273 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

adlocutio wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

xkg wrote...
You are right about Jade Empire, Mass Effect , DAO. But Kotor is basicaly D&D in SW setting.

Right right it uses the D20 system. Still it was before EA that Bioware was moving away from such games.

This may have been asked before, but do you think it was D&D that made BG & BG2 what they were?   Would there be a market for a cRPG with a  D&D inspired system? If so, why aren't major companies making them?  Is there really a generation gap for that kind of roleplaying?

Well I'm only 19 so I have no idea if there is a generation gap. The D&D ruleset wasn't the only thing that makes BG so much better then say DA2 or DA:O it's the story. It really is amazing that it was Bioware's first game and BG II is even better best villian in a video game also. The level of story telling and combat is something we don't see in modern Bioware games.

[adlocutio]

xkg wrote...

adlocutio wrote...

xkg wrote...
Can't say that this is universal truth, but for me yes, it was. D&D ruleset is constantly being developed for almost 40 years - and it is very universal, flexible and nearly perfect system now (ofc imo).

No ruleset made for just one / few cRPG games can beat it.

Even GURPS (used in fallout) looks pale in comparison.

You mean 4e is nearly perfect in your opinion?  Interesting.  Why do you think more crpgs don't imitate it's non-combat aspects?  I mean,  4e still deals more with out of combat skills/abilities than any crpg I've ever played.  Why aren't skills implemented in more ways in games?  Do people think they're not fun?

I always imagine a lot things from p&p might translate really well to the cinematic crpgs, if they were given a chance. 

No no. Maybe I didn't made myself clear, my bad.
I'am talking about 3.5e rules.
Revised (v.3.5)System Reference Document

I've never read the 4e rulebook, all I know is what I've heard - you know, a few opinions here and there, some for, some against - so i really can't comment on it.

Aha. Ok.  Yeah, I like 3.5 too, though I'm currently creating a heavily house-ruled version of AD&D2E including some player's option stuff, kits, etc for a FR campaign I'm designing.  They had a lot of cool ideas back then, they just needed refinement and the benefit of more experience.  It was really a toss-up for me to start with 2E or 3.5, since I like so much of both.

Isn't the d20 license free?  Why don't companies use/adapt it for cRPGs?  Seems easier than starting from scratch in some cases.  I mean, I know it isn't easy, but at least you have the benefit of a well-tested and much enjoyed system.

[adlocutio]

Ringo12 wrote...
Well I'm only 19 so I have no idea if there is a generation gap. The D&D ruleset wasn't the only thing that makes BG so much better then say DA2 or DA:O it's the story. It really is amazing that it was Bioware's first game and BG II is even better best villian in a video game also. The level of story telling and combat is something we don't see in modern Bioware games.

Well the fact that you're 19 says to me there isn't a gap, at least for you. I've never played BG or BG2.  What about the story is different from DA:O or DA2? I mean, how is it better?  How could a new game take what BG did and build on it?

[Chromie]

adlocutio wrote...
Well the fact that you're 19 says to me there isn't a gap, at least for you. I've never played BG or BG2.  What about the story is different from DA:O or DA2? I mean, how is it better?  How could a new game take what BG did and build on it?

Story ofcourse. No more save the world scenarios. BG2 was an epic story and about getting your soul back pretty much. It was peronal and it was about your character not the world. You could import your character even so a lot if not all people playing BGII were attached to their toons. I don't feel the same I did with Hawke (I hate Hawke) or the Warden but at least the Warden had origins. Still BG was more personal. That is a big difference in how the story is told. 

DA2 tried to step away from saving the world but it was so badly executed. I say seriously look to CDProjekt and how Witcher 2 handled it. It was a great story but it pretty much is about a man trying to clear his name and he uncovers a plot by several groups fighting for power. Also I'll be watching Deus Ex HR to see how the plot goes in there. (btw Deus Ex much better shooter/rpg then Mass Effect)

Dialogue is the main thing that would also help to make a game as good as BG2 but should also take cues from Planescape Torment and Fallout. 
In PS:T you would miss a lot of dialogue, in Fallout 1 and 2 you literally weren't smart enough to carry a conversation (should youtube it funny stuff) and BG I can't really remember if there was much dialogue that could be missed based on your stats. I know there was in PS:T.

Difficulty. This is something that I have not seen in a Bioware game. Mass Effect 1, 2, Dragon Age Origins and DA2 or really simple on Nightmare or Insanity. It's just too easy. I like a game that challenges me. When i have to reload and think my strategy that's fun to me. If it's too hard for someone then they can play normal or easy but for me I wish Nightmare meant Nightmare.

Combat. Was a lot more tactical then in DA:O. I miss being able to make my own class and making fun specs. It's really limited. Especially mage type builds also why is there mana? In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them. It may not be careful planning, but it's still planning. In DAO there's no customizing your mage's spell selection for an encounter; any spell they know, they can cast on demand. That already makes playing a mage for difficult then in DA:O. Stats also were much more important. 

Also lock bash why was this not implemented?!

Modifié par Ringo12, 08 juillet 2011 - 11:36 .

[stoicsentry2]

What happened? The twisted mind of Jon Irenicus is now in control of Bioware. Watch out.

[Tirfan]

^^ this, kind of, especially the combat part, I was really shocked in DA:O when you could cast spells continually, you regenerated health just by walking around while not in combat, characters who die in combat pop back to life. I learned to like some of those things (no more saving-sleeping in the middle of the dungeon and reloading until you didn't get ambushed) And I really have to go back to play PS:T I have this rather vague memory that it did some things so well it is hard to grasp.

But.. you people seriously still use D&D in pnp-games? And other people do this too? I never really liked it as a system, I was familiar enough with it that games like BG felt natural. Altough, given the kind of games my group plays nowadays, D&D doesn't suit them very well, or so I would guess.

[Sidney]

Ringo12 wrote...
Well I'm only 19 so I have no idea if there is a generation gap. The D&D ruleset wasn't the only thing that makes BG so much better then say DA2 or DA:O it's the story. It really is amazing that it was Bioware's first game and BG II is even better best villian in a video game also. The level of story telling and combat is something we don't see in modern Bioware games.

BG2 remians weaker than DAO for a variety of reasons.

The AD&D ruleset being terrible is one of them - for magic and combat is was dullsville. The story is weaker relatively.  BG2 is DAO minus the interest of Loghain - Irenicus is just a bwahahahaha type villan in the end.  BG1's story was better to me than BG2's.

[Sidney]

Savber100 wrote...


DA3's combat better add some damn realism rather than this anime, repetitive hack-n-slash.

No plan just spam until the enemy does something else in a cycle of repetitiveness

Seriously there was no plan in DAO either - dear god the DEepe Roads was one long hack n' slash fest of epci proportions. The animations changed but I could auto-attack and kill everything in my path in DAO, I just did it at a much slower pace of hacking and slashing.

DA2's addition of the CCC's actually added a level of depth DAO didn't have and was welcome to help the shallow combat is this entire group.

[Sidney]

Ringo12 wrote...

In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them.

This is easily the worst part of BG2. If you don't have the right rock to kill the paper then you are screwed. Now if you get a big flashing sign "Lair if the Fire Demons" then yes you go off and memorize all your ice spells but that doesn't happen often. Tactics and planning involve some level of information that you tend to only get in BG2 by trial and error. I want my challenge to be using my characters tools properly not trying to guess what tools to bring with me.

[Phaelducan]

People got tired of getting party wiped by a level 3 Wizard with a Sleep spell?

Seriously, random chances of instant death are not fun (and yes, I'm a CRPG fan).

[xkg]

Savber100 wrote...

It happened the moment Laidlaw, our beloved lead designer of JE, took control of the DA franchise from Brent Knowles.

Looks like Kevin Martens was a lead designer.
Mike Laidlaw was a Lead writer.

[caraniente]

Sidney wrote...

Seriously there was no plan in DAO either - dear god the DEepe Roads was one long hack n' slash fest of epci proportions. The animations changed but I could auto-attack and kill everything in my path in DAO, I just did it at a much slower pace of hacking and slashing.

DA2's addition of the CCC's actually added a level of depth DAO didn't have and was welcome to help the shallow combat is this entire group.

I think the main thing that, for me at least, made combat MORE shallow in DA2 was that enemies didn't actually respond differently. I mean, it didn't matter whether you were fighting a group of spiders, a group of templars, or a group of demons, they all basically just swung at you and you swung at them. Hell, you couldn't even get a decent response using ice spells on a rage demon, which just defied all proper use of tactics.

The worst problem with DAO was the difficulty level, because it was insanely easy even on the highest difficulty setting once you knew how to use the abilities/spells properly, whereas DA2's combat is so repetitive (ignore enemy time and hack till dead, then hack 2nd wave till dead, etc) that I ramped difficulty down for most 'exploration' time just to get it over with.

Lastly, it's pointless if you're going to use the same formula over and over. Every fight will be at least 2 waves. Every boss will spawn mini-waves each quarter of it's health you take down. Fighting a dragon in DAO felt epic. Fighting a dragon in DA2 felt like any other enemy, just bigger and more annoying.

[JaegerBane]

Sidney wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them.

This is easily the worst part of BG2. If you don't have the right rock to kill the paper then you are screwed. Now if you get a big flashing sign "Lair if the Fire Demons" then yes you go off and memorize all your ice spells but that doesn't happen often. Tactics and planning involve some level of information that you tend to only get in BG2 by trial and error. I want my challenge to be using my characters tools properly not trying to guess what tools to bring with me.

Yeah, I'm glad Vancian casting went out of fashion. I never could understand why all the RPG old guard used to love it. If I'm playing a spellcaster, I want to cast spells, not mess around 'memorising' spells I already know.

God, I hated DnD wizards. They basically felt like scroll dispensers.

[Sidney]

caraniente wrote...

I think the main thing that, for me at least, made combat MORE shallow in DA2 was that enemies didn't actually respond differently. I mean, it didn't matter whether you were fighting a group of spiders, a group of templars, or a group of demons, they all basically just swung at you and you swung at them. Hell, you couldn't even get a decent response using ice spells on a rage demon, which just defied all proper use of tactics.

The worst problem with DAO was the difficulty level, because it was insanely easy even on the highest difficulty setting once you knew how to use the abilities/spells properly, whereas DA2's combat is so repetitive (ignore enemy time and hack till dead, then hack 2nd wave till dead, etc) that I ramped difficulty down for most 'exploration' time just to get it over with.

Lastly, it's pointless if you're going to use the same formula over and over. Every fight will be at least 2 waves. Every boss will spawn mini-waves each quarter of it's health you take down. Fighting a dragon in DAO felt epic. Fighting a dragon in DA2 felt like any other enemy, just bigger and more annoying.

Enemies didn't response differently in DAO either. I have literally no idea what monsters felt different between the two games. Trash mobs of darkspawn, guards or bandits all rush with melee and plenk away with missle. DA2 has lieutenants buffing (with a really stupid animation granted) rather than attacking and that at least makes them feel different than being just another better level of trash mob. DA2 has a lot more rogues as foes and their use of powers is much more effective than in DAO - rogues/assasins/hunters scare me a lot in DA2 whereas in DAO they were just chum in the water. Ogres use the same tactics in both games. Rage Demons do the same things. The Revs still have that gawd awful pulling thing - Rev's feel a lot less powerful in DA2 than DAO though.  In the end DA2's combat felt like it had a lot more variety than DAO's even if it was masked by a lot of really bad animiations.

The waves in DA2 are awful and a bad mechanism but the "tactics" involved in fighting each weave aren't different than DAO

[adlocutio]

Tirfan wrote...
But.. you people seriously still use D&D in pnp-games? And other people do this too? I never really liked it as a system, I was familiar enough with it that games like BG felt natural. Altough, given the kind of games my group plays nowadays, D&D doesn't suit them very well, or so I would guess.

I use D&D because it's what I have, and what I've used before.  Do you have a recommendation on what you think is a better system and why?  Also, would another system be ideal for cRPGs?  I wouldn't think a "spiritual successor" would necessarily have to use D&D, so long as the principles were there.

[ademska]

to answer the op's question:

in short? console gaming winning the war over pc gaming is what happened.

[Realmzmaster]

adlocutio wrote...

Tirfan wrote...
But.. you people seriously still use D&D in pnp-games? And other people do this too? I never really liked it as a system, I was familiar enough with it that games like BG felt natural. Altough, given the kind of games my group plays nowadays, D&D doesn't suit them very well, or so I would guess.

I use D&D because it's what I have, and what I've used before.  Do you have a recommendation on what you think is a better system and why?  Also, would another system be ideal for cRPGs?  I wouldn't think a "spiritual successor" would necessarily have to use D&D, so long as the principles were there.

The D & D system is licensed to Atari by Hasbro until 2017so Bioware/EA is unable to use it. Most RPGs mechanics are based on D & D with variations. Some of the systems that come to mind are Runequest, Fantasy Trip, d20, Champions, Chivalry & Sorcery, GURPS, and Tunnels and Trolls.

So you could make a CRPG on any of these systems, but a true spiritual successor would be based on the D & D system. Bioware decided to strike out with its own IP which was a decision made before it was acquired by EA.  So you may never have a true spiritual successor to BG in the strictest sense.

[adlocutio]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The D & D system is licensed to Atari by Hasbro until 2017so Bioware/EA is unable to use it. Most RPGs mechanics are based on D & D with variations. Some of the systems that come to mind are Runequest, Fantasy Trip, d20, Champions, Chivalry & Sorcery, GURPS, and Tunnels and Trolls.

So you could make a CRPG on any of these systems, but a true spiritual successor would be based on the D & D system. Bioware decided to strike out with its own IP which was a decision made before it was acquired by EA.  So you may never have a true spiritual successor to BG in the strictest sense.

But d20 basically is D&D, isn't it?  Isn't it free to use?

[Realmzmaster]

adlocutio wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
The D & D system is licensed to Atari by Hasbro until 2017so Bioware/EA is unable to use it. Most RPGs mechanics are based on D & D with variations. Some of the systems that come to mind are Runequest, Fantasy Trip, d20, Champions, Chivalry & Sorcery, GURPS, and Tunnels and Trolls.

So you could make a CRPG on any of these systems, but a true spiritual successor would be based on the D & D system. Bioware decided to strike out with its own IP which was a decision made before it was acquired by EA.  So you may never have a true spiritual successor to BG in the strictest sense.

But d20 basically is D&D, isn't it?  Isn't it free to use?

All of the d20 system listed in the  SRD (System Reference Document which basically covers the game mechanics) is fair game, but the product cannot use any of the product identity . For example a spell which is named for a specific character in D & D could not be used, like Mordenkainen's Sword or Otiluke's Resilient Sphere whereas Mind Fog can be. Any race of creature or realm that is specific to D & D could not be used. 
So you can have the mechanics but not the favor which makes D & D what it is.

[Gleym]

Ringo12 wrote...

adlocutio wrote...
Well the fact that you're 19 says to me there isn't a gap, at least for you. I've never played BG or BG2.  What about the story is different from DA:O or DA2? I mean, how is it better?  How could a new game take what BG did and build on it?

Story ofcourse. No more save the world scenarios. BG2 was an epic story and about getting your soul back pretty much. It was peronal and it was about your character not the world. You could import your character even so a lot if not all people playing BGII were attached to their toons. I don't feel the same I did with Hawke (I hate Hawke) or the Warden but at least the Warden had origins. Still BG was more personal. That is a big difference in how the story is told. 

DA2 tried to step away from saving the world but it was so badly executed. I say seriously look to CDProjekt and how Witcher 2 handled it. It was a great story but it pretty much is about a man trying to clear his name and he uncovers a plot by several groups fighting for power. Also I'll be watching Deus Ex HR to see how the plot goes in there. (btw Deus Ex much better shooter/rpg then Mass Effect)

Dialogue is the main thing that would also help to make a game as good as BG2 but should also take cues from Planescape Torment and Fallout. 
In PS:T you would miss a lot of dialogue, in Fallout 1 and 2 you literally weren't smart enough to carry a conversation (should youtube it funny stuff) and BG I can't really remember if there was much dialogue that could be missed based on your stats. I know there was in PS:T.

Difficulty. This is something that I have not seen in a Bioware game. Mass Effect 1, 2, Dragon Age Origins and DA2 or really simple on Nightmare or Insanity. It's just too easy. I like a game that challenges me. When i have to reload and think my strategy that's fun to me. If it's too hard for someone then they can play normal or easy but for me I wish Nightmare meant Nightmare.

Combat. Was a lot more tactical then in DA:O. I miss being able to make my own class and making fun specs. It's really limited. Especially mage type builds also why is there mana? In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them. It may not be careful planning, but it's still planning. In DAO there's no customizing your mage's spell selection for an encounter; any spell they know, they can cast on demand. That already makes playing a mage for difficult then in DA:O. Stats also were much more important. 

Also lock bash why was this not implemented?!

And you're 19, you say? People like you are what make me still hopeful for the later generations. The rest of the gaming crowd seems to be going the path of iJustine.

[JaegerBane]

Ringo12 wrote...
Combat. Was a lot more tactical then in DA:O. I miss being able to make my own class and making fun specs. It's really limited. Especially mage type builds also why is there mana? In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them. It may not be careful planning, but it's still planning. In DAO there's no customizing your mage's spell selection for an encounter; any spell they know, they can cast on demand. That already makes playing a mage for difficult then in DA:O. Stats also were much more important. 

I don't really understand why this is a negative. Having a vancian casting system artificially slows everything down and effectively precludes the use of things like spell combinations (obviously, if you have to memorise the spells you think you'll need, at some point you'll have to make a choice between ones that interact well and ones that fit the situation).

In my opinion, having a vancian/memorisation system misses the point behind playing a mage in the first place. You might as well just load up on a stack of scrolls and play a rogue with 'Use Magic Device'.

And apparently, my opinion was shared even amongst the hardened DnDers, since that's why classes like the Sorcerer and Favoured Soul were implemented.

[billy the squid]

Gleym wrote...
....

And you're 19, you say? People like you are what make me still hopeful for the later generations. The rest of the gaming crowd seems to be going the path of iJustine.

I love the commentator! he is brilliant!

Modifié par billy the squid, 09 juillet 2011 - 10:11 .

[Realmzmaster]

JaegerBane wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...
Combat. Was a lot more tactical then in DA:O. I miss being able to make my own class and making fun specs. It's really limited. Especially mage type builds also why is there mana? In Baldur's Gate, your mages can't cast every spell they know unless you haven't been teaching them new spells (or they are insanely high level). In DAO they can. In Baldur's Gate, or any game where spell memorization is a mechanic, your mages have to plan in advance. It's not an option. They need to decide what spells to memorize, and then memorize them. It may not be careful planning, but it's still planning. In DAO there's no customizing your mage's spell selection for an encounter; any spell they know, they can cast on demand. That already makes playing a mage for difficult then in DA:O. Stats also were much more important. 

I don't really understand why this is a negative. Having a vancian casting system artificially slows everything down and effectively precludes the use of things like spell combinations (obviously, if you have to memorise the spells you think you'll need, at some point you'll have to make a choice between ones that interact well and ones that fit the situation).

In my opinion, having a vancian/memorisation system misses the point behind playing a mage in the first place. You might as well just load up on a stack of scrolls and play a rogue with 'Use Magic Device'.

And apparently, my opinion was shared even amongst the hardened DnDers, since that's why classes like the Sorcerer and Favoured Soul were implemented.

The memorization system in D & D is an unnecessary limitation. . You are saying that the wizard forgets how to cast spells and effectively becomes a blank slate. The criticism was that the wizard forgets even  basic spells like magic missile and sleep which get cast over and over.
Now if you are saying that the wizard is resting to regain mana then the memorization system is still unnecessary.

The DA system simply does away with this old D & D game mechanic. DA simply says the mage does not forget the spells learned and mana replenishes constantly. Mana replenishes much slower doing combat because it is being used. If you cast a spell that drains most of your mana you either drink a potion or wait for the mana to replenish enough to cast a spell. If you have sustainables active then you cannot cast a spell higher than the available mana.  It makes sense.

Yes in D & D you had to plan what spells your wizard would take, because the system forces you to. Does not mean that the game mechanic made sense. There is no reason why the wizard would have to memorize magic missle or any spell over and over.

D & D to answer this criticism came up with favored soul and sorcerer. They differentiated  the sorcerer by saying the sorcerer cannot learn spells from scrolls and inately learns the spells based on Charisma. The favored soul has a limited spell selection but can cast the same spell more times than the cleric based on Charisma (same with the sorcercer who can cast the same spell more times than the wizard). The wizard and cleric have a greater spell selection.

[Mad Method]

Realmzmaster,

That's not really an answer to what Ringo12 said. Ringo12 commented that spell memorization added tactical considerations in selecting spells and using them. Your response is that it's an unnecessary limitation because that is an unrealistic way to do magic, which is rather absurd. To me, that just means that some people don't enjoy that kind of spell-casting system. I think the real problem is that spell memorization encourages making blind decisions with a nasty tendency to punish you at the very end.

On the other hand, a memorization system also allows for mages which are tactically played and believably much more powerful beings, but nevertheless do not overshadow the rest of your party.

At any rate, I think DA's combat system has its problems too. Personally, I really don't like the way Dragon Age has an out of combat full recovery system. Or the absurd amounts of potions and heals with amazingly low cooldowns. Or the aggro system which essentially revolves around giving enemies bad AI which reduces tactical complexity. The first two factors combine to punish you as little as possible for making bad decisions since there is no difference between surviving a fight at 5% hp and oom and trouncing enemies at 90% hp with some good mana left. To top it off even if you allow a character to get utterly overwhelmed in combat, a series of potions and heals will keep up a character which by rights really should have died for being put in such a bad position. The end result of both of these changes is that Dragon Age demands less tactical consideration from players since players can make bad decisions repeatedly but will recover regardless. Then we have the aggro system which further reduces tactical complexity because the AI instead of intelligently choosing how to fight will attack the one character who is built to withstand punishment for no other reason than because he is doing a Taunt - an ability which has does nothing in and of itself but instead serves to read "Make the enemy AI perform a really bad tactical decision." Have you ever played a game of chess and come up with a cool strategy to defeat your opponent if only they move in bad ways designed to allow you to do so? Now did you consider how bad chess would be if people actually willfully played into your hands like that?

I suppose the folks at Bioware may have been worried about new players being overwhelmed by complexity or somesuch, but they took the wrong approach to make the game accessible. Instead of making a combat system where careful decision-making adds to the fun of combat and adding tutorial segments to help get folks up to speed, they chose to assume that new players wouldn't want to learn these things and believed just reducing the complexity and effort to play the game would make it more fun - as opposed to mind-numbingly tedious.

Maybe it's just my tendencies to want to think things through, but DA's combat is rather firmly in the "tedious" department for me. Not all the time, but far too often.

Modifié par Mad Method, 04 août 2011 - 09:12 .

[Mad Method]

With Legacy out it seems Bioware has been adding a lot more puzzles into their game, so what are everyone's opinions on puzzle mechanics?

A lot of old-school games used puzzles so I figured it was worth bringing up. At any rate, I think there are three things to consider to puzzles:

• Puzzles as breathers. Meaning, using a puzzle every now and then to keep the game from being monotonous.
• Puzzles as brain-teasers. In other words, puzzles for the fun of puzzles. Making them interesting, engaging, challenging, and fun.
• Puzzles as a vehicle for interactivity. So if you had a player repair a device, instead of having them just collect the ingredients and throwing a cutscene, you have them solve a puzzle to fix it.

Personally, I'm fine with puzzles as long as they're good enough. A Towers of Hanoi puzzle might be fun the first time you do it, but after that it usually becomes busywork. Bioware's puzzles haven't impressed me, but I didn't mind them either. What about everyone else?

Modifié par Mad Method, 04 août 2011 - 11:45 .