255 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

we rather play 3.5 it's a lot more interesting and complex than 4e

If by interesting and complex you mean more messy and easier to break, then ya... That said, I've never considered D&D the good kind of complex ever, it was always quite the messy rule set(which is probably why ed greenwood stopped using stat mechanics at all with his home-brew). 4e cleaned up DnD a lot from what was a truly messy system. It's only redeaming quality is that you feel a little "special" after you have it all figured out and relatively mastered. However, 4E is so refreshing because it makes starting up a new adventure so much more hassle free.

And I would say DA2 is very much doing the same thing. Cleaning up a lot of the mess(there was mess) in DAO, which was warrented, imo, and seems like a good thing from my perspective, by a long shot.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 février 2011 - 11:12 .

[Il Divo]

I personally have trouble placing older games like Planescape, BGII, and Deus Ex in a list of greatest games ever, mainly because I played them so long after in a different time and context. My first RPGs were Kotor and Morrowind, both of which are in my top ten list and I enjoy them immensely. Instead of actually trying to rank the old classics, I try to think of them as having a position of honor. They're all great and have contributed something to the evolution of RPGs. For that, they should be lauded. However, they are also indicative of a very antiquated presentation to video games which I think modern games should do without. It is unlikely that there will be games in the style of BG and Planescape and so I try to avoid holding other games to such an impossible standard.  

[FellowerOfOdin]

It all depends on the wording. The system isn't messy once you really got behind it, everything is pretty well thought-out except of a few stupid prestige classes. The "cleaning up" is effectively dumbing down stuff e.g. dividing abilities in "per day / per fight / etc." stuff. Characters can be less customized and you rather have a pretty narrow path in 4e...easier to dive in, less to explore.



It's better for starters, I fully agree, no objection, but if you want the more...advanced system, it's 3.5 / Pathfinder



DA2 is in fact doing the same thing. Change a lot of things, less customization, more stream-lining...just as I stated above. Happens when you cater to a broader audience



4e failed (personal opinion + actual sales), let's see how it works with DA2.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

Spellcasters don't do very well in the 3.0 Epic rules.

Except for the insta-kill/no save's builds, then it just becomes easy mode.

I was talking about insta-kill builds too. Devastating Critical.

[mesmerizedish]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
...

DA2 is in fact doing the same thing. Change a lot of things, less customization, more stream-lining...just as I stated above. Happens when you cater to a broader audience

...

How is this happening to DA2? Ability trees look way more interesting than Origins'.

[Kandid001]

Hahahahahahaha

[Zlarm]

I for one would be ecstatic if that were the case. I thought DAO had a rather subpar storyline although well written characters. Hopefully we'll have a nemesis in DA2 on the scale of Jon Irenicus and not well, the archdemon.... As far as DA2 being more tactical I have my doubts. The mere fact that you can have 6 party members in BG2 and only 4 in DA2 is already a significant reduction in tactics.

[AlanC9]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
...

DA2 is in fact doing the same thing. Change a lot of things, less customization, more stream-lining...just as I stated above. Happens when you cater to a broader audience

...

How is this happening to DA2? Ability trees look way more interesting than Origins'.

I don't even see how it happened in ME2, but that's just something you're required to believe if you're a real RPG fan. Or something like that.

[Meltemph]

The system isn't messy once you really got behind it

You're right, it isnt messy "once you get behind it", which is the problem, you have to become a fanboy of the system to enjoy it. You have to learn to actively like it, instead of just enjoying it. I don't play games to "deal with it". And I never felt "more intelligent" so to speak or felt it was a "superior" system, because I was willing to deal with a sloppy mechanic system.

4e failed (personal opinion + actual sales), let's see how it works with DA2.

Nice job their trying to claim 4e responsible. DnD has and is failing, there is not a way to objectively state it is because of 4e. Why do you think they made the change in the 1st place?

Edit:  So the comparison to 4e and DA2 your are trying to make is obviously a "gamed" comparison.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 février 2011 - 11:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Try HotU -- not quite an IE game, of course. But fighter-types blast through that. Spellcasters don't do very well in the 3.0 Epic rules.

As I recall, the general consensus on the old NWN boards was that the most powerful level 40 character was a single-classed wizard.

Meltemph wrote...

If by interesting and complex you mean more messy and easier to break, then ya... That said, I've never considered D&D the good kind of complex ever, it was always quite the messy rule set(which is probably why ed greenwood stopped using stat mechanics at all with his home-brew). 4e cleaned up DnD a lot from what was a truly messy system. It's only redeaming quality is that you feel a little "special" after you have it all figured out and relatively mastered. However, 4E is so refreshing because it makes starting up a new adventure so much more hassle free.

It's a matter of perspective.  Yes, 3.5 was a disaster, but 3.0 was better.  That said, I think 2nd edition was a lot neater than 3E (though it would have benefitted from 3E-style skills).

I'm not going to applaud 4th edition for fixing 3.5 anymore than I'll applaud DA2 for improving on aspects of DAO when it's busy breaking other aspects, or fixing them in ways that still aren't as good as pre-DAO games.  The same is true for DA2 improving on ME's dialogue system.  Sure, the newer one is unequivocally better, but the even older version no one is even discussing was better still.

Why will no one ever go backward to what worked before?  It's like new features are preferred simply because they are new.

And I would say DA2 is very much doing the same thing. Cleaning up a lot of the mess(there was mess) in DAO, which was warrented, imo, and seems like a good thing from my perspective, by a long shot.

On the tactical combat front, DAO had some problems.  The rather narrow set of circumstances under which we could intercept enemies was a (slight) problem.  People talk about it like it was a game-breaker, but DAO did actually allow you to intercept enemies.  Anything with a knockdown worked beautifully.

So yes, DA2 has improved on that, but in doing so they've also added some features of questionable value.  The rogue teleport eliminating the need to worry about positioning, for example.  That's a real problem.

That they improved one thing doesn't forgive them breaking another.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Nice job their trying to claim 4e responsible. DnD has and is failing, there is not a way to objectively state it is because of 4e. Why do you think they made the change in the 1st place?

They made the change for the same reason they always did.  They hoped to appeal to new fans, while encouraging old fans to buy new rulebooks.

The problem, I think, was that 4E was so different from the earlier versions that people who already played D&D didn't recognise the gameplay.  I read the 4E core rulebooks, and I didn't understand how the gameplay worked.  I still know what rituals are, or how to cast utility spells.  And since I was never a miniature gamer, I didn't see the use for many of the abilities.

CRPG designers face an ever more dangerous journey, I think, given the physical nature of gameplay.  I was livid with BioWare for changing the keyboard maps so much between ME and ME2 (I changed them back) beacuse I didn't see why they'd done it (I still don't).  If DA2 doesn't resemble DAO fairly closely, then DAO fans won't like it.

[Meltemph]

It's a matter of perspective.

I agree.

Why will no one ever go backward to what worked before? It's like new features are preferred simply because they are new.

Like you said, it is all about perspective, but I've never found the DnD system to be pretty, its strongest motivation to use it, imo, has only been because of its customization and, imo, 4e is a step in the right direction(even if it is a step to late). Also, DA2 does not seem to be breaking anything "I" care about, so I have every reason to be supportive over it.



I agree largely with your premise and view on it, I just disagree that DA2 is taking the wrong approach.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Gorthaur X wrote...
Apart from that plenty of us do not have the same appreciation for every other game we used to enjoy in the days of yore, there are people who have been introduced to Baldur's Gate more recently - sometimes after DA:O, even - and still enjoyed or preferred it.

Exactly.  There are all sorts of games I played in the '80s that just aren't very good when I look back at them.

Gauntlet, for example.

Blasphemer! 

  I love Gauntlet (even the more modern incarnations.)  Gauntlet is just fun.  Green Valkyrie needs good badly, darn it! 

Anyway...I don't see any way DA2 can't be better than BG2, for the simple fact that it got rid of 2E D&D (which I hate...mostly because of my fondness for melee characters and my hatred for debuff and dispel type magic.  If I'm going to play a mage, I want to blow stuff up, darn it, not just try and strip the enemies completely broken buffs.)

There's also the fact that DA2 has the potential to actually allow you to adapt to changing combat situations on the fly, unlike BG2, where either you had the right spells for a particular fight memorized, or you lost.

Certainly, story/character-wise DA2 may not be as good as BG2, but combat-wise, it can't help but be better, as far as I'm concerned.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Also, DA2 does not seem to be breaking anything "I" care about, so I have every reason to be supportive over it.

To be a decent tactical experience, I think I should have to make decisions wherein I weigh immediate gains (like hitting someone) against greater future gains (like hitting him harder from behind).  In DAO, the player needs to decide whether the time it takes to get behind the enemy (and the risks that entails - getting hit, the chances that the enemy or someone else moves in the way) is worth the expected payoff (backstabs).  And it's not even as simple as that.  If the guy I want to backstab is currently fighting the dog, will the dog survive long enough to hold aggro while I make my move?  Does some other party member have a tactical command that will trigger a knockdown or a taunt, thus changing the orientation of my enemy?  These decisions are what make combat fun.

If instead I'm reduced to choosing the thing that works best right now, with no moment-to-moment consequences, that's not an interesting encounter.

Again, I don't know whether DA2 will offer what I want, but usually when they point out something they changed I see more bad than good.  The only things I've seen that I actually like are only good because they make something else i've learned less bad.  The intent icons are good because they improve the wheel, but the wheel is still a disaster (and the intent icons make the wheel harder to fix).  The unreliable narrator is good because it creates ambiguity, but the framed narrative forces us into a tightly gated path.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Certainly, story/character-wise DA2 may not be as good as BG2, but combat-wise, it can't help but be better, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a big booster of BG2.  High-level AD&D combat got pretty repetitive.

Low-level combat was terrific, but BG2 didn't have any of that.

[Meltemph]

In DAO, the player needs to decide whether the time it takes to get behind the enemy (and the risks that entails - getting hit, the chances that the enemy or someone else moves in the way) is worth the expected payoff (backstabs).

Yes, and rarely was I worried about the enimies movements, becasuse of things like backstab were not used well by enimies.

 

And it's not even as simple as that.  If the guy I want to backstab is currently fighting the dog, will the dog survive long enough to hold aggro while I make my move?  Does some other party member have a tactical command that will trigger a knockdown or a taunt, thus changing the orientation of my enemy?  These decisions are what make combat fun.

I agree, it can make it fun, but if the enemy does not have a "good enough" level of ability on their own it hurts it just as much as it helps(And I thought it hurt DAO in this department).  In DAO the player had all the tools and it seemed that, due to the way the system was setup, that the baddies had a very mcuh limited setup against you, which made the decisions you are talking about, much more trivial.

If instead I'm reduced to choosing the thing that works best right now, with no moment-to-moment consequences, that's not an interesting encounter.

But that is how it was essentially delt with in DAO, rarely did you get punished for making a mistake, like you are describing.  The changes they have shown, make me think that the AI, due to the changes, is going to also be able to take advantage of the same kind of tactics, which will, for me at least, increase choice in battle.

Again, I don't know whether DA2 will offer what I want, but usually when they point out something they changed I see more bad than good.  The only things I've seen that I actually like are only good because they make something else i've learned less bad.  The intent icons are good because they improve the wheel, but the wheel is still a disaster (and the intent icons make the wheel harder to fix).  The unreliable narrator is good because it creates ambiguity, but the framed narrative forces us into a tightly gated path.

Laregely preference, but the tighter the path the more story typically told.  It does have a tendency to cut down on exploration, but if it comes down to exploration vs lore/polotics of the story, I'll choose the latter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

Laregely preference, but the tighter the path the more story typically told. 

Only if you define the story as being only the authored narrative.

I think a tighter path produces a much narrowwer story, and that story is always the same for every player every time he plays.  How is that fun?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

I agree, it can make it fun, but if the enemy does not have a "good enough" level of ability on their own it hurts it just as much as it helps(And I thought it hurt DAO in this department).  In DAO the player had all the tools and it seemed that, due to the way the system was setup, that the baddies had a very mcuh limited setup against you, which made the decisions you are talking about, much more trivial.

Oh, and I'll agree that DAO's combat wasn't usually difficult enough to offer a challenge to the player if he approached it as a single gameplay experience.

But I don't do that.  I'm roleplaying all of the characters in combat, and they don't always work that well as a group.  So that leads to characters being caught in situations that are far from ideal.

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Laregely preference, but the tighter the path the more story typically told. 

Only if you define the story as being only the authored narrative.

I think a tighter path produces a much narrowwer story, and that story is always the same for every player every time he plays.  How is that fun?

Yes, but I would argue you are not as interested in the "lore/polotics" of the setting as I am.  You are more concerned with "experiancing" the setting, where as I want to learn about it.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Try HotU -- not quite an IE game, of course. But fighter-types blast through that. Spellcasters don't do very well in the 3.0 Epic rules.

As I recall, the general consensus on the old NWN boards was that the most powerful level 40 character was a single-classed wizard.

Quite possibly true.I was talking specifically about the campaign, where IIRC you don't get that high. Wizards may have caught up to fighters in the mid-30s as spell DC increased. In any event, difficulty fails late in HotU for most classes.

[What?]

Technically, the game will surpass BG2 in terms of tech and gameplay. As much as I loved that game, it's aged, and chock-full of tedious micro-management (I absolutely hate having to pause every five seconds to coordinate between party-members) and Tl;DR textwalls that get really, really grating on the eyes after some time. Just my opinion.

[MJRick]

It will probably be better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

VictorianTrash wrote...

(I absolutely hate having to pause every five seconds to coordinate between party-members)

Whereas, I think pausing every five seconds isn't nearly often enough, regardless of the gameplay.

No matter how DA2's combat is designed, I will pause incessantly, and if that makes the combat dull or predictable, then that's a problem.

[Fishy]

That how i think a lot of BG2 fan are..Just move on already.



Bioware: Luke  .... DA2 Might be better than Bg2

Fan :

Modifié par Suprez30, 10 février 2011 - 06:19 .