RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[Mamoulian War]

To be honest, I rather see distilled old quests and their logic, than the totally original new way the world needs hero to save it and you are the only one who has the power to do it. Now bring me 10 rat pelts.

[Ganrich]

 

No argument here. They need another way to make tech work other than crafting/dumpster diving for gunpowder like Arcanum's equivalent to a hobo. They had good ideas with things like the Tesla gun, but needed more time to balance it. Nerf Harm spell.TB vs RTwP... I would go TB, but if it is as combat filled as Arcanum... there needs to be a way to quickly resolve trash fights. I dunno. I agree one or the other, though. Definitely not the two crammed together like Frankenstein's RPG-monster.Interesting, in the interview, Leonard talks about his love for Arcanum, his preference for working on games that are his own IP (not something like Vampire, Star Wars, etc), and says he is working on his dream game. God... it gets me too hopeful. I know it isn't likely, but I would flip out. Vampire makes more sense to be the current project. Activision owns Arcanum, and it isnt likely. However, a pitch like "Bioshock meets Elder Scrolls" might get Obsidian's foot in the door, and I'm sure Leonard knows people. It's probably Vampire, though. It's an easier situation.

I haven't gotten the sense at all that Obsidian is currently working on a Bloodlines game. Seems to me that there's just been this **** tease thrown around a few times to see how interested people are in a sequel, but that's as far as it's gone currently.An Arcanum successor seems more likely right now. I'd welcome it, as it'll be in UE4 and surely more interesting than nearly anything else in the industry, but am the opposite of you in wishing it over a Bloodlines sequel.

Well, there was really convenient timing when Boyarsky left Blizzard for Obsidian and Paradox retained the rights to White Wolf. It was shortly after that Feargus said Cain and Boyarsky were working on their own project with UE4. Vampire is also a much more widely known IP compared to Arcanum, and Vampires are still popular in mainstream culture (as long as they don't sparkle in the sun). It is an easier sell than Arcanum, IMHO. That said, I would prefer something akin to Arcanum vs Vampire, myself. I'll play either, but I will straight up get passionately excited (HYPE TRAIN!!! ALL ABOARD!!!) for an open world steampunk RPG very similar to Arcanum. The genre needs more unique settings.

 

On the note of Gamebryo/Creation/whatever... I have no issues with the engine, nor many games built with it. However, it needs a big overhaul, or Bethesda needs to build a new one from scratch. They of course should do either an overhaul or replacement with modding in mind.

 

If anything has stagnated the RPG genre it is companies avoiding less traditional settings. It's medieval or bust, and that's stagnation at its finest. Where in the mid 90s to early 2000s we got Fallout, Arcanum, PST, etc. that broke out of the typical fantasy setting. When I argue for an Arcanum sequel I expect a small handful of things: its steampunk, it's open world, it's world is fleshed out, it's got atmosphere, the music should be string heavy if not entirely string instruments, it has open class design focusing on magic vs tech, and I prefer it Turn Based but could deal with something else. I would be fine with Dieselpunk, Space Opera, hard sci-fi, modern setting, Wild West, Wild West steampunk, etc, etc genre too. As long as the game steers away from medieval fantasy.

 

Arcanum and PST are games that the world building and/or story telling strengths far outweigh the bad combat. At least for me they do. That is the diamond that is shining through the rough. That is why they are cult classics and not full blown classics.

[Blodhemn]

There was literally nothing new about the Witcher 2. It was just a bland attempt to distill the Witcher 1 into a checklist and then give "more of it" while making the combat action oriented.

 

Precisely because it approached a creative process as a formula to be followed it ended up sucking so badly. Exactly like everything Bioware makes now. Which is also what new Wastelands or Arcanums or the Numenera crap are going to do - trying to replicate something in a test tube.

 

Games like Fallout or Arcanum or Torment were good because they were inspired - they had their own twist on things. Sometimes they could make lightning strike harder the second time around like Baldur's Gate 2, a game you could also argue was something completely different from its predecessor and therefore also new.

 

But the moment you start treating these things as templates or some idol you can resurrect you get ****. Yes we need good stories and good writing - but new stories and new writing and new quests. Not old ones.

The Witcher 2 had an entirely new combat system, "fixing" something that wasn't broken and ultimately worked better in the first place.

 

But there is a formula.. and all that I care about is new content, not new mechanics or gimmicks. Obviously there would be changes to the games mentioned as they'd be in entirely new engines to start with, but as I believe someone else mentioned, it wasn't the new mechanics that made said games good, and I haven't seen any game come close to those levels of quests and character writing. Of course new quests and stories would have to be made, being a new game and all. Keep the things that worked, fix the things that didn't but don't go overboard as it takes time away from content creation.

[Blodhemn]

Well, there was really convenient timing when Boyarsky left Blizzard for Obsidian and Paradox retained the rights to White Wolf. It was shortly after that Feargus said Cain and Boyarsky were working on their own project with UE4. Vampire is also a much more widely known IP compared to Arcanum, and Vampires are still popular in mainstream culture (as long as they don't sparkle in the sun). It is an easier sell than Arcanum, IMHO. That said, I would prefer something akin to Arcanum vs Vampire, myself. I'll play either, but I will straight up get passionately excited (HYPE TRAIN!!! ALL ABOARD!!!) for an open world steampunk RPG very similar to Arcanum. The genre needs more unique settings.

 

On the note of Gamebryo/Creation/whatever... I have no issues with the engine, nor many games built with it. However, it needs a big overhaul, or Bethesda needs to build a new one from scratch. They of course should do either an overhaul or replacement with modding in mind.

 

If anything has stagnated the RPG genre it is companies avoiding less traditional settings. It's medieval or bust, and that's stagnation at its finest. Where in the mid 90s to early 2000s we got Fallout, Arcanum, PST, etc. that broke out of the typical fantasy setting. When I argue for an Arcanum sequel I expect a small handful of things: its steampunk, it's open world, it's world is fleshed out, it's got atmosphere, the music should be string heavy if not entirely string instruments, it has open class design focusing on magic vs tech, and I prefer it Turn Based but could deal with something else. I would be fine with Dieselpunk, Space Opera, hard sci-fi, modern setting, Wild West, Wild West steampunk, etc, etc genre too. As long as the game steers away from medieval fantasy.

 

Arcanum and PST are games that the world building and/or story telling strengths far outweigh the bad combat. At least for me they do. That is the diamond that is shining through the rough. That is why they are cult classics and not full blown classics.

The timing was mere coincidence I think. Also, I wouldn't bet on anything vampire over a futuristic/technological/post modern setting. Boyarsky says he's working on his dream game, which would lean more in that direction, hybrid steam punk of some sort, one would think. Either way, it should be good, whatever it is.

[TMZuk]

 

It's a problem for me, because it kills the fun and makes the whole game feel silly and contrived. And the answer is simple: Get rid of it!

But this is an arbitrary non-answer. What makes crafting a dealbreaker when compared to all of the other streamlined elements in videogames? Hell, even the most old-school RPGs generally let you do things like grab 5 platemails off the corpses of enemies that are double the size of your player character, and that's just one of many implausible things.

 

If you don't enjoy crafting mechanics, that's fine, there's a ton of perfectly legitimate criticism and preferences, but you haven't done a good job justifying it, in my very humble opinion.

 

I don't know what to say to you, that I haven't already said. In a world, where I am supposed to play an adventurer, specialising in fighting with swords or throw fireballs, how did I get the time to learn how to become a master smith? That's the first thing I dislike about crafting. How does adding a random herb to your blade make a better blade? That's the second thing I dislike about crafting. How does running around gathering all the - in my opinion ridiculous - ingredients, make for a better role playing game? That's my third critcism. 'Crafting' a sword that's on par with or better than anything you can buy or find, makes it impossible for me to suspend my disbelief. That's the fourth thing I dislike about crafting.

 

If you saw someone rubbing a sword in stinging needles and explaining to you they were adding a secondary stinging effect to their blade, I'm rather certain you'd shake your head and walk away. Yet, for some reason or another, the majority of people who play videogames, accepts this contrived nonsense.

[Fenixp]

We don't need new ideas. That's how you end up with garbage like the Witcher 2. We need games with good quests/writing/characters/dialogue worth the time it is to play them.

Witcher 2 was a very poor attempt of replicating Dark Souls combat in a Witcher game, I wouldn't exactly call that 'new'. Anyway, to explore new and fun quests/writing/characters/dialogue, you still need new mechanics and new ways in which you can explore them, because... Well, why not just read a book otherwise?

[Blodhemn]

Witcher 2 combat was "new" in the Witcher universe, and it was absolutely needless. You don't really need new mechanics for decent writing and quests, and funnily enough I'm reading books more these days than I play games, but they're completely different approaches, obviously. Asking for decent writing isn't the same thing as wanting a video game version of a novel.

[sorophx]

I do tend to agree with the Codex that you need to have potential 'broken' builds. That's part of learning games and improving in them, and the alternative is what?

while I can see where you're coming from, and learning how a game works can be rewarding, ultimately as soon as I learn the most effective way to build/play my character I soon lose interest in the game. it basically kills any desire in me to replay it. 

 

I'd much rather have the ability to play through the game with any class/build and not worry about being stuck on some encounter mid-way through the game.

 

as a recent example, I almost quit KOTOR 2 trying to play a dual laser pistol build. until you have a few Attack+ feats learned and DEX well above 20 playing it is a nightmare. I was saved by my other force users in most fights, but there are instances where you have to fight alone, and there were several fights I just couldn't beat without some "cheese".

[Lexx]

It's all really not that easy. Just because combat is crap, the game doesn't automatically become bad. I see all the people always arguing how bad combat in Fallout or Arcanum was, but honestly, up until nowadays tymes, I never even thought abou it- in fact, it didn't influenced my enjoyment with the games 10+ years ago a single bit. Maybe I even felt it was a positive thing to - at some point while playing - becoming so strong, I'd own the random encounters in half a minute. What always really hooked me up, was the general atmosphere in the game, the stories and the experiences, the unique encounters you could have (getting Dogmeat in Fo1 or the dog in Arcanum, first time ever seeing and interacting with a super mutant, etc) .. but never the amount of balance in combat.

 

 

Maybe I am too old and have seen too much, but I don't think a game ever got me again as hard as talking to Lou for the first time after I accidentally got moved to the Mariposa Military base, completely unprepared and by surprise. And here is a spoiler: The following combat scene was completely unbalanced. :>

Edited October 3, 2016 by Lexx

[sorophx]

Fallout 2 was my first RPG, and in that game you don't even have to fight. I didn't realize how bad combat in it was until I ran across an Enclave patrol that destroyed my melee character (even though now I know melee builds are viable, just need to be smart about it). I accidentally found the "win" button in Fallout 2 early on (eye shots with precision rifles), and that made combat completely broken. in any other game I would've stopped playing, I stayed for locations, quests and dialogues

[Drowsy Emperor]

Mmm I love the smell of napalm in the morning

[Lexx]

Yet another example. Back when playing Fallout I didn't even expected melee to be completely viable from the beginning to the end of the game. It never crossed my mind that my character - who usually in every combat situation gets shot at from the distance - should be able to beat the game in melee only. For me, melee / unarmed was a "I am out of ammo and close to the enemy"-kind of combat skill. Not that useful most of the time, but that's what it is.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Lexx

[Keyrock]

The Witcher 2 had an entirely new combat system, "fixing" something that wasn't broken and ultimately worked better in the first place.

Wait what?

 

I've heard plenty of arguments that TW1>TW2 (something I disagree with) based on strength of story and character writing and those arguments It'll entertain and agree with to some degree, but the combat in TW1 most definitely did need fixing, it was godawful. The combat in TW1 was essentially a glorified rhythm game; wait for the prompt and hit the button in rhythm. The 3 combat stances were superfluous and added nothing. There was no feedback of significance, you twirled your sword vaguely in front of the enemies and stuff took damage. TW2's combat was far from great, suffering greatly from sluggish responsiveness, but it was still an order of magnitude better than TW1 and a step in the right direction, even if the execution wasn't up to par.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Keyrock

[Labadal]

I don't mind role playing games doing new things or some of them using action gameply. It's just that The Witcher 2/3 should not be used as good examples for combat.

[Nonek]

I was spoiled by Severance: Blade of Darkness fifteen years ago or so, now everything seems a little...mediocre. In terms of reflex based combat anyway, JA2 and ToEE spoiled me in terms of tactical combat.

 

Edit: In my current playthrough of Revenant i'm finding the combat system very satisfying, though Baez the Ogrok Champion is hilariously OP, thus I cheat and resort to magic.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Nonek

[Fenixp]

You don't really need new mechanics for decent writing and quests

I disagree somewhat. If you want all games to be set in the same universe, have the same tone and tell very similar stories which are just better written versions of the older ones, then yeah, you certainly don't need new mechanics. But the moment you change any of that, you need to significantly change gameplay in one way or another to reflect changes in the writing. Just about anything can be used to reinforce or in turn undermine the story you're trying to tell, and you need to innovate mechanically if you ever want to actually tell stories which are powerful and varied enough.

 

It's just that The Witcher 2/3 should not be used as good examples for combat.

Why? I get W2, but combat in Witcher 3 was rather good, just not capable of carrying a game so long.

 

It's all really not that easy. Just because combat is crap, the game doesn't automatically become bad. I see all the people always arguing how bad combat in Fallout or Arcanum was, but honestly, up until nowadays tymes, I never even thought abou it- in fact, it didn't influenced my enjoyment with the games 10+ years ago a single bit. Maybe I even felt it was a positive thing to - at some point while playing - becoming so strong, I'd own the random encounters in half a minute. What always really hooked me up, was the general atmosphere in the game, the stories and the experiences, the unique encounters you could have (getting Dogmeat in Fo1 or the dog in Arcanum, first time ever seeing and interacting with a super mutant, etc) .. but never the amount of balance in combat.

Combat balance should certainly be secondary, but a properly balanced game can give you an insane amount of options. I'll take your example of Meele in Fallout games actually being viable - say they're not, and if you ever trained a character with this skill, it would be wasted skill points. What will that lead to? Well, players never using those skills, obviously. However, since it is viable, you can totally build a character that can use both ranged and meele weapons if you want, and it'll work in-game reasonably well, making it far more varied.

 

If we go back and look at Pillars of Eternity, take weapon options from Fallout, imagine they're balanced, and multiply the build options you can get out of that tenfold. By the game containing reasonably balanced skills and equipment, suddenly you get a game which gives you an insane amount of options in how do you wish to build your characters, and the game is significantly better for it as this increases replayability significantly (if you like replaying to try different builds that is.)

Edited October 3, 2016 by Fenixp

[Lexx]

What does "making it viable" mean anyway. Let's say I create a character and the only combat skill I am increasing is melee. Then I get into combat with ranged guys who own me. Now I cry how bad the balance in the game is. Doesn't that make me the idiot who uses melee in ranged combat (bringing a knife to a gun fight)? Do the developers really have to force the game to allow my stupid melee-only character in situations where ranged combat should be the only valid option?

 

People assume that melee is not just a secondary combat skill for specific situations. Maybe it's the games fault for not explaining it well enough.. no idea.

 

I don't think I've played enough PoE to have a good opinion on the combat system. In my 24 or so hours of playing it, combat mainly turned into "mark all & attack x" mosh pit.

[Fenixp]

What does "making it viable" mean anyway. Let's say I create a character and the only combat skill I am increasing is melee. Then I get into combat with ranged guys who own me. Now I cry how bad the balance in the game is. Doesn't that make me the idiot who uses melee in ranged combat (bringing a knife to a gun fight)? Do the developers really have to force the game to allow my stupid melee-only character in situations where ranged combat should be the only valid option?

These are videogames we're talking about, not real life. When the game doesn't explicitly state otherwise, it's never obvious that bringing fists to a gunfight is disadvantageous because both fists and guns can follow any arbitrary set of rules that developers want them to follow. It's partly a matter of proper communication obviously, but instead of spending development time on something that'll never get used, it's better to either not develop it at all or then spend some more time on making it work properly anyway, IMO.

 

It also adds another irritating aspect, which is difficulty. In many RPG games that lack balance, you can hit a dead end at one point or another for no fault of your own. Arcanum and Bloodlines are actually a good examples of this - the games suggest you can get trough them with minimal use of violence, whereas many hours into them, it'll turn out you actually really can't. And that can be an issue with weapon skills as well - pretending that, say, spears are as powerful as swords and then throwing uber-powerful sword of murder that's required to progress at the player is just ... Not enjoyable in any way.

 

And lastly there's element of experimentation. Trying different ways to play a game, like in Pillars, is fun to me. Trying different ways to play the game only to discover that 90% of them won't work is... Not so much fun.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Fenixp

[Labadal]

Fenixp: The Witcher 3 combat is decent at best.

 

The Soulds games, Dragon's Dogma and Kingdoms of Amalur, all do combat better.

 

It doesn't mean that I dislike TW3. It just means that for me, the combat could have been first person, isometric or turn-based and it would not ruin the game for me.

[Blodhemn]

 

You don't really need new mechanics for decent writing and quests

I disagree somewhat. If you want all games to be set in the same universe, have the same tone and tell very similar stories which are just better written versions of the older ones, then yeah, you certainly don't need new mechanics. But the moment you change any of that, you need to significantly change gameplay in one way or another to reflect changes in the writing. Just about anything can be used to reinforce or in turn undermine the story you're trying to tell, and you need to innovate mechanically if you ever want to actually tell stories which are powerful and varied enough.

 

Nah, not all games, I'm just asking for one to get character writing right again and maybe some good quests along the way as well.

[Blodhemn]

 

The Witcher 2 had an entirely new combat system, "fixing" something that wasn't broken and ultimately worked better in the first place.

Wait what?

 

I've heard plenty of arguments that TW1>TW2 (something I disagree with) based on strength of story and character writing and those arguments It'll entertain and agree with to some degree, but the combat in TW1 most definitely did need fixing, it was godawful. The combat in TW1 was essentially a glorified rhythm game; wait for the prompt and hit the button in rhythm. The 3 combat stances were superfluous and added nothing. There was no feedback of significance, you twirled your sword vaguely in front of the enemies and stuff took damage. TW2's combat was far from great, suffering greatly from sluggish responsiveness, but it was still an order of magnitude better than TW1 and a step in the right direction, even if the execution wasn't up to par.

 

Just a matter of preference. I'd take the simple/fluid combat of TW1 over the "try so hard to be the ultimate combat experience" of TW2 all day.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Blodhemn

[Drowsy Emperor]

TW1 was just like BG with one character/NWN but with a simple combo and a few simple strategic considerations added. The part about the stances not adding anything is incorrect - you had overwhelming damage advantage in group stance vs groups (like enemies in the back dying from one or two hits in a single sweep) whereas the other styles were designed for 2 different types of enemies one on one.  All in all it was simple, fast and reasonably fluid.

 

In Witcher 2 it wasn't much more sophisticated but it became a drag because you had to fight to time your attacks and dodges against controls made laggy by the underlying turn based system. It was a poor example of its type.

 

But combat wasn't why that game sucked, it was just another annoyance among a ton of other problems.

[HoonDing]

Darksiders 3 had fun rpg-ish action combat.

 

TW2/3 combat are just utter trash. TW3 combat could've worked though without constantly losing control of Geralt due to the random combat animations.

[Fenixp]

Nah, not all games, I'm just asking for one to get character writing right again and maybe some good quests along the way as well.

Witcher 3 is a no-no?

 

TW3 combat could've worked though without constantly losing control of Geralt due to Darksiders 3 had fun rpg-ish action combat.

I really want Darksiders 3 to exist. But yeah, combat in Darksiders 2 was pretty darn good.

 

TW3 combat could've worked though without constantly losing control of Geralt due to the random combat animations.

Options -> Gameplay -> Set "Automatic finishers" to "Off". Finishers are still there, but you have to trigger them manually if you want to see them.

 

it was just another annoyance among a ton of other problems.

Writers did seem to eat a book entirely consisting of the word "Ploughing" before beginning to work on that game. Edited October 3, 2016 by Fenixp

[Blodhemn]

 

Nah, not all games, I'm just asking for one to get character writing right again and maybe some good quests along the way as well.

Witcher 3 is a no-no?

 

TW2 had such long winded dialogues that I can't be bothered with another installment of the series. I'm tired of that universe also and combined with unappealing combat - I simply can't do another Witcher game.