It looks to me like you're focussed more on the combat, and you want to have a clearly set out goal and know what you've got to achieve in each battle, whereas I'm playing for the story and characters, and the purpose of the combat is to serve that story
I dont really think those things are mutualy exclusive.
Also, you are wrong ... what im looking for is coherent ballanced experience ... i never understand people who "dont mind bad combat, bcs they are more focused on the story" ... nor people who "dont mind weak story, bcs they are more interested in the combat" ... in my opinion, those things should be ballanced and support each other, trying to separate them, even in case when you are trying to determine where is the focus is therefore a misstake.
or if it had told me that the battle would be in three phases.
Where did you get this? O_o
I mean its great that you think it ... but since nobody was suggesting such thing, it seems a little out of nowhere.
All you see when you reach the roof, and start fighting Ketheric, is that he have i dunno f.e. 500HP ... nothing else.
And what you will see as you will fight him is that he will escape at some point ...
> The only difference is that in curent version, you have him almost killed ... it dont really matter if he runs with 1HP, or 20 ...
> And in this version he would run around half lets say.
For me, that sort of surprise is fun and ramps up the tension. I like to imagine what the party is thinking at that point, suddenly having to decide whether to go after him, and if they can afford to rest to recover.
First of all, im quite sure you cant rest at that point.
Second, and that is also important ... i would dare to say that this apply on both cases. O_o
part of the story for me that wouldn't have happened without that first phase.
Indeed ... but my suggestion was not to remove first phase, just integrate it closer to the wider narative of that whole encounter.
Talking about wasted effort, the result would have been exactly the same if you'd killed Ketheric on the top of the tower, and then a cutscene played showing you that you needed to go to the basement where you'd fight two separate bosses, one of which could be the avatar of Myrkul. Why would that be more satisfying than Ketheric pulling off an escape?
To me? It would be more satisfying ... bcs my effort were not negated.
I fighted the vilain ... i spend lots of resources in that battle ... and it had the desired results > vilain is dead.
That makes me feel like my actions had meaning.
When i fight the vilain ... and i see the next hit WOULD kill him, bcs i played the game for last few dozen of hours and it is working this way with everyone else ... but in next scene he in perfectly vital, healthy, and i need to start over ... i dont have that feeling. :-/
but the first few times you hit an enemy you're not driving a sword into their chest.
Never said it is ...
I guess from there it's not too hard to see the hitpoint bar not as the amount of injury it takes to kill an enemy, but the amount of attacks needed to complete the current task.
And what difference does it make?
You need to hit enemy enough times > RESET cut scene > start over.
You need to catch enough eggs > RESET cut scene > start over.
You need to i dunno, fill your drink > RESET cut scene > start over.
That is the problem here ...
Not HP ... but what lack of them presents, it presents your progress in task ... and you want your curent progress to count for something. :-/
Have you ever downloaded any big file on dial up connection?
Do you remember the situation where you had 99% and then window telling you "connection lost" appeared ... and you knew you will have to start it all over again?
THATS how it feels.
Sometimes it is cheap when a game takes away an enemy that you thought you'd defeated
I think its allways cheap ...
I think it allways feel like when you order a grilled Rothé Ribs ... and got smelly fish soup instead.
