New NWN 2 Info

[Rhomal]

I don't think it's a big deal either

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ditto.

 

Remember RIDING horses is what is in question, not horses as a whole.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Rhomal

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No matter the DnD campaign my character always had a horse or some form of riding animal.  There are so many things you can do with one in many situations, both in and out of combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bestiality is bad, mmmkay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You stole my thunder.

[metadigital]

Ultima ][ had riding!

...

3) Will I be able to really get into the character like I could pre-NWN and KoTOR? In Fallout, BG, and to a certain extent PS:T you really got involved with your characters, i.e., you "cared" about what was happening and if one died, or there were multiple ones that you enjoyed playing, it was difficult to decide which ones to use.

 

Ferret: Chris Avellone is writing our companions and many prominent characters

[Llyranor]

MCA vs horsies. Hmmmmmmmmm.

[alanschu]

Ultima VI had riding as well. Ultima VII didn't technically have it, but you could buy a horse and carriage. I found it comletely useless in that game though, and only served as a way to waste my money.

 

 

Though seriously, who cares about interesting characters or anything...we don't have mounts! Which are essential to my RP experience!

[kirottu]

No matter the DnD campaign my character always had a horse or some form of riding animal.  There are so many things you can do with one in many situations, both in and out of combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bestiality is bad, mmmkay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You stole my thunder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, you have stolen mine plenty of times.

[Gabrielle]

It is a big deal. They said there was going to be horses, and there damn well better be horses. Hold up to what you say you're going to do. If not than don't say you're going to add something or do something.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I don't understand, is this really that hard to code?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, it is not a small undertaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hmmmm, A long task, but the engine structure is probably the reason for that, their is no reason they shouldn't have had horses in, unless their are some major engine based reasons, frankly I'm disappointed. It is actually something that it is possible to do and do well so it's sad that they haven't!

 

What's your exact thinking as to why they haven't?

[Morgoth]

Horses do not add to a better role-playing experience, hence they're useless.

[karka]

But it's always fun to ride your horse through your enemies and charge them. Horses are well impelemented in Mount&Blade at least.

[Morgoth]

But it's always fun to ride your horse through your enemies and charge them. Horses are well impelemented in Mount&Blade at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never played Mount&Blade, but how would riding through enemies work in a DnD based game? Wouldn't really make sense to implement a complex rule-system to incite tactical fights, and then just rush with your horse through enemies like a tank. That could probably work in some kind of an action game, though.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Morgoth

[karka]

But it's always fun to ride your horse through your enemies and charge them. Horses are well impelemented in Mount&Blade at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never played Mount&Blade, but how would riding through enemies work in a DnD based game? Wouldn't really make sense to implement a complex rule-system to incite tactical fights, and then just rush with your horse through enemies like a tank. That could probably work in some kind of an action game, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're right. Riding horse by clicking around is ridiculous. So lack of horses is no big deal for NWN2.

 

But in a CRPG like Oblivion or Gothic, there should be horses. It is REALLY very fun

[Gabrielle]

Having horses brings in realism to the game. You can get from point A to point B quickly by taking a horse.

[Morgoth]

Having horses brings in realism to the game. You can get from point A to point B quickly by taking a horse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It could add realism to a game such huge as Gothic3 probably, but not something that is divided into smaller modules.

Besides, why hopping around with a horse like this is a racing game? And how would you precisely control it? Why not just using portals or runes or something like that instead? That's quite more logical to me than using a hores and probably get stuck each two seconds by a bough or elevation. LOL.

The designers had a good reason to exclude horses from a DnD based game, after all.

 

Edit: Riding belongs to the same category as swimming, jumping, climbing etc. Things that would add nothing to a pure character-driven RPG like NWN2.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Morgoth

[Llyranor]

lol priorities

[Morgoth]

lol priorities

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, and I thought people here are hardcore enough to be able to bear the lack of action elements. :D

[alanschu]

It is a big deal. They said there was going to be horses, and there damn well better be horses. Hold up to what you say you're going to do. If not than don't say you're going to add something or do something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Anyone that full on expects the developer to get everything into the game that they say they would like is being unreasonable.

 

 

Unless someone can point me to a release in which they said that they were 100% going to have horses in no matter what, this isn't a broken promise.

 

Furthermore, it reeks of ignorance towards the entire development process. It's a double edged sword too, because we as fans are stupid, and demand information from game designers (often we cite stupid BS explanations like they "owe it" to us, because we bought their previous game or whatever messed up rationalization they can think of). They wanted to have mounts in. They can't do it the way they wanted for whatever reason. Deal with it. It's not like they suddenly released the game with everyone expecting horses in it. They did their job as a developer....they let people know that a feature they wanted to get in will not actually be making the cut. If this is a deal breaker for you, then so be it. But don't get all upset because "they said they were going to but now they are not" because ultimately, it has no real effect on you. All it means is that a game, of which you have presumably not paid money for, won't have mounts. If someone is that upset about it, then he should not buy the game. It's that simple.

[Gabrielle]

Then they should annouce what they know will be in a game and keep quiet about something that might be in a game. If adding horses was a difficult thing for them than they never should have said a thing. I would imagine adding something like this would be difficult. But they should have kept quiet abou it.

[Morgoth]

Alanschu wins!

 

Gabrielle loses (again). <_<

[alanschu]

Then they should annouce what they know will be in a game and keep quiet about something that might be in a game. If adding horses was a difficult thing for them than they never should have said a thing. I would imagine adding something like this would be difficult. But they should have kept quiet abou it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's hard to tell if something is difficult before you actually try doing it. Furthermore, other stuff can create difficulties, and if it has a higher priority, other things get cut.

 

Since it's a big deal for you, just don't buy the game.

Edited February 18, 2006 by alanschu

[Plano Skywalker]

just curious if anyone knows....are they looking to have pack animals?

[Plano Skywalker]

I think one of the arguments against a D&D game having mounted combat is the fact that D&D is, all told, a simplistic system and confined to certain rooms, etc.

 

As long as the expectations fit the implementation, then I say fine. For instance, WHFB gives mounted characters better movement and a +1 to the armor save (and, in some cases, the ability to use a lance on the charge, which increases strength by 2). That's IT. There is also no discernable difference between the mount and rider in WHFB (for the purposes of taking damage).

 

Now that is, of course, how WHFB treats "normal mounts" or "normal cavalry".

MONSTROUS MOUNTS (those with more than 1 wound) are treated differently for the purposes of morale (leadership), wounds sustained, etc.

 

Horses are about immersion....mountrous mounts are, essentially, extra party members and do, in fact, increase the survivability of your party.

 

Anyway, my point is that even if a horse only gives me a +1 to my armor save, better movement, and a +2 strength attack ONLY ON THE CHARGE, then I still think it is worth it.

[metadigital]

Then they should annouce what they know will be in a game and keep quiet about something that might be in a game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why?

 

Where are the rules for publicising developer journals?

 

For a start OE haven't ruled them out completely: it is possible that they are being kept for an expansion. But even if they aren't, so what?

 

If the feature wasn't included because it wasn't possible to do it right, then I find it the height of hypocrisy that in one thread people (not mentioning any names) are criticising Troika for not producing a good game from good ideas, and in this thread people are complaining that a game won't have badly implemented good ideas.

 

Let's applaud greatness, including not compromising just to tick the box on the back of a game's package. "Oh, look! Horses!"

[Gabrielle]

Whatever, I have never been one for stupid debates, it's not my flair nor do I have the patience for them. I plan on getting the game regardless of horse or not.

[metadigital]