I have a few questions regarding Landstander's review of Drakensang.
I'm speaking specifically of his criticism of Drakensang's realtime-with-pause combat. He writes, "The turn-based rounds are all going on under the hood, but the whole presentation of the game is geared towards letting those battles play out in real time. The trouble is that, to play the game with as much tactical advantage as possible, you've got to stop and start the action every few rounds just to make sure that your characters are all doing what they should be doing at any one time."
Is that really "trouble"?
Don't NWN2 and the upcoming Dragon Age offer a similar combat system? Baldur's Gate? Plansescape? What makes Drakensang's combat system inferior to those games, from which it draws inspiration? Would Landstander's argument have been stronger if he had put this game into context with those classics? How "uncomfortable" is this style of combat to the degree that it gets a 6.5 gameplay rating?
Landstander continues, "On the downside, of course, that means more stopping and starting, but at least it's more interesting from a purely tactical level. Even if you do have a fight that you can afford to wage in real time, the rounds are too apparent." Too apparent how? Compared to what? Landstander doesn't say. "Watching all your attacks launch in unison is funny at first but it soon gets kind of depressing." Is Landstander saying he's disheartened by the fact that he has to pause the action and give tactical commands?
Isn't the "interesting" stopping/starting tactical combat something many consumers might be looking for in an RPG? After all, this is the first one since the NWN2 series that offers this style of gameplay and Dragon Age isn't coming out til November.
just my two cents. thanks for reading.