Game News NWN2: DnD redefined - I live ... again!

[Rawgrim]

Hello to everyone and well met. New bloke on the forum here.

First off, there is no doubt in my mind that NWN2 will be a mediocre game, at best. The imortality issue will be major factor in that area. Winning a fight vs a dragon when I know I had all the odds in my favor, put there by the developers, won`t leave me with any sense of joy of having killed off a powerfull enemy. Sure one can argue that re-loading games is the same thing. I don\t belive thats entirely correct really. When you reload you have to do it over again, try new tactics and so on. When you just get up and walk around after you have died, its a big difference. Its like using a godmidong cheat code in a way. Also if you NPC\s don`t croak either its even more lame. Sure if they are vital to the storyline they should be there so the game doesn`t get messed up. But thats not really roleplaying is it? In games like bald`rs gate and such you could still have NPC`s croaking and it wouldn`t ruin the game. If you got anoyed by Edwin and wanted to kill him off, you could. And that game is 8 yars old now, so it should be possible to make similar solutions in a game today. I suspect this game will be an "Idiots guide to d&d" game though. simpled down to the extreme. But with good graphics of course.


Another thing that will drag the game down is the 3ed rules. Or the "wuzz" editon as some people call it. You get insanely powerfull in it very quickly, and its very easy to avoid death in it. Every single class can now raise daed and use healing scrolls (use magic device skill). With the bonus points per level you can get a raging halfling barbarian that has a natural strength score of an elephant. Lots of tweaks like this makes it a bad system in my book. If you want to prestigue class you need to take alot of feats you won`t even use later in the game. It was much better when there was kits like in 2ed. If you think about it. a level 2 rogue who has grown up on the streets, pickpocketing for a living, gets evasion feat, since he is aparantly very skilled at dodging fireballs etc. This makes every character with a particular class the same as every other fellow in the WORLD with the same class. Very very generalized indeed. Kind of ruins alot I think. Alos every bard in the world now has sorcerer power. "I play the guitar, ergo I can cast spells from my soul".
The XP system is also crappy now adays, only XP for kills and completed quests. Mr Bard kills and ogre in the woods, levels up, and gets better at playing the guitar because of it. When in the previous edition he got XP for actually playing his intrument, as well as killing stuff. Made alot more sense. I read somewhere that the increased loop-holes in the rules to avoid death, is due to a number of lawsuits against gaming companys. Kid plays a character for a few months, dies in the game, being mentally unstable to begin with, he kills himself. And the parents blame the game rules and stuff like that. So now all the responsebility is placed in the lap of the game master really.
Anyway...I am babbling abit here.


Neverwinter nights 2 will suck, but not as much as number 1 or icewind dale 2.




anyone remember when Rpg`s used to be really really good?

 

[Crichton]

In games like bald`rs gate and such you could still have NPC`s croaking and it wouldn`t ruin the game. If you got anoyed by Edwin and wanted to kill him off, you could. And that game is 8 yars old now, so it should be possible to make similar solutions in a game today.

In most reasonably well designed party systems, when you attack an NPC, they leave your party, and hence wouldn't qualify for the post-battle "wounded not dead" rule any more than the millions of monsters you'll no doubt slay.

On topic, I completely fail to see how removing the possiblity that part of the party dies (it's all or nothing) qualifies as a "god mode". If you'd like, they could just allow ressurection after the battle (at a temple or right there if your cleric is still alive), and you could spend 5 min re-equiping everyone, just like baldur's gate, icewind dale II or planescape torment, how would those 5 min really give you a feeling of accomplishment after killing a dragon that having the party members stagger to their feet and re-equip themselves wouldn't?

 

[Rawgrim]

Well for one thing. It adds a point in having a cleric in your party. Plus it costs you lots of cash. and also before Wuzz edition came out there was a chance of losing a point of constitution permanently when you were raised from the dead. Ergo you kind of suffered abit from death. Instead of just plainly surviving everything. Ending up on -432423423432423656767 hitpoints and still just get up on your feet afterwards is stupid, in my book .

 

[Crichton]

Ending up on -432423423432423656767 hitpoints and still just get up on your feet afterwards is stupid, in my book .

How is this more stupid than party members litterally coming back from the dead after every battle which you seem to whole-heartedly approve of?

As for clerics, they serve their purpose casting healing spells so people don't die, if someone actually dies, I'll reload rather than pixel-hunting for dropped gear and re-equiping it. This, way, I'm encouraged to stay with the game and try to win the battle anyway as opposed to just reloading until I find some exploit that gets me through with no-one dead.

 

[Rawgrim]

Well the enemies in the game doesn`t have the luxury of eternal life. Makes me feel like I am cheating bigtime.

Raising the dead through a spell you have gaine through exerience, or paying lots of gold for someone to raise them from the dead with a SPELL. Is bigtime different than just having them stand up like nothing ever happened. As I stated earlier


Whats the purpose of healing people before they die anyway? if they just get up and walk around after they are dead anyway. Makes the cleric completley useless. And serves only to make players play an all fighter-class game. Making it a hack and slash\action game and not a roleplaying game.

 

[Crichton]

Whats the purpose of healing people before they die anyway? if they just get up and walk around after they are dead anyway. Makes the cleric completley useless.

Well, they don't fight while they're "dead" and they don't stand back up until after you've won the fight, so unless you can win the fight with 3/4 or less of your party.....

Well the enemies in the game doesn`t have the luxury of eternal life. Makes me feel like I am cheating bigtime.

If it makes you feel better, think of it this way; no one actually dies in combat, they're simply knocked out, after everyone on one side is knocked out, the winning side goes through and slits their throats. So when your party is wiped out, all of those orcs stand right back up, you just don't see it because when your party is wiped out, the game ends.

Raising the dead through a spell you have gaine through exerience, or paying lots of gold for someone to raise them from the dead with a SPELL. Is bigtime different than just having them stand up like nothing ever happened. As I stated earlier

How is it any different? If you want, you can imagine your cleric casting a spell and imagine yourself painstakingly putting all their gear back on, but you also have to imagine what's it's like in a world where violent death has no meaning because every priest has the power of a God; as opposed to just imagining your party members were wounded and unconcious instead of dead.

 

[Rawgrim]

Well actually acording to the D&d game rules, there arn`t that many characters in the world who is above level 4, so raise dead spells should be alot more rare. However...having spells like that in a particular game world adds to the feel of the "magic" of the place. I must admit though, that spells and magic in d&d settings are way out there. I am more a fan of the "less is more" variant. Like in the lord of the rings where magic users are rare, and doesn`t toss spells around like there was no tomorrow.


I agree with you fully on the bit where picking up dead characters gear is anoying. it really is. Its not like when someone dies all their clothes and such simply slip of their corpses.

But imagining what its like in a world where every cleric can raise the dead is abit of a better option than imagining a world where my character and my party members are immortal. If they get a greataxe planted in their face and they end up dead (-10 hp) its not just wounded, its dead. End of story. But with a lame ruleset why not go all out lame? I suspect this game will be as cozy and cute a game as world of warcraft really. No croaking and no blood.

 

[Crichton]

But imagining what its like in a world where every cleric can raise the dead is abit of a better option than imagining a world where my character and my party members are immortal. If they get a greataxe planted in their face and they end up dead (-10 hp) its not just wounded, its dead. End of story.

But if your party members are really "dead", then you'll have to replace them with new party members after every real fight.

When you have to evenly opposed sides fighting and neither is being commanded by and imbecile, then if one side is wiped out, the other should have lost a men as well.

So if we're not going to be losing men and hiring new ones all the time, one of three things must be true,

1) The computer is an imbecile

2) the computer's side is a bunch of pussies

3) dead isn't really dead

So we're just debating between different styles of 3, there's going to be no permenant death for part of the party unless the whole party is wiped out (at which point the player reloads)

So the options are

a) dead is dead, but it doesn't matter because with SUPA_MAJIC we can bring everyone back, Minsc, Keldron, JFK and Abe Lincoln.

b) dead isn't really dead, no one dies until after the fight when someone comes around and crushes their skulls, cuts their head off or drives a stake through their heart.

It makes no difference from a gameplay standpoint, it's just a matter of which annoys you more, the heroic fantasy "no permenant injury" convention or every town having a man with power to bring back the dead.

 

[Voss]

Well actually acording to the D&d game rules, there arn`t that many characters in the world who is above level 4, so raise dead spells should be alot more rare. However...having spells like that in a particular game world adds to the feel of the "magic" of the place. I must admit though, that spells and magic in d&d settings are way out there. I am more a fan of the "less is more" variant. Like in the lord of the rings where magic users are rare, and doesn`t toss spells around like there was no tomorrow.

OK. This is just wrong. Particularly in the Forgotten Realms. Its a small percentage of the population, but theres an assload of high level characters.

And while D&D blatantly stole a lot of shit from Tolkien, rare magic, or low magic isn't one of them. Any spellcaster basically pisses raw magical power, and there are apparently an infinite number of dead ancient civilizations that did nothing but enslave folks in magic item sweatshops. Realistic, no, but definitely part of the default assumptions of D&D. (And it always has been).

If you want low magic, don't play D&D... the rules aren't really set up for it.

 

[Gambler]

'm sure it wasn't your intention to offer a reasonable point

Of course I did. My point is that D&D sucks for computer games. Especially when it comes to everything related to magic in 3.5 edition. The system was broken from the beginning, but WotC "fixed" in a way that made it even more broken, complex and unbalanced.

 

[Rawgrim]

Well Voss, I think you misunderstood me abit there. if so then its my choice of words thats to blame. I would say that there are maybe 100 -200 highlevel characters in the Forgotten Realms, give or take a few. Now on an entire planet 200 isn`t much. So thats what I meant by there being a small amount of highlevel people roaming around.



Quote : It makes no difference from a gameplay standpoint, it's just a matter of which annoys you more, the heroic fantasy "no permenant injury" convention or every town having a man with power to bring back the dead.


Well what if just the biggest cities has a cleric powerfull enough to raise the dead? I am pretty sure that would be a better solution. And not stick to this "wuzz" solution they have come up with now.

And of course if characters can die in a fight, then a cleric`s healing spell would of course be vital. But not when people just get up and walk around again afterwards. That ruins the entire feeling of having acomplished anything in a game. No risk = no gain.

 

[Crichton]

And of course if characters can die in a fight, then a cleric`s healing spell would of course be vital. But not when people just get up and walk around again afterwards. That ruins the entire feeling of having acomplished anything in a game. No risk = no gain.

How does having the "risk" of having someone die in a fight make any difference to you? If you can't resurrect them after the fight, in which case you simply reload if anything fails to go perfectly (I doubt you'll go through the whole rest of the game short a man) or you can bring them back after a fight in which case, it's no different than described here, you go through the rest of the fight and if you win, you bring back anyone that "died".

I used to suspend the hold of death and bring my rogue back to life after practically every other fight in IWD2; he probably died 20 times, bringing him back simply meant that I had to cast one spell and there was that much more loot to pick up (say 30% more), just a cost of doing business. Having him get back up on his own probably would have saved me 45 min over the course of the game and at what loss?

If there had been some permenant cost to him dying (say 1 point of constitution), than I simply would have re-loaded rather than pay it, just the way I did in ToEE. Having a system like this allows for someone to "die" in a tactical sense while encouraging you to continue through the fight rather than just reload at the first sign of anything going wrong.

 

[Rawgrim]

Well I don`t reload just because someone croaks in a game. I take the punishment for letting it happen, and walk back to a temple (if I don`t have a powerfull cleric in the group at the time).

And if I have to raise them in a temple, it COSTS lots of gold (baldur`s gate etc).

In icewind dale that was almost impossible to do, since temples were scarse. So there I just let the dead stay dead, when I didn`t have a cleric with me. Made it abit more chalenging, and alot more rewarding when I beat the boss in the end.

Thats just how I play, not saying others should do the same.

But the BIG difference in loading the game, instead of having your characters just get up after they died, like nothing has ever happened. Is that you go back to a time BEFORE they died, and do things over again. Instead if having them have eternal life. Big difference there. Simplified rules and simplified gameplay ruins it, for me. I don`t know about the rest of the people, but I do like a chalenge when I play computer games. And not feel like I am being handed "the easy way out", at every turn. This game will fall into a long list of mediocre, hyped-up games that`s come out over the years. And I hope they make a patch or a mod so true roleplayers can enjoy it as well.

 

[Crichton]

But the BIG difference in loading the game, instead of having your characters just get up after they died, like nothing has ever happened. Is that you go back to a time BEFORE they died, and do things over again. Instead if having them have eternal life. Big difference there. Simplified rules and simplified gameplay ruins it, for me. I don`t know about the rest of the people, but I do like a chalenge when I play computer games. And not feel like I am being handed "the easy way out", at every turn.

But for you to "win the fight", the opposing (computer's) side has to be completely wiped out. Unless you can recruit new NPCs than even if you only lose one person in each fight (which isn't much 25% fatalities as opposed to 100%), your party will be wiped out in 4 four fights.

So the only way for you to play the game your way is for you to be able to get through practically every fight without anyone being disabled (since the only disabling in D&D is through death). If that's the case how challenging can those fights be?

If there isn't a permenant consequence to someone "dying" in battle than you can have battles where it's impossible to win without at least 2 people (50% of the party dying), which is reasonable since once again, you only win if you kill 100% of the enemy. This allows for actual challenging fights since you don't have to be able to get through all of them with a "perfect" result, it's possible for the computer to get a few licks in without you being reduced to two characters for the rest of the game.

 

[Rawgrim]

I was reduced to 4 characters in Icewind Dale 1.
My Wizard croaked when battling those Drow elves in that dwarven place. And one of my fighters died when fighting the bunch of Pomab`s just before the end. Just for the record

 

[Jim Kata]

But the BIG difference in loading the game, instead of having your characters just get up after they died, like nothing has ever happened. Is that you go back to a time BEFORE they died, and do things over again. Instead if having them have eternal life. Big difference there. Simplified rules and simplified gameplay ruins it, for me. I don`t know about the rest of the people, but I do like a chalenge when I play computer games. And not feel like I am being handed "the easy way out", at every turn.

But for you to "win the fight", the opposing (computer's) side has to be completely wiped out. Unless you can recruit new NPCs than even if you only lose one person in each fight (which isn't much 25% fatalities as opposed to 100%), your party will be wiped out in 4 four fights.

So the only way for you to play the game your way is for you to be able to get through practically every fight without anyone being disabled (since the only disabling in D&D is through death). If that's the case how challenging can those fights be?

If there isn't a permenant consequence to someone "dying" in battle than you can have battles where it's impossible to win without at least 2 people (50% of the party dying), which is reasonable since once again, you only win if you kill 100% of the enemy. This allows for actual challenging fights since you don't have to be able to get through all of them with a "perfect" result, it's possible for the computer to get a few licks in without you being reduced to two characters for the rest of the game.

First off, how many games have any real challenge? Will NWN2? No, almost certainly not. If they have this style of reloading, then absolutely not.

Even in the most difficult games I seldom, if ever, reload or need to. A couple of times in the wizardries I was forced to do so. Some people might reload a lot, but not everyone does, and honestly how often is that necessary today? I do agree that games where you reload over and over for one fight is annoying. I had to do that for dark sun after every battle til the end battle was a piece of cake. Still, reloading is preferable to just blindly hacking them down over and over. If you have this ability that is almost inevitable. In planescape torment I died all the time, but in the earlier wizardies character death almost never happened to me despite the infinitely more difficult combat. Why? Because you have to take combat seriously or you can lose your whole party and have to restart the game.

So, for most people yes this is the same almost as god mode - yeah, you can play seriously in god mode, but very few people will. Instead they will wander off for a sandwich in the middle of combat or not pay any attention at all.

 

[Crichton]

If you have this ability that is almost inevitable. In planescape torment I died all the time, but in the earlier wizardies character death almost never happened to me despite the infinitely more difficult combat. Why? Because you have to take combat seriously or you can lose your whole party and have to restart the game.

If you can wipe out the entire enemy force without losing even one of your own party, how difficult can the combat really be?

 

[Rawgrim]

Hey Jim Kata, you have played all those old classic rpg\s just like I have it seems. Good to know there are more oldtimers around still. And not just world of warcraft kids. Hail and well met.

 

[Gambler]

I take the punishment for letting it happen

And the punishment was the fact that you spent more time on other 397 battles? Thanks, but no.

I can probably beat ToEE without reloading. Would that make the game more challenging in tems of tactics? No. That would mean I will have to rest after every battle, that I will be forced to hire bunch on money-sucking NPCs, an ultimately that I will spend more time doing exactly the same stuff. That's called the Grind. I don't want it, and people who do happily waste their lifetime playing MMORPGs.

I'd rather have a game with 10 or 20 batlles which are extremely difficult and make you think. Since that is not going to happen, I'm okay with easy, fast combat where I don't have to reload. (Realoding leads to repetition, which is another form of the Grind.)

 

[Jim Kata]

If you have this ability that is almost inevitable. In planescape torment I died all the time, but in the earlier wizardies character death almost never happened to me despite the infinitely more difficult combat. Why? Because you have to take combat seriously or you can lose your whole party and have to restart the game.

If you can wipe out the entire enemy force without losing even one of your own party, how difficult can the combat really be?

You can do this with virtually any game, with planning and good party design. I don't think anyone will deny the wizardry games were tough yet I and many others didn't do much reloading. Also, who said I never lost anyone? In a good game system it should be possible (perhaps difficult like dragon wars) to go on but there should be consequences.

 

[Jim Kata]

Hey Jim Kata, you have played all those old classic rpg\s just like I have it seems. Good to know there are more oldtimers around still. And not just world of warcraft kids. Hail and well met.

Yeah, I have been following your argument. I agree totally, and don't see where people are coming from today. I am sick of these craptastic games where you can win without fully waking up or actually thinking at any point.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Simple solution: make party members replaceable, like in X-Com or Darklands. Or make soloing the game feasible, like in Fallout.

 

[Crichton]

Simple solution: make party members replaceable, like in X-Com or Darklands. Or make soloing the game feasible, like in Fallout.

It certainly works as long as those characters don't have a meaning in the story, but if it's possible to "solo" the game a la fallout, then there can't be any challenge for a party (or any thinking for the guy only using one manuoevre unit).

You can do this with virtually any game, with planning and good party design. I don't think anyone will deny the wizardry games were tough yet I and many others didn't do much reloading. Also, who said I never lost anyone? In a good game system it should be possible (perhaps difficult like dragon wars) to go on but there should be consequences.

It's possible to completely wipe out the enemy with 0 fatalities in practically any RPG either because the AI is garbage or the opponents are much weaker than the party (see previous post), it's not possible in a game with a real small-unit tactics element.

The wiz games often had a tough strategic element (party design), but there was no tactical element at all, just more KOTOR/EOB party=blob yawn-fests.

 

[Gambler]

if it's possible to "solo" the game a la fallout, then there can't be any challenge for a part

People often forget that there are such things as non-linear non-quantitative changes. Example. One guy carrying a weapon is not seen as a threat, so he can take enemies by surprise. Three people with wepons are seen as a threat. Six people with weapons are seen as an overwhelming force, so enemy retreats, calls for backup and then strikes in a full force or ambushes you. Now that's combat tactics. So far I've seen 0 games implementing anything like that.

 

[Jim Kata]

Simple solution: make party members replaceable, like in X-Com or Darklands. Or make soloing the game feasible, like in Fallout.

It certainly works as long as those characters don't have a meaning in the story, but if it's possible to "solo" the game a la fallout, then there can't be any challenge for a party (or any thinking for the guy only using one manuoevre unit).

You can do this with virtually any game, with planning and good party design. I don't think anyone will deny the wizardry games were tough yet I and many others didn't do much reloading. Also, who said I never lost anyone? In a good game system it should be possible (perhaps difficult like dragon wars) to go on but there should be consequences.

It's possible to completely wipe out the enemy with 0 fatalities in practically any RPG either because the AI is garbage or the opponents are much weaker than the party (see previous post), it's not possible in a game with a real small-unit tactics element.

The wiz games often had a tough strategic element (party design), but there was no tactical element at all, just more KOTOR/EOB party=blob yawn-fests.

You just don't know what you are talking about or are addled, plain and simple.

There is a huge tactical element in wizardry games. Stratety is super important, but the EFFECTIVE way to play is not to blast with fireballs and hack away. Much better to use silence where appropriate, and sleep, and blind, and in some cases to summon monsters. What tactic you choose matters IMMENSELY. You are probably one of the people going on about how often you die in wizardry 'randomly'. Well, not if you are smart and give it some thought. NOTHING like kotor or EOB (unless you are just a braindead cretin).

"it's not possible in a game with a real small-unit tactics element."

I have ironmanned through jagged alliance 1 many times. If it weren't for the rocket rifles I could easily do it in JA 2.

'It certainly works as long as those characters don't have a meaning in the story, but if it's possible to "solo" the game a la fallout, then there can't be any challenge for a party (or any thinking for the guy only using one manuoevre unit).'

that is not true, either. If you get 6 times the experience, your character should be much stronger in any reasonable gaming system. Soloing is usually for people who have played a game well enough to need an extra challenge, anyhow. As fro the story, there is a difference between meaning and forcing you to have them. if you are forced to have character x (except maybe for a ne time mission) it is a poorly designed game.