batlin wrote...
R0vena wrote...
oh, no.... I don't play Bioware games for challenge in fighting. Less hack&slash, more story, please...
Then turn your difficulty down to very easy and let those of us who like good stories AND challenging and rewarding combat have our good gameplay.
Melca36 wrote...
R0vena wrote...
Excuse me? How I am playing, again?bEVEsthda wrote...
...And unlike you, who chose to play so exploited and unimaginative, for whatever reason, - I never even had a choice.
I think there is a lot of possibilities of imaginative combat in DA. Playing with different group. Choosing the different skills or spells. Exploring different CCC. How about two two-handed warriors in the same group on NM? How about ony rogues? I played through DA 2 about 10 times - all my battles were different. Depending on my party some were more easy, some more difficult than in previous times, but they were rarely the same.
batlin,
I repeat - it is not difficulty. I prefer to play NM. It is personal preference of the certain feature and I am not sure why mine should be any less important than anybody else's. I prefer NWN rest system to BG rest system despite adoring BG as a game. It is my right, you know. You voice your opinion in hopes that developers will hear it? So do I.
I remembered suddenly why I rarely post on this forum. I guess I'll just remove myself from the discussion now.
The battles were all the same.
And I hope you realize the developers have stated the combat would be changing for DA:3 because most of the people didnt like how it was for DA:2.
And DA:2 was Hack and Slash....sorry but it was.
Melca36 wrote...
I still want to the hardcores to explain how enemies jumping down from the roof or appearing from the ceiling is innovation.
wsandista wrote...
Melca36 wrote...
I still want to the hardcores to explain how enemies jumping down from the roof or appearing from the ceiling is innovation.
The closest I've gotten to a straight answer was "because it doesn't conform to expectations of what a RPG is".
I usually answer with "If it isn't broke, don't fix it, especially if by fixing it you break it very badly".
Modifié par Realmzmaster, 12 juin 2012 - 12:22 .
Realmzmaster wrote...
R0vena has already stated that she plays on nightmare which means challenging combat is not a problem. She takes issue with non-regenerating health and mana after combat. I can understand why because it can be a time sink.
It is easy in both BG1 and its irk and especially in Dragon Age games to collect a great number of health and mana potions making non-regenerating health and mana a non-issue. D & D mechanics only had a weight restriction and potions weigh very little. A bag of holding or potion bag allowed for even more space.
Also abusing the rest system is equally easy even with random encounters, because there is no limit on how many times you can rest in any time period. and there is no sense of urgency.
Most gamers save after a big battle, So even if the party continues on and hits a random encounter the gamers just reloads the last save and continues. The only way to stop that is to make sure that the random encounter is not random and happens every time after the big battle which defeats the purpose and surprise of a random encounter or you disable the save mechanism for set period of time after the big battle.
The original Might and Magic, Bard's Tale, Wizardry only allowed saves at an Inn, but that was highly inconvenient . The save anywhere at anytime except combat makes abusing the rest system easy if random encounters are truly random.
Realmzmaster wrote...
wsandista wrote...
Melca36 wrote...
I still want to the hardcores to explain how enemies jumping down from the roof or appearing from the ceiling is innovation.
The closest I've gotten to a straight answer was "because it doesn't conform to expectations of what a RPG is".
I usually answer with "If it isn't broke, don't fix it, especially if by fixing it you break it very badly".
I never said it was an innovation. I simply said I did not care and adjusted my tactics accordingly. I had no problem with enenies jumping off of budildings no more than an Arrow of Slaying, Whirlwind or Archer's Lance. I had problems with enemies in full plate jumping off buildings but not in light armor. I had no problem with the waves. I have seen them in both old and modern cRPGs the same with FedEx quests. Like I said before gamers want to pick and choose their realism. I know what I want in a cRPG and every gamer on this forum would not wish to play the way I would. ( Think Ironman in Wizardry or perma -death with erased save file in Hack or only saving in Inns). YMMV.
Of course there's interest in BG-style games, however, Beamdog isn't nearly as big as Bioware, so they can afford to appeal to smaller audiences (much like those Kickstarter-funded groups are doing). I'm saying it's unlikely the Dragon Age audience would grow if Bioware turned the clock back.wsandista wrote...
sickpixie wrote...
That's an enhanced rerelease.
Bioware didn't
make a BG3 because their story had been told, and they had moved on and wanted to do things in
their own worlds. Black Isle wanted to do a BG3, but it was in in-name
only sequel that would have had a very different focus in both gameplay and story and I doubt BG fans would have liked it (a completely not-epic non-mass murdering personal story you could complete at level 4). Atari wanted to do a BG3 after that, but they were using words like "cinematic" "evolving" "action" and "immersive" so I doubt that's the BG you're looking for either.
Still shows that their is some intrest in BG. Also they have said they will try to make BG3.When popular things are released, dozens of copycats pop up trying to ride that wave of success. No such thing happened with Baldur's Gate. It was popular and succesful, yes, but not a huge hit worth trying to replicate by anyone or else they would have tried.
So what were Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment then?batlin wrote...
Uh, KotOR and Neverwinter Nights used D&D 2nd edition rules
Actually I believe they used a StarWars PnP as a base. The StarWars PnP was almost a direct copy mechanic-wise of D&D 3rd though.
sickpixie wrote...
Of course there's interest in BG-style games, however, Beamdog isn't nearly as big as Bioware, so they can afford to appeal to smaller audiences (much like those Kickstarter-funded groups are doing). I'm saying it's unlikely the Dragon Age audience would grow if Bioware turned the clock back.
Icewind Dale and Torment were not BG. The former was a linear dungeon crawl focused mostly on cutting down hordes of enemies with no non-player-created companions and the latter was also linear and emphasized story and high quality art at the expense of everything else. Odd that one would criticize Dragon Age 2 for linearity, taking place in a single city, and not allowing you to customize companion armor and then give Torment a free pass for example.
Knights of the Old Republic and Neverwinter Nights weren't BG either. When I say copycat I mean "a simulation-leaning game with no or very few, brief cinematics where you start out as a single non-voiced character, get a group of partially-voiced-acted companions with personalities to form a party and explore a semi-open world by clearing out the black areas on a map." I get the impression that's what many of you want, but I don't think anyone else has ever quite specifically tried to deliver that.
It's magic. Why would you expect it to follow rules that you, a non-magical being, find intuituve.Realmzmaster wrote...
Vancian casting makes no sense to me. It is simply unrealistic and not logical. A spellcaster does not forget a spell. Now if you wish to say that a spellcaster has to rest to regenerate mana that is fine. But if my magic user takes a mana potion I see no reason why a spell my magic user knows would not be available. I accept the fact that I may not have enough mana to cast the spell but not that I must re-memorize it.
The older Star Wars PnP game - based on a d6 mechanic - was a great game system. I wish that had made it into a computer game.wsandista wrote...
Actually I believe they used a StarWars PnP as a base. The StarWars PnP was almost a direct copy mechanic-wise of D&D 3rd though.
This is exactly right. I have often argued that a roleplaying game isn't properly a game at all. It's a toy, and developers should design it as such.bEVEsthda wrote...
In most other regards, TW2 actually went the wrong way, IMO. It's not the type of cRPG I want. I want a RPG as a 'toy'. Not as an interactive movie, with action combat and preset character, no thanks.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's magic. Why would you expect it to follow rules that you, a non-magical being, find intuituve.Realmzmaster wrote...
Vancian casting makes no sense to me. It is simply unrealistic and not logical. A spellcaster does not forget a spell. Now if you wish to say that a spellcaster has to rest to regenerate mana that is fine. But if my magic user takes a mana potion I see no reason why a spell my magic user knows would not be available. I accept the fact that I may not have enough mana to cast the spell but not that I must re-memorize it.
As long as the rules are internally consistent, there's no realism issue. What matters beyond that is whether it makes for fun gameplay.
But if you really need some sort of explanation as to how Vancian casting could work, I can give that a shot. Suppose "memorisation", in the Vancian cating sense, isn't a simple memory trick, but instead is the layering of a specific pattern of magical energy in your mind. Casting the spell is the act of releasing the energy. The mage's brain, in this scenario, worked like the battery in an electric car, where it simply transports the power from one place to another, espending it far more quickly than it is replenished back at camp.
Modifié par Realmzmaster, 12 juin 2012 - 03:47 .
It says memorization, but does it really mean "memorization"? Or is it being imprecise?Realmzmaster wrote...
That is not how it is explained in the D & D ruleset which specifically states memorization. The wizard must re-memorize the spell from the spellbook. Sorcerers have the innate ability to cast magic. Nice try, but not buying it.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 03:54 .
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It says memorization, but does it really mean "memorization"? Or is it being imprecise?
The rules are what you make of them.
I never liked Sorcerers. They seemed like they were added just to appease people who didn't like Vancian casting, but I have difficulty explaining how both systems can co-exist.
I prefer the earlier editions. 3E added some good new features, but also had some problems.
That's an excellent point. Psionics had worked well alongside wizards long before sorcerers came along.wsandista wrote...
If the Sorcerer functioned like a psionic character with power points, I think they would not only provide a sharper contrast to the Wizard, but their abilities would have fitted their explanation much better.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 07:05 .
For one thing, psionics weren't part of the core rules in 2nd or 3rd edition. Also, I knew a number of DMs who disallowed psionics because, according to them, "psionics are sci-fi, not fantasy." Also, the 2nd edition and 3.0 psionic rules were pretty much a mess.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's an excellent point. Psionics had worked well alongside wizards long before sorcerers came along.wsandista wrote...
If the Sorcerer functioned like a psionic character with power points, I think they would not only provide a sharper contrast to the Wizard, but their abilities would have fitted their explanation much better.
And now I wonder why people who didn't like Vancian casting didn't just embrace psionics.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It says memorization, but does it really mean "memorization"? Or is it being imprecise?Realmzmaster wrote...
That is not how it is explained in the D & D ruleset which specifically states memorization. The wizard must re-memorize the spell from the spellbook. Sorcerers have the innate ability to cast magic. Nice try, but not buying it.
The rules are what you make of them.
I never liked Sorcerers. They seemed like they were added just to appease people who didn't like Vancian casting, but I have difficulty explaining how both systems can co-exist.
I prefer the earlier editions. 3E added some good new features, but also had some problems.
The stated rules required 15 minutes of uninterrupted concentration per spell level to memorise each spell. That's more than simple memorisation.Realmzmaster wrote...
I can only go by the stated rules and how it was done at tournament level play.
But they were in 1st edition. I loved rolling for Wild Talents.Vaeliorin wrote...
For one thing, psionics weren't part of the core rules in 2nd or 3rd edition.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juin 2012 - 05:50 .
If they're moving to the next edition, it is better to get a feel on how the system was intended before starting to homebrew new rules or modifications. And once the new edition is learned, there's the possibility that they see no need to apply older features that would probably break the new system.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't understand why gamers would drop good features from their games just because the new edition did. I miss dual-classing.
Modifié par Xewaka, 12 juin 2012 - 06:21 .
If you've got a game you already like, why abandon it? Read the new rules, incorporate the stuff you like into the system you already enjoy (which is probably already heavily house-ruled), and continue.Xewaka wrote...
If they're moving to the next edition, it is better to get a feel on how the system was intended before starting to homebrew new rules or modifications.
Well, not everyone has played first edition, so they might not be aware of that. Personally, while I've seen a set of first edition rulebooks (my brother-in-law has a set) I've never had the opportunity to read through them.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But they were in 1st edition. I loved rolling for Wild Talents.Vaeliorin wrote...
For one thing, psionics weren't part of the core rules in 2nd or 3rd edition.
I don't understand why gamers would drop good features from their games just because the new edition did. I miss dual-classing.
You might have noticed I mentioned people keep their old handbooks and nothing keeps them from continuining using them. Going by my personal experience: I've played all four editions of Legend of the Five Rings and own the last two (the first two were owned by a friend). We basically skipped second edition entirely because the edition changes weren't to our liking, but the system improvements from first to third and from third to fourth were good enough to cause the switch. People will not play systems they dislike, and go back to former versions if they find them more to their tastes. But if the system is improved upon, people will switch. Granted, what constitutes an improvement varies from person to person. But the base concept remains.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you've got a game you already like, why abandon it? Read the new rules, incorporate the stuff you like into the system you already enjoy (which is probably already heavily house-ruled), and continue.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you've got a game you already like, why abandon it? Read the new rules, incorporate the stuff you like into the system you already enjoy (which is probably already heavily house-ruled), and continue.Xewaka wrote...
If they're moving to the next edition, it is better to get a feel on how the system was intended before starting to homebrew new rules or modifications.
Retour en haut
