interesting. i, in the other hand, assume people always state opinions. if facts are stated - whether it's real life or the internets, i'd expect a viable and objective source (or a logically valid formula, which is more common) to be presented. if it's not - it's simply another opinion.
to each his/her own, i guess.
You just need to relocate the Forge of Spells.
Seriously, just play D&D 5th & DA. But let's not combine the two.
Storm Coast Legends is a great suggestion...though, it's Sword Coast Legends, no Bull here. I have already pre-ordered it. It is, after all, made by the Director responsible for DA:O.
Chess, MtG and PAC-Man are some examples of games that are easy to learn but difficult to master.
I just started up a game of Neverwinter Nights 2. I'm trying to go without a mage with a female Halfling Paladin with 14 Strength.
Did you know there's a game called Storm Coast Legends which is suppose to come out this year? I came across it because of this topic.
I also saw a Let's play of Pillars of Eternity. It isn't D&D though. The combat looked too hard for me, ha ha. I'll wait till it's 5 bucks or something.
I've played the beta for Pillars of Eternity. Combat is definitely like a mix of 3rd/4th Edition D&D and Pathfinder. If you're familiar with those systems it's pretty simple to pick up.
Like being around for more time meant anything.
It was never about this, it is being for dumbs or for people with brain. People with brains think and act people without brain act. So you can't have stats in zelda or inquisition because players have no brain, simple enough, if you play action **** you are too dumb to think, when you think action games make your brain starve, might as well work like a robot, thing for dumbs
Maybe that's the point, and he wants games that are hard to learn but easy to master?
That is true.
Seems like a weird thing to want though. The whole principle of games is based gaining mastery by a process of learning.
If we use the four stages of a players journey in a game as a bases, the first one, discovery means that players need to be able to discover the rules of the game on their own, without being intimidated by the game itself.
That is why the first few levels of games, even the super hard ones, are always the easiest, with the least level of complexity. Complexity like new moves, more tactics, more powerful enemies etc are adding during the onboarding and scaffolding stages.
Maybe that's the point, and he wants games that are hard to learn but easy to master?
The hard thing is to synchronize the animations with player control. If the player ducks behind a wall while an arrow's in flight, does the arrow hit, or miss?
"+1" swords were more fun than "+20str +10con +chance to freeze +guard on hit +30% insert skill here duration +over 9000 awesomeness" swords
Why were they more fun?
why do i like beer? 
+1 swords are common. if you have a piece of equipment which gives you more advantage in fight than faster attack or can be described by more sophisticated adjectives than 'sharp' or 'light', it should be almost impossible to obtain it, pc should be forced to kill a dragon at night, eat a hedgehog, travel five dungeons and lift a curse from a blasted unique sword by kissing an ugly broad while wearing nothing but fancy hat. that journey seems more fun than simply crafting a unique sword (schema found in some random chest) that kills every hostile npc in sight; replacing it as soon as you gather better materials
In fact, no. Only NWN and KotOR used a D20 system.Oh, the D20 system. This is what the old isometric Bioware RPG's used.
1. The animations are an abstraction. They don't represent what is literally occurring.The hard thing is to synchronize the animations with player control. If the player ducks behind a wall while an arrow's in flight, does the arrow hit, or miss?
Right. But as I understood Auztin's argument, he specifically didn't want the animations to be an abstraction. He wanted them to accurately represent what was going on in the game world. I don't see this as workable without going all the way to an action game.
You can create a lot of context sensitive animations, a more expanded and expansive NWN dance of death style of animation I suppose. It works better for turn-based combat than RTWP, but that's because RTWP is a bit nonsensical.
Right. But as I understood Auztin's argument, he specifically didn't want the animations to be an abstraction. He wanted them to accurately represent what was going on in the game world. I don't see this as workable without going all the way to an action game.
It isn't even workable in action games. You may think you're punching that guy in the face, but what you're actually punching either an invisible sphere around his face or an invisible cylinder around his body. This is because it takes a lot fewer CPU cycles to determine if your hit falls inside a sphere or cylinder than a face-shaped thing. So even that is an abstraction.
why do i like beer?
+1 swords are common. if you have a piece of equipment which gives you more advantage in fight than faster attack or can be described by more sophisticated adjectives than 'sharp' or 'light', it should be almost impossible to obtain it, pc should be forced to kill a dragon at night, eat a hedgehog, travel five dungeons and lift a curse from a blasted unique sword by kissing an ugly broad while wearing nothing but fancy hat. that journey seems more fun than simply crafting a unique sword (schema found in some random chest) that kills every hostile npc in sight; replacing it as soon as you gather better materials
That has more to do with crafting being too powerful in comparison to the dropped loot in the game, not the fact that you have a sword with +20 Str, +10 Con, and chance on hit to freeze.
Assuming that methods of acquiring the item are the same, why would a +1 Damage sword be more fun than a +20 Str/+10 Con sword?
You can create a lot of context sensitive animations, a more expanded and expansive NWN dance of death style of animation I suppose. It works better for turn-based combat than RTWP, but that's because RTWP is a bit nonsensical.
The good thing about RTwP is that a player can choose to do it either way.Because with RTWP the player goes in and out of being....... embedded in the action, say? While in turn-based you're always outside.
In fact, no. Only NWN and KotOR used a D20 system.
BioWare's only isometric games, BG and BG2, predate the D20 system.
Perhaps I misspoke. I simply meant BG1 and BG2 were older Bioware games that used the dice system, and seeing how a 20-sided die were used in some applications, I assumed it was the "D20" system. To be honest, I've been out of the D&D world since 3rd edition rolled out.
Perhaps I misspoke. I simply meant BG1 and BG2 were older Bioware games that used the dice system, and seeing how a 20-sided die were used in some applications, I assumed it was the "D20" system. To be honest, I've been out of the D&D world since 3rd edition rolled out.
The d20 system was D&D 3rd ed. system. Before that and the attempt at mimicking computer OS there was no "system".
I've played the beta for Pillars of Eternity. Combat is definitely like a mix of 3rd/4th Edition D&D and Pathfinder. If you're familiar with those systems it's pretty simple to pick up.
Good? Ok? All the Let's Plays I've seen are character creators (which is important, don't get me wrong) but they're clearly being played by people who've covered those areas they're playnig into the ground, and they just race over the gameplay itself.
Retour en haut