From todays PA post www.penny-arcade.com
I find that rather surprising as PA has been pretty big fans of Dragon Age and Fallout 3/NV ect.
Even Tycho from Penny Arcade misses PnP style rpgs
- Thread starter Eternal
- Start date
From todays PA post www.penny-arcade.com
I find that rather surprising as PA has been pretty big fans of Dragon Age and Fallout 3/NV ect.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
You can like both Dragon Age/New Vegas and ye olde PnP style you know. DA is nowhere near the hack and slash descibed by the article (it refers to things like DnD: Daggerdale, I'd wager). The first game anyway.
Dragon Age: Origins was kind of an exception to the rule though, long time in production and using some "old-fashioned" ways of thinking, BioWare has left that behind now and is never making a game like that again.
I like both styles fine. I imagine many of us do. Yet only one style is catered to. And that's annoying.
I like both styles fine. I imagine many of us do. Yet only one style is catered to. And that's annoying.
It sounds like what he's saying is, "What's the point of buying the DnD license when you aren't making a game true to the play style of DnD?"
I suppose that is a valid question. Though games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter probably married PnP and computer gaming as close as will ever be possible in the mainstream. It doesn't seem there is much value in slapping DnD on the label and cranking out hollow hack-n-slash titles when it could just as easily be called something else.
I suppose that is a valid question. Though games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter probably married PnP and computer gaming as close as will ever be possible in the mainstream. It doesn't seem there is much value in slapping DnD on the label and cranking out hollow hack-n-slash titles when it could just as easily be called something else.
Dragon Age Origins is in my eyes to "Baldus Gate" what Fallout 3 is to Fallout 1/2.
Ravager69 said:
I know that. You know that. I'm sure he knows that. The magic of Dungeons and Dragons has always been getting around a table with some of your closest friends and having an adventure where anything can happen with a DM and some random dice. A lot of that is lost when it's turned into hack/slash.
Mind you, I'm not saying that I care that much what a game company does with the license. Just trying to interpret what he was saying.
Daggerfall isn't a particularly interesting game storywise either, at least based on the demo I had tried.
Though I have to say that the DnD games I played had much better story telling then many other RPGs I know from today. Which includes Dragon Age as well. I think it has something to do with the art-direction as well (like in Baldurs Gate or Never Winter Nights you had drawn pictures for the NPCs and your character instead of showing everything in "3D" not to mention Baldurs Gate had one of the best Soundtracks in my eyes).
Ravager69 said:
The guy still has a point though. If the setting has so many possibilities, and such a great system, why don't the games utilize it? Take Daggerdale - it has absolutely nothing to do with DnD! You don't need a DnD license to make a game with dwarves, goblins and dungeons in it, and the game doesn't only fail to use the great DnD system, it plays like a below-average Diablo clone.
DA:O isn't a DnD game. It's a DnD-and-Witcher-ripoff game. As for its writing quality... I suppose if you're speaking comparatively, it's better, but there isn't exactly much competition these days except the Witcher, which is in a league of its own.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
DnD4 would work far better than any previous system for conversion to a PC game and has the best designed system to date. It should be able to be adapted without any mechanical changes.korindabar said:
Which would make NWN1 & 2 the closest adaptations.korindabar said:
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Too true, and I believe it was exactly what the guy meant. Make your own herderp fantasy setting (ala Two Worlds or whatever) instead of taking a license. Not only that, taking a license of tabletop games and putting it in a Diablo clone seems odd. Target audience much? It's not they had the Bethesda-level marketing and fan following needed to bring lots of new fans to the franchise. Meh.
DAO was in development for 5 years, released in early 2009, intended to be a throwback to BG-style games from the start. TW was released in late 2007, and didn't exactly take off until several months later in North America IIRC. So I call BS on the ripoff part.
[Citation needed]. I never found the writing in the Witcher series to be quite fantastic (unless you count excessive swearing and references to sex as good writing at any rate). It's nowhere near bad, but not as good as, say, Obsidian/Black Isle level at their best. Just like Bioware.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
What? DnD4 is essentially a "I want to play WoW Raids/Dungeons" in PnP. 
If this is not the definition of dumbing down, then my name is Karl Heinz Josef.
Even though Dragon Age was ok for its time, it was dumbed down, from some game (baldurs gate) which was already an action adventure, not an RPG. Pretty lulzy - I enjoyed the Hack'n'slay games "Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance" - more than any new failures of BioWare doing "RPG"
If this is not the definition of dumbing down, then my name is Karl Heinz Josef.Even though Dragon Age was ok for its time, it was dumbed down, from some game (baldurs gate) which was already an action adventure, not an RPG. Pretty lulzy - I enjoyed the Hack'n'slay games "Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance" - more than any new failures of BioWare doing "RPG"
thegaresexperience
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Never played DnD4, only 3.5, but I've heard similar complaints. the only reason I was interested in it was because it had that Dying Earth setting that seemed cool and it was somthing different from the fantasy element (there was also a gothic horor setting that i wanted to try too, and Planescape, for the multiple worlds aspect).
For videogames (as mentioned before) NWN games were pretty close, but I didn't like NWN2 (gameplay was clunky and for some reason lagged like a bitch, I'll wait til I get a new rig and start over). And KOTOR was based of 3.0 rules and KOTOR II off 3.5, if i recall correctly and they were pretty damn good games.
For videogames (as mentioned before) NWN games were pretty close, but I didn't like NWN2 (gameplay was clunky and for some reason lagged like a bitch, I'll wait til I get a new rig and start over). And KOTOR was based of 3.0 rules and KOTOR II off 3.5, if i recall correctly and they were pretty damn good games.
Ilosar said:
I don't even understand the motivation really. DnD isn't exactly a "popular brand" that everyone loves, but rather a specific franchise based mostly on hardcore fans. I kinda doubt there's many people who'd pick it up just cause they heard about DnD and thought "kewlz", and neither would the actual DnD fans enjoy a dumbed-down diablo clone based off the franchise. So, who exactly would be the target audience for such games is beyond me. Logically, not a lot of people.
Right, and the Witcher saga was around before DA:O was even conceived of. I'm being cheeky about the ripoff part, of course, but I did think that, with Witcher EE coming out not long enough before DA:O to be forgotten, and all the concept similarities, it made DA:O look quite bad. And to be fair, it wasn't a bad game, but IMO it failed completely as a throwback to IE games.
No, it's far superior to Bioware. Dialogue actually changes depending on your choices, and decisions actually matter. Though that's more design than writing. IMO, in Witcher the characters felt more alive, and interactions more enjoyable, rather than the largely stiff and though-up cast of DA:O. And don't even get me started on the romances.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Oh yeah, the romances. Best left alone. While it's true there's more consequences in TW (especially the second game), that's design, not writing. If DA is dragged down by the romances, TW (and, again, especially the second game) is dragged down by too much swearing and cringe-inducing references (those LOTR shout-outs in Vergen made me stop playing for a while, I mean dammit).
Completely disagree about the characters, however. Many of them (chiefly Triss and her sorceress counterparts) seem flat, and even stupid at parts. Some (like Henselt) have no other motivations than being dicks for being dick's sake, unless I missed something. I don't see too much grey and grey in these games, more like black and grey, Geralt's enemies are almost always crazy psychos (case in point, in the first game whatever faction you don't ally with, and hell even those you do, will commit various atrocities, how can I make a proper choice if all of them are utter bastards? Thank the Heavens for neutrality, but it didn't seem like a proper choice to me, just a refuge in case you found the two main factions sucked hard). Loghain and the Arishok were far better atagonists to me, and the likes of Sten and Varric better sidekicks than Dandelion or Zoltan. I could sense a frienship between some characters in Dragon Age and the PC, while those in TW just seemed along for the ride and appeared while it was convenient to the the plot for them to do so.
For the rest, we'll have to resort to good ol' fashioned YMMV. This isn't the point of the thread anyway, so let's drop it.
Completely disagree about the characters, however. Many of them (chiefly Triss and her sorceress counterparts) seem flat, and even stupid at parts. Some (like Henselt) have no other motivations than being dicks for being dick's sake, unless I missed something. I don't see too much grey and grey in these games, more like black and grey, Geralt's enemies are almost always crazy psychos (case in point, in the first game whatever faction you don't ally with, and hell even those you do, will commit various atrocities, how can I make a proper choice if all of them are utter bastards? Thank the Heavens for neutrality, but it didn't seem like a proper choice to me, just a refuge in case you found the two main factions sucked hard). Loghain and the Arishok were far better atagonists to me, and the likes of Sten and Varric better sidekicks than Dandelion or Zoltan. I could sense a frienship between some characters in Dragon Age and the PC, while those in TW just seemed along for the ride and appeared while it was convenient to the the plot for them to do so.
For the rest, we'll have to resort to good ol' fashioned YMMV. This isn't the point of the thread anyway, so let's drop it.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
The same was said when DnD3 was released. DnD4 is "Let's do what we said we were going to do with DnD3 and make DnD balanced and not break itself." That is until they started adding more and more shitty classes which weren't properly play tested and balanced at all (mostly too weak). As for being like WoW, it's almost like WoW is fundamentally based on DnD...Surf Solar said:What? DnD4 is essentially a "I want to play WoW Raids/Dungeons" in PnP.
DnD has always been a combination of RPing and dungeon diving, it's just that they finally took the wonky RP skill crap out of the mechanics and fixed the mechanics to make the combat work far better. For example, in 3.5 and before it was very easy to make skill checks which one character could auto-pass and another could auto-fail, which made a lot of skills stupid. The game always mechanically fell to pieces at mid to high level and don't even mention epic levels.
ADnD2E at least had all of the bizarre role-playing class specific rules which did stuff like turn the game into a strategy/kingdom simulation for fighters and the druidic counsel stuff. DnD3.X was somewhere between the two, landing directly into fubar. DnD4 at least makes it neigh impossible for a player to create a completely useless character, though you can still make crappy characters. Besides which, if you really want the 3.5 skill system it's a snap to migrate.
It's not the best system ever but it's a drastic improvement over 3.X for what it does and ADnD is superior to 3.X for what it does. Out of curiosity, when did you start playing DnD?
I thought the way they handled swearing was quite witty. Too omnipresent, perhaps you're right, but hey, that's how thugs and lowlifes talk in Eastern Europe anyway.
Vergen is TW2 not TW1. The joke you're referring to did fall flat, but it's a one-liner, I'm not sure why everyone's making such a big deal out of it. Though perhaps more seasoned LOTR fans picked up some other stuff.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
I don't think there's anything quite like watching people argue about how each successive version of DnD (or anything really) is totally a lame, dumbed down/utterly terrible version of their preferred version that is of course the ultimate version and is the best thing ever.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I like good ol' Basic DnD where the only classes were fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user, elf, dwarf, and halfling. And no multi-classing.