Neverwinter Nights 2: Storm of Zehir Discussion

[themadhatter114]

*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.

 

You didn't say that you didn't play shooters. You basically implied that you didn't play real-time games. Since when is Bioshock not essentially a shooter? Since when is it not a button mashing twitchfest? Regardless, you are ignorant about Halo and Splinter-Cell, considering that both franchises have extremely popular characters and storylines and have spawned several books. But that's really beside the point. You keep repeating that every single narrative (as you said, every video game and every book and every movie, right?) needs to end with epic combat, yet apparently RPGs are more dependent on epic combat than action games are.

 

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...

 

You keep saying that every game needs to end in combat. Then try to back up your argument with stuff like Diablo because action gamers have to fight big bad guys at the end. Then I show you a lot of actual action games that don't have epic boss battles, to prove to you that no one, not even action gamers, need a game to end with an epic boss battle. Are you ever, ever, ever going to admit that a game doesn't have to build up to combat at the end? You keep repeating a bunch of BS that I've acknowledged and you won't address any of my assertions in the slightest.

 

 

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?

 

Please, please, please tell me how any of this proves that games need to end with combat. You're just repeating yourself and not defending the one thing that I contest. And, again, I've never heard substantial criticism about the ending of Torment, with most of the complaints being about having too much combat in the last part of the game, with it actually redeeming itself at the very end. So, you can contend whatever you wish with regard to the consensus about Torment, but it's totally contrary to every discussion I've seen of the game.

 

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.

 

Now you're just deflecting. Sure I expect a boss battle. And it will be much better if we are connected to the conflict. And it is indeed the conflict itself which we need to be connected to much more than we need to be connected to the villain. Regardless, it would be a lot better if you had more options besides combat at the end. But most CRPGs don't have engines that are conducive to epic escape sequences at the end of games, because usually it's boring click-to-walk stuff. In this regard, Bloodlines is probably the only game that could have had a viscerally exciting non-combat end to the game, but instead it had to turn to crappy non-stop combat toward the end. But, so long as you're in a betting mood, what kind of odds would you put on Alpha Protocol having an interesting non-combat solution to the final mission? I mean, it's going to be a CRPG, so it can't end with something fun like defusing a bomb or escaping from a burning building, or intercepting a biohazard, right? Or will it have an epic boss fight with a guy that can sustain multiple headshots before dying?

 

try not to keep confusing self with reply/quote.

 

If only you knew how to properly use the quotes.

[themadhatter114]

"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.

 

But is it mindless combat? Seriously, if you want mindless combat and phat loot, what's better than playing Diablo 2 and click clicking away and spamming attack spells? Diablo 2's combat is pretty deep if you really want to get into it, but if you just want to hack & slash without worrying too much about character development, I can't imagine a better game than Diablo 2. And I'd probably buy Sacred or Dungeon Siege or any other Diablo clone if I wanted mindless hack & slash.

 

And Mass Effect? If you bought Mass Effect for the combat and the loot over a game like Gears of War or Rainbow Six: Vegas...wow. I guess some of the biotic powers are pretty fun, but killing lame robots is nowhere near as fun as killing the Locust, or killing terrorists. And the powers in The Force Unleashed will be way more awesome than using any of the powers in Mass Effect.

[Volourn]

*SIGH* I hate to go this route but you give me no choice - In. your. opinion.

 

Gears of War, for me, was fun for a bit but eventually got bored of it.

 

Never played Rainbow Six. Not my type of game.

 

Espicially since ME isn't a shooter - it's an action RPG.

 

Different style of combat than those games.

[samm]

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.

I found Akachi to be an interesting opponent, because he was partially you, or you partially him, so you were fighting a part of yourself. An anwanted one, but none the less. This is an analogy to Planescape: Torment, and not the least of the reasons I loved the game. It also motivated the strange interest of the Red Wizard, and it presented you a very good reason to play the game through to the end. Really, one of the best opponents from multiple perspectives, even if he as a figure remains unknown until the very end. Edited July 26, 2008 by samm

[themadhatter114]

*SIGH* I hate to go this route but you give me no choice - In. your. opinion.

 

Wow, coming from you, that means a lot, merely to see that you understand what an opinion is. I'm half tempted to start following up all of your posts with "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

 

Gears of War, for me, was fun for a bit but eventually got bored of it.

 

I got almost 3 full playthroughs out of it. I couldn't get past a certain part of Insane on the very last level by myself, then I let a friend borrow it several months ago and haven't seen it since. But it's just plain awesome to play co-op.

 

Never played Rainbow Six. Not my type of game.

 

Vegas is probably a lot more accessible than the others in the series. It's squad-based terrorist killing...what's not to like?

 

Espicially since ME isn't a shooter - it's an action RPG.

 

Different style of combat than those games.

 

Well, since I was focusing only on the combat, and my opinion that the Geth are boring, and that the loot system sucks, I just don't think it would be all that fun if you were only playing it for the loot and combat. And in that case, I'd rather play more Gears, or some Halo 3 team slayer (the campaign was a little lackluster), or whatever. Right now, though, I'm thinking about putting either Splinter Cell or GTA4 back into the 360.

 

And, uh, I'm excited for SoZ.

[themadhatter114]

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.

I found Akachi to be an interesting opponent, because he was partially you, or you partially him, so you were fighting a part of yourself. An anwanted one, but none the less. This is an analogy to Planescape: Torment, and not the least of the reasons I loved the game. It also motivated the strange interest of the Red Wizard, and it presented you a very good reason to play the game through to the end. Really, one of the best opponents from multiple perspectives, even if he as a figure remains unknown until the very end.

 

It would have been interesting if you could have conquered the incarnations through force of will, with the checks getting progressively higher, or something like that. Just wailing on him did get a little tiresome. My only real problem with it was that sometimes it took an incredibly long time for the action to progress. I'd just spam Devour Spirit and then Bestow Life Force to keep me and Safiya alive, wail on him, rinse and repeat, and it just seemed to go on forever before anything happened.

[newc0253]

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.

I found Akachi to be an interesting opponent, because he was partially you, or you partially him, so you were fighting a part of yourself. An anwanted one, but none the less. This is an analogy to Planescape: Torment, and not the least of the reasons I loved the game.

i at least agree it echoed PS:T, but in an essentially uninteresting way.

 

yes, the PC is apparently partly Akachi. But not in any intrinsic way, like being the son of bhaal, or the latest amnesiac incarnation of an immortal being seeking to escape his doom. You aren't suffering for the sins of your father or for yourself, you're suffering for the sins of some random stranger who centuries ago lost a big fight and got punished for it.

 

By itself, Akachi's fate might have been tragic. But his fate isn't just on him and his loved ones, it's on you the PC as well. Akachi, in other words, is the ultimate cosmic mooch, dumping you with his frakking problems like a frakking bum.

 

Although MOTB has some explanation for why the shard-bearer was an ideal choice for becoming the soul eater, the truth is that you're partly Akachi for no other reason than the developers needed you to be to move the story forward.

 

It also motivated the strange interest of the Red Wizard, and it presented you a very good reason to play the game through to the end.

The interest of the Red Wizard which irritated me no end btw. Apparently there was no polite way to say "listen lady, you seem nice and all but i don't dig the bald chicks"...

 

Really, one of the best opponents from multiple perspectives, even if he as a figure remains unknown until the very end.

Returning to the idea that the PC is partly Akachi and Akachi is partly the PC, how did Akachi reflect anything about me the PC?

 

Not only was Akachi a spectacularly dull as a cipher, but he was spectacularly dull as a mirror too.

Edited July 26, 2008 by newc0253

[Xard]

GET BACK ON TOPIC YOU MORONS

 

PST'S WRITING IS AWESOME

MOTB'S WRITING IS AWESOME

BLOODLINE'S WRITING IS AWESOME

 

AKACHI WAS AWESOME AS WAS PST'S ENDING

 

BLA BLA BLA

 

 

There, take your epic deathmatch to some other topic!

[themadhatter114]

i at least agree it echoed PS:T, but in an essentially uninteresting way.

 

yes, the PC is apparently partly Akachi. But not in any intrinsic way, like being the son of bhaal, or the latest amnesiac incarnation of an immortal being seeking to escape his doom. You aren't suffering for the sins of your father or for yourself, you're suffering for the sins of some random stranger who centuries ago lost a big fight and got punished for it.

 

And you think that's less interesting than the Bhaalspawn stuff? I'd put the spirit-eater curse right up there with The Nameless One's affliction. And if you're suffering for your own sins or the sins of your father, what is there to discover?

 

By itself, Akachi's fate might have been tragic. But his fate isn't just on him and his loved ones, it's on you the PC as well. Akachi, in other words, is the ultimate cosmic mooch, dumping you with his frakking problems like a frakking bum.

 

His fate is on the entirety of Rashemen, which makes it triply tragic. But it wasn't his choice to afflict you, or to afflict anyone.

 

Although MOTB has some explanation for why the shard-bearer was an ideal choice for becoming the soul eater, the truth is that you're partly Akachi for no other reason than the developers needed you to be to move the story forward.

 

Did you miss all the stuff about the Sword of Gith?

 

The interest of the Red Wizard which irritated me no end btw. Apparently there was no polite way to say "listen lady, you seem nice and all but i don't dig the bald chicks"...

 

Eh, I liked her a lot, but to each his own...

[Gromnir]

"You keep saying that every game needs to end in combat."

 

actually, we has said the opposite a few times now, but if you cannot even get that far...

 

is getting pointless if you cannot get that much. Gromnir has noted that every CRPG that has combat in game will end with potential for a boss battle. Gromnir has noted that nwn2 exp 2 will almost definitely have such a battle. you yourself seem stuck on ps:t, but even so, that leaves a whole stack o' games by obsidian with unfulfilling CLIMAXES ( final boss battle will be the climax, whether obsidian likes or not... 'cause you not seems to get that there is a connection 'tween two... which seems to maybe be a problem obsidian gots as well.) so the issue is how will obsidian improve climax of nwn2 exp 2?

 

you seems to thinks that motb had a great climax, but clearly that ain't a unanimous pov as can be seen simply from this thread. if you claims you ain't never seen disgruntled fan postings 'bout motb ending as you seem to have missed similar concerns 'bout ps:t, then we is at an impasse...

 

*shrug*

 

 

 

"And, again, I've never heard substantial criticism about the ending of Torment,"

 

then you didn't pay attention to ip boards after ps:t were released. people who talk 'bout ps:t today, so many years removed from release, are generally the fans. the people who disliked or dismissed ps:t, stopped discussing the game a long time ago. nevertheless, as sales were pretty sucky, it should be obvious to even the most diehard ps:t fan, that there were many people who didn't like ps:t. bugginess. crap combat. unlikable protagonist. game started to suck after curst. no elves or dwarves. etc. were all kinds o' reasons given why people disliked ps:t. anti-climactic climax and general suckiness of fortress of regrets were not infrequent complaints. your lack o' perspective is not Gromnir's fault.

 

 

"Now you're just deflecting. Sure I expect a boss battle. And it will be much better if we are connected to the conflict. And it is indeed the conflict itself which we need to be connected to much more than we need to be connected to the villain."

 

Gromnir is deflecting?

 

*chuckle*

 

you completely derailed and has lost sight o' thread.

 

original complaint were that obsidian ubg of past few games has been pretty forgettable. noted multiple times that a ubg = final obstacle, and not necessarily need be a bad guy. Gromnir then pointed out that if obsidian cannot get players/audience to feel emotionally involved in Climax, then climax will feel hollow.

 

you has simply been reply/quoting self into insensibility since then. finally has got you almost back to square one where you recognize that nwn2 exp 2 will have, as all previous obsidian/bis games, a boss battle that is integral to Climax. all your nonsense 'bout games not needing such a climactic battle is therefore, pointless in the present context.

 

...

 

am giving up... is just too much work keeping this on-track.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

And you think that's less interesting than the Bhaalspawn stuff?

yes.

 

if you're suffering for your own sins or the sins of your father, what is there to discover?

games like BG or PST that lock your character in to a particular background have their own strengths and weaknesses but they at least have the virtue of making that background integral to your character.

 

MOTB doesn't even have that virtue. the PC wasn't the soul eater before the game, and has no natural connection to Akashi's story other than that the PC has a conveniently shard-shaped hole in their chest...

 

again, being the soul eater might have been more interesting if Akashi himself had been more interesting. But he wasn't so it wasn't. Despite apparently sharing bits of each others' soul, there's nothing interesting about him or your connection to him besides the soul eating and the awkward interest of the bald chick.

 

His fate is on the entirety of Rashemen, which makes it triply tragic.

yes, tragic. but also oddly uninvolving.

 

Did you miss all the stuff about the Sword of Gith?

no, i caught it. but since the sword seems to be the universal key for half the bloody quests in the realms these days, it didn't make it feel any less like shoe-horning it so obviously was.

Edited July 27, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

"Returning to the idea that the PC is partly Akachi and Akachi is partly the PC, how did Akachi reflect anything about me the PC?

 

"Not only was Akachi a spectacularly dull as a cipher, but he was spectacularly dull as a mirror too. "

 

is disturbing to have to agree with newc, but there it is. akachi were... dull. clearly akachi had parallels to the whole transcendent one shtick from ps:t, but akachi were even less compelling 'cause in spite of development o' story, it were all impersonal. as noted already, Gromnir couldn't think of name... kept referring to as "shadow fragment of self" and other such fuzzy descriptors.

 

suggestion: abstract villains work okie dokie... if they remain abstract. sauron not seem so spooky if we find out that he gots halatosis and daddy issues. akachi were some kinda crappy quasi-abstract obstacle. myrkul were maybe the baddie, but got rid of him at 2/3 mark... so then what we got left?

 

as noted already by numerous folks, akachi weren't really a villain, but he were the guy you battle at the Climax of game and Climax o' story. as such, developers should make so that player gives a damn. Gromnir didn't, and neither did many others. had nothing to do with game engines or obsidian stretching boundaries o' the crpg genre. obsidian folks simply did not create requisite emotional involvement. is bad writing... so do better.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[themadhatter114]

actually, we has said the opposite a few times now, but if you cannot even get that far...

 

is getting pointless if you cannot get that much. Gromnir has noted that every CRPG that has combat in game will end with potential for a boss battle.

 

Sure, and yeah, whatever the conflict is, the player needs to feel a connection to it. But even if there is a villain he doesn't necessarily need to be any more prominent than the conflict itself.

 

Gromnir has sagely noted that nwn2 exp 2 will almost definitely have such a battle. you yourself seem stuck on ps:t, but even so, that leaves a whole stack o' games by obsidian with unfulfilling CLIMAXES ( final boss battle will be the climax, whether obsidian likes or not... 'cause you not seems to get that there is a connection 'tween two... which seems to maybe be a problem obsidian gots as well.) so the issue is how will obsidian improve climax of nwn2 exp 2?

 

Yes, obviously, if there is a BIG BOSS BATTLE, it will be a climax. The actual combat with the Faceless Man and that entire scenario could have been done better. I've never denied that. But I think there's a pretty strong consensus that Akachi was a pretty interesting character. And I never said that some people didn't find him interesting, just that people who thought that were in a minority. There are a lot of other things that seem more prominent among players' complaints, including their disappointment in not getting to face off against Kelemvor. To each his own. But this all started because you went on a rant that every game needs an awesome villain, which I have disputed. Now you suddenly claim you agreed with me all along that it's not necessarily important to have a huge important battle with a huge important supervillain, but nowhere do I see your acknowledgement of my repeated claims to that effect.

 

you seems to thinks that motb had a great climax, but clearly that ain't a unanimous pov as can be seen simply from this thread. if you claims you ain't never seen disgruntled fan postings 'bout motb ending as you seem to have missed similar concerns 'bout ps:t, then we is at an impasse...

 

I never claimed my POV was unanimous with regard to MotB, but I strongly contend it is in the majority. As I've said, people have complained about a lot of things with regard to MotB, mostly the spirit-meter or not getting to destroy the wall, but I've seen few complaints about Akachi himself, or about the actual motivation to end the curse or anything along those lines.

 

then you didn't pay attention to ip boards after ps:t were released. people who talk 'bout ps:t today, so many years removed from release, are generally the fans. the people who disliked or dismissed ps:t, stopped discussing the game a long time ago. nevertheless, as sales were pretty sucky, it should be obvious to even the most diehard ps:t fan, that there were many people who didn't like ps:t. bugginess. crap combat. unlikable protagonist. game started to suck after curst. no elves or dwarves. etc. were all kinds o' reasons given why people disliked ps:t. anti-climactic climax and general suckiness of fortress of regrets were not infrequent complaints. your lack o' perspective is not Gromnir's fault.

 

As far as Torment goes, I will concede that I wasn't around any forums when it came out. But you seem to be putting a heavy burden on the writing of Torment for why it didn't sell well, when people even today talk about how they never got into it because of the bad combat, the lack of initial character customization, the lack of marketing, the unappealing box art, etc. Sure some people didn't like the writing at the end, but among those who finished Torment, I'd say satisfaction with the climax is a relatively strong majority, with the heavy combat leading up to it being the most annoying thing. I don't deny that there were probably a lot of people who didn't like The Transcendent One, but would you say they are in the majority? Regardless, I'll simply say that I don't agree with them.

 

And considering how my reading of the MotB forums doesn't seem to jive with yours, I wouldn't be surprised if your memory doesn't jive with others who were around at the time.

 

 

you completely derailed and has lost sight o' thread.

 

original complaint were that obsidian ubg of past few games has been pretty forgettable. noted multiple times that a ubg = final obstacle, and not necessarily need be a bad guy. Gromnir then pointed out that if obsidian cannot get players/audience to feel emotionally involved in Climax, then climax will feel hollow.

 

So, wait, does ubg stand for Uber Bad Guy? Then you say that ubg does not necessarily need to be a bad guy? Eh, now I'm just picking on your poor wording. Obviously, if Obsidian cannot get players emotionally involved in the climax, it will feel hollow. I don't think this has been as big of a problem for them as you seem to think it has been. I mean, there are always going to be people that don't like the story, or people like you who can't even remember who Akachi was.

 

you has simply been reply/quoting self into insensibility since then. finally has got you almost back to square one where you recognize that nwn2 exp 2 will have, as all previous obsidian/bis games, a boss battle that is integral to Climax. all your nonsense 'bout games not needing such a climactic battle is therefore, pointless in the present context.

 

What's the different in using quote tags and using quotation marks, besides the much easier readability?

 

I merely disagreed that 'the villain' needs to be compelling or notable, or that one even needs to be present, regardless of the genre. You seem to forget saying several times that every game must have a final COMBAT. Or that every movie or book needs a final combat.

 

Well, actually you did admit that not every game needs a final combat, by saying that not every game is story driven and that games like Madden obviously don't have boss battles. Then I give you several story-driven games that don't have boss battles and then you just pretend to have agreed with me all along. Whatever. Perhaps you pretend to be an orc with 8 intelligence so much that sometimes your arguments come across that way.

Edited July 27, 2008 by themadhatter114

[themadhatter114]

I'll not argue with either of you if you simply didn't care about Akachi or the curse. That's up to you, but you don't seem to be in the majority on that particular point, so I wouldn't blame Obsidian for mostly trying to please the majority of us who enjoyed the story they crafted for MotB.

[samm]

So, anything new on SoZ?

[Gromnir]

am gonna assume you ain't being willful obtuse.

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

rinse and repeat...

 

so how many times did Gromnir clarify that end conflict not have to be a villain per se?

 

"Yes, obviously, if there is a BIG BOSS BATTLE, it will be a climax. The actual combat with the Faceless Man and that entire scenario could have been done better. I've never denied that. But I think there's a pretty strong consensus that Akachi was a pretty interesting character. And I never said that some people didn't find him interesting, just that people who thought that were in a minority. There are a lot of other things that seem more prominent among players' complaints, including their disappointment in not getting to face off against Kelemvor. To each his own. But this all started because you went on a rant that every game needs an awesome villain, which I have disputed."

 

 

am not even sure where to start... 'cause you clearly got yourself all tied in knots.

 

am gonna disagree that there is a "strong consensus " that the climax, involving the ultimate confrontation with the akachi shadow thing, were fulfilling. in the abstract akachi may have been intriguing, but that not matter if player don't actually care. cernd, a bg2 npc, were intriguing, but the way his quest played out, and the crappy addition he made to party meant that Nobody gave a damn. the motb final conflict were, as with most obsidian games, anti-climactic... and consensus we see at the bio boards were that the climax of motb were maybe better than nwn2, but still unfullfilling. as Gromnir has stated 'bout a dozen times now, obsidian has a problem with their game climax. and, as it is very apparent that the climax o' the next expansion will follow same boss battle climax format as every previous obsidian game, they better find a way to get players emotionally involved with the central figures o' that climax.

 

"Now you suddenly claim you agreed with me all along that it's not necessarily important to have a huge important battle with a huge important supervillain, but nowhere do I see your acknowledgement of my repeated claims to that effect."

 

nope. you has simply not been paying attention. heck. at this point Gromnir ain't really sure what your point is as you ain't making one other than reply/quoting everything. Gromnir keeps trying to summarize and re-explain, but you go off on a different tangent each and every time.

 

"I don't deny that there were probably a lot of people who didn't like The Transcendent One, but would you say they are in the majority? Regardless, I'll simply say that I don't agree with them."

 

great. you don't have to agree. if a majority of people who played didn't care enough to get to end or didn't care 'bout transcendent one after finished, then that is revealing that transcendent one were a weak addition to the cast. for all ps:t strengths, the transcendent one, and more importantly, the final conflict at climax o' the game with the transcendent one, were not strengths commented on by players.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps have never heard halo as being described as truly story driven. just as diablo had narrative, it were not really story driven.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

So, anything new on SoZ?

I thought we just learnt that it will have a sucky end boss battle?!?

 

But yeah, looks like that discussion has come full circle. Time to change the subject, please gentlemen?

 

 

...

Besides, I hate the very concept of "boss fights".

[Gromnir]

So, anything new on SoZ?

I thought we just learnt that it will have a sucky end boss battle?!?

 

But yeah, looks like that discussion has come full circle. Time to change the subject, please gentlemen?

 

 

...

Besides, I hate the very concept of "boss fights".

 

what if it were a boss battle fight with sleestaks and gnomes?

 

maybe a gnome-sleestak ubg?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Besides, I hate the very concept of "boss fights".

 

what if it were a boss battle fight with sleestaks and gnomes?

 

maybe a gnome-sleestak ubg?

 

HA! Good Fun!

I had to look up 'sleestak' (google is your friend)

 

A distant relative of Yuan-ti allright. Not a fan of lizard men, but gnomes? I'll happily buy and use a scroll of gnomicide... Little pests. Why couldn't that suit of evil armour in BG2 be made out of Jan Jansens skin?

 

Could it just have been the gnomes from the Dragonlance setting, then they would at least have provided some comic relief. Is that setting even alive anymore, or did it go the way of Planescape?

 

I suppose it is in the nature of single player crpgs, that they have to "end" somehow. Otherwise, they might be perceived as pointless. Meh, make the goal the accumulation of wealth. Get the 500.000 gc needed to bribe the local magistrate and let you get a monopoly on the potatoe import. End of game and everybody lived happily ever after. Project cancelled due to lack of publisher interest, I know

 

It (boss battles, whether in between or at the end) just feels so contrived somehow.

[themadhatter114]

am gonna assume you ain't being willful obtuse.

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

"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."

 

rinse and repeat...

 

Wow, in every single one of those quotes you essentially said that since it's an RPG it has to be an epic battle. Again, perhaps if you would write intelligibly, your arguments would make more sense. I disagreed with that specific point every single time, and yet you kept disagreeing with me.

 

am gonna disagree that there is a "strong consensus " that the climax, involving the ultimate confrontation with the akachi shadow thing, were fulfilling.

 

It seems you can't read normal sentences, either. I specifically said that there was a strong consensus that Akachi was an interesting character, while giving my own opinion that the actual ending could have been handled better. How you read that as my saying that there's a strong consensus that the climax, including the ultimate confrontation, is fulfilling. I didn't say that, obviously.

 

in the abstract akachi may have been intriguing

 

That's what I said.

 

but that not matter if player don't actually care.

 

Seriously, what percentage of people that played through the game would you say didn't care about Akachi? Not how many people were disappointed with some aspect of the ending, but specifically how many people didn't care about Akachi and weren't motivated to get rid of the curse.

 

motb final conflict were, as with most obsidian games, anti-climactic... and consensus we see at the bio boards were that the climax of motb were maybe better than nwn2, but still unfullfilling.

 

And how many of those people found it unfulfilling because they didn't care about Akachi or the curse, and then how many thought they should've been able to defy Kelemvor and tear down the wall?

 

as Gromnir has stated 'bout a dozen times now, obsidian has a problem with their game climax. and, as it is very apparent that the climax o' the next expansion will follow same boss battle climax format as every previous obsidian game, they better find a way to get players emotionally involved with the central figures o' that climax.

 

I think they'll do just fine if they get players just as involved in the central figures as they did in MotB.

 

nope. you has simply not been paying attention. heck. at this point Gromnir ain't really sure what your point is as you ain't making one other than reply/quoting everything. Gromnir keeps trying to summarize and re-explain, but you go off on a different tangent each and every time.

 

What exactly is your deal with whining about quoting? You quote me using quote marks, and I quote you using the infinitely more legible quote tags, but somehow it's wrong for me to do it to show exactly what I'm responding to. You don't summarize and re-explain. You reiterate the same stuff about villain being important, and I say that the villain is not important. You seem to think that saying villain/obstacle is the same thing as acknowledging a point. Give up the dumb orc act and write a coherent sentence, maybe?

 

great. you don't have to agree. if a majority of people who played didn't care enough to get to end or didn't care 'bout transcendent one after finished, then that is revealing that transcendent one were a weak addition to the cast. for all ps:t strengths, the transcendent one, and more importantly, the final conflict at climax o' the game with the transcendent one, were not strengths commented on by players.

 

So you seem to think that because some people didn't get to the ending, that that proves that the ending sucked? Or because way back when some of your buddies didn't gush about the ending, that it wasn't, and still isn't, something that several other people gush about even to this day? I never implied that The Transcendent One was a strong character. I specifically asked a question to make point out that Torment has a great, satisfying ending despite The Transcendent One's lack of qualities that makes the player revel merely in his destruction.

 

ps have never heard halo as being described as truly story driven. just as diablo had narrative, it were not really story driven.

 

What does "truly story driven" even mean? Do writers for action games not have to follow the same rules that any other writers do? Hell, I think that Halo 1 has been novelized. But, regardless, Halo obviously does introduce a major conflict in the game, the Flood (in addition to the aliens you'd already been fighting), and you have to destroy the ring to kill all the Flood, and then get the hell off the ring as it's about to explode. Obviously any good game that has any sort of narrative needs a solid story underpinning it, but fighting uber bad guys at the end of every game gets old. It's simply more fun to convince them to nuke themselves, or will them out of existence, or whatever. And survival horror + epic fight with uber bad guy is a pretty terrible combination.

 

As for Splinter Cell, those have pretty good narratives, too, but no epic battles because assassinating a foreign president takes nothing but a sniper rifle and an + escape route. Another has a story where you end up killing all the main villains but still ultimately have a bioweapon to disarm. In the latest one you can simply kill every main bad guy from the shadows before disarming a bomb.

 

Anyway, you seem resigned to fighting uber bad guys and want more drama surround those uber bad guys, and I'd like more options besides being forced to fight an uber bad guy. It just seems like a lazy design choice to me. If nowhere else, you'd think that at the very least end-game scenarios would accommodate a few different play styles.

[Gromnir]

am s'posing you thinks we read your post. not gonna happen. too much silliness. too much reply/quote. and mods asked for an end.

 

"A distant relative of Yuan-ti allright. Not a fan of lizard men, but gnomes? I'll happily buy and use a scroll of gnomicide... Little pests. Why couldn't that suit of evil armour in BG2 be made out of Jan Jansens skin? bat.gif "

 

am not quite sure what is so attractive 'bout the evil lizard/serpent person bit that it gets reused over and over in virtual all kinda media. bioware took their stab with nwn. obsidian has a done a few times. can't we have fluffy-bunny people... but evil? hmm. guess that has been done too. "night of the lepus" or somesuch.

 

as for gnomes... now that 4e has made 'em monsters instead o' a playable race, you can kill 'em for their 10075 w/o remorse.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Marcus]

How about some type of modding tool that allows the user to make changes to a save file's journal entries. MotB had a lot of bugs that knocked off the original campeign's journal entries. Something that would allow the player to adjust the current save file's journal entries up by one. Most of the errors I found were from completing a task, and then the journal entry didn't adjust to show progression.

Edited July 27, 2008 by Marcus

[themadhatter114]

Eh, I think I had the reply box open before the mods commented.

 

There's not a whole lot to talk about with regard to SoZ until they release more information. Though I can't wait to try out the Doom Guy.

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, I'll have the Doomguide in my first party as well.

[newc0253]

How to keep this thread on-topic?

 

uh, so is Storm of the Zohan gonna come out before or after Mysteries of Westgate? Because i was actually looking forward to playing the latter ... last christmas or something.