What would PE look like if Obsidian catered to the worst of us?

[Juneau]

Each game has its merits, Giant Swords look cool and can make for a cool Japanese action-rpg.

Anime hair, clothing and cute fluffy wuffyness perfectly suit a game with that visual style (Which PE is nothing like, so it just wouldn't happen)

 

Political/Sexual/Discrimination story lines and characters work, if the story suits, heck they can work even if the story doesn't suit. Most people ignore the fact that the black dude died first or the girl is pathetic and helpless or that the crazy old white dude is power hungry.

So, of the above 3 only the first 2 would make this a "terrible" game if they catered to the trolls of gaming society. Could you imagine the screenshots we've seen with Goku in super saiyan mode(Dragon Ball Z) carrying Clouds sword (FFVII).. It would just look stupid.

The things for me outside of the visuals that would ruin this game if catered for is the "hardcore RPG" section.

Things such as Perma Death, Iron Man, 1 rolling save etc.. etc.. should never EVER be enforced. I didn't play Dark Souls... Well that's a lie, I bought it on PC and it just didn't work despite trying the 9001 tweaks suggested (it was just a really ****ty port) and I could play for about 10 minutes before it died, deleted saves, broke my monitor and set my house on fire....

So yeah.. If they made this game to cater to the worst of us, this is what it would look like;

Super Saiyan Goku (Lvl/Mode 3)
Running Around with Clouds Sword (FFVII)
In a game engine that looks like Dragon Age 2
With only 1 rolling save
Perma Death
on an unpolished engine because of the 1001 extra cute features implemented instead of testing and polish.

[morrow1nd]

i would've expected to see a japanasee horror and tragic drama show all within a clown tea party 

Edited October 21, 2013 by morrow1nd

[Yonjuro]

 

 

...

I've started a replay of BGT and I find the BG section to be incredibly tedious. Between the hordes of weaklings that manage to one-shot the early party with slings and the incredibly slow progression rate, it really fails to pull me in as swiftly as BG2 or PST manged to do. IWD1/2 had much better combat than the other IE games but fell behind because the lack of character interaction.

....

 

As for IWD2, that's why i said hard counters and not encounters. IWD2 in general is more difficult that BG2, but they are different kinds of difficult. Take a fight like Kangaax the Demi-lich. There is no way to beat him using conventional tactics. No matter what level you are, no mater if you have mages-fighters whatever, it doesn't matter. He imprisons you anyway. Unless you find a way to counter his attack you are dead.No middle ground. There are many ways to counter it but you have to find them. That way the battle becomes some kind of puzzle. Imposible to beat until you find the way, but then a cakewalk. Most fights in BG were that way, if not in so extreme way.

 

 

 

 Yes, I guess I would like to challenge the idea the IWD1&2 had better combat. I found them both to be very tedious. You got mobbed by hard enemies all the time and I found them utterly boring (though I didn't spend enough time on IWD2 to know whether it gets better later in the game (I think stopped on the third map); I know that IWD1  is tedious all the way through (almost) to the end (when I decided not to bother with the rest of it)).

 

 I thought the combat might only seem tedious because I never got drawn into either story, but now that you mention it, combat in BG (1&2, 2 moreso than 1) both had more of a feeling of solving a puzzle. The IWD's, to me, both felt like the Xvart village in BG1, lots of enemies mob you and you grind through them (except that they hit harder than xvarts so, when you take too much damage run away (the enemies will never think to follow me through this door) and heal (yet again, ::yawn: ).

 

 I don't know what anybody saw in either IWD game that was interesting. Of course, maybe I just didn't spend enough time with them to learn how to play them well.

 

 So, those of you that like the combat in IWD, what am I missing? 

 

 

 

( ::Tries not to be mesmerized by the deafening silence:: ).

 

 Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

[Sarex]

( ::Tries not to be mesmerized by the deafening silence:: ).

 

 Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

 

What you where expecting a replay? I don't know, you stated a very subjective opinion, so there wasn't really much to say. The fighting with mages was usually a puzzle in BG because most of the time those mages where "boss fights" of a quest. That is why mages where overpowered and there where few interesting non mages fights (except for dragons). The story wasn't a focus in IWD, but I personally liked it. As for the fights being easy, if you where good enough there was always "heart of fury" difficulty which I played on (you get buffed items, but also much stronger enemies).

 

For me, IWD 2 was my first game in the IE series so there is undoubtedly some nostalgia going on there, but I remember when I played BG after it, I always felt that the combat was easier overall and the combat system was no where near as complex.

 

Even Trent Oster said in one of his tweets that IWD2 was the culmination of their experience with working on IE games, which is logical seeing as it was the last of its kind.

 

You can look at the IE games as a tree, the main branch is the Baldur's Gate series, on one side of it is the story branch which is Torment and on the other side is the combat branch which is Icewind Dale. (this wasn't a very good metaphor but you understand what I'm getting at)

[Malekith]

 

( ::Tries not to be mesmerized by the deafening silence:: ).

 

 Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

 

What you where expecting a replay? I don't know, you stated a very subjective opinion, so there wasn't really much to say. The fighting with mages was usually a puzzle in BG because most of the time those mages where "boss fights" of a quest. That is why mages where overpowered and there where few interesting non mages fights (except for dragons). The story wasn't a focus in IWD, but I personally liked it. As for the fights being easy, if you where good enough there was always "heart of fury" difficulty which I played on (you get buffed items, but also much stronger enemies).

 

For me, IWD 2 was my first game in the IE series so there is undoubtedly some nostalgia going on there, but I remember when I played BG after it, I always felt that the combat was easier overall and the combat system was no where near as complex.

 

Even Trent Oster said in one of his tweets that IWD2 was the culmination of their experience with working on IE games, which is logical seeing as it was the last of its kind.

 

You can look at the IE games as a tree, the main branch is the Baldur's Gate series, on one side of it is the story branch which is Torment and on the other side is the combat branch which is Icewind Dale. (this wasn't a very good metaphor but you understand what I'm getting at)

 

While i disagree that the only interesting non mages fights were Dragons (illithids and Beholders top easily anything in IWDs), i agree with the rest.Interesting=! difficult. IWD2 was the most difficult of all the IE games. That is universaly held as true.

[Sarex]

While i disagree that the only interesting non mages fights were Dragons (illithids and Beholders top easily anything in IWDs), i agree with the rest.Interesting=! difficult. IWD2 was the most difficult of all the IE games. That is universaly held as true.

 

I totally forgot about those, yeah illithids where such a pain in the ass (so much reloaded games) the beholders where not so hard if you could summon enough cannon fodder or had the Balurian shield which I always got after my first playthough.

[Malekith]

 

While i disagree that the only interesting non mages fights were Dragons (illithids and Beholders top easily anything in IWDs), i agree with the rest.Interesting=! difficult. IWD2 was the most difficult of all the IE games. That is universaly held as true.

 

I totally forgot about those, yeah illithids where such a pain in the ass (so much reloaded games) the beholders where not so hard if you could summon enough cannon fodder or had the Balurian shield which I always got after my first playthough.

 

Balduran's Shield was an ingame cheat. It was a serious ****up from Bioware. It turns one of the most difficult enemies in the game to 'walk around and watch them die by themselves"

Edited October 21, 2013 by Malekith

[Messier-31]

Balduran's Shield was an ingame cheat. It was a serious ****up from Bioware. It turns one of the most difficult enemies in the game to 'walk around and watch them die by themselves"

 

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

I for one think Balduran's Shields wasn't that bad because of its function. It was bad because of this annoying glowing circle around you. Good thing the IE is so well moddable, so you could just turn off that damn thing! But seriously, the beholder reflections shoulda been activated and time limited, not passive and never-ending.

[teknoman2]

if they catered to me, all values would be flat.

a long sword would do 6 damage and not 2-8. an armor with defence 4 would reduce incoming damage by 4. 1 point of strength would add 1 point of melee damage. hp would be constitution x level with no dice roll hp gains. no spell saves, but all would have resistances based on stats or/and items that would diminish the effects (if the efffects of mental domination last for 25s, they would last for 10s for someone with 15 wisdom. if entangle lasts for 10s, someone with over 10 dexterity is not affected, if a fireball does 50 damage someone with 30 fire resistance takes only 20 and so on)

[Yonjuro]

 

( ::Tries not to be mesmerized by the deafening silence:: ).

 

 Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

 

What you where expecting a replay? I don't know, you stated a very subjective opinion, so there wasn't really much to say. 

 

 

 

 My question wasn't rhetorical. It could be that we just don't like the same things, but I was genuinely curious if I missed something about the combat in IWD. 

 

 

 

 

. The story wasn't a focus in IWD, but I personally liked it. As for the fights being easy, ...

 

  I thought at one point that making IWD1 more challenging would make it more interesting so Installed the IWD_in_BG2 mod and started a run with a solo monk. That ended up just exaggerating the problem. Things just took too long. I don't think that the combat was too easy, it's more that the game felt (to me) like: Go grind up some orcs. Ok, now go grind up some skeletons. Finished, great. go grind up some .... There was a sameness to the fights that I found tedious. On the plus side, I can now sympathize more with Sarevok - all those summoned monsters I hurled at him in one of my BG playthroughs must have been really boring for him. No wonder he was so angry 

 

 

 

For me, IWD 2 was my first game in the IE series so there is undoubtedly some nostalgia going on there, but I remember when I played BG after it, I always felt that the combat was easier overall and the combat system was no where near as complex.

 

Even Trent Oster said in one of his tweets that IWD2 was the culmination of their experience with working on IE games, which is logical seeing as it was the last of its kind.

 

 Hmm, I spent more time on IWD1 and I'm lumpimg IWD1&2 together, but that's probably not the right thing to do.

 

 

 

You can look at the IE games as a tree, the main branch is the Baldur's Gate series, on one side of it is the story branch which is Torment and on the other side is the combat branch which is Icewind Dale. (this wasn't a very good metaphor but you understand what I'm getting at)

 

 

 Yes, I see what you mean.  Maybe I'll give IWD2 another try to see if there is something I like about the combat.

[Lephys]

if they catered to me, all values would be flat.

a long sword would do 6 damage and not 2-8. an armor with defence 4 would reduce incoming damage by 4. 1 point of strength would add 1 point of melee damage. hp would be constitution x level with no dice roll hp gains. no spell saves, but all would have resistances based on stats or/and items that would diminish the effects (if the efffects of mental domination last for 25s, they would last for 10s for someone with 15 wisdom. if entangle lasts for 10s, someone with over 10 dexterity is not affected, if a fireball does 50 damage someone with 30 fire resistance takes only 20 and so on)

I do not understand your reasoning behind these things. Why would a longsword ALWAYS do the exact same amount of damage? The 2-8 range is to accommodate all different factors of hitting (where you hit them, the angle at which you hit them, etc.). I agree with most of the other stuff, though. It's not the ONLY way to do it properly, but it makes a lot of sense.

 

If I'm not mistaken, P:E isn't using spell saves, as a separate thing from resistance. Basically, everything just targets one of the 4 defense aspects (what... Deflection, Reflexes, Psyche, and... blargle... I can't remember the last one). So, while it isn't a flat reduction value, it IS a flat hit-scale shift. So, you have 20 mental attack (or whatever dictates that), and your target has 30 Psyche? From what I gather, that will shift the miss-graze-hit-crit scale 10 points in your target's favor. You'll have a 15% chance to miss, a 45% chance to graze, and a 40% chance to hit. And, while that's all chancified and whatnot, the effects of a graze versus a hit are flat values, as well (what... half damage/duration/effectiveness on a graze?).

 

For what it's worth, I don't see much benefit in stripping all that down to just the flat values. Seems like it'd make for an awfully boring game. Battles would be very, very static, with nothing to really react to beyond a couple initial calculations.

[PrimeJunta]

Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

I haven't gotten around to playing IWD2, but I did quite like IWD combat (in general). It made great use of the environment. In many cases, there were multiple tactical approaches. There was tactical variety. It justified otherwise-annoying tropes like teleporting-in enemies (they're ghosts, duh.) It rewarded a methodical approach, e.g. to sneak forward with your rogue to scout positions and disarm traps, hold defensive lines, effective use of missile and indirect fire (also from enemies!), a big variety of different types of enemies to face off against; there were battles where the best tactic was to find a defensible spot and stay put, and there were battles where the best tactic was to strike deep and take out the most dangerous enemy first, and so on. You had mob fights, you had boss fights, you had really tough melee, you had magic-using enemies, the works.

 

I.e., if you played it like the xvart villages in BG, then IMO you were playing it wrong. Perhaps with just the right kind of party and certainly with difficulty turned down a bit you could just wade through it, but that would not be fun.

[Yonjuro]

 

Anyone? Several people (in this topic) have had a contrary opinion. What is it about the IWDs that you like? They must be doing something right.

 

 Or, if you would rather, what is it about BG (1 or 2) combat that you thought didn't work as a well as IWD? Do you agree with the 'puzzle' comment by @Malekith quoted above?

I haven't gotten around to playing IWD2, but I did quite like IWD combat (in general). It made great use of the environment. In many cases, there were multiple tactical approaches. There was tactical variety. It justified otherwise-annoying tropes like teleporting-in enemies (they're ghosts, duh.) It rewarded a methodical approach, e.g. to sneak forward with your rogue to scout positions and disarm traps, hold defensive lines, effective use of missile and indirect fire (also from enemies!), a big variety of different types of enemies to face off against; there were battles where the best tactic was to find a defensible spot and stay put, and there were battles where the best tactic was to strike deep and take out the most dangerous enemy first, and so on. You had mob fights, you had boss fights, you had really tough melee, you had magic-using enemies, the works.

 

 Yeah, I suppose there is quite a variety, now that you mention it, and I never played it without making heavy use of stealth and dividing the enemies etc.

 

 

 

I.e., if you played it like the xvart villages in BG, then IMO you were playing it wrong.

 

 I should explain that comment. I didn't mean that the combat was easy like the Xvart village.  I meant that too many of the maps had lots of enemies that tended to mob you. 

 

 Perhaps with just the right kind of party and certainly with difficulty turned down a bit you could just wade through it, but that would not be fun.

 

 I always play on core difficulty. See my previous post about playing as a solo monk using the  IWD_in_BG2 mod. TLDR; that wasn't fun either.

 

 Anyway, I see what you mean about the tactical combat. I think the BG series had more strategic combat, but really it probably mostly just comes down to the story.

 

 BG feels like that time when my alter ego went adventuring on the sword coast and IWD kind of feels like that time I played a computer game.

[Sarex]

Yeah, I don't know why I called Infinity Ward the publisher for IE games, but just to correct my self, the publisher was/is called Interplay Entertainment.

[Messier-31]

So, of the above 3 only the first 2 would make this a "terrible" game if they catered to the trolls of gaming society. Could you imagine the screenshots we've seen with Goku in super saiyan mode(Dragon Ball Z) carrying Clouds sword (FFVII).. It would just look stupid.

 

 the horror.... the horror...

[TrashMan]

 

My greatest irrational fears:

• memes
• universal clothing-toggle option
• everyone's romancable; multiple partners!
• giant anime swords
• giant anime hair
• tiny anime apparal / langerie armor
• anime anything
• any use of teen-speak acronyms (OMG LOL)
• greenshirt girl
• ultrasimulation - my sword should take into account the factor of air resistance
• super ultra gritty violent underground mature 18++, I'm not old enough physically, but I swear I'm like 20-something in maturity years, game
• objective arrows, everywhere
• auction house (a la Diablo 3)
• memes

 

 

Cease all of your bodily functions and initiate cellular decompositon!

[TrashMan]

 

Don't believe me? Then I challenge you to play Temple of Elemental Evil from level 1 through 3, not in Ironman mode, without reloading after losing a fair fight. It can be done, but it's sure as hell not my idea of fun.

 

 

That's the problem right there.

Classical D&D levels 1-2 are extreemly difficult to play, as there is no safety net. No margin for error. Luck plays far too big of a role when you have 4 HP and almost no tactical options to speak off.

[Chairchucker]

 

Are you conflating gameplay with combat? While combat is one of the major aspects of gameplay in most of the IE games, (although not PST) it certainly isn't all there is to gameplay.

 

I'm not, but combat is the major (biggest) part of it.

 

That may be true of the Icewind Dales, but that's why I believe them to have the worst gameplay of the IE games. Almost every other aspect of the game was just a flimsy pretense for "Now go slay this group of critters." The PCs had no agency as they were just ordered around to new locations to despatch everything with a red circle underneath it.

 

Baldurs Gate 2 had large cities where you got to walk around, talking to denizens, solving quests that didn't necessarily involve butchering evildoers, it was awesome. The combat was still there, but there was also a bit of downtime from all the slaughter, which is why BG2 had, in my opinion, gameplay lightyears better than that of IWD or IWD2.

 

PS:T was awesome as well because the gameplay consisted almost entirely of the wandering around cities and checking out weird stuff. Just a shame the combat, when it happened was awful. (Except the spell effects, they were dope.)

[Sarex]

That may be true of the Icewind Dales, but that's why I believe them to have the worst gameplay of the IE games. Almost every other aspect of the game was just a flimsy pretense for "Now go slay this group of critters." The PCs had no agency as they were just ordered around to new locations to despatch everything with a red circle underneath it.

Baldurs Gate 2 had large cities where you got to walk around, talking to denizens, solving quests that didn't necessarily involve butchering evildoers, it was awesome. The combat was still there, but there was also a bit of downtime from all the slaughter, which is why BG2 had, in my opinion, gameplay lightyears better than that of IWD or IWD2.

 

PS:T was awesome as well because the gameplay consisted almost entirely of the wandering around cities and checking out weird stuff. Just a shame the combat, when it happened was awful. (Except the spell effects, they were dope.)

 

I think you are confusing what gameplay is or at least what I am considering gameplay to represent. To me the things you describe sound a lot like story, narration and linearity. You are thinking too generally when considering gameplay, while I am looking at it as more of a mechanical aspect.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Sarex

[Chairchucker]

You need to reconsider what gameplay represents and let it out of the combat shaped box you're trying to cram it into. Not every game is a combat simulator, yet every game has gameplay. Adventure games have gameplay, even if the gameplay mostly involves figuring out the right conversation options or the right items to use to bypass obstacles. In PS:T, I spend a long time playing it (the game) without killing anyone. Because I am nonetheless playing the game, in that I am choosing what things my character will say and do, there is absolutely no way that what I'm experiencing isn't gameplay.

[PrimeJunta]

Yonjuro, I think your problem might be that there really wasn't much to IWD besides the combat (and the glorious environment art natch). About as much story as your average pr0n, no role-playing, no choices and consequences, barely any interaction with other sentient creatures that didn't involve sharp objects, and so on. Which is why IWD isn't my favorite IE series game, even if I think it had the best combat of the bunch. (If you include 'spiritual successors' though, that honor would have to go to ToEE -- the combat and environment art is even better, and everything else even worse/thinner.)

[Sarex]

You need to reconsider what gameplay represents and let it out of the combat shaped box you're trying to cram it into. Not every game is a combat simulator, yet every game has gameplay. Adventure games have gameplay, even if the gameplay mostly involves figuring out the right conversation options or the right items to use to bypass obstacles. In PS:T, I spend a long time playing it (the game) without killing anyone. Because I am nonetheless playing the game, in that I am choosing what things my character will say and do, there is absolutely no way that what I'm experiencing isn't gameplay.

 

You need to stop putting words in my mouth, I said I view gameplay as a technical aspect of the game, whether that is how dialog works or how sneaking, lock-picking, crafting, opening doors, specking your character, getting xp, items, etc. functions. What you described in your previous post, was story, narration and linearity. If you want to divide a game in to story/gameplay/graphics that is your problem, for me it is simply too general and vague to discuss it that way.

 

Also, yes not every game has combat, but this one does and the games it is trying to emulate did, so the biggest part of its gameplay is, yes you guess it, combat.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Sarex

[Quetzalcoatl]

How else should he have interpreted your words? In your previous post, you explicitly rejected the idea that doing optional quests in BG2 qualified as gameplay.

[Sarex]

How else should he have interpreted your words? In your previous post, you explicitly rejected the idea that doing optional quests in BG2 qualified as gameplay.

 

He said:

 

That may be true of the Icewind Dales, but that's why I believe them to have the worst gameplay of the IE games. Almost every other aspect of the game was just a flimsy pretense for "Now go slay this group of critters." The PCs had no agency as they were just ordered around to new locations to despatch everything with a red circle underneath it.

 

To which I replayed that is not gameplay, that is story/narrative.

 

Baldurs Gate 2 had large cities where you got to walk around, talking to denizens, solving quests that didn't necessarily involve butchering evildoers, it was awesome. The combat was still there, but there was also a bit of downtime from all the slaughter, which is why BG2 had, in my opinion, gameplay lightyears better than that of IWD or IWD2.

 

This is linearity.

 

edit:Also it was stated that IWD was more combat oriented, but it had side quest though in a much smaller quantity.

 

PS:T was awesome as well because the gameplay consisted almost entirely of the wandering around cities and checking out weird stuff. Just a shame the combat, when it happened was awful. (Except the spell effects, they were dope.)

 

This is also linearity.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Sarex

[Quetzalcoatl]

So you're saying Icewind Dale has no gameplay? It's linear, after all, as are most combat-heavy games (far moreso than the other IE games). Killing monsters for loot and exp is mechanically no different from choosing a dialogue response - interaction followed by feedback.

 

And no one denied BG and PS:T were by and large linear. They did however allow for player agency, i.e. role-playing. To use Torment as an example: to escape from the Mortuary, you could kill your way through, disguise as a zombie, disguise as a Dustman, leave through a portal, or convince a guard to let you out. That's not gameplay?

 

The comparison is moot anyway since they have already said Project Eternity will be less linear and allow for more room to affect the plot than the BG games and Torment.