Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

If you play the game normally.. just killing stuff while doing missions and not just maxing all non combat stats which is just unnatural then there is no problem. It might be annoying but that was your choice then. It's the same as playing dominions and herding gold, RP you are a greedy god.. not spending more than half your income on troops etc.. and then complain someone with 2x your army beats you. Something you just shouldn't RP :D

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Yeah, if you want to RP a non-combatant you really do need to stick to indy games, as there's no way any decent size studio is going to encourage that. The beauty of Oblivion though is that you can completely ignore the main quest and do whatever the heck you want, with no penalty.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

I want an RPG with zero grind.

Even the stars of the genre like Oblivion and Planescape or other DnD versions have people killing rats for power. It's lame.

I'd actually like an arcade-style game like Devil May Cry where someone's "level" is actually a reflection of a mastery of a strong tactics game. One of the reasons I like games like Dominions is that power comes only from skill.

And I never....ever...ever....eeeeeever.... want to kill a hundred orcs until I get a rare drop.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Thats one of the reasons I like GW. The level cap is pretty low and easily attainable, so the PvP and later PvE is a lot more "tactical". Its all about timing, having the right build, and coordinating your skills.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Well I disagree with it myself, it must be how we play games since others seem to have the same "problems" as you. I just walk around, talk to everyone, do every quest I get, walk there, kill every thing I encounter and then do the next thing.. in all games I usually reach level cap WAY before end of game and I never feel pressure to go grind since it's SP.. I'm THA MASTA anyway. I'm a looter though. I keep everything and stash anything that seems "special" though everyone who has the game can and probably has the same items :D

I think indie games where you can RP a non combatant and still win in a fantasy setting must have have some story I won't believe though :D

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

No, I did play the game normally. In all RPGs, I always hit a point where I gain enough confidence to just do some exploring. But I am -always- obsessive about picking up free things, and that very much includes herbs. The Sneak I did for fun, but Herbalism just happened, and there was no compelling reason at the time to not make the potions.

Oblivion was the only game I had ever played that penalized you for developing yourself in non-combat ways. In fact, if you just developed a couple of combat skills exclusively, you would have a FAR easier time in combat, than if you stack on Herb/Alch, for another -20- levels of difficulty. The potions just aren't strong enough to justify utilizing the depth of Alchemy that they provided (maybe if you were not an Herbalist, you buy all of your components? yeah, sounds like great fun).

All it does is force min-maxing, mindless grinding, and rushing the main quest. What is the point of all of that content, if exploring it makes your character unable to function in the world? It's just stupid design is what it is - there is NO justification for making the game harder for someone who develops their character.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Didn't really read thread that much so this is kinda off-topic, but I was really pleasantly surprised when I DLed Vampire: The Bloodlines- Masquerade. Graphics weren't really too great, but you can tell that they really tried to do as much as possible with what they had. Pretty decent storyline, and the devs make playing a vampire as fun as it should be. Anyways just figured I should mention it because really the only two games I play now are WoW and Dom3, but that game stuck out to me.

Also on a side note, alchemy in Oblivion and just Oblivion in general rocks my socks. I had a level 48 warrior-build with everything maxed cept for my speechcraft which I just used as a filler and I just couldn't ever die, even with minimal potion usage. It's actually what made me stop playing the game as my character just didn't ever die and it got boring. I kinda disagree with the poster above me because I think it's the challenge that developing your charactter brings that made the game so fun. I do have to say that I liked Elder Scrolls better than Oblivion though; there was just so much more diversity and a much better storyline.

Anyways, just my 2 cents

Felt kinda guilty about posting without even touching upon the OP's topic. FOr my ideal game, I'd take different aspects from some of our best games today. I'd take the brilliant city design of Grand Theft Auto 4 and apply it in a fantasy environment, creating a virtual world with the intricacies of GTA, but with the epic scope of the Morrowind Elder Scrolls game. I'd take the poor, but honest attempts at social functions of Fable 2/3 and polish them up so they're actually effective and throw that in there too. I'll have to say Elder Scrolls 3 had an awful combat system and Oblivion truly wasn't that much better even though I love Oblivion. I'd take maybe the easy to use combat interface of WoW and combine it with the intensity of Halo or maybe Call of Duty 4. Bring in the kind of epic storyline that made Mass Effect amazing and throw in a character creation system that isn't the run of the mill "Pick Class here" thing that you see everywhere else. Personally, I'd have your own actions in game determine your "class," but that's something that I'd just like to see, it'll probably never really happen. ANyways, I'm done now- I gotta wake up entirely too early to be posting randomly on these forums

Cadel.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Oblivion is best when you heavily MOD it

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

@ JimMorrison

That's why we need the comeback of the PCs party! :D Your Herbalist would have stayed in the rear making potions and soups and salads and whatever you can do with herbs, and the Warrior would have brought you to the end of the game smashing heads :p

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Seriously! He was a damned fine cook, and a decent assassin. Just everything else levelled up to the point that he wet himself if he faced 2 opponents head on - even 1 without surprise got pretty dicey. 8 \

Oddly though, I wooped the arena quest. But, I did kite everything. >.> You kite outdoors, and look, it's another bear! One can kill me, so 2 must be more fun! :D

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Actually I reckon Alchemy in Oblivion is overpowered. I got to the point where I just had to poison tough baddies with a couple of my good poisons and they were doomed, then I just had to keep out of their way.

That's with Alchemy 75 or so.

Unfortunately I find it impossible to resist Alchemy in Oblivion (you can't just not pick up all that free stuff), and as a result the game sometimes becomes a herb collection game.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Ultimately, games like Oblivion do require you beat things over the head or spellblast them very hard. I don't think they were ever intended as games where you can neglect combat, but as games where you have a large range of skills to supplement combat, or have a valid means of often avoiding combat. Most skills certainly allow you to approach missions in different ways.

This can seem disappointing, but to design a game where your herbalist/alchemist has a valid finish would be extremely hard. RPGs used to be nothing but combat grind: Might and Magic, the early Ultimas, Eye Of The Beholder up to Neverwinter Nights. Ultima 7 I think was the first where you could do more with your world, but it's the likes of Oblivion that are developing it and furthest ahead, and that development is still young.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

hehe conflicting opinions must mean the truth lies in the middle. I myself had high alchemy and other non comabt stuff too, next to something melee and magic and it didn't bother me.

I agree that especially Oblivion gives more options for the non combat skills. And I agree too that a game where a herbalist can save the world would probably not be very exciting and I wouldn't want it.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

@ Agema - played the Might and Magic VI VII and VIII - the 8 sucked but the previous ones were very good, I remember they had not only combat, but also very interesting stories and subquests. Remember the monoliths? :)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

I played M&M 3-9, although I didn't finish VII or VIII because I got bored, and after a lengthy time investment a bug killed my M&M IX game as I couldn't promote a character. I-V are the "old style" ones with turns and discrete squares like Eye Of the Beholder up to about 1994, VI onwards the 3-D ones with continuous movement released after 1996, although that style of RPG was by then obsolete by then. Nevertheless, you're right that the stories kept them viable when all else was miles behind their competitors.

If you liked those, I would heavily recommend Wizardry 8 (released 2002?) which was contemporaneous to the late M&Ms you played and I think rather better in all areas, and going back to the old turn & map square style, Wizardry VII (it came out about 10 years before 8). Also maybe the Realms of Arkania trilogy, which was about mid-90s.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Well it's not just like he was -just- a Sneaky Herbalist. :p It's just that those 3 skills developed far faster than the combat skills, and when they capped, the character felt entirely crippled.

I can't recall working with poisons much though, just making crazy buffing potions and such. They were pretty amazing, but the potions that made my char strong enough to fight anything confidently, required rather exotic and rare materials.

I suppose you could say that Oblivion is ahead of the rest in the realm of "single character diversification", but again, that goes back to the problem of the solo-centric RPG atmosphere that predominates now.

The problem I had with the whole situation, is that in a game that does not auto-adjust the difficulty based on an abstracted sum of your powers, you can do what I did without penalty. Maybe I misread what they were trying to accomplish, but I thought the point was that encounters don't become totally trivial, not that every damned Boar you run into in the countryside is the fight of your life, just like the first one you ever met. I was playing a role, to be sure. It wasn't intended to be the role of the Sneaky Herbalist, that was meant to be my key to efficient progress. Instead, the game left my character behind.

And Aezeal, I agree, the full truth lies somewhere inbetween. Or at least, the perfect world does. I just don't believe there should be the potential to play 50 hours into a game, and create a total dead end without actually losing the game. I mean I could continue playing, but it was aggravating, and looked like a slow path of attrition (the herbs I needed for the potions that I needed to survive, were not easy to find at the rate I had to drink them).

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

You should get one of the big mods, like OOO. They do a half-level-scaling thing. So a rat might scale with you up to level 5, then stop. A bandit might (say) be level 8 up until you're level 8, stick with your levels through to level 12, but never level any higher than that. I think it's a fairly clever compromise.

Oblivion's system is silly in a number of ways though. What some people do is set completely pointless things to be their Major Skills (Mercantile and so on), while building up the useful combat skills as minor skills. Since levelling only depends on the major skills, they can easily get to the end of the game as a level 1, and the monsters all the way through are pretty trivial to beat. Ridiculous!

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

The other weakness is min-maxing stats from level development, no matter what skills you want. For instance, if you're about to go up a level, spam a spell or skill action to get 10 points, guarantee yourself +5 stat increase.

If people want to min-max or break the system, it's up to them. I'm quite happy for it to exist as it's a 1-player game, and doesn't ruin my gaming experience in multiplayer.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

speaking of Ultimas, one of my favorite Ultimas was also the next to most disliked: Ultima 8: Pagan

It tried to actually do something kinda neat and add some Adventury-Actiony elements to Ultima wrapped up in a really cool, dark themed world. It had neat magics and a ton of just fun little things to seek out and do and see. It really made you feel like exploring the world.

It was rejected by the player-base because it was... Hell I don't know why. I think it was too different from the typical Ultima format.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

As one who rejected Ultima 8: I don't think I rejected it because it was too different. I think I just didn't like the changes. That sounds the same but isn't really. It was a long time ago, but from what I remember it played very differently. If I hadn't been fond of the previous Ultimas, I probably wouldn't even have tried it. Not because they changed my precious Ultima, but because it was a different style of game and not one that I liked.
It's a hazard of making a big change in a franchise. Some of those who liked the style of the original won't like the new style and many of those who didn't like the original won't bother trying the new one.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

@ Agema - Tnx, I heard some time ago about Wizardry 8 being good but I forgot about it. I'll give a look around for it :)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Jim: sounds like you just needed to take up a weapon and some BASIC potions and then use your good skills (the potions) to increase the weak skills.. cus alchemy certainly could balance out a below average combat skill.

at the same time do some combat magic, throw fires when they are at a distace and fight up close buffed with potions.. your comabt magic and sword skill should rise :D

llama: I think most systems can be abused but really I'd not count it against the game. It's SP so it's not like we will be bothered by others leveling like that. and we (by the gods I hope you are with me on this at least) wouldn't play that way because it makes really no sense at all and wouldn't increase the fun we'd have. I couldn't care less. I do want a new RPG though.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

PS the witcher is a nice game too. not so much for the choices you have (it's rather limited really) but the world is nice and the combat system decent and the story is good.. well addictive at least.. and you are just a very very very kewl guy. Almost like RP myself.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Aezeal: yeah, you're kind of right about the fact that the system being abusable doesn't matter too much in SP. However, although I'm hardly a min-maxer I do like to think about what decisions would be best for my character, and it bothers me that the best decisions are very different to what would be reasonable decisions "in real life".

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

IMO, "Real-Time Strategy" is an oxymoron. I've tried a couple of "pausable" RTS titles (Star Wars Rebellion, Europa Universalis II), and still found that there was just too much to keep track of. AI opponents aren't handicapped by the need to physically manipulate the interface the way a human player has to, either.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Llama, getting a melee weapon skill, magic damage and healing spells is a pretty decent decision for any adventurer :D and it's also one of the better options in Oblivion :D

Rdonj, try the warhammer 40K dawn of war games.. much less focus on base builing (the upcoming part 2 even less I hear) and more on units and taking territory. Also a very nice setting, some rpg feel (for RTS with leveling troops and commanders etc). From the same makers there is that WW II game which is very good too.. taking points on the map for unit caps etc is a good idea and used much more these days.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Yeah Aezeal, but I don't like the fact that I'm better off avoiding levelling up, and that I shouldn't choose as Major Skills the things that I want to be best at. It's not good that I have to be careful not to get too good at a particular thing, e.g. levelling lots due to alchemy when I haven't got that good at fighting yet.

It's still a great game in many ways, but the levelling design is startlingly bad to my mind.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

@ capnq- Yeah, give Company of Heroes a shot, or the DoW games. Compared to the likes of starcraft there is a lot less micro, and it is all focused on action rather than resource gathering or base building.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

leveling 1-2 skills doesn't matter THAT much llama and your not better of doing that trick you said CUZ IT'S LAME and will certainly not make the game more enjoyable :D
Even with a lil catching up to do you can still clear some ruins and then you will be fine :D.

Well not going to continue this further though since I doubt you'll start oblivion again and I know I'm not :D (played the game, did most dungeons, nearly all quests and the DLC packs, not the real add ons but I can't be bothered by it. once I know the story it's not as fun anymore.. can't play games much more than once really if they are about the story (and most RPG's for me are about the story :D)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

I find it somewhat interesting to see those one after the other :). I've got WH 40k, and the soulstorm expansion (never played multiplayer so winter assault wasn't a big deal for me), and I agree, the way they handle resources is a nice break from games like starcraft or age of empires which you can have to micromanage to ridiculous levels. Yet while it is focused a lot on action I found myself pausing frequently to speed myself up. The big thing in that game is upgrades. You have to capture nodes, build on them, later upgrade those buildings. Then there's research later, another upgrade, and then more research. And that's just the upgrades on one of your buildings, most others also have upgrades you have to deal with as well, and may be timing-critical to your strategy.

Then all of your units have upgrades as well, and in the middle of combat it can be hard to be sure which units are reinforcing at the time and which have finished reinforcing and are now dropping again. Then you have all sorts of different commander and unit abilities you have to keep track of. I enjoy the game, but that's a lot of things to watch. So I frequently end up pausing to give myself some time to breathe.


I've been thinking about it a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that basically, one of the biggest problems RTS games have is that the basic AI for units is terrible. In starcraft you had to either babysit your units to make sure they didn't run off and get killed by someone kiting them into ambushes. Or set them to hold position and watch them just stand there and slowly die. In some games (AoE or dawn of war for example) they'll give you a "defensive stance" option, where the units will chase attackers for a while and then return to something like their original positions. This is a step in the right direction, but it's still abusable. And what do you do when you have to run off and deal with some problem with your base, or set workers to a new resource? Well, when you have a large amount of units you'll eventually end up with a large percentage who will just stand there, watching your enemies kill their comrades in arms because they're too far away for the defensive stance's aggression trigger to be reached. And if you set them on attack, well, then they'll just go and do some of those foolish things that you get in starcraft chasing things through enemy bases and getting themselves shot up.

Why is there no way of setting units to stay as a cohesive group and fight as a whole? It would also be great if we could do something like temporarily give control to the AI and say, give it an area we authorize it to operate in if we have to go and deal with some crisis somewhere else.

Edit: I've not played relic's WW2 game though (or at least I assume it's relic's).

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Personally I've never really played any DoW multiplayer, only CoH (it is Relic). I just wasn't as into the whole sci-fi setting, and after my experience with CoH I can't imagine how anyone could possibly balance out that many factions.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Rdonj: you do have to do SOMETHING yourself or it's a movie and not a game :D

I've not played DoW MP.. I just liked it as SP.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

True, but I still would like a more useful AI. Even if they just changed the defensive stance style commands so that it caused your entire formation to respond to being attacked instead of just the parts of it close enough to be triggered that would be a huge improvement in my mind.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

This is true, but horrible AI implementation can cripple RTS experience as much as any other.

For example, I had some fun playing Empire Earth once upon a time. 2 things TOTALLY ruined the game for me. The first was that there was no "Attack To" command (like Dune: Battle for Emperor, what were they thinking??), so you either specify a target, or you tell them where to go, and they march along not defending themselves at all. The second thing, was that if you didn't babysit ALL of your forces, they would inevitably run off somewhere and die. The game was a micro-management nightmare, due to the extreme simplicity of your "commanders on the ground".

I think DoW is far better than that, partly due to the significantly smaller maps, and partly due to the reduction in non-combat tasks the player must perform - though it did still have its issues with non-babysat troops behaving idiotically.

I don't think anyone wants them to fight the war on their own, but at least they could intelligently perform a task, such as guarding or patrolling, without needing Daddy to come clarify their orders every 30 seconds.

I measure RTS games on their "Oh God" factor. That is, the number of times per hour that I scroll the map, and exclaim, "OH GOD!", over events that I can't avoid without direct control. Due to most games involving more than one focal point, this reaches a threshold where the game feels unmanageable in realistic terms.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Jim... no offence.. but it might just be you :D

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

@ Aezeal - no, it's even me :D

One of the RTS I appreciated more was Kohan II. Just decide what your armies are composed of, send them somewhere and just keep an eye on them so they retreat if necessary... then, just enjoy the nice battle :p
Also, you just build the facilities and they collect resources automatically. Bye bye single-paesant babysitting. And tech researches take one click. A dream, really :cool: (And consider the game I was playing before Kohan II was Starcraft, make the proper considerations :eek:)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Not to put anyones back up, but I don't really think Dominions attracts a lot of people who are good at multitasking on the fly. One advantage of turn based games is the ability to think everything through and go at your own pace. You try that in an RTS and you will get destroyed. Tunnel vision is your enemy. On the flipside, an RTS is so focused on the here and now that its easy to forget your overall strategy, or to consider strategic choices.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Yeah. Thats why I like to call them RTT (Real Time Tactics) instead of RTS. There really isnt too much strategy in the traditional sense in a game which relies mostly on how fast you can click the mouse.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

I would challenge that assumption. It depends on the game. Starcraft has like 800 CPM for the good players, but most Relic games are more around 100 or so max.

_realizes shameless plugging_ _realizes he doesn't care_ _wtf_

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Company of Heroes is the RTS of this millenium. It's ok to plug it. ;)
In many cases, the reason your RTS units are "stupid" is due to the maximum range of your unit's weapons. For instance, it's very common to put a longer range unit like a Siege Tank out of range of some Marines and hit them, and they'll come running and get slaughtered by your waiting forces. But they were going to die if they stayed where they were. Eventually a game will implement a way for units to "call for help" within some radius, but it really won't make the units smarter. It'll just change the tactics. Concentration is the true resource in RTS games, it's like strategy with an egg timer.

Back to Oblivion, there's a ruinous exploit that makes the game hilariously fun and yet ultimately defeating. If you get to the mage's guild where you can create your items, put the maximum level of Chameleon on every piece of equipment and when you reach 100% you become permanently invisible. If any of you guys built your character poorly, you can use that gear for awhile to train up your other skills without getting slaughtered by bears and bandits.

But yeah, Oblivion's leveling system was ridiculous because to min/max you have to VERY tightly control when you level (after you skill up appropriately so that you can max out your stats) so you want to tag primary skills that you would only use in a controlled fashion. So if you say tagged, Sneak, Athletics, Swords, and some other "sneaky rogue" skills, you would level very quickly, but only get +2 or +3 to your stats when you level, but all the monsters in the game get +3 or +4 so they quickly become more powerful than you. Ironically your character is at his/her most powerful at level 1. I actually beat the entire storyline without leveling up and it was surprisingly easy.

Fallout 3 fixed the leveling issue and I hated sword/shield combat in Oblivion so guns were an obvious upgrade for me. (I was always a bow/spell slinger in Oblivion) I consider Company of Heroes, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 to be exceptional modern games.

So what's missing from games? For me its consistency. Every now and then I can find a really good game, but there's usually only 1 or 2 per year and you have to sift through dozens or hundreds of mediocre titles to find it. I'm happy with the quality and features of top shelf games these days, but of course there are well marketed games that are just embarassingly bad too. It's easy to lose perspective and trash the industry but it's the same with movies and books, only a small percentage of them are really good.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

hmmm I can find a decent amount of books I like :D, I do't mind rereading books either so that solves the problem too.

I agree fallout 3 is better than Oblivion but I disagree giving all those abuses as examples why it's bad.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

I don't think so.
In a good turn based game you can't afford tunnel vision, you have to keep in mind how your action here affects your action there and have a global strategy.
Multitasking in RTS is basically doing a thing extremely fast and then doing other things fast and then switch back to the thing you started from. That really makes the strategy component of the RTS quite secondary especially as most tactics are quite obvious (rockets against tanks, pikes against cavalry).

About most RPGs I dislike that they are so combat focused. Yeah, sometimes there are other ways to solve quests, but the systems behind that are neglected. Dialog is represented by a minor game, stealth sucks, etc. A combatant character will also often have an advantage over a noncombatant be it through xp or loot.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

^ Well I really meant the ability you have in turn based games to focus exclusively on each thing at a time. You aren't in a rush, so you can make sure its perfect.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Well the problem with dialog RPG's is that they would be nearly exactly the same each playthrough which combat can be different. In the end there will always be a limit on how much lines there can be while combat is fluent and changing. Not to mention that it's just not realistic to ab able to talk most monsters you encounter to kill you.

"Hey huge brown bear/ demon that wants to take over the world/ evil witch that wants to kill the king for slights in the past with clearly murderous intent and teeth the size (the witch too) of daggers would you be so kind as to move away"..insert some witty comments, some pleading, some intelligent remarks, talk of understanding, some love songs etc etc some of the other rpg styles of talk you can imaging (including bribing: "you know if I give you this goldpiece will you then stop your almost finish plan to take over the world and destroy it this afternoon?"

doesn't work for me and since my aim in RPG's are usually epic of nature upto and including saving the world the stakes for me and my opponents are very high so a lone talker standing between them and eteral glory won't stop them (or me :D)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Fighting is one solution. If you aren't a great fighter, obviously it will be much harder to defeat the big bad in a straight fight. That's why you have to even the odds. As an example, your mission might be to stall while the rest of your party does some sabotage - suddenly talking is a really good option. Who said Charisma is useless?
In addition, the plans of those megalomaniacal final bosses usually have huge holes in them. There are classics (Fallout, Planescape: Torment) in which you can discover why the big bad's plans' won't work, and TELL HIM THAT. Even if it doesn't cause him to kill himself or give up, it could make the final fight much easier, or give you a "you sacrificed yourself, but you saved the world" ending.
Not to mention the possibility of talking the second-in-command to fight for you. Star Wars, anyone?

You could also play the sneaky rogue who discovers the way to defeat the big monster, in-game and in-character. "Hey Bard, see that missing scale in the belly of the dragon? Use the magic arrow!" Why yes, stealth sure came in handy in here! Not to mention another staple, "destroy the One Ring". Or old literary classics such as "we'll cause a prison break and use the confusion to our advantage".

And then there's the whole exploration aspect: the legend about the magical sword that will make you immune to the magic of the Evil Mage, hidden away somewhere far away. Following the long line of sub-quests would give you a sword that will give you a chance you wouldn't normally have. Of course, finding the sword should be difficult and require non-combat skills, (with different quests and rewards available for the combat-focused characters, of course).


It's only worth the developers' effort to make special cases for the important enemies - but they are the only important enemies. As long as killing monsters isn't your only way of gathering experience, it's at least theoretically possible to make non-combat skills useful in the boss fights.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

And that's why the RPGs where you have multiple ways to do things (i.e. Fallout: you can destroy the door if you are strong enough, or pick its lock if you have the skill, or melt it if you have acid, or convince the guard to give you the key if you have Charisma)... are the best ones ;)

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

We were dealing with all sorts of 'interesting' requirements for the UI from EA and Westwood.

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Were you on the development team Gregstrom?

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Indeed. I was one of the designers (for my sins).

Re: Off topic: How are games failing you?
 

Battle for Emperor was sooooo -almost- awesome..... It had the atmosphere (got to love a cherished IP to work with, AND a strong legacy), and for the time, cutting edge visuals for an RTS. As far as I'm concerned, the UI was really the only thing standing in my way of joygasm. :o


Aezeal - that's why there really are 2 broad classes of RPG, "Action Driven", and "Story Driven". Diablo was so successful I think, because it's got a great hack-and-slash-Action-Driven-RPG package, with enough story to keep you a little immersed. Likewise, Fallout ranks as the king of Story Driven RPG, for the simple fact that even as turn based, the action is gritty and exciting, and no aspect of the game is less than mediocre.

Have you ever played Dreamfall: The Longest Journey? It's so Story Driven, I call it an Interactive Novel..... the "action" is almost non-existent, you don't have a character sheet with stats or attributes, the "game" itself is highly stripped down in many ways. But the story, my god the story is intense and riveting. Most games I am upset if there is no replay value, this was one where I felt like I had gotten my full value for one playthrough - and I didn't want to play again anyways, as it had such a cathartic climax. I see some used copies on Amazon for ~$10, I would highly recommend it at this price - IF you can appreciate a well orchestrated story. ;)