What do you think about AoD?

[Phelot]

Phelot :
Well sure, but wouldn't he tell that in any case?
Of course I can walk away. But it's a challenge. That's what I'm supposed to do in a game, am I not? Winning challenges?
As I said. I won that fight several times.
But I feel there's a mismatch between expectations and what you get that might be easy to fix and might help to calm some troubles.
Not all of course, some other problems arise from different issues that might be solved differently.
And frankly, I wouldn't know how to, most of the time.

I think the key in AoD is that not every challenge is going to be winnable by every character, which is something that most gamers these days (myself included) have been taught to expect. Perhaps AoD could have done a better job at making it clear that you can't accomplish every quest in the game with every character. In any case, the assassin is doable with a pure combat build, but I think he made it clear that you shouldn't get involved with him and if you happen to be a diplomatic or thief or whatever, then it is likely best that you skip that fight as you'll make up in other quests that better suite your build.

 

[Mangoose]

A 55% THC in theory is not always a 55% THC In execution.

What I mean is, if for example you have 9 AP and it costs 9 AP to do a 55% THC attack, then yeah the attack is a coin flip in that one turn.

But if you have 9 AP and it costs 3 AP to do the 55% THC attack, then the chance of landing that attack in that one turn (assuming you spend all AP on that attack) is 83%.

Similarly, the "actual" THC if the attack also depends on the consequences of failing the attack. If failing the attack means you get knocked from 100% to 0% HP, then it is a pretty non-tactical coin flip. On the other hand, if you fail the attack and you only lose, say, 15% of your health, then you will get more chances to try the attack.

Randomness should be balanced with sample size (for lack of better term off the top of my head) in order to bring the law of large numbers into effect and thus display the player's skill rather than pure chaos.

Not saying either side is right, but I'm saying that you have to take into account the context of the situation and not just look at the numbers so singularly.

 

[Johannes]

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

I'll bite.

Which key enemies are difficult and what does it mean (i.e. what makes them difficult and require special tactics and multiple retries)?

A ton depends on when you encounter the fights, of course. I speeded through the game not bothering with most sidequests, finishing the game with maybe halfway to the XP cap with a full party.

But I remember specifically the Nashkel mines final fight, the assassin that attacks you afterwards in Nashkel, the group in the tent in bandit camp, the assassin group at the entrance to the Cloakwood mine, the boss wizard there, the group when exiting the Candlekeep dungeons, group at the top of the Iron Tower, the Iron Tower mercenaries before facing Sarevok, and then the final fight. And much more if I'd pause to think for a while.

 

[Castanova]

I knew AoD would have its share of fanboys... but I never thought it would have a fanboy quite as retarded as BloodAngel. It goes against logic.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A 55% THC in theory is not always a 55% THC In execution.

What I mean is, if for example you have 9 AP and it costs 9 AP to do a 55% THC attack, then yeah the attack is a coin flip in that one turn.

But if you have 9 AP and it costs 3 AP to do the 55% THC attack, then the chance of landing that attack in that one turn (assuming you spend all AP on that attack) is 83%.

Similarly, the "actual" THC if the attack also depends on the consequences of failing the attack. If failing the attack means you get knocked from 100% to 0% HP, then it is a pretty non-tactical coin flip. On the other hand, if you fail the attack and you only lose, say, 15% of your health, then you will get more chances to try the attack.

Not saying either side is right, but I'm saying that you have to take into account the context of the situation and not just look at the numbers so singularly.

 

[Grunker]

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

I'll bite.

Which key enemies are difficult and what does it mean (i.e. what makes them difficult and require special tactics and multiple retries)?

NOTE: The deliciousness of Baldur's Gate 2's lack of level-scaling makes the below somewhat dependant on when you choose to take on these encounters (i.e. your milage may vary):

All Dragons, party fight in Firkragg's lair, most golems when you meet them the first time, Kangaxx, many, many fights in planar sphere, the witch in the Umar Hills, going through the troll-infested castle (you can't rest much there - Thorgal is especially tough), Irenicus at all times you meet him, Ned and his children, The Unseeing Eye, most all beholder-fights, Mindflayer lair, Bodhi, fight where you get the Katana with stun proc, Mekrath, party in the sewers in front of Mekrath' lair (probably the fight I've died to the most personally), Rakshasha... wow, this game has varied enemies, holy fuck. I could name many more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Johannes]

I knew AoD would have its share of fanboys... but I never thought it would have a fanboy quite as retarded as BloodAngel. It goes against logic.

He's a really effective troll, cause he's both more serious and more idiotic in his output than both Hiver and Helton combined. Which is quite a feat.

But I refuse to believe he's for real.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But I remember specifically the Nashkel mines final fight...

 

[Vault Dweller]

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

I'll bite.

Which key enemies are difficult and what does it mean (i.e. what makes them difficult and require special tactics and multiple retries)?

NOTE: The deliciousness of Baldur's Gate 2's lack of level-scaling makes the below somewhat dependant on when you choose to take on these encounters (i.e. your milage may vary):

All Dragons, party fight in Firkragg's lair, most golems when you meet them the first time, Kangaxx, many, many fights in planar sphere, the witch in the Umar Hills, going through the troll-infested castle (you can't rest much there - Thorgal is especially tough), Irenicus at all times you meet him, Ned and his children, The Unseeing Eye, most all beholder-fights, Mindflayer lair, Bodhi, fight where you get the Katana with stun proc, Mekrath, party in the sewers in front of Mekrath' lair (probably the fight I've died to the most personally), Rakshasha... wow, this game has varied enemies, holy fuck. I could name many more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

BG1, not BG2. The latter was a very rape-thirsty game that demanded your full attention. The former was a cake-walk.

 

[Phelot]

Speaking of the Cloakwood wizard dude (the end guy can't recall his name despite just playing that part yesterday ) I figured I would have forgotten what's there by now, but I recalled the traps and that a quick dispel plus poison arrows ended that battle quick.

Don't care if it's easy or not, the game was a lot of fun. Of course, I only play it vanilla for nostalgic reasons

 

[Grunker]

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

I'll bite.

Which key enemies are difficult and what does it mean (i.e. what makes them difficult and require special tactics and multiple retries)?

NOTE: The deliciousness of Baldur's Gate 2's lack of level-scaling makes the below somewhat dependant on when you choose to take on these encounters (i.e. your milage may vary):

All Dragons, party fight in Firkragg's lair, most golems when you meet them the first time, Kangaxx, many, many fights in planar sphere, the witch in the Umar Hills, going through the troll-infested castle (you can't rest much there - Thorgal is especially tough), Irenicus at all times you meet him, Ned and his children, The Unseeing Eye, most all beholder-fights, Mindflayer lair, Bodhi, fight where you get the Katana with stun proc, Mekrath, party in the sewers in front of Mekrath' lair (probably the fight I've died to the most personally), Rakshasha... wow, this game has varied enemies, holy fuck. I could name many more, but I'm sure you get the idea.

BG1, not BG2. The latter was a very rape-thirsty game that demanded your full attention. The former was a cake-walk.

Forgive me for being an ass-wank then. I always assume it's about the entire series

In BG the difficult fights on my first couple of play-throughs were the D-guy in Cloakwood, Sarevok (both times), the end fight in the bandit-camp, flesh golems, the party outside Sarevok's temple, Durlag's Tower (that shit was so fucking well-designed... they don't make 'em like that any more). Probably a few others that I can't recall of the top of my head.

But BG1 is DEFINETELY easier than BG2.

 

[hiver]

Such as:
- decreased AP cost of movement to 1 Ap while the size of the movement grid remains the same. that basically gives more APs to spend on combat but doesnt spend most of them on taking two - three steps.
- enable double wielding for knives only - add ability to deflect blades and bladed weapons but have none against hammers and projectiles.
- flanking and backstabbing modifiers for damage and critical strikes

Like I said, when you suggest more options for the PC, apply them to your opponents first. Considering that you fight against multiple opponents, they will close the distance within a turn, surround you, and shred you to pieces.

I'm not a fan of using different rules for the PC and the enemies, which is one of the reasons why I play SS on Hard. On Normal the enemies get less AP, less HP, and you do 30% more damage, iirc. Feels like cheating.

I do apply it to enemies in my head when i think about what to suggest - always. ALWAYS.
I did not say this would apply only to the PC and in one or two posts before i countered someones thoughts about PC having more options with exactly that argument.

Applying all that to enemies is always already calculated in my suggestions.
Though of course i cant tell what all the consequences would be - which is why im suggesting it to you directly - because you know much more about the system inner mechanics than i ever will.
And i expect that if my suggestion wouldn't work it will be pointed out with facts and reasons why it wouldn't.
So i can make a better suggestion.


I am not requesting anything. I am suggesting. Trying things out. Throwing ideas out. - instead of just bitching and posting unsupported nonsensical statements.

And i figure... maybe if my suggestion cannot be applied as i presented it - in a very simplified form - maybe it can inspire the dev to think about something similar that would work.
And if it doesnt well fuck at least i tried to do fucking something instead of bitching and requesting a completely different game.


1. - Movement decreased to 1 AP -

i thought about it and came to conclusion that it could be balanced - if the movement grid remained the same approximate size as now (in most cases).
I know that now it is calculated by the number of APs available - but if you limit it so it represents Dexterity itself rather then number of APs? If you connect it directly to Dexterity and calculate it based on that with a new equation?
- If its done in a way that makes it remain about the same general size as it is now in most cases... then maybe it could work.

- Ranged characters go for higher dexterity by default so they would be able to move more, while tanks and heavies would generally have less dexterity so they would not be able to move that much. /this would work very well for dodgers too/
- This would require moving numerous bonuses dexterity gives to other attributes - which is necessary anyway - to make tanks and other characters benefit more from Strength and Constitution, or diplomats from Charisma and Intelligence. (as main Attributes for those builds)


2. Double wielding for knives would be fine, and it would make sense as i suggest it - (as far as i see)
Of course the enemies would have it too. I dont see a problem with that. Thats the balance.
Ability to deflect bladed weapons would need to be a sort of additional ability tied to the weapons themselves. Not a third defensive skill. This would be only available if youre double-wielding knives.
That already exists in the game as a mechanic since different weapons already have different... capabilities and effects.
-edit- it would happen just occasionally.


3. Flanking and stabbing
- i wouldnt even suggest it if i didnt think about it as something enemies could do too.
and i can assume myself that it would require a lot of work to implement... Ai, animations, mechanics of damage and defense... just to mention a few fist ones that come to my mind.
- maybe it can be done if damage modifiers and critical chances are tweaked just slightly in case of such an attack
- and balanced by making attacks of opportunity ...err... react more to enemies moving into those positions - or more precisely those three squares.
AGAIN - Due to the required complexity of implementation that i understand at least partially - its not something im suggesting you have to do RIGHT NOW DAMN IT... but, just a suggestion, an idea thrown out.


4. Decreasing the cost of opening inventory would allow for easier weapon switching - which weapon synergies support. Seeing how movement already eats a lot of APs in a single turn and that we often remain with useless Ap or two anyway...
- and seeing how its often a better choice to stay in place and count on defense to save your Hit points rather then risking a move that will provoke an Attack of opportunity - this would be most welcome.
- generally there is far too many things eating too many APs for ... nothing. Except limiting what i should be able to do with skills and mechanics that are there.

5. In other thread i suggested creating Attribute synergies - i know its a lot of work but it would make everything better. Just... think about it. Thats all im saying.

You can't always choose your ground and sometimes you have to fight in less than ideal areas, but when you have room, aimed attacks make all the difference and fit the archer concept perfectly.

Yes of course... but there is a LOT of very small, very confined spaces... and im not sure how ranged characters can cope with that...
- how would a ranged character do in that ambush in Theron... (Charlize..get out of my head dammit!) ... i mean Teron... ahem... in that side quest where the PC is suckered into buying special items for special prices?
Its a very small room and two enemies start the fight right next to you... and even if you manage to move you cannot go further than a few steps and then youre forced to repeat that again in the next turn while exposing yourself to Attacks of Opportunity each time.
I mean...I wouldnt even want to try it with a ranged character.

Is there anyone who did and succeeded without switching to other melee weapons? I mean... im curious there.

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have time to experiment anymore. The system isn't perfect but it works, which is good enough for now.

eeehhh.... yeaahhh... i know...
maybe some smaller changes can be implemented...

Would be useful for rangers though and they could use additional movement being available.... which wouldnt be overpowered because enemies would have the same ability to balance it.

Right... especially if you do it in the way i suggested above in expanded version.

Keep in mind that whatever you're planning to do unto them will be done to you too.

Of course. Thats the beauty of it :crocodile grin:


/


None of my suggestions are of the modern next gen codex type of : "Do it now the way i say or i will hate you and post strawmans and add hominems about what you say and shit!!!"


my suggestions follow this logic process:
1. I make a suggestion while trying to see consequences it would create.
2. Vince (or someone else knowledgeable) points out why exactly it wouldnt work - either mechanically or because its too big of a job to do right now, at this stage of the game.
3. I think about it - adapt - and come with expanded suggestion that tries to take those facts in equation.
4. Vince points out mistakes or consequences i didnt see myself.
5. I adapt - come with better version - expand or change.

=

6. Vince maybe thinks... "hmm... hmmm... maybe...that could work...hmmmm!" = everyone gets an even better game. Everyone. Me - IT- codex shit posters - new customers - codex good posters - and everyone else.
7. Vince maybe comes up with an even better version of my suggestion or it makes him think about something else that would work too. = even better game for everyone!
8. Vince says "No... even that is not possible at all - or doesnt fit - or whatever."

=

9. I say "well fine.. i tried my best".


(Basically im fine with the game as it is.... i fucking preordered it because i like what i play already. My suggestions DO NOT MEAN i dont like it. ---No it doesnt mean im expecting any special thank you notes or whatever else. I gave you money - you will give me my copy of the game and thats it.)



/



also:
- I dully apologize to distinguished posters of codex on lack of special effects and amazing visuals in my written fucking English language too. Grow a fucking pair the lot of you.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Similarly, the "actual" THC if the attack also depends on the consequences of failing the attack.

What you also should take into account are the consequences of succeeding the attack. In AoD a webbed enemy is practically helpless for 2 rounds. He can hardly move, his attacks are harmless and he's easy to hit. If your normal weapon has a 50% THC you now might have 90%. Aimed attacks with 35% might suddenly have 70% THC. The effects of webbing someone are just too powerful to make it a can-not-miss attack. It's pretty powerful as it is, which is the reason the nets are pretty expensive, I presume.

Let me ask you this: Do you think a random 50/50 shot of hitting with an attack matters more in D&D or AoD? 'cause with the above, you sound like a 50/50 chance is a 50/50 chance no matter the context.

Irrelevant. The chance to succeed is 50% either way. Concerning nets in AoD that means it's practically guaranteed to work within a single round if you're throwing 3 nets. Given the effects and the opportunities derived from it, it's anything but useless, so why dismiss it?

 

[Johannes]

But I remember specifically the Nashkel mines final fight...

Yeah, you can easily beat the fight if your party is good enough and know the game well. And plays the game in BG2 engine, and apparently has a Kensai PC.
For me with a level 1/2 party, consisting of random guys picked along the road, with no beforehand experience of IE games, it was hard. Not a very interesting battle, but it did require retries.

Kinda like someone who reminisces about the tough fights in AoD might tell you about the damn tough assassin.

None of my suggestions are of the modern next gen codex type of : "Do it now the way i say or i will hate you and post strawmans and add hominems about what you say and shit!!!"

Nice ad hominem strawman there

 

[hiver]

Its not ad hominem because thats what a lot of posters in this thread do.

What you wrote is a cheap and very blatant attempt to create an excuse by retarded simple kiddy reverse psychology.
Which is another mainstay of morons around the codex - because their intelligence level doesnt allow them to understand how cheap, transparent and stupid they are.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sorry, should have checked the video more carefully. I played BG once when it was released, so I don't remember the exact details like which party members I had, how many, and what levels they were. The main character was a vanilla fighter, the party members were picked 'along the road'. I killed the cleric on my first attempt which wasn't hard, but his skeletons killed my mage, who was standing closer to the entrance and was quickly raped by the skeletons. I reloaded, moved the mage away, killed everyone.

This reload doesn't make the fight challenging. The 'gotcha' surprise works once, the skeletons aren't challenging, and you can easily kill everyone just by group-clicking on them. If you have a fireball and your mage has some room, the fight is over before it begins.

 

[Commissar Draco]

Combat is hard... and it also in 100% avoidable which is double plus good. C&C and replayability... you got atleast 3 or 4 games at the prize of one. Dialogues.... Since AoD is not Tolkienesque fantasy but post roman ITZ game swearing and grim darkness is OK... even if VD should read about real Roman cussing: http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Vocabulary/Latin-Forbidden.html I wander if VD was inspired by Nethergate btw... game which has parties for good reasons (you Rp-ed either Roman unit or Celtic warband) Any other things like lack of exploatation are just nitpics, Aod was never meant to be Elder Scrolls and impoved telerporting works fine. My score is GOOD and one third of Codex seems to be bunch of whiny.... what a suprise.
For VD for making good game and not giving a damn and to BloodAngel for getting to the same conclusions about so called Codex Elite ... Well done Brother Astarate.

 

[Infinitron]

The Mulahey fight is not a good example of Baldur's Gate's difficulty. There are two types of difficulty in BG1: the tough "boss fights" in the second half of the game and in the expansion pack, and the gruelingly long dungeons, where your party is gradually worn down by lots of trash mob fights (the latter type of difficulty is less of a problem if you abuse the game's rest function, although you can still run out of potions, arrows, etc).

 

[Serious_Business]

AoD is a good game on paper but as I predicted its execution is rather lackluster. This is because it's essentially a souless design document and a statement on the game industry more than anything else. I say souless, but this is untrue - the game has plenty of feeling... plenty of cold bitter ressentment and spite were injected into it. You might think I'm making some kind of joke, but I'm not. The game has no old school charm at all ; it has none of this vibrant creativity and innocent passion that was poored in games made by Looking Glass or Black Isle. It just ooses a kind of cynical, tired, antagonistic, mechanical lifeless atmosphere, not only in its setting but also on how the game plays and on how it tries to forcibly convince itself of its own cold, narrow world view. You'd think this kind of shit would be praised by the Codex, but I'm not surprised it's not. Even people here don't play games to look at themselves in the mirror, after all.

I say all this because as I said, on paper, AoD is a great game. I see no flaw with it at all, although I probably could find some if I cared enough. What bothers me personally is that I value everything that the design scorns and looks down upon - character, atmosphere, escapism, narrative, graphics even. It's just not an immersive fucking experience. Saying this brands me as some kind of irrational tasteless child-moron, but that's exactly this delusional and self-righteous perspective on entertainment that gives AoD its fire and conviction. It's really not for everybody. You really need to crave for the things this game offers in order to like it. And even then, I suspect you'd be horrified if all games happened to be inspired by AoD tomorrow.

I myself always was a big fan of the possibilities of branching in RPGs, and I would say AoD is the game that does it the best to this day. It does have its appeal, and I indeed preordered the game out of principle for doing something I think RPGs should have been doing since Balders Gate. But ultimately, it doesn't do the game for me. I couldn't care less about the goddamn branching. I say it for the third time : it's nice on paper, but it doesn't do anything for me. Yeah, fuck you too, man. Fuck you too.

 

[zeitgeist]

I myself always was a big fan of the possibilities of branching in RPGs, and I would say AoD is the game that does it the best to this day.

http://www.choiceofgames.com/
http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Home

 

[l3loodAngel]

And even then, I suspect you'd be horrified if all games happened to be inspired by AoD tomorrow.

Yes games inspired by this shit today is so much less horrifying.
And by this shit.
When the games will be inspired by AoD it will the end! The end I tell you!!!

 

[SerratedBiz]

Seems the spirit of this place has seriously changed. Do you really believe "feedback" is just listening, drool dripping down your lip, while you nod at gibberish because you don't want to offend people's soft skinned sensibilities? You can find beautiful little flowers willing to oblige that kind of feedback anywhere on the net. You come to the Dex looking for "feedback" that can hold up to a little scrutiny. Robust criticism. You poke it with a stick and it gets stronger. And you leave with a legitimately better way of doing things than you came in with. Not a bunch of raw, untested, bullshit and a stanky chin. At least, that's how we used to roll.

I realize you need to keep up appearances and be big bad motherfucking Codex, but I don't think you got the gist of my post.

What I'm trying to say is that, given that VD already had a thread where he discussed AoD with Codexers, it seems strange that he'd start a new one with the exact same purpose as before (I don't think there have been any new public demos since R2).

On the other hand, when asking for feedback, which is what it seemed (to me) what this thread was originally for, you'll want to invite as much of it as possible. That's because you'll collect all of it and go over it later, registering what's useful and disposing of what isn't.

Maybe it's in VD's nature to discuss when he feels a poster's arguments are wrong or his approach to the game was incorrect and if that's his thing, I'm just commenting on it. Myself, I don't see much point in trying to convince people that didn't enjoy the game because they feel its design didn't match their expectations that they should because the design is good in itself - people are going to like it or they won't, and probably not based on any objective criteria but rather a subjective "this system appeals to me or not".

 

[Captain Shrek]

AoD is a good game on paper but as I predicted its execution is rather lackluster. This is because it's essentially a souless design document and a statement on the game industry more than anything else. I say souless, but this is untrue - the game has plenty of feeling... plenty of cold bitter ressentment and spite were injected into it. You might think I'm making some kind of joke, but I'm not. The game has no old school charm at all ; it has none of this vibrant creativity and innocent passion that was poored in games made by Looking Glass or Black Isle. It just ooses a kind of cynical, tired, antagonistic, mechanical lifeless atmosphere, not only in its setting but also on how the game plays and on how it tries to forcibly convince itself of its own cold, narrow world view. You'd think this kind of shit would be praised by the Codex, but I'm not surprised it's not. Even people here don't play games to look at themselves in the mirror, after all.

I say all this because as I said, on paper, AoD is a great game. I see no flaw with it at all, although I probably could find some if I cared enough. What bothers me personally is that I value everything that the design scorns and looks down upon - character, atmosphere, escapism, narrative, graphics even. It's just not an immersive fucking experience. Saying this brands me as some kind of irrational tasteless child-moron, but that's exactly this delusional and self-righteous perspective on entertainment that gives AoD its fire and conviction. It's really not for everybody. You really need to crave for the things this game offers in order to like it. And even then, I suspect you'd be horrified if all games happened to be inspired by AoD tomorrow.

I myself always was a big fan of the possibilities of branching in RPGs, and I would say AoD is the game that does it the best to this day. It does have its appeal, and I indeed preordered the game out of principle for doing something I think RPGs should have been doing since Balders Gate. But ultimately, it doesn't do the game for me. I couldn't care less about the goddamn branching. I say it for the third time : it's nice on paper, but it doesn't do anything for me. Yeah, fuck you too, man. Fuck you too.

SB, I hate you. Reading your posts make me tired. The potential there is always squandered with so much internal contradiction which you are unable to see. Firstly and lastly because I don't care enough, AoD is ONE game. The first. It's a skeleton as opposed to all the boneless wonders flopping around.

 

[Jasede]

AoD is a good game on paper but as I predicted its execution is rather lackluster. This is because it's essentially a souless design document and a statement on the game industry more than anything else. I say souless, but this is untrue - the game has plenty of feeling... plenty of cold bitter ressentment and spite were injected into it. You might think I'm making some kind of joke, but I'm not. The game has no old school charm at all ; it has none of this vibrant creativity and innocent passion that was poored in games made by Looking Glass or Black Isle. It just ooses a kind of cynical, tired, antagonistic, mechanical lifeless atmosphere, not only in its setting but also on how the game plays and on how it tries to forcibly convince itself of its own cold, narrow world view. You'd think this kind of shit would be praised by the Codex, but I'm not surprised it's not. Even people here don't play games to look at themselves in the mirror, after all.

I say all this because as I said, on paper, AoD is a great game. I see no flaw with it at all, although I probably could find some if I cared enough. What bothers me personally is that I value everything that the design scorns and looks down upon - character, atmosphere, escapism, narrative, graphics even. It's just not an immersive fucking experience. Saying this brands me as some kind of irrational tasteless child-moron, but that's exactly this delusional and self-righteous perspective on entertainment that gives AoD its fire and conviction. It's really not for everybody. You really need to crave for the things this game offers in order to like it. And even then, I suspect you'd be horrified if all games happened to be inspired by AoD tomorrow.

I myself always was a big fan of the possibilities of branching in RPGs, and I would say AoD is the game that does it the best to this day. It does have its appeal, and I indeed preordered the game out of principle for doing something I think RPGs should have been doing since Balders Gate. But ultimately, it doesn't do the game for me. I couldn't care less about the goddamn branching. I say it for the third time : it's nice on paper, but it doesn't do anything for me. Yeah, fuck you too, man. Fuck you too.

The game just *feels* cold. It's not something I can point out specifically. It just feels loveless. System Shock and Fallout and blabla, Darklands, RoA and even Baldur's Gate 2 feel much... warmer. There's love in there. There's love in AoD as well, but the love you put into it comes from a cold and disappointed heart.

One of the best qualities a game can have - no matter what genre, no matter what system - is to evoke the feeling that this was someone's passion; that someone poured themselves into making this. It can't be quantified- but when it's not there it feels like there is something missing. As if the game was sterile and empty; there's no heart, no blood, no soul.

Like CaptainShrek unwittingly agreed: it's a skeleton. It's cold and there's no meat on these bones. But maybe something can be built on that backbone.

 

[Marsal]

SB, I hate you. Reading your posts make me tired. The potential there is always squandered with so much internal contradiction which you are unable to see. Firstly and lastly because I don't care enough, AoD is ONE game. The first. Its a skeleton as opposed to all the boneless wonders flopping around.

Makes, It's