343 réponses à ce sujet

[soteria]

Revan312 wrote...

I would argue though that for depth, MW2 is about as spaztastic as it gets, with the game being filled with quick scoping, camping and kill streak laiden bs. I thought that game was just terrible on strategy and tactics. Sure, there's a lot of perks and choices in layout, but it promoted simplistic and boring mechanics such as the above listed. BFBC2, although more limited in layouts, had head and shoulders more intricacy and tactical involvment, if you want to quote a recent game..

MW2 isn't my favorite game, and I agree that the Battlefield games in general are a little more tactical, but still, when you compare it to early shooters, I think it's pretty obvious that we haven't lost complexity by any means.  The story was surprisingly good, too.

In Exile wrote...

The issue with that is that you're really dealing much less damage than you just would by fireballing the crowd and then closing with your warriors into melee. A dex warrior (especially SnS) is basically impossible to hit anyway, so archery really doesn't give you anything in terms of a tactical advantage. Crossbows were incredibly rare in DA:O. I actually don't remember ever picking one up from an encounter beside the Warden's Keep one.

There are only a few occasions that I pull a bow out for--dragons, Revenants, the Broodmother and generally just any time I don't want to run into a bad situation or when melee is more punishing than ranged. Many of the most dangerous attacks are autohit anyway--a Revenant's double hit (only used when 2 or more are in melee), Massive Attack, Grab, Swipe, etc. High defense does nothing against any of those. You can steal a great crossbow from the rude merchant in Lothering, if you don't drive him off.

AlanC9 wrote..

This may be the big difference between the old days and now.

Maybe. Remember, though, that collectively we have a lot of knowledge and expectations for how these games play. If I pick up any shooter, I expect to be able to adjust the controls to what I'm used to and pick up the mechanics in minutes. That wasn't possible back when I played Wolfenstein, both because you couldn't adjust the controls and because I had no prior experience. When I play an RTS, I already know what I need to learn to do well--what the best build order is (if applicable) and which units are good against which. The underlying mechanics, again, haven't changed much.

If I want to achieve excellence at a game I still have to devote hours, but in general I can pick up almost any game (assuming genre familiarity) and be basically competent in minutes. "I" meaning the typical gamer, here. I assume I'm not special in that regard.  DA:O might have actually assumed too much about its audience.

Modifié par soteria, 03 décembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[sethroskull79]

Playing my 4th run of DA:O and I must say that it is way easier. Maybe its cause I know what to expect and all. It still doesn't make it any less fun for me. Though I hope part 2 is challenging, I think it may be easier than origins. I hope that it has replayability. But like above I think people who play RPGs know what to do in terms of character builds and getting the most out of things. Maybe the game isn't easy and all the gamers are just too damn good.

[Maria Caliban]

In Exile wrote...


That didn't come out as coherent as I hoped. What I meant to say was that I felt that builds in DA:O were a lot more about statistical distributions than about talents, so the freedom in builds that we have will come more from the statistical distribution that from any specific skillset.

I found that true of warriors. Mages were all about grabbing the right talents.

Never saw it, but I'm totally Virgil Romanus. Just couldn't get the name to work for whatever reason when I set up the account, so I used "in exile" as the name as my silent protest to the social board replacing the old DA:O and Bioware boards.

That's amusing. I saw you arguing with Sylvanus in another thread and thought of you.

[Nighteye2]

sethroskull79 wrote...
But like above I think people who play RPGs know what to do in terms of character builds and getting the most out of things. Maybe the game isn't easy and all the gamers are just too damn good.

That's part of it. But I'd like to think the number of experienced players has grown over the last few years, possibly enough to become it's own demographic?

Not all games need to be aimed at people that never played a game before - especially not games intended for mature players.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
There are only a few occasions that I pull a bow out for--dragons, Revenants, the Broodmother and generally just any time I don't want to run into a bad situation or when melee is more punishing than ranged. Many of the most dangerous attacks are autohit anyway--a Revenant's double hit (only used when 2 or more are in melee), Massive Attack, Grab, Swipe, etc. High defense does nothing against any of those. You can steal a great crossbow from the rude merchant in Lothering, if you don't drive him off.

In those situations, though, the enemy still close and you need a damage sponge. Whenever I roll 3 mages (which is a lot of the time)  a ranged warrior is useless because the only role of the warrior is to act as a damage sponge.

In other cases, even with more than one potential melee unit, you still need to put up with having to soak damage to keep enemies anaway from the squishes. You can dea with the auto-attacks by positioning your warriors or using forcefield.

Never knew about the pick-pocketing. I saw that 90% of the items you get from it are trash, so I never bothered.

[soteria]

In Exile wrote...

In those situations, though, the enemy still close and you need a damage sponge. Whenever I roll 3 mages (which is a lot of the time) a ranged warrior is useless because the only role of the warrior is to act as a damage sponge.

Nah. Flemeth and the Broodmother are stationary, the Archdemon can be, uh, "sponged" by an army, and in other cases I *want* the enemy to close with me, rather than doing the legwork myself. Besides, I rarely use more than a single mage because it trivializes the game so much and that bores me. You might not see the value in warriors using bows because the rest of your group is ranged capable, but to someone like me who uses warriors heavily, the lack of ranged capability is definitely a loss in tactical flexibility.

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
Nah. Flemeth and the Broodmother are stationary, the Archdemon can be, uh, "sponged" by an army,

Flemeth is stationary? That just trvializes the fight. The broodmother, even when rolling a single non-damage mage, I kept back to the rocky ground and fough off the tentacles in melee.

The archdemon (thought it may have been the silly high amount of damage I did) seemed to focus exclusively on my party. Then again, it's never taken my longer than 3-4 minutes to kill it.

and in other cases I *want* the enemy to close with me, rather than doing the legwork myself.

Fireball works better, even with a single mage. Or paralysis. I just don't see the value in the low DPS of archery compared to enemy health pools on nightmare.

Besides, I rarely use more than a single mage because it trivializes the game so much and that bores me. You might not see the value in warriors using bows because the rest of your group is ranged capable, but to someone like me who uses warriors heavily, the lack of ranged capability is definitely a loss in tactical flexibility.

No, even with a 2 warrior 1 rogue 1 non-damage mage group, I still think melee is absolutely superior to ranged. The real problem you get into without mages is dealing with the Denerim archery mobs, but that's universal.

[Eiia]

Personally I prefer games being hard, I don't really get overexcited about mashing a button 5 times resulting in 20mobs getting 1 shotted(fi: fable). Imo it's better to have less combat, but instead make each encounter more challenging.
The deep roads basically killed the replayability aspect of DA:O for me, "3x mages aoe spells, kill whole mob-party without taking any damage whatsoever", repeat for like 3 hours..

Gothic2:NotR imo offers the perfect difficulty level, even killing a single orc at level 20 can be difficult, but when you make it, it actually feels like an accomplishment. The defualt difficulty in NotR is way harder than DA:O on its hardest setting. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be different 'difficulty-settings', but the hardest setting should definately be way more challenging than what it was in DA:O.

Modifié par Eiia, 03 décembre 2010 - 03:53 .

[sethroskull79]

Nighteye2 wrote...

That's part of it. But I'd like to think the number of experienced players has grown over the last few years, possibly enough to become it's own demographic?

Not all games need to be aimed at people that never played a game before - especially not games intended for mature players.

I agree.  No reason to make a game less like what its supposed to be like to attract people who don't really care about RPG's.

[Cutlasskiwi]

sethroskull79 wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

That's part of it. But I'd like to think the number of experienced players has grown over the last few years, possibly enough to become it's own demographic?

Not all games need to be aimed at people that never played a game before - especially not games intended for mature players.

I agree.  No reason to make a game less like what its supposed to be like to attract people who don't really care about RPG's.

I see no reason to exclude new players and I don't see it as making the game less of what it's supposed to be. I think it's great if you can get new players into the game. Did you think DAO had this problem or are you talking about DA2?

When a friend tried DAO the first time he was confused for the first few hours and he's used to RPGs while another friend who's never played an RPG in her life got into it really easy and had no trouble understanding how the leveling worked and so on.. 

[KalDurenik]

Well Dragon Age is not hard... Well "stupid" hard i guess.

The enemy will throw aoe without care of their friends while you cant do the same... Dragons was at annoying locations when i played the first time. Yet i killed it after 2-4 tries. And that is by being way to weak to do it. The balance is just sad... How ranged > Melee in every way.



Then you have the fact that... In BG2 you had to use spells depending on the situation... Use spell x to counter y... z to counter d... d to counter... Well you get the point. In dragon age origins you have 2-3 spells and you NEVER need to use another spell. Yes that is "dumbed" down and it lack complexity and depth then. When the devs then come by and say "hack and slash yeaaahhhh (yes we still have tactics) i can only do a facepalm. There was hardly ANY tactic in the first one and then you will turn it into more of a button mash. Then there is no need for tactics the moment people figure out hey! i can just button mash 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to win... Why would anyone do anything else? For the ENTIRE game?



That is why im overall sad... Instead of adding more choices, more items, more customisation, more abilities and skills and spells... We get less of everything (from a combat point of view). Even the game look rushed compared to the first one (less dev time on DA2).



But yeah i think the person that i cant remember the name on is correct... People think its a flaw if they need to think on how and when to use abilities and skills. I kinda hoped they would try to make Dragon age into a spiritual successor of BG but yeah... they failed and then they moved over to action... Oh well.

[sethroskull79]

Yeah the dragons in BG2 were hard. I don't know Yellow, I wasn't trying to say exclude anyone, I just miss the days when RPG's were more RPGee ey you know.

[sethroskull79]

KalDurenik, ur message is right on. I can't express myself that good, hahaha. But thats in essence what I feel like inside about this.

[Cutlasskiwi]

KalDurenik wrote...

Well Dragon Age is not hard... Well "stupid" hard i guess.
The enemy will throw aoe without care of their friends while you cant do the same... Dragons was at annoying locations when i played the first time. Yet i killed it after 2-4 tries. And that is by being way to weak to do it. The balance is just sad... How ranged > Melee in every way.

Then you have the fact that... In BG2 you had to use spells depending on the situation... Use spell x to counter y... z to counter d... d to counter... Well you get the point. In dragon age origins you have 2-3 spells and you NEVER need to use another spell. Yes that is "dumbed" down and it lack complexity and depth then. When the devs then come by and say "hack and slash yeaaahhhh (yes we still have tactics) i can only do a facepalm. There was hardly ANY tactic in the first one and then you will turn it into more of a button mash. Then there is no need for tactics the moment people figure out hey! i can just button mash 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to win... Why would anyone do anything else? For the ENTIRE game?

That is why im overall sad... Instead of adding more choices, more items, more customisation, more abilities and skills and spells... We get less of everything (from a combat point of view). Even the game look rushed compared to the first one (less dev time on DA2).

But yeah i think the person that i cant remember the name on is correct... People think its a flaw if they need to think on how and when to use abilities and skills. I kinda hoped they would try to make Dragon age into a spiritual successor of BG but yeah... they failed and then they moved over to action... Oh well.

I see it as they have removed a lot of talents and spells that did roughly the same thing, but that has already been stated in this topic. Besides we haven't seen if they have added new talents/skills/spells - which I'm guessing they have. 

So far I've not gotten the hack and slash impression of the game. I just see it as marketing - it's still BioWare after all. It may be stupid of me but I've been happy with their games in the past and I have faith in them so I pre-ordered the moment I could. Ah, the power of branding.

And we haven't really seen much of the game yet. Just an old demo and some leaked footage of said demo. I hardly think that's the final look of the game. 

[KalDurenik]

@Yellow Words

What make a ability useless pointless so that they have to remove it? Its when the devs allow there to be no use for said ability. Kinda like how its in the dragon age games right now. Ability x and y are the same because there are a lack of "complexity" and resistance checks / mental checks / will checks or whatever you want to call it. Unit 1, 2,3,4,5 (and so on) are overall the same so it dont mater if you use spell 1 or 2 against them. Its a game design problem and instead of fixing it and making the game more complex they removed them and took the lazy way out (yes lazy).



Sure they removed the hard coded delay and i agree with that. It was there for NO reason except a design oversight. But just because you remove it dont mean that you are now required to turn the game into a more "mindless button mashing" game and remove the few tactical moments there was in the game.

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...
Then you have the fact that... In BG2 you had to use spells depending on the situation... Use spell x to counter y... z to counter d... d to counter... Well you get the point. In dragon age origins you have 2-3 spells and you NEVER need to use another spell. Yes that is "dumbed" down and it lack complexity and depth then.

Of course, you don't actually mean 2-3 spells there; more like 6 or so, or your wizard would have everything in cooldown a lot of the time. This would still be pretty inefficient, but the game would be winnable. And a D&D game obviously needs more spells than other systems because of the spell level system, so you get spells of different levels that do pretty much the same thing. This is complicated without being complex.

As for the substantive point, would adding a level of rock-paper-scissors really make DA more complex? You could still program the whole thing into Tactics.

1: If mage target is invisible, cast True Sight
2: If target protected by spell defenses, cast Pierce Magic (etc.)
3: If target protected by physical defenses, cast Breach. 


Edit: we may have had a different experience in the IE games. What I remember is maybe getting confused the first time I fought something. then you figure out how that kind of fight works and it's pretty much autopilot every time you fight a similar creature after that.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 décembre 2010 - 07:12 .

[KalDurenik]

Sure it would compared to.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 did i mention 1?

The more things you need to think about the more complex the game get. If 1 spell work against everything in the game whats the point of using any other spell?



And i dont know what you played on but i played on the hardest. And the leveling system was alot better made in BG. More choices more ways... You could almost play the game in any way you wished to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Flemeth is stationary? That just trvializes the fight. The broodmother, even when rolling a single non-damage mage, I kept back to the rocky ground and fough off the tentacles in melee.

If you'd stayed farther back on the rocky ground you could have avoided melee entirely.  The tentacles had no ranged capacity, so they could easily be rendered wholly impotent just by staying out of melee range.

No, even with a 2 warrior 1 rogue 1 non-damage mage group, I still think melee is absolutely superior to ranged. The real problem you get into without mages is dealing with the Denerim archery mobs, but that's universal.

For the record, I tend to avoid melee combat as much as possible because I don't like getting hit.  Closing to melee range is just an invintation for the other guy to hit you.  I'd much rather not let that happen.

I found that a multi-archer party with a glyph heavy mage was quite effective.  Yes, the archers didn't do as much damage as melee fighters did, but as long as the glyphs could keep the melee enemies at a safe distance the rate of damage was less relevant.

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...

Sure it would compared to.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 did i mention 1?
The more things you need to think about the more complex the game get.

If using the correct spell is automatic and obvious  for me, I am not thinking.

If 1 spell work against everything in the game whats the point of using any other spell?

Magic missile works on everything in BG, if you can play rock-paper scissors with Ruby Ray and Breach.

And the leveling system was alot better made in BG. More choices more ways... You could almost play the game in any way you wished to.

This is delusional. Leveling in BG had no choices except for weapon proficiency.

Edit: for clarity, I'm not saying that DAO was complex. It wasn't. I'm saying that the IE games weren't either.

Edit again: but of course, what's "complex" is determined by the memory and, er, bandwidth, of the person playing. Someone who has trouble remembering and applying more than a few gameplay principles at a time -- that is, someone who would do better at DAO by using a good set of Tactics on the companions than by playing them himself -- would certainly find the IE games complex.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 décembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[KalDurenik]

AlanC9 wrote...

KalDurenik wrote...

Sure it would compared to.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 did i mention 1?
The more things you need to think about the more complex the game get.

If using the correct spell is automatic and obvious  for me, I am not thinking.

If 1 spell work against everything in the game whats the point of using any other spell?

Magic missile works on everything in BG, if you can play rock-paper scissors with Ruby Ray and Breach.

And the leveling system was alot better made in BG. More choices more ways... You could almost play the game in any way you wished to.

This is delusional. Leveling in BG had no choices except for weapon proficiency.

Edit: for clarity, I'm not saying that DAO was complex. It wasn't. I'm saying that the IE games weren't either.

Except its not obvious what to use in BG atleast not for most people out there. I dont think you knew untill you read everything. And if you are saying "yeah i just sat down and played BG2 and then i knew everything and what spell to use against what!" Then you are lying or some kind of alien .

And sure... BG is not the most complex RPG out there i could think of a few more just like that. However like you said DAO is in no way complex or have any depth then it come to the combat. Instead of trying to improve it. They reduced it and made it worse (in my eyes).

[Cutlasskiwi]

KalDurenik wrote...

@Yellow Words
What make a ability useless pointless so that they have to remove it? Its when the devs allow there to be no use for said ability. Kinda like how its in the dragon age games right now. Ability x and y are the same because there are a lack of "complexity" and resistance checks / mental checks / will checks or whatever you want to call it. Unit 1, 2,3,4,5 (and so on) are overall the same so it dont mater if you use spell 1 or 2 against them. Its a game design problem and instead of fixing it and making the game more complex they removed them and took the lazy way out (yes lazy). 

Why are you so sure that they haven't added anything new instead of just removing things? Has this been confirmed and I just happened to miss it? So far we know very little about the game and we mostly know things they have tweaked or removed. 

KalDurenik wrote...
Sure they removed the hard coded delay and i agree with that. It was there for NO reason except a design oversight. But just because you remove it dont mean that you are now required to turn the game into a more "mindless button mashing" game and remove the few tactical moments there was in the game.

I still don't understand the "mindless button mashing" thing either. We have devs that have confirmed that the game can be played tactical if the player wants to. 

[upsettingshorts]

Yellow Words wrote...
I still don't understand the "mindless button mashing" thing either.

People are reading way too far into the leaked console gameplay videos which allow the player to trigger basic attacks with button presses. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 décembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[fsfsfsfsfsfsf]

soteria wrote...
*looks at gorillas, nibbles, scorch, king's quest, and wolfenstein 3d*
*looks at modern warfare 2, rome total war, civilization v, and dragon age*
Lawl. Your facts are anything but.

I assumed you would be smart enough to realise I was talking generally. And also not compare .bas games that came free with MS Dos with the likes of MW2...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
I gave up when he insisted that he was the elite. Way to detract from your argument.

I'm surprised you even made it that far.

Nighteye2 wrote...
It's also where the most competition is, since almost all other companies are aiming at that same market segment. You've got pretty large niches on both sides of that segment, with little competition in each.

That's very true. In fact, it's the only thing that keeps me playing games at all. If it wasn't for smaller companies making games like Arma2, HOMM5, X3 Terran Conflict, World of Goo, Trine, etc... I would have given up years ago.

What doesn't help, is when the likes of EA is constantly swallowing up these little companies, like the Borg or something, assimilating all these nice little companies who cared about making good games. I really miss Westwood, and now Bioware is another casualty. They may still have the same name, but their direction is very different. I have to just do my best to support smaller companies now, and little heroic break off factions like 2d Boy.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Yes, and learning to master the game mechanics was part of the fun - whereas nowadays some people consider it a hassle.

Yep.

And in some ways I sympathise with those people too. I've tried posting similar things on the Minecraft forum, and a few people argued that they have busy compicated lives and want some very simple entertainment to help them wind down, and I can't really argue with that. It's perfectly legitimate. Although, I think those people are exceptions, and as the OP's little movie explains, games could be more complex and challenging, and some good tutorials would ease people in to it. The guy used Portal as an example which was such a great example really, but there are lots of others. Even Bioware games ease the player in, somewhat. But yeah, I just wish games spent more time and creativity easing people in, and then built and built until it got more complex. I agree with him that games don't have to be simple, they could be complex and challenging but they need to have a really good learning curve. I think that is the key skill for a lot of companies to understand and to do well.

Nighteye2 wrote...
In other words, those games had a good learning curve that never really reached a plateau. You could keep on learning and getting better with practice.

I suppose so. I think they probably did plateau at some point, but you were already well and truly hooked on the game by then. You didn't even really notice it.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Because the 'error' in trial and error gets seen as a flaw in the game, rather than a flaw in their chosen strategy.

Good observation, I think that's right. A lot of modern gamers assume that if they become 'stuck', the game did something wrong. It's funny because I grew up playing games like Maniac Mansion (which still I've never finished), Monkey Island, etc.. I was stuck pretty much the entire time. There was no internet to just check out a walkthrough back then, so it was a constant struggle. I sometimes had to wait to the next day, go to school and ask some of my friends or older kids if they had got further. I remember there was one kid who was probably 3 or 4 years older than me and he always used to call me 'shortie'. But he had completed Police Quest 1-3 so I used to bug him for solutions sometimes and he used to take great pleasure in making me practically beg for his smart ass for assistance.

But that's just how gaming was back then, most of them were extremely tough, and that just made them even more addictive. It's not nice to be defeated by a challenge, so it just made people persistent. It also made it that bit more rewarding when you finally did overcome it.

Nighteye2 wrote...
A sad state of business, and one of the reasons while I still play old games (from the NES/SNES era) and before, if I can get them to run on my PC. They simply manage to provide more challenge than modern games, in a good way.

Yeah absolutely. I have a SNES, and PS1/PS2 emulator on my PC too. Even though I have a good PC that can play anything cranked, I still often end up playing old games, just because they were so good. Laughable graphics, but with gameplay that strong, it more than makes up for it.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Btw, companies can also go wrong the other way. 'Hard' mode on Metroid: Other M is a prime example of that. Simply having the same game as on normal but without any powerups only makes the game frustrating, rather than challenging.

Yep I hate that. I always felt that about EverQuest. As much as I praise it for doing so many things right, and for being so challenging, it often went way too far with some things too. It ended up not being challenging, but rather just tedious and annoying. Forgetting to bind for example, and then you accidentally die and you have a 40 minute journey to get back to your corpse. Not cool. It's a balancing act, a very difficult one. They have to be challenging - but do-able. In the old days, I think that is largely what game design was all about, and they were masters of it. Even games made by one kid in his bedroom (Manic Miner etc..), they nailed this kind of thing. I sometimes still see that kind of old school talent, in games like Portal, where it really gets you thinking and you can get stumped, but eventually you can figure it out. But it's so rare that I see that these days. Like the OP's movie explains, it's easier and lazier to just make all games easy. They have mass appeal at that point. Games like WoW and Gears of War etc.. where you really can't fail at anything no matter what. With WoW you literally can't help but make constant progress, the only difference is that a good player makes progress faster than a bad player - but the bad player will still end up at maximum level eventually.

Nighteye2 wrote...
Dragon Age wasn't the first phase - DA:O was a very good game, inspired on BG2. Wish I could say the same about DA2, but that's not looking so good thus far.

I think it was, although subtle. I actually enjoyed it too. But it's quite a big step away from BG2. The move away from AD&D simplified things, but there were bigger simplifications too - like the almost instant regeneration between battles. It was hard to go wrong because you could go in to every battle completely refreshed, all you had to do was wait 10 seconds or so. Unlike BG2 where I would be ambushed by a bunch of nasties, and then it prevented me from resting.. and I had to either risk pressing on half spent, or I had to back track to safety. Boss battles were far easier in DA too. I remember some of those BG2 dragons taking me a dozen attempts or more, and not only that, but it forced me to absolutely everything at my disposal, traps, everything. In DA I ended the game with 200+ gold having not spent anything, and an inventory full of potions that I never needed to use. Simplification of friendly fire too. It's hard to lose a battle in DA2 when you could just have one caster use that oil on the ground, and another caster creative a gigantic firestorm on top of it. You can do that in almost every battle, and nothing comes out alive. In BG2, you would be ambushed by creatures that infiltrated your group almost immediately so you can't really use ANY area effect spells. And if you did, a fireball often would kill one of your party members outright, instantly, not just injure them slightly. And a dead party member was REALLY dead, not just lying down for a while. So half the time I ended up having to use little spells like enfeeblement and magic missiles and stuff.

It was simplified, but still managed to be pretty good. With further simplification in DA2 though... I'm predicting that it's basically just going to be a gory hack 'n slash. System Shock becomes Bioshock, perhaps inspired by the original but an empty shell in comparison with 10 times less depth. Morrowind becomes Oblivion. Prince of Persia becomes Sands of Time, where you just can't die, you just rewind the last few seconds. Tiberium Sun becomes modern C&C, which is a big dumb mutation of it's former self, no subterranean units, no stealth, no way to prevent your base from being explored, no secondary weeds to harvest, no more complex hand made maps - just a bunch of symmetrical multiplayer maps, Rainbow Six become Rainbow Six Vegas 2, no more brutal one shot deaths, no health bars, constant regeneration, just step behind a wall for a few seconds and you're good to go - even after being shot in the face. No more surprises, thanks to a large constantly active heartbeat sensor that shows you everything that is about to happen before it happens, no team planning stage etc.. Fallout becomes Fallout3, Civilization becomes Civilization Revolutions, Gothic becomes ArcaniA, Total Annihilation becomes SupCom 2. Baldur's Gate becomes Dragon Age 2.

It's totally predictable, and totally identifiable, totally sad.

Modifié par fsfsfsfsfsfsf, 03 décembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[Piecake]

I really wish I had this time machine that apparently a lot of users on this board have.

[AlanC9]

KalDurenik wrote...

Except its not obvious what to use in BG atleast not for most people out there. I dont think you knew untill you read everything. And if you are saying "yeah i just sat down and played BG2 and then i knew everything and what spell to use against what!" Then you are lying or some kind of alien .

It depends. The way to fight mage duels is described on two of the friggin' loading screens.  Anyone who needs to think about that is too stupid to live.

As for the rest, sure, it's a little harder to discover that Chaotic Commands will completely neutralize a whole bunch of powerful enemy attack spells. And having so much noise in the spell system does make it harder for a player to determine which spells are the good ones. It's just not the kind of hard that I think is worth having.