What do you think about AoD?

[almondblight]

No, it's not; you are missing the point. Filler combat is actually very entertaining because combat is one of the main things that are fun in RPGs. If you zip from even to event it's no better than a quest compass streamlining you to the next objective, or an FPS that teleports you into the next room when there are no more enemies to kill or a video game where the normal game is greyed out and you can only select boss rush.

Filler combat is uninteresting and doesn't take much skill to get past. If it did, it wouldn't be "filler combat". I suppose it's different for blobber/JRPG type games, because it's supposed to be more of an endurance thing. But I've never really enjoyed those games because you spend a lot of time avoiding doing things ("I should save this spell for later" or "I'll wait before I use this potion").

If you cut out everything that you think is bad there won't be much left.

Nothing wrong with that. I'd rather play a good game for four hours than a mediocre one for thirty.

 

[Infinitron]

Alex
I agree that it's very hard to judge AOD's qualities without seeing how late-game plays. That's why I've nothing bad to say about the difficulty of combat and skill checks.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

just look how much time you spend questing in a city like Athkatla in BG2 and it has a p. reduced scale

I approved of athkatla a lot

even while keeping to the high fantasy theme it managed to have a shitload to do and discover

it's the recent quest giving/run around talky centers that I find are a complete waste

like for denerim in DA:O or whatever the capital city was called, you get shitty town square hub with lore dropped here and there and all the other damn areas in that place are
1)massive warehouse murderfest
2)gritty isolated alley murderfest
3)heavily patrolled area that you'll be attacked if you're spotted stealthscripted murderfest

I don't know how many bros will get this but take fighting fantasy's Khare, cityport of traps and Port Blacksand, absolutely huge bastard places, bustling and very colorful and danger just lurks out of sight where ever you go

seamlessly transitioning from say a street filled with child beggars bothering you and a well with a strange fish in it that just barely appears to be speaking something intelligible, to a dead corpse in the middle of the slums oh fuck the body parts are attacking you, to a mage's house where the occupant carelessly left the door open lololo hello free treasure oh wait glowing attack chains and an inn where you overpay for excellent warm gruel and then when you wake up you find that the innkeeper has you strapped to a maze of levers and gears with a guillotine above your head and is just sitting there giggling, oh look it's the gambling district and there's this pot at the base of a large bronze statue filled with gold coins from worshippers why hasn't anyone looted it yet

 

[Jasede]

This is where we differ; making choices like "Do I use a spell or scroll or potion now, risking not having it later?" is very fun to me (and those playing combat-focus RPGs).
I do disagree that having "filler" (I already pointed out that the encounters in RoA and KotC were anything but. They may have been not relevant to the story, but they made 100% sense in the context of the dungeon and module design.) makes the game mediocre. Having good combat encounters AND minions that drain your supplies when, well done, can be just as good if not better than skipping straight to the "boss" or whatever the plot-relevant battle may be.

 

[almondblight]

To be honest, having XP, leveling, and tons of loot is starting to annoy me. The only thing that they really seem to provide most of the time is that MMORPG feeling of progress by seeing number go up.

Maybe RPGs just aren't for you? Just a thought.

What do those add? "I might as well kill these wolves, it's not that interesting but I can get some XP from it." Or "Yeah, I leveled up, now I can do more damage to the guy that can take more damage." "Let's see, I got one short sword plus one that does fire damage, a short sword that does splinter damage and a longsword that's +4 to ogres. What's the DPS? Oh wait, I already have a great sword +3."

XP and levels also screw up sandbox games, since you either level scale some areas, or you make some areas completely boring if you get to them too late (or do both like BG2!).

The one thing I can think of that would make these mechanics useful is slowly introducing new gameplay elements, but they can be done much, much better without XP and leveling. Say, if you want to learn a new sword technique you hunt down a master and get trained, or work hard to find new spells.

 

[Alex]

sgc_meltdown

God damn it, now you reminded me I need to go back to hunting those Fighting Fantasy books that weren't published here in Brazil. I hope you are happy.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't know how many bros will get this but take fighting fantasy's Khare, cityport of traps and Port Blacksand, absolutely huge bastard places, bustling and very colorful and danger just lurks out of sight where ever you go

seamlessly transitioning from say a street filled with child beggars bothering you and a well with a strange fish in it that just barely appears to be speaking something intelligeable, to a dead corpse in the middle of the slums oh fuck the body parts are attacking you, to a mage's house where the occupant carelessly left the door open lololo hello free treasure oh wait glowing attack chains and an inn where you overpay for excellent warm gruel and then when you wake up you find that the innkeeper has you strapped to a maze of levers and gears with a guillotine above your head and is just sitting there giggling

Memories.

 

[almondblight]

This is where we differ; making choices like "Do I use a spell or scroll or potion now, risking not having it later?" is very fun to me (and those playing combat-focus RPGs).

To be honest, I enjoy it when it's done well, but a lot of games turn into a grind-fest. Scarab of Ra was an old adventure/rogue-like that I thought did endurance well:

I do disagree that having "filler" (I already pointed out that the encounters in RoA and KotC were anything but. They may have been not relevant to the story, but they made 100% sense in the context of the dungeon and module design.) makes the game mediocre. Having good combat encounters AND minions that drain your supplies when, well done, can be just as good if not better than skipping straight to the "boss" or whatever the plot-relevant battle may be.

Maybe, but I think if they're well done then they aren't filler. I think of filler as things like most of the random encounters in BG II or Fallout, or say the groups of orcs I keep having to slaughter in BG II (I'm playing it now, so it's on my mind). If, on the other hand, you put a group of orcs firing fire arrows at you, and they have set a trap between you and them (so when your fighters run to take them out they get covered in acid), I wouldn't call it filler.

 

[villain of the story]

VD's example with Arcanum puzzled me. Can't believe anyone would *not* like running around Tarant for the first time. And maybe for a few others. When you are routinely doing quests there on 5th replay, then maybe, but otherwise? There are people be talked to, history to be read, sightseeing to be done, things to be stealed, and fetch-quests send you into all the places to explore and tie stuff together, helping to learn about setting you are in. Figuring out PS&Sons by reading street signs was a game in itself. And, most importantly, quests allowed some preparation and creativity when using skills.

Arcanum bored me to tears on my very first play through. The game sends you all over Tarant several times. First few were ok. But it got old fast. And man, Tarant is a like a hamburger helper that if you were to lick her all over, your tongue would turn into sandpaper.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

I need to go back to hunting those Fighting Fantasy books that weren't published here in Brazil

sad thing bro is I think the reprints don't have the old school 80s style don't give a fuck covers on them, they're now all gritty grimdark totally mature stuff
also the sorcery series has been resized smaller
and all the books have had their illustrations size reduced as well

if you want glorious gygaxian stuff go for deathtrap dungeon, trial of champions and why the fuck not armies of death finish the trilogy, then siege of sardath and return to firetop mountain which are both fucking vicious

and even if you own creature of havoc just buy it again

my top favorites are black vein prophecy, master of chaos, tower of destruction, legend of the shadow warriors, island of the undead, sword of the samurai and spectral stalkers

honorable mention to portal of evil because you fucking kill dinosaurs during the whole thing and robot commando because you command robots and chasms of malice because it's just so different

and I guess if you like epic level herpderp night dragon is p. cool

we were supposed to see worlds like these come to life in games god dammit


I hope this cheers you up in the meantime: http://www.ffproject.com/

 

[villain of the story]

Maybe, but I think if they're well done then they aren't filler. I think of filler as things like most of the random encounters in BG II or Fallout, or say the groups of orcs I keep having to slaughter in BG II (I'm playing it now, so it's on my mind). If, on the other hand, you put a group of orcs firing fire arrows at you, and they have set a trap between you and them (so when your fighters run to take them out they get covered in acid), I wouldn't call it filler.

Random encounters in FO is not a good example. World of Fallout is a dangerous place but you got skills to circumvent that. So the random encounters are a consequence of your character build. BG2, and BG1, and all BioWare games are good examples of excessive filler combat. There is nothing you could do to avoid the so many combat encounters in these games.

 

[grotsnik]

a dead corpse in the middle of the slums oh fuck the body parts are attacking you

Was that from Beneath Nightmare Castle? Awesome.

I guess at least part of what you're talking about is this modern vogue for would-be coherent fantasy worlds over genuinely diverse fantasy worlds. The excesses and anything-goes policy of D & D allows Athklata to be this ridiculous city that contains vampires and liches and beholders and magic portals and magic circuses, all crammed in together and unnoticed by any of the inhabitants other than the player - it's deeply silly, but it has a light touch and it's varied and unpredictable enough to be engaging. Whereas cities in franchises like Dragon Age or what-have-you, which are so determined to inhabit a 'serious' cod-medieval fantasy world, are always in danger of being merely banal, since the creators are working from a much more limited palette. They can't have ancient dungeons filled with a variety of interesting monsters, ancient artifacts and doorways to alternate dimensions on every street corner, because their setting's restrictively grounded; in fact, the only enemies that make sense in their quasi-realistic fantasy city are bandits. Fuckit, though, there needs to be combat. Let's have bandits everywhere you turn. And maybe a quest about a serial killer or a prostitute who wants to become a florist or something.

 

[Alex]

sgc_meltdown

I haven't played most of those, actually! Only the first twenty or so books were published here (and the first 2 books of the sorcery series. God, I remember always asking about the third one at books stores even 3 years after I had gotten the second one). So I definitely will need to go after the originals either way. I once saw a sale for an affordable price of all the books, but it was in England, and having all that shipped here would cost more than the sale itself.

Oh, and thanks for the link! I already knew about it, but they seem to have way more books there than the last time I checked!

By the way, are you looking forward to the new Ian Livingstone book, The Blood of the Zombies thing?

 

[Grimlorn]

In other words, repetitive filler combat is combat that serve no purpose but to extent the playing time and offer nothing of interest. E.g. 99% of all combat in Bio and Beth games.

How you can convert filler combat into non-filler?

Betrayal at Krondor, Realms of Arkania, Knights of the Chalice- encounters have a point and are logical; everything seems mostly hand-crafted, every room has a story behind it. These games are CHOCK FULL of combat.

if you get rid of this you lose a big part of what makes RPGs fun: tactical encounters meant to whittle down your resources, spells and HP and used to build up to a boss encounter. You end up with a CYOA game where you zip from scene to scene and fight only a very few battles. It's a game, but it's not an RPG- it's a CYOA, a choose your own adventure book.

Also quoting DraQ is counter-productive. If you remove all encounters that aren't meaningful to the story from an RPG, what are you left with? AoD. And AoD feels cold to me. Maybe you like this kind of game; but it's not for everyone.

This being the Codex I am sure you will now tell me to enjoy my Dragon's Age 2 Mass Effect 3 popamole, nevermind that I never played those games.

Enjoy your ME3 True Ending Cinematic DLC you cRPG hating fool. :D

About the teleport thing and why people don't like it. It breaks immersion and takes control out of the player's hands. That's really what it's about. You might as well just plop a cinematic in the middle of the quest, because it has the same affect as teleporting around for quests. It's fine for subsequent playthroughs, but it's confusing the first time and offputting. You don't know where you're being teleported to sometimes. Say you want to accept a quest from someone and then do it later or talk to someone next to the quest giver. It's all about control and not just being immediately teleported right away to the quest location. This is fine in some quests where the quest has to be done immediately for some reason, but I don't think I've played a RPG where the majority of the game consists of this.

Anyways, that's why people are bothered by it because it takes the control out of the player's hands. They don't get to explore on the way to doing the quest. It's the little things that add up in RPGs. I mean it's about creating and playing a character or party and getting lost in another world. If it wasn't about that, we'd just be playing text adventures, or turn based strategy games, or roguelikes, or something else.

But the teleporting didn't bother me too much. Just the first few times when I didn't know where I was. It's good for fast playthroughs but you have to get people to like the game after the first playthrough to want to take advantage of the teleporting aspect.

 

[quasimodo]

This is why I like the Codex. Sometimes in the middle of all the trolling and bitching a discussion breaks out.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Only the first twenty or so books were published here (and the first 2 books of the sorcery series.

oh my god that's not cool at all
at least you got khare though
but crown of kings is a masterpiece, it's just so ballsy and rich and IIRC also the largest FF book

I once saw a sale for an affordable price of all the books, but it was in England, and having all that shipped here would cost more than the sale itself.

online wise amazon bulk order workes for me mang, the savings they had plus a large order cancelled out the whole jet fuel thing but I dunno how it is for book prices in the BR
also I don't think gamebooks get discounted but I'm fortunate to have my physical copies

Oh, and thanks for the link! I already knew about it, but they seem to have way more books there than the last time I checked!

heh first day I found that site I refused to go away until I solved that hellfire one

By the way, are you looking forward to the new Ian Livingstone book, The Blood of the Zombies thing?

I MIGHT BE NOW THAT YOU MENTION IT

also: http://www.destiny-quest.com/

 

[Mangoose]

Here's a different way of looking at the teleportation question:

What are the negatives of giving teleportation an option?

 

[Jasede]

Release delayed by another two years to implement coding an option.

 

[FeelTheRads]

What do those add? "I might as well kill these wolves, it's not that interesting but I can get some XP from it." Or "Yeah, I leveled up, now I can do more damage to the guy that can take more damage." "Let's see, I got one short sword plus one that does fire damage, a short sword that does splinter damage and a longsword that's +4 to ogres. What's the DPS? Oh wait, I already have a great sword +3."

Definitely RPGs are not for you. Seriously. Don't like the mechanics, go play something else. It's because of your kind* that we don't get RPGs anymore.

*The "I totally like RPGs, man, but how about we remove what makes them RPGs?" kind.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Why do these people get lost and come to RPG web site and tell me I am stupid person?

Why do you sound like a Russian struggling to speak English?

 

[almondblight]

Definitely RPGs are not for you. Seriously. Don't like the mechanics, go play something else. It's because of your kind* that we don't get RPGs anymore.

*The "I totally like RPGs, man, but how about we remove what makes them RPGs?" kind.

It's because I don't like leveling, XP, and phat loot that we get games like like Oblivion and Mass Effect that have no leveling, XP and phat loot? Seriously, do you even have any idea what the hell you're talking about?

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's because I don't like leveling, XP, and phat loot that we get games like like Oblivion and Mass Effect that have no leveling, XP and phat loot? Seriously, do you even have any idea what the hell you're talking about?

Herp derp. You're a moron. Nobody in their mind gives a shit about those games. Those are games where everything is broken. One is made for hitchhikers and one for forever alone faggots.

 

[Fezzik]

He's not suggesting that Oblivion and Mass Effect are liked. It's that they are the shitty games representative of the decline but that they went in a direction counter to his own preferences that's the point. I'm thinking that almondblight prefers character systems like in VtMB and Prelude to Darkness, which are certainly RPG-centric but don't promote grinding.

 

[Emily]

Release delayed by another two years to implement coding an option.

i doubt it, they made so much optional teleporting in R2 with very little time

 

[20 Eyes]

Yeah I hate all those cliches and tropes of RPGs like loot

I know you're being sarcastic, but holy fuck do I hate the idea of 'loot' as it's applied in CRPG games. Over 4 books, Frodo and Bilbo find one 'phat lootz' sword between the two of them. And somehow characters in many RPGs are changing weapons multiple times in a single dungeon floor.

Well that's complete bullshit, didn't read too carefully. And in the hobbit they found an entire mountain of gold. A diamond as big as a hobbit's head. A suit of mithril worth more than a small kingdom.

I was just talking about swords. But besides that, my point still stands. Money != 'phat loot'. Money is what you buy it with. And one suit of armor worth a small kingdom. Not a costume change after every other battle.

But I'm not talking about Tolkien and I wouldn't consider myself especially versed in his work, my gripe is with this formula being used in RPGs:

Win battle - Loot room - YAY! Sword of Fire + 1!
Win battle - Loot room - YAY! Sword of Fire + 1.2!
and so on...

Sounds like you are playing the wrong RPGs; I played Fallout and PS:T and Betrayal at Krondor and Realms of Arkania and in all of those weapons are rare and special.

I'm speaking merely for my opinion on the genre as a whole. I agree some examples get it right, Fallout definitely does a good job with loot.

EDITED - quotes got messed up

Let's see there's also the troll loot. There's aragorn's sword which figured pretty prominently. There's tales about all kinds of artifacts. One of the biggest moments was Galadriel handing out phat loots to a dwarf of all people, but everyone got lots of them. Half the plot points revolve around some fat loot of some kind, and the fat loot is more powerful than any bullshit in any game I've played. IT'S A STORY ABOUT THE ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL AND IT'S NOT ABOUT LOOT AT ALL? It's like loot saga.

So like I said, complete bullshit (pardon my freedom).

Next you'll say there wasn't any focus on combat, and no "filler" combat. Every fight was a tactically interesting experience involving important boss monsters.

I know! Let's put a cutscene before each combat to make it emotionally engaging! That really is the logical step if you feel the way you do.

But guess what a game's not a story anyway. And if it is then I don't want to hear a story by anyone but a real writer anyway (and most the bestselling fantasy works are complete crap these days), and wouldn't want to have to awkwardly thumb through all this weird dialog and get teleported into arena combat to hear it.

So like someone else said maybe RPGs just aren't your thing.

Check your reading comprehension, pardon my freedom. You don't seem to be understanding my point at all. Yeah, LOTR is about one ring. One ring and three books. Not one different ring every five pages. You mention Aragon's sword. Yeah, his one sword. Not his 50 different swords that he gets every other chapter, each one more powerful than the last. You're just proving my point the more you talk. I never said there weren't powerful items in Tolkien's stuff (I even said they were crucial to the story, if you bothered to read my post). My point was that they were rare and that was a good thing. Frodo has a ring. One ring. The fellowship don't all have magic rings that they pawn every week once they find better ones. You're completely ignoring my point to go on your little nerd-rage fueled rant. Calm down, read the whole post before responding, and then get back to me if you want.