meomao

I don't know. Maybe you're right but BG II was developed in the same time frame of DA2. No to mention the fact that trimming fat is good for games from time to time. For me the explanation is simpler: DA:O sold mostly on consolle even if it was marketed as a PC title with a consolle port. But on the consolle combat was not received well at all. Bioware have received many critics for the consolle version of DA:O (wich were right critics mostly). So, since DA2 is a consolle title with a PC port (not a problem admitting it), since consolle users are the biggest part of their player base and the game would have failed miserably if sold as a pc title only, they had to rework the combat and fine tuining it to the new main platform. I don't know if the final result will be worst than DA:O. I'll reserve my judgement after I've played the game. Voice over was a feature asked by a great part of the player base: PC and consolle alike. I'm one of those who prefer voice over: I think that it's better in a storydriven game where everyone is voiced (even if the wheel is far from perfect).

Thanks. Sorry for the question but you are one of the few who does not seem to be allways against what Bioware does around here so I was curios . About your critics: I don't mind the loss of races (was it for me, Elves and Dwarves would not be part of the setting from the beginning... so bored with tolkeniesque fantasy) and I don't mind more balance between classes. But I do agree aboout the rogue/warriors thing... even here, I don't understand the need of the rogue class in fantasy gaming anymore. They should merge those classes and leave open to anyone the ability to customize their Fighter. I do agree even about the powering up time thing, but I want to play some of the game before I made my mind about that.

A question to Volourn. What are the things you do not like in DA2's design direction?

Obsidian's writing is a lot better imo. it's not an innovation but it makes all the difference in a videogame for me. But the quality of writing is a personal opinion and cannot be judged objectively. Personally, I prefer Bioware's gamey approach toward writing if not for Mask of the Betrayer. which is recycling 10-year old ideas. way cool As I've said before, where is the difference with Obsidian? Maybe I've lost some of their titles. When they have tried something new (like the features I've mentioned before) their efforts haven't been so successfull. I repeat my argument: in terms of game design they have more similarities than differences, they influence each other a great deal and they mostly share the same kind of customers. Having said that, I'm not here to apologize about the things you do not like in BW's games. I accept that off course. And I do not want to start a flame so that's my last post on the argument. I was saying that I do not understand the hate/mockery against Bioware and frankly I've yet to receive a persuasive answer.

Honestly, I've played all Obsidian games and I do not see all those great innovation if we compare them to Bioware games. Can you make some example so I can understand? Having said that, innovation for innovation is not good for me if the final result is poorly implemented. I mean, if we consider Kotor 2 final or Soz exploration feature as innovation... well, I take all the time trite Bioware design that at least makes good and mostly polished games with a winning formula.

I maybe wrong but I think that I'm not confusing the terms. I'm saying that while the average Bioware fan accepts the business side of things on game development (maybe whining on bull**** like romances, the looks of armours and little gameplay details that do not make any difference) you guys at the end still view game development in a romantic way (I mean reading the average post as a lurker). Mind, I'm not jusdging anyone. I like that attitude but it's far from being cynical.

Actually they don't. Not for the last 5 years anyway. I don't know. Obsidian have published two games so far that are sequels of Bioware titles. And a shooter with RPG elements (that reminds me of something but I could be wrong). The only game with a design that was clearly different from Bioware titles so far has been Storms of Zehir wich was an expansion of NWN. I'm not saying that Obsidian is not creative and talented. Only that I do not see all those differences in terms of design and that the two company influence a lot each other.

Cynical? Bioware fanbase is ten thousand times more cynical than all you guys on average.

I don't know. I mostly lurk Bioware boards and those one and I think that at the end it all come to numbers. Bioware have more fans who writes in their boards, so maybe some kind of typical fan is more visible. Still, it does not explain the hate toward that company. I believe that if Bioware would have gone bakrupt after say Jade Empire, the overall attitude would be different. And that's fun and sad at the same time.

Are you insane? The ME fanbase would have a collective heart attack. You speak of this as it would be something bad, why is that? Honestly, I do not understand all the hate against Bioware fans/games in that board. I do not like the word fan, but I mostly play Obsidian and Bioware titles, so I think that I could be considered their fan... having said that it does not seem to me that game design is so different between Bioware and Obsidian games. If not for budget and polish (and luck maybe) the two company makes very similar games and influence each other a lot. Really, I do not see where the hate came from.

I'm not saying that they're action-rpg like Diablo or Titan Quest. I'm saying that the combat is less focused on tactics if we compare those games with BG or IWD. If we talk about combat, those games in my opinion fall something in between BG and an action-rpg, just a little bit more tactical than, say, SW:Kotor. So, considering that D&D as a rule-system is focused on tactical and positional party-based combat, NWN I & II doesn't offer a great interpretation of the original rule system (especially NWN I where you ain't got a party in the SP game). Don't get me wrong: both games were good in themselves for what concerns the other aspects (story, dialogue, art and so on). I'm only talking about gameplay and combat, where a game like BG is still a superior interpretation of the original game system. True, but that's because the standard of difficulty and complexity (in terms of gameplay) of the last generation of CRPG is really low (allways compared to the classic of the golden age :D ). What I mean, as stated by the above poster, is that combat is easy :D. I mean, I killed both dragons in NWN II OC at first load playing hardcore. In BG2 I had to reload several times learning from my mistakes and studying the perfect strategy for my party. And Dragons were not the most difficult encounters in the game. The level of tactical challenge is really low. I think that the 4th ed. is better under a lot of aspects (less multiclass min/max, more balance between classes, simpler approach towards rules, especially if we compare it with the 3.5 ed.). But it's worse under other aspects (I do not like a lot the whole milestone/action points/at encounter power concept that is strange for a PnP Rpg). At the end I think that it's a matter of taste. But considering that I was never really impressed by D&D in itself, I think that at the end I will choose to play or not the next games considering the developer, just like you. But I still think that if Obsidian want to make a good CRPG with RT combat, they should develop their own rule system like Bioware have done with DAO.

Well, what I can say: if it's about the setting I understand your position. Never been too much in the FR, I prefer other settings for D&D (as Dragonlance or the d20 Midnight wich would be an hell of a setting for a CRPG) so I could not make a proper judgement. I know the realms only because of the IE/NWN games honestly. But if you were in to the setting, I understand that you could be angry with the drastic changes.

Well, every edition of D&D was about powerplaying . 3/3.5 edition were about class exploits and min/maxing, while the 4th is about power combo and so on... but at the end it has allways been a rule system that focus on combat, loot and powers . The roleplaying/storytelling elements of D&D have allways been something left to the immagination, tastes and work of each individual group. Btw, here we are talking about CRPG, not PnP. Roleplay is a social experience and it's not possible to have a social experience in a single player game. CRPG are about loot/combat/power + story, atmosphere and (little) customization (not characterization). The only element that vaguely remind RP are choices that change the shape of the story, but for the structure of videogames those choices are really simple and dumb. Just smoke and mirrors. So I really can't see how a 4th ed. CRPG should have less opportunity to have good story/atmosphere and customization than a 3rd ed. game.

Honestly, I don't understand all that D&D 4th hate/edition war. I do agree that D&D rule system (in general) is not really suited for action CRPG, since it was created for tactical turn based combat with rpg flavour. So, action oriented games like NWN I or II, with simple and not challenging combat, are poor interpretation of D&D imho. Having said that, every edition of D&D have his pros and cons, every edition appeals different tastes, and I really can't see why the 4th edition in itself should be the problem if we talk of CRPG. Honestly, I think that the abstract design of the 4th edition have the potential to produce better video games, if we compare that system with the simulative approach of 3.5.

I read Obsidian boards from time to time and I now that most of the active poster share the same opinions that I've expressed. I just want to voice my opinion in the thin hope that it could affect Obsidian plan one way or the other . Yep, Obsidian making an ASOIAF crpg with Onyx would be really great. But GRRM has to concentrate on ADwD (and the next two books) and he's allready involved in the HBO's series: the pilot will be shoot next fall. I don't think that Martin's involvement is needed for a good CRPG, even if he is an active RPG player and could help a project like that. Well, having said that, I know that it will never happen . But we live for our dreams .

I don't know... I understand that Obsidian have to use (at least in part) existing franchises for business reason since they still haven't got the marketing power of a Blizzard or a EA... but why translate in real time a rule system that was tailored for miniatures turn based game? If they want to make a fantasy game and to use an existing IP for marketing reasons, why don't they try to acquire the right to famous IP like A song of Ice and Fire or Wheel of Time, and create a ruleset that is indeed good for real time combat, instead of trying to make an interpretation of the D&D system that in most case is bound to be pretty artificial?

Even if it's a fantasy game, I hope that Obsidian will develop his own IP/Rules like Bioware has done with DA:O and not D&D. Why? Well, I would like another D&D fantasy game but not with real time combat. D&D rule system does not make a lot of sense in general, but doesn't make allmost any sense in real time, especially after 3rd and 4th edition that are so focused around the miniature's business. Imho, AD&D was better for a Real Time combat game. And since turn based game are not fancy and no one wants to develop them anymore, I suppose that a new D&D game would be another real time poor interpretation of the game mechanics. If Obsidian makes a new D&D game and it's based on the 4th edition, I hope that they will give us at least the option to play turn based if we prefer that way.

I was considering the consular/weapon master too! It's a very intriguing path... In case I make this choice, what stat setup would you advise me and where would you put the 5 bonus point that you take form levelling up? Bye, Federico.

First of all: thanks! Second: why the spoiler? Well my character in Kotor I was very similar, beside the fact that he was a Guardian with 16 in Dex, 10 in Strengh, the Finesse feat and less Intelligence... But in Kotor II the bonus of the finesse feat has decreased (no bonus on damage), skills are more important (so you need Int) and I hear a lot of talking about implants... Considering that imho you have to choose between strenght and dex, what about a Str 14, Dex 10, Con 12/14, Int 14, Wis 14 and Cha 14/12? Spoiler:

Hi everybody, I've just installed Kotor II. I was a great fan of Kotor I and I have great expectation... Well, I'm thinking about my character: call me a power player, but when I play RPG I want to take the most from my character in terms of power, items, dialogue options and special quest. I play games only once (do't have much time) so I try to take everything form the game at the first occasion. Charachter bulding is very important to reach that goal. I would like to play a melee doublebladed Jedi wich is also good with skills (I've read that they are very important for dialogues and side quest) and at least average with force powers. Reading some faq on the net I understand the my choice should be a Sentinel/Weapon Master. I was going for a setupe like that: 15 Str, 10 Dex, 14 Con, 14 Int, Wis 12, Cha 12. I would put the first char point on strenght and the rest in Con for the implants. I was just asking my self if Wis and Cha are too low with a setup like that. On feat I will concentrate on two hand fighting, flurry (or critical strike?), Jedi Defense and the repair feat to spend less point. On skill: Persuade, Awareness, Repair, Computer and Demolition (but I was thinking to concentrate on that skill only after I take the Weapon Master Pr Class). What's your adivse? Is a good setup to have a full Kotor II experience or should I change something? Le me know Bye, Federico.