A modern RPG that changes the AI tactics based upon the players class...... your not going to like it but that one is easy World of Warcraft. I ran a priest every caster i fought in the game wants to run up to you and hit you with a stick (interupts the casting of the spell). Conversly i also made a warrior, fighting the same mobs again they would spam spell after spell trying to get away from the warrior.

I know you will not like that answer but there it is.

Answered, anything else i can do for you today?

Asai

WOW is indeed a good example-or Everquest. Pan a blue and your be able to take it down, a yellow is doable by a very skilled player-but an inexperienced player is going to die. A red will be impossible by any player with any setup. If WOW or EQ was action twitch based-a relex skilled player will exploit the system-and can kill monstors far outside their level-while a player not so responsive will struggle even with blue cons. There IS NO WAY to balance such a system as your ability to hit, dodge and cause damage is in the hands of the player and not in the hands of a rules system.

Look at the custom scripts in Baldur's Gate made in the editor by the players. It is programmed A.I. to the rules. The Witcher, as long as combat remains twitch based-will never allow that. It can't- 15 years after and it is sad developers have lost what RPG gaming is all about.

@ghostryder:

ironically, virtually all traditional RPGs end up with mages being completely unbalanced. the theory is sound, yes, but it doesn't bear up that well in real gameplay. moreover, broken builds for classic RPGs are EVERYWHERE. you can easily find methods to make combat in kotor, BG1+2, etc. trivial.

i found your statement that "You want to be a sniper---you have to sneek and get up close" to be frankly ridiculous; the whole POINT of sniping is to be accurate and powerful from immense distances.

furthermore, while mass effect 1 had stat-based aiming (shoot an enemy, only a percentage of your bullets will hit based on your skills and level), mass effect 2 completely removes that (and the game is better for it). now, if you've got your enemy in your crosshairs and you pull the trigger, your shot will hit regardless of your level or his level or anything else. it removes the nonsensical "point blank miss" that often crops up in stat-based RPGs. you hit what you aim for.

twitch gaming, as you call it, keeps its challenge through increasingly complex gameplay. variables like enemy health, shields/armor, position, animation, etc. are all vitally important to high-level play. i'm surprised you picked a fighting game as your example - they're known to have incredibly deep combat systems where strategy comes down to individual frames of animation. i urge you to compare wikis/strategy guides for RPGs and fighting games. You'll be hard-pressed to decide which one's more packed with strategic information.

bottom line: skill in either RPGs or twitch games can end up breaking them. in fact, i'd argue it's easier in classic RPGs because you have all the time in the world to analyze them.

I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, I love witcher 2 but I know its not a perfect game. If someone dislikes it, they are free to do so.

I just think that acting like you have the monopoly of the truth or the monopoly of opinions is pretty dumb. Like saying that this isn't an RPG or something.

Again, I don't think that action gameplay and RPG elements are exclusionary in any way.

If you decide to spec as a mage, you get a different experience from swords and alchemy. That's just one example, but it shows that RPG elements are also relevant.

To me this game manages a nice balance between the 2.

I claim no monopoly on anything-I am merely pointing out the flaws inherent in twitch based combat vs stat derived combat.

To continue the debate-I agree, once you have your strategic path chosen (what skills,stats,weapons,and so on in your setup) in a stat based rpg imbalances can become apparant. However the difference here is it is possible to correct the imbalances via the rules. It's why we have AD&D 2, AD&D 2, 3 or 4. It is why the MAGORITY of updating a typical MMO is in regards to class balance based on player feedback. Making a RPG balanced from beginning to end-especially an online one that may go beyond level 70- is no easy task even with an underlying rules system. But it is still superior to twitch based systems because what can be done is very limited. RPGs --unless very linear--generally are played very differently from player to player. As mentioned one player's level 5 warrior may be quite different than another's in terms of weapon, armore, range combat and so on. Things can become very imbalanced in any system-but it really sticks out like a sore thumb in twitch based games because the player's reflex ability trumps rules. And no sniping from rediculous ranges and lvl 4 in Fallout 3 is not a balanced system. A newbie lvl 4 should miss, and miss quite often. If not then what is the point of leveling and up'ing one's character's stats and weapons and armor? That argument to be is hollow and one demensional--the real question is at lvl 20 will your build look like any other ? In Fallout 3 it matters not- by lvl 20 regardless your character is the same---this was true in Oblivion as well. Bethseda doesn't care about stat based RPG systems--but Obsidian does-so in Fallout 3:NV at lvl 20 your character can be quite different from another.

That to me is ROLE-PLAYING---I have control to shape my character to my individual strategy and tastes---so I find Bethseda titles lacking. I find the same with The Witcher 2. It's not only about what's there----which is an unbalanced system that is hard at low levels and a cake walk at later levels- but what is not there and how much better it COULD be if there was a rules base to work with rather than simply reflex, some spells you can increase, some potions you can modify---the stronger you become the weaker the setup becomes in keeping the balance.

Imagine WOW trying to pull off a guild raid with such a system. It would be totally FUBAR. In fact the whole game would be FUBAR. MMO's are about keeping the carot on a stick for the player to chase- from lvl 1 to lvl 80--you better keep things interesting. There better be something for them to chase at lvl 20, lvl40 or lvl60----if it was twitch based this would be nil impossible. They'd have left in boredom long ago.

But that doesn't make any sense since Fallout NV also uses twitch based combat as you call it, it just balances it better. Overall it seems that all your argumentation has more to do with the balance of specific games and not a broad style of game-design.

Also, your main complaint is that your character at max level should be different. Well I argue that as you get higher levels in TW2 the way you play is highly defined by RPG elements.

If your complaint is that you can't really become a mage or something in a more fleshed out way like, say Oblivion, well then that is valid, but you have to understand that the basis of the game is not to give multiple classes, you are always the witcher class, so to speak. And that's a design decision that comes from the first game.

No Fallout NV only appears twitch based if you do not use vats or pause. Under the hood your ability to hit is still STAT based. Baldur's gate can appear like Diablo if you never pause, but under the hood the numbers are being crunched. Again you can have imbalances do to a weakness in the rules--but there is no way AD&D 3 rules become as unbalanced as we experience in the Witcher. Balur's Gate holds up reasonably well, and I'd say Knights of the old republic holds up reasonably well.

By sameness- I refer to Oblivion or Fallout 3. It matters not what I choose-by lvl 20 I'll be skilled in everything regardless. My mage is very much like my Warrior---However you make a Mage in Baldur's Gate and he will be a mage at lvl 20---your still be no tank with a sword---which you will be in Oblivion even if you create a mage.

Sure your a witcher, but you still have paths to lean towards-be it sword, signs, and so on. But again the over-lying determining factor for success is reflex---if you have it your do good-if you don't your going to struggle-especially in the early levels. That can only be corrected with a rules system-which there is none. The devs can nerf Quen, up response time, weaken a sword---but it's a shotgun approach to what really should be a mathimatical solution. It's what drives the strategy gender- and RPGs are supposed to be strategic.

It's like comparing Command and Conquer to War in the East. There's little in a RTS that can compete with a strategic Wargame in terms of strategy options-and the same is true when you compare an action RPG with a old school RPG. You want mindless twitch gaming you go for Diablo- You want to plan your fights, your levels, your whole build you go play an old Bioware game or sign up for a MMO because nowadays they just make action games.

You make a fair few good points, but are you really claiming AD&D is balanced?
Seriously?

A level 20 mage IS a better tank than a fighter.
There is no question.
Between weapon immunity and stoneskin and shapechange, and a whole slew of other spells, fighters can and do get stabbed to death in about a tenth of the time it takes to bring down a mage.

Also, D&D 3rd edition is among the worst offenders in terms of balance.
(I should know, I competed in tournaments all over the world)
There is literally no point in being an alpha BAB character .. a single spell, divine power, makes clerics better fighters than fighters can ever hope to be.

Neverwinter nights 1 & 2 run under 3rd edition, and frankly, those things are so imbalanced it breaks my heart.

For D2, under the hood the numbers are being crunched. Your accuracy is determined by your attack (modifiable via Dex, Equipment, Skills) and enemy defense.

Imbalance can stick out in FNV too. For example, if you spend all your skill points on Guns early on, you can get pretty damn powerful via VATS (except for the case of god damn Deathclaws) - you see an enemy, you go into VATS, enemy down. If you try to be a non-combative type, spending points on Medicine, Speech, Science man you are going to get owned in combat.

As to whether difficulty curve is normal or reversed, I don't think it is part of what defines an RPG.

The Witcher 2 is an action RPG. There are elements of twitch-based / reflex-based action or combat combined with RPG elements such as gaining experience / levelling up, questing, allocating skill points, changing equipment, potion-using and such.

What you (ghostryder) and Asai are basically arguing is that The Witcher 2 has terrible combat and that it is a poor RPG because it does not conform to features of a non-action-oriented RPG. In other (harsher) words, you are condemning The Witcher 2 for being what it is - an action RPG.

Totally agree with you there. Can't say it better myself. Very clearly Asai and ghostryder hated the action part.. which they totally wanted to remove it simply because they dislike it. We can't sacrifice the whole basket of eggs when there's only 1 or 2 eggs that are rotten.

well, my position is that if that newbie level 4 can aim a highly sensitive sniper rifle, then he should be rewarded with a hit. on the other hand, a level 20 who never snipes and is bad at it shouldn't automatically get a hit if he can't shoot the broad side of a barn.

both game types involve leveling up; it's just that in 'twitch gaming', the PLAYER is the one who's leveling instead of his CHARACTER.

picture it this way: if you get experience from killing enemies a certain way, then after a while your character is practiced at killing enemies that way. this practice makes him better at using killing using that method. that's represented in RPGs by a skill or talent getting stronger, or a proficiency stat going up.

in an action game, the player gets practiced at killing an enemy a certain way, and eventually gets good at it. the talent increase still takes place.

that's why, to me, it's incredibly silly when a player with, let's say "level 15" sniping ability starts a game and find that because his character has only a "level 2" sniping ability, his talent is nerfed.

that's why i like the witcher 2 system. It nicely combines Player Level with Character Level.

By the amount of threads on this forum I think it is a stretch to claim there's some nice balances between twitch based reflex fighting and leveling up with stats. The general debate is how to improve what is clearly out of whack---and I contend you need an underlying rules system in order to do that. It just can't be done otherwise-and is exactly why MMO's have never went the action route without immediate trouble.

Not all gamers are console players acustomed to reflex fight setups. Especially a game that targets an older audience. There are just a ton of players that will not buy The Witcher 2 because they remember the soar taste of the Witcher 1's combat. It was a great first effort- and many believed the dev blog hype of tactical combat--when in the end what we got was a sluggish unresponsive action setup with no way to control crowds or properly defend---instead combat consists of rolling around like an acrobat or a circus performer, throwing bombs in leu of an inability to do the same thing physically.

If your giving us action combat at least make it appear as a reasonable model of a fight---I've watch a lot of medevil combat in movies and I got to tell you---I've never seen anything as corny and confondingly unrealistic in a physical sense as we have here.

Behind this there is a great game- so for me I put up with it--but there's a boatload of players that will not.

What you are claiming is that action RPGs cannot be RPGs, and you are implying that the RPG elements in TW2 are useless. That there is no planning involved in TW2 and that's just false.


Well I can only disagree with your premise. I like Action RPGs and think that TW2 owns as a game. I do not find the RPG elements diminished in any way, and I think that the combat is much better than the first game.



---


If you extend your argument, what you are saying is that a game like Starcraft cannot be strategic in any way or form because it depends on reflexes. That is an incredibly twisted way to look at things.

Yes, you need reflexes to do good at SC, but you also need a firm grasp of strategy and tactics.

Same things applies to action RPGs, reflexes and strategy can compliment each other and not be mutually exclusive.

I will repeat it, you need to be good at combat, and prepare tactics and RPG elements to succeed in TW2.
That's a different argument. TW2 combat is unbalanced in skills, and has some inconsistencies in its responsiveness. But those relate to specific balancing of the game.

What I am referring is that there is a balance in the fact that you need both preparation and reflexes in this game. Just like in SC2 you need to be good at microing and at making correct strategies to win.

Totally agree. W2 is a game that made ME level up in terms of combat, it was nice to feel that it is ME who is mastering it, not only my on-screen puppet.