Neverwinter Returns as an OMG

[racofer]

The best is this, the most logical is that, no way they should implement x, y is the best alternative....

Just quit it guys, they're gonna screw it up anyways.

 

[Jeff Graw]

Indeed racofer. Cryptic makes Bethesda look like Black Isle.

 

[mondblut]

Is this their way of saying that the game has always-on DRM?

Obviously.

 

[Baron]

Turn based cultists really should question their faith. Turns were fine for retro gaming and for when computers had the raw processing power of an American Christian, but it's no longer necessary or desirable. RPGs are about much more than slow ponderous gameplay. Tactical? I hit the orc! I'm sorry for those of you bound in your wheelchairs punching your keyboard with a mouth straw, but there is no turn based tactic that cannot be achieved with modern internet speeds and hotkeys. Heaven forbid that bloody rampaging ogre carnage should be exciting-

I'm yet to playMount and Blade Warband but its combat looks a lot more fun than Pool of Radiance's. Why can't RPGs have exciting combat along with interesting fantasy worlds, great storylines, and meaningful player choices that reveal character and alignment? Blasphemy of blasphemies, Turn based was never that good. It was the adventure and RP that I played it for, not the shitty mechanic. Why do people worship it? Fallout 3 was bad, but only for the writing. Creeping along a ridge, sniping stray dogs for meat in a radiated wasteland was incredibly immersive and 1000 times better than its predecessors. The game only fell apart when you spoke to someone.

No, Paladins also function as party diplomats; they use melee skills combined with limited spellcasting. ... - AND in what's actually important; Role-playing. Paladins are zealous holy warriors-... and are usually restricted in alignment. They are also usually the forefront in undead-slaying, -... etc

Why is any of this important in a Roleplaying Game?
- Party diplomat = Make a high charisma Fighter ('oh no! he won't be min maxed then!')
- Undead slayer = Buy a silver sword and drape yourself in garlic. Pick a suitable feat.
- Deeply religious twat = ROLEPLAY IT

I'm aware of what a Paladin is, and it's just a flavour of Fighter. They haven't included Myrmidon, Gladiator, Mensur, or Gloucestershire Local Pub Darts Champion but choosing a Fighter class certainly allows all of these. Why is Paladin special? You could add special magical powers to any primary meatshield. Historically, it's not as if Paladins could invoke any divine abilities, apart from Talk To One's Self and Butcher A Nonhostile Unequipped Civilian Population. (alignment restriction, yup.. sure.)

I'm not against making new Classes, but until the game creates a significantly different playstyle to Tank, Stealth, Buffer, Area Damage, it's all unnecessary. In Pen and Paper games I've found that when players are permitted more classes they play bland stereotypes of that class; Yarr, I'm a Pirate. But when given only four base classes they create great diversification of character to separate them from others. The game just needs to encourage that by not making it mandatory for all Fighters to have EXACTLY the same stats or risk obsolescence. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma need to have worthwhile benefits for the average Fighter to encourage them to use all their stats and diversify, and not max out STR and CON.

 

[Morkar Left]

Turn based cultists really should question their faith. Turns were fine for retro gaming and for when computers had the raw processing power of an American Christian, but it's no longer necessary or desirable. RPGs are about much more than slow ponderous gameplay. Tactical? I hit the orc! I'm sorry for those of you bound in your wheelchairs punching your keyboard with a mouth straw, but there is no turn based tactic that cannot be achieved with modern internet speeds and hotkeys. Heaven forbid that bloody rampaging ogre carnage should be exciting-

Really what a bullshit. Can you imagine that there are people who like the possibilities of strategy and tactics instead of button mashing? Sure, button mashing can be fun, but it´s not the only thing i like and i have more fun with turnbased combat.Two completely different things.
Should now all strategygames put to a hold because we have actiongames?

 

[Baron]

WHAT. STRATEGY. ?!.


What strategy is achieved in Turn based that cannot be designed into real time?

 

[Morkar Left]

Look at the D&D 3.5 ruleset for some inspiration. And I prefer partybased games. No way you can effectively control 3-8 chars at the same time. I really like M&B or Gothic but it´s definitely not the only type of game I want. They are primarily action-games instead of having a focus on tactics. M&B isn´t bad in the sense of tactics you can use but it has no magic, special abilities, stealth and so on.
If you don´t like turnbasedgames and prefer actiongames that´s fine for me. But I don´t like only action games to play. I want RPGs based on a party with stats and proper tactiacl combat with a focus on grouptactics instead of kill per minute button mashing. And that´s turnbased combat. Or realtime with pause which is just turnbased in disguise...

 

[latexmonkeys]

WHAT. STRATEGY. ?!.


What strategy is achieved in Turn based that cannot be designed into real time?

You're avatar is from X-com.

Ever played it?

 

[Baron]

Yes, but what's that got to do with anything. It's not a Role Playing Game.

 

[analt]

Look at the D&D 3.5 ruleset for some inspiration. And I prefer partybased games. No way you can effectively control 3-8 chars at the same time. I really like M&B or Gothic but it´s definitely not the only type of game I want. They are primarily action-games instead of having a focus on tactics. M&B isn´t bad in the sense of tactics you can use but it has no magic, special abilities, stealth and so on.

Mount & Blade could be a lot more tactical, but it's just too damn hard to execute complicated plans with the interface it has. I love the game, but it was always right on the edge of usability as far as battle commands, and by the time I finally knew them all by heart, he went and changed it all in Warband.

That one feels like a real regression. There are actually MORE layers of MORE button pushing to get the same results -- in real time, while someone is stabbing you in the face. I was just defending in a siege and it took three different button presses to yell 'Spread out!' to my archers. Then I hit the last button again, and instead of saying 'More!' it had me commanding them to use blunt weapons! I didn't even realize it until a long time later when I finally connected the dots between the sudden quiet (minus arrow hiss) and the guy in front of me who kept punching people.

 

[latexmonkeys]

Yes, but what's that got to do with anything. It's not a Role Playing Game.

Yeah, sorry.

X-com has no place in a discussion involving turn based gameplay
and whether or not it is strategically superior to real time.

Silly me.

 

[Freelance Henchman]

The best solution for 3.5 is to limit everything to the core rules only, most of the accessories are full of broken crap anyway that makes anything core inviable as a contributive alternative.

I doubt this is true. You don't really need much more than a pure core-rules wizard or even a cleric to break the game, the add-ins at worst make it *even more* broken.

 

[Nickless]

I'll concede you that.

 

[Naturaliensammler]

Yes, I play D&D4e regularly (via online PBP) and enjoy it very much.

Faggotry detected.

No paladin.

No fucking faggotry Paladin?

 

[JarlFrank]

I expected OMG to stand for Obviously Mature Game, but alas, the marketing department didn't seem to be innovative enough to come up with a buzzword as awesome as this.

 

[Pablosdog]

Yes, but what's that got to do with anything. It's not a Role Playing Game.

It has everything to do with it, X-com is a tactical game that EXEMPLIFIES why turn-based combat is so surperior over realtime.

The way your structuring classes, your limiting the variety in those classes. What if I didn't WANT to play a cha fighter? what if I wanted to play an ugly dumb brute? The party shouldn't be shifted around as a result because ONE person wants to play the character HE wants. At least if you have classes that serve multiple roles. I.e Paladin or ranger, you can reach common ground. Some people also like to play those types of characters. Simplifying it will just add a lack of variety. Not everyone wants to be those five classes. Paladins get Turn undead, smite evil, and minor healing spells that can be VERY important. If you've actually bothered to open up any Dnd Player's guide, you would know that Paladins get some nice spells later on, and that's even more obvious in 4e. Some fighters aren't even strength-based, using high dex and weapon finesse instead. Also, this is a fantasy game, they didn't have orcs or bugbears in medieval england did they?

Your limited classes based on party roles, and again, your basing these party roles on cliches. I had a game where it was 5 seperate spell casters, all of varying classes, and each completely different from the other. People even have builds where sorcerers function as melee fighters.