NWN is better then Dragon Age

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               You know, I predicted almost every single counter argument you raised. I could ask you to think beyond your own personal preferences, but you don't seem to be interested. Your primary focus in RPG appears to be solely on how you build your character, mine is not. It's part of the equation, but it's not the whole equation. I've played all these games. Heck, I've modded for all of them. I can enjoy NWN for what it is, but I can see its shortcomings. The same applies for DAO and DA2.

I don't think I'm going to convince you to play DA2 because it's obvious that you've already made your decision based on the short demo. I was also a big fan of NWN2, but many NWN fans decried that as a poor successor. I remember having similar discussions (which subsequently turned into arguments upon which point I bowed out) about how NWN2 was "dumbed down" - much of which was based on the fact that it had a lower level cap and a few less prestige classes. Or because it didn't have as many PWs - a feature I personally had zero interest in. This is a horribly narrow view of RPGs, and dare I suggest part of the reason that this "old guard" is viewed as elitists when it comes to RPGs. There is no one true definition of an RPG, and claiming a game is "dumbed down" because it doesn't fit your personal taste is nothing but a baseless argument.

I didn't "come here to preach about DA2". I saw a potentially interesting discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the two and the ramifications of different design decisions that went into each game. Given you appear to have no interest in such a conversation, I'll bow out now. You can continue to play NWN, but I'll be seeking new and varied RPG experiences.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AmstradHero, 12 mars 2011 - 04:29 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Lowlander wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

There is role-playing that emphasizes things like exercising character and build options, but there is also role-playing that emphasizes immersion in a role in a well-developed story. It sounds like you prefer the first, while I tend to emphasize the second.

When you get down to you can call anything an RPG.

No, you can't. It means something to call a game a "role-playing" game, and just from the etymology it's clear that that has to involve the player assuming a role of some kind. Where RPGs can and do differ substantially is in the kind and nature of the roles to play that they offer and emphasize.

Traditional CRPGs tended to emphasize mechanics and build based role-playing for a variety of reasons. Some of them were historical, relating to the origin of the genre in tabletop RPGs, and some of them were related to the development of the technology. When computer resources were more limited and primitive, it was much easier to develop and emphasize role-playing based on programmed mechanics than on plot and story variations (as I found out for example while trying an earlier version of my module-making experiment in FRUA). Now that the technology has developed to allow much more sophisticated development and use of the techniques of dramatic storytelling, complete with things like cinematic cut-scenes, extensive writing and voiced dialog, it shouldn't be a surprise to see a developing emphasis on that in some games.

But when it gets this watered down this much it is more a point and shoot action fantasy game with lots of cut scenes. Maybe they should eliminate the combat and just make CGI movies? Then the story doesn't need to be interrupted with button mashing... It was dumbed down to make it more at home on consoles.

The problem with what you're saying is that the very language you're choosing to describe the issue is laden with personal value judgements that do not necessarily apply to other players. When a CRPG developer goes in the direction of streamlining game and character RP mechanics in favor of making story-based RP development more rich and complex, that isn't "watering down" or "dumbing down" the genre. It's a design decision made for the purpose of creating a specific kind of play experience that emphasizes dramatic and story-based role-playing over mechanics and build-oriented RP. The same goes for the decision to omit multiplayer functionality in favor of a design that excels at creating a single player experience.

Rather than "dumbing it down," I might call this "smartening it up" -- by moving CRPGs in the direction of creating a more artistic experience. Or at least I might, if I were determined to be disrespectful to everyone who didn't share my obvious preference for that kind of game. The fact, though, is that I understand and respect the differing preferences of those who really like mechanics-driven RP. What I don't appreciate is not having that same courtesy extended to me in return.

I have played 50+ NWN modules where independent authors never had that much trouble designing interesting and balanced encounters.

I flatly disagree. Have you ever actually built a module in which you've had to design and balance combat and encounters in NWN? I have, and it's not even remotely as easy as you suggest. NWN1 especially is notorious for presenting sometimes nightmarish difficulties in balancing encounters for all classes and builds, especially at epic levels. It's often really hard unless you just want to build for powergaming munchkins. A lot of that difficulty comes from the overly complex and unbalanced nature of the game's combat mechanics -- which is precisely the kind of thing (as AmstradHero explained) that Bioware put a lot of care into streamlining and improving in DA.

Before continuing, I will point out that you have come into a NWN forum to sell us on DA, I am not going to the DA forum to try and sell anyone on NWN.  It shouldn't be surprising that people in a NWN forum actually prefer NWN.

Before continuing, perhaps I should point out that the individuals you are debating with happen both to be experienced Hall of Fame Neverwinter Nights module authors. And while I'm at it, perhaps I should also point out that AmstradHero was responding to a thread which directly compared NWN to Dragon Age -- which is about as legitimate an invitation for someone with experience not only playing but building for both games to opine on the subject. For you to effectively treat another BSN member as an "interloper" in the NWN1 forums just because he happens to be active in the DA community, or to presume that "naturally" active members of the NWN community such as myself prefer NWN over DA, is presumptuous to say the least. As a die-hard NWN1 builder who happens to agree with AmstradHero's analysis comparing the two games, I very much object to both.

In NWN ANY class can learn to use ANY weapon.

If you think so, try building a Druid with the Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Any archtype you can imagine you can build in NWN, while in DA you have a few cookie cutter choices.

DA:O eliminated class restrictions on weapon use and made them attribute based instead.

AmstradHero wrote...

I could ask you to think beyond your own personal preferences, but you don't seem to be interested. Your primary focus in RPG appears to be solely on how you build your character, mine is not...

This is a horribly narrow view of RPGs... and claiming a game is "dumbed down" because it doesn't fit your personal taste is nothing but a baseless argument.

What he said. And with that, I think I'm done here as well.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 12 mars 2011 - 08:05 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

AndarianTD wrote...
If you think so, try building a Druid with the Martial Weapon Proficiency.

Congratulations on finding an exception and missing the context in quoting. There was a ridiculous claim that NWN lacked cross class capability.

Reality is that the vast Majority of Feats and Skills are cross class.  Naturally there are exceptions, but I also pointed out that in NWN you can also freely mix up to three classes (multiclass). So if you want a Druid with Martial Weapon Proficiency you can simply add a Ranger (or other martial class) level. As such any archtype you imagine can be created, including Greatsword wielding Druids.

AndarianTD wrote...
DA:O eliminated class restrictions on weapon use and made them attribute based instead.

Really? I seem to remember wanting to build a Twohanded Sword wielding rogue and discovering the tree wasn't available to Rogues at all.  How does DA:2 treat this? I get the impression(from demo) that his is even more restricted now. With dual wielding being removed from fighters???

AmstradHero wrote...
You know, I predicted almost every single counter argument you raised. I could ask you to think beyond your own personal preferences, but you don't seem to be interested. Your primary focus in RPG appears to be solely on how you build your character, mine is not. It's part of the equation, but it's not the whole equation. I've played all these games. Heck, I've modded for all of them. I can enjoy NWN for what it is, but I can see its shortcomings. The same applies for DAO and DA2.

I don't think I'm going to convince you to play DA2 because it's obvious that you've already made your decision based on the short demo. I was also a big fan of NWN2, but many NWN fans decried that as a poor successor. I remember having similar discussions (which subsequently turned into arguments upon which point I bowed out) about how NWN2 was "dumbed down" - much of which was based on the fact that it had a lower level cap and a few less prestige classes. Or because it didn't have as many PWs - a feature I personally had zero interest in. This is a horribly narrow view of RPGs, and dare I suggest part of the reason that this "old guard" is viewed as elitists when it comes to RPGs. There is no one true definition of an RPG, and claiming a game is "dumbed down" because it doesn't fit your personal taste is nothing but a baseless argument.

As I mentioned serveral posts back, this is all about personal opinion. Would a longer demo change my mind? Doubtful.

Is Diablo a RPG??  To me it is more of action game and it has essentially the same character generator as DA. Cookie cutter characters, skill tree, mana pools.   

The problem I see is that you (and AndarianTD) are trying to make the case that this character simplification leads to better stories, but there is no correleation between simplified characters (AKA dumbed down) and rich story. Does Diablo offer a great story telling experience? IMO DA:O story felt very much like it was on rails. So simplified characters, story on rails. What exactly made DA:O great?

Great story and complex/rich character creation are not mutually exclusive

Something vastly important (for me) is missing in Diablo/Dungeon Siege/DA, and all game with simplified character generation. That something is the feeling that my character build choices really matter and really have an impact.  If I play a NWN mod as Rogue or a Paladin,  it will drastically change playstyle/experience/outcomes.    If I change the cookie cutter I use in DA, it really won't change anything.

Likewise if multiclass my Rogue with Shadowdancer, it will have a noticiable and largely different effect than if I multiclass with Dwarven Defender.  There is a richness/complexity and it actually affects gameplay and also leads to feeling that your characters are unique/your own and this leads to greater connection with them.

Perhaps not everyone has that stronger connection from richer character development.  But that extra richness being present is not a matter of Opinon. NWN has a MUCH richer character building experience. No contest.

NWN obviously offers excellent multiplayer capability to DA zero, so again, no contest.

Really perhaps you should take your own advice on looking beyond personal interests. Just because you don't value multi-player or a rich character building experience, doesn't mean others don't.

Really the only knock on NWN is the Original Campaign, but so what? The tools are there to build great stories, and it has emerged as so much more than the Original Campaign. The focus on NWNs OC is extremely narrow focus on the one detriment, to knock down a great game.

BTW the "game" I most looking forward to in 2011, is the Baldercaran's Prophet finale. 

It is a testament to how special NWN 1 is that nearly a decade later, people are still enthusiastically playing NWN 1, and looking for more.

I bet in 5 years pretty much no one will be playing DA:O, let alone in a Decade. Heck I would not be surprised that 5 years from now more people will be playing 14 year old NWN, than 6 year old DA:O.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 12 mars 2011 - 06:21 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Lowlander wrote...

The problem I see is that you (and AndarianTD) are trying to make the case that this character simplification leads to better stories, but there is no correleation between simplified characters (AKA dumbed down) and rich story.

There are several reasons why I think that your premise that there is no correleation between these two is clearly wrong. The most obvious is the "zots" issue. Game developers have finite resources to devote to developing a game, and the fewer they have to put into building and testing a complex character generation and rule system the more they can afford to put into dialog, complex plot development, cinematics, story writing. That's simple resource management.

Then there's the fact that the very presence of elaborate rules options significantly impacts the design of the quest and story structure of a game, as well as the technical and programming design. Let me give you an example. Suppose I'm developing a conversation encounter with a companion, and (as in NWN) I have three different "social" influence skills to work with (Persuade, Bluff, and Intimidate). To make proper and meaningful use of those skills, I have to offer and track a minimum of seven different potential plot-thread outcomes, complete with variables, distinct dialog, impact on the plot, conversation tree branching and re-linking, and so on. Sure, I can ignore all of that, and limit myself to only one of the social skills (say Persuade). That's typically what NWN builders often end up doing. But then, what was the point of having that complexity in the first place? And what happens to the player who put his points in Bluff instead? Those issues are considerably simplified if, as in DA:O, I'm building with only one social skill (Coercion).

Having too complex a set of rules to work with makes game and plot design much more brittle, unpredictable, difficult, and time-consuming. All of that leads to less content (in terms of both quantity and quality), and frustrated players. As Amstradhero said, this applies to combat and encounter design as well as to plot and story. When I was at Bioware's "Dragon Age Builders Event" (which I was invited to attend thanks to my NWN1 module work), they explained that they had been able to design a combat system for DA:O that automatically scaled the difficulty of the encounters based on party level and capability. That could not have been possible without a streamlined combat system. And it allows for enormous simplification in the design both of the encounters themselves, and the plot structure of the game. Without it, for example, you're under pressure to structure the plot more linearly and less flexibly, with areas designed with a lower challenge rating to be visited first when your character is a lower level, progressing to higher level ones, and so on.

The real issue for developers is that game design needs to take into account the style and type of experience that you want to create. That, in turn, includes consideration of the audience that you're building for, and want to make your game accessible to. Complex rules systems focus more of the RP experience on character building and divert attention away from the story experience. If you're not into complex build dynamics, then that's just a distraction that dilutes the central purpose of the game: to role-play within a story framework. People who want that kind of experience are not "dumb" because they'd rather not devote as much of their gaming time and effort to mastering a complex rule set.

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point. I love and am still building for NWN right now, so I'm certainly not knocking it. Since I come from the same tradition, I get why some "old-school" RPGers have a fascination with complex rules. As long as they're willing to own up to the downsides of that approach to gaming I have no trouble respecting it. It's when I hear my own preferences being trashed as "dumbed down" that I get just a wee bit testy.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 12 mars 2011 - 07:35 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Lowlander wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...
DA:O eliminated class restrictions on weapon use and made them attribute based instead.

Really? I seem to remember wanting to build a Twohanded Sword wielding rogue and discovering the tree wasn't available to Rogues at all.

In DA:O you certainly could have a rogue wield a greatsword. I usually play mages, and I frequently used a two-handed weapon as my melee weapon. As I said, weapons in Origins were designed to have an ability score requirement (e.g. 25 Strength) to use, not a class-based requirement. You can't get the specializations skills, of course, but you can use the weapons. And class-based skill restrictions are common to most CRPGs, including NWN.

How does DA:2 treat this?

I just started playing DA:2, and yes, it looks like they did indeed make this more restrictive. I'm going to have to play a while more before I'll be able to make an informed judgement on whether there are benefits from this in the gameplay that make up for the loss in flexibility.

It is a testament to how special NWN 1 is that nearly a decade later, people are still enthusiastically playing NWN 1, and looking for more.

I agree, but I think this is mainly due to the comparative ease of modding for NWN1.

I bet in 5 years pretty much no one will be playing DA:O, let alone in a Decade. Heck I would not be surprised that 5 years from now more people will be playing 14 year old NWN, than 6 year old DA:O.

Well, I know that in five years, I won't be modding for NWN1 any longer. By then I'll have moved on to a more modern game, and at least for now Dragon Age is the one I'm planning to migrate to.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 12 mars 2011 - 07:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Wensleydale]

               You guys are totally reinforcing the stereotype of the "pedantic D&D nerd". I hope you know that. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Vansen Elamber]

               I enjoyed both games a lot, and I have replayed both to death so for me it is a toss up as to which one is best. I try not to compare games that way, instead I either like the game or not according to its own strengths and weaknesses.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

AndarianTD wrote...

There are several reasons why I think that your premise that there is no correleation between these two is clearly wrong. The most obvious is the "zots" issue. Game developers have finite resources to devote to developing a game, and the fewer they have to put into building and testing a complex character generation and rule system the more they can afford to put into dialog, complex plot development, cinematics, story writing. That's simple resource management.

Then there's the fact that the very presence of elaborate rules options significantly impacts the design of the quest and story structure of a game, as well as the technical and programming design. Let me give you an example. Suppose I'm developing a conversation encounter with a companion, and (as in NWN) I have three different "social" influence skills to work with (Persuade, Bluff, and Intimidate).

To make proper and meaningful use of those skills, I have to offer and track a minimum of seven different potential plot-thread outcomes, complete with variables, distinct dialog, impact on the plot, conversation tree branching and re-linking, and so on. Sure, I can ignore all of that, and limit myself to only one of the social skills (say Persuade). That's typically what NWN builders often end up doing. But then, what was the point of having that complexity in the first place? And what happens to the player who put his points in Bluff instead? Those issues are considerably simplified if, as in DA:O, I'm building with only one social skill (Coercion).

As far as limited resources to develop a more complex ruleset. The could have simply licensed pathfinder. Implementing would have a been a trivial drop of resouces compared to the artwork/modelling budget.

As far as needing to implement all those skills you don't, but they are optionally there when you want to include them in a specific setting, like a rogue/Assasin guild city setting.  I hardly see it as making your life too difficult.

Again all of your complaints stem from the builder perspective. Should a game be judged on how it simplifies module building?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Guest_Lowlander_*]

               

AndarianTD wrote...
In DA:O you certainly could have a rogue wield a greatsword. I usually play mages, and I frequently used a two-handed weapon as my melee weapon. As I said, weapons in Origins were designed to have an ability score requirement (e.g. 25 Strength) to use, not a class-based requirement. You can't get the specializations skills, of course, but you can use the weapons. And class-based skill restrictions are common to most CRPGs, including NWN.

I just started playing DA:2, and yes, it looks like they did indeed make this more restrictive. I'm going to have to play a while more before I'll be able to make an informed judgement on whether there are benefits from this in the gameplay that make up for the loss in flexibility.

Without a skill tree a rogue was pretty much useless with a greatsword.

Now in DA2, it appear the have, ahem "streamlined" it much more. From what I read. Warriors have now lost both dual weapons and Archery capability.  Exactly how "streamlined" must it get before you consider it dumbed down. We are about one weapon away from "Gauntlet" where the fighter bashes and the Elf shoots arrows(Elf needs food!).

From what I read it also sound like you can no longer even equip non class weapons, the Warrior can't even fire a bow (I could be wrong in my reading of this).

I think you will have to rationalize heavily to come up with reason why it is good that Warriors can't use bows...
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lowlander, 12 mars 2011 - 11:23 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

Lowlander wrote...
<SNIP>

Now in DA2, it appear the have, ahem "streamlined" it much more. From what I read. Warriors have now lost both dual weapons and Archery capability.  Exactly how "streamlined" must it get before you consider it dumbed down. We are about one weapon away from "Gauntlet" where the fighter bashes and the Elf shoots arrows(Elf needs food!).

From what I read it also sound like you can no longer even equip non class weapons, the Warrior can't even fire a bow (I could be wrong in my reading of this).

I think you will have to rationalize heavily to come up with reason why it is good that Warriors can't use bows...

Yep, you can no longer equip cross class, nor use cross class skills, IE, you can spend various skill/attribute points to increase your lockpicking skills, but it won't work if you are not a Rogue by class.

So, yep, dumbed down, WAY down, and nothing anywhere near what you are used to coming from a NWN past life.  Sad too, since I had intended to purchase DA:2 but now will not waste my money. 

In fact, I still have points available from DA:O that I put in place to hold for future DLC etc, but they have changed the cost of items now to the point where what I had saved over is now basically worthless.  No way would I be spending money on future DLC since all they are, are "items", "weapons" that you could generally create in only a few minutes if you had a toolset.  How they think that folks will spend huge bundles of cash for this is beyond me now.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               

Lowlander wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...
Suppose I'm developing a conversation encounter with a companion, and (as in NWN) I have three different "social" influence skills to work with (Persuade, Bluff, and Intimidate).

To make proper and meaningful use of those skills, I have to offer and track a minimum of seven different potential plot-thread outcomes, complete with variables, distinct dialog, impact on the plot, conversation tree branching and re-linking, and so on. Sure, I can ignore all of that, and limit myself to only one of the social skills (say Persuade). That's typically what NWN builders often end up doing. But then, what was the point of having that complexity in the first place? And what happens to the player who put his points in Bluff instead? Those issues are considerably simplified if, as in DA:O, I'm building with only one social skill (Coercion).

As far as limited resources to develop a more complex ruleset. The could have simply licensed pathfinder. Implementing would have a been a trivial drop of resouces compared to the artwork/modelling budget.

As far as needing to implement all those skills you don't, but they are optionally there when you want to include them in a specific setting, like a rogue/Assasin guild city setting.  I hardly see it as making your life too difficult.

Again all of your complaints stem from the builder perspective. Should a game be judged on how it simplifies module building?

I came back here because I was interested in Andarian's comments... and what I see here demonstrates beyond any doubt that you are utterly unwilling to even attempt to understand the designer's role, nor the impact of a game system upon the player. This isn't about having a "builder's perspective" and not a "player's perspective."  A builder must understand the system, but also understand what it means for all players. Designers play and love games, but they are players who think about and analyse the mechanics and presentation of the games that they play. Your comments show that you only care about the (very exacting) way that you want to play.

Say you release a game that includes a dozen non-combat skills for the player to pick from, but only one of those skills is every utilised in the game? Players would be understably and rightfully outraged. Even a player created mod that completely neglects skills or feats is taking away the much vaunted choice of development that you are so focused on. Picture a mod with no speech skills, no pickpocketing, no traps, no lockpicking... suddenly a massive array of choices for character development are gone.

You've failed to see that if a choice is completely useless, then it is no choice at all. Not understanding the flaws in a game that you love is not treasuring it, it's blind zealotry that does it a great disservice.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

AmstradHero wrote...
<snip>
I came back here because I was interested in Andarian's comments... and what I see here demonstrates beyond any doubt that you are utterly unwilling to even attempt to understand the designer's role, nor the impact of a game system upon the player. This isn't about having a "builder's perspective" and not a "player's perspective."  A builder must understand the system, but also understand what it means for all players. Designers play and love games, but they are players who think about and analyse the mechanics and presentation of the games that they play. Your comments show that you only care about the (very exacting) way that you want to play.

Say you release a game that includes a dozen non-combat skills for the player to pick from, but only one of those skills is every utilised in the game? Players would be understably and rightfully outraged. Even a player created mod that completely neglects skills or feats is taking away the much vaunted choice of development that you are so focused on. Picture a mod with no speech skills, no pickpocketing, no traps, no lockpicking... suddenly a massive array of choices for character development are gone.

Sorry, your arguments here are exactly what this person was complaining about.  You have the ability to add attributes/skills whatever to different skills.  You can increase the points for traps/unlocking things etc, but if you are NOT a rogue, those points are now wasted.  So, if you are going to FORCE a player to only be able to pick a lock if they are a rogue, then kindly turn OFF the option to upgrade that skill for any player type OTHER than a rogue.  Why waste the points for lock picking, if they are class blocked by the game engine?  

Basically, you are just reinforcing the original complaint here, while thinking you are arguing against it.

You've failed to see that if a choice is completely useless, then it is no choice at all. Not understanding the flaws in a game that you love is not treasuring it, it's blind zealotry that does it a great disservice.

  Read your own words here.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MingWolf]

               

I believe NWN is a better game, as it has m/p optionality. I believe DAO has a better solo campaign, and have replayed it many times. Apples; oranges.....

The above quote describes my feelings on NWN and DA:O (and DA2 for that matter), precisely.  You cannot compare apples and oranges.  

Each game has its strengths and weaknesses and I know that personally, I have a reason for liking all of them.  There is way too much talk on these forums about how a game "should" that people tend to ignore the entertainment value that each individual game is trying to deliver.  Things like DRM, or game mechanics, are such small things from my point of view and quite frankly, shouldn't be such a factor that should be comparatively critiqued by anyone who is serious about gaming.  Maybe from a consumer standpoint, but come on!  As gamers, we are all here just to be entertained right?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_SuperFly_2000]

               I welcome you here AmstradHero.

You're oppinions are very interesting. We who stay at theese forums are a little "snowed in" hehe.

It is enriching to hear the viewpoints from another side.


However there is not much you can do...either for me or many others here. Dragon Age is for me a severely "simplified" game (I will not use that other word here even though I think it unfortunately also describes how I interpret it).

Unfortunately Bioware is today a huge company and they must make games that fit the main bulk of computer game buyers. The shelves are full of games like this even if I DO see DA 1 + 2 as a somewhat more interesting game and I have spent lots of time watching live feeds and videos from theese games. They are both pleasant to the eye and give action as well it seems. Nothing wrong with that. It is only that I really don't find anything in it that drags me towards playing it myself.

The biggest reason for my uninterest is ofcourse the lack of multiplayer....but this was no surprise unfortunately as Bioware abandoned MP after NWN.

(Yes I know, I know...they are DEVELOPING a MP game now finally...but instead of exploring the difficult MP side of things they go straight for a WoW rip-off like everyone else. Not for me! Maybe Cryptic can walk against the current and produce something so I can finally stop playing this 10 year old game??)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AmstradHero]

               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...
Sorry, your arguments here are exactly what this person was complaining about.  You have the ability to add attributes/skills whatever to different skills.  You can increase the points for traps/unlocking things etc, but if you are NOT a rogue, those points are now wasted.  So, if you are going to FORCE a player to only be able to pick a lock if they are a rogue, then kindly turn OFF the option to upgrade that skill for any player type OTHER than a rogue.  Why waste the points for lock picking, if they are class blocked by the game engine?  

Basically, you are just reinforcing the original complaint here, while thinking you are arguing against it.

If skills are offered by the player is never given an opportunity to use them, they are useless and add nothing to the complexity of the game.  This is entirely different to having a skill restricted to a particular class, mainly because the player still has the choice to select that useful skill at the expense of another useful skill. You seem to be operating under the misconception that warriors/mages in DA can put points into lockpicking, but then can't use the skill. No, they simply can't learn the skill at all, but instead put points into their skills. In which I would suggest you do your research before making erroneous assumptions.

Yes, DA's system offers less breadth of flexibility than NWN's ability to create characters like a warrior with some (small) lockpicking talent. I don't argue for a second that there is less breadth of possible character development in DA. I'm merely stating out that character attribute and skill selection is not the single defining element of an RPG. It is for NWN players, and that's fine. But to claim that because a game is dumbed dowd/stupid/for console kiddies because it lacks NWN's complexity in that specific area indicates a narrow minded view of the entire RPG genre.

I'm not attacking NWN, the game you love so much. I'm not attacking you or anyone else. I'd appreciate the same courtesy. I'm merely addressing a point of design that has both positive and negative ramifications. I love the RPG genre, and can happily enjoy a title like NWN as well as something like DA2 or an Elder Scrolls game. They each present different strengths, weaknesses and complexity in different areas. NWN wins hands down on character building, but for balanced combat and story dynamism, DAO/DA2 are light-years ahead.

Don't dismiss a game as worthless simply because it doesn't appeal to your individual tastes.