Can't believe I'm saying this, POE combat is better than DAO.

[Sven_]

@Sven_

 

 I simply stated my personal opinion and my personal preference. This isn't a right or wrong issue. People have different likes and dislikes. While I used to like this type of game, I don't anymore. I've tried playing this game and just can't get into it the way I can ES, DA and NWN games.

 

 

Which is fine. But you need to realize that some of these arguments you intentionally or unintentionally made by your initial wording got some riled up for reason. I figure that from the Infinity Engine games it wasn't particularly the more strategy game-based approach to things you enjoyed. The additional micro and party management both inside and outside of combat, picking formations, dealing with the complex character and combat models and rules, that kind of thing. In fact, the original iteration of the Infinity Engine developed by Bioware was actually made for a prototype of a real-time strategy game, which are still around to some degree (though have always been more of a PC focused thing). You order characters around and give them orders and formations, hence the view, whereas in The Elder scrolls you've inhibited a single character and engaged in real-time action game combat right from the first game in 1993. In any case, both are obviously completely different playing experiences. That is an important distinction. The more action based mostly single character 1st/3rd person approach is more "modern" in that action games have come to dominate most parts of the market, whilst PC-specific strategy games have mostly become a thing of specialized PC publishers, such as Paradox Interactive who are distributing PoE. Over at Bioware, such shifts have contributed to original members leaving the company for good. http://blog.brentknowles.com/2010/08/15/bioware-brent-year-10-fall-2008-summer-2009/

 

Those more action based games have been available during the IE heydays too, like the Gothic series. However those are a different kind of thing, which is actually great. Obviously as you rightfully pointed out, a game being played from top-down perspective isn't a requirement for a game to be an RPG or anything. Diversity is a good thing. And it's been sorely lacking. Remember that the story of PoE and other RPG Kickstarters was one of a strictly PC/Mac game at heart and their makers seeing little chance seeing it funded in the traditional way. Had nothing to do with the core mechanics being been there done that outdated -- if I would deal in polemics, I'd argue that beyond the fresh coat of paint I've played Skyrim (which I enjoy) to death and beyond in the past ten plus years too, and talking about idiosyncrasies the simple push-button combat as well as the creature AI didn't get much better likewise (in particular companions are as bad as ever, and the simplistic dungeons have become even more simplistic). It's all about more with the publishers Obsidian get do deal with doing different types of games as they expect to shift more copies across all platforms. It's a money thing, no more, no less. And it may be personal preference. However it's still a preference about two different kind of games.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Sven_

[Grinch]

 

@Sven_

 

 I simply stated my personal opinion and my personal preference. This isn't a right or wrong issue. People have different likes and dislikes. While I used to like this type of game, I don't anymore. I've tried playing this game and just can't get into it the way I can ES, DA and NWN games.

 

 

Which is fine. But you need to realize that some of these arguments you intentionally or unintentionally made by your initial wording got some riled up for reason. I figure that from the Infinity Engine games it wasn't particularly the more strategy game-based approach to things you enjoyed. The additional micro and party management both inside and outside of combat, picking formations, dealing with the complex character and combat models and rules, that kind of thing. In fact, the original iteration of the Infinity Engine developed by Bioware was actually made for a prototype of a real-time strategy game, which are still around to some degree (though have always been more of a PC focused thing). You order characters around and give them orders and formations, hence the view, whereas in The Elder scrolls you've inhibited a single character and engaged in real-time action game combat right from the first game in 1993. In any case, both are obviously completely different playing experiences. That is an important distinction. The more action based mostly single character 1st/3rd person approach is more "modern" in that action games have come to dominate most parts of the market, whilst PC-specific strategy games have mostly become a thing of specialized PC publishers, such as Paradox Interactive who are distributing PoE.

 

Those more action based games have been available during the IE heydays too, like the Gothic series. However those are a different kind of thing, which is actually great. Obviously as you rightfully pointed out, a game being played from top-down perspective isn't a requirement for a game to be an RPG or anything. Diversity is a good thing. And it's been sorely lacking. Remember that the story of PoE and other RPG Kickstarters was one of a strictly PC/Mac game at heart and their makers seeing little chance seeing it funded in the traditional way. Had nothing to do with the core mechanics being been there done that outdated -- if I would deal in polemics, I'd argue that beyond the fresh coat of paint I've played Skyrim (which I enjoy) to death and beyond in the past ten plus years too, and talking about idiosyncrasies the simple push-button combat as well as the creature AI didn't get much better likewise (in particular companions are as bad as ever, and the simplistic dungeons have become even more simplistic). It's all about more with the publishers Obsidian get do deal with doing different types of games as they expect to shift more copies across all platforms. It's a money thing, no more, no less. And it may be personal preference. However it's still a preference about two different kind of games.

 

I don't play ES, DA or NWN because they're action based. I play them because I can get fully immersed in them the same way I did with the IE games 15 years ago.  They are just as much cRPGs as any IE game or this game. There's just as much depth to them. Look at the title of this thread. The OP claims PoE combat is better than the combat in DA:O. Maybe in his opinion it is. But in my limited playing experience with the game it isn't. I know all about using tactics with  IE style games. DA:O, DA2 and NWN2 gives way more options for tactics than this game does. I can program the tactics of each individual NPC in my party with those games. DA:I has limited options but sill more than PoE. This game is limited even compared to most of the IE games because you could write and use scripts to control the AI with those games. Some people act as though this game is a hardcore cRPG because of it's isometric view and that it has more depth. That all other games pale in comparison. They're entitled to their opinions but so am I. I didn't tell anybody to stop playing PoE. In spite of what you say, I haven't argued with anybody. I've been very polite and well mannered. I just stated my opinion of the game.

 

One thing I've noticed is that people are quick to take offense or criticize anybody who doesn't like the current game that everybody is playing. I could have said this game was a piece of sh*t and let it go at that. Instead I tried to be very respectful of those who do like the game. I also tried to be courteous enough to explain why I don't like it. To give some sort of feedback to the developers. I stand by my comments about the game reminding me of just a mod created with a toolset. That was one of my first impressions. Want another example? To me the voice acting is pretty bad. It would have been better to go all text in my opinion.  Some of the in game videos also seem pretty bad. Almost as if somebody copied a bad cartoon.  The bits of profanity that I saw in the game seem out of place for a fantasy setting. It's a fantasy world not the boys locker room. If some people get riled up over my opinions then they need to grow thicker skins. My criticism and dislike is for a game. It's not personal. People need to realize that not everybody is going to like this game.

 

Just want to point one other thing out too. You automatically assume that I don't like the tactical aspect of these type of games. As I stated before the games I play give more tactical options than this game. The IE games gave more tactical options. I don't see a difference between Action cRPG and Plain cRPG. They are all cRPGs to me. I'm familiar with the Sacred series, the Wizardry series, the Fallout Series and the Jagged Alliance series. I own all of them. I also have ToEE and the Gothics. I have all the IE games. But I have no desire to go back and play any of them . It's not because I like action games. It's because today's games offer so much more to the gameplay and immersion. Play some of the mods for NWN 1 & 2 and then tell me the Gold Box games were better. There's a Baldurs Gate mod for NWN2 thats just as good as the original. There's also an IWD mod too. I don't like ES, DA and NWN because they're action games. I like them because they're more immersive than the IE style games. Just as the IE games were more immersive than the Gold Box games.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Grinch

[Sven_]

I don't play ES, DA or NWN because they're action based. I play them because I can get fully immersed in them the same way I did with the IE games 15 years ago.  They are just as much cRPGs as any IE game or this game. There's just as much depth to them. Look at the title of this thread. The OP claims PoE combat is better than the combat in DA:O. Maybe in his opinion it is. But in my limited playing experience with the game it isn't. I know all about using tactics with  IE style games. DA:O, DA2 and NWN2 gives way more options for tactics than this game does.

 

 

That's an interesting take especially considering the shift in subsequent Dragon Age games after Origins was amongst the causes of original Bioware staff leaving the company who felt it was strongly moving away from that direction (see my link I edited into my previous post) -- and even fans of DA 2 in particular hardly argue the combat to be very tactical. The design changed hugely in between DA:O which was originally pitched as a "back to the roots" title with much of the lead designers of vintage Bioware still involved whilst that changed later on and people left the company or opted to stay out of designing the sequel; and Inquisition takes hugely cues off Skyrim, which is a completely different thing entirelly. My bad for jumping to conclusions about what you actually enjoyed about the IE games, but it was both me as well as the games you mentioned to blame. For the bottom line is that most of the games you listed are really very different games and have always been. As such the message your posts got across to some (intentionally or unintentionally just by wording and that list of games) obviously rubbed off on some. Your posts didn't say "I don't like the game". They argued the game to be outdated and mediocre by its very nature and core idea in parts, not the quality of its content and execution of those core ideas. Obviously that saw some response, some of it quite knee-jerk though. Games sharing the core ideas of the IE games have been few and far between for the better of the last ten to fifteen years. Which naturally encouraged responses of that kind -- imagine your favourite type of game pretty much just going away.

 

I acknowledge such whilst being in a different kind of camp than you (that the oldies would be all about nostalgia); the one that thinks that beyond the pixels, the pathfinding issues and fiddly inventory management, a lot of the boldness in design in the "oldies" has never been matched, and much is to "blame" on games trying to be made ever more accessible to the degree of them treating you like someone who's never played a game from start to finish, as well as games ever more trying to mimic movies. However the IE kind of games are the farthest back you can go and that is no coincidence. For they were released at the tail's end of an era where technology had advanced enough to allow for all the complex quests to be found in Baldur's Gate II that arguably still are a landmark in terms of content to this day; similar the openness of Fallout's sandbox providing different experiences which each character build and player choice; and for all its clunky combat how about Torment's mature themes explored in a way you're unlikely going to find in a blockbuster production of epic scale. However at the same time the public's "entry-level requirements" in terms of production values wasn't as steep as it's become. Whilst the much older Ultima VII is obviously hugely clunky to play today and erroneous to look at in its 320x200 pixel art; everything could be picked up, every NPC has individual dialogue and still believable routines, and compared to the three houses, a closet plus, three NPCs and a bush per city in Skyrim (exaggerating), cities were actually a bit like cities. That's a very brutal irony in the history of video games that is only to be found in this medium of entertainment at the moment, as ever-changing technology dictates so much: Whilst some art can be copy&pasted without the experience suffering hugely, the cost of producing assets and 3d objects has grown significantly; thus the same goes for games; and generally, it's still growing. And with rising costs naturally comes a need to sell more games. That doesn't mean I'm all about old games. That however means that I don't push myself into believing everything and their Pip-Boy is down to nostalgia. Because it isn't if you ask me. And whilst I enjoy Bethsofts latest crowd pleasers too, the more recent crowdfunded RPGs are to me a reminder of why.

 

We won't agree on this one. However maybe on this, as this was the imporant bit: TES (entire series really) and subsequent Dragon Ages certainly don't fit the bill as points of reference for a game like PoE, for the TYPE of game that it represents (anybody who plays TES looking for tactical combat and party management must be pretty weird and I don't think you do either), and even the Neverwinter Nights with their companions or reduced parties have never offered that to the same degree either (their strengths are something else completely, like their toolsets providing unlimited adventures from small campaigns to persistent online worlds and human dungeon masters to boot -- the latter a feat that will only attempt to be repeated in the upcoming Sword Coast Legends, by some of the Bioware folks who left the company, no less). Good point about the character scripts though. For some reason I've never used them in the Infinity Engine games (I liked to have fully control over any character at all times rather than them following scripts), but for anybody who did they're obviously going to miss them in this one. Just saying!

Edited May 4, 2015 by Sven_

[Khalid the bear]

@Grinch. SInce you enjoy NWN2 can you tell me how you handle the (terrible) camera controls?
or is it just specific to my system?
first time i played it it was on a PC that was under  min specs, and i enjoyed it (although i had to keep camera from looking at the sky as it rendered (or rather did not render) in a very psychodelic manner)
when i returned to it recently i had to abandon it, because cammera was uncontrolable, it would spin out of control even with the lowest sensitivity setting

[GrinningReaper659]

 

Why you have some sudden need to tell them that that their design decisions are incorrect is beyond me.

 

 

 

This is odd, as I was pointing out why I didn't understand someone else's criticism, not issuing any of my own.

 

I understand your points, and I certainly wouldn't question the need for fine-tuning game design, I guess I wouldn't call many of those things by the word "balance" (although I know that is how many of these design tweaks are defined in patches). 

 

Decided, as always, to turn to google. I think I get now what this word means in a single player context.

 

https://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/level-16-game-balance/

 

 

1. In single-player games, we use “balance” to describe whether the challenge level is appropriate to the audience;
2. In multi-player games where there is asymmetry (that is, where players do not start with exactly equal positions and resources), we use “balance” to describe whether one starting position is easier to win with than another.
3. Within a game, if there are multiple strategies or paths to victory that can be followed within the game, we use “balance” to describe whether following one strategy is better or worse than following another.
4. Within a system that has several similar game objects (such as cards in a trading-card game, weapons in a role-playing game, and so on), we use “balance” to describe the objects themselves, specifically whether different objects have the same cost/benefit ratio.

I can see how 1, 3, and 4 apply to PoE ... so now I concede my position. Honestly, not being a game designer, I really only thought it applied to 2.

 

 

Sorry if I came off a bit hostile, it's just that I've seen this argument that "balance doesn't belong in a single player game" declared so many times now. It was beginning to annoy me, because balance is used to design every single player game ever, and it has nothing to do with MMOs when talking about single player games. Thank you for looking up the definition, which made my point better than I did.

[Grinch]

@Grinch. SInce you enjoy NWN2 can you tell me how you handle the (terrible) camera controls?

or is it just specific to my system?

first time i played it it was on a PC that was under  min specs, and i enjoyed it (although i had to keep camera from looking at the sky as it rendered (or rather did not render) in a very psychodelic manner)

when i returned to it recently i had to abandon it, because cammera was uncontrolable, it would spin out of control even with the lowest sensitivity setting

I play in Exploration mode with all Mouse/View settings (turning, zoom etc.) turned all the way up. Sometimes the camera is a little fidgety depending on the area but it's not too bad. I zoom out and angle the camera just enough to see everything. After awhile you get used to it. I never use the other modes. Make sure you're completely patched up too : 1.23 I think it is. I seem to recall they worked on the camera in one of the patches prior to that which made it better. I remember experiencing exactly what you're talking about when I first started playing. I also play on a widescreen monitor so turning the settings up may work for me and not for you. You may need to adjust to your own preference. Hope this helps because NWN2 is a good game. Especially with all the mods (adventures) made with the toolset.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Grinch

[Khalid the bear]

well the graphic was quite uglier than i rememberd, but its not a new game

[rjshae]

DA:O boiled down to skirmishing tactics, since you couldn't hold a front line. It was a rare battle where you could make an interesting tactical decision. That's not difficult to improve upon; even BG had it beat.

[Maximvs]

Dragon age still beats this game with more voice acting and better lore. It also beats this game with way more skills. This game has potential, it's just lacking a little bit everywhere, except in the writing.

[rjshae]

Dragon age still beats this game with more voice acting and better lore. It also beats this game with way more skills. This game has potential, it's just lacking a little bit everywhere, except in the writing.

 

Well DA:O had more voice acting, I'll give you that. Whoopee. Both games have a decent amount of lore. What DA:O has in skills (limited though they are), PoE almost makes up for by having a broader range of ranks.

[majestic]

I'd say Dragon Age: Origins has "more" lore than Pillars of Eternity, in terms of raw quantity. Quality could be argued obviously.

 

Actually the lore is pretty much the only reason I finished DA2 and DA:I. DA2 was actually the more fun game  (I really don't want Skyrim and MMOish quests in my RPGs, thanks for the Hinterlands Bioware) but the copy/paste environments really started go grate on my nerves by Act 3. And that's with liking the idea of living in Hightown for a couple of years.

 

 

What I found really odd is the similarities in terms of lore related revelations of DA:I and PoE (they have different stories of course). Both have apparently absent creator deieties and by the looks of it very powerful beings that are or were worshipped as gods but probably have no form of divinte mandate. PoE has created gods and DA:I apparently ancient elves that became so powerul that they essentially were gods.

 

[Grinch]

DA:O boiled down to skirmishing tactics, since you couldn't hold a front line. It was a rare battle where you could make an interesting tactical decision. That's not difficult to improve upon; even BG had it beat.

With the right tactical commands, I can hold a front line pretty well. At least long enough for my mages to do pretty decent damage. Don't forget that in the BGs and IWDs you could have up to a party of six whereas in DA:O it's a party of four. It does make a difference. Especially when you can take two tanks or a tank and an off-tank. In DA:O I usually take a tank (Allistair), rogue (Leliana) and mage (Morrigan). My character is usually a mage or archer type. With the IE games you could use scripts or write your own scripts for the AI to follow. Pretty much the same as DA:O. NWN gives the same type of options  and even gets more detailed with 3rd party mods. That's one thing I miss when playing PoE.

[Grinch]

Dragon age still beats this game with more voice acting and better lore. It also beats this game with way more skills. This game has potential, it's just lacking a little bit everywhere, except in the writing.

The one thing I don't like in any of Bioware's newer games is the romance options. To me it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay or immersion. All the time and effort they spent doing the romance scenes and stories could have been put to better use on other game areas.

[abaris]

I hated Oblivion, too dumb compared to Morrowind (haven't tried Skyrim yet). DA:O wasn't too bad, but nothing to write home about. And they ruined the sequels rather than building on what good they got. NWN? Heh...

 

The problem with so called AAA titles is that they all have major publishers, who are only responsible to shareholders and want to rake in as much cash in as short a period possible. That way you get half baked products, in the case of Bioware, with tagged on multiplayer action, with console players in mind. Now the problem with the console is that the controller allows for less options than the keyboard and mouse of the PC. So, PC comes second in the foodchain for these publishers and the results are quite lazy ports, which, according to many reviews, culminated in abysmal PC controls for the third rendition of Dragon Age.

 

Personally I haven't touched a Bioware product since DA:O, since it was obvious from playing the demo of DAII that they were catering to a different audience now. I played Skyrim and it was fun for a while, but I lost interest pretty quickly, since the quests were all fetch and carry and the world still didn't react to the achievements of your player. Also I hated the concept of being virtually pushed to become a Jack of all Trades by being able to join and become leader of all ingame guilds.

 

So all that is left are crowdfounded products and, as opposed to some other titles in the past, I didn't regret my two purchases of this year, which were Divinity Original Sin and POE.

 

 

The one thing I don't like in any of Bioware's newer games is the romance options. To me it doesn't really add anything to the gameplay or immersion. All the time and effort they spent doing the romance scenes and stories could have been put to better use on other game areas.

 

 

 

That's actually one thing I like if done well. It gives the player some personality instead of just being a mindless killing machine. But it has to be believable and in character instead of just giving every sort of player character the option to romance everything that moves.

Edited May 4, 2015 by abaris

[scrotiemcb]

The problem with so called AAA titles is that they all have major publishers, who are only responsible to shareholders and want to rake in as much cash in as short a period possible. That way you get half baked products, in the case of Bioware, with tagged on multiplayer action, with console players in mind. Now the problem with the console is that the controller allows for less options than the keyboard and mouse of the PC. So, PC comes second in the foodchain for these publishers and the results are quite lazy ports, which, according to many reviews, culminated in abysmal PC controls for the third rendition of Dragon Age.

You seem to be making the same absurd assumption that AAA publishers are making. The industry is trying to make every game into a blockbuster that appeals to everyone, and going broke in their attempts. They aren't selling out, you need to make more than you spend to sell out, they're just being idiots. The truth is that there is no such thing as the perfect video game, only perfect video games. The industry would be more profitable if it targeted various demographics with lower-cost but higher-focus titles rather than trying to lure in everyone at once.

[abaris]

 

The industry would be more profitable if it targeted various demographics with lower-cost but higher-focus titles rather than trying to lure in everyone at once.

 

 

I don't see how my post contradicts yours. The problem is that publishers, like any shareholder company, look at short term gains. Their management isn't really invested in the product. Only insofar as the profit strenghtens their positions at the end of the year and their bonusses. So they're mass producing, which shows in the short development cicles of companies like Bioware, which isn't independent anymore but an EA division.

 

And there are enough casuals to buy the next shiny polished turd to make up for losing a core audience, given the right marketing strategy.

[Sven_]

I think where this is going. In fairness, last time I checked Inquisiton, the latest of Bioware, wasn't exactly a badly received game. I think it was mainly targeted heavily by those who still expect "old Bioware" of which essentially has become a different company -- and that includes the people running the house as well as designing the games to various degrees. If anybody remembers, "Dragon Age" initially was supposed to be s strictly PC kind of thing, a true successor to Baldur's Gate after Kotor and Jade Empire, tailored completely to mouse/keyboard controls -- and as years passed by even the end product is quite a bit of a different game to the sequels. However, those responsible for the series' initial direction are gone, such as the lead on Origins who is a strong advocate for tactical combat: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Brent_Knowles

 

I remember playing the demo of DA2 myself and immediately figured that this wasn't my kind of game. It was everything lukewarm about "interactive movie RPGs" molded into one repetitive block of tedium: simple combat, advance, watch movie sequence, simple combat, watch movie sequence, combat, movie sequence, combat - nothing to explore or really do, the game just rolling along and playing itself. Interestingly, Knowles, Origin's lead, posted his impressions back then as well: http://blog.brentknowles.com/2011/03/14/dragon-age-2-demo/ However for all the slack it got it also had its fans. And as far as I know Inquisition in fairness received some awards by editors as well as gamers alike. That's okay. The good thing is that the folks who have left Bioware have started working on their own projects, some of them anyway, such as Sword Coast Legends. I don't think it's going to be much of a stretch to predict that there's a lot more of BG/NWN going into Sword Coast Legends than into the inevitable sequels to both Inquisition as well as Mass Effect. Also the ressurgence of smaller scale RPGs has so far even made Ubisoft, else known for milking plenty of Assassins Creed, publish a totally distinctively retro Dungeon Crawler in Might and Magic X Legacy -- kind of like Legends Of Grimrock, it's as retro as having you move around one tile at a time rather than subsequent sequels of the original series, the last of which was actually based on a 3d engine of Monolith (FEAR series of games, AvP 2), though it looked badly. Things have never looked more diverse on that front, and unlike three, four, five years ago, there's RPGs of pretty much any kind. Hopefully things will stay that way though.

 

 

Talking about balance, it's a bit of a different thing obviously, but in the Fallouts I genuinely enjoyed that depending on your character build you were in for a really really tough time in the wastes. Lots of combat can be avoided (the least in Bethesda's take, who unlike Obsidian in New Vegas never translated the original's concept as much into a 3d world anyway), but building a physically weak character more apt at wisdom and technical skills actually felt that way... the game responded to that not by means of scaling eventual encounters to your skill sets, but by making them as bloody hard as you'd expect such a character to struggle in such a world. On the opposite you can completely pump everything into strength and melee combat, and a few levels into the game you're able to one-hit everything (Death Claws excluded). I remember a subsequent fun playthrough going that way and thinking: gee, that's easy this time 'round. But I also appreciated how differently the game felt, even if things were easier/harder to play depending on which. It's like experiencing the same world through the eyes (and abilities) of completely different characters. It's my favourite character system anyway. However, balancing a party based game is something else completely obviously as is the core gameplay mechanics.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Sven_

[Hassat Hunter]

I must confess I don't get what "balance" issues are in a Single Player-RPG. An MMO, or MP game, needs balance, so that PvP combat isn't unfair/improperly matched. I understand that. 

 

However, "balance" complaints in a SP-RPG seem to amount to "one class is more powerful than another," which in a SP-RPG where some may lack power, but make it up in support or secondary skills (etc.) .... doesn't seem to really be something that matters. 

 

Pathfinding and AI are legitimate complaints. Some day, somebody will make a game where either enemies or NPCs actually figure out that after 30 seconds of trying to walk through one of their own team, they actually could go a different way. I hope it arrives.

 

But I don't get the balance one. I really don't understand what it means to say a SP-RPG is 'imbalanced'.

Cause otherwise you end up with:

* Pick one power (let's call it "Force Lightning"), spawn it for 40 hours, and everything dies at the spot.

* You got 'The Destroyer of Worlds' beat by naked weaponless people.

* You touch someone with your pinkie, removing their entire health bar and triggering a 'He's too powerful! You need to flee!' cutscene

* An intricate minefield, meant to challenge the player becomes "1 1/2 FREE LEVEL UPS!"

 

All errors made by Obsidian mind you.

 

I kinda look forward to seeing how The Witcher III turns out. I expect the worst and definitely do NOT pre-order. I don't have faith in CDR making anything worthwhile of it, but it should be interesting to see what they cooked up, how people will respond to it, how people on these forums respond to it. Cause personally I feel they fell into the BioWare trap and are lost to us.

[abaris]

I think where this is going. In fairness, last time I checked Inquisiton, the latest of Bioware, wasn't exactly a badly received game. I think it was mainly targeted heavily by those who still expect "old Bioware" of which essentially has become a different company -- and that includes the people running the house as well as designing the games to various degrees. If anybody remembers, "Dragon Age" initially was supposed to be s strictly PC kind of thing, a true successor to Baldur's Gate after Kotor and Jade Empire, tailored completely to mouse/keyboard controls -- and as years passed by even the end product is quite a bit of a different game to the sequels. However, those responsible for the series' initial direction are gone, such as the lead on Origins who is a strong advocate for tactical combat: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Brent_Knowles

 

 

Well, yeah. That's why I don't touch any game labeled Bioware anymore. I say labeled Bioware, since it's an EA division and not an independent studio and EA caters to the lowest common denominator to sell as many copies in as short a period of time possible, since they believe (maybe rightly) their shareholders ask for that approach. Therefore they cater mainly to consoles in the first place and that's a fundamental problem, since the limited controls of consoles simply don't allow for tactical depth in the same way as keyboard and mouse do. The ensuing problem are pisspoor ports which make PC players simply an afterthough to rake in some of them too, if possible.

[luzarius]

After reading this thread, I may have to check out Baldurs gate. I think I really missed out on that game.  Do you guys know if Baldurs gate would be possible to beat in trial of iron mode even though it doesn't have one?

 

I also agree, I am no longer buying Bioware games, due to dragon age inquisition since it's purely a gay/lesbian/feminist/wow franchise now that serves as nothing more than empty sequel bait.

 

What are the best gaming companies for RPG's?  Obsidian won me over big time with POE, Bethesda makes good elder scrolls games, what else though?

Edited May 10, 2015 by luzarius

[Osvir]

In my experience from many games I've played, Pillars of Eternity has a fun and enjoyable combat. But it could always be improved upon, in clarity, in tactical elements, AI, strategy, visual and in "immersion". Much like all games can be improved, so can Pillars of Eternity also be improved.

Some of the "solutions" ("improvements" rather) I believe would make combat better:

1) Remove "Running" from combat and replace it with the "Scout Mode" stance. The characters look way more "readied" holding up their weapons and the stance looks generally better when moving than "Running" anim.

2) Add a "Sprint" ability for ALL characters (Enemies & Allies).

- Abstracted comparison #1: In Turn-Based games, some classes or characters sometimes have the ability to walk 2 tiles instead of 1 tile during a turn. This is to allow them to get in a favorable position in time. In Chess, the Pawn can take 2 steps on their starting position if you choose to do so.

- Abstracted comparison #2: In FPS games you can "sprint" for a little bit until your character gets exhausted, or sprint infinitely forever. This adds another level of tactical play in FPS games.

 

- In some Realtime RPG's and/or Action games (Such as Diablo series or MOBA's) there are characters/classes that have abilities to give them a short burst of speed, dodging, or items that give the ability to "Blink" and/or "Rush". It greatly adds tons of tactical play.

My conclusion? It would add more tactical play to considerably lower the movespeed of all Actors on the board and add a "Sprint" move command in Pillars of Eternity (1/1 per encounter and faster Combat Fatigue with Talents to upgrade "Less Combat Fatigue" Talent and perhaps a "2/2" Talent).

3) Better AI that also uses "Sprint" move commands to circle around you, flank you, avoiding Engagement, Targeting Priorities, Retreating backwards into a room and using choke points against you etc.

These 3 points, I believe, would make Combat levitate much more towards even more Tactical play. Items that boost Movespeed would become much more valuable as well. I admit these are more rethorical points aimed towards a Pillars of Eternity sequel or in the future, because the first one is already set in stone. It could be a bit devastating if they choose to change the feeling of combat at this point, and a lot of threads would pop up with people probably saying "What the hell did you do with the combat!?" *shrug*

Seeing the "Making of" Documentary I noticed that they had went with "Running" from the very beginning. Sigh! Oh well this is my main complaint (and I admit that it is quite minor) about Pillars of Eternity, other than the "Running" animation, I think it's pretty stellar :D

P.S. Powerwalking FTW! Can't quite comment on which one I think has better combat of DA:O and PoE. It's such a long time since I played DA:O.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Osvir

[Hassat Hunter]

After reading this thread, I may have to check out Baldurs gate. I think I really missed out on that game.  Do you guys know if Baldurs gate would be possible to beat in trial of iron mode even though it doesn't have one?

Completely and utterly depends on your familiarity with 2nd edition D&D rules.

[abaris]

Completely and utterly depends on your familiarity with 2nd edition D&D rules.

 

 

 

Since I played the game with pen and paper in the 80ies and 90ies, I will give it a try. I didn't play the BG series when it first came out, but bought BGII enhanced when it was on sale on steam. If I'm not mistaken, NWNII used the same ruleset.

Edited May 10, 2015 by abaris

[roller12]

Mind you, in DAO I played Nightmare, Ironman, no combat pausing, same in Dragon Age 2.

That explains it, DOA combat system is more complex, playing it in real time is simply missing content, and relying on crutches Bioware

put in the game for such players, like potions. You will find Diablo 3 an even better klickfest. I dont find PoE particularly

tactical so far in Act 1, there is very little synergy between classes and encounters are very messy due to the lack of tanks and rely on AI stupidity

not seeing past the nearest obstacle. This is nowhere the level of DOA.

Edited May 10, 2015 by roller12

[Malignacious]

 

The problem with so called AAA titles is that they all have major publishers, who are only responsible to shareholders and want to rake in as much cash in as short a period possible. That way you get half baked products, in the case of Bioware, with tagged on multiplayer action,

 

As a PC player I spent more time playing Mass Effect 3 multiplayer than most RPGs combined.

Fun is fun.