Of Troika

[Gabrielle]

...And he still complains!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

"This game doesn't meet MY expectations, even though it only cost me $10.00"

[Cantousent]

Come on, folks, Hades would complain if the company gave it to him free of charge. He'd complain that they'd denied him the opportunity to complain.

[Gabrielle]

[Judge Hades]

Hey, it is my right as a grumpy old man to complain about anything that is complainable if i wish to complain.

 

 

Overall I do think that Bloodlines is Troika's best games and right on par with Deus Ex. If they did a game this well with Arcanum and ToEE they might not be dead.

[Ginthaeriel]

<snip>

Yes, it is supposed to come together and make sense. And it does.

 

Fine, I'll give you that. But I would argue that the plot is so convoluted and uninteresting that not too many people would even bother to put it all together and make sense of it in the first place.

 

I mean, hunting down the last copy of a commercially paper back book? Plumbing the depths of a... jewelry dealer?? All because a starved dwarf who cut off his beard gave you a ring and said "find the boy".

 

The only incentive I would think for any player character to go through the main quest is to stop the Molochean Hand from attempts at the character's life. But unfortunately, the Molochean Hand was nothing more than a bunch of throwaway henchmen cannon fodder that were only hired by the dark elves. The Gideon Laier encounter felt really tacked on. By the time the PC realized he had to "save the world" after meeting nasrudin, there were so many senseless things he had to do in between that it no longer made any sense why YOUR character was involved.

 

Again, I feel Troika tried to make the game *too* free, and thus main character motivations were lost completely because Troika had no idea WHO the main character was and WHY they were doing what they were doing.

 

Once you develop one particular method of fighting, that is it for the rest of nearly all other games in existence.

 

Wrong. Even Diablo 2 had more variety in combat than this game. At least in Diablo 2, you could integrate teleports, shields, and multiple spells and attacks to the gameplay. Even PS:T had much more interesting combat, if TNO was a mage. Baldur's Gate 2 had all manners of spell combos, and the fact that you could control a squad of characters opened up all sorts of tactical possibilities. I'm not even going to compare Arcanum to Guild Wars.

 

Even Counter-strike has many tactics, methods of fighting, headshot proficiency, camping, sniping, etc. Fighting games have nearly infinite strategies and tricks for pulling off high damage comboes and tons of delay-attack oriented mindgames.

 

Perhaps "method" is a misnomer. More like, once you develop a certain *move*, all combat is basically you spamming that move again and again. It's not about the *variety* of the combat, but the *depth*.

 

Characters develop skills tailored to succeed at doing something in combat, and they do it; if it works why should they limit themselves?

 

What? Developing only certain skills is *in itself* limiting. The combat system in Arcanum meant that if you didn't focus on only one method of attack, you were pretty much screwed. Light melee attacks beat up just about everything.

 

A character who invests in melee and ranged combat can be as good as a character who succeeds just in melee. Besides, "spamming" the same attacks doesn't always work as there are enemies which have attack patterns or resistances which can require other types of attacks.

 

What? Did we play the same game? Bow and firearms just sucked so much compared to melee and magic, that you'd have to invest a great deal of points to get them to actually work. And since ALL the enemies in the game did the same thing: rush up to you and start bashing away, melee is the obvious choice, even for a melee/ranged character. Magic also never missed. Did you even use the disintegrate spell?

 

All the enemies had the same attack pattern: rush up and start bashing. Even Arronax, the supposed great elven mage, would rush at Kerghan with his puny little fists. The only physically resistant enemies in the game were the golem-type creatures, and only a magic user had the means to really take them out easily, so most characters simply opted to take them out with physical damage anyways. Even the most magic resistant monsters in the game, like the automatons, were instantly killed by Disintegrate. The combat in Arcanum was a joke.

 

Both lockpicking and Unlocking Cantrip's success was determined by character skill and the ability to perform them unnoticed. Unlocking Cantrip was more tricky to perform as its sound seemed to alert nearby NPCs as well. In some locations it will work, in others it will clearly not.

 

I picked just about every lock with Unlocking Cantrip, and I found it was just about as easy to be detected between both skills. Only the NPCs were always right next to the chest or cabinet you needed to pick, which meant to successfully lockpick, you not only had to invest five points into lockpicking, but five points into prowling. That's *ten* points vs. the *two* points it takes to get unlocking cantrip, which only requires some tricky timing and proper distancing to pick locks.

 

More often than not, the location would probably work in favor of unlocking cantrip. Have you tried casting unlocking cantrip through an open door? If you cast it even when next to an NPC, the NPC might not attack: they'd only attack if they were the owner of what you were unlocking, or a guard.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Ginthaeriel

[Ginthaeriel]

Which can be said of many other games once all their mysteries have been solved, all of the gameworld has been explored, and once nearly everything in it has been done.

 

What I meant by exploring was the non-linear freeform exploring portion of the game. Take the Fallout games for example, you could beat them in half an hour if you knew where to go and what to do: becuase the game was just so free that you could tackle what you wanted, when you wanted.

 

But Arcanum had a set track, a linear pathway that was, quite frankly, not very exciting at all. Shrouded Hills->P.Schuyler's->Gilbert Bates->Black Mountain Mines->Isle of Despair->Wheel Clan->Stillwater->Qintarra->Ashbury->Caladon->Roseborough->T'sen Ang->Thanatos->The Void. Not only were most of these steps unavoidable, but the way was pretty much drawn out for you. In the Fallouts, people would tell you where several locations were, but it was up to you to get the clues and eventually figure out the whole thing. But in Arcanum, many places, such as Caladon, wouldn't even show up on your map until it was time for the player to do so in the game.

 

That part was not fun, it was contrived. The character never really did anything for himself, he just kept carrying on the tasks of several "waypointers", such as Raven and Gilbert Bates. When the character was venturing across the land however, THAT was fun.

 

The villains' main motive is logical and felt more reasonable to me than standard world-conquering aspirations.

 

It felt like the weak, cowardly suicidal whinings of an emo kid hidden in philosophical pretenses behind a big bad monster, to me. Killing everyone so that they'd all no longer suffer is like killing yourself so you won't suffer anymore, only taken to a hyperbolic extreme in some illogical jump. We never understand Kerghan's internal motivations: only his external ones. How much personality can you put behind a purely altruistic, albeit warped, motive? In the end, Kerghan became neither sympathetic, NOR repulsive: he was just another guy you had to kill. Exactly like your standard world-conquering villain.

 

Why should antagonists or their nature be outright revealed to players, or revealed before time? The revelation of the Master in Fallout, the revelation of the Dark Savant's true nature in Wizardry 8, and the real intent - and therefore clear indication of her status as an antagonist - of Amelissan the Black Hearted in Throne of Bhaal had no negative impact on the game, or the character's exposition.

 

An antagonist doesn't need to be outright revealed to the player, but there *has* to be some sort of *lead-up* to the villain. The entire game of Arcanum, you were being taunted and terrorized by the wrong guy. What an ineffectual plot twist! "Oh yeah, we SAID that you were SUPPOSED to kill THIS guy, but no actually you have to kill THAT guy instead. This guy is actually pretty nice."

 

The various supermutants were an ethereal threat that made the master all the more convincing and horrible and grand (not to mention the master has a MUCH more sympathetic story than Kerghan).

 

The Molochean Hand, the prime harrassers of your character on your journey in Arcanum, however, ended up being nothing but a bunch of hired idiots. You exchanged a few nice words with their leader, Gideon Laier, and then parted ways. What a let down. The Dark Elves never touched you, it was you who had to raid their camp. I never had any sympathy for the Black Mountain Clan at all, either: Stennar's exposition was so vague, and the circumstances surrounding them were so shrouded in mystery, that all the red herrings and wild goose chases I had to go through to find them (such as going to the Isle of Despair for absolutely no reason) just made me mad.

 

Amelissan was actually your closest helper in Throne of Bhaal, and the fact that she betrayed you was what made her so loathable. Kerghan, on the other hand, was just whipped out at you in the last, final bits of the game. At least a betrayer has had bearing on the plot from the start. But Kerghan was more like if Amelissan suddenly took off her mask to reveal she was actually Bob the Grey-Livered, and then the REAL Melissan joined your party to fight Bob. Because that's exactly what happened with Arronax.

 

No character's "alignment" conformed to the PC's, it was affected by just what the PC was doing.

If you look at Virgil's character sheet at various points in the game, you'll find that his alignment meter would be exactly the same as the PC's, right down to the smallest integer. He conformed in every sense of the word.

 

All characters had their stances on good and evil reflect the PC's actions. Eventually should a PC's actions led NPCs to go too astray they would start to dislike the PC which would lead them to leave the party or outright attack the PC.

 

That would apply to every character EXCEPT Virgil. Virgil NEVER leaves. Ever. You could piss magnus off if you killed too many bunny rabbits, you could piss Torian Kel off if you were too much of a goody two shoes, but Virgil stayed by your side.

 

Unless you're talking of how Virgil could ultimately have his entire persona be influenced by interjections with the PC and the PCs actions. He could be redeemed, or he could become evil, yes. How is this a negative for the NPC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What interjections are you talking about? If I recall, half of all the conversations I had with that idiot consisted of him saying "I don't want to talk about it!" and that was it. It was hard enough to figure out who Virgil was in the first place, most of the game you had no idea who he was. By the time Virgil actually goes off to redeem himself, the PC has NO influence upon him at all. The moment you step off of T'sen Ang Virgil just says "I gotta go!", and then you find him dead in the basement of some bar.

Virgil changed his alignment to fit yours, resulting in his bland personality, yet despite that, your character had absolutely no effect on him. He redeemed himself either way, even if he had -100 alignment. Thus as a character, he failed. Miserably.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Hey, it is my right as a grumpy old man to complain about anything that is complainable if i wish to complain. 

 

 

Overall I do think that Bloodlines is Troika's best games and right on par with Deus Ex.  If they did a game this well with Arcanum and ToEE they might not be dead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Arcanum was alright, just imagine what TOEE could have been.

[SteveThaiBinh]

What I meant by exploring was the non-linear freeform exploring portion of the game. Take the Fallout games for example, you could beat them in half an hour if you knew where to go and what to do: becuase the game was just so free that you could tackle what you wanted, when you wanted.

 

But Arcanum had a set track, a linear pathway that was, quite frankly, not very exciting at all.

The linearity of the main quest in Arcanum didn't cause any problems for me because the story was strong and because there were lots of opportunities to depart from the main quest and go off exploring on your own. It was a reasonable balance, and one that worked, I think.

An antagonist doesn't need to be outright revealed to the player, but there *has* to be some sort of *lead-up* to the villain. The entire game of Arcanum, you were being taunted and terrorized by the wrong guy. What an ineffectual plot twist! "Oh yeah, we SAID that you were SUPPOSED to kill THIS guy, but no actually you have to kill THAT guy instead. This guy is actually pretty nice."

There was a good lead-up to Arronax, and I can't see why you object to the plot twist so much. I was stunned to be having a calm conversation with the great Arronax and have all my preconceptions dashed. It's not often a plot twist in an RPG genuinely surprises me, but this one did.

I never had any sympathy for the Black Mountain Clan at all, either: Stennar's exposition was so vague, and the circumstances surrounding them were so shrouded in mystery, that all the red herrings and wild goose chases I had to go through to find them (such as going to the Isle of Despair for absolutely no reason) just made me mad.

Mystery, red herrings and wild goose chases are fun, and I cared a great deal about what happened to the Black Mountain clan. Wandering through their empty caves, speaking to the mad dwarf at the end, expecting to find them on the Isle of Despair (that would have been dull) only to learn that they had disappeared entirely... Well, each to his own, but I'd call that pretty strong storytelling.

If you look at Virgil's character sheet at various points in the game, you'll find that his alignment meter would be exactly the same as the PC's, right down to the smallest integer. He conformed in every sense of the word.

Virgil's well-designed backstory explains well why he was so easily influenced by you, even to the point of reverting to a complete git when you take the evil path. That the game encompasses both NPCs who hold to their alignment when you displease them and an NPC who is malleable and shifts his alignment to match yours is a point in its favour, I think. And Virgil's character was no less interesting for it. It's good to have a character who resists telling you his lifestory and just says 'I don't want to talk about it'. It makes it more interesting when you do finally learn the truth.

[alanschu]

An antagonist doesn't need to be outright revealed to the player, but there *has* to be some sort of *lead-up* to the villain. The entire game of Arcanum, you were being taunted and terrorized by the wrong guy. What an ineffectual plot twist! "Oh yeah, we SAID that you were SUPPOSED to kill THIS guy, but no actually you have to kill THAT guy instead. This guy is actually pretty nice."

 

Fallout's ending must have pissed you off to no end then.

[Ginthaeriel]

The linearity of the main quest in Arcanum didn't cause any problems for me because the story was strong and because there were lots of opportunities to depart from the main quest and go off exploring on your own.  It was a reasonable balance, and one that worked, I think.

 

Then I guess I don't feel the same way. I always explored everywhere before I started trudging along the main quest, and I felt the main quest's chain of events was pretty weak in the tasks required from the player. Especially looking for the "horror amongst the dark elves" book, having to delve through all those endless dungeons like the dredge and BMC mines, etc. I felt like Gilbert Bates' lapdog through most of the game.

 

There was a good lead-up to Arronax, and I can't see why you object to the plot twist so much.  I was stunned to be having a calm conversation with the great Arronax and have all my preconceptions dashed.  It's not often a plot twist in an RPG genuinely surprises me, but this one did.

 

I felt the lead up to Arronax was pretty weak, imo. First mention of him was from a prophecy that no one believed in, and then a hallucination. Most of the time you're fighting Molochean Hands, and all we got from that was a half-hearted encounter with Gideon Laier. The "G.L" notes all intrigued me very much, and I was disappointed with the sudden, abrupt and brief conversation. Another third of the game involved the dark elves, and K'an Hua or whatever her name is, but all we really knew of her was through correspondence. When we finally met her in T'sen Ang, that too was a pretty disappointing encounter.

 

The Nasrudin twist was nice, I'll admit. It was pretty cool having such a great and powerful figure revealed to be a crusty old curmudgeon. But I felt the Arronax twist was just too much: and Arronax was annoying as all hell too. He was a pompous, airheaded, whiny twit who had a voice actor deserving of death. Maybe its just that there were one too many deceptions through the plot and I just got jaded: I was half expecting Kerghan to do a 180 and have me find out that the actual endboss was Ristezze from Shrouded Hills.

 

Mystery, red herrings and wild goose chases are fun, and I cared a great deal about what happened to the Black Mountain clan.  Wandering through their empty caves, speaking to the mad dwarf at the end, expecting to find them on the Isle of Despair (that would have been dull) only to learn that they had disappeared entirely...  Well, each to his own, but I'd call that pretty strong storytelling.

 

It just felt kind of annoying to go to the Isle of Despair and find only one stupid dwarf there. I don't think Red Herrings have much place in a game: Red Herrings are usually used to build suspense without ending a narrative just quite yet. But the problem is that games can be played at your own pace, so that really doesn't have as strong an effect: it only serves to frustrate.

 

Maybe I was just annoyed by the dungeon hack that was the BMC mines (with all those damn Seething Masses and Ore Golems that kept damaging my equipment!) but by the time I got to the mad dwarf, I wanted to hit him. I think that if Troika added a bunch of visual cues, such as blood splattered on the walls, debris from explosions, elf and dwarf skeletons here and there, magick items that have no place in a dwarf clan home, and other clues that made the player think "What the hell happened here?" it would have made me much more intrigued to the plight of the clan. But as it turned out for me, it just ended up being another annoying dungeon.

 

To each his own I guess.

 

Virgil's well-designed backstory explains well why he was so easily influenced by you, even to the point of reverting to a complete git when you take the evil path.  That the game encompasses both NPCs who hold to their alignment when you displease them and an NPC who is malleable and shifts his alignment to match yours is a point in its favour, I think.  And Virgil's character was no less interesting for it.  It's good to have a character who resists telling you his lifestory and just says 'I don't want to talk about it'.  It makes it more interesting when you do finally learn the truth.

 

I wouldn't call his backstory well-designed. So he got his brother killed because of his gambling debts, and then went into a monastery to atone. Hmph. Like no other heroes have lost a family member in their past before, sometimes as a result of their own mistakes? (*cough* Peter Parker, Bruce Wayne, Maximus Decimus Meridius, the new Sam Fisher in SC4, Simba, Tidus, Viconia, the Punisher, Robin, Luke and Anakin Skywalker, Edward and Alphonse Elric, Fox McCloud, Harry Potter and... um... *cough?*)

 

I also don't see how that makes him malleable: shouldn't he derive conviction and strength from his loss? Instead, he just becomes even more unstable and insecure... well that's wonderful, that most certainly a likeable guy. We don't even really care that much about his brother: Lawrence's grave was all we saw of him. Uncle Ben was a kindly old man struggling to connect with his ward, Mr. Wayne was a philanthropist, Mufasa was a role model for Simba, Viconia's brother sacrificed himself to save her, Luke's dad was DARTH VADER who ultimately redeemed himself in the end, Harry Potter's mom sacrificed herself to save him, etc. Lawrence? What the heck did he do? He just stood around and let himself get killed.

 

In the end, Virgil's quest boiled back down to your plain old vanilla vengeance story. Boring and cliched, in my opinion. I felt Gar, Magnus and Torian Kel all had way more fascinating stories than Virgil. An intelligent, selfless man trapped in the body of a monster, a wandering vagrant dwarf rebelling against his family to seek his ancestors, an undead warrior from another time... otoh, Virgil was just a whiny, failed, carbon copied loser. At least, imo. Yet WHO was the one who got the most dialogue, and WHO were the ones who barely said anything? *sigh*

 

Fallout's ending must have pissed you off to no end then.

 

Not really. The Master's supermutant raids had been a recurring element throughout the story, and at least things were more straightforward there than in Arcanum. Kerghan really just does jump out from behind Arronax's back and yell "Peek-a-boo!" At least the Master also had a well built backstory as Richard Grey, a once altruistic doctor who was strangely convicted of murder, who even befriended the good old Harold. A man whose body was warped in a tub of radiated viral crap into a monstrous goo-like thing. A man who sought progress, the evolution of the human race in an irradiated, and hopeless land, rather than some suicidal, nihilistic loser philosophy like Kerghan. The Master had so much more documentation than Kerghan, and thus he evoked a lot more sympathy and hatred.

 

If you're talking about the Overseer forbidding you to reenter Vault 13, well that is more like a betrayal villain: you actually knew the overseer from the outset. You didn't even have to kill the overseer.

 

Kerghan however, just popped, literally, out of the void.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Ginthaeriel

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What I meant by exploring was the non-linear freeform exploring portion of the game. Take the Fallout games for example, you could beat them in half an hour if you knew where to go and what to do: becuase the game was just so free that you could tackle what you wanted, when you wanted.

 

You can pretty much tackle what you want, when you want in Arcanum as well. The main story arc only kicks in when you want it to; in fact, you can go off and do whatever you please while still being involved in the main story arc. The linearity of the story arc has no bearing on the possibility to explore the gameworld; in fact many times I left a main story arc quest behind me and went exploring the gameworld, only to resume it later.

 

But Arcanum had a set track, a linear pathway that was, quite frankly, not very exciting at all. Shrouded Hills->P.Schuyler's->Gilbert Bates->Black Mountain Mines->Isle of Despair->Wheel Clan->Stillwater->Qintarra->Ashbury->Caladon->Roseborough->T'sen Ang->Thanatos->The Void. Not only were most of these steps unavoidable, but the way was pretty much drawn out for you. In the Fallouts, people would tell you where several locations were, but it was up to you to get the clues and eventually figure out the whole thing. But in Arcanum, many places, such as Caladon, wouldn't even show up on your map until it was time for the player to do so in the game.

 

Many places in Arcanum could be found before they were deemed necessary to visit. First time I found Tarant, for instance, was not because I made inquiries in Shrouded Hills regarding its location but because I was simply exploring. Some cities do not appear until they're deemed necessary, true, but this didn't happen always or to such amounts that it felt terribly constrictive.

 

It felt like the weak, cowardly suicidal whinings of an emo kid hidden in philosophical pretenses behind a big bad monster, to me. Killing everyone so that they'd all no longer suffer is like killing yourself so you won't suffer anymore, only taken to a hyperbolic extreme in some illogical jump.

 

His attitude towards death had already been considered warped by the members of the Elven Council, and his journal (which admitedly not everyone may have found in the game, as it was found in an optional location) briefly detailed his curiosity towards necromancy. When he was banished to the Void it was clear his long stay there deeply influenced his already warped notions of death, and as he exposes his motivations to players it seems ultimately the banishment by the Council to a place where not even they knew what it was was what likely caused him to further develop his simple necromantic curiosity with a nihilistic point of view.

 

He wasn't a well developed villain by any means but I felt his motivations to be more acceptable than conquering a world. I may not agree with that perspective but I find it's easier to emphatize with.

 

An antagonist doesn't need to be outright revealed to the player, but there *has* to be some sort of *lead-up* to the villain. The entire game of Arcanum, you were being taunted and terrorized by the wrong guy. What an ineffectual plot twist! "Oh yeah, we SAID that you were SUPPOSED to kill THIS guy, but no actually you have to kill THAT guy instead. This guy is actually pretty nice."

 

Well actually you were being taunted by the right guy; he was posing as the wrong one. This twist actually managed to surprise me as the build up actually made sense... Everyone had reason to suspect Arronax, and using the Dark Elves, who shared the same beliefs of elven supremacy as he did, to banish the Black Mountain Clan, which I've always thought were victims of Arronax's continuous assaults on technology, made sense. But that Kerghan, often considered of less importance by the Elven Council (at least when compared to Arronax and other creatures such as Kraka-Tur or the Bane of Kree) managed to conceal himself and used such a conveninet scapegoat as Arronax actually surprised me.

 

Stennar's exposition was so vague, and the circumstances surrounding them were so shrouded in mystery, that all the red herrings and wild goose chases I had to go through to find them (such as going to the Isle of Despair for absolutely no reason) just made me mad.

 

I looked at it somewhat the opposite: since it was vague I assumed that there were considerably powerful forces not wanting them to be found. The Black Mountain Clan mines are an example of mystery: the entire clan disappeared and left no trace behind. It wasn't like there had been a great slaughter, or a formidable war, or as if they had suddenly developed claustrophobia with canibalism as its side effect; they were simply gone, without a trace. To me that succeed as a mysterious event which warrants some deeper investigation.

 

If you look at Virgil's character sheet at various points in the game, you'll find that his alignment meter would be exactly the same as the PC's, right down to the smallest integer. He conformed in every sense of the word.

 

I remember checking this and noticing once that my alignment meter and Virgil's were on the same level when he joined, which suggests (at least to me) that changes seemed closely tied to the point of conforming to the PC's actions because both of the markers started at the same point. I say this because other times my alignment was at something like -80 and his was way behind.

 

That would apply to every character EXCEPT Virgil. Virgil NEVER leaves. Ever. You could piss magnus off if you killed too many bunny rabbits, you could piss Torian Kel off if you were too much of a goody two shoes, but Virgil stayed by your side.

 

He was seeing trough the whole Panarii deal, and he was told by Joaquin to follow me around. That seemed to be the reason, even if not entirely developed or exposed.

 

What interjections are you talking about? If I recall, half of all the conversations I had with that idiot consisted of him saying "I don't want to talk about it!" and that was it. It was hard enough to figure out who Virgil was in the first place, most of the game you had no idea who he was. By the time Virgil actually goes off to redeem himself, the PC has NO influence upon him at all. The moment you step off of T'sen Ang Virgil just says "I gotta go!", and then you find him dead in the basement of some bar.

 

Virgil changed his alignment to fit yours, resulting in his bland personality, yet despite that, your character had absolutely no effect on him. He redeemed himself either way, even if he had -100 alignment. Thus as a character, he failed. Miserably.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, players could influence Virgil negatively and alter his manner. Since I haven't played in ages I don't remember the specifics but I distinctly remember influencing him to become more aggressive and evil, to the point where Joaquin confronts me and Virgil (after an interjection between the three of us with a small Star Wars reference) in Caladon.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fine, I'll give you that. But I would argue that the plot is so convoluted and uninteresting that not too many people would even bother to put it all together and make sense of it in the first place.

 

If someone decides the story makes no sense simply because they couldn't be bothered to follow trough it because it did not conform to their idea of an interesting story, that's their prerogative. But it doesn't mean they are correct.

 

Again, I feel Troika tried to make the game *too* free, and thus main character motivations were lost completely because Troika had no idea WHO the main character was and WHY they were doing what they were doing.

 

Character incentive that draws the player into the game is hard to achieve, and I'm sure Troika could have done much better. Vampire: Bloodlines was already a step in the right direction. Still, I find character motivations in Arcanum are just as lacking as most other games out there.

 

Once you develop one particular method of fighting, that is it for the rest of nearly all other games in existence.

 

Wrong.

 

And... (snip)

 

Variety in combat does not mean it doesn't lend itself to allowing players to pursue one single, optimal method of dealing with it, and 3 or 4 examples don't really undermine my statement that "nearly all other games" encounter the same problem.

 

Diablo 2 has many character development choices which allow to, as you say, integrate given combat options into the gameplay. But against enemies who don't need to be countered by those options the players will often use their best attack repeatedly to deal with them, because it doesn't merit using more complex options.

 

Planescape: Torment? Same problem as Arcanum: most enemies were melee-based who just rushed the party; spellcasters were few and appeared very often. Doesn't mean it didn't have variety.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 tactics? If the enemies were melee-based, then it was only a matter of having good equipment and rushing them. Spellcasters were also for the most part trivial: they'd raise spell defenses which were easilly countered, at which point melee characters or a party spellcaster could pummel them. Most of the tactics involved in it came from fighting enemies which were either special enemy groups (Cowled Wizards) or unique monsters (such as Dragons or Liches) which avoided a basic enemy mold. The remaining combat was actually as simple as possible - which doesn't mean it didn't had variety of course; it's just that many combat iterations simply didn't require that variety to come into play.

 

If you want to argue that Arcanum's combat is poor, then you'll get no disagreement there. Enemies are very basic and often don't require much tacticts at all, and some character builds are clearly overpowered. Arguing that it uniquely 'suffers' from something which can be seen in many other games is however not something I can entirely agree with.

 

The combat system in Arcanum meant that if you didn't focus on only one method of attack, you were pretty much screwed. Light melee attacks beat up just about everything.

 

Most of my characters in Arcanum had at least two attack methods and they weren't screwed. Several had melee as a secondary option, even, and weren't screwed.

 

What? Did we play the same game? Bow and firearms just sucked so much compared to melee and magic, that you'd have to invest a great deal of points to get them to actually work.

 

If all combat options had the same rate of progress and success what would be the point of giving multiple choices to players?

 

And since ALL the enemies in the game did the same thing: rush up to you and start bashing away, melee is the obvious choice, even for a melee/ranged character.

 

All enemies, yes. Except those who were ranged or only used spells.

 

I picked just about every lock with Unlocking Cantrip, and I found it was just about as easy to be detected between both skills. Only the NPCs were always right next to the chest or cabinet you needed to pick, which meant to successfully lockpick, you not only had to invest five points into lockpicking, but five points into prowling. That's *ten* points vs. the *two* points it takes to get unlocking cantrip, which only requires some tricky timing and proper distancing to pick locks.

 

More often than not, the location would probably work in favor of unlocking cantrip. Have you tried casting unlocking cantrip through an open door? If you cast it even when next to an NPC, the NPC might not attack: they'd only attack if they were the owner of what you were unlocking, or a guard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're not saying anything I don't agree with or haven't verified, so did I fail to be clear? Again, the ability to perform these depends on skill investment and ability to go unnoticed, either by resorting to a skill like Prowling or by resorting to environmental appraisal and approaching them in dimly lit areas (natural or caused by characters). Because of this, they sometimes work, sometimes don't, and sometimes one works better than the other.

[Ginthaeriel]

You can pretty much tackle what you want, when you want in Arcanum as well. The main story arc only kicks in when you want it to; in fact, you can go off and do whatever you please while still being involved in the main story arc. The linearity of the story arc has no bearing on the possibility to explore the gameworld; in fact many times I left a main story arc quest behind me and went exploring the gameworld, only to resume it later.

 

I'm not saying that the main story arc is restricting the ability for one to explore the gameworld. If that were true, then I doubt I would have liked Arcanum at all. I like Arcanum. I just felt that the main story arc was extremely poorly implemented, and in order to progress in the game you had to go through with it (even though you could choose when to), which is why I always put it off to the end in the game.

 

Hence my statement that once you're done exploring the gameworld, and had to go tackle the main quest, it ended up no longer being fun.

 

Some cities do not appear until they're deemed necessary, true, but this didn't happen always or to such amounts that it felt terribly constrictive.

 

Ah then I guess we disagree. I felt the Arcanum main quest was quite constrictive compared to the Fallout games, and those were games made like, five years ago. Troika implemented open-ended gameplay very well, but then they implemented everything else poorly: and I guess I wouldn't have minded if it were not for the fact that Troika forced us to endure the crap they screwed up.

 

His attitude towards death had already been considered warped by ... with a nihilistic point of view.

 

I'd argue that was a copout. It's easy enough to make the main villain insane, so that you can justify any of his actions to his insanity. Totally rational main villains though, create much more ambiguity, interest and sympathy. It was so clear that Kerghan was off his rocker that I just about never played through a game in the pathetic "evil ending" that Troika offered us. I did reload a very old game once, just to see how things turned out, but that was it.

 

He wasn't a well developed villain by any means but I felt his motivations to be more acceptable than conquering a world. I may not agree with that perspective but I find it's easier to emphatize with.

 

Well I hate the generic "conquer the world" plots too, but if Troika was trying to create moral ambiguity (and it's clear that they tried or else there wouldn't be several endings) then they failed miserably, and I would prefer a campy, cheesy "conquer the world" plot in that case instead of the ridiculous plot offered. I guess what it boils down to is that I think Troika were NOT accomplished writers, and so they ought to have stuck to something a bit easier to write for.

 

Besides, how many games these days use the "conquer the world" plot any more?

 

Well actually you were being taunted by the right guy; he was posing as the wrong one.

Well, only once: in that hallucination where he appeared to you while you were heading for the Wheel Clan or BMC mines. Everything else was just straight up Molochean Hand, plain old monsters who just happened to get in your way or Dark Elves. All of whom were deceived and none the wiser the whole time as well.

 

This twist actually managed to surprise me as the build up actually made sense... Everyone had reason to suspect Arronax, and using the Dark Elves, who shared the same beliefs of elven supremacy as he did, to banish the Black Mountain Clan, which I've always thought were victims of Arronax's continuous assaults on technology, made sense. But that Kerghan, often considered of less importance by the Elven Council (at least when compared to Arronax and other creatures such as Kraka-Tur or the Bane of Kree) managed to conceal himself and used such a conveninet scapegoat as Arronax actually surprised me.

 

I guess for me, it was just a case of too many twists syndrome. For example: LOST... I felt that got ridiculous after the revelation of Hurley's curse. Let me count the twists in Arcanum: 1. Stennar was a dwarf, 2. The BMC Clan was betrayed by their own race, the Wheel Clan 3. The BMC wasn't in the isle of despair, 4. Loghaire was manipulated by the Dark Elves, actually 5. Nasrudin isn't actually a god, but just a crusty old curmudgeon, 6. It was really Kerghan.

 

It just got to be a bit tiring, eventually. It felt like my character was being sent back and forth, here and there, never told the truth, never told much of anything really, sent to do meaningless trivial tasks like finding a stupid book, with the importance of his actions never revealed until the very end in which it all sort of felt thrown together as Troika tied up all the loose ends. The plot twists weren't done very dramatically too, and I never felt they were executed well (see my comment about how the BMC mines could have used some sprucing up).

 

It felt like I was tricked into a giant, meaningless fed-ex quest, actually. Plus, the myriad of endless dungeons to trudge through did not help as well.

 

I remember checking this and noticing once that my alignment meter and Virgil's were on the same level when he joined, which suggests (at least to me) that changes seemed closely tied to the point of conforming to the PC's actions because both of the markers started at the same point. I say this because other times my alignment was at something like -80 and his was way behind.

 

Did you or him equip any alignment changing items, like the Dark Helm? That thing knocks your alignment down twenty points permanently every time you put it on. Infact, the specific dark helm that the Lord of the Damned wore actually increased your magical aptitude permanently everytime you wore it too. That was something I remember a lot of people exploited: they would put that dark helm on and off some aptitude neutral fighters, like Sogg Mead Mug, to get them to be able to wear magical weapons and armor with the greatest efficiency.

 

He was seeing trough the whole Panarii deal, and he was told by Joaquin to follow me around. That seemed to be the reason, even if not entirely developed or exposed.

 

A deal that turned out to be totally fake. Not to mention the fact that I felt like I was lead along by Elder Joachim, yet another one of those annoying NPCs that were put in just to "keep you in the right track" (others include Raven, Gilbert Bates, the first acolyte of the Panarii Church, Silver Lady- who was SUPER annoying, etc.)

 

I found it hard to believe Virgil was still steadfast in his belief that I was the reincarnation of Nasrudin, an elven mage, a force of virtue, wisdom and unparalleled goodness, when my moronic half-ogre went around slaying babies with a rusty claymore.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Religious zealots beleive a lot of kooky things, even when the evidence otherwise is staring them right in the face.

[Ginthaeriel]

Character incentive that draws the player into the game is hard to achieve, and I'm sure Troika could have done much better. Vampire: Bloodlines was already a step in the right direction. Still, I find character motivations in Arcanum are just as lacking as most other games out there.

 

Like which? Sure, linear games are boring and constrictive, but at least things made sense there, and you were actually moved by the story. Not to mention the fact that the Fallouts, games which were even freer than Arcanum, and much older yet made by the same guys had a much more believable (albeit cliched) character motivation.

 

I would be a lot less harsh on Arcanum if it was made by some polish upstarts who had no clue about games. But it was incredibly disappointing to be coming from Tim Cain, whose previous effort (fallout) was far superior. Not only that, but the sheer amount of touting that Troika does, and the resulting blame game they play after the release of the game, is also pretty grating.

 

But I'll give you that Bloodlines was a major step in the right direction, and I actually liked the first 2/3rds of Bloodlines a lot more than Arcanum: especially the plot! If anyone can come up with a more hated antagonist than LaCroix, I would congratulate them. Although I first hit the really crappy Camarilla-Lost Ark ending, the Smiling Jack's Bomb ending was just friggin' awesome. Plus, the subplots were really good too, like Tourette.

 

If they only didn't sew on a crappy FPS to the end of it. *sigh*

 

Diablo 2 has many character development choices which allow to, as you say, integrate given combat options into the gameplay. But against enemies who don't need to be countered by those options the players will often use their best attack repeatedly to deal with them, because it doesn't merit using more complex options.

 

At least the complex options were available. Sure, many players would decide to just forgo the effort of using their more complex techniques in lieu of an easy encounter, but that was the player's decision. In Arcanum, you were pigeonholed to the most basic of combat tactics, and sure, if you built your character and wasted... I mean used... enough character points to allow for two different methods of reducing HP, then you could switch between the two. But there was no depth.

 

Planescape: Torment? Same problem as Arcanum: most enemies were melee-based who just rushed the party; spellcasters were few and appeared very often. Doesn't mean it didn't have variety.

 

A lot more variety than Arcanum. You had a myriad of interesting characters who all had very unique abilities, even if it was not necessary to use them. Litany of Curses, Skull Mob, Dak'kon's spells, FFG's spells, using Annah to backstab, Ignus' spells, TNO's MANY spells, etc... There were options, and it was, again, the character's discretion whether or not to utilize them. I'm not saying PS:T's combat was good. Far from that. It sucked. But at least it was better than Arcanum's combat. And that is a very, very, very bad thing for a game to be.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 tactics? If the enemies were melee-based, then it was only a matter of having good equipment and rushing them. Spellcasters were also for the most part trivial: they'd raise spell defenses which were easilly countered, at which point melee characters or a party spellcaster could pummel them. Most of the tactics involved in it came from fighting enemies which were either special enemy groups (Cowled Wizards) or unique monsters (such as Dragons or Liches) which avoided a basic enemy mold. The remaining combat was actually as simple as possible - which doesn't mean it didn't had variety of course; it's just that many combat iterations simply didn't require that variety to come into play.

 

What if the enemies went straight for your mages? What about your backstabbers? You could also use AoE attacks to handle too many creatures coming at you. Many of the more complex, yet incredibly powerful mage/warrior builds (try downloading the Solaufein mod for example, and playing through the Eclipse party) required the most elegant of tactics and buffs even against simple creatures, but if done right they could decimate anything. You're looking at this from a perspective in which you only take combat to the point where you can beat the game.

 

The point is, the variety EXISTED. Think about all the possible solo builds for Baldur's Gate 2. I even went in pretty far with a solo Kensai/Thief once, focusing totally on backstabs. It took a LOT of reloads for me to get my hit-and-fade patterns correct, and for some encounters I had to drink entire stacks of invisibility potions... but the option was there. Elmonster's Journal was a good example of how incredibly deep the combat could take you, if you chose to delve.

 

In Arcanum... the variety just doesn't exist. All of the spells were either useless and/or did not add any tactical complexity to the game. The closest thing to a tactical spell I can think of is Entangle. That's it. There were so many spells, yet all of them were just the same thing with different numbers, especially all the damage dealing spells. What the hell difference was there between stone throw and harm? Quench life and bolt of lightning? The melee/ranged combat was even more simplistic, consisting of nothing but clicking (whether it was a bow or a sword, it was the same thing: only at different distances), and technology only gave you items.

 

If you want to argue that Arcanum's combat is poor, then you'll get no disagreement there. Enemies are very basic and often don't require much tacticts at all, and some character builds are clearly overpowered. Arguing that it uniquely 'suffers' from something which can be seen in many other games is however not something I can entirely agree with.

 

Alright, let me use an analogy here:

If Arcanum's combat system were to be brought online into a competitive environment, how much more difficult do you think high level play would be compared to low level play? Now imagine if any other game's combat system were to be brought into a competitive environment, and compare the learning curves. You'll find that in actuality, Arcanum doesn't even HAVE a learning curve. All competitive matches would be something like...

Gun Technologist: *shoot* *shoot* *shoot*

Meleer: *slash* *slash* *slash*

Mage: *harm* *harm* *harm*

And I'm not even exaggerating.

 

Arcanum's combat was like playing CS except without the twitch. You could only pick one weapon at the start of the round, you're stuck with that weapon pretty much, MAYBE if you're rich enough, you could buy two, and you just basically point and click.

 

You're free to prove me wrong, however. And if you do, I will commend you because you just gave me a reason to try playing Arcanum again. Describe some advanced tactical options which Arcanum offers, that actually offers some clear advantage (so nothing stupid like creating an ogre with twenty strength and max throwing ability, and throwing the 5000 stone boulders from the quest for the tasks for the farmer in Ashbury... not that that's even any different from making a normal throwing character who uses the Aerial Decapitator) and I will put "I got owned by Role-player" in my signature for a month. And I'm serious.

 

Most of my characters in Arcanum had at least two attack methods and they weren't screwed. Several had melee as a secondary option, even, and weren't screwed.

 

Okay, perhaps I was a bit too hasty in that statement. Maybe I should have said screwed against the tougher encounters in the game (as just about all combat is skippable). I had to use a Miracle Operation character, who devoted just about all her points up until level 25 into perception, firearms and dexterity for speed, use a fate point to pickpocket the hand cannon from Sammie White (the FIRST decent firearm in the game), AND use the realtime/pause switch exploit to even get through the Tarant Sewers without at least like, fifty reloads.

 

Also: did those two attack methods really even play very differently? It all really boiled down to who had the most damage per action points. The points it took to run up to a monster itself was negligible.

 

If all combat options had the same rate of progress and success what would be the point of giving multiple choices to players?

 

Except the problem was they played exactly alike. Shoot, shoot, shoot or hack, hack, hack. Weapon of choice indeed. The fact that one was so much WORSE at the same thing only exaberates the situation.

 

All enemies, yes. Except those who were ranged or only used spells.

 

I need to remember that mild hyperbole has no place in a forum... ><

 

The only creatures I can think of that used ranged were the Kite Bowmans and Tattered Bowmans. They were easily dispatched whether you used melee or ranged, because they stood stock still even if you ran up to them with a nasty axe in your hand. And in their case, The only enemies I can think of that used spells AT ALL were the Schuylers, Kite Shamen, Kerghan, Elf Bandit in the Sewers and maybe some friendly NPCs if you chose to attack them. In most cases, they would only cast a single damn spell (usually an annoying buff like Body of Fire that only turned them into a fire elemental, or maybe ONE harm or entangle which really had no effect on the battle at all) and then rush in to start wailing with their fists. Even Arronax never cast any spells, at least not when I played with him.

 

You're not saying anything I don't agree with or haven't verified, so did I fail to be clear? Again, the ability to perform these depends on skill investment and ability to go unnoticed, either by resorting to a skill like Prowling or by resorting to environmental appraisal and approaching them in dimly lit areas (natural or caused by characters). Because of this, they sometimes work, sometimes don't, and sometimes one works better than the other.

 

Ten character points is a helluva lot more than two, is all I'm saying. And Unlocking Cantrip only needed some clever positioning: straight out lockpicking meant you were usually forced to be right next to the NPC in question.

 

The point is, the game was terribly unbalanced. Unlocking Cantrip vs. Lockpicking was just an example I highlighted.

 

Are you going to disagree with the statement that Arcanum was terribly unbalanced?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Troika implemented open-ended gameplay very well, but then they implemented everything else poorly: and I guess I wouldn't have minded if it were not for the fact that Troika forced us to endure the crap they screwed up.

 

I would have also enjoyed a less linear main path, no doubt, or one that had more multiple ways of going trough its choke points. Still, there were at least two ways of dealing with most of them which while not ideal seemed to work.

 

I guess what it boils down to is that I think Troika were NOT accomplished writers, and so they ought to have stuck to something a bit easier to write for.

 

They weren't accomplished writers by the time of Arcanum, at least; and they certainly didn't show any skill they might possess in Temple of Elemental Evil. Again, it was only with Bloodlines they showed a bit more of what they could do. In Arcanum it seemed they deliberately tried to come up with elements that would forcefully make their game unique or different in some way, as seen in the multiple story twists and setting. Some worked, some didn't. Storywise it wasn't as successful.

 

Besides, how many games these days use the "conquer the world" plot any more?

 

I think most of them still gravitate around that particular plot, or some derivation thereof; though it's generally the methods to achieve it that change.

 

Did you or him equip any alignment changing items, like the Dark Helm?

 

Oh, I'm aware of the Dark Helm dealio. But I can guarantee you this wasn't the case.

 

I found it hard to believe Virgil was still steadfast in his belief that I was the reincarnation of Nasrudin, an elven mage, a force of virtue, wisdom and unparalleled goodness, when my moronic half-ogre went around slaying babies with a rusty claymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't remember if the prophecy expected the ressurection to entail all of Nasrudin's virtues or just his power (at which point it was debatable if Virgil was seeing trough the fullfilment of the prophecy considering that the PC should also be a force of virtue, or if he was just following me around to see me show any hint at anything else that might've suggested a telltrace of Nasrudin), but I agree that it wasn't, as I've said, well exposed.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Like which?

 

Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn comes to mind. Characters were expected to have some motivation to care for Imoen and to try to rescue her. They were also expected to have some motivation to even bother with Irenicus and to try to give chase. First time I played trough I couldn't believe I was nearly forced to care for Imoen but she wasn't even an important character after that, and that I would have had less problems if I hadn't chased Irenicus into Spellhold. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

 

Deus Ex is another example, as it also assumed too much that the main character would have a motivation to follow trough the predetermined path instead of choosing who to work for, or that he wanted to switch sides.

 

But I'll give you that Bloodlines was a major step in the right direction, and I actually liked the first 2/3rds of Bloodlines a lot more than Arcanum: especially the plot! If anyone can come up with a more hated antagonist than LaCroix, I would congratulate them. Although I first hit the really crappy Camarilla-Lost Ark ending, the Smiling Jack's Bomb ending was just friggin' awesome. Plus, the subplots were really good too, like Tourette.

 

If they only didn't sew on a crappy FPS to the end of it. *sigh*

 

Everything up to that point was pretty good but the ending sections were what threw me off.

 

At least the complex options were available. Sure, many players would decide to just forgo the effort of using their more complex techniques in lieu of an easy encounter, but that was the player's decision. In Arcanum, you were pigeonholed to the most basic of combat tactics, and sure, if you built your character and wasted... I mean used... enough character points to allow for two different methods of reducing HP, then you could switch between the two. But there was no depth.

 

I disagree; as I've said, I find Arcanum's combat was unbalanced and ultimately poor. But it was also the player's decision to not use what was available to him. There were various combat options available which were simply not used in favor of quicker or stronger options, but deciding not to use them doesn't mean they weren't there. It certain wasn't as deep as I would have liked it to be, but there was some depth.

 

The point is, the variety EXISTED. Think about all the possible solo builds for Baldur's Gate 2. I even went in pretty far with a solo Kensai/Thief once, focusing totally on backstabs. It took a LOT of reloads for me to get my hit-and-fade patterns correct, and for some encounters I had to drink entire stacks of invisibility potions... but the option was there. Elmonster's Journal was a good example of how incredibly deep the combat could take you, if you chose to delve.

 

(...)You're free to prove me wrong, however. And if you do, I will commend you because you just gave me a reason to try playing Arcanum again. Describe some advanced tactical options which Arcanum offers, that actually offers some clear advantage (so nothing stupid like creating an ogre with twenty strength and max throwing ability, and throwing the 5000 stone boulders from the quest for the tasks for the farmer in Ashbury... not that that's even any different from making a normal throwing character who uses the Aerial Decapitator) and I will put "I got owned by Role-player" in my signature for a month. And I'm serious. 

 

No need for that last bit, really.

 

I rarely, if ever, play mods. However, if you want to talk about solo builds, I can share some I've made for Arcanum. One involved a human with the Idiot Savant background who used only a knife as his primary weapon. Further down the road he also developed Molotovs, a Tranquilizer Gun, and an Acid Gun; after he'd paralyze and hallucinate enemies in combat then close in for the kill with Backstab or simple melee attacks.

 

Another build was a Half-Ogre who was an adept at the Nature, Temporal, Air and Morph spell colleges, along with some Melee skill. Basically he'd cast Entangle, followed by Poisonous Vapors and wait out until enemies died from the poison. The ones that didn't would die at his hands after he cast Hardened Hands and Congeal Time.

 

Another was more 'standard' but involved a Dwarf who was proficient at Melee and crafted himself a Flamethrower and Pyrotechnic Axe. I think he also used grenades of nearly all kinds. Damn runt was a skull splitting undead buster.

 

I also created a gnome who invested into diplomacy, gambling, and the Phantasm and Conveyance spell colleges, and he survived up until the island of Thanatos. I say he survived until then not because he died but because I don't recall having finished the game with him because I quit. Nonetheless, he was working out fine especially considering he had no melee or ranged skills whatsoever.

 

Finally, I remember having created an Elven character who focused on Thieving and Technological skills, and focused on ranged combat only. No melee backup weapons.

 

There's likely more solo builds I did in my time but I think these are enough. There were some other combat options I'd use back in the day, such as sneaking around and placing traps, then getting the enemies attention; I'd then jump around with Spatial Distortion trough the mined area and watch enemies get torn apart with the traps. I also created Walls of Fire and throw enemies into it with Unseen Force.

 

Except the problem was they played exactly alike. Shoot, shoot, shoot or hack, hack, hack. Weapon of choice indeed. The fact that one was so much WORSE at the same thing only exaberates the situation.

 

Not quite, physical attacks could not only be targetted but they could also cripple enemies, while spells couldn't.

 

I need to remember that mild hyperbole has no place in a forum... ><

 

Sorry about that.

 

The only creatures I can think of that used ranged were the Kite Bowmans and Tattered Bowmans. They were easily dispatched whether you used melee or ranged, because they stood stock still even if you ran up to them with a nasty axe in your hand. And in their case,  The only enemies I can think of that used spells AT ALL were the Schuylers, Kite Shamen, Kerghan, Elf Bandit in the Sewers and maybe some friendly NPCs if you chose to attack them. In most cases, they would only cast a single damn spell (usually an annoying buff like Body of Fire that only turned them into a fire elemental, or maybe ONE harm or entangle which really had no effect on the battle at all) and then rush in to start wailing with their fists. Even Arronax never cast any spells, at least not when I played with him.

 

Again, it's been a while since I've played so I can't precise just who cast magic and use ranged but I think I can find more on a replay, though.

 

Ten character points is a helluva lot more than two, is all I'm saying. And Unlocking Cantrip only needed some clever positioning: straight out lockpicking meant you were usually forced to be right next to the NPC in question.

 

Or wait until the NPC went somewhere. I don't recall having been able to steal from shops with Unlocking Cantrip but recall some where lockpicking worked, though.

 

Are you going to disagree with the statement that Arcanum was terribly unbalanced?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really, but I think there's some other situations where it's actually much more noticeable such as technological characters being able to use magical potions with no problem but magical equipment lost some of its power on their hands (guess stomachs are insulated against harmful effects). On the other hand, the perceived lack of depth that would lead players to only focusing on one or two combat methods seems misleading.

[alanschu]

*cues the Kirk vs Spock fight music*

[Ginthaeriel]

I think most of them still gravitate around that particular plot, or some derivation thereof; though it's generally the methods to achieve it that change.

Then can't Kerghan's plot be considered a derivation to a "conquer the world" type of deal? He's such an accomplished necromancer, it can't be hard to imagine him ruling over the underworld after killing everyone off. Your statement casts an overly general light on the plots of games, in my opinion. Can't it be argued that essentially, any villain in any game is really seeking to conquer, defeat or triumph over something or another? It just so happens to be the world in most cases.

Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn comes to mind. Characters were expected to have some motivation to care for Imoen and to try to rescue her. They were also expected to have some motivation to even bother with Irenicus and to try to give chase. First time I played trough I couldn't believe I was nearly forced to care for Imoen but she wasn't even an important character after that, and that I would have had less problems if I hadn't chased Irenicus into Spellhold. Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't.

I believe that your character would have the option of claiming he was doing it for nothing but the revenge. That is a pretty weak motivation, and you're right.

 

But at least wanting to rescue a childhood friend is a lot more believable than travelling across half the continent on foot to inquire a jewelry dealer about a ring that some dying stranger gave to you, just because of a prophecy you don't even believe, especially when ever since there have been more attempts on your life the further you go.

Deus Ex is another example, as it also assumed too much that the main character would have a motivation to follow trough the predetermined path instead of choosing who to work for, or that he wanted to switch sides.

Ah! But the character in Deus Ex was not YOUR character. He was J.C. Denton. He didn't look the way you looked, you couldn't dress him the way you want, his background was totally predefined, he didn't talk the way you wanted to talk... etc. So who's to say he would side with the guys YOU wanted to side with?

 

The game sacrificed character freedom for character development, so that a *strong* narrative could be created. I never saw myself AS J.C. Denton, but rather, I was PLAYING as him. I was guiding him to success. I picked what paths he took, picked what skills he would excel at, his hair color and such, but I always looked at the narrative independent from the gameplay since it was clear from the outset that this was a man that someone else created. And it was a damn strong story.

 

The same could be applied to the BG games: you were a bhaalspawn whether you wanted it or not. You grew up with Imoen whether you wanted it or not. So who's to say that the character, regardless of his race, gender, class, etc., wouldn't want to rescue his/her childhood friend... whether you wanted to, or not? I'll tell you who: the game developers, and they made the game so that you had to rescue Imoen. That's part of the plot.

 

I guess it's a difficult thing for game developers to balance, really. Plot vs. Freedom. Linearity vs. Non-linearity. That has always been a very debatable issue in terms of gaming.

I rarely, if ever, play mods. However, if you want to talk about solo builds, I can share some I've made for Arcanum. One involved a human with the Idiot Savant background who used only a knife as his primary weapon. Further down the road he also developed Molotovs, a Tranquilizer Gun, and an Acid Gun; after he'd paralyze and hallucinate enemies in combat then close in for the kill with Backstab or simple melee attacks.

Ah, but the Tranquilizer Gun and Acid Gun were both debuffs. Isn't the tranquilizer gun the same as reducing an enemies action points to zero, or just the technological equivalent of Entangle? And I've already mentioned entangle as a tactical measure. The acid gun was a Damage over Time, the Molotov was an Area of Effect, and the knife was a melee attack. The last three are all parallel ways of dealing damage. You could paralyze the guy and then throw a molotov, or you could paralyze him and then stab him, but there is not much advantage to alternating between doing both, and one was likely better than the other. After the initial tranquilizer gun shot, it boiled down to throw, throw, throw or stab, stab, stab.

 

The idiot savant background only gave a good starting boost to intelligence and gambling (which has got nothing to do with combat). Given the debilitating effect it has on dialogue, I'll venture to guess that you did not bother spending any points on persuasion, haggle, charisma or beauty (especially since this is a solo build). The penalties it offers to the physical stats meant that you probably had to use most of your points to boost up your melee and dodge skills. So in the end, is your character any different from your general tech-meleer?

Another build was a Half-Ogre who was an adept at the Nature, Temporal, Air and Morph spell colleges, along with some Melee skill. Basically he'd cast Entangle, followed by Poisonous Vapors and wait out until enemies died from the poison. The ones that didn't would die at his hands after he cast Hardened Hands and Congeal Time.

I've already mentioned Entangle as a tactical measure, but Poisonous Vapors is really just a damage-over-time area-of-effect spell. Once the duration runs out, you'd have to cast it again anyways, and given its pistpoor damage, I believe you'd have to cast it many times to kill things. It returns to the same formula: vapors, vapors, vapors, only with more time in between the intervals.

 

Hardened Hands is no different from equipping yourself with a melee weapon, only it costs fatigue every time you use it. Congeal Time is no different from suddenly having lots more dexterity/action points relative to your enemy. And in the end, it returns to a bash, bash, bash fest.

Another was more 'standard' but involved a Dwarf who was proficient at Melee and crafted himself a Flamethrower and Pyrotechnic Axe. I think he also used grenades of nearly all kinds. Damn runt was a skull splitting undead buster.

Flame, flame, flame, axe, axe, axe, toss, toss, toss

I also created a gnome who invested into diplomacy, gambling, and the Phantasm and Conveyance spell colleges, and he survived up until the island of Thanatos. I say he survived until then not because he died but because I don't recall having finished the game with him because I quit. Nonetheless, he was working out fine especially considering he had no melee or ranged skills whatsoever.

Just about all combat in the game is skippable with persuasion or stealth, and the only encounters required are likely covered by your allies, who you ought to have lots of with high charisma to increase persuasion in the first place. It is a different approach at the game, yes, and one of the highly positive aspects of the game (the freeform non-linearity which I commended from the very outset), but it's got nothing to do with combat.

 

Excuse my whole "you're screwed if you don't..." thing, I'm just a flagrant exaggerator at times, and I apologize for that. I've been trying to control it ever since my first post, but apologies if some slips through at times.

Finally, I remember having created an Elven character who focused on Thieving and Technological skills, and focused on ranged combat only. No melee backup weapons.

I remember saying that ranged combat was inferior to melee combat, but I never said that if you didn't focus on it and ignore it in favor of melee, it wasn't a viable way of getting through the game. My "screwed" comments were to trying to take both paths at the same time, since you could never effectively combine ranged attacks and melee attacks to output even more damage.

 

As I said, with a miracle operation character who put all his points into firearms related skills from the outset, I managed to clear the tarant sewers at around level 25. It took a LOT of reloads, but I did it.

There's likely more solo builds I did in my time but I think these are enough. There were some other combat options I'd use back in the day, such as sneaking around and placing traps, then getting the enemies attention; I'd then jump around with Spatial Distortion trough the mined area and watch enemies get torn apart with the traps. I also created Walls of Fire and throw enemies into it with Unseen Force.

Wall of Fire is just a stationary Area of Effect spell, and I guess it's creative to be throwing enemies into them with unseen force, but I can't say it's deep. It's not specifically countering anything... and it really ends up not much different from a normal fireflash mage, only much more ineffective. Also, how many places did it really work? But in the end, it's still taken down into a "force, force, force" scenario.

 

How many places would your placing traps method really work? It certainly wouldn't work for random encounters. It'd be difficult in the city and most of the general areas. Dungeons seemed pretty difficult to manuever around using only prowl... and having even one NPC would screw up your entire strategy. And did your traps really take care of all the enemies completely? I remember the traps taking up nearly four spaces, could you really carry that many traps with you at a time? It sounds a lot more like a situational gimmick.

 

The insane number of variables in Arcanum means that there are plenty of gimmicks to be had. For example, I've heard one person who used the Reflection Shield bug to permanently Dominate Will on every female character in the game. He would ask them all to wait around all across the map, and whenever he encountered bad guys, he would quickly run to the nearest Dominated girl, plant some explosives on her (I think the Time Bomb, Dynamite or Plastique?), and send her into a kamikaze doom. And the aforementioned ogre who threw boulders as a main form of attack is also quite a gimmick.

 

But a gimmick does not constitute an effective combat strategy, and it does not equal deep combat.

Not quite, physical attacks could not only be targetted but they could also cripple enemies, while spells couldn't.

But you couldn't control when you could cripple an enemy: they were random based off of critical hits, I believe? I don't think there were any called shots in Arcanum, or maybe I'm mistaken, it's been a while.

 

But did injuries really affect anything all that much? "Oh no! I've scarred the putrid rodent." Crippling attacks usually didn't mean anything since if you're dealing that many critical hits so consistently, you must have a very high melee skill, thus anything you were fighting would probably be dead before they could even TRY to run away.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Ginthaeriel

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Can't it be argued that essentially, any villain in any game is really seeking to conquer, defeat or triumph over something or another? It just so happens to be the world in most cases.

 

Possibly, but the standard tends to be on conquering the world to rule over it; this wasn't Kerghan's case.

 

But at least wanting to rescue a childhood friend is a lot more believable than travelling across half the continent on foot to inquire a jewelry dealer about a ring that some dying stranger gave to you, just because of a prophecy you don't even believe, especially when ever since there have been more attempts on your life the further you go.

 

It may be, but it's still assuming. In fact, the assumption harkens back to the original Baldur's Gate: it's always brought up, both in the character's background and in a handful of character interactions that Imoen was your childhood friend. This was done even with evil characters, which in a way suggests that evil characters would stand being around someone on the good spectrum such as Imoen or that she would stand being around someone on the evil spectrum such as the PC. It's suggested the character must have affection towards her but it's still an assumption that the character would have any noteworthy bonds; there was no means to connect with the character at all because when the game begins it's already happening way after any relationship ever happened. Worse, is that any character bonding that happens with Imoen at all in the series is after the PC rescues her from Spellhold, not before.

 

 

Ah! But the character in Deus Ex was not YOUR character. He was J.C. Denton. He didn't look the way you looked, you couldn't dress him the way you want, his background was totally predefined, he didn't talk the way you wanted to talk... etc.

 

A character doesn't have to follow those guidelines in order to be "my" character.

 

By your own logic, and discarding the possibility of having the character talk as I want him to, then that would suggest a player-created Bhaalspawn, or Vault Dweller, aren't my characters because they also don't look the way I look, I can't dress them the way I want, and they have totally predefined backgrounds as well. Yet they very much are, and play as if they are my characters. Even then, I heavilly disagree with your notion that a character isn't a player's unless he looks like the player who creates it.

 

So who's to say he would side with the guys YOU wanted to side with?

 

JC Denton the character doesn't exist as long as his actions and decisions are the players' to make. Otherwise, the game is loosely going from allowing a measure of character control to the player and removing it the next instance; it's conveniently altering between roleplaying and adventure game mechanics. And if that is the case then what is the point in roleplaying the character if it's going to act on its own? I'd rather have no control over his dialogue or have no saying in the construction of his persona than have my input only matter as long as it serves the history but have it nullified when it doesn't.

 

The game sacrificed character freedom for character development, so that a *strong* narrative could be created.

 

Strong narratives do not have to exclude character development. Planescape: Torment also has a strong narrative and allows me more chances to define my character than Deus Ex including, but not limited to, joining with different sects.

 

 

 

 

I never saw myself AS J.C. Denton, but rather, I was PLAYING as him. I was guiding him to success. I picked what paths he took, picked what skills he would excel at, his hair color and such, but I always looked at the narrative independent from the gameplay since it was clear from the outset that this was a man that someone else created. And it was a damn strong story.

 

The Nameless One was also very clearly a character who had been created by someone else, and who had an extensively developed background that had happened independantly of player input. I don't need to see myself as a character in order to roleplay it.

 

So who's to say that the character, regardless of his race, gender, class, etc., wouldn't want to rescue his/her childhood friend... whether you wanted to, or not? I'll tell you who: the game developers, and they made the game so that you had to rescue Imoen. That's part of the plot.

 

Clearly if the developers wanted me to rescue Imoen they would have only included that option in the plot, but they didn't. Hence why they added revenge or some thirst for power as additional motivation. Again, if they want something to be forced on players then go ahead; don't give them a motivation which is either meaningless or that relies too much on assumption.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Ah, but the Tranquilizer Gun and Acid Gun were both debuffs. Isn't the tranquilizer gun the same as reducing an enemies action points to zero, or just the technological equivalent of Entangle?

 

Entangle holds on position but the target is awake so if a PC was to approach them enemies would still be able to hit. The Tranquilizer Gun pretty much stuns them on their spot (which, unlike a Stun Grenade does not have kickback).

 

The Acid Gun can tear apart enemy armor and weapons as it fires acid rounds.

 

Not sure I'd call these debuffs, unless we're considering different meanings for the word.

 

You could paralyze the guy and then throw a molotov, or you could paralyze him and then stab him, but there is not much advantage to alternating between doing both, and one was likely better than the other.

 

Not much advantage? Paralyzing opponents allows a PC to momentarily perform other actions with considerable safety; paralyzing opponents and throw a grenade which throws opponents into several directions allows the PC to use the gained distance between itself and the opponents to perform other actions with an even greater safety margin. During that time players can either heal or buff themselves and/or party members, keep attacking, take the chance to position themselves in more convenient locations, or even run away. Whereas stunning and closing in to stab may work great against one opponent but risks leaving the PC open to danger should the opponents wake up by the end of the turn.

 

It's obvious none of this compares to any tactical options that great wars are made of, but it's not as utterly ineffective as you seem to suggest.

 

I've already mentioned Entangle as a tactical measure, but Poisonous Vapors is really just a damage-over-time area-of-effect spell.

 

Which doesn't make it any less valid of a combat option.

 

Once the duration runs out, you'd have to cast it again anyways, and given its pistpoor damage, I believe you'd have to cast it many times to kill things. It returns to the same formula: vapors, vapors, vapors, only with more time in between the intervals.

 

Of course I have to keep attacking an enemy if it's not dead. You can replace "vapors, vapors, vapors" with any other desired attack option as long as it results in success, ie, replace an area of effect spell which causes damage every round with melee attacks, throwing grenades of various effects at them, attacking with firearms, summoning, or using direct damage spells on each target one by one.

 

Hardened Hands is no different from equipping yourself with a melee weapon, only it costs fatigue every time you use it.

 

Hardened Hands also doesn't risk breaking nor can it be damaged by hitting elemental opponents. That's three differences already when compared to using a melee weapon.

 

Congeal Time is no different from suddenly having lots more dexterity/action points relative to your enemy.

 

Congeal Time basically halves opponent's action points while more dexterity increases the PC's action points by every point invested. It's clearly not the same thing. In fact, as a combat option it's much more immediate than developing a character for a long time until it has a large amount of action points.

 

Excuse my whole "you're screwed if you don't..." thing, I'm just a flagrant exaggerator at times, and I apologize for that. I've been trying to control it ever since my first post, but apologies if some slips through at times.

 

That's fine. I'd just appreciate if you would notice that I'm not saying Arcanum's combat is good or that it wouldn't benefit from more options and enemy attack routines that required their use, but what little is there isn't completely devoid of options.

 

Wall of Fire is just a stationary Area of Effect spell, and I guess it's creative to be throwing enemies into them with unseen force, but I can't say it's deep. It's not specifically countering anything... and it really ends up not much different from a normal fireflash mage, only much more ineffective. Also, how many places did it really work? But in the end, it's still taken down into a "force, force, force" scenario.

 

You're free to remove "force, force, force" and sub in other methods.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

How many places would your placing traps method really work? It certainly wouldn't work for random encounters. It'd be difficult in the city and most of the general areas. Dungeons seemed pretty difficult to manuever around using only prowl... and having even one NPC would screw up your entire strategy. And did your traps really take care of all the enemies completely? I remember the traps taking up nearly four spaces, could you really carry that many traps with you at a time? It sounds a lot more like a situational gimmick.

 

Traps worked in many places, from the more obvious narrow corridor to wider spaces. Places I remember using them included the Black Mountain Clan mines, Tarant and Caladon sewers, the Dredge, the Vendigroth Ruins, and many of the gameworlds' dungeons. In the city, I used many traps in the Boil.

 

But a gimmick does not constitute an effective combat strategy, and it does not equal deep combat.

 

Quite, hence why I didn't suggest otherwise.

 

But you couldn't control when you could cripple an enemy: they were random based off of critical hits, I believe? I don't think there were any called shots in Arcanum, or maybe I'm mistaken, it's been a while.

 

Why should the existence of crippling attacks, or critical hits and failures be disregarded because they aren't directly controlled by the character? It's a valid example of how physical attacks are different than magic.

 

There were called shots and three distinct areas one could aim at: head, torso and legs. I think this was done by pressing Ctrl+the attack button. You'll know it's a targetted attack when you see a head, torso or leg icon next to the cursor.

 

But did injuries really affect anything all that much? "Oh no! I've scarred the putrid rodent."

 

Critical hits could cause characters to become stunned, drop their weapons, damage their weapons or armor, and instead critically hit themselves for considerable damage. Playerwise, a scar derivative from a critical hit would temporarily have a negative impact on the Beauty attribute.

 

Crippling attacks usually didn't mean anything since if you're dealing that many critical hits so consistently, you must have a very high melee skill, thus anything you were fighting would probably be dead before they could even TRY to run away.

 

Critical hits to the best of my knowledge weren't necessarily tied to a high melee skill but rather to a high To Hit chance, which in turn was based on skill modifiers (such as Perception determining your To Hit success with Firearms), item types (such as having a highly magical character use a technological weapon, or a character using a weapon which had a bonus to Critical Hit rates) and conditions (items which are broken have higher chances of critically failing), and on ocasion, visibility (such as light sources helping visibility, or their absence limiting it).

[Cantousent]

Yep, ol' Ginth is a "die at my keyboard before I give up" sort of poster, that's for sure. I rather enjoyed Arcanum. Not enough to engage in Ginth's brand of mental auto-eroticism by defending it. Still, I have to say that he has the uncanny knack for writing ponderously long posts that could really use a snip or two. You'd have to use a machete, what with his determined approach and dense style, but I'm confident it could be done.

 

However, to the point, Troika had solid game ideas that didn't pan out in execution. What bothers me isn't that Arcanum had flaws. What bothers me is that Troika didn't seem to learn much between Arcanum and ToEE. That is the problem, not whatever Ginth is trying to foist on us in his multiple page dissertation. Get a grip on yourself, man.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yep, ol' Ginth is a "die at my keyboard before I give up" sort of poster, that's for sure.  I rather enjoyed Arcanum.  Not enough to engage in Ginth's brand of mental auto-eroticism by defending it.  Still, I have to say that he has the uncanny knack for writing ponderously long posts that could really use a snip or two.  You'd have to use a machete, what with his determined approach and dense style, but I'm confident it could be done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean he is a warped version of what I could become? :ph34r:

[Cantousent]

Yes. :Eldar's grinning at Role-Player icon:

 

Be careful in engaging in this sort of death-pact sort of posting, RP. Of course, you're a die-hard fan whereas Ginth is holding forth just to hear the alphabet bounce around inside his bone box. The issue has gotten completely lost in the massive exchange of quotes, quotes, and more quotes.