Men are from Slars

The real question here is how you managed to thoroughly enjoy Final Fantasy 8 in any capacity.

I thought something smelled funny. Amena Blade is a HE, as I remembered. In all the games. I just checked the dumps.

The real question is how many ways we can misspell her name before she dies.

Step two, put your vlish in the box?

Xelgion and Ackrovan: this is transparently not true, and you know it. Please stop. If you really have a problem, you can send a private message to *i about it. I'm not locking this thread, because most of the thread has been productive. But if you're gonna keep spreading your negativity, locks will start appearing.

Cracked Lobster went far beyond the limits of the code of conduct. That's why the first topic was locked. Some of what he posted has been removed from the boards, because it was so over the top. Please remember that the most offensive posts are removed quickly, before you complain that the mods took unnecessary action. If you disagree with the way the forums are moderated, you can certainly tell us. A respectful private message is pretty much guaranteed to get a respectful response. Feo's post was pretty reasonable as well. However, trying to stir up bogeyman fears about the "mod team", rather than giving us feedback directly, is not welcome. Particularly when it is done transparently out of bitterness, by a member who is just annoyed that he was banned for violating the code of conduct after having been repeatedly warned about it. This thread is done. If you have further questions or comments, I would be happy to hear them; send me a PM (or send it to any other mod).

Were you guys as surprised to see Gazerzahd as I was?

Nephil's Gambit did have a Chicken Drake.

I found the proto-vlish far less scary than the postmodern vlish.

Hmm. Well, I did a quick grep and it doesn't look like it's stated explicitly. Amena Blade mentions that Zakary and Barzahl are "gone now" in several paragraphs of text that he repeats word for word in both G3 and G4 -- hah. That's vague, though. Circumstantial evidence certainly suggests that the canonical G2 ending was the loyalist/non-aligned ending, since we know that the PC did kill at least Easss, and neither the Barzites nor the Awakened had their plans come to fruition. While I suppose it's possible that Barzahl somehow slipped away, went into hiding for years while becoming even crazier, and then turned into Monarch, it seems exceedingly unlikely -- and perhaps a bit implausible given Barzahl's abhorrence of rogues.

I thought it was specified that Barzahl was destroyed in the G2 canonical ending? Or was it not?

Perhaps the canonical G3 PC was a min-maxing megalomanaical munchkin who tried to play both the Shapers and the Rebels for everything they had, and thus did not actually complete the game (hey, like me ). This would explain why both Khyryk and the Geneforge survived. Personally, I think the simplest explanation for the weird faces both Alwan and Greta make when that PC is brought up is that he was eaten by some creation in a particularly gruesome way.

Internal evidence suggests, but does not prove, that about 53 years have passed since Avernum 1.

I did not complete Avernum 5 -- or Avernum 4, or Geneforge 3 or 4 -- but that says more about me than about the games. I rarely complete games these days. The last game I remember actually finishing was Jewel of Arabia when I played it in 2005! Actually, wait -- I did finish Paper Mario in 2007. But as you can see they are few and far between, despite my spending far too much time playing the darn things. Typically, I complete 90-95% of the game and then get bored and move on. Geneforge 3 I think I stopped one zone short on. I think this is due to a confluence of factors that tend to set in at that point, in most CRPGs: (1) sudden and rapid diminishing returns on optimization due to lack of increases in experience gains, learned abilities and/or available equipment; and (2) dramatic slowdown in plot delivery due to proliferation of sidequests and/or lengthier dungeons; and in the case of games without interesting ending bosses or cutscenes, (3) not looking forward to anything I really care about. I could add on (4) distraction, either by another game or by fun, but fun-squishing analyses of game mechanics. Avernum 5 I stopped unusually early due to an onslaught on #4: the mechanics were a lot of fun to min-max, and Eschalon came out just a few weeks after it. But the slowness of plot (#2) and inherent diminishing returns of the stat system (#1) were contributing factors as well. What I really need, in the last 10% of the game, are short dungeons with interesting bosses that challenge me to do things differently than I am used to, with a compelling and constantly present storyboard; ideally, I need to not have already gotten all the relevant powerups in the game. I can only think of one game, off the top of my head, that provides this; FF4 has a long, but graphically diverse final dungeon filled with interesting bosses guarding significantly powerful weapons, continuing right up until the last floors; and the ending is enjoyable. And indeed, I usually finish FF4 -- and it's probably one of the games I've played the most times, period.

No, I think it's too easy because it's a very low difficulty game. There are a few boss fights that are a bit tougher with a standard party (the Mountain of Woe boss comes to mind, or the final Lavos fight) but the majority of the game is easy to blaze through. Heck, the programmers even deride how easy Chrono Trigger is explicitly, in one of the endings.

I honestly don't understand how everybody here comes to these highly polarized, emotional judgments about games because they aren't perfect. Ghaldring brought up some legitimate criticisms, but they don't eliminate the things about the game that are fun. Even if completing the game doesn't go in that category for you, there are still good things about it. Really, what game is perfect? Even the games that I love the most I can quickly point out major flaws with, flaws that stop me from playing them as often as I might. Chrono Trigger was too easy, Jewel of Arabia was too hard, Exile 2 had gapingly exploitable balance issues, Dungeon Master 2 tends to distill into stupid noncombat grinding. The list could go on. Avernum 5 does not tend to stir up the same level of excitement as those games do. The "fun factor" is a bit lower. But it still definitely exists. Its own balance issues, enemy HP and whatever else, do not seem to me particularly worse than the balance issues in any other game. So why all the invective? Why all the hate?

M&M 2 -- I forgot about that, heh. So in the "classic" genre just that, Fallout, Realmz, and latter-day Spiderweb games. Realmz has possibly the worst implementation of difficulty ever, joined at the hip with the worst experience-adjustment-for-level system ever.

I think the real answer here is that A5 should just not be played on Torment. I once put down my min-maxing Torment game and tried one on Normal; it was much more fun. I still enjoy all the optimization exercises, mind you, but the game is better on Normal. That's what it's designed for. Enemy HP is a bit less ridiculous (though I do agree it is higher than necessary). It's less of a grind. Most CRPGs do not have difficulty settings. This is particularly true of those in the "classic" genre, which Jeff's games fall into. The games we grew up loving to play did not let us play them on Torment, and they were probably better off for it. If they were easier, that's just as well. When G5 comes out, I'm playing it on Normal. I'll still min-max for Torment, of course, but I won't play it that way. It's just less fun.

The limit on mental magic is extremely high on the higher difficulties, since it relates to enemy level which changes on those difficulties. Compare to battle magic where diminishing returns really make you question the worth of plunking 8 or 10 skill points a pop into it.

Originally Posted By: Nioca 2) The plot consisting almost entirely of filler. It's one thing when a game or a scenario has filler to extend the plot. But A5 consisted entirely of one filler quest after another. Want to proceed? First you have to take care of a scuttler problem. Then you need to fight some bandits. Then you need to fix the sentinels. They have an extremely loose connection to the plot at best, and none whatsoever at worst. And you can't proceed until you finish these little side quests. And you know, it IS possible to have "filler" work well in a game -- if the backstory has enough wrinkles and depth to allow random stuff you do to relate, in some way, to the story. A great example of this is Breath of Fire 2. The entire first third of the game consists of filler quest after filler quest as you attempt to chase down a woman (sound like A5 much?). But all of the quests tie in to the main storyline. A few provide more information, little by little, that eventually puts you on the game's main quest, introducing you to St. Eva and its demons. Others set up events much later in the game. Avernum 2 had this interconnectedness to its story. A4 and A5 don't. "Get past obstacles to find and kill/join Dorikas" and "Get past obstacles to find and kill Rentar as many times as necessary" do not allow for much depth, or many wrinkles.

Because massively boosted damage will make people who build really bad characters have trouble even on lower difficulty settings. Jeff wants even the least intelligent players to be able to finish the game, if not the optional stuff. However, I agree with you in spirit.

227 monsters on -- how many maps was that? 227 nearly identical monsters spread over at least 20 maps of nearly identical looking caves is not a good game. I mean, at least in Tomb of the Taskmaker they had different freakin' icons.

Vlish is absolutely right. Mental magic is the most important to pump. Battle magic is useful but not worth pumping so much, especially considering how inefficient it is compared to a Shaper pumping his skills to make stronger creations.

I strongly agree with Dikiyoba. One of the most important things, to me, is internal consistency. In the game world, does it make sense that these things exist/are happening? The games that I always cite as my favourites get this right even if they get other things wrong. Originally Posted By: Nioca The "needing unique tactics" really just boils down to using a different sword/bow/spell to kill it with. Furthermore, there's nothing even all that "unique" about the creatures in the first place. For the most part, they just do a different kind of damage in a different way. Or they summon something or they use some kind of status attack. Big deal. You hack at them enough, they still go down. I also agree with Nioca, and I think this was very well put. I would like to add, to address SoT's point, that there are games that do this successfully -- mainly because the game mechanics are broader and more robustly interesting. Two games that do this much better are Exile 2 and Exile 3. The game mechanics were a bit less organized and certainly less balanced, but they were more varied and vibrant. Encounters could be new and different even at high levels, and players had a slew of strategies at their disposal. Paper Mario and Final Fantasy Tactics also come to mind as big successes in this regard.

The Nine-Headed Cave Cow frowns upon the supporters of chitrachs and pylons.