prodigydancer

And so we start yet another round of this discussion. )

Well, how is WL2 combat bad? It's typical for a non-magical sci-fi setting. In a nutshell it's a simple fast-paced DPS race which you win because you're better equipped. Even if they listened to Fallout fans and added aimed shots the difference would be minimal. As for PoE, I think it's too early to judge. Obsidian is still experimenting and we see wild balance swings and new bugs. Some thing improve, some degrade. Personally I think they should postpone the release till late 2015, let backers officially vote on controversial topics like engagement system and XP sources, feature freeze according to vote results and spend the remaining time on tweaking and QA passes.

As a backer you have a right to complain but do you really prefer the alternative which is releasing on time but releasing essentially a late alpha? Overhaul Games did that with BG/BG2 enhanced editions and they're still fixing those with no end to bugs in sight.

The funny part is that "others" cannot come up with an example of a good story unless it's from a 15+ years old game. I like old games too but when someone totally discounts all modern games are trash we have to attribute it to burnout effect. So now when I stumble upon yet another post that starts with something like "I loved FO/FO2 but Wasteland 2 is crap because..." I don't even bother to read any further. It's burnout, baby.

Because this game will be magically different from all other CRPGs. Come on. As long as attribute X gives you more offensive potential than attribute Y (which gives you more defensive potential), there will be tanks and there will be glass cannon builds. It's an oversimplification of course because you usually have to min/max more than two stats but the end result is the same. Why? Obsidian promised to make all stats equally attractive and they're trying their best. But they cannot make powergaming via min/maxing stats impossible without adding many artificial barriers which I guarantee you won't like.

Engagement system promotes the kind of gameplay that favors glass cannon ranged DPS parties. The reasoning is simple: if combat is always a high risk vs. high reward game anyway why not make risk even higher? The only question is whether it's possible to create a party which packs enough firepower to obliterate any enemy group before it could mount a meaningful response. Generally it's possible, especially if ranged classes have access to CC. Everyone's talking about "degeneration gameplay" these days. Well, here you go.

Indeed, tanks should be able to stop someone trying to run past them. But it shouldn't be a devastating AoO. It should be a tripping attack or a hamstring.

I totally agree with Sensuki. Engagement system limits our options in combat, favors ranged classes by making melee characters more vulnerable and overall turns fighting into a do-or-die endeavor. Or, actually, stand your ground or die which is even worse. I would buy it if it enhanced gameplay in some way but it doesn't. Tactically it amounts to picking a spot where you want your tank to stand (and fall) and then you're set probably for entire encounter. It's not challenging. It's not realistic. It's just stupid.

I think that's just semantics but we'll see.

I know but with whom I am now? The lore established in D:AO said that mages lost the first war against the Chantry and they were effectively enslaved when the Circle of Magi was established under the clever guise of protecting the mages from themselves and the world from their inherent evil nature. The Templars acted as enforcers unquestionably loyal to the Chantry because of their lyrium addiction. The Inquisition as a faction to the conflict came totally out of the left field and it didn't play any role in DA2 outside of cutscenes featuring Cassandra. So, again, why exactly should I care about it?

For me the most disappointing thing about DA:I so far is that I'm forced to side with a "faction" I don't even care about. In DA:O I played atheist elven mage who resented the Circle, hated the Templars and was ready to go out of his way to show that he didn't care about the Chantry, its false god, his false prophetess and the whole damn thing. In DA2 I again played a mage and I was disappointed... no, not about re-used environments or some other random crap people b......d about so much. I was deeply disappointed because I couldn't openly side with Anders and because even post-factum I couldn't really tell him "my friend, no matter what they say about you now, you'll be remembered in ages as a great liberator hero." And now I'm suddenly supposed to be neutral instead of taking sides? Er... well, whatever... /sigh P.S. They should have made it Dragon Age: Factions instead. It would be more in line with Origins where your origin defined who you were (to a certain degree) and where you could look at the story from a different angle in your next playthrough.

Two shots? I have a feeling that you use AR in single shot mode. Singe shot sucks, use burst (except when target is low on HP). And later in game, when you have enough CtH for burst headshots EW are totally outclassed. But the problem isn't that EW are bad. They have decent damage and look cool and most people agree that they're OK where they are now. That problem is that pretty much nothing can compete with AR burst+headshot damage. It's ridiculously overpowered.

Not really. There are consumables that boost Cha temporarily. And a trinket (random drop farmable from random encounters). So it's technically possible to dump Cha and still recruit all followers.

Um. I'll gladly participate in any RTwP vs TB vs RT debate but this one time it's not about combat mechanics. It's more about professionalism and attitude towards the community. inXile let TToN backers vote on which combat system would be used. TB fans won but it was pretty close (48% vs 47%). So almost half of the backers believed that RTwP would be preferable and Ziets then said that RTwP exists "to appeal to a mass-market audience." In other words, it's an inherently inferior option and half of TToN backers are mass-market audience, casuals who don't know what's good for them.

Personally I'm not crazy about George Ziets. The guy has nothing to do with Torment (he wasn't on the P:ST development team) and the way he gloated about inXile scratching RTwP combat in TToN really, really made me mad.

I don't know... 10 AP is good but her Cha requirement is through the roof. And while Energy Weapons look cool on paper they perform worse than AR even against armored targets. It's much easier to get Ralphy very early and mold him into whatever you want. He has less AP and worse stats but he's no Cha locked so you don't need to gimp your core team in order to get him.

It's a nice post. Well thought out and convincing. Too bad it contradicts the facts we know.

We'll see how many lessons they've learned if any. I want to be optimistic too but... with keyboard/mouse controls being a last minute addition, for example, it's pretty obvious they still think that PC gamers are 2-nd class.

Writing songs about mutilation is OK but portraying it in a game... strangely, it's OK too as long as a villain does it and not the protagonist. We already have ESRB ratings, warnings about inappropriate content and whatnot. And they still cannot leave the video game industry alone. It's pretty strange to be the only medium to which freedom of artistic expression doesn't apply.

Looks like they will. For a while it all seemed like the project was (nearly) dead - I guess because inXile was focused on getting WL2 ready for launch. But with the recently released gameplay video and KS updated there's finally something to discuss and people who were previously undecided become new backers. And I must admit TToN managed to pique my interest. Maybe I'll give it a chance after all.

To me the Underdark part was more memorable than Athkatla. The latter I remember mostly as an overcrowded quest hub. I mean I loved Athkatla too because I loved everything about BG and BG2. But I can see Josh's point - there is a limit to how many quests you can squeeze into a relatively small zone without losing focus.

Me neither. But I know from experience that it can crit for 50+ on Ranger. For something like ironman SJ run having a way of dealing with it without fighting may be actually pretty handy.

Yeah, I know. But the point of the controversy are gruesome kills of helpless civilians and savoring the gore. Which indeed adds little to entertainment value. I think the only way for this game to succeed is to become a very fast-paced and unforgiving shooter where you're free to do your rampage stuff and commit whatever atrocities you have in mind... as long as you can dodge bullets. No regen, no magic medpacks, no health-replenishing painkillers, no huge health bar. Took a blast of lead from a shotgun in your face? Sorry, dude, your "crusade" is over and now it's you in a body bag.

My bad then. Still I believe they just couldn't express their objections properly. You see if the game was full of zombies and their usual hunger for brains, nobody would be surprised I suppose. Even if each individual zombie was an easy target. Challenge and reason to kill in games are often intertwined, e.g. "kill as many zombies as you can before they'll be able to gorge on your precious gray matter" is both a challenge and a reason to kill.

Um. Ethics aside - what's funny about that? In most combat-heavy games enemies are able to fight back. Or at least they are difficult to kill or destroy for some other reason. That's what makes it a game after all - you have rules and you have an opponent (AI or human) who you need to beat while the opponent tries to beat you using the same (or different but in any case predefined) ruleset. A combat situation is a problem and victory is your reward for solving it successfully. If there's no opponent, there's no reward and it's not much of a game.