted to.  If someone said "Ok, I attach the fifty orcs with my spoon, sure, their character died.  I had one person once attack a character that everyone knew was a peerless swordsman.  She got killed on the first stroke of the fencing master's blade...  but I did stuff like "The torch light glitters off his drawn blade.  You lose six points of luck."  My whole gaming crew went dead silent when he drew his blade.   It was ****ing phenomenal.  :-)

To come back to my point, don't get lost in the saving throws and formulas for max damage and parries and hit points... that's dross.  That is the wrapper.  You want the pretty candy...  the story.