@the_spyder They're not reporting on the game, but rather telling a story about their experience. Not what I expect from a journalist, but maybe some people like their style.
@FinneousPJ - thanks. Yeah, after skimming a lot of it I was thinking it was more about the interview and their experience playing the game. I guess I jumped the gun.
The only thing I care about from this game is the single player campaign, and then any good single player downloadable mods that get created, as with Neverwinter Nights.
I am not the least bit encouraged that they seem to be mostly ignoring their potential single player market in the way they are promoting their game.
If it's all about online multiplayer, with any single player campaign a tacked-on afterthought, ("Oh yeah, and you can also play single player if you just absolutely want to, but why would you?") then I won't be interested in this game, and I won't be buying it.
The only thing I care about from this game is the single player campaign, and then any good single player downloadable mods that get created, as with Neverwinter Nights.
I am not the least bit encouraged that they seem to be mostly ignoring their potential single player market in the way they are promoting their game.
If it's all about online multiplayer, with any single player campaign a tacked-on afterthought, ("Oh yeah, and you can also play single player if you just absolutely want to, but why would you?") then I won't be interested in this game, and I won't be buying it.
I'm actually a cross when it comes to this. I would love to play this with my IRL D&D group so we can play even when we can't meet up physically but at the same time I'm wayyyy more looking forward to the single player. Especially since one of our party members is a Human Necromancer. I want to see how they pull off the Necromancer as a hero.
I am pretty much in @BelgarathMTH's camp on this one. My old D&D group disbanded more than 30 years ago and are scattered to the winds. I play these games almost exclusively for the single player experience. If there isn't (much of) one here, I won't be spending the money. And yes, it does appear that the hype is mainly for the Multi-player crowd.
I'll probably end up buying this game anyway since it has the Forgotten Realms stamp on it. Doesn't matter how the single player ends up. Although, Heart of Thorns is coming out in Guild Wars 2, so that will probably eat up a lot of my time in the near future. But when I need the change, SCL is on my shopping list.
I'm kind of not. The way I see it, people are either going to role play their character, in which case they are going to act as they think appropriate regardless of their 'Alignment', or they aren't. In which case, alignment is yet another useless factoid on the character sheet.
Don't get me wrong, as a classic D&D player I appreciate the inclusion of the rules as they originally appeared. I am just saying that I am beginning to understand just how useless this particular rule potentially is.
@the_spyder I believe it's a mechanism to make the game easier to understand/experience. Games that strive for "realistic" moral ambiguity like Witcher can sometimes feel a bit heavy (for lack of a better word). It's much simpler when orcs are evil and paladins are good. Smite away!
@FinneousPJ - I understand what you are saying and get why the mechanic is there. I'm just saying that players tend to fall into two categories.
1. Those that are gonna smite anything that comes at them (or to put it another way, "that they see"), loot the peasants, and basically break into every house, barn and out-house to plunder the 'loot' regardless of 'Alignment'.
or
2. Those that Role play their characters, usually with it's own back story and compelling reasons why they kill (or fail to kill) everything in sight. Or at minimum, allow the simple basic mechanics of something like Icewind Dale "Monsters are attacking the town" mechanic to dictate their actions.
If you are the first type, having a line item on the character sheet is just words on a screen. If you are the second type, you are going to play by whatever ethos you choose based on your character (or the story) and if alignment isn't there, you probably make something up. And again 'alignment' is simply words on a monitor page.
At a stroke, that probably covers 90% of the players if not significantly more. Then you get those who will argue the semantics of alignment, but again this can be done at a class or individual character level without the inclusion of 'Alignment'.
It's in and that isn't going to change, nor am I suggesting that it GET changed. I was merely observing that it is not quite as useful as one might at first think, in my opinion anyway.
@FinneousPJ - and I agree with YOU in that is probably the reason that it does exist.
Just saying that it probably doesn't fulfill it's function in providing that much of a lift to the game proper. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was believed to be a necessity as you indicate because it is a staple of the rules sets and people expect it. But that in the end it's relative material or substantive gain for the game play is quite dubious.
I think you're forgetting that alignments still play a part of the mechanics of the game, even if it has very little narrative importance.
I'd be willing to bet that this is a forced mechanic implemented at the behest of the game designers rather than any real 'Necessity'. The same tropes can exist "Save the Damsel and slay the dragon", "Get the item back 'By any means necessary'" without there being any alignment switch.
Before this goes any further, I am by no means saying that it is a "Bad" thigk to have it, or that it should be removed or any such nonsense. As a classic D&D gamer, it is very comfortable to have it and I do understand (particularly in PnP) that it has it's uses. I am merely observing (mainly due to another thread currently going on), that the ACTUAL net value of the mechanic "In a Video game" is probably not as big as it is perceived to be. Nuff said on my part.
True enough, although there are very few effects like that, protection from Good/Evil and Smite Good/Evil being the only real examples that I can think of. There might be a few others, but by and large they are the only real impact alignment has, and considering that a simple 'Evil monster' descriptor placed on 'The bad guys' would resolve even that, I stand by my initial assessment.
Detect Evil/Good, Holy/Unholy Smite etc etc. regardless of how you view real life morality, good and evil (and law and chaos) are real, tangable things in the DnD universe.
Righteous Might provides DR against Good/Evil, Visage of the Deity line of spells provide different bonuses based on the alignment, Favoured Souls gain different types of DR depending on whether they are Lawful or Chaotic. Never mind all the good/evil/lawful/chaotic spells that clerics can or can't cast depending on their deity and/or alignment. A huge amount of things depends on a character's alignment.
Detect Evil/Good, Holy/Unholy Smite etc etc. regardless of how you view real life morality, good and evil (and law and chaos) are real, tangable things in the DnD universe.
I'm sorry but can you name even a single instance in any D&D based video game where 'Detect Good/Evil' has had any kind of real impact on the game play? Further, even if you can, can you not think of a scenario wherein the game play mechanics wouldn't allow for same without the use of PC character alignments?
I've admitted that alignments have a value and a place in (mostly PnP) DnD. Nothing in this statement has altered my belief that "In a video game" it is not as valuable as it is generally perceived to be.
Holy Smite makes alignment pretty important in BG.
Alignment in DnD is as much a force as magnatism is in our world. You can detect and measure it, it affects the world and is affected by your actions. It's one of the things that makes the setting different and interesting.
The affect on how characters act is pretty much just a side effect.
@Fardragon - it sounds specifically like you haven't read any of my posts, or at the very least understood their content. In either case, there's no further discussion here that I can see.
Comments
(start from 4:50)
I am not the least bit encouraged that they seem to be mostly ignoring their potential single player market in the way they are promoting their game.
If it's all about online multiplayer, with any single player campaign a tacked-on afterthought, ("Oh yeah, and you can also play single player if you just absolutely want to, but why would you?") then I won't be interested in this game, and I won't be buying it.
I'm curious about how this game is gonna tie-in with the Rage of Demons storyline.
At least Necromancy is confirmed. The lack of a Death Domain Cleric saddens me
Maybe in the future they'll release one.
Don't get me wrong, as a classic D&D player I appreciate the inclusion of the rules as they originally appeared. I am just saying that I am beginning to understand just how useless this particular rule potentially is.
1. Those that are gonna smite anything that comes at them (or to put it another way, "that they see"), loot the peasants, and basically break into every house, barn and out-house to plunder the 'loot' regardless of 'Alignment'.
or
2. Those that Role play their characters, usually with it's own back story and compelling reasons why they kill (or fail to kill) everything in sight. Or at minimum, allow the simple basic mechanics of something like Icewind Dale "Monsters are attacking the town" mechanic to dictate their actions.
If you are the first type, having a line item on the character sheet is just words on a screen. If you are the second type, you are going to play by whatever ethos you choose based on your character (or the story) and if alignment isn't there, you probably make something up. And again 'alignment' is simply words on a monitor page.
At a stroke, that probably covers 90% of the players if not significantly more. Then you get those who will argue the semantics of alignment, but again this can be done at a class or individual character level without the inclusion of 'Alignment'.
It's in and that isn't going to change, nor am I suggesting that it GET changed. I was merely observing that it is not quite as useful as one might at first think, in my opinion anyway.
Just saying that it probably doesn't fulfill it's function in providing that much of a lift to the game proper. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it was believed to be a necessity as you indicate because it is a staple of the rules sets and people expect it. But that in the end it's relative material or substantive gain for the game play is quite dubious.
Before this goes any further, I am by no means saying that it is a "Bad" thigk to have it, or that it should be removed or any such nonsense. As a classic D&D gamer, it is very comfortable to have it and I do understand (particularly in PnP) that it has it's uses. I am merely observing (mainly due to another thread currently going on), that the ACTUAL net value of the mechanic "In a Video game" is probably not as big as it is perceived to be. Nuff said on my part.
I've admitted that alignments have a value and a place in (mostly PnP) DnD. Nothing in this statement has altered my belief that "In a video game" it is not as valuable as it is generally perceived to be.
Alignment in DnD is as much a force as magnatism is in our world. You can detect and measure it, it affects the world and is affected by your actions. It's one of the things that makes the setting different and interesting.
The affect on how characters act is pretty much just a side effect.
If you wish to discuss how it is used in Video games, please comment back and we can discuss.
It sounded like you where arguing specifically against the inclusion of alignments in a DnD computer game to me.
Obviously, if it's not a DnD game, there is no reason to include alignments; if it doesn't include alignments, it's not DnD.