View Single Post

Default 

April 14th, 2007, 04:01
"The Infinity Engine, notably, integrated the strategic nature of D&D into RPG combat, especially through full party control - while others strived to bring out the more 'personal' side of combat (TES). What parts, if any, of the former direction do you believe are appealing and desirable in future CRPGs?"

Sorry, I had to reply to this since I 100% believe that engine killed strategic rpg combat. Am I the only one that absolutely hated the combat of every IE game for having such strategy free, redundant, and too much combat? Of course, far worse can be said for nwn and nwn2 or whatever game that came after, but this was definitely the beggining of the end.

BG 2 had a couple memorable battles, but so does most utter crap games. I just see this statement/question as being as retarded as saying, "Diablo really brought a lot of choice and consequence into the dialogue-heavy sandbox rpg, blah blah blah."

I just don't see it and a lot of people seem to be fans of not just the IE games (which I could see taken as the total game) but of the IE combat (which just doesn't register in my head as being possible).

I am more than willing to admit that the combat in my favorite games was too heavy, but it was good, and would be great if the removed half the battles and made the rest 10x harder. But in order to make the combat good in an IE game you would have to removed 90% of the battles, make the battles 50X harder, and also replace the mechanics with new ones.

Am I alone? Please say someone else is with me on this.
roqua is offline

roqua

roqua's Avatar
Sentinel

#2

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 474