02-23-2005, 10:38 AM
Hi,
maybe I was a bit unfair towards the game in my post but hey, that's why I've tagged it as a rant... ;)
I liked the Fallout combat system better, even with the stupid NPC AI. It felt more tactical, combat was more than just selecting the right combat feat and clicking on the next target. If combat takes such a big role in a CRPG, then a more sophisticated system should be used IMHO.
I can live without friendly fire, but then cover rules (trying to hit a target standing behind someone else giving you a malus on the to-hit roll) would have been nice, to make movement a bit more meaningful. This flaw wasn't so apparent in PS/BG since the view was isometric, but with KOTOR's 3D engine, it looks a bit silly if you have problems clicking on your target because somebody else standing between you blocks the clickable area, but actually hitting him is as easy as ever...
For me, immersion is the most important part with any RPG. Things like this break immersion for me. The more characters behave/conversate different from real-life people, the more problematic. My example with Canderous was one of several occasions that got me woken up saying, "Ah yes, it's only a computer game". It became apparent that it only was important for Bioware that you wouldn't miss the stroyline, sacrificing realism for it. I could live with something like that if it wouldn't be so easy to fix...
That's exactly my point. I *hate* it when games are built upon the assumption that you're doing things in a specific order. Hey, it's a role-playing game where I should be able to do things the way I like! And again, implementing a flag to check if you've already spoken to the old man, combined with some more dialogue options in case you haven't, would have solved this. As I've said, I'd prefer fewer side quests but more realistic conversations instead.
Good question. It's been a very long time since I've played those games, so maybe I'm glorifying things a bit, but in my memory Torment had much better writing. I had the feeling they actually had hired some professional writer, while KOTOR has dialogues I could have written, too. Fallout just felt more original (maybe I would see that different nowadays), and had a much better combat system - if combat playes such a huge role in a game, the combat system should be designed accordingly.
-Kylearan
maybe I was a bit unfair towards the game in my post but hey, that's why I've tagged it as a rant... ;)
Urza-DSF,Feb 22 2005, 03: Wrote:PS runs off of the BG engine if I'm not mistaken (havent played Tormet yet) and theres no "friendly fire" option in there, only thing that can affect your party as well as your enemies are certain area of effect spells. As for Fallout yes your party could shoot you in the back, but combinging that with the generally small maps and at times narrow passageways and NPCs that you couldnt control meant that Ian with a bust weapon could mean a total party kill.
I liked the Fallout combat system better, even with the stupid NPC AI. It felt more tactical, combat was more than just selecting the right combat feat and clicking on the next target. If combat takes such a big role in a CRPG, then a more sophisticated system should be used IMHO.
I can live without friendly fire, but then cover rules (trying to hit a target standing behind someone else giving you a malus on the to-hit roll) would have been nice, to make movement a bit more meaningful. This flaw wasn't so apparent in PS/BG since the view was isometric, but with KOTOR's 3D engine, it looks a bit silly if you have problems clicking on your target because somebody else standing between you blocks the clickable area, but actually hitting him is as easy as ever...
Quote:I believe it was because you dont have to talk to him [Canderous] all of those times, so they made sure that if you missed one or two of them that you could still get the guy's story. Yes they could have implimented it slightly better, but who is perfect?
For me, immersion is the most important part with any RPG. Things like this break immersion for me. The more characters behave/conversate different from real-life people, the more problematic. My example with Canderous was one of several occasions that got me woken up saying, "Ah yes, it's only a computer game". It became apparent that it only was important for Bioware that you wouldn't miss the stroyline, sacrificing realism for it. I could live with something like that if it wouldn't be so easy to fix...
Quote:Your actually doing this backwards. In the slums your suppost to talk to the old man first, [...]
That's exactly my point. I *hate* it when games are built upon the assumption that you're doing things in a specific order. Hey, it's a role-playing game where I should be able to do things the way I like! And again, implementing a flag to check if you've already spoken to the old man, combined with some more dialogue options in case you haven't, would have solved this. As I've said, I'd prefer fewer side quests but more realistic conversations instead.
Quote:An easier question would probally be: what made Torment and Fallout such good games in your mind?
Good question. It's been a very long time since I've played those games, so maybe I'm glorifying things a bit, but in my memory Torment had much better writing. I had the feeling they actually had hired some professional writer, while KOTOR has dialogues I could have written, too. Fallout just felt more original (maybe I would see that different nowadays), and had a much better combat system - if combat playes such a huge role in a game, the combat system should be designed accordingly.
-Kylearan
There are two kinds of fools. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider