WHAT makes a great RPG ???

[roshan]

It was roughly at the same level as baldurs gate 1 and icewind dale 2, and it was much better than the combat in baldurs gate 2, which had the worst combat of the ie games. The only ie game which surpassed pst combat wise was icewind dale 1, which imo has the best combat of any recent rpg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

really? i dont know if i agree with that. imo, baldurs gate combat was a)more difficult and b)more of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a. baldurs gate had ridiculouslly easy combat. Torment had a lot of tough battles for example the thugs behind the secret door and some of the battles underground.

 

b. the quantity of combat has absolutely nothing to do with the quality, you are bringing up a completely irrelevant point.

[roshan]

it was much better than the combat in baldurs gate 2, which had the worst combat of the ie games.

No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL

[Sargallath Abraxium]

Why do people unnecesarily criticize planescape torments combat?

 

It was roughly at the same level as baldurs gate 1 and icewind dale 2, and it was much better than the combat in baldurs gate 2, which had the worst combat of the ie games. The only ie game which surpassed pst combat wise was icewind dale 1, which imo has the best combat of any recent rpg.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...I's not criticizin' PS:T's combat, Messiah, but it was more simplistic than any other IE game's was (yes, includin' SoA)...combat was not the focus o' PS:T an' it does show; whether or not that makes a difference to people is up to them (fer me it certainly didna)...I also agree that IWD set the benchmark fer combat in IE games whilst still retainin' a great story an' awesome atmosphere...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Monte Carlo]

Sorry, ladies, but the combat in BG2 was pretty good as far as the IE games went. The high-level abilities and general over-the-top uber-ness of it might not be to everybody's taste, but there are some genuinely memorable battles that required a bit of a think (unless, of course, you are one of those people who play every IE game with a hacked dual class Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt or something). I had hours of fun with the munchkin battles in Throne of Bhaal, especially solo-ing the fire giant lair with a fighter/ thief.

 

Modded BG2 just gets better. Improved twisted rune? Improved Mae'Var/ Aran Linvail? Improved Sahuagin city? They're all pretty cool. Especially with a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt. Or something.

 

Now, where I agree on IWD1 is the tactical element. You could see that the BIS designers had sat down and tried to bring in a "DM-designed map" feel to the game, pushing the engine to create genuinely tactical challenges that required a bit of thought and understanding of the rules as much as the ability to use a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt (not that you could have a Kensai/ Mage in IWD1, but I digress). Look at the battle in Dorn's Deep where you have to cross that bridge faced with orc archers, infantry and drow wizards, spiders (etc). I played that battle three or four different ways and really enjoyed it.

 

To be fair, IWD2 carried on this tradition.

 

So I'd put IWD1 on a par with BG2, for different reasons. I loved 'em both.

 

Cheers

MC

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'd have to go with IWD. BG had that over abundance of arrows which made it incredibly easy. Think thats one reason I played a Paladin who wouldnt use missile weapons, of course the rest of the party could level a city block with the number of explosion arrows they had.

 

BG II was too samey, casters all over the place same series of spells over and over.

[Sargallath Abraxium]

Sorry, ladies, but the combat in BG2 was pretty good as far as the IE games went. The high-level abilities and general over-the-top uber-ness of it might not be to everybody's taste, but there are some genuinely memorable battles that required a bit of a think (unless, of course, you are one of those people who play every IE game with a hacked dual class Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt or something). I had hours of fun with the munchkin battles in Throne of Bhaal, especially solo-ing the fire giant lair with a fighter/ thief.

 

Modded BG2 just gets better. Improved twisted rune? Improved Mae'Var/ Aran Linvail? Improved Sahuagin city? They're all pretty cool. Especially with a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt. Or something.

 

Now, where I agree on IWD1 is the tactical element. You could see that the BIS designers had sat down and tried to bring in a "DM-designed map" feel to the game, pushing the engine to create genuinely tactical challenges that required a bit of thought and understanding of the rules as much as the ability to use a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt (not that you could have a Kensai/ Mage in IWD1, but I digress). Look at the battle in Dorn's Deep where you have to cross that bridge faced with orc archers, infantry and drow wizards, spiders (etc). I played that battle three or four different ways and really enjoyed it.

 

To be fair, IWD2 carried on this tradition.

 

So I'd put IWD1 on a par with BG2, for different reasons. I loved 'em both.

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

...SoA's combat was mob rules an' not much more...same tactics o'er an' o'er, same spells o'er an' o'er; basically, jus' gang-rape 'em 'til e'erythin's dead...an' ToB was jus' this amplified X10...yes, there be some great user-mods out there fer SoA/ToB, but theys wasna BIOweeenia's doin'...IWD truly had memorable battles where tactics an' adaptablility counted, not jus' gangbangin' e'erythin' in sight...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[roshan]

Sorry, ladies, but the combat in BG2 was pretty good as far as the IE games went. The high-level abilities and general over-the-top uber-ness of it might not be to everybody's taste, but there are some genuinely memorable battles that required a bit of a think (unless, of course, you are one of those people who play every IE game with a hacked dual class Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt or something). I had hours of fun with the munchkin battles in Throne of Bhaal, especially solo-ing the fire giant lair with a fighter/ thief.

 

Modded BG2 just gets better. Improved twisted rune? Improved Mae'Var/ Aran Linvail? Improved Sahuagin city? They're all pretty cool. Especially with a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt. Or something.

 

Now, where I agree on IWD1 is the tactical element. You could see that the BIS designers had sat down and tried to bring in a "DM-designed map" feel to the game, pushing the engine to create genuinely tactical challenges that required a bit of thought and understanding of the rules as much as the ability to use a hacked Kensai/ Mage called Nightblade Doombolt (not that you could have a Kensai/ Mage in IWD1, but I digress). Look at the battle in Dorn's Deep where you have to cross that bridge faced with orc archers, infantry and drow wizards, spiders (etc). I played that battle three or four different ways and really enjoyed it.

 

To be fair, IWD2 carried on this tradition.

 

So I'd put IWD1 on a par with BG2, for different reasons. I loved 'em both.

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry Monte Carlo, but combat in SOA was a disgrace to rpg combat. The following are my accusations against it:

 

1. It was too easy. A majority of the locations such as the underwater area and the dearnise keep were merely straightforward hack and slash missions, where the only strategy required was drinking a few healing potions every now and then.

 

2. The few battles that were difficult were not genuinely difficult, as they did not require you to use any strategies in the battle itself. These battles, such as the one with kangaxx the lich relied on cheesy tactics which could not realistically be countered in the midst of battle such as enemies who would instantly kill your party members. These retarded battles merely made people reload and waste their time instead of presenting genuine tactical encounters that they could figure out how to handle. In these battles, combat simply became a trial and error reload festival, which was NOT enjoyable at all.

 

3. It was boring and repetitive. You had to fight the same enemies over and over again. I remember when I played TOB and I had to fight a mage who casted timestop followed by 3 symbol of something spells 5 times in a row. And each and every time, all I had to do was wait for the timestop to run out, cast breach on the mage, and then kill it with one of my fighters. What the hell was the point of making me fight the same ridiculously easy battle again and again?

 

4. The bosses and main bad guys were incredibly easy to beat - once you discovered the ONE and ONLY strategy needed to beat all the bosses and mages in the game: cast breach. Heck, after I casted breach on demogorgon, my 2 or 3 fighters hacked him to bits in seconds. It was such a short battle it wasnt even funny. And this one and only strategy needed to win all the battles of the game QUICKLY gets repetitive. See any boss or mage? Cast breach, hack to bits. Another boss! Cast breach, hack to bits. Oh, theres a mage in the corner! Cast breach, hack to bits. Theres another one! Cast breach, hack to bits.

 

5. The battles did not require any tactical maneuvering or anything like that. I remember positioning my fighters in choke points in iwd to fight enemies and flanking enemies in bg1, or taking advantage of running in pst. Baldurs gate 2 required none of this, it was just hack and slash and casting breach every now and then.

 

Bg2 has one of the worst combat systems in any rpg released recently, it is just slightly better than the combat in arcanum.

[Monte Carlo]

You see, these differences of opinion (which are perfectly fair) illustrate my point about the original topic.

 

Now, about BG2: I always play very small (four or under) parties, seldom with more than one mage (sometimes Edwin, sometimes gimped Imoen). It is always heavily modded, and I mean heavily (I even use the esoteric mod that restores all the BG1 inventory and paperdoll art) .This means that my BG2/SoA is really very different from anybody else's, which is all part of the beauty of such an enduring game.

 

It's interesting to see consensus (a rare commodity in this community) over IWD1's (excellent) combat. Developers please note.

 

Cheers

MC

[pulp]

1. a good story. a really good story. this includes, great dialogue, great plot, etc.

2. an immersive world.

3. a NON-BUGGY GAME!

4. innovative combat system.

5. intuitive GUI

[VanGogh's Ear]

I'm a freedom-lover.

 

Immersion, too.

 

I could care less about combat, as long as I can role-play. I'm an old woman...twitchy button mashing is not my idea of a good RPG. I just don't have the hand-eye coordination for it...

 

That being said, my ideal CRPG (so far) is Morrowind. It seems that will earn me heaps of scorn and derision here, but the fact that I'm still playing and modding it 3 years after its release says a lot.

 

I'm not saying Morrowind is perfect, but not being forced to do ANYTHING and being allowed to do whatever I want is very appealing to me.

[Planeforger]

Plot - For me, the story makes the game. A decent story can make an unplayable game playable (ie. Lionheart)

 

Great Characters - If you're going to have a party, you have to have some characters that you like, someone with a personality that makes you think twice before using them as fodder for the enemies.

 

Villians - Should not just be your average 'Destory/Control the Universe' guys. They should be *really* evil . They must earn the title of 'Bad Guy'.

 

Music - Gotta have something good and epic to listen to.

 

Completely Over-The-Top Spell Effects - Rune of Torment, Mechanus Cannon, etc.

 

Dialogue Options - I like to choose what I want to say to someone, not let the game choose. This should also include different dialogue depending on race/class/skills/alignment.

 

Replayability - Randomly generated maps from Diablo don't count.

 

Point - There has to be a reason for playing the game; you have to feel like you're doing something important (and this is why I hate Morrowind - wait, no, I hated everything else about Morrowind as well).

 

Ending - The ending has to mean something. I don't want to have to spend the whole game boosting up my parties skills, and then have to fight the final boss alone, although this can work if done well (KOTOR 1, Torment). I also don't want to have spent 20+ hours on a game and then have a dodgy, unresolved ending.