Jump to content
  • Sign Up
Zombra

Your PoE Pros and Cons: 5 and 5

Recommended Posts

 

I think it's slightly different - "lack of combat xp" is more about "quest xp and multiple equally valid ways to complete certain quests without losing xp" - ie, it's more about what IS there instead and the consequences thereof.

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

"Lack of romance" isn't something that they've replaced with an alternative that has the potential to be better (YMMV).  (Unless they HAVE initiated a superior 'party-relationship' system.)

 

Not different at all. What other examples do you need where people have put things in the Pro argument that aren't in the game? No dlc where a lot of people are happy with? Why is it okay to agree on one and not the other and use the argument, if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Personally, I think if you can keep a turd (whatever that turd may be) out of a game where other companies do keep a turd in, then that's a Pro.

 

And Obsidian are known for their superior writing so we can expect more 'quality' interactive party relationships. That's great in my book. if you want an alternative, then there you have it. Quality interaction with party members.

 

Who mentioned DLC?

'No DLC' is ALSO a good thing - as the alternative is the expansion pack (rather than piecemeal).

No romance? - again, as I said, IF the alternative is something better then yes, that's a pro - in and of itself though, no.  It IS different from 'no combat xp' as that's something that can't be avoided if it's in game and also changes the approach to challenges.  It's a change in game focus and tactics.

BG2 had combat xp and romances - don't want romance? say 'no' (albeit, as mentioned, you need to say it harshly).  Don't want combat xp?  Sneak past the encounters and be horribly underleveled for the boss you can't avoid.

(for the record, no romance is fine with me - I was merely addressing that it's not the same thing to say "game does not contain something" v. "game doesn't contain xyz which has been redesigned/replaced with an alternative system that is better")

  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So yeah, "lack of combat XP" is a negative way of stating what's really meant.  If there IS combat XP, then you MUST slaughter left,  right and centre to be levelled enough.

 

 

That's not necessarily true (wasn't true for PS:T, f'rexample). Mind, I'm all for "no combat xp" - worked well enough in Deus Ex (a game literally about shooting people) and Vampire: Bloodlines, but combat xp in itself doesn't mean a systemic need for violence.

 

(Disregard if original sentence was sarcastic.)

 

I was thinking of the way it was in BG/BG2 - levelling usually depended on fights - sure, it CAN be done other ways too and if combat xp is ALSO in other games that don't depend on it that's fine. - but that's my point.  The 'game doesn't contain combat-xp' PRO is referring to the superior (IMO) alternative that HAS been implemented rather than simply the lack of combat-xp.

Saying "Game does not contain apples" when the game also doesn't contain oranges, isn't really a 'pro' except from the minor-POV of not having to ignore the apples at the shop.

 

If the 'No romance' pro people meant "No romance means more time  and budget spent on developing well-fleshed out companions" then my point is null&void and I apologise.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But we don't just want quality interaction with party members. This is something we have come to expect from Obsidian, we want quality interaction and  Romance options. Its not a fitting substitute to say " well there is no Romance but there is engaging interaction" for most promancers?

 

Bruce, do you agree that if it's not in the game then it's not a Pro? Can you explain the logic? If you can't explain the logic, then you're arguing from a fallacy. I expect better from you. Please use logic instead of fallacious arguments please. :)

 

Here's an easy question: Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro?

 

And please give me the courtesy of answering the question.

 

 

Honestly I think Silent Winter answered that accurately. There must be a valid other option if you say "one of Pro is no Romance "

 

Now I agree that maybe excellent dialogue can be substitute for people,  but not for me. Because the implementation of Romance is more than dialogue, its about a relationship that develops  with a party member on this epic quest and  the RP experience that entails 

 

I'm at a customer now so I may only be able respond later :)


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who mentioned DLC?

'No DLC' is ALSO a good thing - as the alternative is the expansion pack (rather than piecemeal).

No romance? - again, as I said, IF the alternative is something better then yes, that's a pro - in and of itself though, no.  It IS different from 'no combat xp' as that's something that can't be avoided if it's in game and also changes the approach to challenges.  It's a change in game focus and tactics.

BG2 had combat xp and romances - don't want romance? say 'no' (albeit, as mentioned, you need to say it harshly).  Don't want combat xp?  Sneak past the encounters and be horribly underleveled for the boss you can't avoid.

(for the record, no romance is fine with me - I was merely addressing that it's not the same thing to say "game does not contain something" v. "game doesn't contain xyz which has been redesigned/replaced with an alternative system that is better")

 

 

It was I who mentioned dlc. And thank you for agreeing that something that isn't in the game is a good thing. And the alternative to dlc isn't necessarily an expansion. Obsidian didn't say what do you want: dlc or an expansion? If the alternative to dlc is an expansion then why do companies sell both dlc and an expansion? They are not automatically one or the other.

 

And as others have pointed out, Planescape Torment had both combat xp and quest xp. But you choose to ignore that and quote BG2? And you will not be horribly underleveled if you avoid combat. Seriously, try the bare minimum crit-path to spell hold and you will not be horribly udnerleveled as opposed to doing every sidequest before you get to Spellhold. I recently played BG2 and did the bare minimum to get to Spellhold and I wasn't horribly underleveled at all. Quite the opposite because BG2 has level scaling. It's actually easier to be at a lower level because you aren't fighting the likes of Liches in Spellhold.

 

So try again and explain why combat xp is a pro when it's not in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think Silent Winter answered that accurately. There must be a valid other option if you say "one of Pro is no Romance "

 

Now I agree that maybe excellent dialogue can be substitute for people,  but not for me. Because the implementation of Romance is more than dialogue, its about a relationship that develops  with a party member on this epic quest and  the RP experience that entails 

 

I'm at a customer now so I may only be able respond later :)

 

 

And I refuted Silent Winters post. So you're basically copping out of this and trying to get other people to answer for you. As I said, I really expected more from you.

 

You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question. Seriously, is that how you're going to be? You expect others to answer your questions and when you are asked a question, you don't answer yourself. You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question.

 

So I'll ask again and please give me the courtesy of answering it:

 

Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And as others have pointed out, Planescape Torment had both combat xp and quest xp. But you choose to ignore that and quote BG2? And you will not be horribly underleveled if you avoid combat. Seriously, try the bare minimum crit-path to spell hold and you will not be horribly udnerleveled as opposed to doing every sidequest before you get to Spellhold. I recently played BG2 and did the bare minimum to get to Spellhold and I wasn't horribly underleveled at all. Quite the opposite because BG2 has level scaling. It's actually easier to be at a lower level because you aren't fighting the likes of Liches in Spellhold.

 

So try again and explain why combat xp is a pro when it's not in the game.

 

 

I'm gonna believe your claim that BG2 didn't make you horribly underleveled, but it still did occasionally this kinda irritating thing where you go asking around, playing Petyr Baelish and pulling off a very cool treacherous moment, feel appropriately smug when it rewards you with a sizeable heap of xp, just to find out on a second playthrough that the "go in without a plan, smash faces" approach yields even moar, 'cause kill xp. 

 

And yes, PS:T rewarded pacifism. On the other hand, IWD severely punished it, while BG2 sits somewhere in the middle, so it's not that bad of an example.

 

And he did explain why he feels "no combat xp" is a pro - it's because he feels it's replaced by a better system.


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lack of romance" isn't something that they've replaced with an alternative that has the potential to be better (YMMV).  (Unless they HAVE initiated a superior 'party-relationship' system.)

What an odd comment.

 

Are you under the impression that people who happen to dislike the excessive pseudo-drama and constrictive baggage associated with video game romances wouldn't see any of the thousands of other types of companion interactions as much better and preferred by default? And that they wouldn't beg Obsidian to spend their writing budget on *those* types instead of Romances?

 

It's a safe bet that Obsidian's companion writers have, in fact, replaced romance with something that has the potential to be a much better fit in a party based RPG that happens to contain lots of combat and deep, storied companions: How about Competition? Or *group* camaraderie? Or friendship that's been built from spending the countless hours traveling, fighting, bleeding and celebrating together?

 

Romance is not the pinnacle of interpersonal relationships. It's just one of the many different types out there..

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lioness' Pros

 

  • The Classes in general. A nice mix of the familiar and the original.
  • Stronghold and the multi-levelled dungeon. Nice way to take  break from the 'normal' game flow.
  • No class-based armor / weapon restriction when it comes to classes.
  • The dialogue trees
  • No Romance (yeah a pro)

 

Lioness' Cons

  • Companion NPCs. It seems the choice is between classe/races I like with automaton type companions OR companions with depth but not a class I want/need in group.
    I would have preferred the personality and the class separated: Like create a companion Icewind dale style but give him or her a background that opens up quests, interactions etc...

 

Honestly I don't know enough of the game to come up with more cons, a bit too early to talk about UI etc...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lioness

 

...Totally offtopic, but are you the same Lioness from the Onyx Path forum? :)

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BruceVC: I tend to avoid elements of a game I dislike (like romances that are a better fit in a damn Twilight movie) and I only partake in those elements if they yield mechanical in game bonuses. At that point they become more of a gut wrenching chore than anything.

When romance is in a pc game, it turns this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116367/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

into this... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Think about it this way: adding vomit to a sandwich makes it bad. Trying to wipe it off or avoid it....naw...it still leaves the stench. Would you eat a subway sub comfortably if someone puked on half of it? You would not have to partake of the half you dont like, so does the vomit make it worse? OF COURSE IT DOES! Adding crappy things to games makes the games crap.

As to how to do relationships in games, I leave you with wise words of MCA...

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/10388/article/an-interview-with-chris-avellone-on-project-eternity/

Edited by Shevek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna believe your claim that BG2 didn't make you horribly underleveled, but it still did occasionally this kinda irritating thing where you go asking around, playing Petyr Baelish and pulling off a very cool treacherous moment, feel appropriately smug when it rewards you with a sizeable heap of xp, just to find out on a second playthrough that the "go in without a plan, smash faces" approach yields even moar, 'cause kill xp. 

 

And yes, PS:T rewarded pacifism. On the other hand, IWD severely punished it, while BG2 sits somewhere in the middle, so it's not that bad of an example.

 

And he did explain why he feels "no combat xp" is a pro - it's because he feels it's replaced by a better system.

 

 

So killing gave you more xp than pacifism in the BG2? Okay, lets have a look at some quests. Gets out my BG2 walkthrough book and places it on the table. Picks out some quests at random:

 

Circus tent Bridge Genie

Kill him: 5,000xp

Pacifism: 19,500xp

 

Adalon in Underdark

Kill her: 54,000xp only

Pacfifism: 78,500xp each

 

Spectator Beholder in the Sahuagin City

Killing him: 4,000xp

Pacificsm: 15,000xp

 

Yep, on my second playthrough, and when I killed everything, I got more xp! You actually got more rewards for killing than pacifism! Here's a little hint: Not everything was kill option, smash faces, rewards more xp than pacifism.

 

And IWD is a combat dungeon crawl. Strange you would bring that game up. But lets look at one of these quests which has both kill and pacifism shall we?

 

Ginafae and Marketh

Kill Marketh: 8000xp

Pacifism: 150,000 from Marketh + 80,000xp from Ginafae

 

And what loot do you get when you kill Marketh?

- Black Dragon Scale (AC of 4, 20% res. to acid) - meh, terrible.

- Valiant (long sword +2, +1 attack) - meh, terrible

- Ring of the Gorgon (turns you to stone... CURSED) - Awesome stuff!

 

Wow, You're right! Killing does severely punish you than pacifism in IWD. And this is a combat focused game. I'll have to believe everything you say is true.

 

And we don't know if it is a better system because we have not played the game. And going by previous IE games, this can be implemented in different ways. eg. Planescape Torment. Not everything is BG/IWD centric. Again, arguing from fallacy. if you're going to jump in and try and defend other people, at least do some research first.

 

Still waiting for Bruce to answer my question on why one thing that's not in the game is a Pro and something else that isn't in the game is not a Pro. But it looks like he wants others to do it for him. tsk tsk.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Al2O3 I am not that Lioness, although I have used the handle in some other games (mainly MMOs) and associated forums.

 

And as to why I put "No Romance" as pro.

 

I have nothing against romance, but if done right, it needs a lot of work. I prefer the devs and writers to use that time on more general type of companionship and story instead of shoe-horning it in the game. If romance was to be added at any stage of the development  in either something else would have to go out or the game would be delayed.

 

If romance was to be added I would like answers to questions like this:

Views on homosexual, heteroracial,  relationships has to be addressed, with different factions in the game having different opinions and reacting differently,...

What if one of the romance companion became pregnant ? Needed to spend pregnancy/maternity in stronghold ? What if the PC became pregnant ? 

What if two of your companions became infuriated with each other ? It shouldn't be a PC privilege...

Are any of the races/cultures bigamous ? polygamous ? polyandrous ? Why should this fantasy world confirm to 21st century political correctness ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

*brings up a lot of good examples*

 

And we don't know if it is a better system because we have not played the game.

 

And going by previous IE games, this can be implemented in different ways. eg. Planescape Torment. Not everything is BG/IWD centric. Again, arguing from fallacy. if you're going to jump in and try and defend other people, at least do some research first.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, your examples are perfectly valid, but having a few pre-scripted interactions where you can gain more by playing goody-two-shoes doesn't really mean that the game as a whole supports a pacifistic playthrough. If you sneaked past every encounter yet chose the (indeed fairly lucrative) merciful options where the game did offer you a choice, I think you'd still end up underleveled.

 

Yes, we don't know if it is a better system, but that doesn't mean someone can't bring it up as a personal pro in an admittedly subjective list. :rolleyes: (Btw, since there isn't going to be a "switch combat xp on" option, we still won't know whether it's a good fit for the game or not, even after we do play it. Furthermore, we have more than enough examples of previous RPGs where this approach worked fairly well.)

 

...SInce I was the one who brought up the example of PS:T as a game where the existence of combat xp didn't mean "being forced to slaughter left and right", I really don't get why you feel a need to point out that not everything is BG/IWD centric?

 

(Also, you might wanna take a look at this before screaming "fallacy!" at everything...)


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Honestly I think Silent Winter answered that accurately. There must be a valid other option if you say "one of Pro is no Romance "

 

Now I agree that maybe excellent dialogue can be substitute for people,  but not for me. Because the implementation of Romance is more than dialogue, its about a relationship that develops  with a party member on this epic quest and  the RP experience that entails 

 

I'm at a customer now so I may only be able respond later :)

 

 

And I refuted Silent Winters post. So you're basically copping out of this and trying to get other people to answer for you. As I said, I really expected more from you.

 

You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question. Seriously, is that how you're going to be? You expect others to answer your questions and when you are asked a question, you don't answer yourself. You don't give me the courtesy of answering my question.

 

So I'll ask again and please give me the courtesy of answering it:

 

Why is it that if something like combat xp is not in the game, it's a Pro?

 

:lol:

You funny Hiro, such theatrics. I like you :thumbsup:

 

You obviously misunderstand me, I'm not so arrogant to think no one can give a better answer to a question than me. That's why my answer is the same as Silent Winters. I don't mind other people answering for me because I don't have a better answer and his is the most accurate, I did explain that so I didn't avoid your question before

 

He said

 

"It IS different from 'no combat xp' as that's something that can't be avoided if it's in game and also changes the approach to challenges.  It's a change in game focus and tactics"


"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” -  George Bernard Shaw

 

"What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:lol:

You funny Hiro, such theatrics. I like you :thumbsup:

 

You obviously misunderstand me, I'm not so arrogant to think no one can give a better answer to a question than me. That's why my answer is the same as Silent Winters. I don't mind other people answering for me because I don't have a better answer and his is the most accurate, I did explain that so I didn't avoid your question before

 

He said

 

"It IS different from 'no combat xp' as that's something that can't be avoided if it's in game and also changes the approach to challenges.  It's a change in game focus and tactics"

 

So that's your answer is it? And I already refuted that. You can avoid combat xp. look at my examples I gave. You don't have to kill everything to get the xp. And when you do those examples I gave and you go the pacifist route, the spectator disappears, Marketh disappears, the Genie disappears and Adalon transports you to the surface.

 

So again, explain why one thing that isn't in the game is a Pro and then something else that isn't in the game isn't a Pro.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pros:

 

  1. Intricate tactical party combat--particularly as applies to melee.
  2. All aspects written by Obsidian.
  3. Dialogue and reputation systems.
  4. "Genuine" multiple "equivalent" approaches to quest completion.
  5. Beautiful art style.

Potential Cons:

  1. Untested spell system which I am...somewhat dubious about.
  2. Class archetype limitations. I would have preferred classless, though I am aware of what I funded.
  3. Curious status effects and damage types.
  4. Subduing my child-like exuberance and nostalgia to objectively appraise the game.
  5. Still unknown soundtrack?

Overall, my cons list was very difficult to create. I'm mostly concerned about the magic system being mundane, and how strong the emphasis are placed on the class archetypes. They seem to want certain classes to be only support, AoE, DPS, etc. They seem to be providing mechanisms to change how you wish to satisfy that role, but are otherwise restricted to that role through the classes abilities. Aside from that...I'm very excited about most everything else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So that's your answer is it? And I already refuted that. You can avoid combat xp. look at my examples I gave. You don't have to kill everything to get the xp.

 

:facepalm:

 

Ah, Hiro, you shining paragon of rationality  :lol: Your relentless tenacity is just too much, I think I will now have to bow out and leave you guys to settle this thing between yourselves.  :yes:


"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I already refuted that you wouldn't be underleveled if you avoided combat xp and went on the crit-path because you know BG2 has level scaling which made it easier when you arrived at Spellhold. I also mentioned Planescape Torment as other posters in this thread have already pointed out. And no, it wasn't you that brought up Planescape Torment first in this thread. I also gave examples afterwards which also refutes Silent Winters post that you can avoid combat xp with taking a pacifist route and be rewarded more than combat xp.

 

Despite all this Bruce wants to ignore all these examples and go back and quote something that has been proven wrong. And he still hasn't explained why one thing that isn't in the game is a Pro and then something else that isn't in the game isn't a Pro.

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I already refuted that you wouldn't be underleveled if you avoided combat xp and went on the crit-path because you know BG2 has level scaling which made it easier when you arrived at Spellhold. I also mentioned Planescape Torment as other posters in this thread have already pointed out. And no, it wasn't you that brought up Planescape Torment first in this thread.

 

I also gave examples afterwards which also refutes Silent Winters post that you can avoid combat xp with taking a pacifist route and be rewarded more than combat xp.

 

...But these are fairly tangential regarding his core argument, which goes "the exclusion of a feature is valid as a pro if its exclusion also implies it being replaced with something better". Whether that something is objectively better bears no relevance, because this is a subjective list, therefore if he feels it's better, it is replaced by something better from his standpoint :)

  • Like 2

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But these are fairly tangential regarding his core argument, which goes "the exclusion of a feature is valid as a pro if its exclusion also implies it being replaced with something better". Whether that something is objectively better bears no relevance, because this is a subjective list, therefore if he feels it's better, it is replaced by something better from his standpoint :)

 

So basically he's made up his own mind and won't accept anything unless he feels it's better. So if anyone presents anything that's objective it bears no relevance.

 

So it's okay for others to say no, that's not a pro like some people have said in this thread and others like yourself who join in with your own subjectivity. But really, it's all in their own subjective mind. They won't accept anything that's presented objectively to counter their bias.

 

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. :)

Edited by Hiro Protagonist II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...But these are fairly tangential regarding his core argument, which goes "the exclusion of a feature is valid as a pro if its exclusion also implies it being replaced with something better". Whether that something is objectively better bears no relevance, because this is a subjective list, therefore if he feels it's better, it is replaced by something better from his standpoint :)

 

So basically he's made up his own mind and won't accept anything unless he feels it's better. So if anyone presents anything that's objective it bears no relevance.

 

So it's okay for others to say no, that's not a pro like some people have said in this thread and others like yourself who join in and with your own subjectivity. But really, it's all in their own subjective mind. They won't accept anything that's presented objectively to counter their bias.

 

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. :)

 

 

The specific examples you gave of quests in IWD and BG2 are objective, certainly.  But you're trying to prove a subjective point with them about the nature of benefits and drawbacks to a game, so it's no wonder your collocutors aren't agreeing.  

 

I mean, that's why everyone's pro and con lists aren't the same.  Because this is a subjective exercise. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So basically he's made up his own mind and won't accept anything unless he feels it's better. So if anyone presents anything that's objective it bears no relevance.

 

So it's okay for others to say no, that's not a pro like some people have said in this thread and others like yourself who join in with your own subjectivity. But really, it's all in their own subjective mind. They won't accept anything that's presented objectively to counter their bias.

 

No problem. Thanks for the heads up. :)

 

 

Well, you can go around saying "stop liking what I don't like!" in people's faces, but that's liable to achieve nothing aside from wasting your own time :)

 

Edit: ninja'd by tajerio, who actually put it in a more eloquent manner.

Edited by aluminiumtrioxid
  • Like 1

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, my cons list was very difficult to create. I'm mostly concerned about the magic system being mundane, and how strong the emphasis are placed on the class archetypes. They seem to want certain classes to be only support, AoE, DPS, etc. They seem to be providing mechanisms to change how you wish to satisfy that role, but are otherwise restricted to that role through the classes abilities. Aside from that...I'm very excited about most everything else.

^Yes. A few months ago (Or about the time they gave us the first Class Update), My heart sank when I sat there and watched Josh Sawyer assigning MMO terminology to the classes. Ie. Heavy Hitters (DPS), Front liners (tanks) etc. My first thought was total Buyer's (Backer's?) remorse. I funded a spiritual successor to the IE games, not a WoW clone, damn it!

 

But then later he turned around and announced that the game will not be balanced in such a way as to *require* a full party. In fact, he assured us that Soloing will be viable...as it was in the IE games.

 

So I stopped worrying. I suspect that "Heavy Hitters", "Party Leaders", "Mob Rulers" and "Front Liners" are simply general descriptors they came up with to give the public an idea of what each class is particularly good at. But I doubt these Archetypes will be so rigid as to completely prevent a player from breaking the mold outright....such as making an effective Mage front liner. Or a Barbarian mob ruler etc.

 

And even if that's not the case, if the game can be soloed, then satisfying those roles can't be all that vital to success anyway. And that's fine by me! That's how the IE games handled things. Don't need a Tank to beat BG2. Or a Mob Ruler, or a DPS'er, or even a Healer. You just need intelligent strategy and the tools that the game gives you while you're playing it.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The specific examples you gave of quests in IWD and BG2 are objective, certainly.  But you're trying to prove a subjective point with them about the nature of benefits and drawbacks to a game, so it's no wonder your collocutors aren't agreeing.  

 

I mean, that's why everyone's pro and con lists aren't the same.  Because this is a subjective exercise. 

 

 

I'm not trying to prove a subjective point. here is a quote from Zombra which Bruce agrees with:

 

"However, it doesn't really count as a "Pro" to say "does not have something I dislike".  "Lack of broken glass" isn't a "feature" to be excited about, and "lack of romance" isn't either.  It's just something that's not there."

 

Bruce agrees with Zombra that if something isn't in a game, like no broken glass, then it's not a Pro. because it isn't in the game. Therefore if something isn't in the game, Bruce doesn't see it as a Pro. That is Bruce's view. The premise that Bruce agrees with is: If something is not in the game, it's not a Pro. So if Combat xp isn't in the game, it should also be not a Pro. Because it isn't in the game. Something not in the game = Not Pro.

 

Therefore:

No Romance in game = Not Pro

No Combat xp in game =  Not Pro

 

However, Bruce does see no combat xp in the game as a Pro.

 

Hang on. One minute he's agreeing with the premise that that if you don't have anything in the game, it's not a Pro. Then he does a complete 180 and says, oh yeah, this other thing that's not in the game is a Pro.

 

Faulty logic at its best. or should I say, agreeing when convenient for him and then stays silent when the logic doesn't agree with him.

 

 

 

Well, you can go around saying "stop liking what I don't like!" in people's faces, but that's liable to achieve nothing aside from wasting your own time :)

 

Edit: ninja'd by tajerio, who actually put it in a more eloquent manner.

 

And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not telling people "stop liking what I don't like". Where did that come from? tsk tsk.

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...