Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Oh I fully believe it is and can fully deliver on that promise without completely alienating everybody else. I think their 2.3 mil stretch goal proves their commitment to having the game be sufficiently flexible to please the old without alienating the new.

 

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.

  • Like 5

sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am only being realistic here and I do not believe I am being unreasonable. Ultimately this will not have a great impact on me either way....so long as the story and player choice system are decent I can deal with any kind of gameplay and difficulty.

  • Like 1

1zq6793.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)


 I have but one enemy: myself  - Drow saying


nakia_banner.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Stun
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Reddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


sonsofgygax.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Darkpriest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Say no to popamole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Stun
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...