Cantousent

Really, how lame? The only thing that might make sense is taks' idea that the first duergar were thralls and, as such, were weaker. Not for the exact same reason he cited: "thralls are sort of unwilling participants, being forced to do their master's bidding, and maybe not trying as hard as they would if the fight were personal." They'd fight for their lives with just as much vigor anyhow, I'm sure. However, the real key is if the creatures had different names. I don't know, but did the originals spor the name "thrall?" I mean, these aren't insignificant powers at that level. Not only that, but most games present some rhyme or reason for a significant change in powers. It might be subtle, but there must be some logical reason for the same creature to have different abilities in the game. Otherwise, the complaint is legitimate. Now, let's get to the license. I'm not really a canon sort of guy. I'm not going to go crazy over a chain shirt. Nevertheless, DnD states the characteristics for chain shirts. You want to make one medium armor, folks will complain. Listen, it's not like this is a huge deal. But it is the deal you face when you agree to develop a licensed game. Overall, Sand's statement that they should have used level appropriate creatures makes perfect sense to me. ...And I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying that, from my perspective, Sand has a point as it regards this particular issue. I don't think the encounter should have been harder. I think the creature's should have been level appropriate.

Not really. If I had to pay but didn't play it, I might. On the other hand, I play it regularly with my wife, and we have a payment plan that costs less. If you want to rail about something, how about this? I've bought considerably fewer games since I switched over to WoW. I'm not getting screwed, but other gaming companies aren't getting my money. So, the people who really get screwed, other than other dev houses, are the folks who hate wow and would like more games that get less money for development cause folks like me are shelling out the cash for WoW. ...But me? I'm perfectly happy. 15 bucks a month (actually less, but why split hairs?) for one game or 50 bucks a month for a game each month.

When we actually play, we play DnD 3.5. I wish I could get a local group going, but it's not in the cards, I'm afraid. All my players live in various area across the country. I'd also like to get a good Paranoia campaign going, but that's even harder with the folks in my circle.

I guess I can't see anything wrong with that. I agree that I was completely confused on the issue. ...But I also think that should not surprise you. :D

Sand might be arguing from a canon standpoint. I'm arguing from a mechanic standpoint. If you fight the same monster later in the game, will it suddenly regain it's powers? It's a matter of consistency for me, not one of canon.

I agree with the basic idea, Spider, but this statement only gets it half right: "So leaving the beginning duergar as is (or replacing them with goblins or whatever) is probably the right call." No, replacing the duergar with goblins is the right call. Disabling basic monster abilities to lower difficulty is not a good call. Sawyer said why they made the decision, and I take him at his word, but I agree with Sand completely as regards the basic idea. Since I don't care about bragging rights, it all comes down to a balancing act. What is difficult enough to challenge me without being so difficult that it seems like work? From what is the difficulty derived? Is it difficult because I have to fight through a horde of little beasties boring in every way except for their toughness? For example, a lot of folks really enjoyed Wizardry 8. I thought it sucked. making it so that I had to fight through monsters every inch of every map didn't make the battles more difficult so much as it tried my patience. I hated it. I thought the ramped up random encounters detracted from the game. On the other hand, I don't like the fact that my NPCs get up unscathed at the end of battle. The reason for that isn't so much that it makes death "meaningless" so much as it seems like they never die. I'd rather reload on an in-party death, which I often do in most games, than think to myself, "Wow, she just took almost 200 points of damage, her icon turned into a skull face, and now she's up and has her spells and equipment." It's the disconnect I hate, not the idea that it offends my computer game pedigree bragging rights. With all that in mind, I like winning hard battles too. I sometimes like to be able to say, "eat on that, *********[expletive]********!" So, bragging rights are cool sometimes.

Apart from the scary cyber image, Calax was right on when he said, "...you'd have the devs working overtime to find things that they could change only to have the same group on each server change it asap." The regulars would be all over every new experience. Even if the developers could afford to create mass amounts of real-time content (and to make it decent real time content would require resources money couldn't buy), then they'd still have regulars snatching up almost all the good stuff right away. CoH/V is great, but I don't want to go overboard with custom content in an open MMORPG setting. At least with NWN/2, the end user can control what content they use right away. In an MMORPG, the content is out there in the world, even if it has limited use. Then I'm suddenly seeing hordes of vorpal bunnies dropping fangs of the Jabberwocky.

It's funny how separated a lot of folks feel from their team-mates online. I was playing with a friend the other day when someone who'd teamed with us before asked to join our group. He must have thought that we were good folks, because he asked to join our guild. Now, my guild, and that's a pretty loose term, is comprised of family and friends and one online friend who just decided we were great and has become a regular. When this person joined, I started talking to one of the guildies who wasn't on guild chat at the time and addressed him by name. Comedy. The new member said, "you know each others real names?" hahaha I think it's funny that folks can be in a guild and team with one another on a regular basis but NOT know each other's names. WoW has become its own separate little universe. Like here, folks know each other in WoW as someone distinct from their real life personas. It's like the person playing WoW is somehow different from the person on this message board who is also different from the person walking through life. Now, my attitudes, and my opinions, are largely the same in both places, but I'm sure there's some difference. I'm sure that some folks prefer the anonymity that MMORPGs grant them. I can't imagine not sharing something of myself with regular guildies.

Ah, how sweet. :Cant's bemused but happy icon:

First of a--- what? I mean... what? That's exactly what I've been trying to say. If you include NPCs for the fun of interaction, then the game holds more for you than combat in the first place. Do we find ourselves in violent disagreement?

That sounds pretty gay. And I should know, I'm a gay man. Soooo You like it?

This doesn't mean your NOT gay, Pop, but what I was trying to convey was that the only reason to include NPCs if you don't need them is because they provide entertainment for you. :Cant's sheepish look for not conveying his meaning very well icon:

This whole scenario is just nuts. It's easy to say how a level should be balanced. I agree whole-heartedly regarding monsters using their abilities. That's the extent of my agreement because the rest of it is just posturing. As far as meaningful death... I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it, but the devs mentioned that you need not take any NPCs after the prologue. If that's the case, then solo the game. Death will suddenly be quite meaningful. In Baldur's Gate, you could solo and make the game much harder, or you could take a party and the game would be quite easy. Take your pick. If you choose to take NPCs because you enjoy the interaction then that should tell you something right away.

Oh, MountainWest is Eldar. There, it's solved. Just don't use your different alts in the same thread to reinforce your points. As for the initial post, I think it's a red herring. There are any number of reasons to agitate regarding what we know about the expansion. I'm with you on that. The basis of the first post, however, was just wrong from its premise to its conclusion.

What the hell is a vivi? No, forget it. I don't care.

Not really. I'd call it more ranting than rambling. Maybe a rambling rant. It just seems to me that we've got out priorities out of whack. What is the deal breaker for a game? Is it the save scheme? Is it insta-death? What combination of factors discourages you from buying or even playing a title? As far as story goes, it's one of the areas that a CRPG can surpass an MMORPG. If the story isn't rewarding, then that's one less opportunity for a CRPG to outshine an MMORPG. Yes, I'd like to see some tough battles, but I don't think the game should cater to folks who want bragging rights for finishing the game with a one-eyed half-orc Sorceror who has 5s in every attribute except charisma, which he keeps at 11 the entire game.

It's not that they're interactive books. It's that they're bad interactive books. I wouldn't mind battles serving as pathways to the plot points if the plot points didn't suck.

My gut instinct, from reading various articles, is that Obsidz is doing something folks have discussed for a long time. I honestly think that Feargus is putting his money where his mouth is and banking on PS:T. Not the exact same thing as PS:T, because MotB is an expansion of NWN2, but something that aspires to the exact things PS:T had, only better. Over the years, I think the bean counters have been concentrating on the things PS:T did wrong more than the things that it did right. Folks have wanted to capture some of the die-hard enthusiasm of the PS:T fan but they haven't wanted to travel the same road to get there. Feargus, from what I can tell from some of his statements, isn't banking on something that borrows a few concepts from PS:T but is essentially entirely different. He seems to believe that there was something more to PS:T than critical success and commercial failure. I'm more and more intrigued by this game. I'm tired of games where I click through every dialogue option because I just. don't. care. about what happens to anyone. I'm tired of games where I view my companions as tactical units rather than friends (or even enemies). I'm exhausted by worlds that mean nothing to me other than land on which to walk from battle to battle. Obsidian has aspired to greatness. It has hinted at greatness, sometimes even whispered of it, but NEVER achieved it. Obsidian has shipped no product that stands as an enduring classic in game design. ...But this, THIS, is an opportunity. It's time for Obsidian to stop aspiring for its place and to reach it. I'm going to follow this game because I've been waiting for the successor for nearly ten years. I don't like to be exploited. Who does? ...But Feargus can exploit my love of PS:T by making sly references to it because, at the end of the day, I won't care if he exploits me if he can deliver on his promises.

Very nice, meta, not only as a gesture, but also informative.

Leferd PMed me a while back about his experiences and I asked him if I could quote him in this thread. He said yes, so here goes: I think this is a good point. I'm sure it has a lot do with the financial shape of the publisher and the agreement with the developer. I work for the publisher, after all, and that means that the publisher is responsible for my training. BTW: There is a lot of knowledge, skill, and creativity among my fellow testers. We don't even need an entire week. Even a minimal time investment would reap great rewards. No money for training? Have a little informal training. It will help.

Ah, I was just in an angry Eldar moment. Hate that guy. Okay, so you've got a point and reading your comments anew, I take back my mean ol' words. ...And I respect the idea that there's a 'right and wrong' for you. That makes sense.

Aragorn's speech was nearly as good as Theodan's. :D Damn it, why did they have to get rid of my favorite smiley? :Cant's sad about the loss of his favorite smiley icon:

I don't really want a game where the players control the content. First of all, I think content will then suck. Second of all, I think the people most likely to pursue that kind of power have the built in tendency to abuse it. It's not just that the top echelon willl abuse the system, as some have said. It's that the folks who make it to the top of the pile will do so with the intent to abuse it. Put in failsafe measures to prevent that? How about this one? Don't allow it in the first place. At any rate, the very idea underscores my point. Human interaction is inherently more meaningful and designers must pick up the pace if they want CRPGs to keep up the pace with MMORPGs. Farb, you also demonstrate the characteristics of one of the WoW groups. You fall into the "I used to be a WoW loser like you, but I realized it sucked after playing for months. Now I'm not a loser like you" category. It's not that you don't enjoy WoW. That's a personal preferrence. However, even at the advanced age of 33, and even having friends who work, you played WoW for some time. I completely agree with Hurlshot on this issue. You played a game and got your money's worth. Then you moved to other things. I can respect that. However, at the even more advanced age of 37, I can tell you that what I play of WoW these days is remarkably like what you cite as your experiences with NWN. I have a group of friends who play together when they can. Unlike you, however, I don't find that kind of fun in the NWN franchise. Will there come a day when I stop playing WoW? Undoubtedly so. I just hope that I keep my perspective a bit better than you.

What if it really IS like PST? I mean, sure, it's a hook. There's no doubt about it. ...But when the bait tastes like filet mignon, why worry about the fish? It COULD be like PST. If it is, then it won't be gamer-bait. It will be a gamer's feast.

WhatEVER, Tale. They might as well be one.