Stun

I can completely understand not liking the (A)D&D rule set. It's not hard to find people who loved the IE games in spite of them being D&D based (for example). But what I don't understand is this part: These are not rare game qualities. That is to say, if you're just craving a good story and memorable companions/NPCs you don't need to seek out indie/kickstarter games to find them. What PoE brings to the table is the OTHER stuff. The stuff that IS difficult (almost impossible, in fact) to find in today's rpgs... such as the gameplay... a game that plays like a *game* rather than a glorified interactive movie. The tactical party based combat, with its Isometric camera view of the battlefield and its real time with pause. The complex stat-driven character building, And of course the PC oriented controls, etc.

I thought about that, but then I remembered the massive conversion to 3e that IWD2 had to make for every spell. Plus an entire skill and feat system that wasn't present in earlier IE games. And...10. Months.

Nope. Not seeing how removing the engagement mechanic from the current state of the game will somehow make combat any less interesting. The engagement mechanic, as it is, brings exactly nothing to the table save for destroying your characters when they try to move around in the middle of a fight. So removing it will do nothing but allow your characters to...freely move around again... like in a normal RPG.

Only a philistine uses the pick pocket skill to steal stuff from NPCs. Smart people do this with their pickpocket skill. Because that's how true assassins get their style points.

^he also said a couple of other things (on this very thread, in fact) that concern me: 1)Wizards received the most skills/abilities of any class -this one goes without saying. They have a spell book. Fighters and rogues don't. But this comment is utterly pointless/meaningless to anyone except a) another developer; and b) legions of modern gamers who are used to modern games where mages are only called mages because their "feats" happen to BE their spells (see: Dragon age!) 2)They did not have the time or resources to make a more robust spell list -This one I totally understand and even respect. It's a straight forward, honest explanation. But these two only beg the Obvious question: How the hell did Josh and Black Isle manage to develop Icewind Dale 2 in 10 months? you know, IWD2, the game with all the spells that are missing from PoE (edit: from 1st to 9th level in fact), plus the massive, (and separate) Feat and skill system for all the classes, plus the inclusion of the additional classes, and the whole multiclassing element, etc.

There ARE no Necromancy or Poison spells. Not for Wizards. And that's the first problem - Which was mentioned earlier on this thread - which you mocked: the overly limited, 2 dimensional nature of the Wizard spell choice list. There's also no Summoning spells for wizards. There's no Misdirection spells (Dimension door, shadow door, teleport field etc). There's no Save or Die spells. There's no Charm spells, or dire charm spells, or confusion spells, or chaos spells. There's no invisibility or Improved invisibility spells. There's no ESP-ish spells (wizard eye, clairvoyance, farsight, detect X etc.) Even PoE's attempts to duplicate the effects of the most basic of low level wizard Necromancy spells (the touch spells. ie. Ghoul touch, Vampiric Touch) ended up being unimaginatively generic elemental-based damage spells....just like every other damage spell in PoE. As to your greater point: I asked this earlier on this thread, but didn't get an answer because I was preaching to the choir. But now we've got someone who disagrees (you), so maybe you can answer it: What happened to the *magic* behind magic? Do you remember the IE games? Do you remember when wizard spells used to have their own system and didn't, for example, have to adhere to the hit-miss-graze-crit table that governs a warrior's sword swing? Yeah, so do I. That's where *MY* viewpoint comes from. Magic should be balanced against *itself*, not against a fighter's weapon, or a Monk's fists, or even a priest's prayers. THAT is what separates Josh Sawyer's philosophy from mine. He vehemently contends that the best system is one where all classes possess the same level of power. Consequently, this means that Wizard spells are going to end up feeling weaker and more limited in scope than they were in the IE games. And I say, Screw That. There's nothing more dull than a level playing field.

I agree with this. Way way back, when Josh first described the concept of the engagement mechanic, I thought it was a great idea. And the first thing that popped into my mind was precisely what you're saying: It would give front line combatants more of a "foot print" on the battlefield. It would make them more tactically meaningful beyond just the 'meat shield' role. My mind began racing, thinking about all the cool options the game would give me to control an encounter with my fighter - options that the IE games didn't give us, beyond the usual fare (like creating chokepoints in narrow passages; blocking enemy access to your mage by exploiting enemy path-finding, etc.) But no. It didn't turn out this way in implementation, did it. The fact that everyone gets this engagement power -AND- the piss poor Enemy AI that effectively makes this engagement power meaningless for the player -AND- the chaotic nature of the visuals/feedback -AND- giving some enemies free, uninterruptable teleportation powers, rendering the engagement mechanic pointless.... It all feels like the system has collapsed upon itself. But even all that would be ok, if it wasn't for the fact that the current implementation of the Engagement mechanic takes it a step further and actually prevents even traditional tactical gameplay - Like repositioning and tactical retreats, and rushing to the aid of a party member who's in trouble etc.

Define one. Edit: Oh and let me pre-empt any further attempts by you to move the goal posts. We're neither judging the game's merit, nor its worth to the consumer. The claim was that the game was a waste of development time. And that being the case, there can only be 2 definitions. 1) The money the game generated vs. the dev time it took to create it. 2) The size of the game vs. the dev time it took to create it. When discussing whether the Developers have wasted their time, whether or not Luckmann and BigBripa think Skyrim is a heap of garbage is irrelevant. What matters is that Skyrim has objectively and demonstrably succeeded in both #1 and #2. It is hundreds of hours long and has generated more than $1 Billion in revenue...far, far exceeding what the development Studio invested in it AND their expectations for it.

Well, sure. I didn't mean to imply that we should get a carbon copy of Baldurs Gate. But there are specific things that are givens. For example, there's a huge difference between, say, the Dragon Age games and the IE games, even though both of them have memorable companions and party-based gameplay. One of those things is combat - specifically, the spell system. I won't be a complete idiot and claim that PoE's current spell system feels like a spiritual successor to DA:O's. But, I also can't honestly say that it feels influenced by the IE games either. It's different (and it SHOULD be different) but the problem is that it's TOO different. It's missing the "spirit" and "soul" of magic that made the IE games so friggin awesome. A 5th level sleep spell with a 10 second duration is an example of what I mean. in the IE games, a friggin sword that puts people to sleep for 10 seconds upon a successful hit would be considered underpowered vendor trash about halfway through the game. But in PoE, that spell is reserved for 9th or 10 level mages to cast once or twice a day. It pretty much constitutes the best their spell casting has to offer. Where is Magic's *impact*? Where is that moment when we can nod our heads and say: "Yep. My mage's spells are more dynamic and more powerful than my fighter's Axe". Or: "Oh yeah, my rogue may be the "DPS king", but my Wizard can make all the enemies on the battlefield kill each other while he sits back and watches the show."

ROFL A 5 year development cycle that results in a $1 BILLION payout is not, by any definition, a waste of development time. Under this logic The Avengers is one of the best films ever made. :::looks again at the quote pyramid::: I'm sorry, were you commenting on how good or bad the game was? Nope. You just claimed it was a waste of development time. So I'll say it again. a 5 year development cycle that results in a $1 BILLION payout is not, by any definition, a waste of development time. Now you could argue, as someone else did on this thread, that Skyrim was a waste of YOUR time and you'd get no argument. But, in your hyperbolic hipster zeal, you didn't.

ROFL A 5 year development cycle that results in a $1 BILLION payout is not, by any definition, a waste of development time. It is by many definitions. The only one you give is monetary. If you don't care about monetary payout and instead focus on making a good game, There's no such thing as a development studio that does not care about monetary payout. So no. Stop defending stupid comments Commercial studios do not make games in the name of altruism.

ROFL A 5 year development cycle that results in a $1 BILLION payout is not, by any definition, a waste of development time.

Bullsh*t. All the IE games save for PS:T are set in the Forgotten Realms, which is all about racial tensions... cartoony as they are. Elves hate Dwarves. Half-orcs are second class citizens, and Drow and Deurgar are attacked on sight. Of course you'd never know this by playing the BG games because the BG games did not address racial tension beyond the introductory token level. Make NO mistake about this. Skyrim does a MUCH better job in making the Races recognized by the citizenry. There are no romances in Skyrim. There isn't even implied romances in Skyrim. So bringing them up is a silly red herring. Not sure what Mods you're using though. Although I challenge you to find a single Khajiit in Skyrim that's willing to marry your Nord Dragonborn. Combat's not the focus of Skyrim either. Skyrim only really has 2 focuses: Exploration and sim play. Interestingly however, you can find racial recognition in Skyrim's combat. Enemies trash talk you according to your race during combat. That's something you won't see (hear) in the BG games. Just thought I'd bring that up for the one or two posters here who judge RPGs on that all-important criteria of Racism. lol

I'll repeat myself. Ulfric REMEMBERS YOU. It's not about common sense. It's about Culture. Nords don't shy away from confrontation. period. And again, it doesn't matter. The palace is adequately protected. Go ahead and *try* walking up to Ulfric and stabbing him in the face. You'll die and he won't. Say whatnow? "why do you want to fight for us?" That's like, the first f*cking question he asks you. You've *already* interacted. You're *with* imoen. She's in your party. And lets not forget that the Cowled Wizards don't actually *see* anything. They show up after the explosion, and after the spell-battle, and therefore they do not even witness Imoen (or Irenicus) casting spells. Yet, magically, they conclude that only Irenicus and Imoen are involved, but not the robe-wearing mage standing right next to her.

I also remember that happening at some point. The cowled wizards will always teleport in if anyone in your party casts a wizard spell in the city streets. The "first time" it's a warning. The next 5 times after that they go hostile and attack you. But that has nothing to do with the scene at Waulkeen's Promenade. I disagree. I consider BG2 to be perfect. Usually, with a *great*, timeless game, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so any so-called flaws are just meaningless nitpicks typically ignored/overlooked by everyone except players who can't overcome their own double standards when trying to judge a game that isn't one of their favorites.

I beg your pardon? The trek from Darkwater crossing to Helgen is literally 2 game days by carriage. And that is how long you're stuck as prisoner with him. And this is aside from any event(s) that occurred prior to your capture. Then there's the Executioner's roll-call scene. And... it doesn't matter. Ulfic SAYS he remembers you. Just curious... um...why not? You were invited. And This isn't the Secret Service defending the president of the US from an uninvited citizen trying to break into the Whitehouse. This is the primitive, barbaric lands of Skyrim (Windhelm, to be specific), And the palace of kings is pretty much City Hall. There's a merchant selling his wares inside. He does. Well, in his own diplomatic way. Actually, the game portrays them as fairly desperate and rag-tag, which would suggest that they'd be quite eager to accept anyone who wishes to side with them, let alone a Dovakiin. Sure they do. And even if they didn't, the very dialogue suggests that they take you in. this is an illegal use of magical energy. ALL involved will be held. This disturbance is over. And yes, you were very much involved. Or did you let Imoen escape on her own?

Assuming of course that the game doesn't let you wipe out the Dark Brotherhood...which it does. But never mind that. Lets sum things up now. 1) No real Politics? Check. 2) There are 4 factions, And the game is so herp-derp that it lets you join all 4 in one playthrough with no consequences? Check. 3) And you cannot decide the fate of any of them? Check. 4) There's virtually no NPC Reactivity to your actions or your character build? Check. 5) The combat is God Awful with a capital A? Check. 6) The game is so littered with fetch quests that it almost seems like it's taking pride in them? Check. 7) Some plot characters are immortal? Check. Congratulations to me! I've just described one of the greatest RPGs ever created: Planescape Torment. You people are grasping at straws. There's no game on earth that can critically survive the Microscope-like scrutiny you place Skyrim under. No Game.

Real Politics lol While we're at it, we might as well criticize the Elder scrolls games for not implementing Firearms. Or Decent French accents. Or drama-gushing romances.

??? Your Altmer can walk up to Ulfric without being questioned because you shared a prisoner cart with him (and one of his lieutenants) in the beginning of the game. He already knows you. Again, compare that with a MAGE Bhaalspawn who exits Irenicus' Dungeon hand-in-hand with Imoen, but then doesn't get arrested or even questioned by the Cowled wizards, even though he/she is 1) a mage; 2) one of those involved in the disturbance. This "everyone knows-what-you-are" type of 'reactivity' you guys want is nothing more than superficial vanity stuff. It's nice when devs include it in their games, but it's not all that important. And from what I've noticed from modern RPGs, developers who shovel giant amounts of this type of ego-stroking vanity into their games usually do so to mask the shallow nature of either the game's story or the game's mechanics. The Dragon Age games come to mind.

This one's a giant SO WHAT. None of the IE games react to the character you created either - which means that in terms of RPG significance, it must not matter that much to the game's fun factor. And... it doesn't. More to the point: I rank NPCs walking up to you and saying "Hey! you're an elf!" or "Hey, you're a half orc cleric who's wearing leather armor! Get off my lawn!" just slightly more important than being able to customize the shape of your nose in the character creator.

^someone already posted that video... on page 1. Anyway.... This isn't true, either. He is talking about those Justiciar encounters where you end up finding a note on their bodies specifically outlining an assasination mission against you. Those encounters do NOT occur randomly. They are triggered after your character either 1) attacks a thalmor patrol on the road; or 2) clears out Northwatch Keep (their base); or 3) does the "diplomatic immunity" quest violently; or 4) makes certain decisions during the truce talks.

You won't ever see me praising the story writing of Skyrim. (Or its combat). But I'll give credit where it IS due. The dungeons in Skyrim are rather good, in both design and atmosphere. Not to mention the fact that they all look unique, unlike the samey-samey crap from Oblivion. And frankly, as someone who enjoys 'dungeon crawls', I rank this pretty high in importance, and its the reason why I don't bash Skyrim quite as much as many other people here do.

It's not "journal systems" in general that are being condemned here, it's the specific way they're designed in many modern games. Skyrim's does away with the written details and instead, relies on quest markers. I most definitely see this as both "dumbing down" and plain old developer laziness. By contrast, Older RPGs (not just Morrowind) tended to treat their journal systems as a labor of love. Details and creativity went into them, and therefore, there was no real NEED for stuff like quest markers. If you needed to jog your memory you could read your journal and get the who, where, why and what of the quest. Baldurs Gate 2 is a terrific example of how to correctly design a journal system.

I think both sides present silly arguments on this one. First, as you point out, the rebuttal is nothing more than an absurd rationalization that does not actually explain the design decision. (the radiant quest system is designed to specifically take into account the potential death of a quest giver, so why in the world is it being cited as a reason why NPCs are immortal??) Second, the guy in the OP's video is exaggerating. You'd be surprised at how FEW NPCs in Skyrim are actually flagged as 'essential' and thus cannot be killed. The vast majority can be slaughtered. Anyone who's installed the Dawnguard expansion has seen, first hand, how fast a village can be emptied out after a few of those random vampire attacks.

The new build doesn't alter the engagement mechanic. All it does is make it more clear who's engaging whom on the battlefield.