Update #9: The power of MODES and Godlike Races: Our $2.3M Stretch Goal

[evdk]

No. The new need to be gently, tenderly but firmly unengaged from the gaming teat of dumbed-down dross and reintroduced to the purity of the Old Skool.

 

what? You mean like games, that actually have to be played?

Not every game is Dungeon Siege.

[Monte Carlo]

I know the idea of engaging with and playing games (as opposed to merely watching them) is radical and has become unfashionable of late, but it is a cause I believe not to be entirely lost.

 

But we must remain vigilant. The Games Watchers, like Promancers, are everywhere.

[Nakia]

So in your opinion, the game that explicitly states to be the spiritual successor to BG, IWD and PS:T is backed by people that have no idea what that means?

 

I think a few people have either backed or simply joined the discussion that have never played the old school games, yes. I remember having a difficulty slider on those games. I remember it well because I pushed the IWD II one the wrong direction and couldn't figure out why I was having such a terrible time playing on easy. I asked on a fan site and was embarrased at my mistake.

[Reddie]

I know the idea of engaging with and playing games (as opposed to merely watching them) is radical and has become unfashionable of late, but it is a cause I believe not to be entirely lost.

 

Yes, you will have your Wasteland 2. Now step aside and don't ruin the enjoyment for people who liked expanded story and limited combat of Planescape Torment.

[Monte Carlo]

No.

[Stun]

Planescape: Torment didn't have "limited combat". It simply had a combat system that was so god awful that the story *had* to eclypse it, otherwise the game would have never seen the light of day. You could, if you wanted to, rack up a higher body count in that game than you did in IWD. All enemies respawn in PS:T, remember?

 

And. . . . again. Have we forgotten Update #7? There was never a point in time when the Devs ever entertained the notion that PE would be a standard dungeon crawler. Since day one the goal was always to make it one of those games where both combat options and non-combat options were avaliable to the player.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Stun

[Reddie]

Good to see you've finally threw away even the pretense of being rational

 

@Stun: I don't know which game you are talking about, but it's certainly not Torment, where combat system was anything but awful.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Reddie

[evdk]

I know the idea of engaging with and playing games (as opposed to merely watching them) is radical and has become unfashionable of late, but it is a cause I believe not to be entirely lost.

 

Yes, you will have your Wasteland 2. Now step aside and don't ruin the enjoyment for people who liked expanded story and limited combat of Planescape Torment.

Too bad that PS:T was an adventure with some RPG mechanics thrown in.

[Monte Carlo]

Planescape... I don't get the love personally, but I respect the fan mania. But the combat was awful. There were some bad design decisions in that game. I like the idea of putting in some of the NPC interaction and story elements in PE but which bit of "we want to recreate the tactical isometric combat of the IE games" didn't you read.

 

As for me being irrational, if you want to see irrationality at full tilt dip a toe in the romance thread.

[Reddie]

Too bad that PS:T was an adventure with some RPG mechanics thrown in.

 

Roleplaying was always about adventure. So giving this RP part of RPG more attention for once is just what made Torment so unique and awesome.

 

Planescape... I don't get the love personally, but I respect the fan mania. But the combat was awful. There were some bad design decisions in that game. I like the idea of putting in some of the NPC interaction and story elements in PE but which bit of "we want to recreate the tactical isometric combat of the IE games" didn't you read.

 

Apart from the interface - kinda early iteration of NWN wheel - Torment combat system was exaclty the same as it were in previous (BG) and later (IWD, BG2) titles. The differences are not on part of the combat system but game design overall - there were noticeably less encounters and your characters were relatively stronger, so that combat was less tedious and didn't get in way of the story. And rightly so, the more storytelling the better RPG gets.

[Darkpriest]

Planescape wasn't combat oriented, but still had tons of it. You won't tell me that there was no combat, because the first thing you do in the game is killing a zombie.

 

Now we also need to remember that PC couldn't die (aside of a few specific places) and your NPC allies had more passive benefits than most of the monsters that you encountered as foes in BG series...

 

Seriously. have you ever seen a better tank than Morte? A caster with a ton of immunities? A gith with the best sword in the game? Should I comment more?

 

You could have skipped big confrontations with dialog, but still other encounters you had to fight... (my best playthrough was as a mage with ultra high int, very high wis and relatively high cha, but used "Friends " spell to get over that short coming)

[evdk]

Too bad that PS:T was an adventure with some RPG mechanics thrown in.

 

Roleplaying was always about adventure. So giving this RP part of RPG more attention for once is just what made Torment so unique and awesome.

 

Do you even know what an adventure game is?

[Darkpriest]

Too bad that PS:T was an adventure with some RPG mechanics thrown in.

 

Roleplaying was always about adventure. So giving this RP part of RPG more attention for once is just what made Torment so unique and awesome.

 

Planescape... I don't get the love personally, but I respect the fan mania. But the combat was awful. There were some bad design decisions in that game. I like the idea of putting in some of the NPC interaction and story elements in PE but which bit of "we want to recreate the tactical isometric combat of the IE games" didn't you read.

 

Apart from the interface - kinda early iteration of NWN wheel - Torment combat system was exaclty the same as it were in previous (BG) and later (IWD, BG2) titles. The differences are not on part of the combat system but game design overall - there were noticeably less encounters and your characters were relatively stronger, so that combat was less tedious and didn't get in way of the story. And rightly so, the more storytelling the better RPG gets.

 

Planescape was unique, because the setting was unique... and The Nameless One - Immortal being was also very unique. Don't tell me that you want to get an NPC tank with 75% resistance to damage right of the bat? It kind of kills the adventuring mood.

 

Easy mode will be enough if monsters will be lower end of spawns and they will do to you 50% of their regular damage. Make sure to invest in non-combat skills and stats, to avoid major encounters, so you can "talk through" them.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Darkpriest

[Reddie]

Do you even know what an adventure game is?

 

You mean this genre that should be called "puzzle game" instead?

[evdk]

Do you even know what an adventure game is?

 

You mean this genre that should be called "puzzle game" instead?

It's semantics discussion time, oh happy days.

[Reddie]

It's semantics discussion time, oh happy days.

 

1) Point out unrelated genre based on it's name's semantics,

2) Complain that discussion got derailed on semantics,

3) Profit?

[evdk]

Now, I literally meant that PS:T was an adventure (as in point'n'click adventure or as you say puzzle) game with some stats thrown in. No semantics involved. Sorry for using gaming nomenclature from before 2000, I forgot the decline hit hard.

[Reddie]

Okay, now since you've recognized that I accurately read your point (albeit I disagree with it), does your apologies for "gaming nomenclature from before 2000" has any other goal than being failed attempt at trolling?

[Malcador]

You'd think people would be a bit more aware of what they're walking in to, at this point.

[evdk]

Okay, now since you've recognized that I accurately read your point (albeit I disagree with it), does your apologies for "gaming nomenclature from before 2000" has any other goal than being failed attempt at trolling?

Again, it was during 2000s when the meaning of adventure shifted from Grim Fandango to Tomb Rider. I just apologized for confusing the issue.

[Stun]

I don't know which game you are talking about, but it's certainly not Torment, where combat system was anything but awful.

*shudder*

 

Lets see.

 

Combat Class Options - you had 3. Mage, Warrior, Thief. But you couldn't be all 3 at the same time, or even 2 at the same time. Instead, you could only access ONE at any given time.

 

Combat Style Options: Virtually none. Ranged weapon combat was not in the game, until you trudged your way through the most intentionally monotonous dungeon ever created. And then, you got a single NPC who had the ability to shoot off Bolts, from his non-removable crossbows.... and nothing else. In the meantime, you had a party of six, 5 of which could only engage in melee combat, so 90% of all fights were a messy, untactical clusterf*ck, unless you had the 3 avaliable spell casters sit back and fire off spells, in which case, fights became really really boring, really really quick, since all enemies move in slow motion, and 99% enemies are the melee type.

 

Enemies: There were 2 types. The spell casting type, and the mindless hack-hack-hack type. The spell casters were both the rarest and the easiest, since You could just have Morte instantly disable them with his Litany of Curses, turning them into mindless melee types... which is the type of enemy that dominates the game. ALL are one dimentional. ALL simply attack you and their attacks do nothing but straight damage. Enemies don't stealth. Enemies don't employ tactics.

 

Spell Casting: Surpasses even DA2 in the dumbing down department. Only 2 spells in the entire game pose a friendly fire threat, and one of them is a cleric spell, which can only be cast by the games ONE Cleric.

 

Combat Equipment/Armor: none. Your nameless one is a naked warrior, theif or mage... from begining to end. That's right. Your AC was something like 9 or 10 for a good portion of the game.... And, no ranged combat ability. meanwhile, no armor customization for Morte, or Dakkon, or Ignus, Or Nordom, or Vhailor. Only Grace and Annah had a choice of 3 armors each, which all look exactly the same, and avaliable in ONE Shop only. Exciting.

 

Is this *really* your preferred system? Really? It's garbage. Even If my ideal game contained very limited combat, I still wouldn't want this sort of system.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Stun

[Living One]

Too bad that PS:T was an adventure with some RPG mechanics thrown in.

 

Roleplaying was always about adventure. So giving this RP part of RPG more attention for once is just what made Torment so unique and awesome.

 

Planescape... I don't get the love personally, but I respect the fan mania. But the combat was awful. There were some bad design decisions in that game. I like the idea of putting in some of the NPC interaction and story elements in PE but which bit of "we want to recreate the tactical isometric combat of the IE games" didn't you read.

 

Apart from the interface - kinda early iteration of NWN wheel - Torment combat system was exaclty the same as it were in previous (BG) and later (IWD, BG2) titles. The differences are not on part of the combat system but game design overall - there were noticeably less encounters and your characters were relatively stronger, so that combat was less tedious and didn't get in way of the story. And rightly so, the more storytelling the better RPG gets.

Cut and pasting from another thread:

"Videogames are about interaction(it's their language basically).Therefore a designer should be concerned to make the player care about it:to do this the dungeon crawling parts of RPGs(combat and exploration)provide the player with fun mechanics and stuff that will be of concrete value to the player during the game(the possibility to advance the game primarily and stuff useful for that like level ups,consumables,...)if he/she likes it.In other words these part of an RPG are most likely going to offer incentives the player(that likes them) will value.

 

Story,instead,works differently usually:even when it's interactive the actual mechanics offer no concrete value to the player(again,usually but not always) and it is the writing rather than gameplay to try to engage the player wich is in opposition to what videogames are(if you try to have a certain quest outcome due to how you like character for example it's the writing driving you not mechanics).Of course that's not to say all 'story interactions' are meaningless from a gameplay perspective(example:do I give this npc coins i might instead use to buy a sword in hope for a reward later?or see the punishment you got by picking certain dialogue options while talking to the pillar of skulls in PST or stuff that makes you progress through the gameplay and thus get the concrete advantages i mentioned above).And even in these cases these interactions are meaningful to the dungeon crawling experience(that's why why even games like Torment,Fallout,Arcanum had those bits even if in minor parts:it wasn't a feature they had to inherit due to RPG traditions.They needed them to work.)

To conclude even PST is a combat-centric game like Delterius says and it is so because otherwise it would make a weaker use of gameplay ,including the story one(it's its language as i said) and would be less of a videogame."

 

So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

[Reddie]

Again, it was during 2000s when the meaning of adventure shifted from Grim Fandango to Tomb Rider. I just apologized for confusing the issue.

 

Excuse me when i take a sigh there. I meant exactly this point'n'click puzzle games when I responded to your post, so I think it's pretty obvious that pre-2000 terminology was understandable for me, making your apologies sound like mocking. Okay, end of the issue. Now back to topic: yes, I've heard of these games. I even played a few. I don't consider Torment anywhere close to the genre.

 

Is this *really* your preferred system? Really? It's garbage. Even If my ideal game contained very limited combat, I still wouldn't want this sort of system.

 

Where did I described it as my "preferred" system? I wrote it was not awful. And it wasn't, in a game that puts emphasis on story and not combat it was just enough. Not to say that it couldn't be done better.

 

So sorry but the argument "gameplay getting in the way of the story" is just cringe worthy to hear and the reason most modern games suck really badly.

 

Funny, cause I see it exaclty other way around - it's all gameplay and no story nowadays. Mass Effect, for example, in my eyes sacrifices most of it's storytelling heritage for the sake of linear shooting corridors. Won't even mention Dragon Age. And newest Obsidian creation, Alpha Protocol, suffers from it too, to some degree - albeit rewarding the player with better dialogue, scenario and nonlinearity.

[TwinkieGorilla]

So I think asking for a mode that removes combat, or (more likely to be implementable) one that makes combat vanishingly easy is a perfectly valid request.

 

"I don't really like chess, I just like staring intensely at a board."

[BobbinThreadbare]

Can we get the opposite?

 

For example, Mass Effect 3 had "Story Mode," which allowed players to skip through the monotony of random fighting and "strategic play," in order to appreciate the story, world, and characters without having to tredge through the parts they wouldn't enjoy.

 

I don't particularly like some of the responses I've seen to this, and similar sentiments. There hasn't been any abuse or vitriol, which is great, but there is definitely a certain amount of disdain.

 

I'm a story-driven gamer. In my particular case, I also really enjoy the gameplay elements of RPGs, and I foresee myself trying out some of these increased difficulty modes (although I'll be doing that after I've done a complete playthrough). For me, unlocking the story as a reward for completing gameplay challenges really works.

 

However, I don't see a reason why someone shouldn't be allowed to play a game purely to experience the story, or why they should be disparaged for it. Saying something like "go read a book or watch a movie" isn't helpful - or even cogent. Experiencing a story interactively - even stripped of its combat elements - is another experience entirely. That's something I think a majority of RPG fans can agree on. It might also be that the story told by a particular game is not one you can experience anywhere else.

 

So I think asking for a mode that removes combat, or (more likely to be implementable) one that makes combat vanishingly easy is a perfectly valid request. Real time with no pause necessary. Real time with no action on the player's part necessary. It's not the option I would choose, but I'm certainly not going to belittle someone who does want to play the game that way, or fault the developers for including that option, as well as their more difficult modes, in the game.

If the ability to avoid combat is part of the game, that's fine. Even admirable. However, that should mean one is using gameplay to avoid it. Not just pressing a skip button.

 

If a skip button exists, that means gameplay and story are seperate elements. Which means the game is a book that sometimes features banal slog your way through combat. The two should be able to be seperated because it should be be a cohesive experience.