Things that piss you off on RPGs.

[boynextdoor]

1) Baldur's Gate doesn't have turn-based combat.

2) Most people here (in my experience) don't hold up Baldur's Gate as an example of the best of RPG combat.

I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with a way that FF7-9 combat (haven't played anything beyond that) takes more thought, though.

BG combat is pretty much turn based it is not exactly RTWP but whatever. BG is not usually thought as best but it is the most standard combat for WRPGs that's why that is my example. And it's typical that the focus is on combat (and exploring around to find combat related items) i find this irritating. PS:T should have had 1-2 fights for the whole game and that would make it better because it is hard to keep suspension of disbelief when you kill the entire population of a small country during 1 in game week. And when that combat is trying to be realistic (with fireballs and teleportation) it all falls apart.

I am currently playing the witcher now and enjoying it where a lot combat is inevitably a part of the story but i wish you had to talk to people around visit alchemists gather herbs have a weapon forged etc. and then go to combat. That way it would make combat a remeberable experience since you had maybe 10 fights throughout the game and each one had a story a reason to happen. I think if there is going to be combat in a game then it should make sense like this.

I may have expressed myself inadequately since i am currently quite drunk, but you probably get the idea...

 

[Lightknight]

BG combat is pretty much turn based it is not exactly RTWP but whatever.

"Pretty much" is not good enough. .....you DID play ToEE, right ?

BG is not usually thought as best but it is the most standard combat for WRPGs

That may be so, but do you know many RPGs that give you a 6-person party ? Its okay to have an action kind of combat when you're exploring alone or with a single companion or whatever, but with 6 people it just turns into a mess.

 

[Redeye]

...
That may be so, but do you know many RPGs that give you a 6-person party ? Its okay to have an action kind of combat when you're exploring alone or with a single companion or whatever, but with 6 people it just turns into a mess.

[derail]
6 Archers in BG2 was amazing.

They all started out with Grand Mastery in Longbow except 1 with shortbow and 1 with crossbow. (To use all the phat lewtz)

I wish the Archer kit would work with sling. (*Sling of Seeking* then roll over to cleric - but the game is messed up and you'd lose your specialization points even if you could put them into Sling)
[/derail]

 

[boynextdoor]

BG combat is pretty much turn based it is not exactly RTWP but whatever.

"Pretty much" is not good enough. .....you DID play ToEE, right ?

BG combat is TB imo but witcher is not, because mechanics are actually TB in BG, but not in the witcher... but if it will make you happy i will say RTWP from now on.

BG is not usually thought as best but it is the most standard combat for WRPGs

That may be so, but do you know many RPGs that give you a 6-person party ? Its okay to have an action kind of combat when you're exploring alone or with a single companion or whatever, but with 6 people it just turns into a mess.

Well with a good ai it would not turn in to a mess but i get your point. And i did play toee very briefly and i didn't like it one bit. but my post was about combat in general, and the focus on combat in most rpgs. that focus i don't like and it makes combat in rpgs very undramatic and boring. If i can kill dozens of überdamonz in a game that usually turns me off. If i want abstract combat i would play chess (which i actually do) but that is not the kind of experience i look for in a game. If I want realistic combat then i would go play paintball or laser tag. If you insist on realistic combat in a video game then the winner would be rainbow 6 series. So what i want is not more cleverly designed combat but a game where there is little or no combat.

My point is the combat should not be the focus of the game but a supporting element. Or else it feels like a slow Halo.

Developers should focus on exploring, interacting, characterisation, story, cnc, art directing, sound design, lore, designing an immersive (not immershun) gameworld etc. but not designing the best kombat systam evah. Because making a realistic TB combat is not possible and RT combat is usually just as bad if not worse.

And in games where combat has to be a focus then preparation should be much more important then the actual fight and also no random killing. Every instance of combat should happen for a reason. I have written this in the other post but i will elaborate.

As a witcher you find a job to destroy a ghost haunting an old hospital after asking around making social contacts etc. for the combat you visit several people knowledgeable about the ghost and the history of the building. Then go and visit the alchemist to ask about a potion to banish the said ghost. Alchemist asks you to bring something belonging to that ghost, and after you find out who the ghost was you go to his relatives and ask for an item belonging to that person (intimidate, steal, forcibly take, convince or use the legal system of that town or kingdom) when you bring it to the alchemist he makes a potion that can make barriers which the ghost cannot pass. using those barriers you make the ghost see his own grave and thus banish him.

And imagine this was one option but there could be 10 other ways and also permutations of the steps of different solutions. If combat did not take much of the resources of the developer they could actually do something like this. Instead of casting a fireball then bashing it to oblivion wouldn't you prefer something like i described?

 

[Elric]

edit: Please compare BG and any FF after 7 you will see that FF combat is actually more complex and BG is just... bad, boring and too simple.

Please elaborate on this. No, really. I'm dying to know why you think this is the case. Because last I checked, 80% of the spells in Final Fantasy games (including all those "summons") are direct damage spells. BG/BG2 combat can be somewhat interesting when both you and your enemies have spells, because you can't just go in and start throwing in fireballs. You'll either end up blowing your whole party to kingdom come without touching your enemy because he's got a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability up, or you'll get half your party charmed or held, and picked off one by one. Yes, this is a small fraction of fights in the BG series, but at least they're there. Final Fantasy combat almost always boils down to 3 things:

1) Keep telling your characters to attack, and so you can get on with the damn game when you're fighting the silly random encounters.
2) Do damage to the enemy faster than they can do it to you (boss fights)
3) Grind more levels (you didn't have enough random encounters so the boss kills you).

Developers should focus on exploring, interacting, characterisation, story, cnc, art directing, sound design, lore, designing an immersive (not immershun) gameworld etc. but not designing the best kombat systam evah. Because making a realistic TB combat is not possible and RT combat is usually just as bad if not worse.

This is where you fail. Combat doesn't need to be realistic to be strategic and thought-engaging. Furthermore, I could apply the same logic to story, lore, and characters. Since most fantasy authors can write books better than the shitfest writers at most game development studios, they just shouldn't bother creating good story, characters, or lore.

 

[boynextdoor]

edit: Please compare BG and any FF after 7 you will see that FF combat is actually more complex and BG is just... bad, boring and too simple.

Please elaborate on this. No, really. I'm dying to know why you think this is the case. Because last I checked, 80% of the spells in Final Fantasy games (including all those "summons") are direct damage spells. BG/BG2 combat can be somewhat interesting when both you and your enemies have spells, because you can't just go in and start throwing in fireballs. You'll either end up blowing your whole party to kingdom come without touching your enemy because he's got a Lesser Globe of Invulnerability up, or you'll get half your party charmed or held, and picked off one by one. Yes, this is a small fraction of fights in the BG series, but at least they're there. Final Fantasy combat almost always boils down to 3 things:

1) Keep telling your characters to attack, and so you can get on with the damn game when you're fighting the silly random encounters.
2) Do damage to the enemy faster than they can do it to you (boss fights)
3) Grind more levels (you didn't have enough random encounters so the boss kills you).

Developers should focus on exploring, interacting, characterisation, story, cnc, art directing, sound design, lore, designing an immersive (not immershun) gameworld etc. but not designing the best kombat systam evah. Because making a realistic TB combat is not possible and RT combat is usually just as bad if not worse.

This is where you fail. Combat doesn't need to be realistic to be strategic and thought-engaging. Furthermore, I could apply the same logic to story, lore, and characters. Since most fantasy authors can write books better than the shitfest writers at most game development studios, they just shouldn't bother creating good story, characters, or lore.

Well in FF8 you had junctions GF's limit breaks items etc. You could fight an enemy that was earth based so when you used float it couldn't regenerate health. (I don't exactly remember the exact situation but...) or there was a very strong undead monster but you could throw a very very strong healing potion on it and that would kill it instantly. also there was limit breaks which were very powerful but required you to keep the character at low health and that might cause a gameover if done bad, also you could junction ultima spell to str spr hp or any other stat to max it but doing so requires you to analyze the enemy and buff the stats accordingly.
Where in bg you don't do much but unleash your spells or abilities on the subject as fast as you can and it almost always worked. (i played the game and probably didn't die more then say 5 times)

annoying random encounters were... annoying but somewhere along the middle of the game you maxed out your lvl normally and during the second chapter or so you could use no encounters ability. but yes encounters are still annoying...

I didn't say what combat should be i just said that it should not occupy 99 percent of the game. That is why i advocate other aspects should be at least equally developed as well... Take oblivion and FO for example very stark contrast there but the common thing is combat is terrible in both of them. In oblivion it is worse but still FO combat is not great either. The thing that separates them for me is the lore the story the characters etc. that is why i say combat is less important then most people think it is. I mean having too much combat is like watching a silly hollywood action movie, it is entertaining from time to time, and goes well with heroic amounts of popcorn but you wouldn't remember that even for a week and it wouldn't "get to you". I don't say combat shouldn't play any role in games but it's not THAT important and it should be used in a way that it is dramatic, rememberable etc.

Without the other elements it's just a strategy game on a small scale.

Did you read the example i gave? imagine 20 different elaborate ways of solving that quest. Is that what you want or the same shit over and over again?

 

[Elric]

You could fight an enemy that was earth based so when you used float it couldn't regenerate health. (I don't exactly remember the exact situation but...) or there was a very strong undead monster but you could throw a very very strong healing potion on it and that would kill it instantly.

Gimmicks. Having a specific item or spell give you an auto-win =/= strategy or complexity.

also there was limit breaks which were very powerful but required you to keep the character at low health and that might cause a gameover if done bad, also you could junction ultima spell to str spr hp or any other stat to max it but doing so requires you to analyze the enemy and buff the stats accordingly.

Again, gimmicks. None of these are necessary in FF games because level-grinding overcomes any challenge. The only time that it wouldn't be the case is if you're deliberately making the game hard for yourself by playing a low/no-level game.

Where in bg you don't do much but unleash your spells or abilities on the subject as fast as you can and it almost always worked. (i played the game and probably didn't die more then say 5 times)

Difficulty?
Still, its better than a deathless run through a Final Fantasy game.

I didn't say what combat should be i just said that it should not occupy 99 percent of the game. That is why i advocate other aspects should be at least equally developed as well... Take oblivion and FO for example very stark contrast there but the common thing is combat is terrible in both of them. In oblivion it is worse but still FO combat is not great either. The thing that separates them for me is the lore the story the characters etc. that is why i say combat is less important then most people think it is. I mean having too much combat is like watching a silly hollywood action movie, it is entertaining from time to time, and goes well with heroic amounts of popcorn but you wouldn't remember that even for a week and it wouldn't "get to you". I don't say combat shouldn't play any role in games but it's not THAT important and it should be used in a way that it is dramatic, rememberable etc.

Without the other elements it's just a strategy game on a small scale.

Did you read the example i gave? imagine 20 different elaborate ways of solving that quest. Is that what you want or the same shit over and over again?

Combat should be judged with the game as a whole. Good combat-based games like ToEE or Icewind Dale, are not irredeemable just because they're combat focused, and have less than spectacular story/lore (I enjoyed ToEE, and IWD, while not "good" is at least entertaining). Having a good story also doesn't excuse absolute shitfest gameplay mechanics.

 

[boynextdoor]

You could fight an enemy that was earth based so when you used float it couldn't regenerate health. (I don't exactly remember the exact situation but...) or there was a very strong undead monster but you could throw a very very strong healing potion on it and that would kill it instantly.

Gimmicks. Having a specific item or spell give you an auto-win =/= strategy or complexity.

also there was limit breaks which were very powerful but required you to keep the character at low health and that might cause a gameover if done bad, also you could junction ultima spell to str spr hp or any other stat to max it but doing so requires you to analyze the enemy and buff the stats accordingly.

Again, gimmicks. None of these are necessary in FF games because level-grinding overcomes any challenge. The only time that it wouldn't be the case is if you're deliberately making the game hard for yourself by playing a low/no-level game.

Where in bg you don't do much but unleash your spells or abilities on the subject as fast as you can and it almost always worked. (i played the game and probably didn't die more then say 5 times)

Difficulty?
Still, its better than a deathless run through a Final Fantasy game.

I didn't say what combat should be i just said that it should not occupy 99 percent of the game. That is why i advocate other aspects should be at least equally developed as well... Take oblivion and FO for example very stark contrast there but the common thing is combat is terrible in both of them. In oblivion it is worse but still FO combat is not great either. The thing that separates them for me is the lore the story the characters etc. that is why i say combat is less important then most people think it is. I mean having too much combat is like watching a silly hollywood action movie, it is entertaining from time to time, and goes well with heroic amounts of popcorn but you wouldn't remember that even for a week and it wouldn't "get to you". I don't say combat shouldn't play any role in games but it's not THAT important and it should be used in a way that it is dramatic, rememberable etc.

Without the other elements it's just a strategy game on a small scale.

Did you read the example i gave? imagine 20 different elaborate ways of solving that quest. Is that what you want or the same shit over and over again?

Combat should be judged with the game as a whole. Good combat-based games like ToEE or Icewind Dale, are not irredeemable just because they're combat focused, and have less than spectacular story/lore (I enjoyed ToEE, and IWD, while not "good" is at least entertaining). Having a good story also doesn't excuse absolute shitfest gameplay mechanics.

Well it's not gimmicks almost all enemies have something like that but my point is they abstracted the combat not try to make it more realistic which always fails imo, so combat in FF8 was bad but BG style combat is even worse.

But the point is really not that, I don't like when combat is taking most of the time in a game. It should occupy at most 5 percent of the actual game maybe. OK? And i'm not saying that there should be a lot of combat with crappy mechanics i'm saying that the games have way too much combat. I hope you understand what i'm saying.

Too much combat = bad imo

Making each fight important = good

I don't want BAD combat, I want less combat more dialogues story and cnc... I want really different ways to solve problems not different combat approaches.

 

[Elric]

But the point is really not that, I don't like when combat is taking most of the time in a game. It should occupy at most 5 percent of the actual game maybe. OK? And i'm not saying that there should be a lot of combat with crappy mechanics i'm saying that the games have way too much combat. I hope you understand what i'm saying.

Too much combat = bad imo

Making each fight important = good

I don't want BAD combat, I want less combat more dialogues story and cnc... I want really different ways to solve problems not different combat approaches.

So you shoehorn yourself into expectations that will never be met? Well, I guess this is the Codex...

Expecting only 5% of the game to be combat is unrealistic, even by Codex standards. Even Japanese visual novels (which are the closest thing to no-combat, all-dialogue, all-cnc you can find out there) have more than 5% combat, even if it is just a description of combat, and not an implemented gameplay mechanic.

 

[boynextdoor]

Expecting only 5% of the game to be combat is unrealistic, even by Codex standards. Even Japanese visual novels (which are the closest thing to no-combat, all-dialogue, all-cnc you can find out there) have more than 5% combat, even if it is just a description of combat, and not an implemented gameplay mechanic.

I know it is unrealistic at this moment, but in the future i'm pretty sure there will be games like that after the gaming demographic reaches out from the three main groups (Social rejects wanting to killah teh goblinz and hump the princess, frat boys that have sneezed out their brains early in their development and the notorious casual gamers)

I would kill for a fallout type game where you don't really fight much but rather try to survive finding water food shelter and making necessary social contacts to find people to protect you.

I believe there are indie developers who might make games like these... wishful thinking maybe but that would be awsum don't you think?

 

[Elric]

I know it is unrealistic at this moment, but in the future i'm pretty sure there will be games like that after the gaming demographic reaches out from the three main groups (Social rejects wanting to killah teh goblinz and hump the princess, frat boys that have sneezed out their brains early in their development and the notorious casual gamers)

There's a difference?

I would kill for a fallout type game where you don't really fight much but rather try to survive finding water food shelter and making necessary social contacts to find people to protect you.

I wouldn't. If the game forces me not to fight, I'll hate it just as much I do when it forces me to fight. It should be an option, just like every other character decision. And it should be just as well-developed an option as every other.

I believe there are indie developers who might make games like these... wishful thinking maybe but that would be awsum don't you think?

See, unfortunately, the ultimate consideration in the industry is the $$$. No one's going to make a game that won't recoup the losses that were put into making it. Even indie developers need to pay the bills.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

edit: Please compare BG and any FF after 7 you will see that FF combat is actually more complex and BG is just... bad, boring and too simple.

BG combat was boring because it was taken from the RTS genre. RPGs should be far more interactive than an RTS in terms of combat. Clicking on a group of tanks and having them attack a building while you go back to working on your base is one thing. Selecting all your melee fighters and having them attack a troll is quite another since there's nothing else to do but watch the fight. The only interaction you really have in BG combat is from spell casters or occationally drinking potions.

BG combat is pretty much turn based it is not exactly RTWP but whatever.

A fish is pretty much a bird, too.

 

[boynextdoor]

I know it is unrealistic at this moment, but in the future i'm pretty sure there will be games like that after the gaming demographic reaches out from the three main groups (Social rejects wanting to killah teh goblinz and hump the princess, frat boys that have sneezed out their brains early in their development and the notorious casual gamers)

There's a difference?

I would kill for a fallout type game where you don't really fight much but rather try to survive finding water food shelter and making necessary social contacts to find people to protect you.

I wouldn't. If the game forces me not to fight, I'll hate it just as much I do when it forces me to fight. It should be an option, just like every other character decision. And it should be just as well-developed an option as every other.

I believe there are indie developers who might make games like these... wishful thinking maybe but that would be awsum don't you think?

See, unfortunately, the ultimate consideration in the industry is the $$$. No one's going to make a game that won't recoup the losses that were put into making it. Even indie developers need to pay the bills.

I agree that fighting should be an option but it should not be a very viable one if the game is realistic in terms of combat. Some years ago in Istanbul a very elite commando (countless operations many medals) was killed by a 12 year old boy, he just stabbed him and he died. This is not a very rare thing our neighbors son and one of his friends were attacked and one of them became paralysed, they were both wrestlers and the person who did this was a regular inhalant addict so chance is a great factor in these things so if there is going to be combat it cannot be realistic if it is your chances of fighting a lot of battles and survive are slim to none. Are we on the same page here?

So if it is not realistic then it should be hard but really hard, to make it easier you would have to prepare a lot read about the enemy, develop weapons or tactics for this fight etc. This is what i want you may be happy with dungeon crawlers well that is fine too but then why is it so important to develop a lore, backstory and all that if it is not going to be anything but a flavour like changing your chess set.

And on top of that we have so many good dungeon crawlers right? So just make remakes of those and your combat needs will be solved. If you don't value combat that much well then why not make a game where focus is not on combat? Even in fallout most "other" options were shades of combat (which actually suited the mood of that particular game) and the talking your way out option was not very developed because like almost every rpg to date it was mainly focused on combat. That game shined due to the story, writing, lore, mood and it's dark humour.

 

[Elric]

I agree that fighting should be an option but it should not be a very viable one if the game is realistic in terms of combat. Some years ago in Istanbul a very elite commando (countless operations many medals) was killed by a 12 year old boy, he just stabbed him and he died. This is not a very rare thing our neighbors son and one of his friends were attacked and one of them became paralysed, they were both wrestlers and the person who did this was a regular inhalant addict so chance is a great factor in these things so if there is going to be combat it cannot be realistic if it is your chances of fighting a lot of battles and survive are slim to none. Are we on the same page here?

How are two ordinary people fighting a representation of combat in an epic? Most RPG heroes are, well, heroes. In BG, you were the son of a god, in PS:T you were immortal, etc. Heroic heroes deserve heroic chances.

So if it is not realistic then it should be hard but really hard, to make it easier you would have to prepare a lot read about the enemy, develop weapons or tactics for this fight etc. This is what i want you may be happy with dungeon crawlers well that is fine too but then why is it so important to develop a lore, backstory and all that if it is not going to be anything but a flavour like changing your chess set.

I don't like dungeon crawlers for the sake of dungeon crawlers. I like dungeon crawlers when they're good games. If a game is good, I could give a damn about what makes it good. If it happens to be combat, so be it. I'm not going to ruin my own experience of a game like ToEE just because there's a good game concept that no one's made yet.

And on top of that we have so many good dungeon crawlers right? So just make remakes of those and your combat needs will be solved. If you don't value combat that much well then why not make a game where focus is not on combat? Even in fallout most "other" options were shades of combat (which actually suited the mood of that particular game) and the talking your way out option was not very developed because like almost every rpg to date it was mainly focused on combat. That game shined due to the story, writing, lore, mood and it's dark humour.

Because it doesn't sell.

Developers make games that people want, and unfortunately, people that don't want combat are in the minority. If you took out every combat sequence from PS:T, how many people would still buy/like the damn thing?

 

[flabbyjack]

Combat all boils down to gameplay. I could give less of a shit about the genre of my RPG combat, as long as it's fun. Take a look at Mount&Blade, for instance. It's just plain good-old-fashioned Fun!

The crappy dialogue/bad writing in RPGs is what really gets me. I mean -- c'mon, all that staff and you can't afford a decent writer? After that it's the voice-overs, ten years ago who could have predicted the current predicament of VOs?

As the median gamer age increases, games will mature as well -- better writing, tragic stories, more like epic films than Tom & Jerry cartoons.

developers

developers

developers

developers

developers

developers

developers

developers

^ rinse and repeat ^

Whenever people talk about what developers should do, what they are doing, what they need to do, what they're doing wrong, etc... I always take that with a grain of salt because these are generally the same people with their heads up their asses.

Because it doesn't sell.

Please run my business for me. It doesn't matter what sells or what doesn't, in luxury goods it doesn't matter how good something is -- if you can make something look pretty, people will buy it.

 

[BehindTimes]

Developers make games that people want, and ...

OK, this is where I stopped reading. In 1997, an RPG was released in the USA that was a continuation of a series. All the indicators stated that it wouldn't sell. None of the previous games in the series were a major success outside of Japan (None of the games in this series broke 1 million sales outside of Japan.) RPG's were also a dieing genre in the USA.

This game was released in Japan after Sony put a multi milllion dollar advertising campaign for the game, and it sold wonderfully, becoming a mainstream series, and winning many Best Game/RPG/etc. The game? Final Fantasy 7.

Developers don't make games that people want, rather, they make games that sell (there is a difference). And the pont of the above? What sells isn't necessarily what is a good game. People buy what they're told to buy.

 

[Elric]

OK, this is where I stopped reading. In 1997, an RPG was released in the USA that was a continuation of a series. All the indicators stated that it wouldn't sell. None of the previous games in the series were a major success outside of Japan (None of the games in this series broke 1 million sales outside of Japan.) RPG's were also a dieing genre in the USA.

This game was released in Japan after Sony put a multi milllion dollar advertising campaign for the game, and it sold wonderfully, becoming a mainstream series, and winning many Best Game/RPG/etc. The game? Final Fantasy 7.

Developers don't make games that people want, rather, they make games that sell (there is a difference). And the pont of the above? What sells isn't necessarily what is a good game. People buy what they're told to buy.

Are you sure thats where you stopped reading? Because a line above, I put a nice sentence in bold. It doesn't talk about what people want, but about what sells. Picking at word choice aside, my point was the same. Developers aren't going to make a game that won't make a profit just for shits and giggles.

 

[Elric]

Combat all boils down to gameplay. I could give less of a shit about the genre of my RPG combat, as long as it's fun. Take a look at Mount&Blade, for instance. It's just plain good-old-fashioned Fun!

Which is the point I'm trying to make. Why do you give a damn about what KIND of fun you're having if you're having fun? Combat in and of itself isn't bad. Its just poorly-designed combat that sucks, just like poorly-designed anything. Complaining about combat being present in games is silly, especially since its so ubiquitous.

OK, this is where I stopped reading. In 1997, an RPG was released in the USA that was a continuation of a series. All the indicators stated that it wouldn't sell. None of the previous games in the series were a major success outside of Japan (None of the games in this series broke 1 million sales outside of Japan.) RPG's were also a dieing genre in the USA.

This game was released in Japan after Sony put a multi milllion dollar advertising campaign for the game, and it sold wonderfully, becoming a mainstream series, and winning many Best Game/RPG/etc. The game? Final Fantasy 7.

Developers don't make games that people want, rather, they make games that sell (there is a difference). And the pont of the above? What sells isn't necessarily what is a good game. People buy what they're told to buy.

Are you sure thats where you stopped reading? Because a line above, I put a nice sentence in bold. It doesn't talk about what people want, but about what sells. Picking at word choice aside, my point was the same. Developers aren't going to make a game that won't make a profit just for shits and giggles

 

[Redeye]

One thing I hate about RPGs is when the Wiki is written as "games journalism" i.e. industry propaganda.

 

[Volourn]

"1) Baldur's Gate doesn't have turn-based combat. "

Baldur's Gate doesn't have real time combat.


"2) Most people here (in my experience) don't hold up Baldur's Gate as an example of the best of RPG combat."

Most people here are morons.



"I'm wracking my brain trying to come up with a way that FF7-9 combat (haven't played anything beyond that) takes more thought, though."

Intelligent thought by you! WOWSERS! Thouigh, I make ane xcept for BG1 which had rather simplified (but fun) D&D combat.

 

[Barrow_Bug]

Fed Ex quests blow. Also, strong narratives that shit themselves in the latter part of the third act (Twitcher Anyone?). Dialogs that promise something more but deliver fuck all.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Hey Volourn, NWN2 combat is better than NWN1 combat because you control multiple characters.

 

[theverybigslayer]

Hey Volourn, NWN2 combat is better than NWN1 combat because you control multiple characters.

It's basically a jRPG, you control multiple characters.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Expecting only 5% of the game to be combat is unrealistic, even by Codex standards. Even Japanese visual novels (which are the closest thing to no-combat, all-dialogue, all-cnc you can find out there) have more than 5% combat, even if it is just a description of combat, and not an implemented gameplay mechanic.

In Visual/Dinamic Novels there may or may not be fights (i have played several without any fights, there are a lot if you go outside the "shonen" demographic), but even if there ARE fights it is limited to those that mean something to the story. There is no filler combats and no random encounters, only what would amount to "boss" battles in RPGs. For an example: In Tsukihime (one of the most "combat intensive" among the "famous" visual novels) Ciel's "True" path, the one having the most combat in the entire "game", includes only six (Arc, Nero, Nero, Roa, Ciel, Arc) fights, and the first two are not even real fights but plot exposition with some slashes and blood and Shiki being a loveable psychopath with glasses.

Which actually sounds just like what he is talking about:

I am currently playing the witcher now and enjoying it where a lot combat is inevitably a part of the story but i wish you had to talk to people around visit alchemists gather herbs have a weapon forged etc. and then go to combat. That way it would make combat a remeberable experience since you had maybe 10 fights throughout the game and each one had a story a reason to happen. I think if there is going to be combat in a game then it should make sense like this.

 

[bozia2012]

Cookie-cutter art design and soundtracks.