Spill your blasphemous opinions on CRPGs here

[HoonDing]

 

 

I'd rather a not-well-done world where higher level monsters are too tough and I have to look for challenges I can overcome, rather than a world where I can go anywhere because I know I'm fighting the exact same thing. At least there's a meaning to exploration when there are things I have to look out for and avoid, as opposed to basically holding down forward and left click in Oblivion.

 

Ranged level scaling can be an adequate compromise, but the best solution is good level design completed with no or little leveling.

 

I like this idea, but unfortunately it's handled terribly in the games that have tried—by encouraging save scumming and metagaming, mostly. You rarely ever get in-game hints that you are going to be in over your head and that it would be wise to turn around... it's just a quick death followed by a sense of "wha?" → reload.

 

 

True. Going to be interesting to see how Bioware tackles this in DAI, as it's been one of their key selling points.

 

You'll have to run around the map in circles and fight green imps for three hours.

[Nepenthe]

You just got back from Venice and boy are your arms tired?

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

I find that the way Stalker handles it is very interesting, instead of your character leveling you get better equipment.

[ Insert Yakov Smirnoff joke here ]

 

...on the other hand, you can go through the entire game with the most basic equipment, if you really want to, (I've gone through all of SHoC with just the starting Makarov, for example).

 

That's rather masochistic...especially if you also only used the standard armor (well, except where you're forced to us another one, of course)

 

 

My game is modded a bit, so I have it so that 100% of all attacks register, (instead of the 60% or so not having any effect on the easiest difficulty, or the...I want to say either 20% or 30%, I think, on the hardest difficulty), so it's a bit easier than vanilla game.  Ukraine and their broken difficulty settings, where the hardest difficulty is actually easier than the easiest...(Metro did the same sort of nonsense!),

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

I find that the way Stalker handles it is very interesting, instead of your character leveling you get better equipment.

[ Insert Yakov Smirnoff joke here ]

 

...on the other hand, you can go through the entire game with the most basic equipment, if you really want to, (I've gone through all of SHoC with just the starting Makarov, for example).

 

That's rather masochistic...especially if you also only used the standard armor (well, except where you're forced to us another one, of course)

 

 

My game is modded a bit, so I have it so that 100% of all attacks register, (instead of the 60% or so not having any effect on the easiest difficulty, or the...I want to say either 20% or 30%, I think, on the hardest difficulty), so it's a bit easier than vanilla game.  Ukraine and their broken difficulty settings, where the hardest difficulty is actually easier than the easiest...(Metro did the same sort of nonsense!),

 

It's only balanced, you take more damage and the enemies take more damage. It makes for a better mechanic that just giving enemies massive amounts of health.

[Bartimaeus]

I assume you're talking about Metro, as that's not applicable to Stalker - I know, but speaking for myself, I never went into firefights with human enemies to begin with, (I made a game of using only the Helsing - and then later throwing knives only instead - and having to stealth kill all the human enemies you come across without ever raising any alarms - even when it might seem to be completely impossible to do so,  ), which left only the mutants...which most of were pretty easy to deal with only using throwing knives or a Helsing without ever getting injured. The only place where it gets harder to do that is at the very end when there get to be so many at times and your rate of fire with a Helsing and/or throwing knives is only so much.  

 

Anyways, the point is, mutants would be the only reason for me to use a real gun, and playing on the easier difficulties just means I have to use more bullets and waste more time fighting...which is, I guess, kinda the equivalent of making the game harder. So basically, the problem might lie with the fact that I play games like a masochist insane person. 

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Rogues are almost always implemented badly.

 

BTW, just installed IR for BGT. The description in the G3 forums implies that Foebane won't hit as a +4 or 5, but the description viewed in SK says it will. Can someone clarify this?

[Orogun01]

DPS classes are always balanced into uselessness.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

DPS classes are always balanced into uselessness.

Pretty much. Either they are made of class or have a bunch of conditions where their abilities won't work.

[ShadySands]

Which is why I don't care that much about balance

 

As long as they are viable I don't care if they are equal

[213374U]

Rogues are almost always implemented badly.

 

BTW, just installed IR for BGT. The description in the G3 forums implies that Foebane won't hit as a +4 or 5, but the description viewed in SK says it will. Can someone clarify this?

 

Item descriptions aren't always amended by mods. Go by what the dev says, or download DLTCEP and check by yourself—wouldn't be the first time a mod doesn't work as intended. I don't have BG2 installed atm, so I can't check myself...

 

edit: "I don't have BG2 installed" is also my blasphemous opinion for the day.

Edited April 3, 2014 by 213374U

[Bartimaeus]

Rogues are almost always implemented badly.

 

BTW, just installed IR for BGT. The description in the G3 forums implies that Foebane won't hit as a +4 or 5, but the description viewed in SK says it will. Can someone clarify this?

 

Do you have any other mods installed? Can I see your Weidu log? Additionally, there are sometimes multiple versions of weapons - you might be looking at a deactivated version. Hard to say. More info, please!  (e: also, if possible, could you post the description directly so I could directly if it's from IR?

 

@213374U: IR should indeed amend the descriptions of all the items it changes. There could be a conflict with another mod, however, that made it "reset" them, (whether it's a select few or many), particularly if the order of your mod install is "incorrect".

 

(e): Here's what I have its +5 description being, (possibly slightly different because of different mods, but the unique abilities should be there at the very least if it's from IR):

 

STATISTICS:

 

Equipped Abilities:

Saving Throws: +2 bonus

 

Combat Abilities:

Holy: deals 6 additional points of damage against all of evil alignment

Foe Bane: additional +2 bonus to THAC0 and damage against undead, shapeshifters, and all extra-planar beings

Vampiric: drains 1D4 hit points from the target and transfers it to the wielder

 

THAC0: +3 bonus

Damage: 1D10 + 3

Damage type: slashing

Weight: 6

Speed Factor: 4

Proficiency Type: Bastard Sword

Type: 1-handed

Requires: 11 Strength

Not Usable By:

Edited April 3, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[Volourn]

"Rogues are almost always implemented badly."

 

Rogues are almost always implemented correctly. I don'tg et this diea that b/c rogues are not as 'powerful' as WARRIORS or MAGIC USERSin battle that somehow they are done wrong. This idea that everything should be BALANCED and EQUAL is silly.

 

Rogues should not be able to, for the most part, be the equal of a warrior in a fight. That's just plain dumb.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Do you have any other mods installed? Can I see your Weidu log? Additionally, there are sometimes multiple versions of weapons - you might be looking at a deactivated version. Hard to say. More info, please!  (e: also, if possible, could you post the description directly so I could directly if it's from IR?

 

@213374U: IR should indeed amend the descriptions of all the items it changes. There could be a conflict with another mod, however, that made it "reset" them, (whether it's a select few or many), particularly if the order of your mod install is "incorrect".

 

(e): Here's what I have its +5 description being, (possibly slightly different because of different mods, but the unique abilities should be there at the very least if it's from IR):

 

STATISTICS:

 

Equipped Abilities:

Saving Throws: +2 bonus

 

Combat Abilities:

Holy: deals 6 additional points of damage against all of evil alignment

Foe Bane: additional +2 bonus to THAC0 and damage against undead, shapeshifters, and all extra-planar beings

Vampiric: drains 1D4 hit points from the target and transfers it to the wielder

 

THAC0: +3 bonus

Damage: 1D10 + 3

Damage type: slashing

Weight: 6

Speed Factor: 4

Proficiency Type: Bastard Sword

Type: 1-handed

Requires: 11 Strength

Not Usable By:

I'll post it when I get off work, but I believe my confusion was from the "note: this weapon counts as a +5 weapon in terms of what it can hit" at the end of the description, which I think is from the BG2fixpack I have installed. If I'm not mistaken, it is because of that "+X, +Y always counts as a +Y" bit that seems to be included in the fixpack and IR doesn't use the +X, +Y labeling for that effect(instead using "Foe Bane" in the description).

 

And that description you posted matches the entry in SK.

Edited April 3, 2014 by KaineParker

[Bryy]

Skyrim has dragons and better graphics and its rule system isn't as broken as previous what TES games had. 

Agreed. 

 

Say what you will about it being "dumbed down", it friggin' worked.

[Bartimaeus]

Oops, I missed that because it's above the STATISTICS line.

 

Note: always considered to be of +5 enchantment when determining what it can hit.

 

As far as I know, that's normal. Where have you seen to suggest that it should only be of +3 enchantment? That would break the weapon.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Oops, I missed that because it's above the STATISTICS line.

 

Note: always considered to be of +5 enchantment when determining what it can hit.

 

As far as I know, that's normal. Where have you seen to suggest that it should only be of +3 enchantment? That would break the weapon.

Demi's notes about the changes.

 

http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?s=b54521bca74a651b287a9c40be3b7feb&showtopic=15700&st=15

 

"Once upgraded this sword should be more or less as powerful as in vanilla. It usually deals more damage, but works as a full +5 weapon only against selected foes. As always I'm open to suggestions, especially regarding such powerful weapons. "

 

The bit about working as a +5 weapon only against selected foes threw me off a bit. Probably just a misunderstanding on my end.

Edited April 3, 2014 by KaineParker

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, he meant it hits, in terms of damage and THAC0, as a lesser weapon except against said particular foes. The enchantment level is a sort of...set value. Can't be changed for particular types of monsters, unlike THAC0 and damage.

[Oerwinde]

"Rogues are almost always implemented badly."

 

Rogues are almost always implemented correctly. I don'tg et this diea that b/c rogues are not as 'powerful' as WARRIORS or MAGIC USERSin battle that somehow they are done wrong. This idea that everything should be BALANCED and EQUAL is silly.

 

Rogues should not be able to, for the most part, be the equal of a warrior in a fight. That's just plain dumb.

I agree with this. I think my problem with rogues is that devs always try to make them as effective in combat as fighters, rather than giving them fun rogue stuff to do outside of combat. The Quest For Glory series has had the best class implementation in games IMO.

[Nepenthe]

 

"Rogues are almost always implemented badly."

 

Rogues are almost always implemented correctly. I don'tg et this diea that b/c rogues are not as 'powerful' as WARRIORS or MAGIC USERSin battle that somehow they are done wrong. This idea that everything should be BALANCED and EQUAL is silly.

 

Rogues should not be able to, for the most part, be the equal of a warrior in a fight. That's just plain dumb.

I agree with this. I think my problem with rogues is that devs always try to make them as effective in combat as fighters, rather than giving them fun rogue stuff to do outside of combat. The Quest For Glory series has had the best class implementation in games IMO.

 

 

That's just because RPGs consist of 99 % combat. I can't even remember the last time rogues had an actual impact on the game apart from a few cosmetic locks and traps. Baldur's gate 1-2, where the cosmetic traps were a bigger deal?

[213374U]

 

 

"Rogues are almost always implemented badly."

 

Rogues are almost always implemented correctly. I don'tg et this diea that b/c rogues are not as 'powerful' as WARRIORS or MAGIC USERSin battle that somehow they are done wrong. This idea that everything should be BALANCED and EQUAL is silly.

 

Rogues should not be able to, for the most part, be the equal of a warrior in a fight. That's just plain dumb.

I agree with this. I think my problem with rogues is that devs always try to make them as effective in combat as fighters, rather than giving them fun rogue stuff to do outside of combat. The Quest For Glory series has had the best class implementation in games IMO.

 

 

That's just because RPGs consist of 99 % combat. I can't even remember the last time rogues had an actual impact on the game apart from a few cosmetic locks and traps. Baldur's gate 1-2, where the cosmetic traps were a bigger deal?

 

 

And even so. The last time I tried to replay BG2, I was genuinely surprised by how abundant filler combat is. Interesting fights like the one with Mencar Pebblecrusher and his band at Mithrest Inn are far and few between, but the game is chock full of "2d4+1 dungeon-thematic mobs" encounters. Oh, and I was also playing evil, so I had a squad of hasted troopers and mages dropped on my head every time I walked outside. Fun times. Suffice to say I got bored in the end and couldn't finish the playthrough.

[Nepenthe]

Now THAT is blasphemous!

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

 

"Rogues are almost always implemented badly."

 

Rogues are almost always implemented correctly. I don'tg et this diea that b/c rogues are not as 'powerful' as WARRIORS or MAGIC USERSin battle that somehow they are done wrong. This idea that everything should be BALANCED and EQUAL is silly.

 

Rogues should not be able to, for the most part, be the equal of a warrior in a fight. That's just plain dumb.

I agree with this. I think my problem with rogues is that devs always try to make them as effective in combat as fighters, rather than giving them fun rogue stuff to do outside of combat. The Quest For Glory series has had the best class implementation in games IMO.

 

 

That's just because RPGs consist of 99 % combat. I can't even remember the last time rogues had an actual impact on the game apart from a few cosmetic locks and traps. Baldur's gate 1-2, where the cosmetic traps were a bigger deal?

 

 

And even so. The last time I tried to replay BG2, I was genuinely surprised by how abundant filler combat is. Interesting fights like the one with Mencar Pebblecrusher and his band at Mithrest Inn are far and few between, but the game is chock full of "2d4+1 dungeon-thematic mobs" encounters. Oh, and I was also playing evil, so I had a squad of hasted troopers and mages dropped on my head every time I walked outside. Fun times. Suffice to say I got bored in the end and couldn't finish the playthrough.

 

 

Try playing with Sword Coast Stratagems - you might find the game a bit more difficult, even for some more minor encounters, like with Yuan-Ti mages, (hint: they're quite mean and dastardly in SCS, ). Not all, of course (because SCS mostly tries to stay fair/true to the game), but it definitely makes the game more interesting.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The vast majority of CRPGs would be better without any combat filler.

[Drowsy Emperor]

When I started thinking about cRPG's from an outsider's perspective I realized how ridiculous the genre is. Filled with mathematical and abstract nonsense to artificially separate a chaotic reality into a micro manageable segments. That sort of thing is (maybe) necessary in pen and paper games, but in computer games, where things can be represented as they are - its completely redundant.

 

RPG's are not deep per se, they just force you into playing ten roles at once, like a clock that makes you spin its gears all day long just to show the time.

 

The transformation of the genre into a generic action adventure with some of the old elements, a la Witcher and Mass Effect was not only logical, but inevitable and necessary. That does not mean however, that these games were better as individual titles than ones that came before them, but they were a step in the right direction.

 

It finally meant that the story, world exploration and character interaction came to the forefront. Unfortunately for me, post Witcher, these stories, worlds and characters sucked and offered nothing new.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Torment, even though it preceded the new action adventure RPG's, was in fact the most direct RPG experience possible. It achieved this by ditching its own mechanics, ditching a good part of unnecessary combat but since it was limited by the technology of the time it was too verbose to be a truly smooth way partake in an interactive story.

 

Its now my belief that a good RPG should be as minimalist in the typical gamer elements as possible (like Shadow of the Colosuss) in order to achieve maximum immersion and elegance (in design).  

 

Something like, say, Vampire: Bloodlines - but without all the terrible grind heavy segments that game had.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor