The idea behind this thread is to encourage people to point more precisely to the kind of cRPG combat they like best and what cRPG they consider to be the best representative of that sort of combat.

Edited October 2, 201213 yr by metiman

I'm not sure about the quality of this poll. As I understand it, Dragon Age 1 and Dragon Age 2 had very different combat systems, and the label (New EA-Bioware) next to them strikes me as having an agenda.

 

I don't care for the new Bioware games or EA's policies, but lumping every game they've made since Jade Empire under one category seems rather useless for polling purposes.

The choice is not DA:O and DA2. It is either one. Do you understand the difference between logical AND and logical OR? It's a logical OR. There are only 10 choices in a poll. I had to do the same thing to all of Black Isle's games. Do you think IWD1, IWD2, and PS:T had the same combat system? IWD2 wasn't even a 2nd ed. system anymore. I removed the Electronic Arts reference from the New Bioware even though it cannot be denied that Bioware is now owned by Electronic Arts and that the founders are gone.

Edited October 2, 201213 yr by metiman

_{I'd vote for NWN or KotOR, but neither is available.}

I prefer it like in BG2. I like turn-based combat, but I don't want to micro manage every character's every turn like in ToEE. I do want the ability to do it however in the more tricky fights.

 

Magic wise I like to be able to choose between vancian and how the sorcerer worked in BG2, it added more tactics to the game when you had to choose between high-level spells and flexibility.

 

DA:O and DA2:s combat systems are horrible and extremly dumbed down, I only play those games for the RP and would skip combat altogether if I could.

Edited October 2, 201213 yr by BTA51

Putting Icewind Dale saga together with Planescape: Torment is kind of mean though.

The first is heavily combat centered, while the second, I always felt, had fights just to be more appealing to people who like combat in their breakfast.

_{I'd vote for NWN or KotOR, but neither is available.}

 

Sorry. I wanted to add NWN1, but I didn't have enough choices. I wanted to exclude SciFi settings from the choices due to not enough choices but also because that sort of firearm or energy weapon combat is pretty distinct from that of older fantasy settings. If there were 20 choices I would have included 20.

I voted for what I thought best fit what I think but the last questions I didn't really have an answer. Ultimately the changes in DAO are, in my mind at least, superior to old BG games but it was ultimately a more complex system and allowed for character customization where old ADnD was less about character customization and more about exploration and story. I kinda feel like you can do both and that's what 3E ended up doing for that series in my mind.

 

So, I ultimately picked newer RPG as being better in relation to that (at least with DAO as my example) but I think, combat aside, BG1-2/PST all did a far better job on the story and overal enjoyment of my experience. But that was inspite of the very simple combat and lack of character customization. I mean in BG you pick your class, you roll for stats (which is a poor system in my mind for RP'ing, point based like NWN just works better) and race. That's about it.. yu don't do much past that, can't pick skills and whatnot 'after' that. It's just HP and THAC0. IWD2 though using 3E rules really let you just get intot he meat of characters which was a 'blast' to play in an infinity engine.

 

So, out of all the infinity games, IWD2 was my favorit 'combat wise'. It had all the fun customization in characters, mechanically, that I crave... but BG2/PST had the more engrosing story. Granted, IWD2 was very linear and designed as a tactical dungoen crawler, not some mind blowing RP adventure with crazy companions and all that fun stuff. I think a lot of folks may pick BG or an infinity engine game based purely off the overall experience and not no the merits of the actual nuts n bolts of the combat its self. Also, with that, just how a game feels outside of your customization options means a lot to your enjoyment of it.

 

I think ADnD rules are kinda... weak. Lack customization out side of you making up your own class 'kit' but you don't get to do that for a cRPG. But Baldur's Gate 'feels' right, feels good, so even the overly simple stuff just works. Good example are diablo clones, original Diablo, D2, all felt right to me with what they where doing, and I ultimately haven't really liked any of the diablo-esks games to come out since. They always are a bit floaty. DAO kinda had a floatyness to it that ultimately lacked the more punchy feeling I got in BG2 as well.

 

So If I could get that same feeling I had with an infinity engine game, but with a bit more complex character customization like 3E/DAO/DA2 (DA2 had great customization but to much forced weapon sets per class)... well, I'd be pretty damn happy with that.

I'm not sure why you would separate BG, IWD and NWN... they are all basically the same combat system... unless you refer to some auto-pause options...

 

As much as I like Arcanum's setting I hated the combat system even more than the Elderscrolls and DA...

 

I loved ToEE, but it's probably due to the fact that I prefer TBC if the combat needs to be tactical... All the fancy stuff implemented like grappling etc. Many of the abilities cannot be done well with RTWP system

Edited October 2, 201213 yr by Darkpriest

I'm not sure why you would separate BG, IWD and NWN... they are all basically the same combat system... unless you refer to some auto-pause options...

 

As much as I like Arcanum's setting I hated the combat system even more than the Elderscrolls and DA...

 

I loved ToEE, but it's probably due to the fact that I prefer TBC if the combat needs to be tactical... All the fancy stuff implemented like grappling etc. Many of the abilities cannot be done well with RTWP system

 

NWN (1 I mean) was very, very different in regards to how companions worked.

Voted that no fantasy crpg was ever made with the combat system I want. Well, ToEE was closest, but I dislike the D&D combat system. My example of a good combat system would be JA2 1.13. Now if somebody would rework that to shift the focus from ranged to melee combat (like adding additional interrupts for opponent moving in / out of melee range and active defences like parrying and blocking), that is what I would call perfect. If I really can't have a faithful implementation of GURPS combat system in a crpg.

 

On second question I voted fatigue based casting with possible physical penalties but without cooldowns. Though I'm not sure what "physical penalties" actually would be. And how is that option any different from mana without cooldowns options - it's basically the same thing with a different name.

 

I don't think I need to explain how I voted in the last question, other than to state again my burning hatred for all things MMO.

I'm not sure why you would separate BG, IWD and NWN... they are all basically the same combat system... unless you refer to some auto-pause options...

 

As much as I like Arcanum's setting I hated the combat system even more than the Elderscrolls and DA...

 

I loved ToEE, but it's probably due to the fact that I prefer TBC if the combat needs to be tactical... All the fancy stuff implemented like grappling etc. Many of the abilities cannot be done well with RTWP system

 

NWN (1 I mean) was very, very different in regards to how companions worked.

 

but the combat mechanics is the same - RTWP on isometric view. We already know that we will have controllable companions (in NWN2 you had full control of companions)... they all used DnD rules... and they all had same spell mechanics and feat usage mechanics... I do not see any difference here in terms of combat mechanics.

 

BTW fallout combat mechanics is missing here.

Do you understand the difference between logical AND and logical OR?

Nonetheless, the outputs are lumped together despite possibly expressing more than one opinion...which by the terms of the poll are also contradictory opinions by necessity. There were other games given independent slots on your poll that were far more similar.

The choice is not DA:O and DA2. It is either one. Do you understand the difference between logical AND and logical OR? It's a logical OR. There are only 10 choices in a poll. I had to do the same thing to all of Black Isle's games. Do you think IWD1, IWD2, and PS:T had the same combat system? IWD2 wasn't even a 2nd ed. system anymore. I removed the Electronic Arts reference from the New Bioware even though it cannot be denied that Bioware is now owned by Electronic Arts and that the founders are gone.

 

Nevertheless, the choice is not a good one. I liked DAO combat. I hated DA2 combat.

Where's the option of "Some system that has never been tried before (I won't explain)"? Because I'm tired of these threads and I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

And why the hell is Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 lumped together? Why is Baldur's Gate 2 separated but not Icewind Dale/2 and Planescape: Torment? If anything, Planescape: Torment was the only one that diverted slightly from the others.

 

Have you actually played any of these games?

 

....and did you just lump Arx Fatalis together with Ultima Underworld? Christ.

Yes and some people loved IWD2 combat and thought PS:T combat was boring. I had to make some compromises including leaving out SciFi or modern choices (KOTOR, Fallout, VtM) as well as other significant modern games like Witcher. I really would have liked to include Witcher 1 and 2 as an option. It's strange that people are so insulted by having DA:O even in the same category as DA2. One is the direct sequel to the other after all. It wasn't intended as an insult. I figured there must be some people who preferred DA2 combat or maybe who just haven't played DA:O, but have played DA2. No need to leave them out just because DA:O people are insulted by the sequel. If absolutely no one likes DA2 it won't affect the numbers anyway.

Where's the option of "Some system that has never been tried before (I won't explain)"? Because I'm tired of these threads and I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

And why the hell is Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 lumped together? Why is Baldur's Gate 2 separated but not Icewind Dale/2 and Planescape: Torment? If anything, Planescape: Torment was the only one that diverted slightly from the others.

 

Have you actually played any of these games?

 

....and did you just lump Arx Fatalis together with Ultima Underworld? Christ.

 

They are lumped together because one was the direct sequel to the other and both were made by the same developer. BG2 was made by an entirely separate developer (Bioware) from IWD1/2 and PS:T (Black Isle) and I believe the game play is quite distinct as well. I have played BG2 (like a million times), IWD, IWD2, and PS:T, With a few more slots I could have at least separated PS:T from IWD1 and 2 which seem to resemble each other more than PS:T. I've played Arx Fatalis (like a million times), and UW1 and 2 many many times. Arx Fatalis was written as a tribute to UW1 and UW2 and the gameplay was quite similar IMHO. It was intended as a substitute for the highly anticipated UW3 that never arrived.

Yeah, it's kinda funny but DA2 is this bizar mix of great changes and godawful missteps. Looking at it now, I prefer the moer complex skill system they have in place compared to DAO rather...copy-fest. Mages had everything, Rogues had most the warrior stuff, and both had a small amount of there own warrior or rogue only flavor. In the end DA2 did a much, much better job of giving all classes a lot of diverse options as far as skills go and the ability to customize with in that. The big misstep I see, in comparison, is they pigon holed it to much. if you wanna be an archer you 'have' to be a rogue, want to dual wield? have to be a rogue. Can't be a warrior for whatever reason, and vice versa... wanna use a sword and small shield? Gadda be a warrior! Though they only really had 1 kind of shield. It was to 'forced' down specific paths with no diversion with in that.

 

Plus they went to diablo-y on how stats where handled and items and all that and it kinda kills the attachment you get may get with items you find when every other lvl a basic items beating out your magic item. It's an issue you had in ME1 to some extent and they realized and tried to address that in ME2 (but went to simple, which is where ME3 tried to shift it up). It's something DnD and a lot of PnP games do in general that a lot of cRPG's have abandonded for whatever bizar reason. But ultimately that 'base' item grind (not just higher magic values but actual base item stats) literally kills any attachment one may have.... and im kinda getting off on a tangent there sorry.

 

So right, DAO vs DA2, DA2 other misstep in relation to combat was just the animations and overall feel of it. Removed the isometric camera on PC for whatever reasons. And keep in mind this is coming from a person who played it on a console as, my computer for the past... 12 years hasn't changed up till this year so... I had to deal with DAO on a console just to play it. Trust me when i said I'd of prefered that in isometric but I still enjoyed it even with the kinda make-shifty controles and forced perspective.

 

Anyway add to that the poor and constant use of wave-monster spawning (which isn't bad at base, was just over used, poorly) amongst other things... any anything DA2 did good ultimately gets overshadowed by all the other 'wtf' stuff.

Yeah, the first part of this poll is a bit dumb. It looks more like a game developer popularity contest than a poll on actual combat mechanics.

 

Consider redoing it.

Edited October 2, 201213 yr by Infinitron

Who made this poll without Fallout as combat option??!!!

 

Really dude you must be a noob.

"Dragon Age: Origins or Dragon Age 2 (New Bioware) (6 votes [10.91%] - View)"

 

i wish i knew a spell that transported the six of you into 17th century germany so you could enjoy a good schwedentrunk while relaxing on a spiked chair..

this... is a rather terribly biased poll in the way it's phrased.

Yeah, the first part of this poll is a bit dumb. It looks more like a game developer popularity contest than a poll on actual combat mechanics.

 

Consider redoing it.

 

I'd be happy to accomodate you if you had some more specific suggestions, but it looks like my chances to edit the poll have expired.

 

[bTW, let me say again that the omission of modern/SciFi settings (FO, VtM, KOTOR) was intentional due to the somewhat different style of combat and the limited number of slots.]

what different style of combat? kotor combat was identical to that of NWN/2, except crossbows were called laser pistol and longswords lightsabres.

Even the 'Magic' part is very hard to vote anything in it, as it doesn't really take into account the more subtle stuff.

 

For example, i would myself be more for a system with only 'mana', but where you not only regenerate mana slowly (as in, it would maybe take 2 minutes of real time gaming to regenerate enough for a fireball), but the regenerated pool max dimnish the more spells you use (only way to bring it back to max is sleeping at a temple or something).