It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
From the OP

Sorry for the spoilers


IMO this games needs the player avatar needs to have a text or voice options outside of combat. Otherwise the game is just too flat to be interesting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&a mp;g t;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spoiler Starts

1) For example, your avatar just left the ruins and both companions are savagely killed by the storm but you are not. You have a strange affliction.

Surely this deserves some self reflection, soul searching, asking yourself questions, reflecting on the death of your friends. Your avatar has a dialog with themselves and this illuminates the nature of the character you play and effects the outcome of the whole game AND offers with the right stats the chance to proactively figure things out. Also this sort of self reflection could immersively make it clear that that your first 2 companions cannot be saved.

This is the only way IMO to make this game fly. I was a huge missed opportunity.

2) After the 1.04 patch the 2 spells that could allow you to pin down the bear long enough to kill it were nerfed badly and the blunderbuss removed. I don't see how a level 2 wizard could ever beat the bear in 1.04. It is faster and it one shots the player. Actually the whole encounter would be fine if the quest giver didn't say they were packing up and leaving right away (because they just murdered someone I guess) . It is an easy fix. Just have the quest giver say they would like to leave but the rain doesn't allow this. Then the player will know they can leave the quest until later.

3) I think the devs also got stuck a little bit in the mindset that hard equals good. Hard does not equal good. Interesting, thought provoking, diverse and empowering = good. I think the Witcher 3 devs understood this and adjusted their thinking to make a game balanced between hard and the above.

Mask of the Betrayer was a classic example of Interesting, thought provoking, diverse and empowering = good. You started the game a full strength and were given all sorts of options to use that in a compelling way. There were places where your strength didn't help you and even worked against you. You were given interesting new options because of your strength. I am hoping hoping hoping that in Witcher 3 Gerault doesn't have to start from level one AGAIN. I may not play the game in that case even though I already bought it.

I would dearly like to play PoE but I just can't. I don't mind that I blew 44 bucks on it especially if it is the same people who made MofB ..... they probably didn't get the recognition and $$$ they deserved for that game. It was a 1/2 finished masterpiece. I can still remember standing in front of the black door wondering what was behind it and the encounter with the God of Death .... I can still remember the lines.
91% user rating on Steam, 86% user rating on Metacritic, loved by critics. We'll see in time of course, there have been other games loved on released and quickly forgotten - but I don't think this one has failed to achieve greatness, given its receptin.
avatar
Coelocanth: I find there are a number of other things that are annoying about the game, such as the engagement system. It looks like a good idea on paper, but I find in game it's bloody annoying and a really poor mechanic.
Why? As far as I'm concerned, the engagement system solved many gripes I've had so far with party-based tactical RPGs (mainly that it tends to be damn difficult to keep your tanks actually tanking without enemies ignoring them.)

avatar
Sirandar888: I think the Witcher 3 devs understood this and adjusted their thinking to make a game balanced between hard and the above.
What do you base that on? Witcher 3 is not quite out.
Post edited April 19, 2015 by Fenixp
avatar
Coelocanth: I find there are a number of other things that are annoying about the game, such as the engagement system. It looks like a good idea on paper, but I find in game it's bloody annoying and a really poor mechanic.
avatar
Fenixp: Why? As far as I'm concerned, the engagement system solved many gripes I've had so far with party-based tactical RPGs (mainly that it tends to be damn difficult to keep your tanks actually tanking without enemies ignoring them.)
I agree with Coelocanth. The engagement system sounds like a great idea, and for turn based it is. But in practice, in RTwP it just doesn't work when you have an AI that has one purpose: to close you down, and close you down it does. Once the hordes have you surrounded, and they will, there is no longer any tactical battle. It's just a survival slog. For a party without a tank, it's sheer hell.
Post edited April 19, 2015 by Hickory
avatar
Sirandar888: From the OP

Sorry for the spoilers

IMO this games needs the player avatar needs to have a text or voice options outside of combat. Otherwise the game is just too flat to be interesting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&a mp;g t;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spoiler Starts

1) For example, your avatar just left the ruins and both companions are savagely killed by the storm but you are not. You have a strange affliction.

Surely this deserves some self reflection, soul searching, asking yourself questions, reflecting on the death of your friends. Your avatar has a dialog with themselves and this illuminates the nature of the character you play and effects the outcome of the whole game AND offers with the right stats the chance to proactively figure things out. Also this sort of self reflection could immersively make it clear that that your first 2 companions cannot be saved.

This is the only way IMO to make this game fly. I was a huge missed opportunity.

2) After the 1.04 patch the 2 spells that could allow you to pin down the bear long enough to kill it were nerfed badly and the blunderbuss removed. I don't see how a level 2 wizard could ever beat the bear in 1.04. It is faster and it one shots the player. Actually the whole encounter would be fine if the quest giver didn't say they were packing up and leaving right away (because they just murdered someone I guess) . It is an easy fix. Just have the quest giver say they would like to leave but the rain doesn't allow this. Then the player will know they can leave the quest until later.

3) I think the devs also got stuck a little bit in the mindset that hard equals good. Hard does not equal good. Interesting, thought provoking, diverse and empowering = good. I think the Witcher 3 devs understood this and adjusted their thinking to make a game balanced between hard and the above.

Mask of the Betrayer was a classic example of Interesting, thought provoking, diverse and empowering = good. You started the game a full strength and were given all sorts of options to use that in a compelling way. There were places where your strength didn't help you and even worked against you. You were given interesting new options because of your strength. I am hoping hoping hoping that in Witcher 3 Gerault doesn't have to start from level one AGAIN. I may not play the game in that case even though I already bought it.

I would dearly like to play PoE but I just can't. I don't mind that I blew 44 bucks on it especially if it is the same people who made MofB ..... they probably didn't get the recognition and $$$ they deserved for that game. It was a 1/2 finished masterpiece. I can still remember standing in front of the black door wondering what was behind it and the encounter with the God of Death .... I can still remember the lines.
2. I assume one of the spells you refer to is the oil slick spell. I have not updated to 1.04 yet, I'm still in 1.03 (and unless they nerfed again, from what I've read the nerf happened in 1.03). Like I said above, it took a bunch of tries, but my lone wizard eventually DID beat the bear (although it was super close). The oil slick spell didn't work at all sometimes, sometimes it did but the bear only fell once, the time I finally won the bear fell initially, got up, fell again, and I fan of flamed the hell outta it. Why would a wizard use the blunderbus when you have fan of flames?

Maybe it is how you created your wizard. I maxed MIG (18, fan of flames is strong), INT (18, my range is far), and DEX (20, due to creation choices). The high DEX is arguably the most important as it allows you to cast spells faster. I dropped CON to 3 to allow for the points I needed, and wore clothes (no armor) so that my action speed was as fast as possible. Of course this means I have to get lucky with the roll for the oil slick to work, and I need to cast as many fan of flames as possible as its nearing me. With the high INT I can start casting with the bear at a longer range = more time before it reaches me. I KNOW it can be done as I've done it. I'm not saying it's easy. But maybe you are giving up too easy.
I just want to add that you can give your PC a *silent* voice set. It's the last option in the list ("NONE"), I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet.

The bear cave is simply an old-school throwback to games like Baldur's Gate where wandering off in the wrong direction could quite easily kill you. Like good old Kangaxx in BG2, entered the wrong door? Woops. Time to reload. Sure PoE has problems, particularily the repetitive nature of the battles (removing pre-buffing and immunities was a mistake, in my opinion) but this is simply getting exactly what Obsidian promised they would deliver. ^^
avatar
Hickory: I agree with Coelocanth. The engagement system sounds like a great idea, and for turn based it is. But in practice, in RTwP it just doesn't work when you have an AI that has one purpose: to close you down, and close you down it does. Once the hordes have you surrounded, and they will, there is no longer any tactical battle. It's just a survival slog. For a party without a tank, it's sheer hell.
I always hated party-based RPGs where half of the combat system was running around the battlefield like an idiot to micromanage the enemies - in PoE, it's much more important to get the overal strategy right (current unit placement, general formation, proper rationing of abilities) than how well you manage to run away. The AI always trying to surround you is quite logical given their numbers, and a need to have a character who can take a punch feels quite natural as well - and if you're playing without a tank and can't do it, you're playing it wrong (given how many abilities in the game can affect enemy movement and deal with area denial, I would be very surprised if it were impossible - I might be wrong tho, didn't try yet.)

Argument could then be made that the game doesn't allow enough player freedom in party creation, and that would be a good one. But that's not down to how engagement system is done - that's down to the game not giving you enough options, yet. Let's hope expansions and potential sequel will bring those, after all, developing RPG mechanics is difficult.
avatar
Fenixp: I always hated party-based RPGs where half of the combat system was running around the battlefield like an idiot to micromanage the enemies - in PoE, it's much more important to get the overal strategy right (current unit placement, general formation, proper rationing of abilities) than how well you manage to run away. The AI always trying to surround you is quite logical given their numbers, and a need to have a character who can take a punch feels quite natural as well - and if you're playing without a tank and can't do it, you're playing it wrong (given how many abilities in the game can affect enemy movement and deal with area denial, I would be very surprised if it were impossible - I might be wrong tho, didn't try yet.)

Argument could then be made that the game doesn't allow enough player freedom in party creation, and that would be a good one. But that's not down to how engagement system is done - that's down to the game not giving you enough options, yet. Let's hope expansions and potential sequel will bring those, after all, developing RPG mechanics is difficult.
You can custom build your entire party, if you like. That tanky paladin not quite meeting your needs? Roll a fighter. Need a rogue, then roll one at the inn.
Post edited April 19, 2015 by paladin181
avatar
paladin181: You can custom build your entire party, if you like. That tanky paladin not quite meeting your needs? Roll a fighter. Need a rogue, then roll one at the inn.
That's not the point - point is that the game mechanics can force you to play in certain manner, and force some fixed party compositions on you. I don't know if that's the case - I'm only doing my first playtrough now.
avatar
Fenixp: That's not the point - point is that the game mechanics can force you to play in certain manner, and force some fixed party compositions on you. I don't know if that's the case - I'm only doing my first playtrough now.
That depends on the difficulty level you play on and the amount of time you're willing to invest. Summons and retaliation can even carry a solo character to the end of Path of the Damned, the question is if you really want to invest the time needed to plan everything out.

The game certainly is much easier in all difficulties if you include at least one fighter tank and ideally back that tank up with an off-tank.
avatar
Fenixp: and if you're playing without a tank and can't do it, you're playing it wrong
I never said 'can't do it', I said it's 'sheer hell'. The game should not punish you for playing your way: don't want a tank? Don't have one. Don't want a wizard? Don't have one. A true rpg is balanced for all eventualities of party makeup, or should be. I just believe that the engagement system simply does not work in a real time computer game. Turn based? Absolutely.
avatar
Hickory: I never said 'can't do it', I said it's 'sheer hell'. The game should not punish you for playing your way: don't want a tank? Don't have one. Don't want a wizard? Don't have one. A true rpg is balanced for all eventualities of party makeup, or should be. I just believe that the engagement system simply does not work in a real time computer game. Turn based? Absolutely.
Meh. I love the engagement system, and you dislike it because the party composition doesn't give you enough options because of it. Scrapping engagement system would be a mistake - devising ways to give you more options is the way to go. I've been waiting for ages for a real-time party-based RPG to do something like this, and if it is flawed currently ... Well, we wouldn't get anywhere if we just threw innovations away every time they don't work 100% first time around, would we.
avatar
Hickory: I never said 'can't do it', I said it's 'sheer hell'. The game should not punish you for playing your way: don't want a tank? Don't have one. Don't want a wizard? Don't have one. A true rpg is balanced for all eventualities of party makeup, or should be. I just believe that the engagement system simply does not work in a real time computer game. Turn based? Absolutely.
avatar
Fenixp: Meh. I love the engagement system, and you dislike it because the party composition doesn't give you enough options because of it. Scrapping engagement system would be a mistake - devising ways to give you more options is the way to go. I've been waiting for ages for a real-time party-based RPG to do something like this, and if it is flawed currently ... Well, we wouldn't get anywhere if we just threw innovations away every time they don't work 100% first time around, would we.
No, you're wrong, I don't dislike it because it doesn't give enough party options, I dislike it because, in it's current form, it simply does not work, period. I agree that scrapping it would be a mistake, but it seriously needs an overhaul, with the AI at the forefront.
avatar
Hickory: No, you're wrong, I don't dislike it because it doesn't give enough party options, I dislike it because, in it's current form, it simply does not work, period.
All right then, do tell why does it not work. To me it seems to do precisely what it says on the tin - makes disengagement a lot more difficult, and makes engagement management a lot less painful. Sure it has sideeffects that you don't like, but "sheer hell" is an argument difficult to make much out of ;-) And give me your party composition, I will prove you wrong! (or not and figure out why it's bad, alternatively)

avatar
Hickory: I agree that scrapping it would be a mistake, but it seriously needs an overhaul, with the AI at the forefront.
1.05 is supposed to bring balance overhaul, so let's see what happens then.
avatar
Hickory: No, you're wrong, I don't dislike it because it doesn't give enough party options, I dislike it because, in it's current form, it simply does not work, period.
avatar
Fenixp: All right then, do tell why does it not work. To me it seems to do precisely what it says on the tin - makes disengagement a lot more difficult, and makes engagement management a lot less painful. Sure it has sideeffects that you don't like, but "sheer hell" is an argument difficult to make much out of ;-) And give me your party composition, I will prove you wrong! (or not and figure out why it's bad, alternatively)
I already have told you why it doesn't work, and no, you won't prove me wrong, you will simply keep pushing your view.
This argument has become content-free.