Jump to content

Ohioastro

Members
  • Content Count

    220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ohioastro

  1. There is a reason why a lot of us really, really, really don't like the Codex. And it's encapsulated in that review. Arrogance, lack of perspective, and a rigid adherence to decade-old formulas. This is a hatchet job, which is exactly what I'd expect from the Codex. It's a shallow piece of work, with numerous errors - the sort that you'd make if you were prosecuting a case, rather than evaluating a game (as the post above me notes.) For example, this is his class summary: "The druid is good at everything and overshadows all other casters, the priest would be good if buff spells didn’t
  2. I find the lack of attacks of opportunity to be poor for game balance and my enjoyment. I don't want to have encounters designed around click-a-thons to move characters around, which is the practical consequence of no engagement. Basically, it's just replacing the PoE status quo with a more kinetic, butin my mind far more gamey, alternative. It's also certainly true that D&D has gone back and forth on this - none in 2nd and 3rd ed, but it's definitely in 3.5. Don't know about 4.0 and 5.0. Others feel differently, of course, and I don't think that there is a right and a wrong here (
  3. ...which can be fixed in the AI, and has nothing to do with the existence of an engagement system.
  4. This is actually pretty common - I read a fascinating article by the Galactic Civilizations lead, Brad Wardell, about that. His point was that computer AIs in virtually all games aren't playing by anything like the same rules that the players are. GalCiv was actually an exception - the rules for players and AIs are identical in that game, and it's arguably the most challenging AI on the market. (It helps that it's a space game, which means no real "terrain", and that it has deliberately simple rules. To make the AI tractable they give unlimited spells, but a restricted number of them.
  5. Thanks. I had the +2 DR from the Knights and got the +0.1 Crit from the Mercenaries, but either didn't realize or forgot about them. The rest are either evil or endgame stuff which I haven't gotten to yet. I suspect you have to fool somebody into feeding the undead scholar near the machine for him to tell you how to do it. Well, he needs living human flesh. How many choices do you have in Heritage Hill? Once you think that through, you get the Deceptive and Cruel bits. I actually couldn't make myself do it because of that.
  6. Yes, I think that we should resist feeding a single post person who is pushing hot buttons. 3 or 4 out of 8 is not all guys.
  7. I see a lot of threads where people try to redesign the rules of the game to alter some perceived imbalance - anything from a dislike of some of the basic systems to a perception that the game is "too easy" or deviates in some other way from earlier games. I'd like to see if we can have a thread that focuses instead on ways to improve the game experience within the current rules by suggesting improvements in how encounters are designed and how the AI behaves. To start the ball rolling, here are some suggestions: 1) Focus on the linchpin (or boss) encounters. In a system with per day
  8. An action game is a completely different beast from an RPG. Full stop. I think that we need to turn down the flamethrowers here, frankly. I have a ton of choices when it comes to action games - especially on consoles. RPGs are rare. DA2 got a lot of *deserved* scorn for two sets of reasons: first, it replaced an RPG with an action game; and second, it was objectively (I'll get there in a minute) shoddy in construction. By the latter, I mean that they recycled assets to an astonishing degree. They parachuted enemies in instead of trying to make them remotely believable. These are not
  9. Again, I point to the metacritic reviews: People rated PoE and DA:O very highly, they rated DA2 very poorly, and they rated DA:I as mediocre. And that's for a reason. DA2 is an action button-pushing game, not a RPG. The fact that veterans can trivialize every single game in the genre once they crack the system is not an argument that a game is bad. If I have to spend 100 hours and multiple replays to figure out how to beat a game system it's a good one, even if I am no longer challenged once I do.
  10. Sorry, having recently finished both DA:O and DA2 on nightmare in preparation for DAI(which I dropped out of disgust in the first hour from console control scheme), I disagree. I liked both. I liked the story and characters in DAO, and the combat and tactics in DA2. Let's not kid ourselves here, DAO's combat was a complete cheese fest once you knew what you were doing. There was nothing tactical about it. My PC rogue literally auto-attacked his way through the whole game coz none of his other abilities WORKED in terms of having better dps than plain auto-attacking. DA2 actually has
  11. Does playing in slow mode help? the basic issue that I could see is that action proceeds too quickly to hit pause if it takes awhile to mechanically hit the keys. Running at S speed will slow everything down and make it more forgiving.
  12. This is so subjective that I don't even know how to formulate a response. Walking into the first village and seeing a bunch of people hanging from a giant tree is "bland"? Finding out that babies are being born without souls? This game is text heavy and not visual heavy; so if you favor cinematic cut-scenes and the like you'll be disappointed. This game is for book people, not movie people; it's reading the Lord of the Rings, not watching it.
  13. There are surprisingly few CRPGs where this isn't the case. I mean, name a major CRPG, pretty much definitely this is the case. People, the very same people who complain about it, just complain about how they don't feel like they're actually gaining power, how the game is "unrewarding", if it's not the case. Absolutely. I found the BG2 expansion - the one with the crazy high level spells - to be the easiest, by a wide margin, of the entire series. You just had such crazy tools available. There is a recent example of exactly what you're talking about: the Elder Scrolls Online. They ha
  14. I'd go closer to the route of boosting spell resistances on bosses. I'm in Act I on PoTD and having a lot of fun. The summoning figures, etc. are completely optional - I think that solo players rely on them heavily, so I'd be wary of crimping them. The usual problem that I have with games in hard difficulty settings is that they take forever - I know that I can always beat that pack of goblins, but I need hours of my time to walk across a room. Much better to just have to think in normal encounters and have a fun puzzle to crack for the bosses.
  15. Y'know, if I find certain tactics to be trivializing games, I don't run to the message boards complaining about them. I don't use them. The problem with PoTD is that it's slower because I have to cast more spells and rest more; I enjoy it otherwise. I really hope that they don't change it into a slog. (And, again, I think that higher difficulty battles should be balanced around really tough boss encounters, not turned into dreary slogs where you have to plow through thousands of overpowered goblins to get from A to B.)
  16. Logic fail. No, it's just an insult used to call someone an incompetent player, nothing more. I like to stretch myself by conserving resources - basically, to learn how to play efficiently. If you use too few spells then you get banged up and need to rest to heal, so it's a balance. But, for example, I consider rapid-fire clicking to beat the game AI to be flat-out exploiting- and I would never do that. If someone is coming for my character I intercept them, disable them, or so forth - I may have that character run away, but I'll have someone else engage. Because, to me, there is
  17. The game does have strong choices in what gets damaged by what. However, if you go overboard you end up forcing wholesale redesigns. Do you need to up the number of spells that wizards get if any damage dealing spell only works on half of the opponents? Do I need xerox fire / cold / lightening / poison spells to play rock paper scissors with enemies? Do you invalidate entire class core abilities against certain enemies, forcing redesign of levels that would otherwise be too, say, undead heavy? Do you end up making scouting mandatory so that people fiddle around to get the "right" spells a
  18. I cared more than I usually do with games, so I think it's a you thing honestly. Yea, there are people who develop an intense dislike for something and who then need to have their opinion validated by attacking every aspect of the game. I'll take the PoE story over the paper-thin Baldur's Gate one any day of the week, thank you very much.
  19. Successful games can be played by different people with different styles and motivations. The basic issue with many "balance" arguments is that one persons "exploit" is another persons "cool strategy", frequently one employed in a completely different context. So a strong ability or spell may make it possible, for example, to run though with an unorthodox party design that is otherwise unviable. There is a big element in the balance arguments about people being judgmental about the playstyle of others. I see references - unironic ones - to "rest spam abuse", and they crack me up. You h
  20. These are very reasonable comments and I concur. In particular, it would help substantially if casters got a single per encounter spell a bit earlier. then they'd be less like autoattack bots in trash battles. I'd like them to look at the balance of the crafting ingredients some. There are a few bottlenecks that seem off - for example, you can run all the way to the endgame without being able to craft the second, let alone the third, quality tier. Those aren't such an enormous edge that this seems warranted. I'd also like the ability to overwrite enchantments. A tooltip that would
  21. I dunno... I don't think this is really a valid argument to make. Anything that the game mechanics allow or tacitly encourage you to do is fair game for criticism. It doesn't make sense to criticise PoE for having abusable mechanics (like engagement in some cases) but give the IE games a pass. You're never "supposed" to do abusable things, that's why we label them abusable. Now you're just creating a narrative and selectively ignoring post content, Matt. /s Yea, I am just bowing out. In the end, some people can't accept that other people have a point, and Sensuki is one of t
  22. In both games I rest when I run out of spells or when the characters are banged up; they're identical. Usually a few well-chosen spells, in both games, are sufficient to turn trash mob battles. In both games, you rest before main encounters and throw everything at the wall. In both games some spells are a lot more powerful than others. Are we supposed to play these games by charging into battles with no resources or hit points? If you want an example of a game where there is no "rest abuse" you play a game where there isn't any resting, like the Thief or Dishonored games. Of course, t
  23. That's hilarious - you have two parallel systems that permit resting at will with no consequences, at worst just backtracking to somewhere safe...and they're different because.
  24. That's funny because I find the combat pathfinding in all of the Infinity Engine games WAY better than Pillars of Eternity. Make sure to set your path search nodes to 40,000 in the IE games. Yeah and this is dumb AI that is easy to get around too. Some target low DR so you can just wear heavier armor to switch targeting. Some target low Deflection, so what you do is run the character they are targeting around while everyone else attacks them ... lul so ez. The engagement system is so broken that if the AI did try to break it, this would happen. You really are fond
×
×
  • Create New...