Unkillable enemies discussion

[Hassat Hunter]

"BG2 does it all the time..."

 

Really? ALL THE TIME?

Pretty darn often; yes. Atleast from what I can make out from finishing the first 2 Acts

 

Who was invincible?

Note "near invinvible". We can mention in that case (quick grasp first 2 acts);

Vampires (gas when dead... kind of sucks... no XP)

Thaxll'ssillyia (altough you could level up and then kill him...)

The Eyeless One

Some Golems I think... (atleast I never found out how to kill 'em and they SUCK)

Kangaxx (altough the Ring of Ram + Calysymar (or whatever that +5 Two-Handed Sword was called) nicked him)

 

A more straightforward example: (here was an example)

 

Actually; FPS do that all the time.

And compare it to how SUCKY a game will be where you are forced to read a freakin' 300 page rule book to get the entire stuff in.

Example: This RPG has 20 different types of damage. Here is a room with 5 enemies. Each enemy has his own weapon type that can harm. We give no info ingame how to beat such stuff... read the freakin' rulebook (since this game is made by set rules). Oh; did we notice each enemy deals 1/3 of your healthbar damage...

Some pretty annoying BG2 moments come to mind here; where I needed to ask a AD&D Vet. to help me out...

[Volourn]

"Note "near invinvible". We can mention in that case (quick grasp first 2 acts);

Vampires (gas when dead... kind of sucks... no XP)

Thaxll'ssillyia (altough you could level up and then kill him...)

The Eyeless One

Some Golems I think... (atleast I never found out how to kill 'em and they SUCK)

Kangaxx (altough the Ring of Ram + Calysymar (or whatever that +5 Two-Handed Sword was called) nicked him)"

 

Outside of Kangaxx, nope, you are wrong. And, even Kangaxx, it wasn't limited to one way way to kill him.

 

Weak, weak, weak examples.

 

I'll give you Kangaxx, and that's it. Barely.

[Hassat Hunter]

I remember a fight in Nalia's Castle:

 

Look a statue... hmm... activates 2 golems. Okay... cool...

 

2 statues (the outer ones later) I went for the middle one. DEAD.

Ok; what happened. Ah; clay golem... different from the rest. Let's see if I can kill it before activating the statue... DEATH.

Full preparation...attack; deadly spells used. DEATH.

DEATH

DEATH

DEATH

 

Then I asked a D&D Vet; oh; you can only hurt them with blunt weapons.

ONLY ONE WAY. A cheap one too; NEVER explained ingame... just based on rules one is supposed to know. Sry... but I ain't gonna read a 300 page book before playing a videogame. THAT makes me irritated. A single way that is logical to figure out ingame altough takes some shots (hammer lights up when you shoot it for example) makes me far less annoyed than a random encounter like that...

 

Edit; and there is still an Adumanite(?) golem somewhere that also seems impossible to beat... tried various weapon types... but none work

Edited September 7, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Judge Hades]

So am I.  Going against a near invincible boss with only one tricky way to kill is not fun.

 

BG2 does it all the time...

 

Do you HATE that game too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Eh?

 

Never had a problem killing any and all beasties I went against in that game.

[Hassat Hunter]

Then again;

 

You probably had the books memorised by that time and knew all the individual not-mentioned weaknesses of enemies.

[Judge Hades]

There were mentioned in the manual.

[alanschu]

We didn't know that at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

We also don't know how Nines killed it.

[Judge Hades]

Irrelevant.

 

We know he didn't use the observatory.

[alanschu]

Rules learned in a book have nothing to do with questionable game design decisions.

 

According to Hades it does

 

Fantasy games rely on an internal consistency to keep the pieces from flying apart.  SInce we are dealing with a entirely made up world where the rules of "real life" may or may not apply, we have to rely on learning quickly what "rules" the fantasy gameworld is playing by.  Once those rules are established (ie causing physical damage to a being kills them), a developer has to be careful about breaking them.  Not that the rules can't be broken, they just have to be broken carefully.  Bloodlines is very careful about explaining what damage is and how it works, normal damage, aggravated damage, firearms, slashing etc and so forth, then it throws it all out the window for a single encounter.

 

In the case of Bloodlines it is not a gamekiller, but it certainly left a bad enough taste in my mouth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh come on. A lack of consistency? If you were fighting and killing werewolves the entire game and suddenly met up with one that was invincible, sure. If you hadn't been told just prior by a guy who was an exceptional badass, and been a vampire way longer than you, that it was futile to try going toe-to-toe with a werewolf, then sure, some lack of consistency. Yes, there's one way to kill it, but hey, you don't even have to kill it. But this is coming from someone that claims that Half-Life was particularly bad for these guys (with the grand total of 2 "gimmick" bad guys existing in that game), so I'm not sure what to think.

 

Talk about inconsistency!

[Judge Hades]

With all the badasses n the game my character has taken out up to the point, who were significantly more powerful than a werewolf, if it wasn't invincible, then it lacked consistancy.

 

That encounter was very badly designed and you will never convince me otherwise.

[alanschu]

Irrelevant.

 

We know he didn't use the observatory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So?

 

 

Who's to say he had to use the observatory?

[Judge Hades]

Well, it seemed to be the only way to kill one. Hmmm... Maybe the observatory's doors were made of silver or had a silver coating. NO WONDER IT KILLED THE WEREWOLF!

[kirottu]

With all the badasses n the game my character has taken out up to the point, who were significantly more powerful than a werewolf, if it wasn't invincible, then it lacked consistancy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How can say they were more powerful than the werewolf, when they got beaten by you and the werewolf didn

[Judge Hades]

Only because the werewolf was in god mode and broke the rules of the game. Take off its invincibility mode and lets see how powerful iti s.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[alanschu]

Well, it seemed to be the only way to kill one.  Hmmm...  Maybe the observatory's doors were made of silver or had a silver coating.  NO WONDER IT KILLED THE WEREWOLF! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're making a logical assumption that since the only way we could kill it was with the observatory, hence it required observatory doors to kill it.

 

 

The only conclusion we can make from the game though, was that conventional weapons and disciplines had no effect. Who knows what Nines was able to manipulate in the environment when he got knocked down the hill.

[Spider]

I don't see the inconsistency either, I really don't. As has been pointed out, the game established werewolves as practically unbeatable in close combat. So from all the information we've been given in the game, it's very consistent.

 

Sure, you have beaten some tough people before then, but none that are as tough as a werewolf can be.

 

Besides, that's the way it's supposed to work in the WoD. No vampire can go toe to toe against a werewolf of equal or greater experience. The werewolves are just superior fighters.

 

(at least not if we're talking about a combat oriented werewolf, which this clearly was)

[Judge Hades]

Flamethrower. HELLO!

[alanschu]

Could you get the flamethrower by that point?

[Judge Hades]

If memory serves, yes. Then again it has been quite a while since I have played that game. Besides I am of the old school that everyone in a CRPG should be killable.

Edited September 7, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Darth Drabek]

If you were fighting and killing werewolves the entire game and suddenly met up with one that was invincible, sure.  If you hadn't been told just prior by a guy who was an exceptional badass, and been a vampire way longer than you, that it was futile to try going toe-to-toe with a werewolf, then sure, some lack of consistency. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That really should be enough to end this argument.

 

Rules are nice, but immersion should trump it every time. Would it have been better if Nines said "Run! ... unless your constitution is above 18 and you have a discipline that buffs your saving throws and you have taken three proficiencies in blunt weaponry! Then you can fight it and possibly win, if it fails a few saves of its own!"

 

As evidenced by by poor lingo, I don't know the WoD rules system. But I do know enough to listen to what NPCs have to say. That's part of the experience, and that's my point. I know PnP grooms gamers to have numbers running around in the back of their heads, but you can't just shut down when the game throws something unexpected at you that doesn't play by the rules.

[Darque]

I disagree with hades on the grounds that this game is not a "true to the numbers" conversion of the WoD rules, like TOEE was of 3.5 DnD.

 

Thus his argument in this case is hot air.

 

End o' argument.

[Dark_Raven]

I disagree with hades on the grounds that this game is not a "true to the numbers" conversion of the WoD rules, like TOEE was of 3.5 DnD.

 

Thus his argument in this case is hot air.

 

End o' argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is?

[Dark_Raven]

Well, it seemed to be the only way to kill one.  Hmmm...  Maybe the observatory's doors were made of silver or had a silver coating.  NO WONDER IT KILLED THE WEREWOLF! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was silver.

[Judge Hades]

I disagree with hades on the grounds that this game is not a "true to the numbers" conversion of the WoD rules, like TOEE was of 3.5 DnD.

 

Thus his argument in this case is hot air.

 

End o' argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It needs to be consistant within itself and within itself a lot of uber powerful beings can be killed.

[Llyranor]

You should sue Troika.