| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
niteshade6
Guest
|
"In regards to second edition, you mean create your character, right? After character creation there is no character building I know of (besides spell picking). "
Well there was a little character building with weapon specializations, proficiencies, and choosing weither to go one weapon or two. But yeah in general characters didn't grow and develop at all in 2e.
"In regards to class balance, your character will never be inferior if he has a vital role in a party. Thier push for balance takes party out of the factor too much in my opinion."
That's not true at all. One big problem in 2e for example was that a well designed fighter did so much damage as to render any other damage dealing class irrelevent. It wasn't when one character was so much obviously better then the others. I lost track of how many games my wizard would feel useless with his fireball for 18 damage or magic missile for 9 damage, while the fighter was doing about 60 a round, and had better armor and defence. Of course the mage did have other things he could do that didn't involve damage, but it was with some other classes. Or if you didn't design a two weapon fighter and found that you were completely inferior.
"Like an mmorpg making sure that every class can solo. Support classes aren't meant to solo, they're meant to support."
Actualy very few classes in 3e are good at soloing, and support is very important. Try playing without a cleric if you don't believe that. Or for that matter, try playing a 3e bard solo. 3e make party even more important, by making sure every class has something to contribute.
"3rd edition works well enough with the 'tell me what you do... ok, this is what you roll'. "
Well the problem is all the different types of actions you can perform in combat, and the system of standard actions, full round actions, and move equivelent actions. If a players doesn't at least have a good understanding of these, then you will constantly have to stop them and say "You can't do that all in one round". |
Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:46 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
I've impressed upon the two players that a round is six seconds in length. They don't try and do too much as they realize that it's ludicrous the amount of things a D&D character can coherrantly do in six seconds as it is.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:52 pm |
|
|
konny666
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 219
Location: Babylon 6 |
Wait, no character building after character creation in 2E? What about that whole "levelling-up" thing? Dual-classing, multi-classing? Huh? Am I missing something here?
_________________
:: Member of The Nonflamers' Guild ::
:: Visit me on Babylon 6! :: |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:20 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Leveling up, duel-classing, multi-classing and alittle non-weapon profecenty building/weapon prof. building is the only character build their was, and it wasnt very exciting (for me or for the players).
LB |
|
Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:05 pm |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
Multi-classes advanced evenly and dual classing was impracticle, requiring a 17 or higher in your primary requisite in the new class. Not every fighter who wants to pick up a few levels of mage will have a 17 int. In addition, there was no 'a few levels of mage' involved... you were fighter, and then you were mage and you never advanced fighter again. And if you used your fighter skills during a fight while trying to get your mage level higher than your fighter level you didn't get any experience for the fight .
Getting a few weapon proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies isn't really much of a 'building' experience.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:25 pm |
|
|
niteshade6
Guest
|
Yeah multiclassing was something you had to pick at character creation. It wasn't a choice you made at later levels. Dual classing was something you could choose to do later. In all my time playing 2e I only ever saw one character choose to dual class. And that was only after a wierd magic effect changed his wisdom from 7 to 18 and he decided to become a cleric. |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:48 pm |
|
|
Lord_Brownie
High Emperor
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
Posts: 575
Location: Unfashionable arm of the spiral galaxy |
Even after thinking about it for a few days, I dont see how D&D rules failed ToEE. If anything the program bugs failed the title. I blame this on production of the game, not the D&D rules. The rules gave an easy frame work for the programers to emplament, which they used with only a few changes. I still loved the game though, because it captured the party/turn based tactical game better than any other game I have played.
Looking back on BG games, I recall some realy bothersome usage of the rules. Problems I had with the games from the moment I started playing them. First, 2ed was turned based yet, BG was real-time. This ment that almost every aspect about the combat system had to be changed in some way to work. Second, when it seemed like I needed to micro manage my party, I had problems pulling things off. Everyone wanted to charge or stand there. The point in my view of having a party based game, is having team work between the party members. This was tough the BG games, because the rules where not realy turn based rules, but mix-match version of rules. As other BG games came out they all took more and more liberties with the rules. Adding in different classes and some rule features from the upcoming 3rd ed rules that all worked against the games. In the case of BG games, the games where failed by rules that were either changed or ignored. I still enjoyed the BG games, but they are a much better look at how the rules fail a game than ToEE. In BG's case, it still maynot have been the rules that failed it, just a crummy use of the rules.
LB |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:10 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Guest
|
You make a good point there, I don't think the D&D rules can be blamed at all for the failure of TTOE. In fact, I think the D&D rules are the only redeeming feature of the game. It's probably the best implementation of the D&D rules I've seen, and when bugs and horribly rushed game development didn't get in the way, that made it alot of fun. Unforuntately the bugs and rushed development got in the way more often then not. |
|
Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:09 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
The game had its faults as all games do. But though some things (town quests, lack of in game or even in manual item descriptions, voice overs, etc) were generally sub par, Temple and Moathouse content was top notch - easily providing superior dungeon crawling gameplay to other recent comparable titles (IWD, BG2's ToB expansion, NWN, etc). The battles were well set up, player choice was meaningful and gameplay was satisfying. I would go so far as to state that ToEE provided the best combat I have experienced in an RPG ever - easily trumping the sophmoric pause and play implementations and provided superior TB action than that exhibited in Fallout or Wizardry.
As for bugs, I might have been one of the lucky ones, but I experienced no game stopping bugs and generally felt the game's bugginess was overstated by individuals who perhaps hadnt played games that were bug nightmares like Fallout 2, Daggerfall or Ultima 9. Some of this could be attributed to the fact that this was a totally new graphics engine and CRPG gamers hadnt been exposed to a new graphic engine in quite some time - instead being exposed to licensed or over-recycled engines which lead to less impressive content yet more stable gameplay.
Ultimately, the game got lambasted because reviewers simply mistook correct rules implementations as bugs or believed certain things could not be done with the UI (such as hotkeying) when in fact they could. People were guided by poor 3E rules or UI implementations in Bioware and Black Isle titles. They either were mystified by the radial menu (unable to understand how to move it, for example, by simply reading the damn manual) or stupified by rules implementations (like readied actions, etc). Basically, they didnt comprimise the system for idiots and it hurt them. That is a sad sad message we are sending to developers. Get ready for more Diablo clones and Bioware action rpgs kiddies since that is what you have asked for. |
|
Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:13 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Guest, they asked for that because that is what they want. At NMA they have a poll asking which dev people would like to get the FO3 contract. Bioware is winning. Why is Bioware winning? Because people know Bioware will make it a RT action game, more like NWN in post-apoc America, than a real Fallout.
So people complain that FBOS was a sham and a slap in the face, but they would also like FO3 to be more like FBOS than FO1 or 2.
Going to the Atari ToEE forum is an instant migrane. Someone actually complained that ToEE was too non-linear, and was very upset about this. The heart of other peoples complaints is really that ToEE is not BG or NWN.
Note: I said everything as if it was a fact, when obviosly it is just opinion stated as fact (besides Bioware winning the polls on NMA). All though I am always right, please keep in mind my opinion is only as valid as everyone else's.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter.
Last edited by Roqua on Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:30 pm |
|
|
OctarineDragon
Head Merchant
Joined: 28 Nov 2003
Posts: 57
Location: The Void |
I had to go to NMA to check this out because I couldn't believe it. This is so... sad. I mean: 2000 votes - it is obvious that those aren't the NMA regulars voting. More likely these are due to an influx of clueless first time visitors drawn there through some newspost about the imminent demise of Ineptplay somewhere else linked to NMA. Either that or someone rallied people on the Bioware boards...
I know I voted there a week ago and numbers looked significantly different. |
|
Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:05 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
NMA regulars do not number 2000. Most polls do not generate that kind of response. Something is different. That NMA poll does not reflect the wants the FO fanbase and is, instead, a reflection of the wants of disaffected Interplay Board members. If people really wanted FOBoS, Iplay wouldnt be in the gutter. The company went south, angered board members (perhaps miffed that longtime predictions by the FO community over the stupidity of IPlay design/funding decisions and their outcome are coming to fruition) have no doubt gone to NMA and voted. This happens often on the internet as it is filled with alot of misplaced anger and mental midgets.
Moreover, as to the ToEE forum goer comment, I have no doubt that there is an influx of idiot gamers. Many play their Final Fantasys and Xenogears (with their amateurish anime storytelling, childish gameplay and total lack true player thought) and are absolutely stunned when they play a game that presents the player with meaningful choice. Their small, pea like brains scream as they are unable to decide on x or y for fear of not making the ultimate choice and they whine and cry until others tell them what to do. It is this idiot demographic to which many developers are peddling their wares to nowadays. Specter has abandoned his longtime support of player choice and now talks of a "tyranny of choices." Other developers, such as Bethesda, water down the freeform aspects of their titles (such as seen in comparisons between Daggerfall and its illegitimate bastard, Morrowind). However, none of this is to say that the idiot gamer speaks for all gamers. There are still many strong tactical titles hitting the market because there is a considerable market for that kind of gameplay (JA3, for example, is getting quite alot of buzz - as is future installments of Rise of Nations and other titles which employ tactical and strategic thought worth a damn). Similarly, even Bioware is going back on their previous stances on zero player chance by implementing at least some semblance of player choice tree structures. Make no mistake, all gamers do not by default echo the wants of the idiot gamer. It just so happens that the idiot gamers have taken over the ToEE boards. Had the title not been published by such a mainstream publisher (Atari), idiot gamers might have shyed away from it and instead opted to player their Deer Hunters and Sims titles. This is just one of those flukes. I really hope it doesnt hurt the development of thinking gamers titles but it very well may send out such a message. |
|
Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:23 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I wouldn't go so far as to call all gamers that do not like indepth rpgs idiots. My father who is almost 60 loves simple games, and whenever I tried to get him to try one of mine he said he wasn't interested because he had to make tactical desisions all day at work. He wants to play games to not think. He also moves his whole body when he plays video games. If he wants yoshi to move left, he hits left on the controller, and then points the controller left, and twists his body left. It is pretty funny because he is fat. Video games are a physical workout for him, but he steers clear of the mental challenges.
People like what they like. If they like simple, they like simple. And if most of the people want simple, the devs will make simple games (tyrrany of the masses, or tyrrany of the center). But I agree that there are a lot of people that want "thinking" or "Tactical" rpgs, and I think we, and our buying power, are ignored. But calling people idiots for having different tastes and prefferences is kind of crazy. I would like to call the people that want FO3 developed by a team that will make it fbos2 some names, but that is because they are trying to destroy the shinning nugget of hope TB fans have of actually having a big-budget TB-rpg made, and make fo3 not fo3 becuase of greed.
Piln is a huge action/crap game lover and is one of the most well spoken (or typen), intelligent, and articulate people I know here and definitly not an idiot. Even if Piln does like crap in cd form. Same for Jung and a lot of others.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:46 am |
|
|
Ailic
Guest
|
What an impressive display of arrogance, guest. I quess you're one of the last surviving intelligent gamers among all the idiots, who play games you don't like, these days. |
|
Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:26 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Yes, Im arrogant. Im not going to be PC about it because that would be a waste of my time. And, no, I dont play games I dont like. This is why I have been purchasing less and less. Good CRPGs (along with good Space Sim/Trading/Roaming games, Adventure titles, and other genres that require some mental player investment or some degree of literacy and patience) are all becoming a rare commodity. Now, everyone is all about an easy learning curve and "acessibility." This leads to what? Games that are about as deep as a shallow pond in a Saharan Summer. Thats what most people get pissed at with ToEE. "What? I have to read a manual? What? Planning a party actually means something?" Frankly, if you wanna play half assed action/adventures, poor rush-centric strategy titles, etc etc that they slap "RPG" or "RPG elements" on, be my guest but be aware that supporting this influx of crap is what is directing corporate dumbasses to drive towards a bottomline that precludes financing the development of titles that use even small degrees of actual thought. |
|
Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:00 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 8:50 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
