No experience from combat

[Shdy314]

 

IE games xp system is a tried and tested failure.

LOL this is such a vague, meaningless statement.

 

YEP! So is saying it was a tried and tested success. Good job figuring that out Stun. You get me.

 

 

 

In this alternate universe was the game still designed with killxp in mind? So it was exactly the same except no killxp? Or was it designed differently to account for the change?

Because BG's were not exactly stellar at giving you charisma and stealth options in quests so it would end up being a wash.

 

Anyways in all honestly I still woulda bought it because if it was an RPG back then I snatched it up no questions asked. I was not always the most discerning consumer.

[Msxyz]

When I pitched my Kickstarter pledge I believed they were going to deliver a game with the exploration fun of BG2, the combat and dungeon dweelling of IWD and a story rivalling PsT. Some comments from Obsidian staff reinforced this belief.

 

Story aside, on which we don't have anything substantial to express a judgement, what I've seen doesn't look and feel like what I was expecting. Certainly this is no more a IE games 'spiritual successor' than any other isonometric RPG out there.

 

To be honest, as a backer, I'd rather have this game pushed back by one year or more, rather than playing it in this unsatisfying and disppointing state, with these mechanics and approach to questing.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Msxyz

[Shdy314]

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

WOW. That is ... <makes diplomacy check> bold.

[IndiraLightfoot]

At the very heart of most CRPGs and ARPGs, there's a cellar, and in that funky basement, you see two fellas moving about figurines on a board, feverishly crunching number and having their immersion of their lives.

 

Who might these obsessed gentlemen be?

 

They are Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

PnP RPGs, with combat rules, dice and figurines, were sprung out of miniature warfare games. We wouldn't have CRPGs and ARPGs without this. Nothing, everything we love about them, gone: no gameplay, no fun systems, no xp progession. It may sound weird, but World of Warcraft, League of Legends, Dota and Diablo have D&D at its heart and its combat/xp systems. Those games are more related to the core of RPGs and D&D and whatnot, than Planescape: Torment. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true.

[Shdy314]

 

 

It doesnt say anything because it does not tell us if it added to the success or not or if people even cared. I bought all BG games when they were released and i didnt waste a single second thinking "man those games give kill xp, I so gonna buy them"

 

I never said they were a major draw. I said they weren't a failure. They clearly didn't ruin the IE game's success; thus they aren't a failed mechanic.

 

You are too funny. You have no idea what correlation is do you?

[Namutree]

XP for kills is classic old-school mechanic of all RPGs. 

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

WHOAH! Slow down there. This game work pretty hard to be worse than dragon age 2. The moment this game let me choose my race it was better than that abomination. That game's most popular feature was the off button.

[Ahvz]

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

WOW. That is ... <makes diplomacy check> bold.

 

Yeah, it certainly reads like satire, doesn't it? 

[Killyox]

I think leaving experience out is decent idea. At least there is no forcing to kill something for XP. In Wasteland 2 I can prevent fighting guys at the first Radio Tower and get xp and then just kill them and...get more xp which is somewhat stupid.

 

On the other hand just tying it all to quests may be punishing for people that don't do all of quests as well as don't progress far into quest chain for some reason.

[Sarex]

To be honest, as a backer, I'd rather have this game pushed back by one year or more, rather than playing it in this unsatisfying and disppointing state, with these mechanics and approach to questing.

 

The only way they could delay this game would be if they went through with the steam early access, even then they need to make enough money of it.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

WOW. That is ... <makes diplomacy check> bold.

 

I expect no less, because in all actuality, it's indeed the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me Gygax.

Edited August 21, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Mayama]

Its rediculous that people here really think that kill-xp has anything to do with the success of baldurs gate. Baldurs gate got released at a time when the rpg genre was basicaly dead. Their was nothing else beside some weird low quality stuf no one wanted. People would have bought anything half decent at this point. Also, baldurs gate is really new school, play some wizardry or ultima if you so desperatly want old-school.

[Mrakvampire]

 

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

WOW. That is ... <makes diplomacy check> bold.

 

Desperate times call for desperate measures

[Shdy314]

 

Since killing things was the primary way to advance in levels in the vast majority of those RPGs, they didn't have to. It was a given. Just like they didn't ask if we missed having mages in our party. Or if we missed doing quests for XP. Or if we missed real time with pause. Or if we missed item descriptions on magic items.

 

RTwP is a given? I bet you had strong opinions about the new Torment eh?

[Namutree]

 

I never said they were a major draw. I said they weren't a failure. They clearly didn't ruin the IE game's success; thus they aren't a failed mechanic.

 

 

 

You are too funny. You have no idea what correlation is do you?

 

Actually I do. However there is no correlation here. Tell me, if I said there would be chairs in poe would that be something to get excited about. For most people; I doubt it. That wouldn't mean chairs are a failure.

[Shdy314]

 

WHOAH! Slow down there. This game work pretty hard to be worse than dragon age 2. The moment this game let me choose my race it was better than that abomination. That game's most popular feature was the off button.

 

Now this I must agree with you. All of it. Only game I ever started and didn't feel OCD enough to finish.

[Mrakvampire]

Its rediculous that people here really think that kill-xp has anything to do with the success of baldurs gate. Baldurs gate got released at a time when the rpg genre was basicaly dead. Their was nothing else beside some weird low quality stuf no one wanted. People would have bought anything half decent at this point. Also, baldurs gate is really new school, play some wizardry or ultima if you so desperatly want old-school.

 

Fallout. 1997.

Baldur's Gate. 1998.

Yeah, genre was dead when BG got released. Yes, it was dead. LOL.

[Shdy314]

 

 

I never said they were a major draw. I said they weren't a failure. They clearly didn't ruin the IE game's success; thus they aren't a failed mechanic.

 

 

 

You are too funny. You have no idea what correlation is do you?

 

Actually I do. However there is no correlation here. Tell me, if I said there would be chairs in poe would that be something to get excited about. For most people; I doubt it. That wouldn't mean chairs are a failure.

 

I agree! There is no correlation between the popularity of BG and killxp. So what was your original argument supposed to be again?

[Stun]

Wouldn't it be better by rewarding players using diplomatic or stealthy ways to solve a quest with extra xp instead of removing combat xp completely? Beating enemies to gain the loot and xp has been part of the fun of traditional RPG. This change has gone too far I think.   To be honest, I am even a little bit regretful backing this project if they are taking out my pleasures of earning killing xp.

Yes. Giving players multiple ways to acquire their XP rewards is always better.

 

The problem is that some people simply cannot understand that the concepts are not mutually exclusive. You can have combat XP in a system where Objectives and quests and diplomacy and stealth and hand placed stuff ALSO exists.

 

 

Baldurs Gate 2 was a far better RPG than Shadow Run Returns.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Stun

[IndiraLightfoot]

I think leaving experience out is decent idea. At least there is no forcing to kill something for XP. In Wasteland 2 I can prevent fighting guys at the first Radio Tower and get xp and then just kill them and...get more xp which is somewhat stupid.

 

On the other hand just tying it all to quests may be punishing for people that don't do all of quests as well as don't progress far into quest chain for some reason.

In Obsidian's F:NV, you're character progression happened all the time, for each action - it's even more than what I want to see - some small-increment xp being rewarded. Granted, Josh's personal mod slowed progression down, but it's not even near this Time Stop spell that has been cast on the PoE beta build right now.

[Mayama]

 

Its rediculous that people here really think that kill-xp has anything to do with the success of baldurs gate. Baldurs gate got released at a time when the rpg genre was basicaly dead. Their was nothing else beside some weird low quality stuf no one wanted. People would have bought anything half decent at this point. Also, baldurs gate is really new school, play some wizardry or ultima if you so desperatly want old-school.

 

Fallout. 1997.

Baldur's Gate. 1998.

Yeah, genre was dead when BG got released. Yes, it was dead. LOL.

 

 

Yes it was, do you know why I know that? Because I experienced it. ALL the big rpg series where dead, no company dared to make new ones, their was not a single good RPG for years.

[Namutree]

Its rediculous that people here really think that kill-xp has anything to do with the success of baldurs gate. Baldurs gate got released at a time when the rpg genre was basicaly dead. Their was nothing else beside some weird low quality stuf no one wanted. People would have bought anything half decent at this point. Also, baldurs gate is really new school, play some wizardry or ultima if you so desperatly want old-school.

The rpg genre was dead? BS. Look online; there were plenty of rpgs that came out in 1998.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Namutree

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Its rediculous that people here really think that kill-xp has anything to do with the success of baldurs gate. Baldurs gate got released at a time when the rpg genre was basicaly dead. Their was nothing else beside some weird low quality stuf no one wanted. People would have bought anything half decent at this point. Also, baldurs gate is really new school, play some wizardry or ultima if you so desperatly want old-school.

 

Fallout. 1997.

Baldur's Gate. 1998.

Yeah, genre was dead when BG got released. Yes, it was dead. LOL.

 

 

Yes it was, do you know why I know that? Because I experienced it. ALL the big rpg series where dead, no company dared to make new ones, their was not a single good RPG for years.

 

There was a hiathus then, that's actually true - but if you kept up PnP RPG-ing, and kept playing the SSI games, you didn't really notice it too much. BG came out like a deliverance. Except from some Sega game, and some bad Menzoberranzan, the gap was pretty wide, if we're talking D&D CRPGs here, something like 1994-1997( .

Edited August 21, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Shdy314]

 

Giving players multiple ways to acquire their XP rewards is always better.

 

But this is not an Either/Or. The system should reward you Kill XP and Non Kill XP. This one doesn't though.

 

Baldurs Gate 2 was a far better RPG than Shadow Run Returns.

Oh yes the old "choices are inherently good so more choices is always better" chestnut. As wrong now as ever. It is interesting that you should make this argument since that is EXACTLY what the system produces. You get xp no matter what path you take to your goals. Oh but you don't get to see numbers immediately after killing something. I guess it is totally different.

 

You can keep saying that all you want but you know it won't change.

 

Which has literally nothing to do with killxp.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Shdy314

[Killyox]

XP for kills is classic old-school mechanic of all RPGs. 

No XP for kill = this game has nothing to do with old-school RPGs and is worse that Dragon Age 2

Way to hyperbole. 

 

They never said they will make old game. They said they will try to recapture magic of old games, not their flaws or mechanics to the boot. It is 2014 after all. 

 

Unless you want all of 2000s stuff and 640x480 resolution to go with it as well ?

[Waywocket]

 

 

 

 

 I bought all BG games when they were released and i didnt waste a single second thinking "man those games give kill xp, I so gonna buy them"

 

But you most likely wouldn't have bought them when they came out, if some text on its cover said: "No experience points will be rewarded for killing opponents, picking treasure chest locks and disarming traps. Only major quests count." 

 

It's good that you mentioned locks and traps, as I felt this was a major improvement of BG2 over BG1, because I feel that characters should be rewarded for doing all the things they can do, rather than just some of them [to forestall the obvious strawman: no, I don't mean things like 'get up', 'have breakfast', but overcoming whatever challenges the game has]. I've always disliked that most CRPGs don't generally have any means to reward you fairly for sneaking around and avoiding things, because that can be hard to do mechanically, but I feel like the no-kill-XP thing is mostly just a way to avoid having to solve that hard problem.

 

I'm not absolutely set on the idea that everything you kill should grant some XP reward, but I do feel that being repeatedly forced into encounters that don't have any reward to them is not very enjoyable, so encounters that aren't linked to any quest should offer something.