Risen 2 subtitle + artwork

[JoKa]

3) I did, and I said rules system. DA2 we call simplified for having about 15+ abilities for each of three classes. Risen has one class (with two different sub-classes) with less than that, and half of what it has is weapon skills. As for the combat system, it amounts to real-time tactical clicking/moving. There is no further depth than that.

risen had 3 classes...

 

[Grunker]

3) I did, and I said rules system. DA2 we call simplified for having about 15+ abilities for each of three classes. Risen has one class (with three different sub-classes) with less than that, and half of what it has is weapon skills. As for the combat system, it amounts to real-time tactical clicking/moving. There is no further depth than that.

risen had 3 classes...

No, it had sub-classes. A universal skill-system with variations depending on the class. Not that having three classes would make OMG-GUD compared OMG-SHIT of DA2.

 

[Jaesun]

And at least PB never blatantly lied is saying their combat system is deep and tactical, unlike Bioware.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Grunker, do you really not see the difference between MMO ability based combat and Risen skill point combat? They are nothing alike.

 

[Alex]

The protagonist has 'seen things' and become a drunkard bum.

That's how you should do "it's a sequel, durr, you'll have to develop your skills again" cliche.

Quest helpers will appear, but there will probably be an option to turn them off ['probably'...]

WHOA! All the fapping was premature (duh), it seems.

By "quest helpers", they mean quest compass, right? If so, I wouldn't worry too much. Risen gameplay had lots of moments where finding things by yourself was integral part of the gameplay. I don't think PB would stupidly throw all that away. Maybe they just mean quest helpers like those in the first Risen (the ones that showed up only in your map).

3) I did, and I said rules system. DA2 we call simplified for having about 15+ abilities for each of three classes. Risen has one class (with two different sub-classes) with less than that, and half of what it has is weapon skills.

I thought that Risen's system was pretty well done. Apparently there were some balancing issues, and I think ranged combat really needs an overhaul (it isn't even remotely as fun as melee).

But all in all it was very nice. You have weapon skills, each opening interesting possibilities each level (at east sword did). You have the magic crystal skills, which while not as interesting as melee, still are different enough between themselves to make them not a simple cosmetic choice. And you also have the magic skills themselves. While magic wasn't always very useful by the level you got it, it was very cool to mess around and sometimes even helped exploration (though I do feel they should make scrolls a lot rarer). Finally, all of the supporting skills were useful, but all required you to go out of your way to make them so.

As for the combat system, it amounts to real-time tactical clicking/moving. There is no further depth than that.

Well, the bolded part, it is like saying that civilization amounts to clicking around your cities and units and then hitting the "next turn" button. I mean, what determines if the combat has any depth or not is how challenging the combat is and how impacting the combat moves are. By the way, I do think they could make the moves a more important part of combat, but what I saw in the first game suggests to me they are in the right track.

And before I forget

 

[Grunker]

Grunker, do you really not see the difference between MMO ability based combat and Risen skill point combat? They are nothing alike.

As I said, I see differences in the combat system and rules system both. I never said they were alike. What I'm saying is:

1) The combat system is just more real-time and actiony, and less stat-dependant.

2) The rules system is far more simple.

Those two things being the most important things in an RPG for me, and, it sometimes seems, the rest of the Codex, the praise Risen recieves makes me raise my brows.

I can understand playing it for the exploration. But that is the single, only, redeeming thing about the game.

 

[toro]

@Grunker: You complain about the fact that Risen has a simplified rules system (equivalent of DA2 rule system). Fine with me, but this is a non issue. Why? As Risen is a spiritual successor of Gothic franchise, the game simply have to emulate the simple rule system from those games. Therefore asking to get a complex rule system, you are basically asking for a game which is no longer what is should be. Again, the simple combat system is not inherently bad. It allows as much strategy as the player is capable of. The idea is that you don't have to like this game and the game is not bad if is not up to your standards.

PS. This thread is on fire
Exploration might be the only redeeming quality. But what a quality. :D

 

[Grunker]

Well, the bolded part, it is like saying that civilization amounts to clicking around your cities and units and then hitting the "next turn" button. I mean, what determines if the combat has any depth or not is how challenging the combat is and how impacting the combat moves are. By the way, I do think they could make the moves a more important part of combat, but what I saw in the first game suggests to me they are in the right track.

Yeah, I didn't explain my argument well enough. What I mean is, while the combat may be adequate, it is everything a TB-RPG is not; completely reliant on reflexes and action-abilities. This is something DA has also taken a bashing for, but it is less true of DA compared to Risen.

@Grunker: You complain about the fact that Risen has a simplified rules system (equivalent of DA2 rule system). Fine with me, but this is a non issue. Why? As Risen is a spiritual successor of Gothic franchise, the game simply have to emulate the simple rule system from those games. Therefore asking to get a complex rule system, you are basically asking for a game which is no longer what is should be. Again, the simple combat system is not inherently bad. It allows as much strategy as the player is capable of. The idea is that you don't have to like this game and the game is not bad if is not up to your standards.

Around these parts, RPG = One of two things. Stats or C&C. Since Risen has no C&C, I judge its merits based on its stats. And those are in the rule system. Which is horribly simple.

See the chain of logic?

I like my RPGs from two angles; either it must satisfy my combat-whore or my story-fag. Risen is horrible at both.

As I said, I completely understand people who like it for the exploration. But I don't understand why its exploration aspect makes it a good RPG.

 

[Alex]

Oh, I see now. Disregard my last post, Grunker.

It seems you simply don't like this style of game. Risen has a lot of qualities, but in order to appreciate them, you must be willing to:

1- Accept that you will have fewer choices in the game than, say, fallout. Still, what choices you do have are very well represented.

2- Enjoy the actiony combat.

If these two move the game into something too far away from your tastes, then you are correct in ignoring Risen, as its very premise isn't something you can swallow.

By the way, Risen does have C&C.

 

[Grunker]

Oh, I see now. Disregard my last post, Grunker.

It seems you simply don't like this style of game. Risen has a lot of qualities, but in order to appreciate them, you must be willing to:

1- Accept that you will have fewer choices in the game than, say, fallout. Still, what choices you do have are very well represented.

2- Enjoy the actiony combat.

If these two move the game into something too far away from your tastes, then you are correct in ignoring Risen, as its very premise isn't something you can swallow.

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure you get the entirety of my point. Let me explain: If Risen is "legitimate" as an RPG, and my personal criticisms are not heavy enough to illegitimize its status in the genre, then why is the same not true for, for example, Dragon Age 2?

I still argue that there are two defining traits for an RPG that we can roughly agree upon on these forums; combat-complexity and C&C. Risen doesn't fare very well in either, compared to, for example, Dragon Age.

I'm not saying Dragon Age is fantastic, mind you, even though I enjoyed #1. I'm saying it smells like double-standards to see DA as harbinger of the decline and hailing Risen a great addition to the genre at the same time.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Grunker, do you really not see the difference between MMO ability based combat and Risen skill point combat? They are nothing alike.

As I said, I see differences in the combat system and rules system both. I never said they were alike. What I'm saying is:

1) The combat system is just more real-time and actiony, and less stat-dependant.

2) The rules system is far more simple.

Those two things being the most important things in an RPG for me, and, it sometimes seems, the rest of the Codex, the praise Risen recieves makes me raise my brows.

I can understand playing it for the exploration. But that is the single, only, redeeming thing about the game.

1) It's actually still pretty stat dependent. Going around trying to kill lizardmen with a bow when you have low dexterity and no bow skills is going to get you fucked up no matter how good you are at the actiony aspect of the game. I'll admit that it's less stat dependent than Gothic was, which is unfortunate, but stats still play a very big role. Also in comparison to DA, stats don't really matter much in the fact that everything is level-scaled to shit so whatever stats you have are likely going to be able to kill your enemies. In Risen, if you have shit stats you can very well get your ass handed to you.

2) Why exactly does simple=bad? I fail to see how a simple system done well could possibly be worse than a complex system done poorly. The reason people don't like DA's combat isn't because the rules system is too simple, it's because the combat is terminally boring, easy, level-scaled, and there is too much of it. Maybe I'll give you one or two of those attributes for Risen's combat (though I personally wouldn't give it any), but it still beats DA. Simple is OK, I mean sure I'd like a more complicated system (magic especially was a let down in Risen), but I think it was done well enough to not be that big of a deal. Of course, you probably disagree about the last part, but all games have a lot of subjective appeal to them, and as I recall you don't really like any of the Gothics either, so this kind of game wouldn't suit your tastes anyways.

TL;DR game is p fun, have fun with your storyfag shit and let us have our delicious Risen

 

[Alex]

Two quick points:

First, RPGs can be only about exploration. Ultima 7, for example, really didn't have C&C, and its combat system was laughable. I still consider it a very good RPG, solely because exploring the world, the cities and the characters is so rewarding.

Second, I think the deal with DA is that people can't stand its combat. I thought the combat in Risen was great (could be improved, but still). Even if DA had a lot of C&C, the annoying combat can make the game seem lackluster to most. By the way, I am not criticizing DA's combat, as I haven't even played it.

 

[Felix]

I'd rather have straight up actiony combat than boring shitty real time derp pause combat, it's an action RPG, even then stats work better than most shit pass for RPG these days.

 

[Grunker]

Two quick points:

First, RPGs can be only about exploration. Ultima 7, for example, really didn't have C&C, and its combat system was laughable. I still consider it a very good RPG, solely because exploring the world, the cities and the characters is so rewarding.

I call bullshit. Many games have excellent exploration yet can in no way be defined as an RPG. Case in point is almost every good adventure game (the good Tomb Raider's are excellent examples), or 4X games in space. You even have games such as GTA or Saint's Row for their city exploration.

Claiming an RPG can be just about exploration is akin to the "playing a role" argument.

 

[Alex]

I am not too sure this really holds water, but here is how I see things right now. In a P&P RPG, one possible type of game is the exploratory one. Exploration here isn't in its literal, let's map out a physical location meaning. Instead, these games are a lot about showing the gameworld to the players. During many sessions, the GM shows many snippets of the gameworld. A small piece of lore here, a conversation with an important NPC there. These snippets then form a bigger picture. The bigger picture is necessary (or at least highly useful) to solve the PC's problems, but the process of creating this picture "immerses" the players in the gameworld, as the more they explore, the more real the world seems.

The exploration, however, isn't a passive issue. It requires the PCs to interact with NPCs, use their skills, etc. This, in turn creates new problems, which requires even more exploration. Thus, the game moves on, always requiring the players to further explore it.

I believe that Ultima 7 is what this type of P&P game would look like when translated into computer form. Ultima 7 isn't perfect, as the exploration of the world pretty much thrusts upon the player the solution to their problems. But I think it is still a quite good emulation of this kind of game.

While gameplay similar to this may exist in other games, like action or 4X, they won't usually be the main thrust of the game. They won't drive a familiarization and immersion into the gameworld the way U7 does, nor such familiarization will be required to progress in the game.

The problem I am having is that this seems to be the exact same type of exploration in adventure games. In fact, I would say that Zork and Deadline are good emulations of this style of play as well. The only clear difference I can find is that adventure games usually are more interested in challenging the player than immersing him, but this seems to be a more quantitative than qualitative.

Well... I don't know. I will think more about it tomorrow. Meanwhile, I really don't mind f you call Risen and action-adventure game instead of an action-rpg.

 

[1eyedking]

Fucking generic bland, that's what it looks like: like a fucking cartoon, like every other goddamn RPG out there.

WHAT THE ROYAL FUCK HAPPENED TO GOTHIC'S UNIQUE, INHERENT MANLINESS? THE AWESOME SPANISH GOATEES?

Jesus F. Christ, art direction in RPGs is fucking dead. Just look at the main character, for fuck's sake.

 

[toro]

Around these parts, RPG = One of two things. Stats or C&C. Since Risen has no C&C, I judge its merits based on its stats. And those are in the rule system. Which is horribly simple.

Wrong.

C&C: Risen had factions, different quest paths and endings. The quests were intertwined and choosing a specific solution meant that other quests become unavailable.

Stats below: I see numbers in the picture below.

So, despite a simple rule system and a RT combat system, Risen is still a RPG.

In my opinion, the problem with DA is not exactly the RTwP system, but two things (1) the combat system is totally unbalanced and prone to abuse and (2) the filler combats are way too overused. Risen is not to bright either (chapter 3 and 4 are just combat), but the expectations for Risen were much lower than the ones for DA. Therefore in the end, DA created a bigger negative impact.

Anyway, they are completely different types of games: DA is focused in managing the party and Risen is focused on one individual. So, if you want to manage an excel file (the party), DA is for you. But if you want to have fun, kick ass and chew bubble gum (an adventure), I think Risen is a better choice.

 

[toro]

Fucking generic bland, that's what it looks like: like a fucking cartoon, like every other goddamn RPG out there.

WHAT THE ROYAL FUCK HAPPENED TO GOTHIC'S UNIQUE, INHERENT MANLINESS? THE AWESOME SPANISH GOATEES?

Jesus F. Christ, art direction in RPGs is fucking dead. Just look at the main character, for fuck's sake.

Well, I have to partially agree on this point. But this in not a Gothic game and the tropical island from Risen was already a sunnier place. Anyway, if it has the same mechanics as the first game, I don't give a fuck how the main PC looks like.

 

[Jaesun]

Fucking generic bland, that's what it looks like: like a fucking cartoon, like every other goddamn RPG out there.

WHAT THE ROYAL FUCK HAPPENED TO GOTHIC'S UNIQUE, INHERENT MANLINESS? THE AWESOME SPANISH GOATEES?

Jesus F. Christ, art direction in RPGs is fucking dead. Just look at the main character, for fuck's sake.

You go girlfriend!

 

[Grunker]

@Toro: Let me put it this way this:

I think that DA2 - NOT DA, DA2 - has a skill system that looks way, way, way simplified. Simplifying rule systems is the very essence of dumbing down. Thusly, I think it sucks.

BUT, at the same time, Risen's character system is EVEN MORE simple than DA2's.

Thusly, I detest Risen as much as what DA2 looks to become. And judging from the thread about DA2's skill system, many people praising Risen to the sky, in this very thread, seem to agree with me.

Well, that's fucked up, plain and simple. And it stinks of overglorifying a game because it has more pretty foilage.

 

[Alex]

Ok, I think I got it now. Let's take a look at Monkey Island. There is a lot of exploration in that game, and the exploration is needed in order to solve the puzzles. It is similar to exploratory RPGs, except that the way you explore is more or less pre-defined. Only exploring things as Guybrush Threepwood would works. The game has a script, and all exploration is about that script.

In zork, things are a little less cut and dried. You are given more freedom on how to explore things, but the only way to progress is, usually, pre-determined in most points. So, while the player has much more freedom on how to explore, the exploration will usually end up the same as only very specific actions lead anywhere.

Finally, let's look at U7. Yes, there is a pre-defined plot here, that needs to be tackled in an exact sequence. However, this plot is far from the whole of the exploration. Instead, the game's world invites the player to explore it however he wants. He can bake bread in a bakery, buy a ship and look for pirate treasure, steal Britannia's shops at night, talk to mad wizards, learn from scholars, solve mysteries and crimes, etc. These things may not contribute to advancing the plot, but they are rewards in themselves. Because there are so many ways one can approach the game, because the player's choice has heightened importance here, the player has the opportunity to role-play.

By the way, this type of game can mix well with C&C, I think. U7 would have been better if the way you go about exploring mattered more, like it did in U4. But I don't think you need C&C to call a game like this roleplaying.

 

[Grunker]

Doesn't work. Vice City, or say, Galactic Civilizations, extends the same exploration-elements as U7. The difference between the games lies in the stats. U7's lies in direct combat-stats and character stats, Vice City have none and GC is focused on management.

But this discussion is pointless, it's beside the point, as genre-definitions usually are. The point is that Risen's character-system is overly simple, for no reason, just as DA2's. No matter how excellent the exploration-element, this can not be overlooked. Said simply:

It is illegitimate to bash DA2 for its character-system without extending the same gratitude to Risen's. There is no inherent concept in an exploration-game that "let's it off the hook" character-system-wise compared to a story-driven game such as Dragon Age.

 

[Alex]

Doesn't work. Vice City, or say, Galactic Civilizations, extends the same exploration-elements as U7. The difference between the games lies in the stats. U7's lies in direct combat-stats and character stats, Vice City have none and GC is focused on management.

Do you really think U7's status mattered anything? If you haven't played it, believe me, they didn't. The only stat that mattered was the level, because it limited the spell level you could use (and spells were a lot of fun to mess with). Also, GalCiv's exploration was nothing like U7's. The point of exploring in Galciv was to search for resources, not to gain a better understanding of the game world (which was probably randomly generated anyway).

Maybe Vice City had aspects similar to those of U7 (never played it). But I really doubt they were anywhere as pronounced. If they were there, they probably were merely distractions from the main action gameplay. In U7, however, this exploration is pretty much the whole point of the game.

But this discussion is pointless, it's beside the point, as genre-definitions usually are

Genre definition may be worthless, but understanding what makes a good game "good" isn't

The point is that Risen's character-system is overly simple, for no reason, just as DA2's. No matter how excellent the exploration-element, this can not be overlooked. Said simply:

It is illegitimate to bash DA2 for its character-system without extending the same gratitude to Risen's. There is no inherent concept in an exploration-game that "let's it off the hook" character-system-wise compared to a story-driven game such as Dragon Age.

Like I said, I haven't played DA. But I think the problem here is simply that you are expecting the same parameters to apply to different kinds of combat. Combat in Risen doesn't need a ton of customization. Too much could even get in the way of the action. Having a few different moves, as well as enemies that require different approaches can create a very fun game.

Meanwhile, for a game like DA, which is supposed to play more like Baldur's Gate, it is necessary to add a little more. If you took Risen, put the camera overhead, and controlled the character like you do in BG, it would make for a very dull game. Whereas in Risen action is integral to the gameplay, I expect a game like BG to require more tactical thinking, as there is no need to hurry, aim, dodge, etc.

 

[Grunker]

But I think the problem here is simply that you are expecting the same parameters to apply to different kinds of combat.

In this, you may have a point... I considered it myself after posting. I may have to concede based on this argument. Especially since my personal dislike of the actiony combat in Risen is pronounced enough that I don't understand its elements fully, since I've never really trained it.

 

[Darth Roxor]

1) The combat system is just more real-time and actiony, and less stat-dependant.

2) The rules system is far more simple.

OH MY GOD, NO, THIS IS HORRIBLE.

Just think how horribly not stat dependent, real-time and actiony is the combat in, I dunno, the new Prince of Persia trilogy. What retardedly sucky combat these games had, why are people even playing them amirite

Those two things being the most important things in an RPG for me, and, it sometimes seems, the rest of the Codex, the praise Risen recieves makes me raise my brows.

Risen is action-adventure, so it gets a free ride.

Get the fuck out