What do you think about AoD?

[Grunker]

Grunker's criticism as him just wanting a party based game

yeah, it's not like I've repeatedly stated that I don't require AoD to be party-based or argued against Infinitron when he says what I want is only available in a party-based game

keep on trucking, Helton

 

[Infinitron]

Man you really just don't want to make any kind of point do you?

It seems your perception of points is subjectively different than most people's.

Are we just observing that people have different tastes in games? Cool. Or are we dismissing Grunker's criticism as him just wanting a party based game and AoD isn't for him? Meh.

Yes, and possibly yes, although I'm sure he likes the game, just not as much as if it had the tactical flexibility of, say, an Infinity Engine game.

 

[hiver]

You still think we bitch about the lack of tactical options because we can't win without them. DURR GET BETTER OR FUCK OFF HURR

Since I've completed the demo twice and finished the combat demo you should be able to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that's not the case.

But whatever, you seem more interested in raging than in a discussion.

No, nobody claimed its because you were not able to win - in the first place.

The problem with your "arguments" is that they are based on blatant fallacies and your own inability to fully utilize all the options that ARE FUCKING THERE.
Because you apparently and EVIDENTLY dont understand the system in its entirety.

Complaining you want to have higher THC in throwing nets...regardless of stats thta govern it?
How about i complain im not having all dialogue options inspite investing in relevant attributes and skills?
Thats completely retarded.

And its just one small example.

And your so called "solution" is to make an entirely new game and scrap this one... except the setting and similar stuff.
And make one you would prefer personally. Which is totally different than what this game AND ITS SETTING AND ATMOSPHERE are made for.

While even my minimal suggestions i posted are in fact very complicated (or almost impossible) to introduce now - which Vince reply shows rather clearly.

 

[Helton]

yeah, it's not like I've repeatedly stated that I don't require AoD to be party-based or argued against Infinitron when he says what I want is only available in a party-based game

keep on trucking, Helton

Man, really, don't be butthurt. I don't think that's what we should do, as evidenced by me engaging you in discussion, I was trying to figure out what he was getting at. Take it up with Infin, he asked you to give alternatives on the last page.

 

[hiver]

Grunker's criticism as him just wanting a party based game

yeah, it's not like I've repeatedly stated that I don't require AoD to be party-based or argued against Infinitron when he says what I want is only available in a party-based game

keep on trucking, Helton

WHAT?



You repeatedly said the exact opposite!!!

 

[Captain Shrek]

AoD got mixed reaction on the Codex. Some people liked it and praised it, saw people disliked it and ranted endlessly. Business as usual, I suppose. Still, I'd like to know what the locals think about the game.

So, what do you think about the game (good, bad, meh) and why (what's the main reason why you liked or disliked it)?

Its a great game. But frankly not a popular one. People I have asked to try, told me its too difficult. Even when you create a character focused on a skill, you do not have guarantee that 5 tries later you will succeed. In my opinion that is not a bad thing. But its your head under the axe.

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, I know. Hordes of the Underdark could be considered a single-character game with significant tactical possibilities. It's not incredibly difficult, although it does have some killer boss fights near the end.

However, you always have a (non-controllable) party in HOTU, which you're able to equip and give limited orders to.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Oh, I know. Hordes of the Underdark could be considered a single-character game with significant tactical possibilities. It's not incredibly difficult, although it does have some killer boss fights near the end.

However, you always have a (non-controllable) party in HOTU, which you're able to equip and give limited orders to.

Look. Lets do this. Lets DEFINE Party based games as those where you can CONTROL the members of the party as much as you can control your character in a single player game. Is that now solid?

 

[Infinitron]

Oh, I know. Hordes of the Underdark could be considered a single-character game with significant tactical possibilities. It's not incredibly difficult, although it does have some killer boss fights near the end.

However, you always have a (non-controllable) party in HOTU, which you're able to equip and give limited orders to.

Look. Lets do this. Lets DEFINE Party based games as those where you can CONTROL the members of the party as much as you can control your character in a single player game. Is that now solid?

If you read my post (which you quoted) again, you'll see that I explicitly called it a single-character game.

 

[Infinitron]

Its a great game. But frankly not a popular one. People I have asked to try, told me its too difficult. Even when you create a character focused on a skill, you do not have guarantee that 5 tries later you will succeed. In my opinion that is not a bad thing. But its your head under the axe.

The question is, will the game be like this for the entire length of it, or is it just a rough beginning? VD doesn't strike me as the type of guy to put inflated skill check thresholds later in the game. AOD does not scale to your level.

 

[Grunker]

catastrophic reading failure

Though I would always argue for party-based play, plenty SC cRPGs have had enough tactical variety.

You should have done either of these things (the two first would be ideal in my opinion):

a) Fleshed out the maneuvers like Power Attack or Fast Attack, and given more active choices in combat that were all valid. More maneuvers (unlocked at different levels of weapon skill, even), different ways to use each maneuver. I wouldn't mind if these things came at the exclusion of some weapons, since immediate tactical variety for me is more important than being able to replay with another type of character - especially when the game has so much replay value in other areas anyway. Not that you should include magic, but magic is a good example of what I mean; with spells a character always has different options for different situations.

b) Made the game party-based, so that we could use more of the options presented at the character-selection screen that we never get to see again while playing.

c) Made some alternative mechanic that could make up for the lack of variety inherent in the system. Utilities that everybody could use? Focus more on movement-mechanics? Anything, really, that added immediate tactical variety.

d) Made the game is easier (which I would actively oppose ).

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Yes, it seems good so far.

Now get back to work before you decide to reinvent the wheel over somebodies rant.

 

[hiver]

Grunker






- seeing how i dismissed and dismantled each and every one of those nonsensical "suggestions" and how you repeat your preference on party controlled games over and over and accuse the whole system of AoD being wrong based on your failure to understand it fully...

i have nothing else to say that this emoticon doesnt cover sufficiently.

 

[Grunker]

Infinitron: Please note that the following games are not examples of games with GOOD combat, they are examples of solo character games with more tactical variety DURING PLAY (i.e. not in character generation) than AoD:

Soloing Baldur's Gate, the original Neverwinter Nights series, Bloodlines (yes, dead serious, you have a large variety of ways to tackle stuff - the combat engine being bad doesn't mean you don't have plenty options in it), Redemption, The Witcher, Deus Ex, Fallout (more skill points meant you could utilize different parts of the combat system at all times)

I could mention more, if you wanted me too. Now, the guiding star for these games are that they're all easier than AoD, further nullifying the need for additional options.

 

[Infinitron]

Infinitron: Please note that the following games are not examples of games with GOOD combat, they are examples of solo character games with more tactical variety DURING PLAY (i.e. not in character generation) than AoD:

Soloing Baldur's Gate
The Witcher
Fallout

(Soloing Baldur's Gate with a magic user perhaps)

 

[Johannes]

Helton, you act as if everyone who complains about the combat here does so because they don't get how to play it.

But the problem really is that it just isn't very interesting. It's slight variations of hitting the enemy over and over again. Whether you're good at seeing which attack is the best for a given situation, doesn't make the actual process more exciting, just gives you better results.
Also it's just too random, the same encounter doing exactly same moves can end up in both a solid victory or a fast defeat depending on RNG - like someone said that nets' accuracy was at best around 50% without throwing skill, that's just too damn unreliable for a game-changing attack, forcing you to reload half the time (or if you can do the battle without a succesful net throw, why use one in the first place?).

Me, I think I'm pretty decent at seeing what attack has the best expected damage output, but that doesn't still make calculating that fun.

 

[Grunker]

Infinitron: Please note that the following games are not examples of games with GOOD combat, they are examples of solo character games with more tactical variety DURING PLAY (i.e. not in character generation) than AoD:

Soloing Baldur's Gate
The Witcher
Fallout

(Soloing Baldur's Gate with a magic user perhaps)

Obviously a magic user. Didn't think I'd need to clarify that. Please make a case for The Witcher having less tactical options DURING play than AoD, I'd love to hear it. It might have more than any other on the list, actually. Fallout might fit your bill, if you willfully only use skill points for a single weapon group and never pick combat-related perks. Then it has roughly the same.

 

[hiver]

most of them are all made for a single playthrough.
Even if that was not the intent thats how they turned out.

those that provide some fucking reason to go through them again - do so by limiting availability of different skills and content depending on them.

 

[Helton]

Helton, you act as if everyone who complains about the combat here does so because they don't get how to play it.

Nigga stop right there. I've responded to one person with regard to AoD criticism. Both his criticism and my response were very specific to tactical variety. I'm not fielding any and all complaints from random malcontents on the internet. You think the combat is boring. What exactly do you want me to say to that? It reflects badly on your character?

Well it does. Grow a pair or fuck off. What are you doing on this website anyways? Don't you like RPGs?

And stop all the RNG whining there are people who iron-maned the combat demo.

 

[Helton]

Redemption

Could have sworn it was party based.

 

[Infinitron]

Please make a case for The Witcher having less tactical options DURING play than AoD, I'd love to hear it.

I suppose you could say that is has roughly the same amount of tactical options as AOD. They're just easier and quicker to pull off because the game is a fairly simple real time clickfest.

 

[Grunker]

Helton: When I played it I couldn't control my party-members, but looking it up on Wiki that might actually have been a bug

No wonder that game was so damned tough for me.

Please make a case for The Witcher having less tactical options DURING play than AoD, I'd love to hear it.

I suppose you could say that is has roughly the same amount of tactical options as AOD.

Are you kidding me? The differences between stances and using signs might amount to roughly the same as switching weapons and attack types, but there are a fuckton of different potions that do very different things. Are they somehow excluded from tactical variance in your eyes?

They're just easier and quicker to pull off because the game is a fairly simple real time clickfest.

The game being easy and quick has nothing to do with the base amount of options.

 

[Grunker]

Don't you like RPGs?

sothisiswhatithascometo.jpg

 

[Infinitron]

Are you kidding me? The differences between stances and using signs might amount to roughly the same as switching weapons and attack types, but there are a fuckton of different potions that do very different things. Are they somehow excluded from tactical variance in your eyes?

I don't feel that the potions significantly change the way you fight in the game. They're just buffs. Same with oils, they just give you a bonus to hitting some kind of monster for the most part. Bombs are an extra tactical option, though.

Anyway, remember we haven't seen AOD's alchemy skill yet.

 

[Grunker]

True.