I an fine with puzzles if they are optional and give optional loot. Having a lv 20 lich capable of casting wail of the banshee and disintegrate unable to open a wood door and pushing levers to open that door is just awful. I hate when i can't progress due a awful puzzle. Fells far more unnatural than unable to progress due a tough encounter. Also, many games has enemy difficulty but no puzzle difficulty... I would play on Core Rules but with the minimum puzzle difficulty if i can. The kingdom management, i particularly liked.
But house at edge of time, the "divide the party" puzzle on chap 4(not sure) are only a pain in the ****
Just to throw a spanner in the works, I don't really care either way as long as the story is engaging. What I do care about is please not so many puzzles. There were way too many of them in the previous game. They mostly belong in what used to be called text adventures.
TR
The problem with puzzles and riddles in RPG games is that they challenge the player and not the character.
It may take stupid ass me 3 hours and 6 YouTube videos to figure out how to solve the damn thing, but my character with a 25 INT should be able to solve it with a wave of their hand.
Yes, they are a good mini games that break the repetitive grind of slaying monsters and choosing dialog, but there should always be a character “out” to do them IMO.
@DrHappyAngry "but it's just not true that it was just to increase replays."
Nothing about the areas locked off is destroyed or inaccessable. The game just prevents you from going there. That's done entirely in service of milking replays. There is NOTHING in universe that should make this impossible.
There's everything in the narrative as to why you'd go to some spots and not others. Just because you don't like choice and consequences closing some options and opening others doesn't mean it shouldn't be. It's clear you don't like content being locked out by decisions, but to a lot of other people it makes complete sense and increases immersion by the game reacting to decisions you made. It's fine if you don't like it, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean Nothing in the universe should do that. Quite a lot of people clearly enjoyed it. I really enjoyed doing multiple runs and seeing things play out differently in each of them. I'm looking forward to the same thing in Wrath of the Righteous.
You liking it does not mean its an in-universe reason. Geography doesn't cease to exist because you made a choice.
If the choice is to let demons burn a village, then yes, the village cease to exist.
I love that now there are more consequences for ignoring the MC and not just a game over screen.
But demons haven't burned the village down. The village is still there. The people are still there. Tyranny just decides that, no, walking no longer is a thing and you aren't allowed in.
@DrHappyAngry I own the game, "dude". In fact, Tyranny is one of my favorite RPGs. But it doesn't make the decision to remove player agency any less stupid.
@deltago I will always be grateful to Knights of the Old Republic 2. If you make a high int character, they CAN solve the puzzle on their own.
@DrHappyAngry I own the game, "dude". In fact, Tyranny is one of my favorite RPGs. But it doesn't make the decision to remove player agency any less stupid.
I'm not going to keep arguing about Tyranny with you, but I was referring to Wrath of the Righteous since it seems pretty clear they're going to be doing stuff that you don't like in it.
The latest kickstarter update features an "interview" with Queen Galfrey - Paladin Monarch and Chosen of Iomedae. Nothing else there, but eh... I suppose for folks planning to romance her it will be a entertaining read.
Me, I am still waiting for an interview with Areshkagal.
The problem with puzzles and riddles in RPG games is that they challenge the player and not the character.
Yeah, I have to say in a CRPG I prefer breaking up combat with role playing orientated segments where characters with different skills can take different approaches to solving problems, something I felt the Shadowrun games did really well. Environmental puzzles don't tend to be that interesting when included in games like these.
This is just a friendly reminder to my fellow alpha testers. Seems like there is a significant amount of backers who pledged for the alpha addon, yet haven't participated in the feedback surveys. If that applies to you, please head over to the dedicated Alpha Test section on Owlcat's official forum. There you'll find the first two out of three feedback survey links. Thanks.
Finally, the time has come to choose your candidate for a new in-game playable race! Who will it be? Catfolk, Kitsune, or maybe Ratfolk? Let the showdown begin! Kickstarter and slacker backers only.
What's nice is that backers can actually join either the Ratfolk, Catfolk or Kitsune "group" and get their chosen race name as forum title. This is so much more entertaining than the race poll back in Kingmaker.
Ratfolk would be most fitting imo considering the wererat opponents in the first part. But foxes and cats? Sorry but no. Take your animecrap and shove it.
Kitsune is totally anime. Crap I'll relate to what you feel about anime
Also there's no ratmen in the Empire. Any rumours of such should not be believed. Please report anyone who spreads this kind of false and devious information to the nearest Verminquisition Office.
Foxes you have. . . nothing? I can't think of a single player RPG with a fox race.
Oh, I can think of one or two. Both of which I recommended you not too long ago. As far as playable foxes go in video games: the freshly released Spirit of the North is another noteable one. And let's not forget about the giant Star Fox franchise. Plenty of vulpines around if one just looks in the right places. Last two ain't RPG's, true, but so isn't Warhammer.
I am comfortable with me throwing in my lot with the little rodent folk. I like their style, I like their tailblade racial weapon and I adore their capybara mounts. Although it is also true that I'd rather would liked to see a more varied line-up such as Grippli (frogs), Tengu (crow) and Nagaji (ophidian). Instead we have not one, not two, but three mammalian beastfolk all lined up. As if those various degrees of hairless primates weren't enough already... *sigh*
Man, I'm sick of having to choose between races. If the devs are gonna commit to one, either just put the one in without teasing us with multiple great options, or just put them all in.
*edit*
Or at the very least, make the limited options for the races that are already in EVERY OTHER GAME. Put all the demihumans in, and make the poll for "Dwarves, Elves, or Humans"
I play most games only once. Only if I become increasingly hooked by a game, I can do a second playthrough. The best example is Mass Effect. I played the whole trilogy only once, and that playthrough provided a lot of emotions. Probably, my Fem Shepard and her crew are the best friendship I've ever seen. I didn't want to miss on content during that game and I tried to play "perfectly".
Or the Witcher 3 playthrough. What a ride that was. I was able to experience everything I wanted during the first playthrough.
You know, @AndrewFoley once mentioned it. He once suggested that in SoD the player should have an option to skip a lot of content and go straight to the Avernus if the player just supports Caelar Argent. He said that people above, who have a lot of experience in video-gaming, strongly disagreed with that. I know there are people who wouldn't agree with the approach SoD took. But I approve of it.
The majority of players don't play the game many times. Even two playthroughs is a lot to ask, and only something that hardcore fans would do.
I'll defend Tyranny a bit here though, in that I think it was smartly designed for multiple playthroughs. It's intentionally not an epic amount of content in order to encourage multiple playthroughs. I think it's true that most people who play Witcher 3 aren't going to want to play it multiple times. But the designers also very much built the game that way.
This is the key feature in this debate. Certain features or aspects of games are rarely good or bad in of themselves. It's all a question of how they fit into the larger picture of a game. In Tyranny's case, leaning heavily on a branching storyline, with many mutually excluded elements, was very smart for a an RPG that can be beat in 20 hours or so. It would obviously be a bad idea in something more epic, 80+ hours.
There are rumors that you will be able to revive even bosses to serve you... This while BG3 will be 5e(necromancers are the weakest wiz specialization on 5e) and lv cap = 10...
One of the few things I like about BG3 is the level cap
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
Everyone considers BG2 the best one exactly because you spend too much time on "autoattacks" on BG1. A fighter will get 2 attacks at lv 5 and end the game with 2 attacks...
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
At least for Baldur's Gate 1's case, that game acts as a great precursor to BG2, in terms of storytelling. Its lower level, its lower stakes, its more freeform in terms of where to go and what to do. I don't really consider BG2 better than it, I feel the two of them are perfect companion pieces and wouldn't be as great without one another. It's kind of one of the reasons Siege of Dragonspear was so utterly unnecessary.
And I feel in BG3's case a similar thing could happen, I imagine they will release a follow up module (probably not BG4, I think they plan to go the module route with BG3) and their decision with the initial level cap is a nice show of restraint...
only I'm going to be shocked if you aren't fighting mindflayers by the flying tentacle boatload by level 8, but hey, maybe I'll be wrong.
Yeah the risk is high they'll want to make level 10 feel super epic. It's in the spirit of our times.
I'll be very pleasantly surprised if individual mind-flayers stay a considerable thread throughout the game. It's not impossible. I just wouldn't expect it.
One of the few things I like about BG3 is the level cap
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
Everyone considers BG2 the best one exactly because you spend too much time on "autoattacks" on BG1. A fighter will get 2 attacks at lv 5 and end the game with 2 attacks...
In one word: Pacing.
And I'm pretty sure that barely anyone who prefers BG2 to BG1 feels that way because of the fewer fake attacks.
At least for Baldur's Gate 1's case, that game acts as a great precursor to BG2, in terms of storytelling. Its lower level, its lower stakes, its more freeform in terms of where to go and what to do.
There are a lot of games which gives freedom and is mid to high level.
But the xp cap remover is one of the most downloaded mods for BG1 as the level cap removal for ToEE.
If you look to PFKM, the first chapter is the weakest one IMO exactly because there aren't many interesting things to do.
One of the few things I like about BG3 is the level cap
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
Everyone considers BG2 the best one exactly because you spend too much time on "autoattacks" on BG1. A fighter will get 2 attacks at lv 5 and end the game with 2 attacks...
I think this is where we differ in our play styles.
I think in a 5e game, build diversity isn’t going to be as strong as in a 3e or a pathfinder game anyway. Multi classing is even a optional rule in 5e, not a standard rule like those two.
I also think build diversity is overrated in games like PF:KM. There are countless combinations that the player can make but will be useless in the game. PF:KM is also designed for optimized builds, not role playing builds so those useful combinations are dwindled down even more.
What should increase the replayability in a game like BG3 is the role play element. Being a race like a githyanki should alter NPCs reaction as a minor example. I will be extremely disappointed if if doesn’t. That of course is one minor example, but if they also include quests or pathways only open to certain classes or races even better.
Altering the story is the best way to have replayability in a game. BG2 did it with different NPC combinations and differing alignment paths. BG3 can do the same thing at lower levels.
A game like Kingmaker and even WotR will miss this type of replayability. In WotR it should be excused as everyone is gathering together to defeat a common enemy. Even powerbuilding, IMO, is more excusable as it fits the storyline more.
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
At least for Baldur's Gate 1's case, that game acts as a great precursor to BG2, in terms of storytelling. Its lower level, its lower stakes, its more freeform in terms of where to go and what to do. I don't really consider BG2 better than it, I feel the two of them are perfect companion pieces and wouldn't be as great without one another. It's kind of one of the reasons Siege of Dragonspear was so utterly unnecessary.
And I feel in BG3's case a similar thing could happen, I imagine they will release a follow up module (probably not BG4, I think they plan to go the module route with BG3) and their decision with the initial level cap is a nice show of restraint...
only I'm going to be shocked if you aren't fighting mindflayers by the flying tentacle boatload by level 8, but hey, maybe I'll be wrong.
FWIW, Larian hasn't gone the various DLC/expansion pack route with their OS games. Perhaps that changes and maybe WotC has some control over how this goes. But it's worth keeping in mind here.
One of the few things I like about BG3 is the level cap
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
Everyone considers BG2 the best one exactly because you spend too much time on "autoattacks" on BG1. A fighter will get 2 attacks at lv 5 and end the game with 2 attacks...
I've always felt players' criticism of the simplified combat of BG1 to be somewhat misguided. I think your attitude is quite widespread, though I can't prove this absolutely. Game designers certainly seem to be siding with you.
However, I think it's one big explanation for why RPG's have gravitated back towards turn based and towards smaller parties. Tossing tons of active abilities onto every class starts to push design prerogatives towards things like smaller parties and turn-based, because combat feels grindy with constant pausing and constant order placement. This is certainly what Obsidian felt going from PoE1 to PoE2. It seems to also somewhat be the case with Pathfinder, and the decision to add in a TB mode.
It's perfectly acceptable, imo, to have some members of your party be relatively passive units where their positioning is important but micromanaging them beyond that isn't. This is how combat worked in the RTS games that inspired this whole development in RPG's anyways. Even RTS missions where you had a small crew of units and no base building did this. Some active abilities for those classes at the highest levels is good, and even perhaps a handful at the low levels is good as well. But it's actually a mistake, imo, to want realtime combat and then to never encourage the player to actually enjoy the benefits of watching significant clips of action take place in realtime. That's the whole benefit of the system! If I'm pausing every 3 seconds in every single battle because I have to reissue specific, active orders to every single member of my party... well, I might as well be playing a turn-based game at that point. Just my opinion of course.
Comments
But house at edge of time, the "divide the party" puzzle on chap 4(not sure) are only a pain in the ****
The problem with puzzles and riddles in RPG games is that they challenge the player and not the character.
It may take stupid ass me 3 hours and 6 YouTube videos to figure out how to solve the damn thing, but my character with a 25 INT should be able to solve it with a wave of their hand.
Yes, they are a good mini games that break the repetitive grind of slaying monsters and choosing dialog, but there should always be a character “out” to do them IMO.
But demons haven't burned the village down. The village is still there. The people are still there. Tyranny just decides that, no, walking no longer is a thing and you aren't allowed in.
@DrHappyAngry I own the game, "dude". In fact, Tyranny is one of my favorite RPGs. But it doesn't make the decision to remove player agency any less stupid.
@deltago I will always be grateful to Knights of the Old Republic 2. If you make a high int character, they CAN solve the puzzle on their own.
Me, I am still waiting for an interview with Areshkagal.
Yeah, I have to say in a CRPG I prefer breaking up combat with role playing orientated segments where characters with different skills can take different approaches to solving problems, something I felt the Shadowrun games did really well. Environmental puzzles don't tend to be that interesting when included in games like these.
https://forum.owlcatgames.com/t/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous-vote-for-the-playable-race/20295
It looks like a tight race between the Kitsune and the Ratfolk. No cat love on the internet today.
And yeah that poll only got one option on it unfortunately. Ratfolk it is.
For rats you have skaven in warhammer and more specifically total war warhammer. And Legend of Grimrock.
Cats you have Khajiit.
Foxes you have. . . nothing? I can't think of a single player RPG with a fox race.
Also there's no ratmen in the Empire. Any rumours of such should not be believed. Please report anyone who spreads this kind of false and devious information to the nearest Verminquisition Office.
I am comfortable with me throwing in my lot with the little rodent folk. I like their style, I like their tailblade racial weapon and I adore their capybara mounts.
*edit*
Or at the very least, make the limited options for the races that are already in EVERY OTHER GAME. Put all the demihumans in, and make the poll for "Dwarves, Elves, or Humans"
I'll defend Tyranny a bit here though, in that I think it was smartly designed for multiple playthroughs. It's intentionally not an epic amount of content in order to encourage multiple playthroughs. I think it's true that most people who play Witcher 3 aren't going to want to play it multiple times. But the designers also very much built the game that way.
This is the key feature in this debate. Certain features or aspects of games are rarely good or bad in of themselves. It's all a question of how they fit into the larger picture of a game. In Tyranny's case, leaning heavily on a branching storyline, with many mutually excluded elements, was very smart for a an RPG that can be beat in 20 hours or so. It would obviously be a bad idea in something more epic, 80+ hours.
There are rumors that you will be able to revive even bosses to serve you... This while BG3 will be 5e(necromancers are the weakest wiz specialization on 5e) and lv cap = 10...
Why? It reduces a lot the replayability, variety and build diversity.
Everyone considers BG2 the best one exactly because you spend too much time on "autoattacks" on BG1. A fighter will get 2 attacks at lv 5 and end the game with 2 attacks...
At least for Baldur's Gate 1's case, that game acts as a great precursor to BG2, in terms of storytelling. Its lower level, its lower stakes, its more freeform in terms of where to go and what to do. I don't really consider BG2 better than it, I feel the two of them are perfect companion pieces and wouldn't be as great without one another. It's kind of one of the reasons Siege of Dragonspear was so utterly unnecessary.
And I feel in BG3's case a similar thing could happen, I imagine they will release a follow up module (probably not BG4, I think they plan to go the module route with BG3) and their decision with the initial level cap is a nice show of restraint...
only I'm going to be shocked if you aren't fighting mindflayers by the flying tentacle boatload by level 8, but hey, maybe I'll be wrong.
I'll be very pleasantly surprised if individual mind-flayers stay a considerable thread throughout the game. It's not impossible. I just wouldn't expect it.
In one word: Pacing.
And I'm pretty sure that barely anyone who prefers BG2 to BG1 feels that way because of the fewer fake attacks.
There are a lot of games which gives freedom and is mid to high level.
But the xp cap remover is one of the most downloaded mods for BG1 as the level cap removal for ToEE.
If you look to PFKM, the first chapter is the weakest one IMO exactly because there aren't many interesting things to do.
Actually, I'd be willing to bet that NPCProject or Tweaks Anthology are the most downloaded for BG1.
I think this is where we differ in our play styles.
I think in a 5e game, build diversity isn’t going to be as strong as in a 3e or a pathfinder game anyway. Multi classing is even a optional rule in 5e, not a standard rule like those two.
I also think build diversity is overrated in games like PF:KM. There are countless combinations that the player can make but will be useless in the game. PF:KM is also designed for optimized builds, not role playing builds so those useful combinations are dwindled down even more.
What should increase the replayability in a game like BG3 is the role play element. Being a race like a githyanki should alter NPCs reaction as a minor example. I will be extremely disappointed if if doesn’t. That of course is one minor example, but if they also include quests or pathways only open to certain classes or races even better.
Altering the story is the best way to have replayability in a game. BG2 did it with different NPC combinations and differing alignment paths. BG3 can do the same thing at lower levels.
A game like Kingmaker and even WotR will miss this type of replayability. In WotR it should be excused as everyone is gathering together to defeat a common enemy. Even powerbuilding, IMO, is more excusable as it fits the storyline more.
FWIW, Larian hasn't gone the various DLC/expansion pack route with their OS games. Perhaps that changes and maybe WotC has some control over how this goes. But it's worth keeping in mind here.
I've always felt players' criticism of the simplified combat of BG1 to be somewhat misguided. I think your attitude is quite widespread, though I can't prove this absolutely. Game designers certainly seem to be siding with you.
However, I think it's one big explanation for why RPG's have gravitated back towards turn based and towards smaller parties. Tossing tons of active abilities onto every class starts to push design prerogatives towards things like smaller parties and turn-based, because combat feels grindy with constant pausing and constant order placement. This is certainly what Obsidian felt going from PoE1 to PoE2. It seems to also somewhat be the case with Pathfinder, and the decision to add in a TB mode.
It's perfectly acceptable, imo, to have some members of your party be relatively passive units where their positioning is important but micromanaging them beyond that isn't. This is how combat worked in the RTS games that inspired this whole development in RPG's anyways. Even RTS missions where you had a small crew of units and no base building did this. Some active abilities for those classes at the highest levels is good, and even perhaps a handful at the low levels is good as well. But it's actually a mistake, imo, to want realtime combat and then to never encourage the player to actually enjoy the benefits of watching significant clips of action take place in realtime. That's the whole benefit of the system! If I'm pausing every 3 seconds in every single battle because I have to reissue specific, active orders to every single member of my party... well, I might as well be playing a turn-based game at that point. Just my opinion of course.