NWN2 and SOZ, five bucks each on Direct 2 Drive.

[Syraxis]

That sale is/was pretty awesome. I hope the Steam Christmas-New Year sale will be as good.

 

With the exception of GOG, no one comes close to the awesome deals of stream holiday sales.

[alanschu]

I think download limits depends on the game.

 

I don't recall there being any download limits for NWN2

[Monte Carlo]

There's only two features of SoZ that I liked: the overland map, and the music. The plot was worse than Shadow of Undrentide.

 

Harsh. But then again, SoZ wasn't really about plot, I've enjoyed it plenty without being too distracted by why i'm looting, levelling up, beating up monsters, exploring (etc).

[Purkake]

The towns in SoZ were even worse than in the NWN2 OC, it was just sad and totally took me out of the game. I don't know what force drove Obsidian to make a weird DnD combat simulator.

 

Also, in before Volourn.

[Guest Slinky]

I took SoZ as a nod to Icewind Dales. IWD's weren't my thing, so I haven't even tried SoZ.

[Slowtrain]

D&D IS a combat simulator. Especially without a good DM. So especially in a crpg.

[Slowtrain]

Dbl post

Edited September 22, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Purkake]

D&D IS a combat simulator. Especially without a good DM. So especially in a crpg.

 

Yes, but MotB had an awesome story and a bit of exploration between the combat parts.

 

If it's supposed to be the IWD of NWN series, it fails solely on the account that the camera and combat system kind of suck compared to the IE.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

D&D IS a combat simulator. Especially without a good DM. So especially in a crpg.

 

Yes, but MotB had an awesome story and a bit of exploration between the combat parts.

 

If it's supposed to be the IWD of NWN series, it fails solely on the account that the camera and combat system kind of suck compared to the IE.

 

 

I loved IWD. I felt it was the most realized of all the IE games. But I never played the NWN2 stuff.

[Purkake]

Not even MotB?

 

It's like the closest thing to PST in the last ~8 years.

[Starwars]

I much prefer SoZ to IWD (haven't played the second one though). I don't really think the Infinity engine was all that when it came to combat. Though I'll grant it that the BGs and IWD *generally* had a tighter encounter design than any NWN2 game. However, there's just plenty of stuff in SoZ that I prefer. I think the Overland Map was great (opinions obviously differ on that), I prefer the ruleset as well. And while both IWD and SoZ has a system where you can use anyone as the "talker", one of SoZ's true innovations was how well it streamlined that into the party conversation system. If we ever see any party oriented games where you create a party again, I would be very disappointed if this feature didn't make it in in some form. I already find it quite annoying to go through older games like that, ToEE for example (which I replayed not long ago). Though SoZ went under the radar so I'm guessing we won't really see that again.

I also think it's the one game in NWN series that really benefits from the large character creation options provided. I think it's a hell of a lot of fun to create a party, either well-balanced ones or totally "gimmicky".

 

There's plenty of stuff I'd complain about in SoZ though, many design decisions that I'd like to change. But, it has turned out to be one of those games that I just keep returning because I find it a lot of fun to play.

[Slowtrain]

One of these days I'll probably pick of NWN2 plus x-packs. Just don't have much love for D&D-based computer games.

[Purkake]

I feel that the new 3D engine highlights all the problems that naturally come from making a turn-based PnP game into a video game. It's always been an abstraction, but IE hid it better and allowed the developers to make more stuff(encounters, areas, etc.) in less time.

 

Obviously the 3.5 ed is better, but it was the less lenient system that gave the IE games it's fun and strategic combat. In NWN2 you can try to use tactics, but it's so much easier to just send a strong dude to pummel them all and maybe set the Warlock on auto-blasting mode. You don't need any of the cool spells, using them just takes longer.

 

Another place the actions and strategy actually mattered was The Temple of Elemental Evil, but that was because they copied the PnP system as accurately as possible, most importantly, the turn-based aspect.

 

One of these days I'll probably pick of NWN2 plus x-packs. Just don't have much love for D&D-based computer games.

 

So it's all JA2, all the time?

 

MotB is the only one really worth playing, especially if you don't really like the DnD-based system.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

JA2 all the time is a wonderful idea!

[Purkake]

I tend to get bored eventually.

 

Also, I like new experiences.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[Kelverin]

Obviously the 3.5 ed is better,

No it is not.

 

I much prefer SoZ to IWD

Can't agree here. SoZ works for me but IWD is in my top 5 games of all time.

[Purkake]

Obviously the 3.5 ed is better,

No it is not.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that DnD 2e ruleset is better than 3.5e? We're talking about PnP here, not cRPGs BTW.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[Rosbjerg]

Sorry Matthew, but according to the guidelines of these forums you aren't allowed to advertise a product.

 

Advertisement: This forum is not to be used to advertise or distribute products, services or copyrighted material.

 

 

-

 

But great idea, going digital is the future.. it saves resources and money for both producer and consumer!

[Purkake]

Boom! You moderated him good.

[Kelverin]

Are you seriously suggesting that DnD 2e ruleset is better than 3.5e? We're talking about PnP here, not cRPGs BTW.

As serious as a heart attack, just think how much more development time was spent on things that matter because you had a simple set of guidelines for each race/class. The quality of 2nd edition games prove this. Hell most of the time spent on playing 3rd edition is finding out how to get uberpowerful builds. Some geeks love that stuff not this one.

[Purkake]

The quality of video games based on the system has nothing to do with the quality of the system itself, your reasoning is flawed.

 

DnD 2e was a horrible mess of different systems, overcomplicated rules with a million exceptions and generally everything using it's own rules that made some stuff unusable and other things super powerful. Obviously incorporating that into a video game takes care of most of the craziness, but that doesn't make the PnP rules any better.

 

3.5 is far from perfect, but it's the best DnD system IMO. There are way better PnP systems, though.

 

EDIT: Have you actually read/played the 2e DnD PnP?

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[Kelverin]

The quality of video games based on the system has nothing to do with the quality of the system itself, your reasoning is flawed.

 

DnD 2e was a horrible mess of different systems, overcomplicated rules with a million exceptions and generally everything using it's own rules that made some stuff unusable and other things super powerful. Obviously incorporating that into a video game takes care of most of the craziness, but that doesn't make the PnP rules any better.

 

3.5 is far from perfect, but it's the best DnD system IMO. There are way better PnP systems, though.

 

EDIT: Have you actually read/played the 2e DnD PnP?

The rules are relevant and very much a part of the game and does effect quality, your logic is flawed. How much time was/is spent in making sure the rules are implemented correctly? Could those resources be used elsewhere? I believe they could be used in character/story/NPC/World development.

 

I have played this game in one form or other since the 70's. Core 2nd edition was pretty tight, only rules I allowed in my 6 year campaign, nice system, but with all the handbooks and other supplements did what you described, that's why I never allowed them.

[Purkake]

The quality of video games based on the system has nothing to do with the quality of the system itself, your reasoning is flawed.

 

DnD 2e was a horrible mess of different systems, overcomplicated rules with a million exceptions and generally everything using it's own rules that made some stuff unusable and other things super powerful. Obviously incorporating that into a video game takes care of most of the craziness, but that doesn't make the PnP rules any better.

 

3.5 is far from perfect, but it's the best DnD system IMO. There are way better PnP systems, though.

 

EDIT: Have you actually read/played the 2e DnD PnP?

The rules are relevant and very much a part of the game and does effect quality, your logic is flawed. How much time was/is spent in making sure the rules are implemented correctly? Could those resources be used elsewhere? I believe they could be used in character/story/NPC/World development.

 

I have played this game in one form or other since the 70's. Core 2nd edition was pretty tight, only rules I allowed in my 6 year campaign, nice system, but with all the handbooks and other supplements did what you described, that's why I never allowed them.

 

Do you have any information on how much time was spent implementing the rules for 2e games and 3.5e games? Why would implementing one be inherently more difficult than the other?

 

There was plenty of stupid outdated stuff in the core rules as well, things like different classes advancing at different speeds(poor druids), some class-race combinations being banned for no good reason. THAC0, which was a needlessly complicated mechanic and fell apart at higher levels and the saving throw system that made little to no sense.

 

Sure it worked and you could have fun with it, but my point is that 3.5e was a big step forward.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Purkake

[alanschu]

Until I understood a lot of the mechanics of AD&D, games like the Gold Box games were very confusing. I didn't understand why Plate Armor had a lower Armor Class than Cloth Armor.

 

And why did a +2 sword lower my THAC0 by 2?!?

 

 

With the dice rolls being abstracted in CRPGs, a lot of the mechanics were not very intuitive at all I found.

[Kelverin]

The quality of video games based on the system has nothing to do with the quality of the system itself, your reasoning is flawed.

 

DnD 2e was a horrible mess of different systems, overcomplicated rules with a million exceptions and generally everything using it's own rules that made some stuff unusable and other things super powerful. Obviously incorporating that into a video game takes care of most of the craziness, but that doesn't make the PnP rules any better.

 

3.5 is far from perfect, but it's the best DnD system IMO. There are way better PnP systems, though.

 

EDIT: Have you actually read/played the 2e DnD PnP?

The rules are relevant and very much a part of the game and does effect quality, your logic is flawed. How much time was/is spent in making sure the rules are implemented correctly? Could those resources be used elsewhere? I believe they could be used in character/story/NPC/World development.

 

I have played this game in one form or other since the 70's. Core 2nd edition was pretty tight, only rules I allowed in my 6 year campaign, nice system, but with all the handbooks and other supplements did what you described, that's why I never allowed them.

 

Do you have any information on how much time was spent implementing the rules for 2e games and 3.5e games? Why would implementing one be inherently more difficult than the other?

 

There was plenty of stupid outdated stuff in the core rules as well, things like different classes advancing at different speeds(poor druids), some class-race combinations being banned for no good reason. THAC0, which was a needlessly complicated mechanic and fell apart at higher levels and the saving throw system that made little to no sense.

 

Sure it worked and you could have fun with it, but my point is that 3.5e was a big step forward.

If you are a rules person than maybe, but rules always get in the way of players having fun and using their imagination. So far as my experience has shown. I have no issues with classes advancing slower faster than others did not bother me, no but losing experience for creating something does, clerics getting insta heal spells, no class restrictions.........I could go on and on

 

I have no proof of the extra amount of work it would take to implement all the feats/other rule changes in 3rd edition in a Crpg but I would imagine it's tough to do and have it work correctly. Aren't some of them still bugged after all these years (NWN2)