Review Vault Dweller reviews Dragon Age

[Derper]

We have 6 combat skills:

- Small guns - win option: useful both at the start and near the end.
- Big Guns - less useful than it seems, but has some merits.
- Energy weapons - second best option.
- Unarmed. Not very useful compared to the three above, but still viable if you are playing Bruce Lee type of character. + required for some quests.
- Melee Weapons - viable and easy way to complete the game with certain perks.
- Throwing - that's a definitely useless shit.

Big guns are actually quite usefull, especially combined with the fast shot perk, since you can't aim most big guns anyways. Combining them makes for a great endgame-character, and can be coupled with a decent melee or unarmed character in the early game with a high strenght.

 

[Derper]

What is this thread even about? Oh, I see. More Dragon Age... It is now about character systems.

 

[St. Toxic]

I'm sure you'd agree that it's possible to cut SPECIAL down to 4 stats: Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Charisma, and 5 skills: guns, melee, mechanical, speech, steal and it would work flawlessly with the design of the game, without anyone even noticing the difference.

When you're talking about "balance" or "usefulness" you're doing much the same mistake as Twinkle.

It has nothing to do with the system. What you're talking about is the overall game design, which is superb in Fallout.

If you want to see a char system that gives you a comprehensive overall image of your character in just one screen, without being too simple or too complicated, you look to the Fallouts.

Is every stat and skill equally useful? No. Should they be? No. Should we remove those of less use? No. Should the less useful skills require less points to acquire? No. And why not? Because the character system, as is, is functional enough to adapt to several games all heading in different directions without the need for alteration. Fallout is one game and if SPECIAL doesn't impress there, that hardly makes the cs broken or means that a game can't be tailored to it specifically to make it more functional.

We're talking about character systems here.

Indeed.

Finally, what's wrong with the AC and what do you mean by "combat rules" in the context of a character system?

 

[KalosKagathos]

I'm sure you'll love ME2 or AP character system.

What exactly is wrong with the AP system? You have weapons skills, stealth, lockpicking, hacking and gadget use. Is there anything else a spy RPG needs?

 

[Ogg]

I'm sure you'll love ME2 or AP character system.

What exactly is wrong with the AP system? You have weapons skills, stealth, lockpicking, hacking and gadget use. Is there anything else a spy RPG needs?

That's ok for an action RPG (though, I'd still add 1 or 2 conversational skills). And I'm sure it's quite enough for ME2 too. But VD was talking about Fallout here.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

There are also some really bad attempts on humour, especially at the beginning (which also suffers because of NPCs talking about the UI).

As EV said, these are the tutorial guys, and they don't affect immersion because by that point you're still figuring out stuff on the screen and are being given tutorial quests, which are all "get item from this guy and deliver it to me to get reward", or "kill rats in cellar". There's even a simulated large scale battle.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Anyway, what's so appealing in "balanced" systems where every skill is as important as any other?

Obvious things need to be explained?

Existence of skills, traits and perks that may seem useful but in reality are not, force you to analyse your choices more carefully.

What's to analyze? You pick skills in "good faith" thinking that if they are included, they are somehow useful. Selecting skills is neither a mini-game nor gamble, so let's not try to justify bad design (even if it's in Fallout) and say that it's actually a feature.

It would make huge difference. Every stat you proposed to cut off has something interesting to offer. Both luck and endurance have enormous impact on your choice of perks and combining their bonuses with the bonuses from perks.

You missed my point.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

"BG1? That... doesn't take a lot. Are you delivering some backhanded praise or are you too self-unaware to realize?"

You claimed their writing is getting worse as time goes on. BG was their first RPG (I didn't even bother with SS or MDK2) so if you are claiming they're only getting worse that is presuming that their first - BG1 - was their best right?

Fuckin' moron.

No, sweetie. BG barely had any writing.

BG1 had tons of text, it just didn't utilize it very effectively. It used too much monologues and too much flavour text that wasn't stat dependent.
It had some nice and atmosphere building texts that was pretty good by outdated ancient standards, but I find the more modern Fallout dialogues much more effective in their use of text.
Fewer words and better use of technology.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm sure you'd agree that it's possible to cut SPECIAL down to 4 stats: Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Charisma, and 5 skills: guns, melee, mechanical, speech, steal and it would work flawlessly with the design of the game, without anyone even noticing the difference.

I'm sure you'll love ME2 or AP character system.

And another gentleman misses the point. I don't like simplified systems and I'm not arguing in favor of them. I'm merely pointing out that the famed SPECIAL isn't that special and it's a pretty simple and basic system that could have used a bit more complexity.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

SPECIAL was just a cheap replacement of GURPS.

 

[Grunker]

Good review, I agree with most of it.

 

[sheek]

Fallout had a very badly designed ruleset.

 

[Derper]

What was the ruleset, exactly?

 

[sheek]

The ruleset is the ruleset that Fallout uses. I don't know if there is a proper name for it, but if you played the game you'd know what the rules of the ruleset are.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

wat

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm sure you'd agree that it's possible to cut SPECIAL down to 4 stats: Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Charisma, and 5 skills: guns, melee, mechanical, speech, steal and it would work flawlessly with the design of the game, without anyone even noticing the difference.

When you're talking about "balance" or "usefulness" you're doing much the same mistake as Twinkle.

I was commenting on the system in general. While some creative use could have been found for Barter or Outdoorsman, the system itself leaves them blank, relying on someone else to find a good use for them, which is a sure way to end up with useless skills.

Is every stat and skill equally useful? No. Should they be? No. Should we remove those of less use? No. Should the less useful skills require less points to acquire? No. And why not? Because the character system, as is, is functional enough to adapt to several games all heading in different directions without the need for alteration.

Because there is no system there. There are stats, skills, and perks. Of course, it can be adapted to anything. What's the adapt? Every game has stats and skills.

Finally, what's wrong with the AC...

Doesn't make sense? Doesn't work with DR and DT? Eliminates a much needed defense skill with armor? Creates a linear progression of armor sets?

... and what do you mean by "combat rules" in the context of a character system?

Directly related. I think that ruleset would have a better word to use though.

 

[Serus]

[SPECIAL is weak] Compared to Arcanum or DnD or Jagged Alliance 2 or Das Schwarze Auge or even the Witcher.

It's hard to say whether it's more or less balanced when Arcanum's system dwarfs Fallout in terms of complexity

Love is blind, dont you agree VD ?
It is hard to find something less balanced than Arcanum character system in crpg history and yet you say its hard to say if it is less balanced than SPECIAL.
I do like Arcanum very, very much, easily one of the best crpgs there is but character system balancing is one of the worst part of the design (just after broken combat).

Arcanum had the most interesting system but it was horribly broken. Etc.

Another weird quote. So you are saying: Arcanum system was "horribly broken" and yet you think it was better than SPECIAL and as well balanced. Ergo = SPECIAL is worse than something that is horribly broken, SECIAL must be really terrible, worst character system in rpg ever then ?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

VD thinks Arcanum's system is horribly broken, but also the most complex and most interesting (in other words, a rough gem); and SPECIAL was weak and full of useless things*. How these things are implemented in gameplay (low int offering a different game, for example) is game and quest design, not merit of the ruleset.

*and "you have to carefully select things that will be useful, so it's a game in itself" is crazy fanboi talk.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I was commenting on the system in general. While some creative use could have been found for Barter or Outdoorsman, the system itself leaves them blank, relying on someone else to find a good use for them, which is a sure way to end up with useless skills.

Barter is one of the most useful skills as it allows to obtain equipment much easier than normally - for example to get Combat Armour and Rocket Launcher in Hub.
Outdoorsman is a complete fail, though. Which is weird taking in account that the action of the game happens in a wasteland.

 

[sheek]

Fanboys can't separate ruleset and game content.

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD thinks Arcanum's system is horribly broken, but also the most complex and most interesting (in other words, a rough gem); and SPECIAL was weak and full of useless things*. How these things are implemented in gameplay (low int offering a different game, for example) is game and quest design, not merit of the ruleset.

*and "you have to carefully select things that will be useful, so it's a game in itself" is crazy fanboi talk.

Exactly.

It is hard to find something less balanced than Arcanum character system in crpg history and yet you say its hard to say if it is less balanced than SPECIAL.

Both systems are unbalanced. However, one is very simple, another is complex. Arcanum is less balanced but it has more features to compensate for it. Fallout is more balanced but it offers the bare minimum. That's what I meant.

So you are saying: Arcanum system was "horribly broken" and yet you think it was better than SPECIAL and as well balanced. Ergo = SPECIAL is worse than something that is horribly broken, SECIAL must be really terrible, worst character system in rpg ever then ?

I'm saying that SPECIAL is so simple that it can hardly be called a system. It works, obviously, but it doesn't offer you much. Arcanum offers a LOT more.

I was commenting on the system in general. While some creative use could have been found for Barter or Outdoorsman, the system itself leaves them blank, relying on someone else to find a good use for them, which is a sure way to end up with useless skills.

Barter is one of the most useful skills as it allows to obtain equipment much easier than normally - for example to get Combat Armour and Rocket Launcher in Hub.

Worth wasting points on it? Like I said, once you hit 75 points in a weapon skill, you can take anything you want. Why waste points on Barter?

 

[Annonchinil]

Fanboys can't separate ruleset and game content.

Compared to Arcanum or DnD or Jagged Alliance 2 or Das Schwarze Auge or even the Witcher.

SPECIAL is very, very simple. 7 stats, 18 skills, unbalanced traits and perks. Plenty of useless skills, plenty of useless traits and perks. No combat rules. Armor Class that doesn't belong there. Etc.

There were reasons why Sawyer tried to change a lot of things in BIS' Fallout 3.

Well VD certainly did not make a distinction between ruleset and implementation when criticising SPECIAL.

 

[Serus]

Fanboys can't separate ruleset and game content.

Compared to Arcanum or DnD or Jagged Alliance 2 or Das Schwarze Auge or even the Witcher.

SPECIAL is very, very simple. 7 stats, 18 skills, unbalanced traits and perks. Plenty of useless skills, plenty of useless traits and perks. No combat rules. Armor Class that doesn't belong there. Etc.

There were reasons why Sawyer tried to change a lot of things in BIS' Fallout 3.

Well VD certainly did not make a distinction between ruleset and implementation when criticising SPECIAL.

Thank you. This also answers Clockwork Knight

 

[Vault Dweller]

"While some creative use could have been found for Barter or Outdoorsman, the system itself leaves them blank, relying on someone else to find a good use for them, which is a sure way to end up with useless skills. "

 

[denizsi]

I don't see what's so better and complex about Arcanum's mechanics while calling SPECIAL the bare minimum. One has the addition of spells and crafting over the other and there's also a tech vs. magic slider that acts as a modifier for efficiency and success/failure. Both games play almost identically in utilization of the options provided.