Interview Drakensang interview at RPG Dot

[Goliath]

Brilliant PR, they have already convinced me NOT to buy it!

 

[bryce777]

Yeah, it is starting to look suckful alredy, and it was only announced like a week ago.

 

[Brother None]

At the moment, we're aiming for roughly 50% combat, 30% interaction and 20% exploration.

I think that's a quote that should kill the game, or at least kill the concept of this game being a "true RPG"

Hell, I've played PnP DSA quite a bit, I can't remember it being 50% combat, not at all. Nor was the NLT.

Man, was I ever excited when they first announced this game, but it seems every time they open their mouths they crush my spirit a little further.

The only thing the game has left going for it now, considering they're intent to crush the legacy of the Northland Trilogy (the three Realms of Arkania games), is DSA's expansive and rich gameworld. If the DSA writers that wrote the story for them are any good, we should have a fine and original plot too. In my experience DSA writers are pretty good, though I've little experience with the FanPro staff.

Oh, and the rulesystem is pretty good, just a question of how they'll implement it. DSA's combat hinges on basic Attack and Parry values, wonder how they'll integrate that? At least Baldur's Gate is the superior choice to Oblivion-style there.

 

[Claw]

My interest in a game has rarely dropped so rapidly. They are pressing all the wrong buttons.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

At the moment, we're aiming for roughly 50% combat, 30% interaction and 20% exploration.

I think that's a quote that should kill the game, or at least kill the concept of this game being a "true RPG"

Hell, I've played PnP DSA quite a bit, I can't remember it being 50% combat, not at all. Nor was the NLT.

I wouldn't be so sure. P&P is different of course, but the vast majority of CRPG are very heavy on combat, and 50% is probably not such an off number, subjectively it seems about right for most of the big name games, e.g. TES, BG, KOTOR, UUW, while classic action RPG's like Diablo easily go to 80-90%. Even Fallout had a very considerable combat emphasis (with "standard" characters) because turn based combat is a bit more time consuming. 30% interaction is actually shooting pretty high I would say.

 

[Claw]

Well, I played the NLT (Northland Trilogy, consisting of the three RoA games) and I am sure.

I don't see how other "big name games" are relevant. At any rate, 20% exploration sounds horribly wrong. The NLT was more heavy on exploration than on interaction.
Which is, by the way, one of the major issues I have with "modern" RPGs.
The RPGs that coined my idea of CRPGs were all exploration-centered games, it was basically the main feature. 20% exploration isn't satisfying.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Shadows over Riva (which is the one I played) wasn't all that exploration heavy (I understand that the other games had much more lnad to explore though) , but I remember many hard and drawn out battles (with lots of reloading...).

Anyway, has anyone actually measured such numbers? I said subjectively, because to me it feels like combat is very central in most games. But I have a feeling if one would acually measure time, most RPG's would turn out to "feature" at least 50% "running through already discovered areas" with neither fights, exploration, nor interaction...

 

[bryce777]

Yeah, the numbers are sort of meaningless.

It would be hard for me to figure how much time was spent in exploration, etc. in wizardry. There was a lot of wandering around, though. Surely more than 20%.

In ultima I would think more than half would have to be exploration, but I couldn't narrow it down much more than that.

What really lacks in there, and in games today, is time you spend actually thinking - which is usually zippo.

 

[FaranBrygo]

Darklands was realtime with pause, but this still sounds like it will suck.

Darkland's combat system was shit too.