PoE > The Witcher 3 > Fallout 4
Deal with it.
mhmmm dats da troof
>>321010563
Is Pillars that good? How voiced is it? Is it like Neverwinter Nights with side quests not getting full speech?
How many game awards did that isometric-garbage PoE and FailOut 4 win?
Remind me please, I can't recall it over Witcher 3 winning all the awards and GOTY 2015.
>>321010924
Not very voiced at all. Important dialogue and a lot of companion dialogue is though, voice acting ranges from slightly above mediocre to great.
So far I'm enjoying it but I can see its flaws. Not getting XP from killing trash mobs is retarded, XP shouldn't just be from quests and playing as a pacifist is impossible in this game anyways.
Combat is good in my opinion, but has issues. Your backline gets fucking raped by some enemies because your tank and offtank are finicky with aggro, and some enemies just rush the back. Combat is a lot of micromanagement but its less stressful when you turn combat mode to slow and just do it. The character AI is stupid for combat, so you;re kind of forced to micromanage. Other than that the combat is good though, good variety of spells.
Loots shit. This isn't a loot type of game. I think thats a negative, because even though the games story-oriented they needed more unique armor and weapons in it. There's still cool shit to be found, but I feel like it will get less frequent.
Story is good in my opinion but that's really contested on here and I'm not done. The actual story is just okay but the world-building is surprisingly decent imo and I think the world is pretty interesting. What sucked me in was the Dyrwood rebellion stories, but some might think its generic or something. I think the writing can be pretentious and is all over the place ranging from mediocre to great.
Some characters are written extremely well and others aren't. Avellones characters such as Durance has great dialogue though.
All in all so far its a 7.5/10, very enjoyable but no BG2. Better than every 'revival' cRPG I think but I haven't played Underrail. I recommend a pirate.
>>321010924
Also, classes are unbalanced and Ciphers and Barbarians are legit rape-tier.
>>321011471
>>321011729
Cheers for the mini review man. I'll definitely play it when I have time.
![header[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1m4GGpd.jpg "header[1].jpg")
AoD> Witcher 3>Shadowrun HK>PoE>Fallout 4
>>321010563
PoE = shitty 2d isometric indie game with a uninteresting plot, horrid combat, and boring lore.
I can't believe how many people actually liked this game. Going through all the dialogue sequences was incredibly time consuming.
>>321012018
Never even heard of AoD. I'll throw it in the wishlist.
this game is so shit it needs constant obsishills to sell
you're in one of their threads, don't believe it when they praise it
>>321012204
Hello sonycuck : )
>>321012195
The first game in a while that made me feel like I was adventuring through a dangerous world.
Shits on most isometric RPGS that have been coming out today.
Is way above and beyond PoE in terms of writing.
>>321012240
if i was a sonycuck i would already have praised bloodborne and posted goldenfaces.
You still are an obsidrone and probably a shill
>>321012374
Really? I'm going through PoE rn and enjoying it but I have some questions. I'm >>321011471
1. I've heard the writing and plot is better and the world seems far less generic than PoE, so thats a plus. How are companions?
2. I've heard the combats shit. Is it really that bad?
3. Is there good loot and a sense of armor/weapon character progression?
Cheers m8
>>321012170
I agree PoE is overpraised but
> Going through all the dialogue sequences was incredibly time consuming.
I have a feeling you're not a big player of cRPGs. PoE isn't text heavy more or less compared to BG2, but if you find lore and writing garbo I can understand how its a drag.
Pillars of Eternity is boring as shit. And this is coming from an Obsidian fan that even loves NWN2 and absolutely adores Planescape Torment, Mask of the Betrayer and Fallout New Vegas.
>>321012780
this too
stay away from it
>>321012018
What about this game? Everyone talks about him, but look really boring.
>>321013027
maybe rpgs are not your thing?
>another WRPG with SJW pandering
It has become a meme at this point.
>>321012576
It's not party-based like PoE, so I can't say much about the companions.
The writing is better than PoE on a technical aspect. It's less wordy and pretentious while still being descriptive and fun.
The combat is similar to Dwarf Fortress, but obviously not AS intricate. Because of this, it can be steep to learn.
The game shines in the fact that you can have playthroughs that are entirely non-combat. You can both talk yourself into and out of dangerous situations and gain money and prestige by getting shit done through your wits alone.
Correct, OP
>>321012018
Age of Decadence is fucking awful.
I can forgive it's garbage graphics and poor transitions, but the indie quality maps and map navigation, the boring, simplistic and repetitive boring combat system and the atrociously clunky interface I cannot stand.
It seriously plays like a game released in 1990 and I'm sorry, but that shit just doesn't fly. It took 7 years to develop and this was the best they could come up with, fucking embarrassing.
The writing may be excellent (I cannot confirm or deny, did not go far enough into it), but everything around is is awful. Pretty much every other CRPG released this year is much better than this piece of shit.
>>321013201
>having gay people and girls as important characters is SJW pandering.
Man it really isn't. PoE doesn't shove anything in your face that other RPGs have sort of been going towards, like females doing unfemalelike shit like fighting with sword and board. There's a book about lesbian mages thats totally irrelevant but that's legit all I can think of SJW-like.
>>321013396
>I paid no attention when the game warned me that it's not about fighting
>I tried to play it like Diablo and got my shit kicked in, then quit after 2 hours
Thank you for sharing your experiences, anon.
Why is everything after act 2 so bad? Other than greiving mother and the dragon at the temple
>>321012018
Age of Decadence was pretty shit too. Stop trying to have such shit tastes. Being into obscure 2d indie titles and hating popular games doesn't make you "unique," you goddamn hipster, it makes you look like a douchebag
>>321013689
>playtime: 0.4 hours.
>>321010563
>Shitty Baldrs Gate
>Good
>>321013606
If the game isn't about fighting, then why does it have a combat system? And a repetitive boring one at that?
Why let you spec a character into fighting if "the game isn't about that"?
>>321013425
This. I still don't get people calling things like PoE and New Vegas "SJW games" because of Arcade or Veronica or whoever else, especially since they are perfect examples of how gay characters SHOULD be written into a story, as characters like any other, with actual traits besides "Hi, I'm gay!"
>>321013679
The hell you talking about, nigga? Twin Elms is great. The cultists are great. The final boss is awesome (although the last dungeon was boring)
>>321013912
>I pressed a button and something awesome DID NOT happen!
>Why did the game allow me to be bad/stupid?
Here you go, senpai. A game much more suited to your patrician tastes.
>>321013747
Yup, and I returned that piece of shit indie trash. Play a more enjoyable RPG instead....um, idk, like Mass Effect or Dragon Age Origins? Steam seems to be polluted with so much indie trash these days and not enough AAA games. Such is the fate of PC gaming
![dragon_age_inquisition1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QtfSfIy.jpg "dragon_age_inquisition1[1].jpg")
>>321014076
Forgot picture.
>>321011471
>overall positive review
>recommend piracy
>of a crowdfunded game for a niche market from a minor studio
Fuck off out of here.
>>321014076
Not who you're replying to but you sound like a condescending faggot.
I appreciate good writing and story, and also the fact that the game can be played through wit/dialogue. But you're talking as if the optimal route, which is wit I guess according to the shit combat system, makes it more 'patrician'. That just means its legit going into VN tier, no matter how good the writing is.
>>321014076
>LOL THIS GAME THAT SUCKS CAN HAVE A TERRIBLE REPETITIVE AND BORING COMBAT SYSTEM BECAUSE THIS OTHER GAME THAT SUCKS HAD A MINDLESS ACTION BASED COMBAT SYSTEM
Kill yourself
>>321014006
puke.jpg
Are you fucking kidding me?
Fucking obsidrones
Twin Elms was the most rushed piece of garbage of the game.
And the game itself is a rushed piece of garbage
>>321014227
I pirated the game liked it then bought it. A lot of people pirate games then buy them, and some people like trying out a game first. I'm not one to judge, and if the OP isn't going to play the game anyways he might as well pirate it and enjoy it and spread the good word.
Stop being a retarded faggot
Are there any mods or fanmade balance patches that fix the horrendously broken combat?
>>321014264
>Game tells you " This game is not about fighting people. Try to be smart" as soon as you press "New Game"
>>321014264
Exactly, Age of Decadence would be a much better game as a CYOA or a VN. The combat is terrible, the exploration is awful, the UI is atrocious. And of course, the graphics are garbage.
The game only shines when it's on it's railroaded dialogue segments.
>>321010563
I wanted to enjoy PoE so badly, but it was just such a letdown on so many levels. Enjoyed Legend of Grimrock 2 a fuck of a lot more. Divinity: Original Sin, too.
Fuck pause-based combat.
>>321014465
How the fuck does that warning excuse a shit combat system?
>the game tells me to probably not use combat and use dialogue instead, and it also has an objectively mediocre combat system. this restricts me to mostly playing as an intelligent witty smoothtalker but somehow makes this game more 'patrician'.
You're retarded.
>>321014413
>A lot of people pirate games then buy them
Fuck is there anything worse than a teenager convincing himself that he's a smart and discerning consumer to justify pirating games that he'll then probably conveniently forget to pay for because he can't count on mommy loosening the purse strings.
>>321014726
What is bad about the combat system?
>>321014465
Actually, the game tells you the following:
>For some players, the age of decadence is a HARD GAME. Although combat may seem impossible, it merely takes a while to master. Even a single opponent can be extremely challenging and a single mistake can prove fatal.
Hard and Challenging does not mean Repetitive, Boring and Garbage. It also does not say "DON'T FIGHT PEOPLE", it says "DON'T FIGHT PEOPLE UNLESS YOU WANT A CHALLENGE"
>>321013396
Just pump up strength, dex, and vit then use dodging and daggers if you wanted to be mckillface.
>>321014893
That may make combat easier, it does not make it any less boring and repetitive.
>>321014857
>RPG combat is bad because it's repetitive
There are other genres for exciting combat, casual-kun.
>>321014381
I don't think PoE is garbage but its definately rushed, especially in the third act
I'm gonna go into the fire and say Sword Coast Legends is a good CRPG, too.
I know people shat on it when it came out but I've heard it a lot has been fixed and there's a good D&D modding community around it now.
>>321014983
Which crpg, or really any game does not have repetitive combat?
>>321015010
Fuck off.
Divinity: Original Sin is an example of excellent combat. Even Pillars of Eternity has much better combat than Age of Decadence. Underrail as well, Serpent in Staglands. Lords of Xulima, Wasteland 2
Age of Decadence gets no excuses. All games released in the exact same year had better combat than that trash and were way more entertaining.
>>321014783
>assumptions: the post
Okay bud
>>321015162
All boring repetitive combat.
Divinity especially since it took forever.
>>321015010
>There are other genres for exciting combat, casual-kun.
The fucking irony. RPGs are up there in the most casual genres list.
>>321012018
>AoD
Talk about buyer's remorse. I think it's great that there are options other than fighting, but frankly the fighting that is in the game is absolutely appallingly bad. I dropped it after doing the tutorial and first real fight cause it was just so dull.
>>321015143
It's just a Diablo clone that you can pause if you really want to.
>>321015259
he's just trying to shill for POE
have pity on him, a man gotta work
>>321015143
So does it actually have D&D combat system now or is it still just a hack and slash
>>321015340
Nope.
>>321015146
Repetitive yes. I thought AoE combat was shitty though.
It's unfair but compare BG2 combat to the crpg revival combat systems.
>>321015162
It's okay to be casual, anon.
No need to be upset. Isn't there a new Assassins Creed game out for you to enjoy?
>>321015361
The latter.
>>321015273
But every other game has combat way better than Age of Decadence, so it's a fucking joke to defend Age of Decadence because it's a RPG, when half a dozen RPG's released in the same year have way better combat, graphics, U.I. and map navigation.
Not to mention, the post in question actually ha the fucking gall to claim it was the best RPG of the year. What a fucking joke.
>>321011471
good review. I disagree with a couple of points but it's much better than the usual "it's shit" reply
>>321015416
>Underrail
>Serpents in Staglands
>Lords of Xulima
>Casual
Age of Decadence fags, everyone. People that pretend they like RPG's while they actually merely want visual novels.
>>321010563
While I agree with you, OP, you need to realize that Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 are more friendly for the masses/casualized (and I don't mean that in a 'filthy fucking casual' sort of way; it's adapting to how most people enjoy gaming nowadays. That's fine.)
Majority of people will put those other two above PoE.
>>321015361
Pillars of Eternity is the best CRPG released since Mask of the Betrayer.
Although I have yet to play Underrail, so maybe that will change my mind on the matter.
Ignore any and all Age of Decadence posters, they're straight from RPG Codex and are only interested in naming the games that make them look like the biggest hipsters possible. Age of Decadence is a really bad game, as >>321013396 explains
What's wrong with AoD combat? Encounter design is solid throughout and there's plenty variety in regards to weapons, items, and what you can do with both.
>>321015143
>free weekend
>drop it right after the tutorial section
It feels incredibly clunky and had a number of "wat" elements that honestly confused me. I instantly understood why it had a free weekend (to gain more exposure since it clearly doesn't seem to be selling well). I really didn't enjoy it and had a poor time.
>>321014006
I agree with the Twin Elms comment, but I wasn't a fan of the antagonist
![s35464_nds_2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hVlQgRT.jpg "s35464_nds_2[1].jpg")
>>321015612
>Wow! What is this shit?
>All I can do is choose a word and watch some numbers!
>This is for people that want to play visual novels?! Where is the real rpg combat?!
>>321015771
>Pillars of Eternity is the best CRPG released sinc
I'm sorry mr but by my calculations DOS still exists
>>321015781
>What's wrong with AoD combat
Really slow and repetitive, boring, plays like Fallout 1 (not 2)
Compared to every other CRPG released this year and the past few, like Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity, Lords of Xulima, Serpents in Staglands and especially Divinity: Original Sin, it's a complete fucking joke.
>>321015162
what makes AoD combat bad? honest question, I haven't played it
>>321016118
>Wasteland 2
You're kidding, right? W2 had fucking atrocious tRPG combat. It was entirely mindless, horribly unbalanced, and even more repetitive than AoD, even with all the changes made in the DC.
>>321016117
I really really fucking like Divinity: Original Sin's combat system, I think it might just be the best combat system in any Western RPG ever.
But everything else about that game is mediocre to bad. In writing, world building, art design, characters and storyline, Pillars of Eternity is a thousand times better than Divinity: Original Sin
The perfect game for me would be Pillars of Eternity writing and flavor with Divinity: Original Sin's combat system. That could be one of the best RPG's ever.
PoE was pretty bad. Bland setting, bad plot, boring cast, awful combat, godawful graphics (d:os is a much better looking game). This is coming from a huge fan of BG1, BG2 and PS:T. I also pledged $100 to the kickstarter. Just a fucking awful game.
>>321016138
When you push a button something AWESOME doesn't happen.
You have to watch the same attack animation over and over when you fight.
There's like, a bunch of gay ass numbers you have to pay attention to. (I already look at numbers at school all day.)
>>321016308
Chris Avellone is on board with Original Sin 2
We might be getting something special
>>321016279
Yeah, I didn't like Wasteland 2's combat, Age of Decadence is honestly somehow even worse. It's even slower, clunkier and more weightless.
>>321011471
Divinity Original Sin is the best revival cRPG.
And most of /v/ agrees with me, I wish I had that strawpoll we took.
>>321016417
AoD's combat is definitely better than W2's, both mechanically and in how it's utilized.
>>321016368
>M-m-m-my combat is not s-s-s-shitty, y-y-you're j-j-j-just a c-c-c-casual
I beat Lords of Xulima on Hardcore. Lords of Xulima is a hundred times more complex than Age of Decadence is.
You can keep making these terrible excuses for Age of Decadence all you want, it's very amusing.
>>321016428
I've found Pillars to be a more hated game. Some people don't like D:OS but don't go out of their way to shit on it, as many people do with PoE.
Despite both games having flaws, I enjoyed them in different ways.
>>321016673
Oh yeah? Did that game have enough sick explosions and finishers to keep your attention the whole time?
I'm very impressed, little buddy.
>>321016308
Have you played the Enhanced Edition or whatever its called? Does that ruin anything?
>>321016917
>He doesn't even know jackshit about Lord of Xulima
Age of Decadence fags, when will they learn? They think they're hot shit but they're just one small step above casuals, far enough to enter hipster territory.
>>321016368
>>321016917
This is hilarious. You're literally getting upset because some people on an online community don't like a certain game. You're literally resorting to falseflagging. How much are you getting paid?
>>321016917
He's right breh, AoD is pretty shit. Different strokes for different folks thou. Camera is the worst. Map navigation is pretty shit, just warp to different locations. Dialogue is good. Combat is shit. Very little optionality to your character. You're either a killing machine, a politician, or a merchant. If you try to make a hybrid you're fucked.
Also, Shadowrun HK is dog shit. All the shadowruns made by Cliffhanger are dog shit. If you've ever played Shadowrun on the genesis you'd know why.
>>321017146
Hey man
I liked AoD and I agree that guy is a fag, he doesn't represent us
>>321016673
>>321016917
>>321017146
stop fighting, children
>>321017085
Enhanced edition has greater difficulty modes that are much more challenging.
Also fucking disgusting thread where retards call utter drivel acceptable, PoE was one of the worst games of 2015 with absolutely no redeemable qualities, literally every single aspect of the game was either mediocre or downright awful, and in these threads it shows, nobody is able to name a single excellent thing, and instead default to "the writing is good" while it's the most horrid drivel I had the displeasure of consuming under the guise of good writing. Even ignoring the backer characters, even ignoring the lackluster setting, even ignoring the constant over use of descriptive prose for uninteresting detail (like describing the color of someones eyes in two distinct ways in the same. fucking. sentence.) the story is still a complete mess that fails at the extremely basic premise of explaining the characters motivations and expecting you to simply drag along a bunch of random misfits for god knows what reason in the hopes that them joining you in your deranged quest for the very thing that drove you to be a Watcher (hoping somehow the thing that made you "sick" in the first place will conveniently lead to the cure, which is retarded) is somehow reasonable and justified rather than utterly insane as first impressions imply them to be.
>Age of Decadence
>Decide to do combat playthrough
>Fight against an guy with poison sword
>Die
>Try assasin next
>Cornered by triarii
>Die
>Try thief
>Die
>Try non-lethal talker
>Fail persuasion check
>Die
>10/10 would do again, best game ever
>>321019302
put everything into dodge
>>321010563
Is the Witcher 3 actually a good RPG? I haven't bothered with the Witcher series since the first part and what I've seen of the Witcher 2 didn't seem all that great to me.
>>321019584
>Is the Witcher 3 actually a good RPG?
No, it's poorly written in many places (people will quickly jump to tell you the few places that were acceptably written and tell you it was amazing though) and there's not a lot of roleplaying to be done, it's your standard ARPG fare of "go here and kill 5 bearwolfbirds to accomplish thing" and most of it has little relevance to the world as a whole.
It also has a very limited set in terms of combat diversity and dialogue is all very rigid, drones will tell you that it's because Geralt is an established character in an established setting (sounds like it's just Drizztfags again with their faggotry, doesn't it?) but ignore the fact that the story (and writing for that matter) is literally fanfiction so the excuse is as vapid as it gets.
>>321019584
It's a good modern action RPG by modern RPG standards. That may or may not mean much knowing its competitors.
>>321016428
DivOS comes with its own problems. The combat system is great but sadly the game doesn't do anything besides it. Also, I found it a bit boring to play the game with anything but mages, since essentially what the game excels at is modifying the environment for the various effects. However, the plot and dialogue was a bit weak, and when it came to role playing choices the game didn't have much to offer. Also, I disliked the strict multiplayer focus, I think I would have found the game a bit boring had I not played it co-op. Not to mention that the two-player dialogue system although interesting didn't work out that well. Not to mention that the loot system was pretty bad and there were no memorable items.
It's still a very good game for the combat alone, but overall it reminded me more of Diablo than of "proper" RPGs.
>>321019950
That's the impression I've gotten. I played the first Witcher and it did have some interesting quests, choices, consequences, etc. - however, what bothered me was how tedious the combat felt. I could never bring myself to replay the game. Also, it bothered me how the player didn't get to define his character, it would have been more interesting to play the game as someone else than an established character, even though they had the whole Amnesia thing going on.
>>321020243
That's honestly the biggest problem with the Witcher games, Geralt brings the entire story down because he's a static brick, while the setting might be interesting you can't ever capitalize on it because no, you're an edgy sword-wielding faggot that cannot maintain a consistent set of morals because the illusion of player choice generally ends up contradicting what the developer wants him to be.
>>321012018
I see a lot of people mentioning AoD, but the real question is does it actually require skill, or is it just another RPG I can spreadsheet out and win?
>>321020470
RPGs have never been about "skill". In RPGs the player makes the decisions but the decisions are executed by the player character who may be skilful or not. Certainly it takes a certain amount of skill to make the "proper" decisions for your character, but a proper decision must not necessarily be one that results in greatest success, since even failure can result in interesting storytelling. RPGs are more storytelling sandboxes to interact with rather than games to show off your leet skills.
The fact that you can min/max a character for maximum success is completely besides the point, since doing that won't allow you to experience all of the game, which in the case of Age of Decadence for example only manifests if you play it multiple times with multiple characters who may or may not be able to achieve all they set out to do.
>>321020470
"Skill" in an RPG always ends up coming down to your ability in areas of simple reading comprehension, patience and reasoning.
No one in their right mind would describe an RPG as "hard" unless the writing is particularly dense or nonsensical. "Challenging" or "tedious" are much more fitting descriptions, but difficult? I've yet to see an RPG that fits the term.
I got this during the GoG Winter sale, is there anything I should know before hand, like tips & tricks?
I like deep RPGs but I don't like building my characters into being useless.
>>321013396
>>321013689
Age of Decadence is design wise among the greatest RPGs ever made. Only Torment rivals AoD when it comes to dialogue based role playing.
>>321015320
Combat in AoD is great. Despite involving only a single character it has quite a lot of depth, I'd definitely recommend you to give it another try.
>>321020980
You can respec for a small fee that increases exponentially as you level.
>>321020980
Put everything in power, the rest are mostly useless.
Also play on the easiest difficulty, combat is never interesting on the hardest difficulty and it's entirely pointless (no exp, loot is worthless) and there is far, far too much of it (not to mention you need to run all the way back to an inn to recover health, which you cannot restore in any other way) so tedium is the name of the game here.
I'd honestly recommend not wasting your time on this drivel, but if you do, just don't bother with the shit combat.
>>321021224
>I'd honestly recommend not wasting your time on this drivel, but if you do, just don't bother with the shit combat.
That's good advice. I recently played another similar game as a paladin like class so I wanted to roll a druid for this. So focus on power, play on normal, save scum often. Got it, thanks anon.
>>321012576
AoD's combat is great, but it's very unforgiving.
I'd imagine a lot of the people complaining got wrecked and ragequit.
I want to get into arcanum anons. Help me.
>>321020980
unless you're playing on the hardest difficulty, you can build your character almost any way you want. The stats system was specifically made so that pretty much any build is viable, so you're free to make the character you like
Divinity II: Dragon Knight Saga - worth playing?
>>321021649
Go magic for your first playthrough. Get a point in harm. That way you can breeze through if the combat gets tedious.
Other than that do what you want. Raise dead is a pretty neat way to deal with quests when you've killed a vital npc, just rez them and force them to give you the info.
>>321021072
>Combat in AoD is great
pic related
boring depth is worse than casual fun
all the mechanics seem in place but it's just too slow, not at all tactical since it's RNG heavy, and the system in general is just poorly contrived and badly balanced.
I get what they were trying to do, they just failed miserably at it.
>>321021776
The problem with magic character is that I feel the need to buff everyone.
>>321021541
AoD requires a lot of frustration tolerance but I agree that the game has great combat. It takes some time to realise that though, since it doesn't look that elaborate.
For a game where the player only controls a single character it has a surprising amount of depth. It's definitely a lot more varied than the first Fallout games in terms of tactical depth.
Especially spears have never been handled comparably well in my experience.
>>321019302
as a combat pc:
have points in str/dex/con/per. i'd recommend dex the most to a new player
get points in block OR dodge (dodge is better tho)
increase points in your chosen weapon skill (critical strike too if you want)
>opponent's armour is too high i'm not doing enough damage
Target torso and use power attacks. It will reduce his armor. Alternatively target his head if he's not wearing a helmet.
>doing too much damage to me
Target arms. Reduce their chance to hit.
>can't hit opponent
Target legs and use fast attacks. Also take advantage of nets/bolas to entangle your foe.
>general tips
Arterial strike is a great way of getting your opponent to bleed. Alchemy/crafting are great for a combat character. You can improve your weapons an armors with better cs, hit chance, etc. Stuff like acid (damage and reduce armor), fire (damage and crowd control), bombs (damage and knocks opponents) and poisons/potions are very very helpful. Try to take advantage of terrain to minimize the number of opponents hitting you. If using a dodge build pick armor that won't have much impact on your ability to dodge.
>There are people that actually put Pillars of Eternal Trash on par with older CRPG games.
The only nice thing I ever have to say about his game is that what is in the game is fairly polished and bug free, and the cipher is a neat class in concept. Everything in the game plays like garbage, the writing was mediocre but I guess above average for video games but bland as fuck and does nothing to make you care about exploring the world or their mostly generic setting. The only neat atmosphere I saw in the game was the lynching tree, and the blood pit. And god damn what a disappointment that bloodpit is when you actually break it down instead of just look at it superficially. Then they had a chance for a neat mechanic with the undead tower zombie girl and instead just made it A to B dialog options ruining all the flavor of it instantly.
Shit game and I'm sick of seeing obsidiots shilling it because they're desperate for more CRPG in their lives. Make an actual good CRPG and then call me.
Give me something AoD's story is comparable to.
Is it imaginative like Torment? Grand like BG2? Terrible but fascinating like KoTOR II?
>>321015143
>try sword coast legends
>use a trainer to max a character in single-player to try out some higher-level modules
>get VAC-banned
true story
>>321022034
>all the mechanics seem in place but it's just too slow, not at all tactical since it's RNG heavy, and the system in general is just poorly contrived and badly balanced.
People who say that haven't read their Clausewitz. RNG is the representation of what Clausewitz called the "Fog of War", the unknown in warfare which every general needs to accommodate for in his tactical and strategic planning. Warfare is not a game of chess, a game which involves no random element can never be a true war game.
If your character is subject to chance, then your build isn't robust enough. You've spread your points too thing. Your character is simply not made for fighting. If you play a fighter in AoD - a pure fighter - then every combat encounter is easy as hell, so the solution is: either pick your fights smarter or make a different build. The game is only hard for jack of all trades characters, then you need to pick your fights wisely and do things in order to maximise XP gain, but with pure fighters you shouldn't have problems at all - and keep in mind: most people in the AoD world who are fighters are pure fighters, they're not scholars who go around deciphering old texts.
As soon as you get Al Sahir's sword and armour, even low level fighters have it easy, and if you get the powered armour then the game becomes full easy mode.
Also it's not slow at all. Most combat encounters are resolved quite fast. Very much unlike Fallout for example which felt much more tedious in comparison.
>>321013606
You are fucking retarded and the other guy is right.
>>321010563
>text based RPG wins over non-text based RPG
Sorry bruh, it's not 1990 anymore
>>321022620
Mundane Roman pleb lifestyle in the beginning with some dark mystical shit towards the endgame. It's hard to compare because the game is more of a CYOA text adventure than a traditional RPG itself.
>>321022796
Ok, thanks anon.
>>321022093
That's fair.
>>321022620
AoD is not much of a personal story, its storytelling is more "in setting".
You have various NPCs in the world, some of them rulers, some of them heads of important guilds, etc. and they all have their own goals and motivations and try to achieve them.
Now the player comes in and based on his interactions with the world, things can play out differently. Some of the NPCs may die, some may achieve their goals, some may not.
By playing the game multiple times you get to know them, get to see how things play out for each of them and how the world develops.
That's the fun of AoD. It's less about personal motivation but more about seeing what happens to the world.
Also, it's interesting how the various quests intertwine and how depending on your choices you see the same situations from different perspectives playing out differently. Alpha Protocol comes to mind in that regard, but AoD is much more detailed, mostly due to a lot of it taking place in text.
>>321015361
>D&D combat system
>Turn base
>A system reliant on RNG
People like you deserve to be rounded out and killed.
>>321022663
Bullshit.
Also, as far as Pillars of Eternity goes, there are still a ton of gamebreaking bugs including disappearing characters/items, permanent save file corruption, and broken quest scripting. I'm guessing it will take at least a year (probably closer to 18 months) post-White March Part II before it's mostly stable. I hope modders can fix most of the stuff that goes un-addressed by Obsidian.
Wasteland 2 DC also has a ton of gamebreaking bugs months after release. I'm not touching Witcher 3 again until a few patches after the last expac hits. It seems like QA has just hit the skids these days.
>>321022665
fag
>people still shilling Age of Talking
>No romance
Dropped.
>>321010563
You know, I am actually inclined to agree with this. Carry on, OP. You have good taste
>>321022665
>If your character is subject to chance, then your build isn't robust enough
By that definition, literally no build is ever robust enough since it is conceivable that, by chance, an unarmed peasant can take down a fully-armored, specialized, and trained fighter.
>a game which involves no random element can never be a true war game.
This is absolutely nonsensical gibberish. There are dozens of ways to implement unknown and variable factors into games that don't involve direct RNG. Add to that the fact that RNG is wholly unacceptable for multiplayer and by no stretch of logic removes "true war game" status, as the human element is perfectly unpredictable.
>If you play a fighter in AoD - a pure fighter - then every combat encounter is easy as hell,
I never had a problem with winning, it was just boring.
>Also it's not slow at all.
It took me like 30 turns to resolve the first encounter against two guys. I even rerolled the character and minmaxed him to make him as accurate and as damaging as possible (retarded, autistic fighter type), and I was still missing 2/3 attacks (even using the weak fast attack or whatever it was). Maybe it gets better afterwards but at that point I was rolling my eyes so hard I just alt+f4'd and did something else.
Age of Decadence > Pillars of Eternity
yeah no thanks you can keep your reading simulator
All three don't mean shit to me.
>>321016340
i have never seen a person be so confident about so many wrong opinions.
>>321016340
>Bland setting, boring cast and awful combat
>This is coming from a huge fan of BG1
I suggest you immediately kill yourself, you fucking faggot. Stop trying to fit in.
>>321024456
>By that definition, literally no build is ever robust enough since it is conceivable that, by chance, an unarmed peasant can take down a fully-armored, specialized, and trained fighter.
It may happen but it is very unlikely. Go play a proper fighter build, give him Al Sahir's gear and go fight some random bandits. You'll see how effortlessly you mow down even ten men or more.
>This is absolutely nonsensical gibberish. There are dozens of ways to implement unknown and variable factors into games that don't involve direct RNG.
No, you can't. There are simply too many factors involved that are out of your immediate control. The art of war is always the art of risk estimation and the art of planning for the "if things go wrong".
>Add to that the fact that RNG is wholly unacceptable for multiplayer and by no stretch of logic removes "true war game" status, as the human element is perfectly unpredictable.
For a commander in war there are countless things that are outside his control and a commander needs to learn to accommodate for that. Prussia knew this and in the 19th century Prussian officers were educated playing tabletop war games which were developed by the Baron von Reiswitz. They used an element which was new to this sort of tactics and strategy game: dice.
What you look for is a sportive competition inside a controlled environment where nothing is left to chance. But real world warfare is nothing like that; it's not a game of chess. And a good commander needs to plan ahead of the "what ifs".
>I even rerolled the character and minmaxed him to make him as accurate and as damaging as possible (retarded, autistic fighter type), and I was still missing 2/3 attacks (even using the weak fast attack or whatever it was).
Would you mind telling me what your build was like? What stats, what weapons did you use, what equipment? You do realise that different types of weapons have different bonuses, different types of equipment have different maluses, etc.
jumping jacks > crying > eating soup > videogames > anime > The Force Awakened
>>321025502
Also I might add:
A combat system which does not use randomness but where every hit does a certain amount of constant damage will not only be incredibly boring, it will also be incredibly unrealistic.
Imagine you're fighting a man in armour: do you think you can consistently strike accurately enough that your attack will find a gap inside the armour, goes deep enough to wound, severe a tendon or even an artery? Perhaps chop the limb right off? No, in many cases a strike will glance off without harm. Fail to penetrate the padding, etc.
With constant damage, you can literally write a sequence of attacks that will lead you to success and deterministically solve every combat that way. With randomness you need to constantly adapt your strategy and tactics. You might instantly kill a certain enemy, you might receive an unlucky blow and have to relocate in order to survive what seemed like an easy fight at first, etc.
RNG adds tension, it doesn't make combat boring it makes it more exciting.
Obviously there are stupid ways to implement RNG; e.g. nobody wants this sort of thing in a game like Quake. But in an RPG that sets out to simulate something resembling real world combat it is a fitting device.
>>321025502
>No, you can't
Yes you can. You can randomize enemy types, positions, loadouts, environmental effects, aggression levels, morale, stats, etc.
>For a commander in war there are countless things that are outside his control and a commander needs to learn to accommodate for that.
This has nothing to do with my post whatsoever. In a PVP situation, the fact that the other player is a human is a perfectly acceptable level of what ifs to plan for. It's different on the tabletop when you can see every piece and every move, every unit's strength, but these are not applicable constraints in vidya. We don't need roundabout abstractions to simulate 'fog of war' when we can straight program in fog of war.
Real world warfare is also almost never symmetrical so you'd be hard-pressed to even name a single game that fit the criterion. Perhaps some Arma scenarios from the perspective of a dedicated commander maybe, and that has no RNG other than bullet spread.
>Would you mind telling me what your build was like? What stats, what weapons did you use, what equipment?
Ax, max strength, max ax skill. Tried dropping the armor and it did absolutely nothing other than give me a couple more action points to miss with.
>exp only from completing quests
literally why
>>321026543
>Yes you can. You can randomize enemy types, positions, loadouts, environmental effects, aggression levels, morale, stats, etc.
And you can randomise the chance to hit and the damage done.
>We don't need roundabout abstractions to simulate 'fog of war' when we can straight program in fog of war.
We do, because the systems we're talking about are way too complex to be simulated. Chance is a sufficient approximation.
>Real world warfare is also almost never symmetrical so you'd be hard-pressed to even name a single game that fit the criterion. Perhaps some Arma scenarios from the perspective of a dedicated commander maybe, and that has no RNG other than bullet spread.
ARMA is an FPS. In an FPS you don't want RNG because you're in charge of your character's action. The character skill is YOUR skill. In an RPG this is different, in an RPG the character skill is the character skill and you're the one making the decision. You're not in the position of your character, you're in the position of giving orders to your character which are executed by him as good as he can.
>max strength, max ax skill. Tried dropping the armor and it did absolutely nothing other than give me a couple more action points to miss with.
Well, different weapons have different stats they rely on. Spears and swords rely on dexterity. Axes rely on strength, etc. in order to determine the chance to hit. Weapon skill is also important and so is the presence of a defensive skill. Some weapons are used defensively more than offensively, different skills need to be used in order to maximise your chance to hit or minimising your chance of being hit. E.g. with some weapons it is wise to attack limbs to lower the chance to dodge or attack, with other weapons you want to keep a distance and use a passive skill for defence, e.g. spears, sometimes you want to rely on nets or bolas. The game gives you an incredibly range of tools - much more so than Fallout for example.
Also refer to >>321026476.
>>321026802
This is a good thing. Otherwise the player is rewarded for pointlessly seeking meaningless combat encounters.
RPGs should reward the player for progressing in the game, not for grinding.
>>321027061
>RPGs should reward the player for progressing in the game, not for grinding.
Then give diminishing returns (or none at all) for enemies of lower-equal level/difficulty, moron.
Completing in a quest leveling you up is silly compared to killing a fearsome beast that took all your cunning and strength to defeat.
>>321027353
Except for the part where killing a fearsome beast may be part of a quest you idiot.
Killing hogs in the forest over and over may not however.
>>321027431
>Except for the part where killing a fearsome beast may be part of a quest you idiot.
Is fighting a beast going to give you combat experience or is completing some dialogue going to give you combat experience?
>Killing hogs in the forest over and over may not however.
Then don't reward exp for killing the same enemies repeatedly, fucking moron, like I said.
Other games do this without a problem.
>>321027601
>Is fighting a beast going to give you combat experience or is completing some dialogue going to give you combat experience?
Both may give you experience. Whether that experience is converted to combat experience is a different issue and a relevant point: some games actually made such distinction, e.g. Gothic 3 rewarded you differently depending on "how" you've solved your quests.
Still, the point remains that a good RPG shouldn't reward the player for pointless actions but for progress. If you want to reward the player for killing a giant beast then make a quest for killing a giant beast and reward the player if he does so.
Generally rewarding the player for combat however only invites stupid powergaming.
>>321010563
All the weapons were boring shit that felt like nothing was unique because I could replicate about whatever "special" weapon was already in the game with my own crafting
>>321027884
I might add: different rewards opens a different can of worms though, since it invites one sided solutions.
Assume you only get combat experience for fighting, then in order to be capable as a fighter it would make the most sense to solve every quest fighting, i.e. pick fights wherever you can so you don't run into a fight in the future you may unable to avoid and get into a dead end.
Gothic 3 solved the problem by rewarding general experience in addition to quest bonuses, which may be a raise of strength or vitality for fighting, or a raise of mana for being diplomatic, etc.
>>321011471
Why does everybody reviewing this game ignore the flood of kickstarter backer characters that drown out plot relevant characters?
They're so damn obtrusive that they really harm the experience.
>>321027884
>a good RPG shouldn't reward the player for pointless actions but for progress
Your definition of a good RPG is completely arbitrary, and progress is measured through actions taken by the player, unless your RPG is a movie.
>Generally rewarding the player for combat however only invites stupid powergaming.
Diminishing returns alone negates this problem.
Killing a thousand hogs could only result in the exp given by killing a few hogs.
Your opinion is moronic and nonsensical, likely motivated by some misguided form of elitism.
>>321028294
>Your definition of a good RPG is completely arbitrary
I've given you the proper reasoning: if you reward the player for actions, then how are you going to prevent that it's a good idea in your game to run around and kill hogs all day or do other pointless crap? In Morrowind I ran and jumped everywhere in order to get my stats up. How does that sort of design not invite and reward retarded player actions? Clearly it's not a good idea to generally reward the player for in-game actions but it's much better to reward the player for progress.
>progress is measured through actions taken by the player, unless your RPG is a movie
No, progress can be well defined as the completion of objectives. A game as a fixed amount of quests that can be completed, and in doing so the player approaches completion. Once he's done with all quests, he has completed the game.
>Your opinion is moronic and nonsensical, likely motivated by some misguided form of elitism.
If it is moronic, how come you're unable to refute it in an analytical fashion and instead stumble haplessly around it?
>>321028794
>if you reward the player for actions, then how are you going to prevent that it's a good idea in your game to run around and kill hogs all day or do other pointless crap?
I have given you the solution 3 times now.
Read or die, you fucking miserable excuse for a human being.
>>321029048
What solution? Your retarded idea of rewarding the player only for killing a certain amount of hogs? That is still going to result in the player pointlessly hunting for hogs to the point where they don't give experience any more. And then he continues with dogs, cows, goblins, etc.
The fact that you're unable to understand this only proves my point that you're a subhuman who can't think further than two steps ahead.
>>321029303
>only for killing a certain amount of hogs
I never said nor implied that, you fucking piece of shit.
Fuck you.
>That is still going to result in the player pointlessly hunting for hogs to the point where they don't give experience any more. And then he continues with dogs, cows, goblins, etc.
Even in games without diminishing experience gains, this only happens to a small number of players.
Perhaps the story or characters are so seriously lacking as to not drive the character forward on their journey?
There are plenty of limitation you could impose to make this unfeasible (such as having players expend valuable time or money buying supplies, that is not refreshed from killing dogs and cows)?
Or better yet, have character progression that isn't strictly level based, having equipment or skills not gained through experience points play a greater role.
After all, why would a character learn a new skill from fighting the same hog a thousand times?
>>321029759
>There are plenty of limitation you could impose to make this unfeasible (such as having players expend valuable time or money buying supplies, that is not refreshed from killing dogs and cows)?
The Gothic series didn't generally respawn anything. You could literally genocide the whole world. The problem was: after a certain point the world was empty and boring looking. Respawns would only happen after certain goals were achieved, e.g. a certain part of the main quest was solved.
Not that great of a solution in my opinion.
>Or better yet, have character progression that isn't strictly level based, having equipment or skills not gained through experience points play a greater role.
This on the other hand is a good idea, I'd be all in favour of that. However, what would these skills be tied to if not progress in the form of completing quests, e.g. joining a certain faction and getting access to a teacher who teaches you a certain skill? I don't see how that is related to giving out experience for killing hogs.
>After all, why would a character learn a new skill from fighting the same hog a thousand times?
That is my line of reasoning.
I'm arguing: in the end, killing hogs, or killing anything is something done for the purpose of completing an objective. The player doesn't venture into the dungeon to kill the foozle but to retrieve the orb. In that regard why reward him for killing the foozle rather than rewarding him for retrieving the orb?
>>321030501
>Not that great of a solution in my opinion.
No shit, you fucking faggot, it has literally nothing to do with this conversation or any of my proposed solutions to your worst nightmare of allowing autistic people to grind monsters for shitty amounts of exp.
>I don't see how that is related to giving out experience for killing hogs.
By placing an emphasis on gaining skills more than levels/generic stats. Having more/better options in combat rather than being able to do a normal attack that does a bit more damage, which might not be viable against certain enemies or in certain situation.
>However, what would these skills be tied to if not progress in the form of completing quests
They can be tied to quests, which are nothing more than objectives in essence, as you would have to complete some objective(s) to get reward(s) in any game.
>That is my line of reasoning.
Is it? Exp gains result in new skills within the context of PoE, but it doesn't have to be that way, and probably shouldn't.
>The player doesn't venture into the dungeon to kill the foozle but to retrieve the orb. In that regard why reward him for killing the foozle rather than rewarding him for retrieving the orb?
Because the act of picking up an orb elevating your combat skills/stats doesn't make sense outside of using it as a piece of equipment.
Swinging a sword a thousand times vs picking an item up that a child could hold. Which one is more likely to train your strength?
>>321010563Path of Exile
>>321031050
>By placing an emphasis on gaining skills more than levels/generic stats.
How would this be any different from gaining levels/stats? Not to mention that perks and skills have been a thing since forever.
>They can be tied to quests, which are nothing more than objectives in essence, as you would have to complete some objective(s) to get reward(s) in any game.
Have you played Gothic 2? Because there you need to join a faction in order to have access to certain skills.
>Because the act of picking up an orb elevating your combat skills/stats doesn't make sense outside of using it as a piece of equipment.
I've already explained to you that tying experience or skill gain directly to in-game actions is a bad idea because it invites repetitive behaviour.
>Swinging a sword a thousand times vs picking an item up that a child could hold. Which one is more likely to train your strength?
If swinging a sword a thousand times makes my character good at swinging a sword then it would be a good idea for me to swing a sword around while running around all the time. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
In theory this may sound good, but in practice it results in the player jumping everywhere to raise acrobatics, running everywhere to raise speed, swinging a sword to raise sword, and doing all kinds of pointless shit in order to maximise skill gain.
If you reward the player only for completing in-game objectives, then all that pointless action isn't done.
What you don't seem to understand due to your lack of reasoning ability is that rewarding the player for completing objectives is an abstraction (which is done all the time in RPGs as you may realise if you think about it for a minute): you don't reward the player for picking up the orb, you reward the player for the entirety of what he has done up to the point of picking up the orb.
>>321031050
In addition to >>321031892
>If swinging a sword a thousand times makes my character good at swinging a sword then it would be a good idea for me to swing a sword around while running around all the time. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
>In theory this may sound good, but in practice it results in the player jumping everywhere to raise acrobatics, running everywhere to raise speed, swinging a sword to raise sword, and doing all kinds of pointless shit in order to maximise skill gain.
I might add: and if you limit the skill gain somehow, thus forcing the player to make a choice of how he solves his objectives, then you artificially limit the player in regards to his play style from the very beginning. A fighter will have to ALWAYS make the fighting choice, and it is only reasonable for him to do so because he may need the fighting skills in the future. A talker will ALWAYS have to make the talking choice since there is no guarantee he's not going to be confronted with a dialogue check he can't pass in the future and thus end up in an unwinnable combat encounter.
The problem is easily encountered in Mass Effect.
There, your dialogue skills are tied to your moral choices. If the player wants to be a good talker he MUST make one-sided decisions. Either go full Paragon or full Renegade or risk failing speechcraft checks due to not having maxed out his Paragon or Renegade score.
>>321032321
To elaborate on:
>if you limit the skill gain somehow, thus forcing the player to make a choice of how he solves his objectives, then you artificially limit the player in regards to his play style from the very beginning
This is different from a class choice.
E.g. a fighter may be bad at talking, but occasionally the player may want a peaceful way out rather than beat everyone up. But if his fighting skill depends on how many enemies he defeats, then there is no incentive for him to seek a peaceful way out, since only by fighting he can become better at fighting.
>>321019950
what a horrible thing to say. Especially to someone who doesn't know any better
>>321031892
>How would this be any different from gaining levels/stats?
Because it wouldn't be gained by grinding monsters, which, to you, is worse than death itself.
I'm giving you solutions to your autism.
>Not to mention that perks and skills have been a thing since forever.
Gained through leveling up, with grinding experience points, yes?
>Have you played Gothic 2? Because there you need to join a faction in order to have access to certain skills.
I could not care less about Gothic 2, and joining a faction is an objective like any other. A rose by any other name, etc.
>I've already explained to you that tying experience or skill gain directly to in-game actions is a bad idea because it invites repetitive behaviour.
I've already given several solutions to you how to curb that repetitive behavior, regardless of how many times you fucking ignore them.
Considering that every RPG is full of repetitive actions anyways, this is pretty much a moot point.
>If swinging a sword a thousand times makes my character good at swinging a sword then it would be a good idea for me to swing a sword around while running around all the time. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
What's wrong with getting good at swinging a sword by swinging a sword around? Maybe you shouldn't be a such a shitty game designer that every problem can be solved simply through swinging a sword around with basic attacks.
>but in practice it results in the player jumping everywhere to raise acrobatics
Killing enemies for diminishing gains is nothing like the shit you're comparing it to.
Just stop, you're a moron. Go ahead and grind to max level in EO1 on the first floor if it's so god damn easy to abuse systems that reward combat, idiot.
>you reward the player for the entirety of what he has done up to the point of picking up the orb.
Why not reward him for each significant step he has taken to obtain the orb? Why would you deny someone any experience if he does everything short of touching the MacGuffin?
>>321032321
>if you limit the skill gain somehow, thus forcing the player to make a choice of how he solves his objectives, then you artificially limit the player in regards to his play style from the very beginning.
Isn't this what you are proposing anyways? To stop free exp/skill gain? In your quest based system, you still have this exact same issue.
I've completed the quest and put my stat points into Strength and sword-swinging skill, looks like I'm not going to be able to talk the dragon into giving me his treasure anymore!
>>321032480
>But if his fighting skill depends on how many enemies he defeats, then there is no incentive for him to seek a peaceful way out, since only by fighting he can become better at fighting.
If he wants to seek peaceful resolutions, why not let him have a way to get better at speaking as well? This is only a problem in your theoretical shit system that only has plentiful rewards for sword swinging.
Want to get good at talking? Complete some objectives that make you better at it, same as sword swinging, or any other skill.
The only problem with such systems is when they fail to implement diminishing returns, or fail to impose resource limitations on such activity (like your dumbass jumping example).
>>321032564
>Gained through leveling up, with grinding experience points, yes?
That depends on the system. Grinding has never been that big of an issue in western RPGs since the content is usually limited by enemies not respawning and the things to do that would result in experience gain being overall limited.
>I could not care less about Gothic 2
You haven't played Gothic 2 yet you're trying to lecture people in a thread about RPGs?
>Considering that every RPG is full of repetitive actions anyways, this is pretty much a moot point.
It must not be that way. And as I said: it's less of a problem in western RPGs.
>What's wrong with getting good at swinging a sword by swinging a sword around? Maybe you shouldn't be a such a shitty game designer that every problem can be solved simply through swinging a sword around with basic attacks.
How are you going to prevent that the player becomes a jack of all trades?
>Why not reward him for each significant step he has taken to obtain the orb?
Because you'd have to define what a "significant step" is. It depends on the type of game and the game engine. Deus Ex only defined very big steps while the intermediate was up to the player. Do you sneak past the guard, do you kill the guard, talk to the guard to let you pass by?
Certainly you can define some steps that HAVE to be done, but then you're still back to the system of rewarding progress rather than actions.
>Why would you deny someone any experience if he does everything short of touching the MacGuffin?
Because that's his objective.
>>321010563
NV > 1 > 2 > sitting alone in an empty, unlit, windowless room > 3 > jamming forks into your eyes > getting waterboarded > 4
fite me
>>321033016
>I've completed the quest and put my stat points into Strength and sword-swinging skill, looks like I'm not going to be able to talk the dragon into giving me his treasure anymore!
Refer to what I wrote in >>321032480. Certainly if you've made a build to be a fighter then you cannot do certain things, and this is good. However, if you're awarded general experience for completing tasks, then there is no incentive to ALWAYS seek the most violent encounter in order to gain ability as a fighter.
The problem I see is that if you make the ability of the player dependent on what he does, then the player isn't independent in his moral choices any more, since he'll have to make these plot choices with his skill-gain in mind, on which his further progress may depend.
>If he wants to seek peaceful resolutions, why not let him have a way to get better at speaking as well? This is only a problem in your theoretical shit system that only has plentiful rewards for sword swinging.
The point is that not every peaceful resolution necessarily needs to require speechcraft. For example. Imagine you've rescued the princess from the dragon. Now you're back at her castle. In your system there would be an incentive for a fighter to rob the castle and kill every guard, since it would result in better fighting skills in addition to the monetary reward.
>Want to get good at talking? Complete some objectives that make you better at it, same as sword swinging, or any other skill.
The problem is that the amount of overall objectives is limited. And you don't want the player to be able to become a jack of all trades, otherwise your system would be boring and same-ish.
>>321033250
>since the content is usually limited by enemies not respawning and the things to do that would result in experience gain being overall limited.
Woah, then it sounds like you're complaining about a problem that by and large has already been solved.
>You haven't played Gothic 2 yet you're trying to lecture people in a thread about RPGs?
I'm not lecturing "people" I'm calling you out on being a retard. You could have played every single RPG ever made, that doesn't make your shitty points any more valid.
>It must not be that way. And as I said: it's less of a problem in western RPGs.
Western RPGs are full of repetitive actions too.
>How are you going to prevent that the player becomes a jack of all trades?
The game designer is god, you can limit the overall number of skill points a player can earn in the game, you could force them to specialize early on (class selection, skill tagging) or later in the game (paragon classes, etc.). You want to limit the number of skills a player can achieve proficiency or mastery in? Just fucking do it.
>Because you'd have to define what a "significant step" is. It depends on the type of game and the game engine. Deus Ex only defined very big steps while the intermediate was up to the player. Do you sneak past the guard, do you kill the guard, talk to the guard to let you pass by?
That's a good example of why having skills grow with usage is a good idea, you sneak past? You've gained some profiency with sneaking. You fought past? You gain combat proficiency, etc.
>Because that's his objective.
And it's idiotic. If the player teleported to the MacGuffin, why should he be granted combat skills or experience (besides through the good grace of the magic of the MacGuffin) compared to the player that fought a legion of skeletons and bears to get to it? Practice makes you better at a skill, not picking up random items.
>>321033695
>However, if you're awarded general experience for completing tasks, then there is no incentive to ALWAYS seek the most violent encounter in order to gain ability as a fighter.
Why would you gain skill at talking to people from defeating a great foe in mortal combat (the objective)? It doesn't make sense.
If you want to be good at talking on the side while being a fighter, just practice it or complete objectives related to that skill.
>then the player isn't independent in his moral choices any more, since he'll have to make these plot choices with his skill-gain in mind, on which his further progress may depend.
Interweaving moral choices with skill gain is your mistake. Why have them intertwined? A person can swing his sword to achieve great evil or great good, and a person can use a cunning tongue to achieve great evil or great good.
>Now you're back at her castle. In your system there would be an incentive for a fighter to rob the castle and kill every guard, since it would result in better fighting skills in addition to the monetary reward.
You would not, for a variety of reasons.
1. After a few guards, you will make no significant skill gains.
2. The game designer has made them immortal.
3. The guards have you relinquish your weapons upon entering the castle.
4. You will have opportunity to have the same quantity of skill gains if you do not attack the guards.
5. Give the player a good reason to not kill the guards and loot the castle.
6. An evil player would kill the guards even if they did not give exp or skill gain.
>The problem is that the amount of overall objectives is limited.
>And you don't want the player to be able to become a jack of all trades
These two are mutually exclusive (as there would be a limited number of experience), and as I said before, there are a dozen ways to prevent jack of all trades characters.
>>321033880
>I'm not lecturing "people" I'm calling you out on being a retard. You could have played every single RPG ever made, that doesn't make your shitty points any more valid.
If they're invalid, how come you're unable to refute them in a logical manner? Personally, I'm getting more and more the impression you have no idea what you're talking about.
>Western RPGs are full of repetitive actions too.
No. Bethesda games to a certain extent, but otherwise they're not, simply because the content is overall limited in the majority of them.
>You want to limit the number of skills a player can achieve proficiency or mastery in? Just fucking do it.
Sounds like a pretty bad idea, because that way you're going to have mages avoid defending themselves in close combat in order to not accidentally raise their melee skills and lose opportunity to raise their magic skills.
>That's a good example of why having skills grow with usage is a good idea, you sneak past? You've gained some profiency with sneaking. You fought past? You gain combat proficiency
Refer to >>321033695: if you reward specific actions you invite one-sided gameplay, because if the overall amount of actions that gain you skill is capped then the player is forced to make moral plot choices with his skill-gain in mind. e.g. actually fight the bad guys rather than intimidate them and thus be forced to kill people because otherwise he wouldn't gain combat skill.
>If the player teleported to the MacGuffin, why should he be granted combat skills or experience (besides through the good grace of the magic of the MacGuffin) compared to the player that fought a legion of skeletons and bears to get to it? Practice makes you better at a skill, not picking up random items.
Yes, that's my whole point. A player who used his magic skill to teleport past the obstacles should be rewarded in the same fashion as someone who haplessly fought countless enemies.
Deus Ex did exactly that. You only had to reach the objective.
>this thread
>>321034510
>Why would you gain skill at talking to people from defeating a great foe in mortal combat (the objective)? It doesn't make sense.
Because otherwise your system doesn't work for the reasons I've mentioned. Game design isn't just about realism.
>You would not, for a variety of reasons.
>1. After a few guards, you will make no significant skill gains.
You'd still gain experience, so it's in your interest to knock them out.
>2. The game designer has made them immortal.
The worst kind of game design and an utter sin.
>3. The guards have you relinquish your weapons upon entering the castle.
Even worse in an RPG because this forces a choice upon the player character.
>4. You will have opportunity to have the same quantity of skill gains if you do not attack the guards.
The player doesn't know at that point.
>5. Give the player a good reason to not kill the guards and loot the castle.
Like what? In an RPG, the most important thing is skill gain because that's what secures your survival. If a player does not need that sort of skill gain, chances are your game is too easy and unchallenging.
>6. An evil player would kill the guards even if they did not give exp or skill gain.
And my point is: it should be a moral choice alone. If you tie skill gain to moral choices by making skill gain dependent on in-game actions rather than the completion of objectives, then you invite this sort of behaviour.
>>321034747
>If they're invalid, how come you're unable to refute them in a logical manner?
I am refuting your points, your points are silly, and nonsensical.
You refuse to entertain the idea of diminishing returns even though many games use this concept.
>No. Bethesda games to a certain extent, but otherwise they're not, simply because the content is overall limited in the majority of them.
So you only swing your sword or cast the same spell a few times throughout the course of any given Western RPG? Give it a rest. You might say "Ahah! I have reached the 10th unique objective and touched the 10th MacGuffin!" but what did you do to get there? You swung your sword, you casted your spells and you walked. And you did so repeatedly.
>Sounds like a pretty bad idea, because that way you're going to have mages avoid defending themselves in close combat in order to not accidentally raise their melee skills and lose opportunity to raise their magic skills.
Then use a class system. Let players choose if they raise a skill once they have accumulated prowess in that field. Have them choose a specialization of their liking. Tag skills they wish to raise. So many solutions, you are narrow minded.
>if you reward specific actions you invite one-sided gameplay, because if the overall amount of actions that gain you skill is capped then the player is forced to make moral plot choices with his skill-gain in mind
Again, not true, if you design well and give players adequate opportunities to make gains in skills they want. Why do you keep bringing up moral plot choices? Why only let someone with fighting ability make a good/bad choice?
Skills give characters power, and power can be used for both good and bad things.
>Deus Ex did exactly that. You only had to reach the objective.
Deus Ex was a bit better in this regard because of the augmentations, which allowed you to make customizations without arbitrary skill point spending.
>>321035275
>I am refuting your points, your points are silly, and nonsensical.
You may believe that but it's not the case.
>So you only swing your sword or cast the same spell a few times throughout the course of any given Western RPG? Give it a rest. You might say "Ahah! I have reached the 10th unique objective and touched the 10th MacGuffin!" but what did you do to get there? You swung your sword, you casted your spells and you walked. And you did so repeatedly.
Under that premise any game is repetitive. However you've essentially destroyed your own point within your own reasoning by including the keyword "unique objective". Because that's what differentiates repetitive tasks from non-repetitive tasks. A unique objective may be reached by similar actions, but it's still unique and thus shows you a different side of the game, the plot, etc. - if it does not, then this is not an issue of a badly designed game, not a bad concept.
>Then use a class system. Let players choose if they raise a skill once they have accumulated prowess in that field. Have them choose a specialization of their liking. Tag skills they wish to raise. So many solutions, you are narrow minded.
The problem is still that you're forcing the player into one-sided gameplay here. Assume a rogue who sneaks around all the time. How is he supposed to defend himself if he has to fight after all? In the end, he must deliberately seek fights in order to be able to defend himself in later fights where he may not be able to sneak past every obstacle any more. Do you see the issue? It's what I've been telling for the whole time: if you tie in-game actions to skill gain, then you're inviting one-sided gameplay. It's the exact same shit with the Mass Effect Renegade/Paragon nonsense. The player HAS to always pick Renegade or always Paragon for otherwise he sucks as speechcraft.
Certainly you could introduce NPC trainers akin to Morrowind, but why include it at all? Why not make experience abstract?
>>321035070
>Because otherwise your system doesn't work for the reasons I've mentioned.
>Game design isn't just about realism.
Correct, but it should be at least somewhat logical in progression.
Killing a dragon lets you talk to people better? Fine in the context of finding treasure that augments that skill, not fine in the context of arbitrary skill points that you could put into woodworking for all it matters.
>You'd still gain experience, so it's in your interest to knock them out.
No it isn't, because it would be difficult, time consuming, and wouldn't leave you in a better position if you had trained with the knights in some spare time.
>The worst kind of game design and an utter sin.
Right after saying that game design isn't just about realism.
>Even worse in an RPG because this forces a choice upon the player character.
All RPGs force choices upon the character. There are no exceptions (save for tabletop RPGs, but this discussion is about video games).
>The player doesn't know at that point.
Only because you have not given them some indication.
>Like what? In an RPG, the most important thing is skill gain
You are the worst type of player, the min-maxing whore.
Why even play RPGs if you do not care for story, characters, plot, or anything of the like? Why not play a game that actually emphasizes player skill?
>And my point is: it should be a moral choice alone.
In the end it is sort of a moral choice, even if the guards do give you exp and loot, perhaps even more significant than if it was a purely aesthetic choice like you want it to be.
>>321035275
>Deus Ex was a bit better in this regard because of the augmentations, which allowed you to make customizations without arbitrary skill point spending.
Augmentations weren't tied to in-game actions though, they were tied to finding containers.
You could never fire a shot and still be a competent marksman.
>>321035887
>Killing a dragon lets you talk to people better? Fine in the context of finding treasure that augments that skill, not fine in the context of arbitrary skill points that you could put into woodworking for all it matters.
The point is that I'm completely on your side in that regard. I don't like the idea of rescuing cats from a tree and becoming a master swordsman from the experience gained.
However, I don't think tying skills to in-game actions is the way to go for the aforementioned reasons: the player is given an incentive to pick fights all the time to become a better fighter and at the same time his other skills would deteriorate. As combat is getting more difficult since the enemies are getting stronger players who didn't pick fights all the time will have a much harder time, perhaps run into a dead end. People who did pick fights will be completely useless at speechcraft and fail every check as they're getting more difficult.
If development is not deliberately controlled by the player by spending points on a sheet but by in-game actions, you're inviting an unholy amount of meta-game.
>>321035816
>Under that premise any game is repetitive.
Yes, games are repetitive, by their very nature.
I'm glad you're beginning to understand.
>A unique objective may be reached by similar actions, but it's still unique and thus shows you a different side of the game, the plot, etc.
The objectives are only unique aesthetically, I used the word sarcastically ("10th MacGuffin" did give you any indication of this?)
Also, it is to my understanding that you don't care about seeing a different side of the game, plot etc. Otherwise you would be capable of making a choice not to murder every guard for insignificant exp gain. Your value system is inconsistent.
>The problem is still that you're forcing the player into one-sided gameplay here. Assume a rogue who sneaks around all the time. How is he supposed to defend himself if he has to fight after all?
By training to fight, or through equipment/skill augmentation.
>In the end, he must deliberately seek fights
Not necessarily, a rogue might be trained to defend himself through a class skill or what have you.
If you deny him any opportunity to fight given his choices, why force him to fight? You don't have to do this.
> It's the exact same shit with the Mass Effect Renegade/Paragon nonsense. The player HAS to always pick Renegade or always Paragon for otherwise he sucks as speechcraft.
This is only a problem when you deny the player choice. Don't deny the player choice, and there will be no problems.
>>321035934
The point was your character wasn't solely defined through putting all your points into swimming.
>>321010563
could you try to compare more different games?
>>321036313
>the player is given an incentive to pick fights all the time to become a better fighter
Honestly, I don't see a huge problem with this, why be a master fighter who never fights? If you don't like fighting don't.
If you, as a game designer, let a player sneak through encounters, you need to have your game designed in a way that lets such a player progress.
But, this is important, have more depth to character than simple trained skills and stats. Let equipment allow players to perform neat actions. Allow stealth characters access to a vault that contains a relic that gives them a magical shield to augment their defense if they need it. Let warriors have unique dialogue options reflecting their mastery of warfare.
>If development is not deliberately controlled by the player by spending points on a sheet but by in-game actions, you're inviting an unholy amount of meta-game.
As if spending points on a character sheet isn't the biggest meta-game invitation of them all.
As long as there is gameplay choice that affects character abilities in someway, there will be meta-game, you silly idiot.
The term min-maxing came from games that let players freely allocate points.
>>321016428
>Divinity Original Sin is the best revival cRPG.
Because it's not a revival attempt in the first place. If anything it's pretty much what Divine Divinity was supposed to be before publisher mandated real-time combat. Larian was never interested in pandering to CRPG crowd of old and that's probably why DOS did so well. Also, co-op is genuinely fun as hell. Can't wait for the sequel and I just hope they benefit from having Avellone on board.
>>321036692
>The objectives are only unique aesthetically, I used the word sarcastically ("10th MacGuffin" did give you any indication of this?)
Then you must have played bad games. A good RPG may have you do similar things, but similar things for different reasons and with different interactions, outcomes, etc. Given the fact that you haven't even played Gothic 2 I'm not really surprised at this point though.
>By training to fight, or through equipment/skill augmentation.
That's the whole point: next to the actual progression in the game, i.e. complete objectives that bring him further to completion, the player is forced to "train". How is that not grinding?
>If you deny him any opportunity to fight given his choices, why force him to fight? You don't have to do this.
I don't deny him the opportunity to fight, I'm saying that the player may decide to not pick the opportunity to fight because he's good at sneaking. And he's only going to get better at sneaking because he's doing it all the time.
Now the player finds himself in a situation where he can't sneak past the enemy but needs to fight. What is he supposed to do?
In a conventional system, he could spend a few points on combat skills. But in your system he only ever gets better at sneaking, and once he runs into a point where he can't sneak for whatever reason, he's in a dead end.
In my opinion a conventional experience gain system may not be the aesthetic ideal, since the player may gain ability in an unrelated skill as the result of completely different actions, but it's still the best solution to a robust player experience.
>This is only a problem when you deny the player choice. Don't deny the player choice, and there will be no problems.
What do you mean by "deny the player choice"? The point is: the player has no choice if he wants his character to succeed at speechcraft.
>>321015612
Yeah man, it's not like AoD has the most balls bustingly difficult combat or anything. Thing is if you're not decked out for combat you should be DOING combat. This is what confused so many players.
>>321037029
>If you, as a game designer, let a player sneak through encounters, you need to have your game designed in a way that lets such a player progress.
The problem is that even if you let the player progress that way, his game experience will be completely one-sided. He cannot take quests that require speechcraft because he cannot talk and he has no opportunity to learn it because he sneaks all the time and by the time he's solved the initial quests through sneaking, the higher level quests require speechcraft of a level beyond his skill.
>But, this is important, have more depth to character than simple trained skills and stats. Let equipment allow players to perform neat actions. Allow stealth characters access to a vault that contains a relic that gives them a magical shield to augment their defense if they need it. Let warriors have unique dialogue options reflecting their mastery of warfare.
All these are good ideas, but I still dislike the idea of making everything dependent on player actions simply because the player is forced to take care of what he does all the time in order to not fuck up his character by having not distributed his skills properly, e.g. solved this quest by sneaking, this quest by fighting and so on.
The progression through the game will be dominated by the meta gaming element of character building.
If you hand out generalised experience, then that element is banished to the character sheet and only visited on level up, while the progress through the game is more "natural" with the player simply trying to apply the skills of his character as he sees fit.
>>321012018
Age of Decadence is a text heavy role playing game that promotes extremely heavy meta-gaming for it's role playing options. Meta gaming is the antithesis of role playing, and the combat is garbage.
Hello?
>>321037153
>but similar things for different reasons and with different interactions, outcomes, etc.
You're still swinging your sword and casting your spell. You're still doing repetitive actions.
>Given the fact that you haven't even played Gothic 2 I'm not really surprised at this point though.
So you only swing a sword or cast a spell a dozen times at most in that game, right? Right? You're not just being a self-righteous elitist asshole? Right?
>the player is forced to "train"
You train in every game, you can't tackle the final boss from the very start(most of the time).
Why should a rogue be both a master of stealth and combat without any effort expended? And why does that automatically mean "grind" to you? You can do some objective ("train") to gain a defensive rogue option that you want. It doesn't have to be long or grueling like you are no doubt imagining. Most games give rogues defensive options by default anyways.
>Now the player finds himself in a situation where he can't sneak past the enemy but needs to fight. What is he supposed to do?
I told you before, it's a failure of game design to allow a player to sneak through a whole game, then not allow him to progress via lack of direct combat skill. Something that DX:HR devs literally apologized for. But even in that game it wasn't impossible to progress because the game still gave you the opportunity to succeed, it was just harder.
>But in your system he only ever gets better at sneaking,
Not even true, I specifically said that equipment should allow him to augment his abilities so that he can at least contest in direct combat.
>it's still the best solution to a robust player experience.
A stealth player can still just dump points into stealth, and he's still just as fucked as when he chose not to get some defensive options, through training or equipment.
>The point is: the player has no choice if he wants his character to succeed at speechcraft.
Not true, reread what I said about augmenting abilities.
>>321015848
Pretty much my exact reaction. Nixed that shit off my wishlist.
>>321037415
>He cannot take quests that require speechcraft because he cannot talk and he has no opportunity to learn it because he sneaks all the time and by the time he's solved the initial quests through sneaking, the higher level quests require speechcraft of a level beyond his skill.
This is because you have denied him access to improve his speechcraft now that he is not lower leveled. This is your fault as a shitty game designer.
>but I still dislike the idea of making everything dependent on player actions simply because the player is forced to take care of what he does all the time in order to not fuck up his character
As I said before, specialization or allowing the player to not let a skill increase, will prevent this problem. Some games make you do a special task to raise a skill past a certain level of proficiency. That is also a solution.
>The progression through the game will be dominated by the meta gaming element of character building.
The progression through just about any RPG is already dominated by the meta gaming element of character building, and this is true so long as you don't allow your player to become a godlike jack of all trades.
Manual stat/skill distribution is at the heart of a lot of meta gaming. So seeing you advocate for it while decrying metagaming is plain hypocrisy.
>the player simply trying to apply the skills of his character as he sees fit.
Those skills dictated entirely by his metagaming done beforehand.
Nice.
>>321037810
>You're still swinging your sword and casting your spell. You're still doing repetitive actions.
Again: these are the means, not the purpose.
>So you only swing a sword or cast a spell a dozen times at most in that game, right?
You do it all the time and Gothic 2 is far from lacking in repetitive action which is why I wouldn't use it as an example. The point remains however that in most western RPGs there is very little grind, since the objectives are usually unique. You're progressing all the time rather than grinding for levels or something.
>You train in every game, you can't tackle the final boss from the very start(most of the time).
You don't train for the purpose of training. You progress through the game and you gain experience while doing so.
>Why should a rogue be both a master of stealth and combat without any effort expended? And why does that automatically mean "grind" to you?
It's grind if it doesn't result in progress.
>Not even true, I specifically said that equipment should allow him to augment his abilities so that he can at least contest in direct combat.
I'd argue that a game where someone untrained in combat can survive combat would be likely rather boring.
>A stealth player can still just dump points into stealth, and he's still just as fucked as when he chose not to get some defensive options, through training or equipment.
But then it's his own fault rather than an indirect consequence of successfully progressing in the game.
>Not true, reread what I said about augmenting abilities.
We're talking about Mass Effect, right? In Mass Effect you gain Renegade or Paragon points for making Renegade or Paragon plot choices.
>>321038247
>This is because you have denied him access to improve his speechcraft now that he is not lower leveled. This is your fault as a shitty game designer.
If the player is railroaded into improving speechcraft then you might as well get rid of skills altogether.
>As I said before, specialization or allowing the player to not let a skill increase, will prevent this problem. Some games make you do a special task to raise a skill past a certain level of proficiency. That is also a solution.
I don't think that's going to solve the situation since the player is still forced to gather these speechcraft points. Not to mention: what happens if you haven't levelled up that skill and you gain further points. Do they accumulate? In that case: nothing really changes. If not, you add yet another meta game element, since the player will have to keep in mind when he gets the opportunity to raise which skill and thus try to tackle problems in a certain way in order to raise a different skill while he has maximised another one before he gets that quest where he gets to get it to the next level.
Overall, I see too many issues with the system since it introduces too much meta gaming into the actual gameplay - unless of course you don't cap the skill gain and have plenty of grinding opportunity through respawning enemies, procedurally generated quests and so on. However, I'd say this only adds more of a grind than actually make the game more worthwhile.
>Manual stat/skill distribution is at the heart of a lot of meta gaming. So seeing you advocate for it while decrying metagaming is plain hypocrisy.
The point is that the metagame is banished to the character sheet. The player can actually play the game as he sees fit, since the way he plays it does not affect his character sheet constantly. He merely plays the game, is given experience in return, and then distributes the points as he sees fit.
>>321038304
>Again: these are the means, not the purpose.
And how is that any different than swinging your sword around in a user action based skill progression system?
You're still completing objectives for various rewards.
>You're progressing all the time rather than grinding for levels or something.
There is no reason why you can't be progressing all the time in the system I propose, while still allowing for variety in character building.
>You don't train for the purpose of training. >You progress through the game and you gain experience while doing so.
You can progress through the game while gaining skill in lesser used skills as well, in a game that bases skill level on user actions.
>It's grind if it doesn't result in progress.
So side quests are a grind? Anything that isn't the main story quest in an RPG is a grind?
>I'd argue that a game where someone untrained in combat can survive combat would be likely rather boring.
So you are a proponent of extremely boring games? Allocation of skill points isn't the same as training, and it would be extremely boring in practice.
Instead of taking on a quest in a way that gains skills you want, or doing a neat side quest to gain a nice defensive option, you just dump a few points into a defensive trait once you finish a quest the same way you've been stealthily completing them.
>But then it's his own fault rather than an indirect consequence of successfully progressing in the game.
So you expect the player to have the foresight to dump some points into a combat skill, but not the foresight to gain combat skill through fighting enemies or taking a quest to gain defensive equipment/skills? How does this make any sense at all?
>We're talking about Mass Effect, right?
I am not talking about Mass Effect, and you are just jerking yourself off about a system that has nothing to do with what I propose.
>>321038887
>And how is that any different than swinging your sword around in a user action based skill progression system?
Because that way the player is rewarded for pointless actions rather than progress. You're inviting grinding. If you make player skill dependent on swinging a sword rather than defeating the monster, or rather, returning to the quest-giver and telling him about it, then you're not making the game more "realistic". It's retarded in the first place that your character would become a master swordsman within a few weeks of virtual game time.
>There is no reason why you can't be progressing all the time in the system I propose, while still allowing for variety in character building.
Because if you get rewarded for swinging a sword you can swing a sword at any point and thus grind. If you're rewarded for hitting an enemy, then if you don't introduce respawning enemies and thus grind, then the player will have to consider carefully which weapons he spends these precious hits on and have meta-bullcrap in the game itself.
>So side quests are a grind? Anything that isn't the main story quest in an RPG is a grind?
Not if they're unique content.
>So you are a proponent of extremely boring games? Allocation of skill points isn't the same as training, and it would be extremely boring in practice.
In practice you're playing the game. You distribute skill points you gain from completing objectives, i.e. playing the game. Within a system where you can infinitely gain experience through pointless actions you invite pointless grind and within a system where finite actions gain you skills you need to carefully consider every action.
>>321038750
>If the player is railroaded into improving speechcraft
Hardly, side quests are the opposite of railroading, I don't even know how you can come to that conclusion, save for a drastic lack of reading comprehension no doubt caused by severe brain trauma.
Games don't have to be a strictly linear series of objectives, especially not WRPGs.
>I don't think that's going to solve the situation since the player is still forced to gather these speechcraft points.
The proposed problem was unintentionally gaining too many skill points in an area you don't want to specialize in, for fuck's sake.
>If not, you add yet another meta game element, since the player will have to keep in mind when he gets the opportunity to raise which skill and thus try to tackle problems in a certain way in order to raise a different skill
What's wrong with encouraging players to use different skills? I fail to see the problem. Just complaining that you can't drop points into speechcraft after successfully completing an objective and talking to no one while doing so.
>I see too many issues with the system since it introduces too much meta gaming into the actual gameplay
There is nothing inherently wrong with metagaming, especially when it encourages players to use skills that they plan on using in the future anyways.
>The point is that the metagame is banished to the character sheet.
It isn't though, because your character sheet dictates every single action you are capable of doing anyways.
And why shouldn't your character and gameplay be affected by the choices you make?
Want to play a smooth talking rogue?
Do things a smooth talking rogue would do.
Don't smash through your enemies with a mace while screaming, then stat dump stealth after you grab the MacGuffin. That's fucking stupid, and actually a lot less roleplaying than the other system.
>>321038887
>So you expect the player to have the foresight to dump some points into a combat skill, but not the foresight to gain combat skill through fighting enemies or taking a quest to gain defensive equipment/skills? How does this make any sense at all?
Spending points can be done on demand. Spending points can be done after failing with a build and restarting the game.
Gaining skill through fighting on the other hand puts the player on alert all the time because if your game is not a grinding simulator with infinite opportunities to gain skills, then every action counts.
>>321039596
What if the player missed out on that quest and was locked out from the region of the world for some reason (e.g. because it was destroyed)? Or just requiring the player to backtrack through half of the world to undertake that quest where he can raise his speechcraft? I don't think this would be a lot of fun.
>What's wrong with encouraging players to use different skills? I fail to see the problem.
The problem is that if your overall possible actions you can take are limited then every action is precious. i.e. if you've gained your sneaking skill to the point where it is maxed out for that level, it would be stupid not to fight enemies from now on. This is not "encouragement" it is stupid game design because it takes meta-gaming into the game world itself rather than leaving it to the spreadsheet.
>There is nothing inherently wrong with metagaming, especially when it encourages players to use skills that they plan on using in the future anyways.
In an RPG there is because ideally the player should be making choices for role playing purposes rather than for min-/maxing purposes. If you tie the choices to the skills however then you're discouraging role playing.
>And why shouldn't your character and gameplay be affected by the choices you make?
For the aforementioned reason. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it won't work.
You're free to give it a try, but I'd be surprised if it turns out all too well.
>>321039593
>is rewarded for pointless actions rather than progress
Again, side quests are pointless actions? Swinging your sword through enemies impeding your path to the objective is pointless?
>If you make player skill dependent on swinging a sword rather than defeating the monster
I never suggested that. No good game will let you level swordplay to max by just swinging your sword through the air or by killing low level shitty enemies.
>It's retarded in the first place that your character would become a master swordsman within a few weeks of virtual game time.
SKILL CAP HIM OR DON'T GIVE HIM SWORDPLAY EXP FOR KILLING SHITTY ENEMIES
FOR
FUCK'S
SAKE
>Not if they're unique content.
Oh okay, so we both agree on this then. There's no grind involved then.
>Within a system where you can infinitely gain experience through pointless actions
You keep fucking saying this, I never suggested this. I'm not saying every game should be exactly like a fucking Elder Scrolls game, you shitheel.
>In practice you're playing the game.
In practice you pause playing the game, right there, in the middle of the game, and look at abstract values representing your character, then decide what abstract values you would like to see increase based on the arbitrary number of points you got from telling a dude you have slain a dragon.
>>321039643
>Spending points can be done on demand
>aining skill through fighting on the other hand puts the player on alert all the time
>then every action counts.
Sounds perfect. This just sounds better and better. A system where actions matter and you should be alert about your deficiencies.
How could you be against a system you describe in these terms?
>>321040174
>Again, side quests are pointless actions? Swinging your sword through enemies impeding your path to the objective is pointless?
Side quests are not pointless if they're unique content. Swinging your sword through enemies is pointless unless killing said enemies is the objective. If they're merely in the way then it is pointless and whether you kill them or sneak past them or talk your way past them should be treated equally.
>SKILL CAP HIM OR DON'T GIVE HIM SWORDPLAY EXP FOR KILLING SHITTY ENEMIES
Even if you do that it doesn't address the point. Even if you luckily defeat a master swordsman you're not going to magically gain his skill from his blood on his sword. RPGs are a power fantasy. From zero to hero in no time. Tying skill gain to actions doesn't make it any more realistic.
>In practice you pause playing the game, right there, in the middle of the game, and look at abstract values representing your character, then decide what abstract values you would like to see increase based on the arbitrary number of points you got from telling a dude you have slain a dragon.
Within the objective based system you simply complete your objective in the way you see fit and later decide how to spend your points.
Within your proposed system before taking any actions you consider which values you need to raise and then undertake them. e.g. playing as a rogue and having to steal the dragon's treasure, you may decide not to sneak past because you have been sneaking a lot lately and you might face trouble in combat later, so you face the dragon in open combat in order to raise your combat skill.
In my opinion the first is better for role playing since if the action is tied to your skills then your in-game actions are undertaken with the meta-game in mind. Otherwise, you only consider the meta-game on level up.
>>321040079
>What if the player missed out on that quest and was locked out from the region of the world for some reason (e.g. because it was destroyed)? Or just requiring the player to backtrack through half of the world to undertake that quest where he can raise his speechcraft?
Both your fault and his, he declined the opportunity given, and you declined to continue to offer him the opportunity.
I like it. Makes you think about things much more than just stockpiling points and pumping a stat when you need it pumped, like you suggested.
>The problem is that if your overall possible actions you can take are limited then every action is precious.
This system just gets better and better.
Yes, actions are previous, just like stat points are precious.
>f you've gained your sneaking skill to the point where it is maxed out for that level, it would be stupid not to fight enemies from now on.
What exactly is the problem? This is the definition of encouragement. You do something different because you are rewarded when you do so.
>it is stupid game design because it takes meta-gaming into the game world itself rather than leaving it to the spreadsheet.
Meta-gaming is highly integrated into both systems. You're not going to forget that your character has 0 charisma just because you haven't looked at your character sheet for 5 minutes.
>If you tie the choices to the skills however then you're discouraging role playing.
Hardly, a rogue sneaks about, and when you sneak about in this system, you get better at it, and become a better rogue.
If you choose to fight directly, you get better at it, because that's what your character is doing. Your stats are a direct reflection of your choices, and that's what makes it a far superior system for the purpose of roleplaying.
>>321040174
>Sounds perfect. This just sounds better and better. A system where actions matter and you should be alert about your deficiencies.
>How could you be against a system you describe in these terms?
Because I don't think it would be a very relaxing experience if your every action decides how well your character will be able to survive in the future.
If you worry about that during level up, that's good enough.
>>321040783
>Both your fault and his, he declined the opportunity given, and you declined to continue to offer him the opportunity.
>I like it. Makes you think about things much more than just stockpiling points and pumping a stat when you need it pumped, like you suggested.
The problem is that you might simply miss a certain NPC. It happens. Not everyone plays a game to 100% completion. And making a requirement to beat every side-quest in order to raise skills so that you can rely on them doesn't sound like all too great design.
>Yes, actions are previous, just like stat points are precious.
Feel free to implement it but don't expect too much.
>What exactly is the problem? This is the definition of encouragement. You do something different because you are rewarded when you do so.
I see the problem because it's not a role playing decision but a meta gaming decision. You're not fighting enemies because you feel fighting them is the best solution, you fight enemies because you feel that your character needs to raise a skill.
>You're not going to forget that your character has 0 charisma just because you haven't looked at your character sheet for 5 minutes.
Keeping your skills in mind is not what I regard as meta-gaming.
>Hardly, a rogue sneaks about, and when you sneak about in this system, you get better at it, and become a better rogue.
And you become better and better up to the point where you're confronted with a situation that cannot be solved by rogue skills alone. And then you're stuck.
There has been some huge posts about this shit but I have only one thing to say about "Gaining Skill trough action" Every single game that has this I end up as a demigod capable of doing everything, a master thief, master fighter, master wizard, master crafter, all of that shit, on one character.
I'd rather be limited by skill points then just by how much time I spend grinding.
>>321040743
>If they're merely in the way then it is pointless
Removing obstacles on route to your goal is the opposite of pointless, it is completely goal driven.
>whether you kill them or sneak past them or talk your way past them should be treated equally.
Depends on the difficulty of each method, enemies that are hard to sneak past should net more sneaking experience, enemies that are harder to fight should net more fighting experience and enemies that are harder to talk past should net more talking experience.
>Even if you luckily defeat a master swordsman you're not going to magically gain his skill from his blood on his sword
Right, but by the same token, you are not magically going to gain skill from telling a guy you have slain a dragon.
>Tying skill gain to actions doesn't make it any more realistic.
It is far more realistic that you would gain sword skill by killing enemies with a sword than by sneaking past them.
>>321040860
>a very relaxing experience
You are an adventurer on a grand quest, if you want to relax, why not play a game that isn't about braving perils and fighting against forces of great power? Your every action should matter with such dire circumstances.
>>321037406
It doesn't matter how hard your combat is if it's tedious.
>>321041262
>Removing obstacles on route to your goal is the opposite of pointless, it is completely goal driven.
The point remains that not the obstacles are your goal. The goal is your goal. Whether you remove the obstacles or move around them should make no difference.
>enemies that are hard to sneak past should net more sneaking experience, enemies that are harder to fight should net more fighting experience and enemies that are harder to talk past should net more talking experience.
It sounds good in theory, but all that needs to be balanced. In the end, various builds need to be viable. And if you differentiate based on all these things, some builds might end up gimped.
>Right, but by the same token, you are not magically going to gain skill from telling a guy you have slain a dragon.
It's both an abstraction. From a game design point of view I see the latter as more robust though.
>It is far more realistic that you would gain sword skill by killing enemies with a sword than by sneaking past them.
More realistic but not necessarily resulting in a better experience.
>You are an adventurer on a grand quest, if you want to relax, why not play a game that isn't about braving perils and fighting against forces of great power? Your every action should matter with such dire circumstances.
If I was worrying about in-game troubles, e.g. the powerful monsters and the tactics I have to use to defeat them I'd be on your side, but what I'd be worrying about would be the spreadsheet of my character that I'd have in front of my eyes during every action.
>>321027061
>Otherwise the player is rewarded for pointlessly seeking meaningless combat encounters.
A combat is not meaningless just because it has no entry in your arbitrary quest log. If I go fight a beholder or evil lich, and manage to win, of course I should receive rewards for it, even if I don't get a little entry in my magic book of "things to do".
If you think the players shouldn't be able to keep fighting wolves over and over, don't fucking put endlessly respawning wolves on your game
What the fuck is up with roleplay fags and hating combat?
It's like you faggots get buttblasted that a person who likes combat and roleplay gets to enjoy a good rpg in all its aspects, while their combat hating asses only get to enjoy one part of it, so you try making combat unrewarding
>>321041204
>And making a requirement to beat every side-quest in order to raise skills so that you can rely on them doesn't sound like all too great design.
Neither does stockpiling skill points to dump them when needed.
True though, you shouldn't need to hit up all the NPCs for quests to complete the game, but then again, you shouldn't need any one skill to get past a particular section of the game. It's an implementation problem, not a problem with the core system.
>it's not a role playing decision but a meta gaming decision.
Only because you are treating it like one. I think that a well implemented system would be completely natural for roleplaying. You use skills your character would use in their role, and you get better at that role.
Your barbarian would hit that lich in the head with a mace and force his way to victory, wouldn't he? Just like your rogue would sneak past him and destroy his phylactery, yes?
Your barbarian wouldn't sneak past the lich, then dump points into intelligence at the end of the quest, would he?
>Keeping your skills in mind is not what I regard as meta-gaming.
It is meta-gaming.
>up to the point where you're confronted with a situation that cannot be solved by rogue skills alone.
Again, you can dump points into charisma then be confronted with a problem you can't talk your way out of. Manual stat distribution has this problem as well.
>>321041586
Not that guy but AoD isn't really that tedious. Plenty of turn-based games are much more of a drag.
>>321010563
>>321010563
literally no
Underrail > AoD > Shadowrun HK > Witcher 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> garbage >>>>>>>>>> Sword Coast Legends > PoE
Yes, PoE was that fucking bad.
>>321041768
>A combat is not meaningless just because it has no entry in your arbitrary quest log. If I go fight a beholder or evil lich, and manage to win, of course I should receive rewards for it, even if I don't get a little entry in my magic book of "things to do".
If a quest involves getting past a beholder or a lich then they should be rewarded accordingly - even if you get past them by different means than fighting though.
Besides: you could still reward a player with equipment dropped, etc.
>What the fuck is up with roleplay fags and hating combat?
I like combat.
I don't like RPGs that revolve around nothing but combat. Instead I want my combat encounters to be well designed and meaningfully placed within the world. And I like to have the opportunity to get around them. Fighting should be a choice. Picking fights is much more satisfying then being railroaded into them.
I got bored of path of exile by the time I reached twin helms.
Call me when the make pillars of eternity 2 and take more cues from baldurs gate 2 instead of baldurs gate 1
>>321041819
>This game isn't that shit because there are shittier games around
No.
>>321041853
That's a legitimate question. Also, are abortions allowed? Can you use stem cells from fetuses and birth related shit, even if it's a misscarriage? Completely remove the possibility of trespassing on someone's religion, is it ethical to experiment on cadavers without the consent of the deceased whilst living? Humans are animals, too, right?
>>321041795
>you shouldn't need any one skill to get past a particular section of the game.
The problem is if skill checks are passed all too easily then the game can feel same-ish and classes don't differentiate enough. It's not an easy thing to balance.
>I think that a well implemented system would be completely natural for roleplaying. You use skills your character would use in their role, and you get better at that role.
Perhaps it could work out. As I said: feel free to implement it. I'd buy it and give it a try. However, I'm still sceptical.
>It is meta-gaming.
I don't think so. It's the basis of RPGs. You make a decision with your character's skills in mind - e.g. you make an educated guess whether your character is able to do a certain thing, then you attempt to do so, roll the dice, apply the stat/skill modifiers and see whether you're successful.
Still, the decision is goal-oriented, it takes place within the game world. It is not aimed at maximising a certain stat/skill on your spreadsheet.
>Again, you can dump points into charisma then be confronted with a problem you can't talk your way out of. Manual stat distribution has this problem as well.
There you have direct control however. You can play the game normally and only be mindful of skill distribution on levelup. Within the proposed system every single action has the meta-game element in mind.
>>321041216
> Every single game that has this I end up as a demigod capable of doing everything
I have listed several ways to prevent this, and it's not hard at all to do so.
>>321041730
>Whether you remove the obstacles or move around them should make no difference
As I said, reward should be proportional to difficulty of the task. It doesn't make a difference if you sneak around the monsters or bash their heads in, you'll get exp and be rewarded for achieving your goal.
>but all that needs to be balanced
The same is true for every system.
>From a game design point of view I see the latter as more robust though.
Building a character over the course of a journey doesn't need to be robust in the sense that a 0 int moron can become a 10 int genius over the course of a couple of quests.
>but what I'd be worrying about would be the spreadsheet of my character that I'd have in front of my eyes during every action.
You worry about your spreadsheet regardless, you liar. You pump stats and abuse them to win. You know which stats you've neglected and those you've pumped. You consider AC and required stats when picking out armor. You're a min-maxing metagamer, typical of someone who loves arbitrary stat distribution.
You said you store points and use them later. You're thinking all the time about if you need to pump a certain stat now or later.
Don't play coy, you little fuck.
>>321042321
Fallout is shitty?
Why was Witcher 3 so bad?
>>321042056
>>321042056
>If a quest involves getting past a beholder or a lich then they should be rewarded accordingly
What if there's no quest invovled? What if I didn't talk to the npc that would give me a quest?
Fuck this mate, I killed a fucking beholder, I should get XP for it, even if I didn't have any quest involving it.
It's incredibly dumb that you would only get XP if the quest book has an entry about it.
Getting XP for killing the rats that are plaguing the local inn or doing some fetch quest but not from killing a giant asshole griffon that ambushed us is retarded in every single way.
>but it encourages grinding the wildlife
why are the wildlife endlessly respawning?
And that said, as a game designer, shouldn't one be happy that the player wants to enjoy the combat system more instead of less?
>>321042491
>I have listed several ways to prevent this, and it's not hard at all to do so.
I'm not actually providing counter arguments to you, I'm just saying, it has never been done right, and I doubt it ever will be.
>>321042563
Fallout was released in 97, dipshit.
What's with Age of Decadence fags and their defense of a terrible game with awful combat by saying that it at least doesn't play worse than a game released almost two decades ago? Pathetic.
>>321010563
This is a terrible contrarian opinion. POE was huge, huge disappointment to almost everyone who was looking forward to it. Whereas Witcher 3 blew everyone's expectations away
>>321042743
Like hell it did, Witcher 3 ended up being as boring and souless as I expected.
You can't do a proper RPG and have it be on an open world.
When is the second part of the PoE expansion coming out AND is it the last expansion for PoE?
I did a playthrough of the game when it was released and have been waiting for them to "finish" with the game before doing another playthrough.
>>321042905
January
And yes, it will be the last expansion and most likely the last patch to change anything significant.
>>321042491
>As I said, reward should be proportional to difficulty of the task. It doesn't make a difference if you sneak around the monsters or bash their heads in, you'll get exp and be rewarded for achieving your goal.
And I still think that is best achieved by handing out a fixed amount of experience for completion of the goal - regardless of the means.
>The same is true for every system.
The issue is that other systems are easier to balance.
>Building a character over the course of a journey doesn't need to be robust in the sense that a 0 int moron can become a 10 int genius over the course of a couple of quests.
No, but it needs to be fun to play.
>You worry about your spreadsheet regardless, you liar. You pump stats and abuse them to win. You know which stats you've neglected and those you've pumped. You consider AC and required stats when picking out armor. You're a min-maxing metagamer, typical of someone who loves arbitrary stat distribution.
It depends on the game and how it's designed. If the quests are good then I'm inclined to miss out on a good reward for a more satisfying conclusion to a quest. I'm also willing to forfeit absolute power for a more interesting build or more interesting experience playing the game. If the game has little to offer but combat though, then I min-/max.
I still maintain the position: if every action affects my spreadsheet, then the experience of playing the game will differ significantly from a regular role playing experience and I don't think it would do so in a good way.
As I said earlier though: feel free to implement it and prove me wrong.
>>321042464
>The problem is if skill checks are passed all too easily then the game can feel same-ish and classes don't differentiate enough. It's not an easy thing to balance.
I agree. But both systems are essentially based on skill checks, so it's a moot point to argue that it's hard to balance because they are both difficult.
>It's the basis of RPGs
Yes, metagaming is the basis of RPGs. That's why stats exist, to add another dimension to the game to think about and consider, as you described.
>Still, the decision is goal-oriented
There's nothing wrong with this, but you're looking at it from a very shallow view, that of completing a main story quest.
Perhaps you are roleplaying a character who wants to be the strongest man in the world? Isn't that a goal in and of itself? Can't your character have motivations outside of simply "Obtain the MacGuffin" or "Defeat the Evil Wizard"?
If you defeat a lich and it's army of skeletons, does it actually matter if some poor villager asked you to do it or if you decided to do it out of your own volition?
Even the basis of experience distributing solely through quests is that you have done a deed worth of reward.
The same deed done without a line in your journal is worth nothing? At all?
It is a silly system.
>There you have direct control however
You have direct control over your character as well. Not exercising the skill is the same as not giving it stat points.
>You can play the game normally
"Normally" as defined by the metagame you are playing, which defines if you are going to be capable of sneaking past a guard or sweet talking him, and of which you are well conscious when you make your decision of which course of action to follow.
With a high sneak skill, and a low speech skill, you have already made your choice in the metagame.
>>321042794
The story, quests and decisions you were forced to make in the game were miles better than anything Witcher 2 delivered previously, despite Witcher 2 having a non-open world.
None of the open world setting ruined my enjoyment of the game and to focus on it is to seriously miss what Witcher 3 did well.
>>321042625
>What if there's no quest invovled? What if I didn't talk to the npc that would give me a quest?
>Fuck this mate, I killed a fucking beholder, I should get XP for it, even if I didn't have any quest involving it.
The developers shouldn't have placed a beholder randomly on the map then without tying it to some sort of quest. Not every quest needs to be handed out by an NPC of course, you could even trigger it by stumbling into said Beholder. There are plenty of ways to solve this situation.
>Getting XP for killing the rats that are plaguing the local inn or doing some fetch quest but not from killing a giant asshole griffon that ambushed us is retarded in every single way.
I wouldn't reward killing rats either, but only the fetching.
>And that said, as a game designer, shouldn't one be happy that the player wants to enjoy the combat system more instead of less?
It depends on whether the player truly likes the combat system or only sees it as the means to get more powerful in order to progress easier, etc.
In plenty of RPGs I found combat painfully tedious and it's one of the main reason that keeps me from replaying. Few RPGs have really good combat playable for its own sake.
>>321028281
Excpt they don't. Stop being an autist and just ignore them. Or kill them.
>>321043041
>And I still think that is best achieved by handing out a fixed amount of experience for completion of the goal - regardless of the means.
Unless all means are created equal, it isn't fair.
>The issue is that other systems are easier to balance.
Perhaps you have a point, but just because a system is easier to implement doesn't make it superior. It's worth the extra effort to achieve a better roleplaying effect.
>No, but it needs to be fun to play.
The two systems could have the exact same combat/speech/stealth systems, so that's sort of irrelevant when comparing them.
>if every action affects my spreadsheet, then the experience of playing the game will differ significantly from a regular role playing experience
Good.
>and I don't think it would do so in a good way.
I vehemently disagree. Actions having consequences is truly excellent for roleplaying, and I believe most people would agree that your actions should have consequences.
>>321028281
Wtf dude , you check a couple in the first town , realize that they are just the backers shits and never bother with any of them again for the rest of the game.
You need to work on your autism man.
>>321043383
>Unless all means are created equal, it isn't fair.
It's not necessarily about fairness but about convenience. Also, I'd argue it's very fair: if someone achieves the same goal with little effort then he deserves the same reward. Not to mention that you might consider combat drops a reward too, which non-combat characters may miss out on.
>I vehemently disagree. Actions having consequences is truly excellent for roleplaying, and I believe most people would agree that your actions should have consequences.
I'd say role playing choices should have mostly in-game consequences rather than spreadsheet consequences.
>>321011729
Is rape tier good or bad?
>gonna try it out
>game has no co-op
>>321043562
>t's not necessarily about fairness but about convenience.
For someone who demands the game have a good amount of difficulty, you sure want your game to be as casual as fucking possible.
>Not to mention that you might consider combat drops a reward too, which non-combat characters may miss out on.
That's quire different then, as I said, the difficulty should be proportional to the reward.
If you could skip half of the game with a certain build, would you give that character all the rewards the other builds get at that point?
No way, that would be bullshit.
>I'd say role playing choices should have mostly in-game consequences rather than spreadsheet consequences.
Affecting your abilities in game is in-game consequences, in a way that permeates all of the game, not just some aesthetic things.
>>321043743
You were mad that a single player RPG has no co-op?
>>321043813
He probably just had high hopes after playing D:OS
>>321043769
>For someone who demands the game have a good amount of difficulty, you sure want your game to be as casual as fucking possible.
It's not a matter of the game being casual but amount making a variety of builds viable.
>If you could skip half of the game with a certain build, would you give that character all the rewards the other builds get at that point?
It depends on whether said character achieves the same objectives. Also, I distinguish between rewards in the sense of experience as well as money/drops.
>Affecting your abilities in game is in-game consequences, in a way that permeates all of the game, not just some aesthetic things.
As I said earlier: the problem I see is that it makes the player's wish to be powerful and successful in the game compete with his desire to role play the character he has in mind. This already clashes in many regards in RPGs in general. Adding yet more of this shit might not be a good idea.
I think we're moving in circles though, so I'll leave it at that since I have to go now. I'm certain there will be a future opportunity to discuss this sort of thing in an RPG thread that may come up in the future.
Until then.
>>321044018
>It's not a matter of the game being casual but amount making a variety of builds viable.
And it's perfectly feasible to do in both systems.
> I see is that it makes the player's wish to be powerful and successful in the game compete with his desire to role play the character he has in mind.
If you want to be powerful, roleplay a powerful character.
It's a role playing game.
Not a "I want to a demi-god" game.
Perhaps this type of system would be a step forward in design.
Pillars of Eternity is the best CRPG released since Mask of the Betrayer
>>321013201
>hating a game just because a gay made it
Monogatarifags everyone
>>321010563
Worst isometric RPG.
>>321014076
I love doing dialogue runs in games like Planescape, but what is the point of having a shit combat system to back it up? Planescape was OK, but AoD just strips you from the choices, since you always have to talk your way out of the situations.
It's not much an RPG if you can't even choose between fighting and talking.
at least the witcher has some imagination in their setting
