NWN2 only 20 hours long?

[Shadowstrider]

Hey, I thought carrying a bunch of dead people with me in IWD2 was coo, and had a practicle use... freaking out Yaqouq. It wasn't required to complete, but it was coo.

[Llyranor]

Now, why would a game NOT PLAGUED BY BAD DESIGN *require* you to have a random metal block with you?

[alanschu]

Let's ask me this. If NWN2 had an item called "metal block"or so in the tut, would you take it with you?

 

Why would we want to ask you that?

 

And then when you notice 10 hours into the game you suddenly needed this metal block to climb onto something... would YOU prefer that?

 

No. I don't recall saying that I would either

 

Kotor1 and 2 did quest-item sorting on a good way, Oblivion does, WHY does everybody wan't the ability to screw themselves over?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They don't.

[LoneWolf16]

Why should you be able to open that chest at all costs? Isn't that the point of inventory management? The player prioritizes what s/he keeps. If s/he decides a key she found in said dungeon is useless and throws it away, boo freaking hoo.

 

As alanschu says, though, asinine design LOL. Just because you don't reward stupidity doesn't mean you have completely random design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it means not being able to complete the game because you tossed that random key which, for all intents and purposes, looked and was named just like the 100 or so keys you found beforehand, then yes, that's a fault in the design. Even worse if you spent some 200 hours playing before finding that out.

 

Just mentioning the opposite extreme. I know I have a point here somewhere...

[Judge Hades]

Like werewolves for example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a bad design because as a gamer I know werewolves are not indestructable in the White Wolf game. No creature that can get into direct combat with the player should be indestructable by any weapon the player has. Sure it can be tough as nails but not indestructable.

 

Through otu the enitre game not once was there a foe that couldn't be hurt so that created a certain level of expectations. I expected to be able to harm the werewolf. I expected it to be a very very very tough fight as it should, but Troika's bad design made it indestructable. It wasn't the stupidity of the player who crafted his character to be a tank then set him against a foe that can't be hurt, but the designers.

 

If the werewolf was to be an indestructable foe then Nines shouldn't have killed his without using the environment, which it looked like he didn't. Rules for the PCs and NPCs need to be on equal ground, otherwise it is just crappy design. The Werewolf of Bloodlines was stupidity of the designers, plain and simple.

 

As Alanschu put it.

That would be asinine design.

 

That werewolf fits that to a T.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Hassat Hunter]

Sure I don't mind if items and stuff from secondary quests can be sold and dropped and such, and you have to pay attention there...

 

But for the main quest there has to be a proof system as to prevent you from the need of taking 200 pages of notes of items with their names/uses and locations you left them.

 

We need EVOLUTION... NOT devolution...

[alanschu]

Like werewolves for example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a bad design bug because as a gamer I know werewolves are not indestructable in the White Wolf game. No creature that can get into direct combat with the player should be indestructable by any weapon the player has. Sure it can be tough as nails but not indestructable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Fixed!

 

Sorry I couldn't resist!

Edited April 25, 2006 by alanschu

[LoneWolf16]

Thread. Moving. Too. Fast.

[Llyranor]

Evolution would be not relying on completely random objects to move the plot forward.

[Judge Hades]

Fixed!

 

Sorry I couldn't resist!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[alanschu]

Sure I don't mind if items and stuff from secondary quests can be sold and dropped and such, and you have to pay attention there...

 

But for the main quest there has to be a proof system as to prevent you from the need of taking 200 pages of notes of items with their names/uses and locations you left them.

 

We need EVOLUTION... NOT devolution...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The old games such as Ultima are absolutely laden with bugs. I'm not sure why people like the buggy mess that is Ultima 7.

[Hassat Hunter]

Evolution would be not relying on completely random objects to move the plot forward.

 

Well, you guys DO claim so by having high value to some random named key and the people should know it is important...

 

Even if it is named important like "Kvatch front gate" you might drop it before you notice WTF "Kvatch" is and that it was important for the main quest...since "Brachor's front gate" was totally usefull for 5 seconds...

 

NOTE: Probably not actual ingame items...

Edited April 25, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[alanschu]

Well, you guys DO claim so by having high value to some random named key and the people should know it is important...

 

No we don't.

[Dark_Raven]

Like werewolves for example?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was a bad design because as a gamer I know werewolves are not indestructable in the White Wolf game. No creature that can get into direct combat with the player should be indestructable by any weapon the player has. Sure it can be tough as nails but not indestructable.

 

Through otu the enitre game not once was there a foe that couldn't be hurt so that created a certain level of expectations. I expected to be able to harm the werewolf. I expected it to be a very very very tough fight as it should, but Troika's bad design made it indestructable. It wasn't the stupidity of the player who crafted his character to be a tank then set him against a foe that can't be hurt, but the designers.

 

If the werewolf was to be an indestructable foe then Nines shouldn't have killed his without using the environment, which it looked like he didn't. Rules for the PCs and NPCs need to be on equal ground, otherwise it is just crappy design. The Werewolf of Bloodlines was stupidity of the designers, plain and simple.

 

As Alanschu put it.

That would be asinine design.

 

That werewolf fits that to a T.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you could not figure out to trap it between the observatory doors or out run it for a certain amount of time, is that not the stupidity of the player for not using tactics in a given situation?

[Hassat Hunter]

Now, why would a game NOT PLAGUED BY BAD DESIGN *require* you to have a random metal block with you?

 

I ask you. You advise people to carry around junk of which they have no idea they need it for the MQ and if they drop it because they think it is random junk they are screwed for eternity...

 

That is atleast what I get from the continued mentioning "if you drop a MQ-item you are an idiot"...

[alanschu]

I question what tactics are required to beat the werewolf. I have already made videos to demonstrate how rather straightforward it is to get into the door.

[Darque]

I dunno, if I came across a creature in a game I couldn't hurt... I think my next thought would be to run from it.

 

But that's just me. :ph34r:

[Judge Hades]

Those should be options yes, but so should a direct fight between the character and the werewolf. Werewolves are not indestructable, plain and simple.

[Volourn]

"It wasn't required to complete, but it was coo."

 

That's the key right there. You shouldn't be required to have some item you likely have no reason to believe is mandatory to finish.

 

Now, if some npcs tells you that you need x item to complete the mission and thwen you throw it away that should be blamed on poor playing. That said, there should be no way a game should be unfinishable because of one silly item.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Volourn

[alanschu]

Those should be options yes, but so should a direct fight between the character and the werewolf.  Werewolves are not indestructable, plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It was a puzzle. And something done to make an already simple game a little more challenging.

[Darque]

Those should be options yes, but so should a direct fight between the character and the werewolf.  Werewolves are not indestructable, plain and simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except in Bloodlines.

[Dark_Raven]

I dunno, if I came across a creature in a game I couldn't hurt... I think my next thought would be to run from it.

 

But that's just me.  :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you can not beat it, run like hell.

[Hassat Hunter]

I dunno, if I came across a creature in a game I couldn't hurt... I think my next thought would be to run from it.

 

But that's just me.  :ph34r:

 

I know several FPS that contain "invincible" enemies till you meet certain requirements. How do you know you should not activate those?

[Judge Hades]

It was combat, not a puzzle. When a creature is directly attacking you it is not a puzzle.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Llyranor]

Here's the thing. Idiot-proofing and holding hands removes consequence from your actions. Want to get rid of that ring? No can do, the devs don't want you to break the game!!! It *sounds* like the logical thing to do from their part, and yet, it really removes free will from the player. On the other hand, what would be the alternative?

 

YOU WANT CONSEQUENCE? YOU CAN'T HANDLE CONSEQUENCE! BAM, game-stopping. You threw away that ring, moron, now you can't play anymore. BWAHAHAHAHHA. Is that consequence? Bad design, what?

 

The problem there is that the consequence is applied on the player, not the PC. THAT's bad. Not idiot-proofing the game doesn't mean murdering your idiot players. It means giving the proper consequence for your actions.

 

Your character did something stupid, then s/he pays the price. The CHARACTER does, not the player.

 

If dorkface #23242 wants the ring later on in the story, and you don't have it, he's not going to like you, which may lead to a more difficult path in the storyline. Your character was stupid, s/he pays the price. The player, on the other hand, isn't directly penalized. Instead, s/he gets exposed to a different gameplay experience BASED ON PROPER CONSEQUENCES FOR HIS/HER ACTIONS.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Llyranor