Personal computing discussed
tfp wrote:I half wonder if the dumb down is because developers are trying to appeal to a wider audience not because of consoles. Baldurs Gate was hardcore D&D rules if I remember correctly do people still want to play like that other than those of us that miss playing D&D simi regularly?
Madman wrote:The game just have so much re-playability and math behind it, it's just amazing.
Madman wrote:I really do hope they won't turn it into dumb and simplified console autoslash and autobash like DA2.
Ryu Connor wrote:The original 2nd Edition D&D rules were not well balanced and were - obviously - before the rise of the MMO. So yes, the nature of the gameplay for the old PC games that adhered to those rules as compared to now has radically changed.
derfunkstein wrote:As long as it's BG as in BG2 and not BG as in that dreadful action/rpg hybrid game they made for the PS2. Can't get much more dumbed-down than that
druidcent wrote:Sometimes I feel I've got to build my own game to get what I want..
hawking74 wrote:I tried DA and just couldn't get into it. Wasted money on that one for sure. I found combat to be difficult because monsters were sometimes off screen and yet shooting arrows or spells at you. It didn't seem as manageable as the isometric view in BG.
Sometimes I think I'm just too old or lazy to learn new game mechanics. I don't want it to be like an MMO where you have to pay attention to aggro. If I want an MMO I will play WoW.
Hawkwing74 wrote:I tried DA and just couldn't get into it. Wasted money on that one for sure. I found combat to be difficult because monsters were sometimes off screen and yet shooting arrows or spells at you. It didn't seem as manageable as the isometric view in BG.
allreadydead wrote:Aggro management and holy trinity (Healer, Tank, DPS) has always been a part of this type of games.
Glorious wrote:allreadydead wrote:Aggro management and holy trinity (Healer, Tank, DPS) has always been a part of this type of games.
But they weren't explicitly built around it. That just organically developed from the underlying and somewhat unavoidable fundamentals.
For instance, players implicitly did aggro-management by manipulating the game AI through positioning and tactics. Figuring out the game mechanic and how to handle it was part of the fun.
Now, it's directly built into your skill-set, into everything. It's explicitly there. You don't figure it out on your own, you just hot-key "Get Monster Attention III."
The new games have a made a science out of it. A game chemistry, if you will. All the reactions, ingredients, and equipment is there, right in front of you. The only question is which reaction will create the specific compound the game wants, and I do mean specific. Designers these days generally build the big battles as exactly that kind of puzzle: there is one right way to do it.
---
I don't want the science, I want the mystery of imprecise self-discovery. I don't want chemistry, I want alchemy.
Glorious wrote:The new games have a made a science out of it. A game chemistry, if you will. All the reactions, ingredients, and equipment is there, right in front of you. The only question is which reaction will create the specific compound the game wants, and I do mean specific. Designers these days generally build the big battles as exactly that kind of puzzle: there is one right way to do it.
---
I don't want the science, I want the mystery of imprecise self-discovery. I don't want chemistry, I want alchemy.
bthylafh wrote:It used the old Second Edition AD&D rules, with the really annoying bookkeeping abstracted away (it's what computers do best).
Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes!