Gromnir

Not according to some posts I've read over the years.... case in point Gromnir hated kotor combat, but we still had fun. the kotor combat not depend on appropriate tactics or character building neither... and end battle were disproportionately tough of force users. horrible combat, but would be lying if we said we disliked game. toee, on the other hand... some toee combats were slow death (and only partly due to inexplicable slow-downs) and reach weapons and aoo were wrong, but for the most part we really enjoyed toee combat. game were pretty darn terrible in spite of fun combat. HA! Good Fun!

actually, "they" says that foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. in any event, a shooter + is still a shooter. even if it allow for lots of neato options it is basically, at its core, a game 'bout timely button punching and targeting. HA! Good Fun!

we played demo and game were pretty damn dependent on dexterous gamepad/keyboard manipulation. call shooter or not, but game gets classified as shooter in many places, and it it depends on reflexes o' player as much/more than tactics. never were a fan o' arcade games in which our reflexes were being tested 'gainst a machine. is simply not our idea o' fun. only way we is gonna endure such stuff is if it is Gromnir v. Bob... and Bob is in room so we can talk smack and throw pretzels. HA! Good Fun!

dunno, as Gromnir don't play such games. am aware that you can kill with other implements, but typically if a game tracks your hit %... *shrug* we got lots o' hits when we type in "hitman" & "shooter" into google. HA! Good Fun!

one quick side note: the reason we likes ps:t so much is, in large part, because of ravel and her incarnations. she were a cleverly crafted and artfully included character that, as far as Gromnir is concerned, made ps:t more than just another crpg. ravel is a character that chrisA has pulled along with him in pretty much every game since... w/o the philosophy for dummies approach. kreia, and the crazy & blind cat lady in iwd2... as well as the hag in how... is all ravel inspired/linked. perhaps chrisA also recognized what were actually great 'bout ps:t... keeps ravel, and has dropped much o' the fit-on-a-matchbook-cover philosophy. HA! Good Fun!

There is an enormous spectrum of difficulty and complexity between something like Jade Empire and Virtua Fighter or Ninja Gaiden. Jade Emprie could have had the exact same basic movesets and AI, but significantly better input processing, hit detection, and framerate and been a hell of a lot better. The quality of combat has less to do with player-side complexity (which often comes to a player's personal preference) and more to do with the fundamentals of how combat feels. EDIT: Also, please stop putting up straw men. No one argued for Virtua Fighter-level combo chains in an RPG (that I saw). you got chocolate in my peanut butter. well, you got peanut butter on my chocolate. ... sorry, but Gromnir wants josh to keep his peanut butter away from his chocolate. am recalling how josh lauded recent hitman game... seemed offended that Gromnir dismissed as a shooter. no doubt there is folks that really would like more shooter or action elements in the crpgs... but not Gromnir. is one of the aspects o' increasing hybridization we dislike. is nothing wrong with adding shooter elements to crpgs, but is simply not the kinda thing that interests Gromnir. better combat for Gromnir means that is more o' a tactical challenge... more demanding o' our noggin than o' our ability to manipulate gamepad. HA! Good Fun!

"Though neither self-important or demanding are synonyms to pretentious. But you know that already." no, but they is qualities of... can check the definition if you want. am not a fan o' webster, but that is easiest to access. "Wait what, "cliff notes"? I'd also like to know your superior approach to philosophy in games as you've by now couple of times scoffed at ChrisA's "approach"" eh? bad logic there. most writers of fiction and of games is smart 'nuff to do like howard... if they got a philosophical agenda, they develop it as part of character and story without all the tedious speeches. is one of the great differences between arts and philosophy. a painting can be existential or postmodern, but it communicates w/o having to spell out. chrisA actually presented his half-arsed philosophy to audience much like a butcher slapping down so much bloody meat. *shrug* btw, am not selling anime and comic books short. 99% of anime and comicbooks is crap. if you remove any anime that includes the Godzilla (you messed with nature and now she has spat forth monsters to punish you,) and pinocchio (what does it mean to be human) themes, and/or the recurring buffy character (she has all those super powers and must save ______, but what she really needs is a hug,) a sizable portion o' anime disappears. the rest is typical terrible. some bad romance and ... "slice of life" (am not sure of terminology.) anime is so doggedly repetitive that fans o' anime characters can almost invariably categorize into genre wide recognizable roles w/o much difficulty. sure, the writers of anime keeps coming up with increasingly wacky plots, but the characters and themes and Story is all so damned repetitive it is painful. is there exceptions? sure... but very few. is some quality graphic novels out there, but they is so rare that you can probably name all noteworthies on 2 hands. oh, and the young writer bit... HA! year 1 of virtually all bfa english course o' study is a battle between professors and would-be artists. maudlin. excessive and overt introspection. inspiration w/o craft is what leads to that stuff people calls Modern Art... big splashes o' paint and razor wire wrapped around a manequin dressed as a clown. *groan* literary equivalent is just as terrible to behold. old writers can be just as bad as young ones, but young writers almost invariably lack craft... results in in the maudlin navel gazing stuff. old writers... well, most o' the old writers typically get out of the business of writing or learn at least some craft by the time they get old. 'course mostly we took newc approach as you really didn't say much new... keep saying that ps:t is fantabulous and is great philosophy. is crappy philosophy and lot o' terrible writing. regardless, please note that xard is being a bit irrational. Gromnir is a snob... is why he complains 'bout writing o' ps:t. mc and kel and others simply didn't get it... is why they complain 'bout ps:t. either way, ps:t is still great. doesn't that seem unfair? HA! Good Fun!

"picture I got from interviews it was not merely breaking even, it sold well. That's different from merely getting back the money that was invested" your picture is wrong. took years for ps:t to break even. eventually ended up in black, but for the all important first 2 quarters, ps:t were a collosal disappointment. "No other game has been so effective with mere text (Sensorium stones, memory of Pillar and Morte) and PS:T's writing leaves most books I've read behind (and it's not like my favourite author is Salvatore or something tongue.gif ) " you don't read much, do you? in any event, others has already replied... oh, and btw, Gromnir said, "pseudo-intellectual navel gazing"... not pseudo philosophical. 'least get subject matter o' your complaint correct. and to be fair, we never suggested that ps:t were pretentious. have called it a "philosophy_for_dummies" approach, but Gromnir never calls pretentious. honestly am not thinking that chrisA were trying to be self-important or demanding. chrisA dummed ps:t down to kinda level that even anime fans could get. however, such a diminished approach were arguably flawed. john gardner's approach with Grendel were indeed pretentious, but he were artful and did with self mocking aplomb. the hoity-toity dragon were not a likeable character, eh? the guy writing a novel which is for all intents and purposes a philosophy primer makes his mythological professor a pompous and irritable bladder o' hot air. 'course we don't believe Gardner's approach woulda' worked any better in a crpg than did chrisA's. robert e. howard did 180 degrees opposite. Conan never spouted Nietzsche quotes or reflected all philosophical. Conan actualized w/o all the intellectualizing and navel gazing. you wanna feed Nietzche to the average gamer/reader? don't have some greasy-haired goth wax philosophical... has a broadsword wielding ubermensch lop off some heads and have sex with beautiful slave girls. thats the kinda philosophy everybody can appreciate, no? which approach is better? depends on your audience. chrisA tries some middle ground. much of his cliff's notes philosophy were childish and his writing were far too often the kinda maudlin introspection you sees only from young writers (and the aforementioned anime and comics books.) such a middle ground approach is bound to irritate the genuine snobs & bore folks who want straightforward. sorry, but people far too often hold up ps:t like it were some kinda holy grail for crpgs. Gromnir loved the game, but am not gonna pretend it were well written from start to finish. am also not gonna pretend that it were flawless. is more than enough reasons why ps:t coulda' failed... other than marketing. marketing excuse is just a cop out after the fact. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure that "plausible" and "realistic" is ever genuine factors in discussing whether or not crpg combats is goods. does game involve player and reward him for efforts? perhaps if is too unrealistic, then combat has a tendency to prevent player involvement... but otherwise. Gromnir hated kotor combat, but not 'cause o' implausibility. HA! Good Fun!

for chrissakes... breaking even over time is NOT success. if put your money in a mutual fund is a more lucrative investment, then your game development has failed. ps:t had to have multiple encheapened releases, including a dual release with soul caliber in a cardboard sleeve to finally break even? is not a financial success for a development company that has public traded stock. and yeah, some (not all) of the writing in ps:t were terrible... and most o' it was pseudo-intellectual navel gazing that had a tendency to make some people groan with anguish. such were the nature o' the setting with the philosophical bent o' the factions and the Power o' Belief motif after all, but to imply that such stuff were embraced universal is stoopid. why you think everybody love such stuff just because you do? problem were compounded by manner in which chrisA presented his navel gazing: too wordy. after bg bioware came up with the dreaded 3-line rule. they learned that peoples didn't like to read through multiple dialogue options that were more than 3-lines each... start clicking through stuff that were too wordy. ps:t developers had not yet had time to learn this valuable lesson, and so bis developers failed to take short attention span o' crpg gamers into account with ps:t. again, there is loads o' content related reasons why ps:t failed. some anecdotal nonsense 'bout box art killing sales notwithstanding. HA! Good Fun!

actually, Gromnir invariably mentions the unusual setting as one of the reasons for failure o' ps:t. bugginess were also a problem as memory leak issues made game unplayable for many. pseudo-intellectual navel gazing turned some folks off and away from an otherwise great game. bad combat were a contributing factor. lack o' customization ('specially insofar as appearance o' player avatar were concerned) were discouraging for some... we can go on if you like. ps:t were Gromnir's favorite crpg, but to pretend that it didn't have faults or that it were perfect for everybody is a big mistake. HA! Good Fun! ps yeah, we claim that bad marketing had little to do with ps:t failure. pre-release hype for ps:t were extreme. virtual every gamer mag and notable gamer site were anticipating game and giving positive sounding previews. game was getting multiple-page advertisements at magazines such as cgw... along with multi-page articles. box art? heck, ps:t even got additional pub because of box art as it were guido henkel, a producer on game, who were donning the make-up for box art... were an article or two 'bout that. did box art turn away some occasional 70 year old woman buying games for her grandson? maybe, but is cheap to mentions advertising w/o acknowledging all the other more substantive (and probably more likely) possible and plausible reasons for ps:t failure with consumers. oh, and the ps:t board monkey at ip at that time were a bit of an arse too. kidding

PS:T had a meh trailer? Did we watch the same one? True, it said bugger all about the gameplay or story, but the images and sheer atmosphere were unforgettable. you must recall that raison dujour for ps:t failure is lousy marketing. sure, ps:t were heavily marketed in gamer magazines, and Gromnir even recalls one of those big cardboard displays at the local game store, but if you says that trailer sucked (a trailer which were included with every copy o' of baldur's gate) and that box art was horrible, or that overall marketing were insufficient, then you got a reason for failure that is complete removed from aspects of game itself. if marketing were the flaw, then you not needs find any mistakes in ps:t itself. given the high regard in which ps:t is held by fans and developers 'round here it is little wonder that peoples works so hard to find reasons for failure that were largely unrelated to developer contribution. HA! Good Fun!

degrees of terrible? oblvion's combat were pretty damned bad.... and mostly mindless. no real tactical considerations. there were a vast disparity 'tween bow and melee users in terms o' complexity and reward. point-and-click swing sword at crab thingie a thousand times and you is become a heroic sword user. learn to target and shoot bow properly probably is gonna take more than all the arrows you gathered in the starting dungeon... and is initially pretty expensive to buy more arrows. oblivion magic were... dunno. collected a bunch o' those orb thingies from a bunch o' gates that seemed to have only 3 genuine variations... and enemies were either tough or weak and either ranged or melee... or both. no real specific tactics for dealing with. as for bloodlines... 'couldn't tell you 'bout the combat. arcanum bored us to tears. toee were so buggy that in spite of fact that we got to elemental nodes we couldn't finish game. why on earth would Gromnir give more money to troika based on previous experience? that being said, if bloodlines combat is worse than oblivion's it has gotta be 'cause bloodlines combat were epic bad... 'cause oblivion were genuine terrible. HA! Good Fun!

preaching to the choir. for years Gromnir has noted that bioware builds games for the mythical Average Gamer. broad appeal doesn't = bad, but it makes tough to be exceptional. if your goal is to meet the expectations of the largest number o' potential consumers, is gonna be unlikely that you exceed the expectations of anybody. "dark, but not too dark." is illustrative o' the current biowarian design philosophy. biowarians wanna make a dark and gritty game, but at same time they not wanna lose customers who likes pleasant. so how dark does you think they is gonna really make da? "dark, but not too dark." can pretty much apply the above philosophy to every design choice. make combat tough, but not too tough. make character generation choices deep, but not too deep. make da a low magic setting, but not too low. *shrug* ps:t failed, in part, 'cause it were too unfamiliar and too unique for the Average Gamer. where were the elves and the dwarves? where was the conventions? am not surprised that biowarians is gonna avoid such a similar mistake with da. nevertheless, when we see dave gaider trying to convince self/others that his setting is anything other than tolkienesqe, Gromnir cannot help but wonder if gaider actually believes what he is saying. self-delusion can be a powerful force. ... game can still be dark and gritty... am simply surprised that gaider honestly thought that his description o' setting would distance da from lotr. HA! Good Fun!

am not bothered that instead of breaking new ground da is actually more lotr than most o' the lotr knock offs. few lotr knock-offs has so boldly embraced the core christian themes o' lotr. few contemporary fantasy authors has had the courage to try and sell their religion along with their fantasy. newc mentions pullman, and perhaps if the blight becomes sympathetic in da then clearly we gots a dark materials kinda pov. that being said, pullman didn't use the lotr conventions the way that da appears to be. btw, am optimistic about da overall... am simply a little surprised that after all the talk o' doing different, gaider is doing even more lotr than most. just look at this thread. if something looks like an orc and fufills same basic function as orcs, then author is gonna have to work that much harder to distinguish from orc... and he won't have a chance to editorialize to achieve distance neither; gaider is gonna have to makes players see different from orcs solely with material from game and he is already working from a self created disadvantage 'cause clearly large numbers o' people is identifying da with lotr. now, is possible that gaider is purpose using the tolkien stuff to actually makes people reevaluate. sometimes you can be using the conventions to actually makes people sees same 'ole, same 'ole in a whole new way. force an epiphany 'pon a person? is a tough grind and takes some skill to manage. oh, and Gromnir is NOT one o' the people that screamed "lotr clone!" after seeing initial trailers. (look above in thread... we expressed optimism for da, but noted that we is cynical 'bout origins, "dark but not too dark" and romances... slam the setting as tolkienesque not occur to us until gaiders pov gots added to the thread.) thought that such comparisons were kinda unfair. that being said, gaider's explanation posted above sounds very tolkienesque. am simply surprised that gaider would make such obvious parallels to lotr given all the earlier talk by developers 'bout doing different. *shrug* regardless, as we said already it ain't 'bout the general stuff so much as it is 'bout actual implementation. is nothing wrong with borrowing from tolkien... as long as you does better. am simply surprised that gaider would go this route considering just how much he claimed to wanna distance himself from the conventions. HA! Good Fun!

you gotta be kidding. first, we didn't pull out an obscure quote by you... rather a relative recent one that speaks direct to the issue. you wanna take exception with the quote? is your fault for saying such obviously contradictory stuff so recent that even Gromnir recalls. heck, we recall in particular 'cause it were one o' the few things you said that we agreed with. play an entire or even most o' game to form basis o' a review? why? don't blame Gromnir 'cause you gets caught in backtracking and fibbery. is not that you is arguing that you didn't say, but rather that Gromnir found an obscure quote? what kinda response is that? also, while di don't seem to be on speaking terms with Gromnir, she could probably back up our claims 'bout how far we played, 'cause she were the one that convinced us to play in first place. she apologized to us when we complained of inability to finish, but we noted that it weren't her fault that she liked the game... just different taste. even so, the game were a diabloesque clone that we played a number o' years ago. we got to orc camp with some tents and a pit... were repetitive stoopid to get to this point so we almost quit. after that we goes to some new map (to the south) where we is constantly attacked by ghosty things every ten seconds or so. tedium. is just like diablo with the constant attack o' seemingly mindless enemies. eventually get to wasteland after the Big Secret and Cut Scene stuff... so we finally quit. want more detail? tough. if game were better it would stick in our mind. we saw first half of the movie "Leprechaun" too, but we can't tell you Any details of that experience... other than that am pretty sure that the leprechaun were played by the dwarf guy from Willow. go ahead an accuse us of lying 'bout that too. btw, the quote of the guy who compared to ultima gave it a 2 out o' 10... 'cause it were that Bad in comparison. can find folks who compared to diablo too... which is easy 'cause it were an action rpg and virtual all action rpgs get compared to diablo at some time. regardless, the game got player feedback similar to obsidian's worst game based on the game rating site. is hardly a glowing endorsement. were loads o' complaints by fans 'bout seemingly pointless character development and banal quests... which explains why the player rankings were pretty lukewarm. nevertheless, if you wanna give game attributes it not possess, be our guest. yeah, pull out now. shoulda' pulled out a while ago... before you did 180s and made wacky accusations HA! Good Fun!

as we noted, the big picture in broad strokes seems pretty traditional. there was this big spiel by biowarians early in development 'bout how they was doing different, but sure sounds familiar. but again, fact that the framework is traditional not mean that bio implementation must be boring or cliche. is all 'bout implementation. use of conventions can be a shortcut or a load stone... or an opportunity for a deft writer. how is Gaider attempting to use... or does he thinks he is breaking new ground? *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

am actually kinda disappointed with that explanation. Gaider has his Ultimate Bad Guy to take place of the Devil/Sauron... a UBG who leads an army o' the fallen. ain't really that much different than lord of rings mythology. tolkien orcs is essentially fallen/corrupted elves. pride were the devil's sin too, right? ... nevertheless, am less concerned 'bout the big picture than we is 'bout how is implemented. HA! Good Fun!

You seem confused Grommie. agreed. Gromnir were confused 'bout what were making that an "awesome" interview. 'course xard admitted that he/she decreed awesomeness Before having read the interview. the interview is standard pre-release advertising. now maybe you thinks that the game sounds awesome based 'pon the interview, but there were nothing awesome 'bout interview. is same old questions you has seen previous to every game release... and obsidian didn't exactly break new ground wit responses neither. which begs question: does ign come up with questions or does obsidian? some celebrities, business giants & political noteworthies is notorious for doing interviews only if they has had a chance to review and ok questions ahead o' time. some folks insist on right to review and edit after the fact. heck, even the guys at 60 minutes has had to essentially do scripted interviews more than once. so, am honestly curious... were the seemingly pre-canned questions by jonric his own questions, or whether or did obsidian get input before or after the interview? *shrug* am guessing that jonric has been doing long enough to know how to keeps developers happy with appropriate questions... no need for sneaky approach. regardless, there weren't nothing awesome 'bout questions or answers. HA! Good Fun!

Or you could link to a map from the same game that actually shows one of the populated areas. Or just maybe one house..? http://www.gamebanshee.com/divinedivinity/...lrathshouse.php I bet you just accidentally chose a map called "Wasteland" out of the 20 or so maps available, rrriiiigggghhhhtttt? But it's pretty much pointless to discuss a game I've played with a person with a prejudice towards a game he hasn't played. Arguing for arguing's sake and all that. *sigh* 1) we virtual finished game 'ccording to where the wasteland shows up in the walk through 2) you is the guy we quoted referencing how complete game is unimportant. guess that makes you a hypocrite as well as kinda lost. 3) the map you link shows a house and a dungeon with hardly anything to actually do. find a key... implicate the bad guy... kill some baddies. if you is gonna choose an example, choose something that is better than stuff that were lame when bg1 were released. 4) Gromnir is indeed prejudiced 'gainst games with lame gameplay 5) am gonna agree that it is mostly pointless to continue you an argument you were never fit to engage in from the start. game got some good reviews and some bad, but in end what you got is a diablo clone with wonky translation. and again, is nothing wrong with cloning diablo 2 as it were very popular... but neither divine divinity nor diablo impress insofar as quest is concerned... and at least diablo2 has character development that others has tried to replicate. character building in divine divinity were hardly worth noting, and has been ignored by industry. HA! Good Fun!

"http://www.gamebanshee.com/divinedivinity/locations/wastelandsoverview.php" hey, we got further than we thought... and why should we trust some random quote you pulled? please note all the wonderfully involved gameplay available on the map we linked... beyond the mindless hack n' slash. "You don't need to finish a game before forming an opinion. Personally I used to play long enough for it to be unlikely that the game would surprise me anymore." now, who said that? HA! "I must admit - after reading most of the reviews on the net - that I'm surprised about the parent lack of criticism of Divine Divinity. Although it has some good elements, it's just a poorly done remake of Ultima VII. Especially the interface should be commented on: It lacks so much finish and design, that 2.6 GB of gameplay the game has, can be thrown out the window. Lousy pathfinding, a camera perspective where you often find yourself not seeing where youre character are and a thousand other, small annoying problems. There is of course a chance, that you can used to these major flaws, but that doesn't make it a good game. Not compared to the big rpg-titles on the market right now." see, we can do same thing with lifted quotes. and yeah, looks at the actual side-quests included on the map/walk through we linked. is mostly very brief and mindless as for character development... diablo 2 skill trees were better balanced and resulted in genuine different approaches to gameplay, so am not quite sure how you thinks you backed up your opinion, but so be it. ps over at games ratings, the average user rating for HoW were better than divine divinity... gothic 3 were worse. HA! Good Fun!

eh? we read the awesome interview and your awesome response.... which was extremely awesome. *shrug* in any event, Gromnir thinks that soz will be awesome... to the extreme. HA! Good Fun!

fair enough. your response was awesome. HA! Good Fun!

awesome? which parts were awesome? seemed likes a pretty standard 3-page text-heavy commercial advertisement kinda interview. it were a nice enough advertisement, but am not sure we is gonna hold up as an "awesome" example o' interview. maybe we shows age again. am forgetting how pretty much everything is "awesome" or "extreme" nowadays. HA! Good Fun!

"...had tons of interesting side-quests and a pretty decent character development scheme." ... rrriiiigggghhhhtttt. mostly fed-ex nonsense and a damned shallow and ultimately meaningless character development system. we got pretty far into game 'cause we were playing on recommendation, so is not as if we only played opening village & dungeon levels. were pretty much diabloesque all the way... which is fine. diablo and diablo 2 is the two most popular action-rpg games ever. if you is gonna clone, might as well clone the most successful. even so, fact that there were side-quests not mean they were interesting save to folks expecting very little, and the character building system ain't exactly inspired other developers to recreate in other games 'cause o' streamlined elegance and depth. divine divinity had strengths, but the "interesting side-quests" and the "character development scheme" were not exactly worth noting... save in comparison to some really terrible games. hack n' 1007. HA! Good Fun!