I would like a form of tactical combat as a regular part of the game. I would like the default difficult to make combat interesting, but not so difficult that I have to retry battles a dozen times to beat them. I would prefer not having to rely massively on consumables. I think there should be an easier, narrative-focused setting that minimizes combat frequency and difficulty for folks who don't enjoy the combat in P:E, and a more challenging setting for folks who want most encounters to require highly skilled and precise use of their characters. Personally, I'm not interested in a level of difficult that frustrates me until I master it because I play RPGs for entertainment and relaxation rather than competition.

 

I would like a non-combat solution to be available in many instances and not feel like a tacked-on "pick this option if you don't like to fight" button in the dialogue tree. If my characters are in a dungeon, I expect most encounters to be combat. If my characters are in a non-hostile city, I expect most encounters to NOT require combat.

@ Karkarov; While I am not sure what game that's from I am sure there are better ways to think of to finish and make it satisfying.

After all, this is OE.

I'm not sure that this poll properly allows me to demonstrate my opinion. Tactics and decisions are important to me. I need a good story, that is indisputable, but the gameplay also has to be engaging. Whether this means epic boss encounters, sneaking around some bandits, poisoning the drink of an ambassador or talking my way out of a beating isn't so relevant as long as it is engaging. It is worth mentioning that I enjoy powergaming though, so having challenging boss fights is crucial to that so that I can formulate my spreadsheets accordingly.

Story is the thing I'm most interested in. If the combat is good/great, that is a big bonus. I've liked the combat in most rpgs, but sometimes there can be way too many encounters the closer you come to the end.

@ Karkarov; While I am not sure what game that's from I am sure there are better ways to think of to finish and make it satisfying.

After all, this is OE.

Funny you should say that. Mr. House is one of the Main potential Antagonists of the game Fallout: New Vegas. It is made by a company called Obsidian.

Edited November 17, 201213 yr by Karkarov

Hello everyone - i like to enjoy story as much as possible with ocasional combat. But i think it may be nice to choose if you want to fight or not in order to proceed. Sometimes you just want to screw somebody and sometimes you just want to flow around.

 

I like combat a lot, but it depends how you mean it - in Fallout i loved it, in BG, Dragon Age - i hated it.

 

So if it will be turned based with nice tactical options and you can fight clever - yes - i want combat and as challanging as it can be (i will be fighting on highest difficulty if there will be something like that)

 

If it will be that horrible real time/pausing mess - i just take easy difficulty and i will try to enjoy story as much as possible and try to avoid fighting whenever possible.....

I'm split even but I slightly prefer combat over story. Wizardry tales of the forsaken land and a lot of dungeon crawlers addicting combat can make for a enjoyable game. If the game has excellent story even better. I lpve when dungeons in games have a story and personality to them. Baldurs Gate 2 good example of a game where the developers really fleshed out the dungeons. The monsters in the dungeons have purpose to being there. Trolls, evil genies, vampires. It makes the whole the dungeon crawling experience much more interesting and enjoyable.

I need a story to justify what I'm doing in game, otherwise I lose interest very quickly. That's even if the combat is awesome. If I don't have a reason to do what I'm doing, then I get bored really fast.

I am here because of PS:Ts story, wit, and interesting points. It's the only reason I am here. I read a lot and I absolutely disagree that there are many books out there that match the writing level.

 

That being said, the combat adds to the story.

If the villain is more intelligent then your character, why didn't he go after you himself after you beat his first three assassins? If he really is charismatic, why doesn't he talk you into following him? If the villain is an uomo universalis, excelling in everything, from intelligence to social interaction to physical/magical prowess, then you shouldn't stand a chance. And I don't care what you say, if it takes someone loaded with magical artefacts up the wazoo to take him out, the guy does excel in physical (or magical, we can use substitution here) prowess.

 

If I want to play as a coward who avoids combat in whatever fashion available to him, why do I have to get my copy of Way of the Samurai 2 out, can't a western developer make a game where that's possible? It isn't always a great man with a great sword and a great, red beard who gets drawn into high adventure, sometimes it can be a snivveling coward, or a follower of the god of love and peace, or... I know it is fun to be better then the opponents, but I wouldn't mind having a choice. In an RPG, I would like the opportunity to play out a role of my choosing. I realize allowing for every type of playthrough would make things hard to balance, but still. If it wasn't for a single door that was mysteriously unopenable without killing, I could have finished Arcanum as a pacifist, and it was very hard, and the true imbalance in that game wasn't as much between sneaky talky types versus combat monsters, but between powerful magic and pitiful tech.

 

If you don't like doing things by way of talking and sneaking, you don't know what I like about finishing Fallout:NV by talking the NCR into leaving the area alone, just as you probably don't know what it feels like for a manga fan to read Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, or for a movie buff to watch Citizen Kane. You wouldn't understand how the decision whether to save Sayo by breaking my pacifism, or stand by and to let her die tore me apart in Way of the Samurai 2.

 

If there's anyone who should be good enough at making games to make a pacifist playthrough not only possible, but also interesting, isn't it the dream team working on PE?

This is my rant on story and how it can not make a good game.

 

I know a lot of people on the band wagon because of planescape torment. I never understood the obsession with the game. The story telling is whatever. The writer uses victorian era british language which I have no care for. But apparently a lot of CRPG have a fetish for. The ending of the game was rushed and underwhelming. On top of all this the combat system was incredibly bad. Where a level 8 fighter nameless one has a easier time getting around the game then a level 20 mage nameless one. Due to terrible design choices on the spell casting. Every spell had a short cutscene you had to watch.

This is my rant on story and how it can not make a good game.

 

I know a lot of people on the band wagon because of planescape torment. I never understood the obsession with the game. The story telling is whatever. The writer uses victorian era british language which I have no care for. But apparently a lot of CRPG have a fetish for. The ending of the game was rushed and underwhelming. On top of all this the combat system was incredibly bad. Where a level 8 fighter nameless one has a easier time getting around the game then a level 20 mage nameless one. Due to terrible design choices on the spell casting. Every spell had a short cutscene you had to watch.

 

May I recommend Call of Duty to you. You sound like their target demographic.

May I recommend Call of Duty to you. You sound like their target demographic.

 

One does have to admit that spellcasting in P:T left something to be desired. I think that NWN1 & 2 handled it somewhat better as there was less of a tendency to get caught in one's own AoE.

May I recommend Call of Duty to you. You sound like their target demographic.

 

One does have to admit that spellcasting in P:T left something to be desired. I think that NWN1 & 2 handled it somewhat better as there was less of a tendency to get caught in one's own AoE.

 

I think my unreasonable heat of the moment rant response was more focused on his comment of "this is my rant on story and how it can not make a good game".

 

I just feel strongly the other way

 

Im sure what he meant to say was "Combat can not make a good game"

Isn't combat part of the story? I always thought that the story was about the PC's struggles and triumphs, so the battles they fight and the obstacles they overcome are as much a part of the story as the reactions the game has to their choices.

Story? Perhaps the issue is noncombat and combat gameplay are equally important. In this style of game a player could hack and slash their way through, if desired. Instead, they could use diplomacy or find alternative objectives to bypass violent confrontations.

 

In Fallout 1 you had to do some exploration and uncovering data to talk down the master, I thought. In New Vegas there are no antagonists, only potential adversaries. Torment has a lot of trouble with the combat design because DnD was not an appropriate class/skill system for what they were trying to do, but the Planescape setting was. They did not have a enough time and/or resources to overhaul the entire DnD ruleset to fit the game.

 

I don't see why people are stuck on story when story-driven games can have pure combat gameplay (final fantasy). The main issue is diverse utilization of noncombat skills to achieve objectives as an alternative to combat.

I for one believes that this problem can be solved with a toggle-able difficulty setting. Take NWN, BG 2 for example. Turn the slider all the way to the right and you'll be eating insta death spells and critical hits in almost every late game battle. Turn it all the way to your left and you could spam fireballs with your companions in the middle of it with nary a scratch.

 

Hence more story focused ppl can appreciate the game without need to resolve to save scumming so often and truly hardcore fellows can lay out their strategies accordingly.

 

Of course OE would need to design great battles to begin with and then let players choose whether to scale back the difficulty or not.

 

Also, PST was awesome. Game and combatwise. Nuff said.