Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Zomgnome #399715 09/01/10 12:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
P
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
P
Joined: Jan 2010
By the way, speaking of grinding for XP, consider landing in the Fjords and taking the long scenic route on foot instead of flying, you'll have plenty of mobs to fight then.

Libertarian #400059 10/01/10 02:56 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Jan 2010
shadowdef.... crybaby -.-

i think its actually better if enemies dont respawn. Feels more...... Realistic

shadowdef #400635 12/01/10 12:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Jan 2010
I'm sorry but it sounds like most people here are just trying to avoid admitting they may have bought a game with a serious flaw.

Let me ask you this: is there any reason not to have respawning enemies? What is the benefit to the game experience in eliminating respawns to someone who wants respawning enemies? (which by the way will be ALOT of people)

I, too, am disappointed to hear that this game will only have a limited number of enemies in the game to kill, and that your character will only be able to advance so far before the final confrontation is thrust upon him. In my opinion that makes this game no different than a first person shooter like half life in terms of progressing through the world.

In half life you kill enemies and they stay dead, you move on to the next level until you reach the final challenge. By then you are more powerful due to the fact that you have new guns, but you're only just so powerful and there nothing at all you can do to change that. This game is exactly like that. You get to level 35 and thats it. You can change your weapons or abilities sort of like you can change guns in half life, but thats the limit on your control over the situation.

The OP is correct that this fails to be an RPG. RPGs arent just about choosing one of 4 text replies from a menu in a dialogue box. RPG's are about having complete control over your character, what he does, where he goes. Thats why the VAST MAJORITY of games that style themselves as RPG's allow sufficient opportunities for combat that anyone can bring their character to any level of power they wished before completing the game.

In a game like this, theres no reason to even have levels. Just make everything level one and balance all encounters around level 1. Dont show numbers and you've saved yourself alot of work. It would be just like devil may cry or a similar game. No levels, just powerups and gear.

But hey i guess they wouldn't be able to really call it an RPG if it didnt have RPG elements.

Nonsensei #400665 12/01/10 01:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jan 2010
non i dont even read your post
THERE IS NO RESPAWN in most of modern rpg's
There is respawn in HACK AND SLASH games AKA : diablo, sacred , titan quest
There is semi respawn in oblivion and semi respawn in morrowind : only monsters respawn human/deadric enemys dont

IF u like GRINDING and ifninite exping go play hack and slash, or World OF Noobs.. i mean Warcraft.. hmm
D2 is somehow clone of gothic in some aspects, and there is no repawn in gothic ( eccept g3 but that game was not real gothic but bugfest bs )

The point is grinding != rpg at all. whole infinite exp shiet is stricly h&s
go check wizardry or m&m. I Dont say grinding is bad at all but TBH i play titan quest few days agoo and need to sit and kill the same mobs over and over and over again is freeking borring like hell and is nothing to do with rpg .

and TBH i rly dont care are thre respawn or there is no respawn if mobs are balanced. so bad in d2 they are not but that is another story . also comparing D2 to HL2 is pointless hl is totally diferent story


shadowdef #400704 12/01/10 04:29 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford, England
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford, England
I am so pleased i read this thread, I for one cannot abide respawns and this post has made my mind up about the game which i will now be definately buying. I once tried a game called Sacred and after realising the amount of respawns shelved the game very quickly.


"I used to have a handle on life, then it broke."
Nonsensei #400713 12/01/10 04:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
Originally Posted by Nonsensei
I'm sorry but it sounds like most people here are just trying to avoid admitting they may have bought a game with a serious flaw.


1. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are misinformed and haven't read the entirety of those posts.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
Let me ask you this: is there any reason not to have respawning enemies? What is the benefit to the game experience in eliminating respawns to someone who wants respawning enemies? (which by the way will be ALOT of people)


2. For some there is, some there isn't. When there is no obvious benefit to a feature, such as respawns, there is no need for it to be implemented. Therefore, for those that want respawns just for the sake of max-leveling and being uber, there are plenty of MMO's/FPS's/etc. that cater to those folks. I get the feeling that no matter the genre of game, you and the OP would react the same if there was no way to further your uberness to the absolute max level.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
I, too, am disappointed to hear that this game will only have a limited number of enemies in the game to kill, and that your character will only be able to advance so far before the final confrontation is thrust upon him. In my opinion that makes this game no different than a first person shooter like half life in terms of progressing through the world.


3. Limited number is relative...so, limited relative to what? Apparently, the game can be completed, so apparently one can level as far as required to win the game.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
In half life you kill enemies and they stay dead, you move on to the next level until you reach the final challenge. By then you are more powerful due to the fact that you have new guns, but you're only just so powerful and there nothing at all you can do to change that. This game is exactly like that. You get to level 35 and thats it. You can change your weapons or abilities sort of like you can change guns in half life, but thats the limit on your control over the situation.


4. Half- life??? You compare this game to a science fiction FPS???

5. You get to level 35 and that's it? What if you could get to level 60? Or 100? Then you ask why not 150 ?!?!

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
The OP is correct that this fails to be an RPG. RPGs arent just about choosing one of 4 text replies from a menu in a dialogue box. RPG's are about having complete control over your character, what he does, where he goes. Thats why the VAST MAJORITY of games that style themselves as RPG's allow sufficient opportunities for combat that anyone can bring their character to any level of power they wished before completing the game.


6. Name me 10 true RPG's that do this. Or even 5. Not that it will be the VAST MAJORITY, but at least might give some credence to your argument. Doubtful, but possible.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
In a game like this, theres no reason to even have levels. Just make everything level one and balance all encounters around level 1. Dont show numbers and you've saved yourself alot of work. It would be just like devil may cry or a similar game. No levels, just powerups and gear.


7. LOL, just showed your gaming heritage and where your opinions come from. Naming a hack and slash game that originated on consoles. Figures.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei
But hey i guess they wouldn't be able to really call it an RPG if it didnt have RPG elements.


8. Since you are comparing hack and slash/FPS titles to RPG's, it's easy to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.

9. Welcome to the forum.

[/quote]


Is reality just a fantasy?
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Belgium
It saddens me to see how the MMORPG's are influencing the gaming community. Where does this belief that RPG's have to have respawns come from?
'Cause those MMO's have respawns to keep their players (wheter monthly paying or not) entertained for the longest duration possible, suddenly every game has to have respawns?
How does playing a role have anything to do with respawning creatures and since when is not having respawns considered a flaw?

As SheaOhmsford pointed out, Devil May Cry cannot be compared to Divinity. Furthermore, though there are no actual levels in DMC, you do gain more power throughout the game, so basically gaining levels and powering up your character are the same(Red Orbs=experience), so stating that everything is 'level 1' is just a load of crap.

RPG's are not about complete control, there will always be limits to what your character can do or achieve. And well, level 35 might be the maximum level to achieve, but does WoW or GW (which both feature respawns) don't have a maximum level too? What is it that you want then? The possibility to go into infinite, or am I missing something?

I can understand some people like grinding, but that doesn't mean every game has to be a grindfest.


isorun #400738 12/01/10 05:53 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Netherlands
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Netherlands
I think Divinity 2 is an RPG and sure does benefit from NOT having respawns. Why?

1. There is no fast travel or teleportation in this game, neither can you fly as dragon everywehere. Because of this, it would be very annoying if you had to fight the same mobs over and over again. Imagine yourself becoming stronger and the mobs staying the same, you'd be butchering them, which is no fun. But if the mobs level-up just like the player, you will have the feeling your character is not progressing at all.
2. The enemies are pretty hard to defeat, especially in the beginning and for inexperienced players. I am happy they stay dead when I defeat them. It would be horrible if they were to respawn again somewhere I had already passed. This also gives me the feeling I am actually doing something in a REAL world. Respawning mobs is just so... lame... and MMO or multiplayer RPG-ish.
3. By NOT having respawning mobs, the player is more stimulated to do quests and solve them for the extra XP. It would be silly if you could reach the maximum level or max out your favorite skill by killing a mob over and over again. Now you have to explore the world, take risks and fight new enemies. That's so much more fun than just holding down the attack button, right?

Because Divinity 2 is like this and not like, say Sacred 2, it's a different type of game. A different type of RPG. Considering games ranging from Fallout 3, World of Warcraft, Sacred 2 and Borderlands are called RPG, I wouldn't see why Divinity 2 isn't one!


https://www.xboxworld.nl/news - The best Dutch Xbox 360 webstite and community!
https://www.xboxworld.nl/article/933/review-divinity-2-ego-draconis/ - My Xboxworld.nl review
Willlem #400753 12/01/10 06:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
I don't think the debate here is whether it is or isn't classified as some sort of RPG. I think everyone, with the few obvious exceptions, would say that it is a damn fine RPG. It is whether it should have respawns and whether the lack thereof makes it less of an RPG. To the latter notion, I say it is a wildly ludicrous and unsubstantiated claim.



Is reality just a fantasy?
Joined: Jan 2010
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jan 2010
yep there is no real need for respawn in this type of rpg but they cut make thatmobs at last higher lvls on fjords :P


Joined: Jan 2010
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Jan 2010
Originally Posted by marcusdavidus
non i dont even read your post
THERE IS NO RESPAWN in most of modern rpg's
There is respawn in HACK AND SLASH games AKA : diablo, sacred , titan quest
There is semi respawn in oblivion and semi respawn in morrowind : only monsters respawn human/deadric enemys dont

IF u like GRINDING and ifninite exping go play hack and slash, or World OF Noobs.. i mean Warcraft.. hmm
D2 is somehow clone of gothic in some aspects, and there is no repawn in gothic ( eccept g3 but that game was not real gothic but bugfest bs )

The point is grinding != rpg at all. whole infinite exp shiet is stricly h&s
go check wizardry or m&m. I Dont say grinding is bad at all but TBH i play titan quest few days agoo and need to sit and kill the same mobs over and over and over again is freeking borring like hell and is nothing to do with rpg .

and TBH i rly dont care are thre respawn or there is no respawn if mobs are balanced. so bad in d2 they are not but that is another story . also comparing D2 to HL2 is pointless hl is totally diferent story


So your argument is that if its hack and slash its not a "real" rpg. Isn't that convenient. For you.
You know I dont like strawberry ice cream. I wasnt aware that I could just declare that its not really ice cream. Thats damn convenient.

Joined: Jan 2010
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Jan 2010
Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

1. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you are misinformed and haven't read the entirety of those posts.


No idea why you would think that. The majority of people responding on this thread are rabidly defending the lack of respawns. The flood of people who did a fanboy bum rush on my first post is further evidence.


Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

2. For some there is, some there isn't. When there is no obvious benefit to a feature, such as respawns, there is no need for it to be implemented. Therefore, for those that want respawns just for the sake of max-leveling and being uber, there are plenty of MMO's/FPS's/etc. that cater to those folks. I get the feeling that no matter the genre of game, you and the OP would react the same if there was no way to further your uberness to the absolute max level.


Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable. The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle. Not having them does. People like "getting to max level and being uber". Implying that it is dumb and unimportant is, again, entirely your own belief which is in opposition to a likely vast group of people who passed this game over, possibly because of the lack of this "unnecessary feature.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

3. Limited number is relative...so, limited relative to what? Apparently, the game can be completed, so apparently one can level as far as required to win the game.


Limited number is not relative. Limited is limited. If i want to fight the final boss before reaching the max level attainable, you wouldnt have any problem with that. But suddenly if i want to level beyond that and make the final boss "easier" then OMG thats so wrong and unnecessary? What?

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

4. Half- life??? You compare this game to a science fiction FPS???


Yes i compare this game to half life, and i explain exactly how they are almost perfect mirrors of eachother in terms of progression through the story, and character power relative to the environment. The fact that you cant or wont grasp my point is alarming.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

5. You get to level 35 and that's it? What if you could get to level 60? Or 100? Then you ask why not 150 ?!?!


Yes why not? That is what im asking. Why not? Why is that bad? Why is allowing me to level as far as i would like to go a bad thing?

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

6. Name me 10 true RPG's that do this. Or even 5. Not that it will be the VAST MAJORITY, but at least might give some credence to your argument. Doubtful, but possible.


Oh please. I know how this shakes down. I name 5 or 10 rpgs and then you launch into an explanation about how they arent really RPG's. Who are you to put me to the question? How about YOU name for ME 10 RPGs that DONT have respawns? That way i get to tell YOU why they suck.


Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

7. LOL, just showed your gaming heritage and where your opinions come from. Naming a hack and slash game that originated on consoles. Figures.


ROFL i mention that ive played DMC before and suddenly you know all about my "gaming heritage"? What are you, a child? Because thats the sort of assumption only a child would jump to. Chances are i was playing video games before you were capable of forming words, so my "gaming heritage" is the heritage of gaming itself.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

8. Since you are comparing hack and slash/FPS titles to RPG's, it's easy to assume you have no idea what you are talking about.


And heres more self serving nonsense about how "hack and slash" titles arent real RPG's. Such a convenient rule to make when having this argument. Heres a hint. If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG. Cutting out games from the genre because you dont like them is complete logical fail.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

9. Welcome to the forum.


Was that supposed to be witty?

Nonsensei #400856 13/01/10 01:02 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2010
I'm going to agree with shadowdef and nonsensei. Everyone has their own way of playing games. Some ppl search every nook and cranny while some just blow through the game at their own pace. Me, personally, i like to grind. It feels good to be able to go back and level up. Especially in this game, where, if you don't save often, u can see that gameover screen within seconds.

Is it that bad if i want to make my game a little less stressful by leveling up? Even on Easy i get destroyed. So when i can't go back to grind, it makes the game feel like if you do something wrong u have to start over. This leads to stress which, is the reason why i'll be soon returning this game to GameStop.

I'm glad there's no level scaling like Oblivion but having no respawn is just like nonsensei says. It makes the game feel less of an rpg and more of a linear fps.

Nonsensei #400908 13/01/10 08:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Larian Studios
Offline
Larian Studios
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The majority of people responding on this thread are rabidly defending the lack of respawns. The flood of people who did a fanboy bum rush on my first post is further evidence.

So calling the game a total trash waste of money (expletives deleted) is apparently reasoned discourse, but if you disagree that respawning is absolutely essential, then that is 'rabid'?
There was no fanboy bum rush on your first post. There was a fair bit of reaction to your rather strange notions of what an RPG is, but that had nothing to be with being a fanboy, as it had noting at all to do with the game or Larian.


Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable.

Likewise, you can not declare a feature necessary because you find it desirable.


The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle.

So how do I avoid having to kill the same opponents over and over when they respawn along my path back to town?
How do I get any sense of accomplishment clearing an area when 5 minutes later there is no difference from when I started?
How do I become immersed in the gameworld when nothing I do makes a difference?

Limited respawns, such as along the borders of cleared areas, could fit into the gameworld, but the game was designed from the start without respawn. The whole risk-reward dynamic of mindreading, enemy balancing, game pacing, etc, would all be different if Larian had decided to introduce respawning opponents. It can not be tacked on as an after-thought.


If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG.

Don't forget that if it has an ending or doesn't have respawning opponents then it can not be an RPG.

shadowdef #400922 13/01/10 09:20 AM
Joined: Jan 2010
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Jan 2010
!!!SPOILER!!!

Surprise, there is actually a spot where you can grind endlessly for exp, and the mobs don't stop. (Well, for the most part.) The quest in aleroth chapel where you have to defend Zandalor for 60 seconds. I went from just below level 30 to level 33 before I finally got lucky enough and the enemies backed him into a corner where they couldn't him anymore. Oh well, that's that I get for going pure melee I suppose.

Nonsensei #400975 13/01/10 02:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
Originally Posted by Nonsensei


No idea why you would think that. The majority of people responding on this thread are rabidly defending the lack of respawns. The flood of people who did a fanboy bum rush on my first post is further evidence.


Wrong, do the math, I did. And because they disagree with your notions of respawns and what an RPG is, they are simply fanboys, and their opinions are not relevant?


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable. The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle. Not having them does. People like "getting to max level and being uber". Implying that it is dumb and unimportant is, again, entirely your own belief which is in opposition to a likely vast group of people who passed this game over, possibly because of the lack of this "unnecessary feature.


Raze beat me to this with the most succinct answer, however, I didn't do any such thing. Simply stated a rational justification for why the devs didn't implement such a system, and offered alternative venues to seek such gratification.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Limited number is not relative. Limited is limited. If i want to fight the final boss before reaching the max level attainable, you wouldnt have any problem with that. But suddenly if i want to level beyond that and make the final boss "easier" then OMG thats so wrong and unnecessary? What?


You missed the point entirely, when is enough, enough? Maybe there isn't for you, but even WoW has "endgame" level max. Just because you can grind endessly, and some would say mindlessly, there is still a limit to how far you can go. If you wanted to argue there should be DLC or expansions, then I'll certainly buy that argument. The point of this game is to reach the ultimate goal of defeating the final boss, with many subplots mixed in.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Yes i compare this game to half life, and i explain exactly how they are almost perfect mirrors of eachother in terms of progression through the story, and character power relative to the environment. The fact that you cant or wont grasp my point is alarming.


RPG's, we're talking RPG's here. Action or otherwise...check the gamesites, halflife is labeled a FPS.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Yes why not? That is what im asking. Why not? Why is that bad? Why is allowing me to level as far as i would like to go a bad thing?


Bad? No. Unrealistic? Yes.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Oh please. I know how this shakes down. I name 5 or 10 rpgs and then you launch into an explanation about how they arent really RPG's. Who are you to put me to the question? How about YOU name for ME 10 RPGs that DONT have respawns? That way i get to tell YOU why they suck.


Because we would digress into what an RPG really is, which you and others have already done. I didn't say that your list would suck, I challenged you to come up with a list to prove me and the "fanboys" wrong, which you obviously can't.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

7. ROFL i mention that ive played DMC before and suddenly you know all about my "gaming heritage"? What are you, a child? Because thats the sort of assumption only a child would jump to. Chances are i was playing video games before you were capable of forming words, so my "gaming heritage" is the heritage of gaming itself.


Because you jump to name and compare non-RPG's...doesn't take freshman level psychology to figure that one out. Also, I was there when JFK was shot, and remember it, so unless you were playing on supercomputers that had the prcessing power of my wristwatch, I doubt you were playing computer games when I was a tot.

Originally Posted by Nonsensei

8. And heres more self serving nonsense about how "hack and slash" titles arent real RPG's. Such a convenient rule to make when having this argument. Heres a hint. If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG. Cutting out games from the genre because you dont like them is complete logical fail.


All that means is that plenty of games have RPG elements, but that doesn't make that aspect the true allure of the game, or a TRUE RPG. If so, then a lot of smart folks have wasted time and money by developing and marketing games as FPS, strategy, sims, shooters, etc. Kind of like your ice cream analogy...they are ALL ice cream, just different flavors of ice cream...this one is just your strawberry.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

9. Was that supposed to be witty?


Nope, spirited debate is all good and it passes the time on a boring day at work.


Last edited by SheaOhmsford; 13/01/10 02:32 PM.

Is reality just a fantasy?
Joined: Jan 2010
M
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
M
Joined: Jan 2010
nonsensei hack and slahs is not real rpg. hack and slash is hack and slash u want see real rpg go play baldurs gate . in rpg game u actually got good exp for questing and u can solve problems in another way than killing every one hack and slash = diablo titan quest DS sacred . rpg = morrowind baldurs planescape etc . the diferecens are quitte esential if u dont see it ur simply n00b and is end of story .

also nonsensei the fiat cinquacento is a car and aston martin db9 is a car, but word "car" for fiat is != the word "car" for db9 even if both got 4 wheels

Last edited by marcusdavidus; 13/01/10 07:04 PM.

Nonsensei #401089 13/01/10 08:25 PM
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Czech republic
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Czech republic
Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable.


Raze answers that correctly.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle. Not having them does. People like "getting to max level and being uber".


Well in this statement its crystal clear you doesnt know anything beyond YOUR own playing style and your own gaming preference. It DOES cramp a lot. If you would read previous posts you should know why many of us dislike respawn. If you cant live without it, I think there are many other games you may find suitable for your liking - especially MMORPGs.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

if i want to level beyond that and make the final boss "easier" then OMG thats so wrong and unnecessary?


Why should be boss fight easy anyway? Bosses are bigger creeps? Maybe its designed this way. You have complete control on a way you will develop your character, which skills, weapons or playing style you will prefer and master. I think its more than enough to beat a boss. If you cant beat him, you do something wrong or you cant play RPG games and develop your character - but then dont blame a game. If you have problem with difficulty - be honest and write it and dont try to cover your problems under a mess of so-called-arguments.

For me boss is a creature/demon or unnatural being beyond human possibilities. To think that you can relatively easily level up and be stronger than a boss is IMHO weird and a little naive. If you are mortal human, you can be Achilles or king Arthur but you will never be Basilisk, Fafnir or Surt. If the creature is mortal then there is some way to kill it and be a hero but it shouldnt be easy fight with opponent on YOUR = human level.


BTW inteligent gamer doesnt need respawn. He is able to explore, to develop, to choose sides in a story, to learn and to master a hero/skills/tactics. Designers give him all tools to win a game and enjoy it. Frankly - gamestyle "to be a superhero you need only to kill more stupid and easy respawning mobs" is for noobs. It may seem a little harsh comment but that it is. Note - if you like respawn, ok. But why should you need it in EVERY RPG (or "RPG")? And dont tell us you cant learn and be better...


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

5. You get to level 35 and that's it? What if you could get to level 60? Or 100? Then you ask why not 150 ?!?!


Yes why not? That is what im asking. Why not? Why is that bad? Why is allowing me to level as far as i would like to go a bad thing?


He didnt say its bad. He just clearly pointed out that this idea is ridiculous and doesnt have any sense. ALL games (and not only computer games) are somewhat limited. Only in your fantasies you can do anything. It doesnt make difference if the game would allow you to go max. to 35th or 50th or 150th level. There are always some limits and it has NOTHING to do with quality of the game, with the story, the world, dialogs, level of interaction, quality of quests, fight system etc.



Originally Posted by Nonsensei

If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG.


Really? In arcade games or FPS shooters you also progress through some story, you have slight level of interaction with environment (jump, take things, open doors...), you can scale your ability... so for you arcade or FPS games are RPGs? Many genres can be described as RPG this way. So it seems more like a mess and not description of a genre. I assume its desperate try to make some argument over your core idea "there must be respawn and I cant live without it". Man, give us a break...

Last edited by Farflame; 13/01/10 08:29 PM.
Farflame #401100 13/01/10 09:20 PM
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Va, USA
Originally Posted by Farflame
Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Im sorry but you cant just arbitrarily declare that a feature many people would find desirable is not needed just because YOU wouldnt find it desirable.


Raze answers that correctly.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

The fact is that having respawns doesnt cramp anyones playstyle. Not having them does. People like "getting to max level and being uber".


Well in this statement its crystal clear you doesnt know anything beyond YOUR own playing style and your own gaming preference. It DOES cramp a lot. If you would read previous posts you should know why many of us dislike respawn. If you cant live without it, I think there are many other games you may find suitable for your liking - especially MMORPGs.


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

if i want to level beyond that and make the final boss "easier" then OMG thats so wrong and unnecessary?


Why should be boss fight easy anyway? Bosses are bigger creeps? Maybe its designed this way. You have complete control on a way you will develop your character, which skills, weapons or playing style you will prefer and master. I think its more than enough to beat a boss. If you cant beat him, you do something wrong or you cant play RPG games and develop your character - but then dont blame a game. If you have problem with difficulty - be honest and write it and dont try to cover your problems under a mess of so-called-arguments.

For me boss is a creature/demon or unnatural being beyond human possibilities. To think that you can relatively easily level up and be stronger than a boss is IMHO weird and a little naive. If you are mortal human, you can be Achilles or king Arthur but you will never be Basilisk, Fafnir or Surt. If the creature is mortal then there is some way to kill it and be a hero but it shouldnt be easy fight with opponent on YOUR = human level.


BTW inteligent gamer doesnt need respawn. He is able to explore, to develop, to choose sides in a story, to learn and to master a hero/skills/tactics. Designers give him all tools to win a game and enjoy it. Frankly - gamestyle "to be a superhero you need only to kill more stupid and easy respawning mobs" is for noobs. It may seem a little harsh comment but that it is. Note - if you like respawn, ok. But why should you need it in EVERY RPG (or "RPG")? And dont tell us you cant learn and be better...


Originally Posted by Nonsensei

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

5. You get to level 35 and that's it? What if you could get to level 60? Or 100? Then you ask why not 150 ?!?!


Yes why not? That is what im asking. Why not? Why is that bad? Why is allowing me to level as far as i would like to go a bad thing?


He didnt say its bad. He just clearly pointed out that this idea is ridiculous and doesnt have any sense. ALL games (and not only computer games) are somewhat limited. Only in your fantasies you can do anything. It doesnt make difference if the game would allow you to go max. to 35th or 50th or 150th level. There are always some limits and it has NOTHING to do with quality of the game, with the story, the world, dialogs, level of interaction, quality of quests, fight system etc.



Originally Posted by Nonsensei

If its got a protagonist that you control, a story that you progress through, and a system designed to interact with the environment and scale your own ability to effect said envirnment based on your participation, ITS AN RPG.


Really? In arcade games or FPS shooters you also progress through some story, you have slight level of interaction with environment (jump, take things, open doors...), you can scale your ability... so for you arcade or FPS games are RPGs? Many genres can be described as RPG this way. So it seems more like a mess and not description of a genre. I assume its desperate try to make some argument over your core idea "there must be respawn and I cant live without it". Man, give us a break...


celebrate cheer claphands grin


Is reality just a fantasy?
Joined: Jan 2010
N
stranger
Offline
stranger
N
Joined: Jan 2010
Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Wrong, do the math, I did. And because they disagree with your notions of respawns and what an RPG is, they are simply fanboys, and their opinions are not relevant?


Theyre fanboys because they are defending the fact that a feature is missing from a game and twisting a negative into a positive. It doesnt have anything to do with disagreeing with me. A measured analysis of this situation would make a normal person wonder why Larian didnt include an option for respawn so that both playstyles could accommodated. Instead people just say "its fine you arent a real RPG fan". Thats being a fanboy.


Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford
Raze beat me to this with the most succinct answer, however, I didn't do any such thing. Simply stated a rational justification for why the devs didn't implement such a system, and offered alternative venues to seek such gratification.


Then ill post Raze's comment here and respond to it.

Originally Posted by Raze

So how do I avoid having to kill the same opponents over and over when they respawn along my path back to town?
How do I get any sense of accomplishment clearing an area when 5 minutes later there is no difference from when I started?
How do I become immersed in the gameworld when nothing I do makes a difference?

Limited respawns, such as along the borders of cleared areas, could fit into the gameworld, but the game was designed from the start without respawn. The whole risk-reward dynamic of mindreading, enemy balancing, game pacing, etc, would all be different if Larian had decided to introduce respawning opponents. It can not be tacked on as an after-thought.


Why would killing opponents be something you would want to avoid?
How does having to clear an area again deny your sense of accomplishment for clearing it the first time? Wouldnt that just mean your are satisfied with having cleared it twice? Double the satisfaction.
How does having to kill some enemies again equate to not having any effect on the game world? Thats an overreaction.

I disagree that respawns cannot be tacked on as an after thought. The solution to mind reading is simple: instead of consuming XP just provide a limited number of times it can be used. As for the enemy balancing and game pacing, yes that would be upset. Thats the idea. Some people like to earn that effect. Thats the point of respawns.



Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

You missed the point entirely, when is enough, enough? Maybe there isn't for you, but even WoW has "endgame" level max. Just because you can grind endessly, and some would say mindlessly, there is still a limit to how far you can go. If you wanted to argue there should be DLC or expansions, then I'll certainly buy that argument. The point of this game is to reach the ultimate goal of defeating the final boss, with many subplots mixed in.


Enough is enough when I say its enough. Not when some developer says its enough. I want to be able to level as much as i please and then decide on my own that its time to finish the game. At my leisure. Lets be honest here. Capping the number of available enemies in the game is tantamount to controlling how long players can play. its really just a step short of simply teleporting you to the final boss when the last enemy dies and forcing the final confrontation on you, then closing the program. I want control over when that happens, and its not an unreasonable request for $49.95.


Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

RPGs, we're talking RPGs here. Action or otherwise...check the gamesites, halflife is labeled a FPS.


I'm talking about how progression through the game world reminds me of playing an FPS. You're stuck on a locomotive heading to the final destination at a tightly controlled pace. there might be a few forks in the road but they all lead to the same place at the same time. The fact that this "RPG" reminds me of an "FPS" the most, despite the more cosmetic differences, is the point. That's not a good thing.


Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Bad? No. Unrealistic? Yes.


How is it unrealistic? Plenty of games have done it.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Because we would digress into what an RPG really is, which you and others have already done. I didn't say that your list would suck, I challenged you to come up with a list to prove me and the "fanboys" wrong, which you obviously can't.


Such a predictable response to which the obvious answer is that you didn't provide a list either, so i guess you obviously cant, too.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

Because you jump to name and compare non-RPG's...doesn't take freshman level psychology to figure that one out. Also, I was there when JFK was shot, and remember it, so unless you were playing on supercomputers that had the prcessing power of my wristwatch, I doubt you were playing computer games when I was a tot.


Actually it apparently does take a freshmen level of psychology to figure that one out because you were wrong. I'm naming games that this game reminds me of. The fact that not a single one of them is an RPG is telling.

And yes, of course, once the question of age comes up suddenly everyone is a geriatric. Im 27. I played a hand-me-down atari when i was a kid, and have been gaming ever since. Saying that my gaming history originates from Devil May Cry is dumb.

Originally Posted by SheaOhmsford

All that means is that plenty of games have RPG elements, but that doesn't make that aspect the true allure of the game, or a TRUE RPG.


Says you! Again, youre defining what an RPG is and then declaring that games which dont meet YOUR definition are not true RPGS, but merely have "RPG elements". Again, the self serving rule emerges.


Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5