Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir Discussion

[Gromnir]

none of the changes to fr is any more stoopid than past changes... like death and subsequent resurrection of bane... or addition of spellfire. complain 'bout 4e changes? HA! besides which, that is 4e forgotten realms.

 

as for 4e itself...

 

"The fact that spells and magic have been altered to a point of ridiculous that they're baisclaly nothing more than mere special powers that ALL classes get."

 

...

 

duh. that were kinda the point. spellcasters has always become more powerful as d&d levels increase. lame at low levels, but tough at high. melee classes, on the other hand, gets increasingly focused and specialized. virtually every 3.5e encounter at higher levels will see non spell casters doing exact same stuff every freaking combat encounter. boring. 4e fixes. now all classes gets powers increases that keeps character viable from level 1 on upwards to... whatever. you missed point. go figure.

 

btw, hardly anybody played gnomes... and elves is popular. sadly, with increase focus on starting attribute scores in 4e, play all the elf archetypes with 1 race would be difficult. ranger and wizard? sorry, but needed two races. again, the change made sense... even if you not like. and again, hardly anybody played gnomes... surprised they survived until now as a playable race.

 

and yeah, 4e 5 category alignment breakdown is silly, but from a game mechanics pov 4e is superior... 'cause while nomenclature is retarded, the role of alignment on gameplay is diminished. alignment from start, way back to 1e, were a mistake. only took 2+ decades to make some real progress.

 

now try to say something 'bout obsidian game or you will get thread locked.

 

suggestion: follow 4e lead and make gnomes monsters in nwn2ex2... all sleestak and gnomes.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 26, 2008 by Gromnir

[Kelverin]

4E is a piece of ****.

So was 3E or 3.5....... what else is new

[Jaesun]

I think we are just a TAD off topic on Soz. Perhaps someone could start a new thread called OMGWTFBBQ!! 4th ED SUX0rs!... or something.

[Kelverin]

I think we are just a TAD off topic on Soz. Perhaps someone could start a new thread called OMGWTFBBQ!! 4th ED SUX0rs!... or something.

Since this might be the last CRPG to use 3E, it's kinda revelent......or maybe not

[Jaesun]

I think we are just a TAD off topic on Soz. Perhaps someone could start a new thread called OMGWTFBBQ!! 4th ED SUX0rs!... or something.

Since this might be the last CRPG to use 3E, it's kinda revelent......or maybe not

 

I'm not a Moderator, but all the last posts have been discussing how 4.0 sucks. Unless your are Gromnir. I actually like the 4.0 ED, except for the whole Helm and Lathander thing. Crap, now I'm getting sucked into this vortex... :/

[Volourn]

"lame at low levels"

 

Mages were awesome at low levels in earlier adition. I could have a mage defeat a warrior with 1 spell that the warrior can't avoid even with a saving throw. That's even better than a Death Spell!

 

 

"btw, hardly anybody played gnomes..."

 

Might as well take out dwarves, halflings, and half orcs then. They're nowhere near as popular as elves (though dwarves have a reaosmable amount of fans); but halflings and half orcs are *possibly* just a *tiny* bit more popualr than gnomes. LOL The logic doesn't fly.

 

 

 

On SOZ: It'll be awesome. It'll be even awesome if they add Wild Dwraves. No excuse not to!!!

[Gromnir]

"lame at low levels"

 

Mages were awesome at low levels in earlier adition. I could have a mage defeat a warrior with 1 spell that the warrior can't avoid even with a saving throw. That's even better than a Death Spell!

 

 

"btw, hardly anybody played gnomes..."

 

Might as well take out dwarves, halflings, and half orcs then. They're nowhere near as popular as elves (though dwarves have a reaosmable amount of fans); but halflings and half orcs are *possibly* just a *tiny* bit more popualr than gnomes. LOL The logic doesn't fly.

 

 

 

On SOZ: It'll be awesome. It'll be even awesome if they add Wild Dwraves. No excuse not to!!!

 

1) pnp does not allow sleep-at-will likes some crpgs.

 

perhaps vol didn't realize that a one encounter pvp scenario is pretty pointless in evaluating how fun it is to play mages at low levels. after your mage casts his/her spell, he/she then gets to hide in corner and fire ineffectual crossbow shots for rest of day's adventure. yipee.

 

2) vol has never met logic

 

give us a Convincing syllogism that explains why wotc would purge gnomes. whim? insanity? spite? a grudge against garden gnomes?

 

as for current thread topic, am gonna make another suggestion: make a memorable villain. obsidian's last two nwn villains sucked something fierce. faceless shadow of self and the character-less king o' shadows were terrible examples o' crpg villaindom. if you gonna have some climactic battle with a UBG (ultimate bad guy) you better damn well give us a climax worthy o' a 20+ hour investment. climax shouldn't be solely 'bout winning some rigged battle that we gotta effectively beat multiple times to overcome (another cheesy developer trick that should be abandoned.)

 

...

 

*start blunt mode*

 

game developers seemingly waste all kinds o' effort trying to make player/audience identify with the protagonist, a necessarily ambiguous character, but far too often they complete forget that unless player has an emotional connection with the villain, success in overcoming the final/chief obstacle o' the game will be hollow. how long has you folks been making story driven games that you ain't yet figured out something so basic and fundamental to goodly storytelling? make villain sympathetic or terrifying or... whatever, but makes the audience feel something 'bout the villain, or defeat o' that villain will be ANTI-climactic. a villain in a crpg, unlike the protagonist, can be defined and concrete. is no excuse for skimping on character development of UBG.

 

sadly, am gonna guess that obsidian failure in this regard is skills related as 'posed to ignorance. developers tried to build character o' King o' Shadows in nwn2 with the ghostly reminiscences in the mine portion of game and with the crystal dragon dialogues , but did anybody really give a damn 'bout the shadow schmuck? as for the motb "villain"... we liked better when it were called the Transcendent One, but not by much. transcendent were pretty lame as a final villain too.

 

kreia, on the other hand... well, obsidian messed up an otherwise memorable villain by concluding kotor2 in such a forgettable manner. "wtf," should not be audience reaction as game ends and credits roll.

 

maybe this is the game you finally gets villain right?

 

*end blunt mode*

 

am gonna be curious to see what obsidian has done to improve their handling o' the ubg.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 26, 2008 by Gromnir

[themadhatter114]

Gromnir, your rant about memorable villains has nothing to do with Mask of the Betrayer. There is no villain to get worked up over. There is a story to tell, and a curse to end. Are you telling me that they didn't do an excellent job in telling the story of Akachi, and the curse, and motivating you to free your soul, put Akachi to rest, and end the curse? Was it not enough to do all those things? Did you really need a villain? You got to freaking destroy Myrkul, for crying out loud. And if you're evil, was it not enough to finally have complete control of the gift, once and for all? I mean, whatever it was your character ended up doing, the game built up to it perfectly.

 

As for NWN2, the fact that he was a faceless shadow was part of his character. He gave up his entire self to protect the Illefarn empire, and became corrupted. Garius was the one you were really meant to despise. The King of Shadows was meant to be pitied but ultimately destroyed. I'd say that the writing was far from the problem in NWN2.

 

Was The Transcendent One a big bad guy that you were supposed to get satisfaction out of killing in Torment? As much as anyone may dislike Torment for whatever reason, can anyone say that it's poorly written?

 

You are right, players need to have a connection to the chief obstacle. But they do NOT need to have any connection to any villain. And I think Obsidian has delivered pretty well in that regard, in NWN2 and in MotB. And there was certainly a connection to Kreia in KotOR2, and a good buildup to facing Sion and Nihilous, even if the actual end sequences were a little lacking.

Edited July 26, 2008 by themadhatter114

[Atreides]

I think SoZ has the potential for a few epic party v party battles between rival trading group board of directors. Should satisfy those out there that like major battles that have been building up over the course of the game.

 

Of course you don't have to gut all of them unless you're really psycho. You could ruin them so they come after you or I'm sure there other groups that favour subtlety and manipulation as their means of warfare.

 

Maybe if you rly piss them off the others could gang up and you'd be in a very tough fight against the odds.

[Gromnir]

"Are you telling me that they didn't do an excellent job in telling the story of Akachi, and the curse, and motivating you to free your soul, put Akachi to rest, and end the curse?"

 

yes. until you mentioned "akachi" Gromnir couldn't 'member name. that alone is proof that we weren't really engaged by story.

 

there were a final battle in motb. is not ideal for storytelling, but is part of the crpg formula... we get that. you fights a big bad at the end. call it villain or antagonist or whatever... if such an entity is going to be the ultimate obstacle in the game/story, you better make player care. the final battle with

 

"Was The Transcendent One a big bad guy that you were supposed to get satisfaction out of killing in Torment?"

 

no. that is one reason why it were a terrible villain.

 

"As much as anyone may dislike Torment for whatever reason, can anyone say that it's poorly written?"

 

YES. some parts o' torment were horribly written. sure, ravel were a fantastic character, but she were hardly representative of all. the tirias portion o' game were less than inspired storytelling, and virtually everything that happened in fortress o' regrets needed a serious do-over from writers. torment, as expected from a game cobbled together by a handful o' different writers also trying to makes a compelling game, were hit & miss. hit more often than miss, and thankfully the setting afforded chrisA to wallow in his typical self-indulgent navel gazing (such stuff seemed almost silly in kotor2, but worked in ps:t well enough,) but ps:t gives as many examples o' bad writing as it does of goodly writing.

 

look, like it or not, you is gonna have ultimate battles in crpgs... 'cause they is games. if the ultimate battle feels like an afterthought or simply a final exercise that must be endured rather than enjoyed, then writers did not effective build up the ultimate bad guy/obstacle... and no, an ultimate bad guy is not necessarily a bad guy. sympathetic villains and their like populate literature with some frequency. nevertheless, there will be an ultimate conflict, and the ultimate conflict better be something the player feels connected to... failure to make that connection is why obsidian ubgs keeps failing, and why their Climax almost invariably feels anti-climactic.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"1) pnp does not allow sleep-at-will likes some crpgs."

 

Huh? Irreleavnt. A mage is just a spwoerful if not more pwoerful than any 'ol warrior even at low levels.

 

 

 

"perhaps vol didn't realize that a one encounter pvp scenario is pretty pointless in evaluating how fun it is to play mages at low levels. after your mage casts his/her spell, he/she then gets to hide in corner and fire ineffectual crossbow shots for rest of day's adventure. yipee."

 

Mages are fun at any level. And, crossbow bolts aren't ineffectual at low levels. That's silly. Most things don't have super high AC anyways at that level so definitely hittable. And, bolts do decent damage. *shrug* Perhaps, you just don't know how to play mages? Or you had horrible DMs? I have lots of fun with mages at level whther its pnp or video games. *double shrug*

 

 

King of Shadows wasn't THAT bad of a villain. Not the best; but acceptable.

[newc0253]

And, crossbow bolts aren't ineffectual at low levels.

feh, they are if a mage is firing them.

 

i agree with Gromnir about the last couple of NWN villains. the King of Shadows was as about as anonymous as they come & the last minute biographical details hardly made him more engaging. Akachi (isn't that a japanese beer?) was even duller, despite the endless buildup. However interesting the plight of the walled-up souls in NWN2 may have been, the curse itself was boring.

 

In fact none of the villains in either iteration of NWN have been particularly interesting. The best was the Drow villainess & Mephistopheles in HOTU, but both were stock types delivered straight from central casting.

 

the BG series, otoh, always did well for villains. so did KOTOR, Jade Empire, and Bloodlines.

 

however, i somehow get the impression that SoZ will be less ... story-driven than MOTB. from everything i've read, it seems more like an expansion to showcase various cute tricks (e.g. the overland map) than some gripping saga of blood and woe.

[themadhatter114]

yes. until you mentioned "akachi" Gromnir couldn't 'member name. that alone is proof that we weren't really engaged by story.

 

there were a final battle in motb. is not ideal for storytelling, but is part of the crpg formula... we get that. you fights a big bad at the end. call it villain or antagonist or whatever... if such an entity is going to be the ultimate obstacle in the game/story, you better make player care.

 

I would say you are in a minority on that point. You may even be unique in that you played MotB within the past year and don't remember Akachi's name. And Akachi was the Faceless Man. And I certainly agree that the ending sequence of the PC just having to wail on him could've been different. I would've liked an option where you didn't have to fight him. But he certainly didn't need to be made into a villain.

 

the final battle with

 

"Was The Transcendent One a big bad guy that you were supposed to get satisfaction out of killing in Torment?"

 

no. that is one reason why it were a terrible villain.

 

No. Torment did not need a different villain. I'm also pretty sure that you are opposed to the vast majority on this subject as well. Pretty sure that makes your criticism rather moot.

 

YES. some parts o' torment were horribly written. sure, ravel were a fantastic character, but she were hardly representative of all. the tirias portion o' game were less than inspired storytelling, and virtually everything that happened in fortress o' regrets needed a serious do-over from writers. torment, as expected from a game cobbled together by a handful o' different writers also trying to makes a compelling game, were hit & miss. hit more often than miss, and thankfully the setting afforded chrisA to wallow in his typical self-indulgent navel gazing (such stuff seemed almost silly in kotor2, but worked in ps:t well enough,) but ps:t gives as many examples o' bad writing as it does of goodly writing.

 

Those sequences certainly could have used a little bit of a do-over from the gameplay perspective. Traversing the Fortress of Regrets was pretty frustrating. Had nothing to do with the writing as far as I could tell, though.

 

look, like it or not, you is gonna have ultimate battles in crpgs... 'cause they is games. if the ultimate battle feels like an afterthought or simply a final exercise that must be endured rather than enjoyed, then writers did not effective build up the ultimate bad guy/obstacle... and no, an ultimate bad guy is not necessarily a bad guy. sympathetic villains and their like populate literature with some frequency. nevertheless, there will be an ultimate conflict, and the ultimate conflict better be something the player feels connected to... failure to make that connection is why obsidian ubgs keeps failing, and why their Climax almost invariably feels anti-climactic.

 

God forbid game designers try to transcend the platform and try to provide quality entertainment. I don't think a game story needs a supervillain. It needs conflict, it needs motivation to resolve that conflict, and yes, there needs to be satisfactory resolution of that conflict. But forcing that resolution to be an epic battle is ridiculous. And you really need to make up your mind whether you are saying that players need to feel connected to the conflict, or whether they need to feel connected to some uber bad guy. On the first point, I think Obsidian has done a good job, and on the second point, I don't need games to end in epic battles nor do I need them to be against epic villains.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Indeed.

[themadhatter114]

the BG series, otoh, always did well for villains. so did KOTOR, Jade Empire, and Bloodlines.

 

Was Sarevok really all that interesting in BG1? Irenicus was great, but I can't even remember anything about TOB. Did you really think Malak was an interesting villain? Master Li was ok. But was there even a villain in Bloodlines? Ming Xiao was just someone that had the key, right? And that was a terrible fight. Same thing with the Sheriff, who was not interesting at all, and offered a pretty irritating fight. I felt absolutely no real motivation to fight either of the final battles in Bloodlines, and only did them because they were obstacles to be overcome.

[Gromnir]

you say that we is in minority on issues... but show us any of those ubiquitous crpg polls/ lists that rank bestest crpg villains or best final battle. ever see transcendent one or akachi make list? nope. as much as people liked ps:t, transcendent weren't a particularly memorable or liked villain, and akachi... not even makes for fodder on subject.

 

 

"God forbid game designers try to transcend the platform and try to provide quality entertainment."

 

well, they failed multiple times in the attempt. obsidian/bis has had problems with endings. you are clearly in the minority if you disagree. kptpr2 and nwn2 and even ps:t had complaints 'bout ambiguous or unfullfilling conclusions... and one main reason why is 'cause o' lack o' emotional investment in overcoming the ultimate obstacle.

 

sadly, 'cause these is games, there must be a final battle. whether you realize or not, many people play crpgs simply for the 1007 cycle and the combat. story is often an afterthought. obsidian ain't gonna be so foolish as to complete exclude a large % of their target audience. transcend the platform? right. obsidian is making entertainment. that entertainment might reach level o' art, but they ain't gonna transcend nothing... not if it costs 'em sales. there will always be a final battle, and as we said already, it not have to be some snidely whiplash villain, but you better make folks Care 'bout the conflict.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"feh, they are if a mage is firing them."

 

Nah. All characters have the same attack bonus (or thaco in earlier additions) at level 1. Mages can have decent dex so they got +2 to attack give them an attack of +2 at basic. Fighters will usually have +5 to hit at level 1 (+1bab, +1weapon focus, +3 strength). Most enemies at low levels have ac12-18 so the differences aren't super huge. Not as effective as warriors (not should they be); but still not bad.

[Gromnir]

"low levels" is just level 1? second level the combat gap increases, and am not sure why assume a 14 for dex, but if that is so then the rogue is gonna have at least a 16... so you is back to lagging behind again. also with worst hps in game, you is spending most of your time hiding, 'cause a couple o' hits from a kobold (or one critical) and you is dead.

 

'course this is stuff that even josh has explained on these boards, and if you not believe him, you sure as heck ain't gonna believe Gromnir.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kelverin]

Agree with Gromnir on the villains and how important they are. The main antagonist is paramount to a good, nay excellent CRPG. The only thing wrong with low level gaming is terrible developers/DM's and whinny players.

[Volourn]

I never claimed that wizards can go toe to toe with fighters in a melee fight. The argument you and others make is that wizards are virtually useless in low level D&D combat (be it level 1 or level 1-5). This simply isn't true. And, I've got 2 decades of personal experience to draw from (as I;'m sure you and Josh do if not more) so I've seen both wizards and warriros at low levels. Wizards hold their own just fine, and are far from 'weak' at low level.

[themadhatter114]

you say that we is in minority on issues... but show us any of those ubiquitous crpg polls/ lists that rank bestest crpg villains or best final battle. ever see transcendent one or akachi make list? nope. as much as people liked ps:t, transcendent weren't a particularly memorable or liked villain, and akachi... not even makes for fodder on subject.

 

You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying that Akachi was a memorable villain. He wasn't even a villain. And I would never expect The Transcendent One to be on a list of best game villains, but I would expect Torment to be on a list of best game endings or best writing. Your point is that you need memorable villains, and my point is that the villain is less important than the conflict. Can I make it any more clear?

 

well, they failed multiple times in the attempt. obsidian/bis has had problems with endings. you are clearly in the minority if you disagree. kptpr2 and nwn2 and even ps:t had complaints 'bout ambiguous or unfullfilling conclusions... and one main reason why is 'cause o' lack o' emotional investment in overcoming the ultimate obstacle.

 

Torment had a frustrating end-game because of the greater focus on combat. The actual ending was brilliant. NWN2 had complaints about an unfulfilling conclusion because rocks fell on your entire party and everyone was assumed dead. Not to mention that the actual battle with the King of Shadows was terrible. Kotor2 had a frustrating ending because a lot of content was cut that left the endgame somewhat unintelligible. I've not heard much complaint about the actual conflict, or about the villains themselves. And I notice you left out MotB in that respect, because the only people who complain about the ending of MotB were people who thought you should've been able to tear down the wall. But just about everyone I know who actually played the game and didn't cry like a baby about the spirit meter loved the ending. Yes, the Faceless Man himself could have been done better. But I won't argue that certain parts of the end could've been made better. But you're trying to say that the conflict itself was poorly done, or that people wanted a better villain, which is nothing but BS. Did you need an epic battle with Kelemvor to satisfy you at the end of MotB?

 

I'd like LESS focus on combat at the end of games, and wouldn't be surprised if there is some publisher mandate that you have to kill some Big Bad at the end of the game.

 

sadly, 'cause these is games, there must be a final battle. whether you realize or not, many people play crpgs simply for the 1007 cycle and the combat. story is often an afterthought. obsidian ain't gonna be so foolish as to complete exclude a large % of their target audience. transcend the platform? right. obsidian is making entertainment. that entertainment might reach level o' art, but they ain't gonna transcend nothing... not if it costs 'em sales. there will always be a final battle, and as we said already, it not have to be some snidely whiplash villain, but you better make folks Care 'bout the conflict.

 

That's complete BS. Do people play Mass Effect for the awesome!!! (terrible) loot system? Is it popular because of the terrible battle with tech-Saren that's simply ridiculous? Or did people buy it for the EPIC!!!! story and the lesbian alien sex? And because of the hype because it's Bioware who created the EPIC!!!! twist? Since when does writing a good story that's not focused on an epic boss fight cost sales? Is it not epic enough to maybe do something like defuse a bomb at the end of a game? Or to simply shoot a foreign president once in the head with a sniper rifle and then escape? Is it not epic enough to arm a nuclear bomb in a Cathedral and make a run for it? Was killing Frank Horrigan more epic than ending the mutant threat? Was fighting the Master more fun than convincing him to commit suicide? You do not need epic combat at the end of a game. You do need people to care about the conflict in a game and have a satisfying resolution. How many times do I need to acknowledge that before you stop repeating it as if it justifies your obsession with boss fights?

 

If you think mindless players love boss fights so much, how many boss fights are there in Halo games, particularly in Halo 1, which has the most solid campaign of the 3?

 

Would escaping from Black Mesa and letting the military finish destroying it have been more satisfying than fighting some weird alien? Or maybe simply finding a way to close the portal? Probably.

 

Boss fights are terrible video game cliches. Many games are better off without them. People who actually pay attention to the story often enjoy alternate end-game solutions. I honestly don't know what to make of your assumption that every game must have a final battle. Do you really play a lot of games?

[Gromnir]

"You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying that Akachi was a memorable villain. He wasn't even a villain. And I would never expect The Transcendent One to be on a list of best game villains, but I would expect Torment to be on a list of best game endings or best writing."

 

sorry, but you is the guy missing the point. akachi were the final obstacle/villain/antagonist... and it were nothing but an afterthought. you seem to be getting hung up on the label. by the very nature o' this being a game, there is gonna be a final conflict that involves combat, and if you ain't emotionally invested, your victory will be hollow. call villain or antagonist or obstacle not matter.

 

and Gromnir already admitted that ps:t had great writing... but it also had terrible witting. you realize that a game can have both good and bad writing, right? even nwn had some fantastic stuff. charwood were pretty great writing and had intriguing characters, but game overall... were bland. ps:t, up until curst, is a great game. after that... sorry, bu the ending were hardly great, and the transcendent one were a weak antagonist.

 

and your point 'bout me is further delusional. some... no, Many people did play me simply for combat and 1007. wanna see shephard get more powerful and get better 1007... better armour and weapons and such. once the well runs dry, many folks lose interest. diablo series were little more than 1007 and boss battles with virtually 0 story... but it were the game that resurrected the crpg, and it is probable the most popular crpg franchise. you is kidding self.

 

terrible video game cliches? HA! is not necessarily video game cliches we is talking 'bout. sure, ''cause these IS games there is certain conventions that will be adhered to, but is not just 'bout crpg limitations. is simply bad writing on the part of the obsidian folks. gots background and introductions... followed by rise of conflict... then climax... and a return to normalcy. at most basic level you gots all of the above in any adventure story and 99% of movies and books. problem is that obsidian not seem to be able to keeps folks emotionally invested in the climax... which is BAD writing.

 

btw, any halo reference is gonna be lost on Gromnir as we never played... am not a button masher... thanks very much.

 

1 more time, (and hopeful 'fore you resort to reply/quote stuff again) obsidian ain't never once altered the conventions o' crpg with some grand new approach. just as every other crpg in existence, the obsidians has games with a Climax that is centered 'round a final boss battle. however, through ineptitude or ignorance, they fails to make so that story climaxes proportionally and contemporaneous with boss battle... resulting in a hollow experience. is poor design. obsidian approach ain't groundbreaking... is simply busted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 26, 2008 by Gromnir

[themadhatter114]

"You are missing the point entirely. I'm not saying that Akachi was a memorable villain. He wasn't even a villain. And I would never expect The Transcendent One to be on a list of best game villains, but I would expect Torment to be on a list of best game endings or best writing."

 

sorry, but you is the guy missing the point. akachi were the final obstacle/villain/antagonist... and it were nothing but an afterthought. you seem to be getting hung up on the label. by the very nature o' this being a game, there is gonna be a final conflict that involves combat, and if you ain't emotionally invested, your victory will be hollow. call villain or antagonist or obstacle not matter.

 

No, you are missing the point. Just because you are playing a game doesn't mean that the final obstacle has to be combat, and many endings are worse because they do involve combat. Again, how many times do I have to agree with you that the player needs to be emotionally invested into the conflict and have a satisfying resolution? And how many times do I have to repeat that I only disagree in that you think that every game needs to end with epic combat that is epically built up to outside of the actual conflict that the combat itself is resolving.

 

and Gromnir already admitted that ps:t had great writing... but it also had terrible witting. you realize that a game can have both good and bad writing, right? even nwn had some fantastic stuff. charwood were pretty great writing and had intriguing characters, but game overall... were bland. ps:t, up until curst, is a great game. after that... sorry, bu the ending were hardly great, and the transcendent one were a weak antagonist.

 

And I'm simply disagreeing with you on that point, and feel that you are in the minority. The ending is great, and I think there are plenty of people who feel that way, despite the fact that The Transcendent One himself is not a supervillain.

 

and your point 'bout me is further delusional. some... no, Many people did play me simply for combat and 1007. wanna see shephard get more powerful and get better 1007... better armour and weapons and such. once the well runs dry, many folks lose interest. diablo series were little more than 1007 and boss battles with virtually 0 story... but it were the game that resurrected the crpg, and it is probable the most popular crpg franchise. you is kidding self.

 

This is all irrelevant, really, though it does work against your (correct) assertion that a well-written story is important for a satisfying resolution. Diablo is popular because it's fun, and allows for very diverse good character builds. But Diablo is a mindless action game and doesn't do anything to prove your point. Mass Effect, on the other hand, had a lot of blandness to it, isn't nearly as fun gameplay-wise as Diablo, and wouldn't be nearly as popular if Bioware didn't have a reputation for good stories and the EPIC twist. Anyone who buys Bioware games for loot and awesome mindless combat is a moron. They'd be better off sticking to Diablo or playing Oblivion.

 

terrible video game cliches? HA! is not necessarily video game cliches we is talking 'bout. sure, ''cause these IS games there is certain conventions that will be adhered to, but is not just 'bout crpg limitations. is simply bad writing on the part of the obsidian folks. gots background and introductions... followed by rise of conflict... then climax... and a return to normalcy. at most basic level you gots all of the above in any adventure story and 99% of movies and books. problem is that obsidian not seem to be able to keeps folks emotionally invested in the climax... which is BAD writing.

 

But you can't separate video game conflict from combat. You complain about the endings but don't seem to realize that they could tighten up the end-game scenarios by focusing less on combat.

 

btw, any halo reference is gonna be lost on Gromnir as we never played... am not a button masher... thanks very much.

 

Well, perhaps you should be less quick to toss around generalities about video games, when you apparently don't even play anything that's real-time, which is virtually everything that's come out for the past several years. So I will spell it out for you:

 

Halo 1 doesn't have boss fights. You simply set off some bombs and then have a timed escape sequence to close out the game.

Halo 2 has a few boss fights, but was the most disappointing campaign of the series.

Halo 3 went back to the classic Halo 1 style ending, and closed out with a long, timed escape sequence.

Half-Life is a great game until you get to the end game which builds up to a weird boss fight. No game which has an escape/survival theme needs a boss fight.

There's not a single boss fight in the entire Splinter Cell series (unless you consider a headshot with a sniper rifle to be a boss fight in precisely one of the games).

I might be able to think of some more, but I think that considering that I've discussed some of the highest-selling games of all time, I don't need to belabor the point. So, prattle on about how every game needs to end with epic combat and continue to let everyone know how little you play video games.

[Gromnir]

*chuckle* our lack o' playing shooter games somehow is now worthy o' criticism? wow , getting desperate. never have heard splinter cell or halo lauded for great story and writing... is lots o' meaningful dialogue in those games? perhaps you got some hidden point. play fable and bioshock and assassin's creed... pretty much every crpg and loads o' rts games... account for virtually nothing... since your shooters is "virtually everything." okie dokie.

 

your reply/quote is again what confuses you... lose track o' the argument. is not "every game" having to end with an epic battle with boss battle and closure. your points not work with story driven crpgs so maybe you try to prove point with computer chess? madden football and pong and shooters is not the same as is story driven crpgs. is diablo a story driven game? hardly, but it has a satisfying climax. if there ain't no meaningful multitude o' plot threads leading to climax, then it not take much to tie up, now does it? this is all basic stuff though, and am not seeing why is so difficult to grasp. for chrissakes, even the obsidian developers gets this much. more than one has mentioned/acknowledged, that you can't have a game w/o engaging gameplay. you can has a game w/o story. nevertheless, if you is gonna make story-driven...

 

*sigh*

 

 

 

repeat again:

 

"1 more time, (and hopeful 'fore you resort to reply/quote stuff again) obsidian ain't never once altered the conventions o' crpg with some grand new approach. just as every other crpg in existence, the obsidians has games with a Climax that is centered 'round a final boss battle. however, through ineptitude or ignorance, they fails to make so that story climaxes proportionally and contemporaneous with boss battle... resulting in a hollow experience. is poor design. obsidian approach ain't groundbreaking... is simply busted."

 

obsidian follows the formula. you talking 'bout how obsidian not have to follow formula is meaningless as to whether obsidian has been successful in past. kotor2. nnw2. motb. and even ps:t has all been criticized 'cause endings were anti-climactic. otherwise good games diminshed by bad understanding o' writing structure... or simple incompetence. other bis/obsidain games? iwd2 doesn't get lauded as a good game, so can't use as an example, but it too failed to have a satisfying climax. how were a bust in every way, so bad end is hardly noteworthy. only game left is iwd?

 

in any event, you wanna change the way in which a stroy driven crpg is made, then be our guest, but we bet that the next nwn2 expansion is gonna climax with a boss battle. wanna bet on that? no? 'course not. there WILL be a climactic battle in the expansion, and only real question remains is if obsidian will somehow makes audience/player feels emotionally involved in that climax... unlike virtual all of their previous games.

 

try not to keep confusing self with reply/quote.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 26, 2008 by Gromnir

[newc0253]

Was Sarevok really all that interesting in BG1? Irenicus was great, but I can't even remember anything about TOB.

Sarevok may not have been terribly complex but he was definitely memorable. Melissan, the main villain in TOB, was probably the weakest in the 3 BG games but still more memorable 7 years on than MOTB which i played about six months ago.

 

Did you really think Malak was an interesting villain?

Malak was like Sarevok, memorable as a foil even if his motivations were entirely stock ones. And, like Sarevok, he became more interesting once his true connection with the PC was revealed (i.e. your former student in Malak's case, your half-brother in Sarevok's case).

 

Master Li was ok.

merely ok, eh? as CRPG villains go, i'd say he's one of the better-written ones to date.

 

But was there even a villain in Bloodlines?

I was thinking of the Sheriff and LeCroix: not villains of the moustache-twirling variety per se, but the game's ultimate antagonists, even if you didn't end up fighting them.

 

Again, LeCroix's a fairly typical villain, only interested in power. But he was a lot more engaging than fixing the plight of poor, dull Akachi.

Edited July 26, 2008 by newc0253

[Volourn]

"Anyone who buys Bioware games for loot and awesome mindless combat is a moron."

 

Wrong.

 

I'd take BIO/IE/Aurora/D&D type combat over Diablo style combat ANY DAY.

 

And, id dare say that Grom is quite correct. Plent of people buy BIO games because of ph@t lewt, and awesome combat.

 

Not everyone shares your views.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Volourn