.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Adhin
-
Posts
459 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Adhin
-
-
Planescape: Torment for me. I kind of hold PST and BG2 side by side, partly because they do different things for me overall. I would adore to see PST get a make over while keeping all the content there. By that I mean higher res rendering, same engine or done same as PE (but kept same VO stuff and whatnot). Hell just the stuff BGEE is getting would make me extremely happy to get to play it in current assets at 720 16:9. Which is one of the things Trent has mentioned wanting to do after BG2, along with a BG3 game.
...so there's hope, delicious, feint hope.
-
Well think of it this way, the biggest of the IE games took 2 years to make. And back then it took a HELL of a lot longer to render out stuff. They can do things infinitely more detailed now in a fraction of the time, which allows for much quicker iteration testing and whatnot. As for the actual lore/world creation it looks like they did a bunch of that already before kickstarter, or at least had some good ideas to go off of. And ultimately a lot of that wont really kick into gear till they get to those areas them selves.
In the end you have different people doing different things, but 2 years is enough time to come up with a compelling world and story awhile doing all the art and game content. Majority of examples you see it taking longer, it actually has less to do with the story/lore, and more to do with technical hurtles... often re-doing stuff, updating an engine. DAO and NWN are great examples of that. What they ended up with is not what they had started going for, it took a lot of iterations to get there and, least in NWN, the campain suffered heavily from there constant re-do's with the engine and toolset and trying to get the MP/DM stuff all working.
Ultimately, they don't have to deal with most of that and the engine there working with is, by its very existence, designed to be simple and easy to get into while allowing for a lot of variation in what it can accomplish. It's made for people starting out but capable of doing some rather amazing things. Obsidian is far from just starting out, these guys have over a decade of experience with this stuff... 2 years is enough, and if by that time it needs some polish, they'll take it.
-
Aerie romance was fine, you just didn't like the character. Which isn't to say the romance was bad or her non-story related romance was bad, it just wasn't what you liked. Personally I liked all 3 of em but I'm not a big fan of the Jaheria's thing with how yall randomly split up for months or whatever. Makes sense I guess, and I like that its different but I haven't made a character (or wish to) that would like that kind of thing.
BG2 did something no other RPG since has really done well with there party banter, DAO got pretty close to it though but you where completely removed from it. It happened at very specific 'you walked over a party banter ping spot' instead of it being kept track of time wise. Ultimately I think BG2 did the best job outa all of them for making the party members seem more alive then any game since or before it just in general, romances or not. PST also did a great job but most of those where specific points, not mildly random moments. But either way PST and BG2 are easily the best examples of how to handle romances, or just party interaction in general. Anything beyond that, as far as im concerned, is weather or not I actually 'like' the characters in question.
Both games though had full fledged paths and twists to either way you fell on the relationship line and other then 1 real instance with Aerie, there wasn't much in the way of binary choices of 'this is the only right choice' for a desired effect. Oddly enough Aeries was at the very end of it, and changed things but lotta folks didn't know that till the expansion came out and they expanded/continued them. Can't remember if there was away to resolve that if you where being a **** with how you responded to her question.
-edit-
Ahh and as per post above me I'm not talking about mods. Haven't seen a romance mod I've liked. But then I can't stand 99% of fanfiction... like I've said before I love that it exists, I think its great people enjoy doing it and others enjoy reading it. But I just can't stand the stuff personally.
-
1
-
-
...heh what? Oh you mean the buff aggressive chick... right yeah. That wasn't really rape, and bond has had that level of aggressive women before plenty of times. Watch the movies again.
-
What Ruka said, if its like BG2 I'm all for it. I like most romances even some of the ME ones, but ME1-3 all felt kind of shallow in how they handled them.
That said they've done them before (and before BioWare) with Planescape: Tormenet. And that game just wouldn't be the same to me with out Annah coming to terms with the fact she cares or someone, or Fall From Grace dealing with the fact she kills people just by kissing them, and then heres this guy whos more or less immortal... its well, PST is just an awesome game either way.
In the end romance in games, like movies, often adds more to the flavor of the game... though is often done poorly. And I'd rather it be there in some capacity then not but I'll enjoy the game with or with out it, I'll just enjoy it a hell of a lot more with it available.
-
1
-
-
I like the 2D stuff for backgrounds but sprites for the characters them selves are better served, for a multitude of reasons as animated models instead of sprites. The videos kinda prove that. When you do sprites you have to render specific directions facing, 'animations' needs a specific angle rendered out for it... ends up being thousands of frames for some basic stuff. Full 3D model rendered in game doesn't have that issue, can ultimately do more animations, including extra neutral stuff, can blend things together more easily, and your not stuck to 8-16 directions. You have the full 360 degrees with out losing anything. Also that being the only models means you can afford more detail to them in comparison to full 3D games. Which in a fixed perspective game like this can be an amazing thing.
Those videos kind of prove my point. If the character isn't walking it all looks great, and he has some very fluid animations (lots of frames). Then he picks a direction and the guy kinda flash/teleport moves and walks in a direction his rendered angle doesn't really match. Stuff like that is easily fixed with a 3D model and, frankly, woulda looked about the same detail wise. Characters kinda blurry in that game for some reason... probably an art choice. Either way background looks awesome.
-
@ddillon: ahh when people assume things, such as me not having played skyrim... It has good voice acting. Many of the 'stories' are kinda meh though. My point still stands and hasn't changed. Also keep in mind Skyrims freakin' huge. The number of things they had to keep track of and handle in relation with the VO is staggering compared to other games. Ultimately the issues I have with that game story wise aren't the VO and ultimately are due to the lack player choice with in any given situation, but again, giant ass game.
In the end I don't like homemade amateur movies or voice work, with a few exceptions. I may add, 100% of all those exceptions (so far) have all been comedic based and not the kind of VO work you get in games (which is often a mix, such as IE/Skyrim), but its usually extremely amusing as it intends to be. So for example I could see some VO work in a... Portal mod/add on via the community being hilarious and fun (although probably not as good as the actual game was, or Portal 2 for that matter). But something like BG2, PST? It falls flat.
-
Sound sets yeah, but I wasn't talking about sound sets. That's... sound sets, not dialog. I mean yeah ok its technically spoken words so dialog but im talking about party member to party member banter, special NPC lines. Not the stuff you hear in combat. For that? Sure amateur stuff works fine and can be better then the base stuff... especially with the IE games. But the voice sets they try to be generic while still having a theme and it doesn't always work out great. But that's the least ehh, offensive stuff a mod could add voice wise...
So yeah, voice sets - awesome. Actual dialog? Look at the countless games out there with horrible VO, often times by freakin' amazing VO's. Some great actors end up doing ****ty performances in movies and often it boils down to a lack of direction or understanding of what there character is. That's actually a big issue I have with a lot of fan made mods VO or otherwise. The actual conversation writing never sits right with me. Characters jump around a lot when they're trying to be more then 1-2 dimensions, or... they're just badly done one dimension characters.
I'm pretty picky though, I don't like the vast majority of 'fan fiction'. It's almost just as rare that I find a story based mod with characters/progression I like... in any game type. Not to say they're not all good ideas, but I think that's a distinction a lot of people don't make. Having great ideas doesn't make a story good, though bad ideas can ruin an otherwise great telling. Kinda needs both in the end and Amateur stuff more often then not falls on the 'nice idea, bad presentation'.
All my opinion though I know a lot of people love that stuff, and for that very reason I hope the games flooded with good stuff for everyone. Also I feel I should note I suck at writing stories, talents lie elsewhere, and it's partly why I value IE games so highly. The VO movies to the chapters in Icewind Dale 2 where.. probably some of my favorite parts of the actual game outside of just the 3E implementation.
"...there was no sound, no motion. Just the face of Faerun rising to meet him." - I just really liked the wording in a lot of that stuff, also kinda helps I adore the voice actress' voice in those. And as a silly side note, Annah was my favorite thing in PST, but im a sucker for her accent and general attitude through out the game and how that can semi-shift.
-
If they handle it like BG/PST I'd be happy, I'd love it even more if after its been out and, sales permitting, they had a more full VO DLC/Expansion type thing. I love mods and all but amateur voice acting is sadly just that. It's the difference between an awesome B-Movie and... the crap people call a b movie cause they're not sure what else to call it.
In other words I'd rather not leave it up to the modders cause it'll, as history has shows for the past...well its always crap. Might be mildly entertaining here and there but it just often lacks the quality in recording and actual VO talent it's jarring. Like someone trying to add there own pre-rendered backgrounds in only they're scanning in crayon 'art'.
Meh, happy with IE lvl of VO either way.... but a guy can hope for an add-on later to bolster it, from the same people who made it.
-
2
-
-
@Ieo: all that and some of your own lines don't match up with what I'd expect if you where trying to get a perspective check. For instance the bridge, you start in the back the top of the half-U shape detail but your line goes to the bottom part of the further back half-U. Which is causing some weird angling. Not sure if that was meant to be a comparison to the busted up bridge in the background but that thing may never of been the same length or height as the closer intact bridge.
Either way it didn't feel off to me much but I've done some 3D and perspective stuff. Been working on mods and such with varying perspectives (45 to 30-35ish). Said it earlier, I'll say it again - 30 to 35 is my preferred angling. Environments just show better in my opinion. Also something that often bugged me in a lot of infinity engine games was they'd model the full 4 walls of a room (this may sound weird but stick with me) at the 45 degree and... you just often couldn't walk up to the foreground walls.
Other games like that will have the closer walls either disappear when you get close or just never be rendered in so you have full view of what they'd be covering up. It's one of those awkward things IE games often did which was more noticable in houses. You'd walk into a smaller room then find out you can only walk on about 80% of the floor, not becuase somethings is on the floor blocking you (like a desk or couch) but because they didn't setup the wall as walkable portions. That has more to do with where they drew the walk lines and dithering but it's something that always kinda irks me... and always seems to happen to indoor areas. Outdoor areas with giant buildings usually let you walk on the ground you can't see.
It's a silly nitpick but I hope they keep this perspective for most of there stuff and just don't have the walls you can't see from that perspective completely invisible - or fade out when your characters on the other side of em.
-
Yeah I don't have to much of a worry with that, I get what you mean with them not being to animated half the time though. ToEE did a lot more animation though as it used 3D objects 'on' a 2D pre-rendered background, allowed for a lot more that way. That and considering its a marriage of 2D and 3D and... well its just not mid-90s anymore, that waterfall could easily be emitter based, particle stuff, instead of some 5 frame image file they put together for that one specific map. Which leads to animated stuff like that not being a non-stop 100% repeat loop which.. ultimately just adds to the whole effect in my opinion.
From the picture, looks like there currently using a very basic shader water for testing to see what they like. 99% of the cheapest computers you can buy right now can handle that stuff pretty easily so I'd imagine that's what majority of water will end up being. Sure smaller things like tiny wall fountains or basis will have something else but... Also I could be completely wrong but the tree and a few of the shrubs look like 3D objects to me. Which could easily translate into movement when you get close to them (shrubs) or gentle foilage sway due to the wind, that kinda stuff.
They just have a lot more options available to em now and days then compared to 1996-2000 when the infinity games where made, and hell Fallout was older then that heh. Can't wait to see some actual footage, and plenty more screen shots.
-
Yeah I like it, personally my favorite view angle is around 35 degree, 45 or higher of most IE games always just felt awkwardly off to me.. any some games going even higher, 70-80ish always just make me not want to play them. I don't see much of a reason to do a 45 for indoors vs the 30-ish for outdoor/grander scale areas personally. In either instance you'll end up having to have the close-wall mostly not-there anyway. That said due to the characters and some object/particl enviromental stuff being 3D based they could do custom angles for any number of places and just change the 3D camera angle with out having to re-do assets like if it was purely sprite based. Soo that's nifty.
Also I dunno why I didn't think about it before, but yeah rendering back in the day took for freaking EVER to get anywhere 24+ hours isn't really an exageration of how long it could take to render out stuff. Now and days, waay more detail, far better rendering methods and that image could of taken less then an hour. Just think about the freakin' time difference development wise in iteration for testing to fine-tuning stuff compared to back then. Crazyness.
-edit-
Oh, and I love the way it looks, especially the waterfall. Can't stress how nice it is to see a good particle effected waterfall then some sloppy wavy water texture like a lot of games do. Love the nearly painted feel to it.
-
@Vargr: Basically wasn't anything above 10, or if they're was, items on players couldn't. Was same way in FO3/NV. But either way thats exactly what I was talking about as far as a generally good system with each point having an impact. That was ultimaetly my biggest issue with 2nd edition and partially with 3rd. You have these fields of null zones in the stats which are kinda bogus. I still prefer a 10 base system though... don't gadda use negative values for negative effects. And 0 can mean death.
-edit-
By that, I mean, I enjoy 10 being the no bonus point. Everything under is the negative scale of a 11-20, and 21-25 is item/monster only stat range.
-
You know what would be fun? Some Dirgesinger like 'chant's. Just sayin...
-
Yeah, that's kinda the stance thing I think they where talking about. I mean in the end every weapon is going to have specific ways you can use it for all manner of either defensive or more brute force attacks. So just having the ability to go more defensive vs offensive, with some more utility like moves. Know they've stated in kickstarter videos wanting stuff like charge to move to targets faster + attack that kinda stuff. Far as im concerned more options like that the better.
Currently I just hope the find a good way to implement reach weapons, as a lot of these games have seriously lacked that basic combat consideration. Even when they 'had' helberds and other reach weapons they didn't do anything. Every weapon in NWN hit 5 feet away, and either could hit up to 10 via a lung-ish like move or something else, even daggers. All the IE games treated em as anything else except they had slash and blunt dmg (which shoulda been all for most of em). Either way im hoping they make em in, along with some more exotic variants like the spiked chain. Loved that in ToEE... loved making a finesse, combat reflex rogue with that thing. Sit em in the group they'd tag anything that got close, anything trying to move through the ranks for a AoO up on em. Was great for flank/sneak attack stuff.
-
It's gambling, more or less. It's the same principle off random loot in games like diablo. Ultimately what it comes down too, y ou roll, see if you got good stuff, chances of getting good are less then crap or mediocore, but its that chance. I hate it but I also can't stand gambling. Things never been much of a draw for me, partly why the dangling carrot of item drops has never done a damn thing for me in Diablo-esk games. Still loved the crap outa D2 mind ya, just wasn't for the items.
That said I do like the SPECIAL setup, but thats basically 1st/2nd DnD using point buy instead of random rolls. I don't mind some attribute growth post-character creation but its nice it it makes more sense. For example, augment implacts in FO:NV vs the stat perks. Though getting attribute from perks is a good way to balance its growth overtime and, in away, shows you focusing on your.. strength, for an example, instead of other perks. That said would be nice to see it be a 1 shot perk thats tied with other stuff. For example getting some lore-related perks with a +1 int due to 'brain training' as it where. The generic no real explanation 10 rank attribute perks feels a bit empty in the end.
-edit-
Actually point about SPECIAL vs 2nd Edition, I think 2nd edition general handling was mostly superior in its ability to handle growth via items and general monster size types. For example a Giant had 20 str, mountain giants had 21, full sized dragons had 25. People where stuck max of 18. I don't like how they did 0-100 scale in STR for Warriors only, and feel like they left to much useless points in there, for instance 9-13 where all identical, 14 gave like -1 THAC0, then you'd get dmg, then dmg/thac0, then...yeah. It got awkward and more complex then it needed to be. In comparison SPECIAL caps at 10, period, items can't go above it, monsters can't go above it, and anyone can techincally start at 10. So having a Warrior start at 10 cause rawr muscles, but then a dragons stuck at 10 just the same... its weird, kinda loses its flavor at that point.
So my vote would be a better thought out progression for a 2nd edition style attribute system. 1-25 or something feels good, 10 middle, cap us at 18 or 20 or something, let the higher progression exist for items only (so feats wouldn't raise above 18 or 20 or whatever it is). Racial modifiers help with that... or to use SPECIAL add 5 ranks to it, 1-15 instead, 10 is max, 11-12 for certain racial considerations. Perk/Feats don't go above that 10-12 margin, items and spells can. Allows bigger monsters to sit at the higher end people can't achieve with out magical support.
Least that's how I'd prefer it in general.. and rolling is just a crap gambling system.
-
I fully agree that that would be rather snazzy and think it would make a good addition to Bard-style class.
-
I kind of doubt we'll get that, I know they already said no to grappling.. tripping or knockdown may make it in. They want charge and other tactical manuevers to be options. I think most stuff they pick will be things they can arguebly see happen against any enemy type. I think one of the biggest issues a lot of folks have when thinking about how they want combat to go is the whole 1 on 1 humans vs human which is great and all... but its a fantasy game. Half the **** you fight you wont be able to do 'any' of that to.
I think that was one reason NWN had knockdown instead of trip, They could of easily done a 'trip' animation with the same resulted prone but knock down physically looks/makes a bit more sense when presented vs more of the monsters in the game. Though, still looked silly as **** knocking down a Dragon when one happened to not be immune. So yeah I'd expect some kind of generalized variations of some of that but not the detail specific of each individual weapon as you'll be going up against A LOT more **** then just a human with weapons. I mean your not exactly gonna disarm a Grizzly. **** you wont really trip a grizzly either... be lucky if he didn't snap your polearm in half.
-
Point buy all the way for me. I never understood the 'questions' thing and getting something thrown out based off that, granted you always get to say 'no thats stupid' and pick your own stuff but I've never seen those systems pick anything remotely close to what i want for what I answered. I think rolling for stats is about as bad of a system as it gets for making a character. Completely takes it out of your hands for making what you had envisioned and, on top of that, isn't a very fair system as far as keeping everyone reletive to eachother.
Now if someone wants to make a weaker character would be nice if you could just start (with a warning) with out spending all your points. Or have a toggle to decide how many points you have to spend as if often how things are handled in PnP. Have a few total numbers to determine the kind of adventurers your making, so having just a smaller pool (say 20 vs 30) for folks who wanna make a derpier character would be an easy thing to throw in.
-
Yeah I think base health regeneration in combat is generally a bad idea. That's base, of course, if its via items or some high lvl warrior skill thats another matter but if its something you don't earn, something you don't build towards and just everyone regenerates it tends to heavily impact how combats played. You can still make combat a challenge with it but its not the same type of a challenge and horrendously silly 'tactics' like the OP mentioned, running in circles, starts to become 'valid' which is bad.
I am ok with out-of-combat regen, though I'd prefer it to be mildly slower then DAO which was... to full in I think 4 seconds tops. Which I get why they did that, if they're injury stuff was more severe and wasn't so easily cured it would of made far less of an issue but the fact you could easily remove all injuries kinda made that system a little silly. Either way curious what there idea/plans are for this stuff.
-
I also always tried to turn 3E Warlocks into what amounted to necromancers too. Granted it was just animate dead but being able to do that with out any reagent, an unlimited times per day, every round. I mean you could literally raise 2 skeletons every round given they where close enough to eachother. Granted you didn't get the snazzy palemaster 'becoming undead' with out going full lich (which didn't extent your life span at all, funnily enough) but that class had some nice stuff I liked using to turn em into a necromancer-like thing. Actually did that with any clerics I made too, course they where overly good at it being... clerics, meh.
I doubt we'll get its own class but regardless of it we do I pray they have a whole line of necromancer oriented spells. I'd love to fill up my grimoir with Necromantic spells, raise the dead, get some gropin' ghouls touch stuff going on. All that good stuff.
-
You and me both Indira, I LOVE necromancer stuff. And druids, and barbs... its my 3 main I guess heh. Was actually something that always semi bugged me about DnD was Clerics are the best necromancers and Mages kinda make half-assed ones but get the title for it. Was always mildly confused by that but i guess its a bit closer to are reals-life myth stuff with the occult and raising the dead and it all being ritualistic blah blah.
The whole palemaster thing with replacing there organs with mummified variants so they become immune to all manner of stuff. Replace a limb with an undead variant to gain supernatural powers over the undead? Ehh... yes please?
-
1
-
-
Well... I don't agree with anything you posted if that helps? You can't just be a paladin or a barbarian with a single 'background feat'. That's like saying you changed your life because you put on a special button with a fansy logo on them. Each class is, in its self, a background of your past training (weather that's acedemic or not) and, ultimately, your characters way of life. It's how they live, its what they 'do'. Paladin is a good example of that, they're existence is based around there ideals and all that non-sense. You don't just tag that into a background thing about how you grew up as a kid and that somehow determines the next 20 levels of bonus skills you get cuase you where 'nice' as a kid.
I get where folks are coming from in relation to saying Paladin or Barbarian is just a 'specialized' fighter or warrior but that's kinda everything if you want to boil it down to basics. Everythings just another specialized or 'different' version of a Warrior, Rogue, or Mage. Priests are just another form of a mage. All comes down to what I just said though, it's there way of life, its how they go about living. Priest is religous in a super heavy way. They pray, hate rituals, rites, all that stuff. Mages generally don't, and if you play a religous mage the 2 things are going to be separate showing the difference with the class choice.
Ultimately why I don't like calling a Barbarian a specialization, and why I think a Paladin should be more of a PrC in DnD terms, though I could see how someone would grow up in an organization and be groomed to be a paladin that way thus making a lvl 1 paladin making some sense. Though, really, that's not how they describe em in 3E anymore, as they're not tied to 'any' organization or god.
Anyway point still stands, you can't define an entire persons life with how they lived up till they where 18. Definitely adds more flavor and gives insight to how they got to where they where or why they're how they are 'now' (at whatver age/lvl) but it doesn't define who they are like a class does. And throwing a 'rage kit' onto a Warrior does not a Barbarian make. Although you still get that play style to some extent.
-
Keep in mind since it wont be a 100% 3D game, it's 3D characters, 2D pre-rendered gameworld. They can't do D3-style 'zoom in'. That's where it tiltes the camera down to zoom in on stuff, they also wont be doing any cinematic cutscenes.. games literally gonna be IE/ToEE style in anything like that will still play out with the same camera, and zooming in would just give you a closer look at the top of there head (or awkwardly angled face).
So, outside of a character inventory, or perhaps a GW2 style conversation thing... yeah. I actually kind of like how GW2 does its conversations where the whole game world kinda fades away with a painted background and you see the characters tanding opposed to eachother with talking animations (often look kinda bad). 'That' kinda zoomed in conversation thing would actually work great in an IE style game with 3D models as that type of zoomed in approach would let us see things in an angle and distance you don't get outa normal exploration/combat.
Either way I think height/width (and maybe fat/musle) are the most important 'sliders' for me, or a game of this view angle.
Are you for or against gaining experience points only for completing objectives?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by Adhin
The thing computer games have always seem kind of poor at is dishing out XP. And before I continue this little bit of rambling non-sense im for it. Basically DnD gives stuff based off encounters. Weather that's quest updating or whatever, the way you do things in PnP which cRPG's originally tried to mimic... it was just easier to do it on a kill by kill basis. Generally speaking I don't think XP per kill is a good way to handle it in any game for a few specific reasons, but ultimately it becomes a metagame against good roleplaying.
I think Mass Effect 2, as an example, I was happy they made the switch but how they handled it 'all at the end' was poor design, which they agreed with and changed in ME3, which, all that games faults aside that was a great change to its character progression pacing. So I don't think XP should be just for completing a quest or task, but should be dulled out in bits at certain progress mild stones, and that includes finding new areas.
Lets say you have a quest that leads you into a 3 level dungeon to kill some mad necromancer who's plaguing a town by zombies. Super basic stuff there, say start of the quest is you learning about something going on, you have to do some investigating to figure out, beyond that, whats going on and what to do about it. I'd say a small amount of XP for picking up the quest, XP once you've gathered the information that updates your journal saying to explore the nearby ruins. Xp for each level of the ruins you go go down, and XP for killing the guy as that's another major quest milestone as to quest progression. Then finally the larger XP chunk for turning it in back at town letting everyone know the issues been delt with.
If they can keep the XP stream coming in via progress points in each quest, and for finding new locations but not much else it'l be a bit more fair in how it dishes out the XP so its not promoting a 'do everything possibly can' issue you get with most other RPG's. As per XP on kill, trying to do a tense moment of what should be near overwhelming odds and you needing to run? If that's not scripted, a lot of folks will sit around and XP farm as long as they can. Those kind of moments get ruined with a per-kill basis. And if they just don't do XP for those specific spawns folks still try it till they realize a good 5-10 minutes later they haven't gained anything, which leads to some frustration or disappointment.. all of which is due to a metagame of xp grinding in a manner which made no real sense.
I'd rather see something and decide if its worth my resources to go and attack said threat or if id be better off trying to avoid it, I don't want some imaginary number pushing me to just stab everythings face. What it comes down to, in PnP you'd get the same XP for dealing with 'encounters' via whatever to keep things even ended... yeah you have individual XP per rating (shown per enemy) but that kinda thing tends to be delt with in larger chunks, not on the individual level. It's smoother and promotes actual roleplaying, it's what would your character do, not what gives me more magical, imaginary numbers.
So yeah, i'm pro-XP chunks not per kill.
-edit-
Oh and as per the combats boring with out XP, I call bull****. If the combat isn't fun, they've failed. Period. If you need XP to make it 'fun' then you need to sit back and look at why you play games in the first place, it sure as **** shouldn't just be to raise up an imaginary number. Actually engaging in combat 'should' be a reward in its self, the challenge of that 'should' be a reward.
I don't play chess because I get imaginary numbers I play it because its fun to 'play' the game.