D
DArtagnan
Guest
I meant the part about the mainstream indie, which you later explained. Still, I'll address this.
Hell, no - I'm not neutral. I've been a Spiderweb beta-tester since the early Geneforges and rank some of his games among the best I've played.
I can appreciate that, but you should also be able to appreciate how it can create scepticism when considering your position as to the game and the end result of this "mainstreaming" process.
The "protective" part is frustration that a "hardcore" CRPG community often won't even try these games with various silly excuses. I then watch various people make pronunciations without even having tried them.
I'll try the demo, that I can promise you
Ah, but I've played it and you haven't. Who has the better perspective? You even say "become", which implies some knowledge of the previous games, which you also don't have. Correct?
I have only the knowledge based on what other people have been saying, and what I've read about the games.
I'm not taking opinions of other people and using them as my own, I'm looking at the features and how they're streamlined according to those who HAVE played it. I go quite out of my way to separate features from opinions about them.
Exactly like I looked at how Dragon Age 2 was marketed, and how they've been changing it. To me, that's usually quite enough to evaluate what kind of direction they've been taking.
As for what those features mean, it's true that I would have to play the game to be certain - and I'm perfectly willing to accept that I could be wrong.
Some people are capable of ignoring their own experience, and I understand that. It's a good way to stay open-minded. I try to be that way, but after witnessing countless examples of (unfortunately) being absolutely right - and yet staying optimistic beforehand - it gets to you. It gets to me, at least.
Dragon Age 2 turned out even worse than I thought. Should I have said to myself - well, it's probably not at all what it seems - and the game is possibly much better than what every sign points to? Maybe, but I guess I can't be that naive.
See the "without losing depth"?
That would be the opinion part. Mike is very obviously happy about the game - because he doesn't mind the streamlining. I tend to HATE that kind of thing.
Countless people spoke about Oblivion's streamlining as good things, and that the game didn't lose depth and was still a very fulfilling CRPG.
See what I'm saying?
I'm not looking at opinions - I'm looking at features.
I can't disagree but it isn't quite that simple. Avernum has never had a Leadership skill (that was Geneforge only) and I see this as the replacement for Avernum. In other words, it's exactly as it always was. On the other hand, I'd say there are more choices in general than Avernum (do you agree Mike?), which makes it an improvement.
Sounds good, and I'll have to wait and see.
I posted that in another thread in a different context.
Regen is correct but betrays that the poster may not have played previous Spiderweb games. In Avernum, the First Aid skill replenished health at the end of a battle. Any seasoned player took an appropriate amount - I would often leave battle with more health than I started (small combats could be as good as a healing potion). New players wouldn't know this…which is a bit silly. Why not automate it, rather than just have your knowledgeable players exploit it?
See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
I happen to REALLY enjoy having skills that are powerful, and that I have to discover on my own. I LIKE being rewarded for investing into the game mechanics.
They don't have to cater to me at all, and I'll figure that out. I bet the previous games were playable even without that skill, and likely just much harder.
That's what diversity is all about.
I'm surprised you can't see that.
Don't point out he could use a different system altogether - I don't disagree - but the discussion is mainstreaming. Avernum let you auto-heal after a battle - and so does Avadon.
Now you're streamlining the arguments. That's how the truth gets distorted.
In Avernum, you apparently needed investment into a first-aid skill, in Avadon you don't. That's the very definition of streamlining, isn't it? It's all about what that means to you.
Can you honestly not see the notable difference?
No stats unlocking dialogue - didn't exist in Avernum, anyway (oops, maybe this guy doesn't know what he is talking about).
Ok, strange. Maybe he means something else?
Quest markers - a handful, mostly in the tutorial. My current map has…oh, look - none!
But they are there nonetheless. If they mean nothing, then why have them at all?
Less classes - true, but Avernum was a skill system! The "classes" only governed some starting stuff.
Only governed some starting stuff? So they meant nothing?
Less difficult - also true - but I found "Normal" in AV6 to be reasonably hard, so it should be toned down. I know everyone will overreact (dumbed down! Oh no!) without having played any of them but "normal" should be just that - not "hard" for an experienced player.
Now we're overreacting because we don't like that it's easier?
There are "hard" and "torment" levels for those that want it and the descriptions are plain to see.
Personally, I don't want to have to choose hard to get a decent challenge. But I'd have to play the game to make sure.
Problem with hard and torment, is that the designer has to be really smart for the challenge to become meaningful. Upping damage/hitpoints ala Bethesda - is not how you go about it.
I prefer games that are challenging, but not a combat marathon. To me, challenge is about options and clever decisions - not just being extra careful during combat.
A game has to make me think hard about what I should do, not just enforce caution due to excessive damage.
I'm not clear on Avadon in this way, but unfortunately - the VAST majority of difficulty implementations are bad.
Most people here like The Witcher, right? No character creation, simplified skill medals, action combat, no diplomatic skills that unlock dialogue…and yet, it's a pretty good game. Sometimes a few lines of negative description don't encompass a game.
The Witcher is not a sequel - so it's hard to say what it could have been.
I don't like the game personally, but I respect what they did with it - in terms of the story and characters. Seems they were aiming for something and achieved it.
It's not what I would call a streamlined game - because there was nothing before they could streamline.
The sequel sounds much better in pretty much every way.