Common Misconceptions about DRAKENSANG

[obediah]

It's realtime with pause...with a heavy emphasis away from pausing.

They bragged abiout cutting down dialog.

the game will suck and only morons will even try it out.

have you even read my post :shock:

Well the first two points in Bryce's post were from the dev's mouth. I read both of your posts and neither one of them caused the developers to unsay these two things. Your first post also came off as being largely supposition based on prior works - which is a fine place to start, but is trumped by actual comments from the devs.

The first is especially worrisome, because a party-based RTwP game designed to minimize the need for pause will be simple by necessity. That's where the dungeon siege comparisons come from. Unfortunately, until the devs come out and say they mispoke and it will be emphasize tactics over action, we're stuck with it.

The dialog thing could go either way at this point. I'm sure the can make a very good dialog system without being as verbose as Planescape. On the other hand, it's clear they are trying to attract the 'oh noes 2mny wrdz' crowd or they wouldn't bring it up at all.

All in all it sounds like probably a decent rpg with shitty combat. That's much better than the other way around, I guess. Any firm judgement is on hold until the rp aspects are more fleshed out.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

they have been streamlined and combat is streamlined to never need pausing,

: where do you got that info from?

just curious? may post a link?

Do you even read their interviews? Just go look at the news section.

very polite. i nearly learned the "hard facts" section by heart - but never heard of that. I only read this:

While we do have a pause function that you can use at any time, be it to switch weapons or to take a potion, our aim is for the player to have to use it as little as possible. In order to achieve this we're refining gameplay with such things as special party moves, quick shots and of course a well thought-out interface that offers the player precise feedback at all times.

and

Ähnlich wie die alten DSA-Spiele oder aber Baldurs Gate, soll das Spiel mit einem rundenbasierten Kampf aufwarten, der jederzeit vom Spieler angehalten werden kann. Da auch hier die DSA-Kampfregeln zur Verfügung verwendet werden, hängt das Ergebnis eines Kampfes nicht von den Action-Fähigkeiten des Spielers sondern von den Fähigkeiten der Charaktere ab. Das Resultat ist daher ein eher taktischer als actionlastiger Kampf.

ipe: Like the old Realms of Arcania games or Baldur's Gate the game will feature a turn based Combat, which can be paused by the player at any time. Because of the DA combat rules being available, the outcome of a battle does not depend on the action abilities of the player but on the skills of the characters. Thus the result is a more tactical than action-heavy combat.

If you are able to grap the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 then you should be able to understand, that "have to" is "must". Combined with "as little as possible" it means that 1: You simply can't play it without using pause. 2: You may play certain combat situations (probably easy battles) using quick slots, auto-functions and keyboard shortcuts (interface) 3: It only depends on your personal style of playing how often you use the pause function

Conclusion: Same thing as with the Infinity Engine games:
Option 1: Use Auto-AI, nearly no feedback and no auto-pause events. Special attacs and aimed attacs are seldom used and mostly by your AI-Combatants.
Option 2: Don't use Auto-AI, use extensive feedback and all auto pause events. Special attacs and aimed attacs are frequent uses and used by all your characters.

quod errat demonstrandum.

It's your choice of playing.

 

[bryce777]

Well, if youc ould grasp English, then you would know that "our aim is for the user to have to use it as little as possible" means they aim to streamline it so you seldom, if ever are forced to pause. Which means that the combat would have to be pretty simple.

Things like quick use potion slots or whatever hardly add to complexity.

I don't know if you are trying to claim there is a translation error, but either way I think you are really stretching it and are obviously an irrational fanboy.

It is still far out, but already the game is starting to look bad.

If you are arguing that the combat was good in BG then you have somehow lost your way and are in the wrong place, since most everyone here thought that combat sucked.

I certainly did. I liked BG II a lot, but the combat is done in a very retarded fashion.

 

[GrudgeHolder]

Like the old Realms of Arcania games or Baldur's Gate the game will feature a turn based Combat <snip>

Now that's Hard Facts. Hell yes. Wonder why my copy of BG shipped without TB combat...
Plus, there's an ERRor in your Latin.

 

[Balor]

quod errat demonstrandum.

And I ROFLED at that one too. Freudian slip?

 

[Balor]

Btw, talking about RTWP issue - while I do support it when it comes to tactics where guns are involved, I do think that TB is better when you deal with close combat.
And for called shots and the like... yea, I guess it will be possible, and it's good, but the fighting itself would be a mess.

 

[GrudgeHolder]

Freudian slip?

Yeah, that's the sexxxy lingerie Drakensang features in lieu of thongs.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

Freudian slip?

Yeah, that's the sexxxy lingerie Drakensang features in lieu of thongs.

I knew it the moment i reread my posting. but that's the codex. shame on those who are due...

@topic
@bryce

can't imagine what you are thinking. is that "streamlining" and "dumbing down" the only thing you can think of?
i agree to the point quick slots don't add up to complexity, but that is not the feature the designers try to stress here.

again: you CAN'T play WITHOUT pause. period.

question is: who will use which functions? It is certainly not comparable to Dungeon Siege because you can play at least DS1 the whole 100+ hours without ever using the pause function (it is harder in the highest difficulty setting - but possible nonetheless). Hell, it isn't even possible to deactivate all shitty AI-scripts.

point is: it is comparable to the IE games (BG, IWD, PS:T). if you (like most codexers) think it combat is handled retarded - I don't mind.

I am playing a unknown CRPG from Poland atm called "The Banished" aka "Myhora". It has similar combat to the IE games but handles it quite badly, making the combat unnecessary hectic. But it is still better than DS because you can completly deactivate any AI-scripts.

I'm not stretching anything, but in Drakensang you CAN'T play WITHOUT pause.

I'm not a fanboy, but I don't like unbased negativity.

@whoever posted that BS

 

[HotSnack]

Btw, talking about RTWP issue - while I do support it when it comes to tactics where guns are involved, I do think that TB is better when you deal with close combat.

Well this piqued my interest, could you explain?

And for called shots and the like... yea, I guess it will be possible, and it's good, but the fighting itself would be a mess.

I find "Messyness" to be a problem whenever you have to play a party-based game in RT (even in teh awesome Freedom Force games). While I don't think RTwP is the Father of All Lies, I do think it takes all the flaws of TB (choppy combat from segmentation) and RT (messy combat as everyone scrums into a chaotic orgy) with none of the benefits of both (suspense of the "roll" and contemplative tactics for TB, the reward of quick thinking and seamless actions of RT).

 

[Elwro]

quod errat demonstrandum.

"Which was erratically shown", right?

 

[Sir_Brennus]

quod errat demonstrandum.

"Which was erratically shown", right?

I knew it the moment i reread my posting. but that's the codex. shame on those who are due...

 

[Mefi]

point is: it is comparable to the IE games (BG, IWD, PS:T). if you (like most codexers) think it combat is handled retarded - I don't mind.

The way combat is handled in those games is retarded. TB for teh win!

But the comment about trying to reduce how often the game is paused sounds more like an appeal to the RT crowd than one to those who are more keen on TB.

You obviously know a great deal more about this game than me. So I'll take your word on it I guess. I still think RTwP is retarded though and a blight on games which use it. And yes that includes Darklands before anyone points that out again.

 

[Elwro]

Well, you get +1 Karma for not editing it afterwards.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well we can speculate about the dev's intentions all we want, but the game is 15% done, so it will be a long time until we can judge it better. The interviews contain some good and some bad signals, so for me it's wait and see. One thing that's clear though is that mechanically it will be far removed from the previous games, so it's a similar case to FO3 in that - even if it turns out to be a good game, it will no doubt dissapoint many old fans.

 

[Sir_Brennus]

Well, you get +1 Karma for not editing it afterwards.

I invest it in "Dodging +1" to better avoid Bryces scornful replies...

 

[Elwro]

BTW, the "combat is based on the DA turn based combat system" comment tells us nothing. NWN with its shitty combat was also based on a turn-based system.


(don't read below the asterisk)
*
Yes, NWN is the gratest game evar r00fles!

 

[Sir_Brennus]

BTW, the "combat is based on the DA turn based combat system" comment tells us nothing. NWN with its shitty combat was also based on a turn-based system.


(don't read below the asterisk)
*
Yes, NWN is the gratest game evar r00fles!

Volourn, is that you :

 

[Elwro]

*sigh* that was a preemptive post

 

[bryce777]

You might be better off taking a few ranks in logic and resist hype.

 

[Vault Dweller]

ahh, VD - you were the one I was waiting for :D

Why didn't you say so in the first place?

first: you ignored ALL the evidence I put forward: especially everything that had to do with the track record of the authors and the overall setting and the fact, that the game's visual style is based on concept art for DA:

That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking. Basically, your points were authors, setting, and the visual style. Well, Saint has already given you one example, here is another one: Beyond Divinity. The setting alone doesn't guarantee anything: Fallout 2, FOBoS, Betrayal in Antara, Lionheart, even Oblivion. As for the visual style, who really cares?

In plain english: scetches for the archetypes (eg. a Warrior of the Empire of Gareth) are from the DA original artists.

Wow! I'm sold. Where can I pre-order this fantastic game?

Second: It is a fact that the dialogue will be extensive and that it will be bound by the rules of the p&p version.

It's a fact that an alien armada is approaching Earth right now. See my point?

On the contrary: we will implement much more information than what is really necessary.

It may easily mean that in addition to "give me quest!" there would be a "tell me stuff!" option.

From the interview:
"On the other hand, we don't want to force the player to plough through page after page of text in order to be able to follow the plot. We want to put an emphasis on short and vibrant dialogues. "

So, you are telling me that I shouldn't trust the project director, but should trust you. Why?

And of course this will open open parts of the game, which are hidden to those who only follow the main quest.

And? Isn't that what BG had?

In plain english: a high stat in persuation will give you more options in dialogs.

IWD2 featured a lot of that, yet you stated that you were disappointed, no?

Third: It also can't be like Dungeon Siege because the game doesn't feature combat as whole purpose and focus of the game:

Ausrichtung des Spiels wohl auf ca 50% Kampf, 30% Interaktion, 20% Welterkundung

In plain english: the game will probably feature 50% combat, 30% interaction, 20% exploring.

So, combat takes twice as much as any other activity, but it's not the focus of the game. I see.

ipe: in combat you will be able to hit different body parts and probably be able to aim at them directly (head, arms, legs...)

It is based on a complex system which features options nonexistend in Dungeon Siege, e.g. disarming, critical hits, armour piercing hits, drops to unconciousness etc.

Complex systems don't do well in RT.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

It may easily mean that in addition to "give me quest!" there would be a "tell me stuff!" option.

From the interview:
"On the other hand, we don't want to force the player to plough through page after page of text in order to be able to follow the plot. We want to put an emphasis on short and vibrant dialogues. "

So, you are telling me that I shouldn't trust the project director, but should trust you. Why?

Well you may be right, but if a developer these days even dares to speak about multiple choice dialogue and skill effects on top, I am willing to consider it a good sign for the moment.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Didn't Oblivion developers also talk about multiple choices?

 

[Claw]

Sir Brennus somehow rings a bell... and I got a feeling it's the alarm bell of an asylum.

 

[Linedog]

This whole thread reminds me of similar arguments before Lionheart was released. Most especialy the ' okay , we're including a pause feature for the retards who can't keep up, but you shouldn't have to use it much.' As with Lionheart, this tells me that I will probably not like the game. Protestations to the contrary aside, it sounds more like Dungeon Siege than the RTwP of the BG's and the BG system was absolutey as far as I am willing to move away from turn based. Any thing more and the combat becomes a pretty movie that you watch and hope for the best.

 

[bryce777]

Well, at least with lionheart and oblivion they talked big at first and sounded good. This already sounds off and this is the second thing I have heard about it.

Of course, that could just be a matter of massive dishonesty over at bethesda and cluelessness at the other place - given the parameters they have given so far a good game is possible, it just seems less likelyt han we had hoped and I'm already pretty doubtful.