255 réponses à ce sujet

[Firky]

I like AD&D. Just because the mage classes might have some super powered moves, doesn't mean that your only enjoyment comes out of exploiting every exploit. Play as a "skald" and you learn heaps of new stuff (even if it is about invincibility potions, crowd control, making your PC run away etc).

By which I mean, if you can play with flexibility within its ruleset, it's tactical (IMO). There was no one and only way to beat anyone in BG2.

Modifié par Firky, 09 février 2011 - 10:38 .

[Harid]

Firky wrote...
By which I mean, if you can play with flexibility within its ruleset, it's tactical (IMO). There was no one and only way to beat anyone in BG2.

You could use the same argument for ME2, or DA:O.  Didn't stop AD&D mage supremacy, and that brought the game down for me, because I don't consider it tactical to have broken magic, personally.

Just makes you eliminate the mage faster.  At that point the crappy tactics in BG2 could mop up the melee, because, melee were mook classes in AD&D.

Modifié par Harid, 09 février 2011 - 10:38 .

[AlanC9]

Harid wrote...

XX55XX wrote...

Since we are on the subject... would any of you old-timers who played and liked BG2 back in the day prefer that BioWare continued to make RPGs like they used to? With the same engine, similar production values, isometric view, etc.

Find me one of these games where melee aren't mook classes to the magi and I'll buy that.

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.

[Miss Greyjoy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ultima IV.  The greatest CRPG of all time.

Ironically, I played a console port of this on NES ( I wonder how much it was "dumbed down" ). Lovely game...and not popular by console standards. I still have my copy, complete with manual and maps.


I think DA2 is going to be a good game, but where it stands in my list of favorites remains to be seen. I'm optimistic!

[Meltemph]

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.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 février 2011 - 10:38 .

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Ultima IV.  The greatest CRPG of all time.

I remember listening to a speech Richard Garriott was giving during the indy awards show a year or 2 ago...  He pretty much agree's with you, it seems.  I thought it was fun and all, but not as good as he thought it was, apparently.

[Firky]

Harid wrote...

Firky wrote...
By which I mean, if you can play with flexibility within its ruleset, it's tactical (IMO). There was no one and only way to beat anyone in BG2.

You could use the same argument for ME2, or DA:O.  Didn't stop AD&D mage supremacy, and that brought the game down for me, because I don't consider it tactical to have broken magic, personally.

Just makes you eliminate the mage faster.  At that point the crappy tactics in BG2 could mop up the melee, because, melee were mook classes in AD&D.

Actually, I do quite enjoy combat which is "unfair" or where you are approaching it suboptimally and still have to try and win. While I can totally appreciate what the design team are doing with the "making the rogues equal to mages" thing, I will probably lament the loss of a class that will frustrate me. Failing multiple times, within any ruleset, fair or especially unfair, is good for the soul.

*shrugs* I found that eliminating the mage first in DA:O was paramount because they were scary. Esp emissaries. But in BG 2 I often alternated between taking down the mage and the melee troops. Sometimes the melee troops would deal a lot of damage. Depends on party.

Modifié par Firky, 09 février 2011 - 10:41 .

[Gorthaur X]

Saibh wrote...

That's like comparing the garbled, tinny sound of the first phonographs with, say, the gramophone. The gramophone was the height of our technology, but it sounded a lot better, and a lot more closely, to modern recordings.

BG has marked comparisons to DAO. Can you really make such comparisons to games before that? None that I recall. They were in such an infantile stage that they don't really resemble anything like what we call video games. BG does.

I think the aforementioned Pool of Radiance does resemble modern RPGs in many ways - particularly the Infinity engine games that still used the same ruleset - and I'm sure there are even earlier examples that I wouldn't know of. I do remember hearing the dinosaurs saying they were much better though.

And now, I guess I'm the dinosaur. Oh well.

To each his own. Like I said, I was mostly irritated that everyone has been saying "It will never be as good as BG, that's so stupid of them to say so!", when they haven't even played the game.

While I tend to agree with Seagloom in that it's pretty unlikely we'll see a convergence of all the factors that made BG so great to her - and me - any time soon, I do understand your frustration, as well.

Re:above. Occasionally, when I get into debates, I lose sight of what I was initially arguing with, and just start arguing for whatever the other person is opposing. I'm trying to avoid that, by saying I was mostly just expressing exasperation that people are unequivocally saying BG is better than anything BioWare will ever do again.

Fair enough.

[FellowerOfOdin]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
 I actually 4e is the best system yet. Unfortunately, it seems like every other part of the game just disappeared, but I digress.

Up to that point I was like "Woah, he seems to have a point h-" and then stopped. 4e is crap and every DM / long time group will confirm this. It's D&D dumbed down...a lot. A whole lot, the developers themselves aid that it should more ressemble MMORPGs...and they truly achieved that with all the "rogue from behind" and "second wind" stuff.

Fortunately, the customers saw it the same way and, surprise, 4e currently has less players and less sold books than Pathfinder which is an improvement to the great D&D 3.5 rules. If you want to play a P&P RPG, either play Pathfinder or Shadowrun, depending on the scenario you prefer. 

Don't run around claiming 4e to be superior though...it might be in your very personal opinion, but you could just fire up some MMORPG instead. You want P&P, you play one of the two above mentioned systems. Else...don't even start.

Not saying that Pathfinder is perfect, Wizards still are top notch at high levels but I don't have a problem with this as their early levels are hell and beyond.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 09 février 2011 - 10:44 .

[Amyntas]

Sharn01 wrote...
As to the DA2 being more tactical then BG2, I will believe it when players have to reload fights several times because they havent figured out what tactics to use and when, or read a spoiler.

this.

Judging by recent videos, Dragon Age 2 seems less tactical than World of Warcraft, which is considered "dumbed down" by most. Even in WoW you have to use crowd control, kite enemies, interrupt spells, avoid damage etc. If DA2 involves at least the same tactical depth as an average WoW heroic, I will be pleasantly surprised.

What has improved over the years is the cinematic presentation. Both Dragon Age and the Mass Effect series are great at that, but gameplay-wise rpgs have become less interesting.

Modifié par Amyntas, 09 février 2011 - 10:44 .

[John Epler]

Let's pull it back on-topic. If you want to discuss D&D mechanics, please do so in the off-topic forum.

[Altima Darkspells]

Every time someone complains about 'balance' in a single player game--especially one composed of a party--it makes me want to murder kittens.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone who can make the laws of physics her **** can be slightly more useful than someone who, at the end of the day, hits things with a hunk of metal?  Especially since, in many cases, magic is significantly limited while warriors can hit things all day.

If anything, it's shoe-horning characters into rigid, unchanging classes that creates class superiority.  Sure, a warrior may end up not being anything more than a meat shield to mages, but if you slap some sort of open lock skill on him, then hey, suddenly he's more useful to the party!

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.

Harm.  Lulz.

3.5 is even worse, though towards the end. Hasbro just decided to make warriors more magicky.  But then again, CoDzilla.

[Harid]

Firky wrote...

Harid wrote...

Firky wrote...
By which I mean, if you can play with flexibility within its ruleset, it's tactical (IMO). There was no one and only way to beat anyone in BG2.

You could use the same argument for ME2, or DA:O.  Didn't stop AD&D mage supremacy, and that brought the game down for me, because I don't consider it tactical to have broken magic, personally.

Just makes you eliminate the mage faster.  At that point the crappy tactics in BG2 could mop up the melee, because, melee were mook classes in AD&D.

Actually, I do quite enjoy combat which is "unfair" or where you are approaching it suboptimally and still have to try and win. While I can totally appreciate what the design team are doing with the "making the rogues equal to mages" thing, I will probably lament the loss of a class that will frustrate me. Failing multiple times, within any ruleset, fair or especially unfair, is good for the soul.

I prefer being beat by superior tactics than broken classes, (or the occasional this mob is too strong, come back when you are stronger thing) but that's just me.  Then you are actually learning how to play better.

It's why I don't expect anything from this game in terms of difficulty, because Bioware's position on difficulty is increasing enemy stats rather than improving enemy tactics/ performance.

Nightmare will be as easy as Normal.

Modifié par Harid, 09 février 2011 - 10:49 .

[Meltemph]

Let's pull it back on-topic. If you want to discuss D&D mechanics, please do so in the off-topic forum.

Huh? Discussing D$D mechanics in relation to the transition DA2 has taken... Seems quite on topic to me, not sure how it would be considered off-topic unless it has nothing to do with DA2(which it does).



The comparisons of the 2 titles almost necessitates talking about the different mechanics, don't you think?

[Giantdeathrobot]

 Agree with Harid. Magic was just too powerful. Battles against mages amounted to dispel -> kill before spells are recast (not to mention that, in early levels, enemy mages all had a few dozen Contingency spells ready while you didn't even have the blasted ability yourself). Not having a mage/cleric in your party meant seriously gimping yourself unless you know the system inside and out (Origins does share that weakness).

And for the record, having to use trial and error and/or sploilers to win a fight is the antithesis of tactical combat and good design. It just means the dev team is unable to tune the fights to be doable even at lower skill levels without in depth knowledge of the incredibly murky DnD mechanics, so the game rewards the player's previous knowledge instead of his skill.

If DA2 keeps and refines the mechanics from Origins, no doubt it will be superior in my eyes, despite the cries of 'dumbed down!' some people might have. An intuitive system is far better in my books than a (overly) complex one that relies on cheese to work barely. Doesn't mean I want the treatment the Fallout series got for the third game, but there's a middle ground somewhere, no? 

@ John: voice of reason in a thread involving nostalgia? Blasphemy!

[John Epler]

Meltemph wrote...

Let's pull it back on-topic. If you want to discuss D&D mechanics, please do so in the off-topic forum.

Huh? Discussing D$D mechanics in relation to the transition DA2 has taken... Seems quite on topic to me, not sure how it would be considered off-topic unless it has nothing to do with DA2(which it does).

The comparisons of the 2 titles almost necessitates talking about the different mechanics, don't you think?

Discussing D&D mechanics as they compare to BG2 - on-topic.

Discussing your feelings on 4th Edition - not really on-topic.

[Meltemph]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

 Agree with Harid. Magic was just too powerful. Battles against mages amounted to dispel -> kill before spells are recast (not to mention that, in early levels, enemy mages all had a few dozen Contingency spells ready while you didn't even have the blasted ability yourself). Not having a mage/cleric in your party meant seriously gimping yourself unless you know the system inside and out (Origins does share that weakness).

And for the record, having to use trial and error and/or sploilers to win a fight is the antithesis of tactical combat and good design. It just means the dev team is unable to tune the fights to be doable even at lower skill levels without in depth knowledge of the incredibly murky DnD mechanics, so the game rewards the player's previous knowledge instead of his skill.

If DA2 keeps and refines the mechanics from Origins, no doubt it will be superior in my eyes, despite the cries of 'dumbed down!' some people might have. An intuitive system is far better in my books than a (overly) complex one that relies on cheese to work barely. Doesn't mean I want the treatment the Fallout series got for the third game, but there's a middle ground somewhere, no? 

@ John: voice of reason in a thread involving nostalgia? Blasphemy!

Ya, I agree.  I was quite happy when they moved away from the DnD like system and moved to their own.  Allows them to balance the game in a different way.  D&D made mages so powerful, imo, it actually influenced the lore of the world that were based on DnD.

[Meltemph]

JohnEpler wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

Let's pull it back on-topic. If you want to discuss D&D mechanics, please do so in the off-topic forum.

Huh? Discussing D$D mechanics in relation to the transition DA2 has taken... Seems quite on topic to me, not sure how it would be considered off-topic unless it has nothing to do with DA2(which it does).

The comparisons of the 2 titles almost necessitates talking about the different mechanics, don't you think?

Discussing D&D mechanics as they compare to BG2 - on-topic.

Discussing your feelings on 4th Edition - not really on-topic.

Oh, my bad.  sorry, must have missed that.

[Firky]

Harid wrote...

I prefer being beat by superior tactics than broken classes, but that's just me.  Then you are actually learning how to play better.

I think we're in agreement that tactics and learning how to play better are enjoyable.

Thought provoking. I'm now picturing DAII combat and how it might be so well balanced overall that there is no one optimal way to play, no exploits and a whole bunch of different ways to win, governed only by your imagination. With combat being still incredibly hard without just adding extra HP to enemies - like what they've done to enemy classes does sound good IMO.

And lots of incredibly unfair optional sidequests too. And an optional class that has a whole bunch of really off the wall, and seemly useless talents, you can use for a playthrough, just to screw things up.

I think that would be my dream game. Ahhhh.

Modifié par Firky, 09 février 2011 - 10:57 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

JohnEpler wrote...

Let's pull it back on-topic. If you want to discuss D&D mechanics, please do so in the off-topic forum.

Aye sir.

This being said, DA2 does remember me of 4th edition - faster combat, less customization, obvious MMO allusions, more pop-culture reference...the biggest difference being that 4th edition looks more shiny whereas DA2 does not

[Meltemph]

This being said, DA2 does remember me of 4th edition - faster combat, less customization, obvious MMO allusions, more pop-culture reference...the biggest difference being that 4th edition looks more shiny whereas DA2 does not

Yet if I am playing with a group of friends, I would much rather use 4th edition rules then any other now(as for the lore that came with 4th edition, well that is a different subject). So it looks fine to me. The "sacrifices" we have seen so for are appearing quite minor for me so far.

[Morroian]

Amyntas wrote...

Judging by recent videos, Dragon Age 2 seems less tactical than World of Warcraft, which is considered "dumbed down" by most. Even in WoW you have to use crowd control, kite enemies, interrupt spells, avoid damage etc. If DA2 involves at least the same tactical depth as an average WoW heroic, I will be pleasantly surprised.

To repeat the quote from the Eurogamer preview:
"On consoles, you'll still be able to pause the action and cue up attacks and strategies for team-mates before letting rip. On PC the tactical view may have been very slightly reigned in, but the trade-off allows for more complex geometry, with hills and steps and split-levels, all of which can be used tactically."

[FellowerOfOdin]

Meltemph wrote...

This being said, DA2 does remember me of 4th edition - faster combat, less customization, obvious MMO allusions, more pop-culture reference...the biggest difference being that 4th edition looks more shiny whereas DA2 does not

Yet if I am playing with a group of friends, I would much rather use 4th edition rules then any other now(as for the lore that came with 4th edition, well that is a different subject). So it looks fine to me. The "sacrifices" we have seen so for are appearing quite minor for me so far.

Depends on the group. I DM for almost 7 years now with a few different groups and 2 permanent members and since everyone is more or less used to the rules, we rather play 3.5 it's a lot more interesting and complex than 4e...and seriously, half-dragons? -_____-

And a lot of people agree...Pathfinder currently sells better than 4e although it's not even official D&D and the rules are online for free

/e: DRAGON AGE 2 DRAGON AGE 2 RELATED

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 09 février 2011 - 11:08 .

[Meltemph]

Judging by recent videos, Dragon Age 2 seems less tactical than World of Warcraft, which is considered "dumbed down" by most. Even in WoW you have to use crowd control, kite enemies, interrupt spells, avoid damage etc. If DA2 involves at least the same tactical depth as an average WoW heroic, I will be pleasantly surprised.

You can't compare a MMO to a single player RPG like that. WoW has more to do(or at least it did the last time I played it) and worry about then DAO or any other single player RPG ever did. However, I would say that is more because the nature of multiplayer.



Would almost be like me complaining that DAO/DA2 didnt have has much depth as Master of Orion.

[Firky]

Morroian wrote...

 ...with hills and steps and split-levels, all of which can be used tactically."

Actually, that's a good point. Better use of geography has to be a plus for tactics.