Sarex

Ah but isn't that the problem now, from your point of view it seems like we are bashing the developers/game, but the simple fact is that while we may be advocating for the old xp system, never had we said "This is going to ruin the game", what was in fact said is that in our opinion it isn't going to be as good/fun as the old one. The problem is, when arguments arise they continue to a point where it seems like it's all or nothing, when in fact it just arguing on a segment of the game that isn't even the most important part of it. The simple fact that we are still here waiting for new tidbits of information show that we are all still very much interested in the game and don't think it's doomed to fail. Most of all what people seem to forget is that all of the things said are just opinions (good or bad) and they are going to change the more we see from the game. This is a forum where opinions are going to be had, be they good or bad and as long as everyone is being reasonably civil I don't see why that shouldn't continue.

No one here is saying that the game is going to suck or that we aren't going to play it, what we are saying is that some of the things being done are not exactly to our liking. But saying that, I think that everyone here is hoping to be proven wrong. What this is all coming down to is some people white knighting for the developers and defending every single thing they say and do. Well I think that the developers are big boys and can take criticism, in fact I think they welcome it (or they should) as it provides more information/feedback then someone just coming in to say "OMG, OMG you guys are great, so exited for the game, can't wait". This is a forum, people come here to discus things about the game that are know so far, so please leave the moderating to the moderators.

I misunderstood your last sentence, I apologize. Didn't the BG series have xp rewards for learning spells and lock picking/disarming traps?

Then this forum is pointless. (until that game comes out)

That is a 2 way street.

What you described is a balancing of the classes according to how to book assumes the game is being played. That no one is doing it like that is another matter. My point was that the creators of the book did xp tables for a reason, not just to make the game more "complex".

Maybe they failed in the balancing of the classes, but to say that xp tables where different just for the sake of complicating things doesn't ring true to me.

Uh, yes it is. You think D&D didn't have to balance it's classes and just did it because they liked to complicate things?

"For many people combat is a complete waste of time" This is the stupidest counter argument I have heard about games, to be made yet. As a matter of fact I don't believe that it even applies to you, let alone MANY other people. Most of the games in existence contain combat in them and it is the main feature of the game and the rest are either sport, racing, or SIMs. Well at least now I know that your replies to my posts are only meant to be contrary and thus I will avoid replaying to your posts.

You should read what I write more carefully, I never said that it wasn't, I only said that it wasn't fun. And that is precisely why I said "If I want a good story I will read a book". As for interactive stories, well I have yet to see them. I know many game claim to have them, but none of them truly do. Have you ever seen a good writer of books write a story for a game? I have seen lots of game writers, try to write novels.

Clicking on dialog options is not what I consider a fun game and your view on interactivity is very close-minded. Anything that makes a player do something in a game is considered interactive, because it requires an action from the player. Yeah, no. There isn't event comparing, books outclass games no matter how interactive their stories can be. I haven't played a game yet, that had a story comparable to a good book. The plain fact is game writers are average at best, as can be seen from many D&D books out there (the same goes for script writers). Also, ultimately books unlike games and movies leave the story interpretation to our imagination.

The game is combat oriented, it never tried to hide that, thus it will not be to everyone tastes. Why? If I want a good story, I will read a book which will always have a better story then a game (unless it's a bad story/writer). I play games because they offer something that other mediums don't, interactivity, and if the game has a good story attached to it then that is just a happy bonus.

And on the flip side it would be just a visual novel with combat tacked on to it just for the sake of it (Torment). I am almost to the end of my IWD2 heart of fury playthrough and I have encountered the respawing of enemies in dungeons maybe 2 times. I think you need to replay the game. Any time that an enemy appeared "out of thin air" there was an accompanying narrative to explain it.

You do know why they had a different xp requirement? It was balancing issues, so for it to be transferred to P:E just for the sake of transferring it would cause balance issues. Also, I don't really see how it would serve to drive the player to play more, the difference between on kill and quest xp is that you have to finish a quest to get xp. So there wouldn't really be a case of the player thinking "just a little more to get that little bit of xp", but "I need to finish another quest to level up all my characters". If the balancing requires it, then sure make different classes have different xp requirements, but if it's just for the sake of it, I don't see any point in it.

First party will be: Paladin Paladin Paladin Paladin Paladin Paladin (adventure hall op) second party: Paladin Fighter Rouge Mage Cleric Druid third party is whatever I think is good from the previous playthroughs, but I don't know what can beat an all paladin party.

Then what, pray tell, is the point of this forum, or at least this section of the forum? Also what are you doing in this thread? Why are you not in the "What part of P:E has you the most exited about it's release" telling the same things? This is a forum, people discuss things on a forum, that is what it's for. We don't know if the good things will be good, or the bad things will be bad until we play the game, but guess what, we sure as hell can guess. To be honest you are just coming across as a kid yelling, hey everyone look at me.

I would go back for the first pile, after I sold the second.

Thief-fighter, where at the end levels you could wield any weapon (thiefs had a skill that let them use any item no matter the restriction on it) was the strongest class I saw, with the exception of maybe thief-mage.

Heh.

Are we speaking the same language. I really don't know how you got all that from my post. When did I say that if a game is linear it has no gameplay? The rest is... I don't even know how to try and answer that. I really think you missunderstood something I said, and it would really help if you quoted the part you are referring to, because I really can't connect what you are saying with what I said. I said in a previous post what I consider gameplay to be. I also said that P:T could have been a visual novel and would not have suffered for it. The dialog functions identically to the ones in the rest of IE games, with the exception of wisdom and intelligence were also taken in to account besides charisma. The difference between BG/IWD and P:T is that it was used much, much rarely. The content of the dialogues fall in to story/narration.

Or just not reading the comments before downloading something. xD

He said: To which I replayed that is not gameplay, that is story/narrative. This is linearity. edit:Also it was stated that IWD was more combat oriented, but it had side quest though in a much smaller quantity. This is also linearity.

You need to stop putting words in my mouth, I said I view gameplay as a technical aspect of the game, whether that is how dialog works or how sneaking, lock-picking, crafting, opening doors, specking your character, getting xp, items, etc. functions. What you described in your previous post, was story, narration and linearity. If you want to divide a game in to story/gameplay/graphics that is your problem, for me it is simply too general and vague to discuss it that way. Also, yes not every game has combat, but this one does and the games it is trying to emulate did, so the biggest part of its gameplay is, yes you guess it, combat.

I think you are confusing what gameplay is or at least what I am considering gameplay to represent. To me the things you describe sound a lot like story, narration and linearity. You are thinking too generally when considering gameplay, while I am looking at it as more of a mechanical aspect.

Yeah, I don't know why I called Infinity Ward the publisher for IE games, but just to correct my self, the publisher was/is called Interplay Entertainment.