Vent

Originally Posted By: Danny the Fool Originally Posted By: Darkus Mainly because i'm not on my PC as much anymore. Same here... I hardly play anything on my Mac anymore so I'm hesitant to buy new games for it. I'd buy just about any Spiderweb game for my iPad though I'm not sure it will be that cool for me even if I'm curious too about this version. The point is there are texts, and little details, and range of view. Because of that I don't think I'll feel as comfortable than on my computer with a quite wide monitor.

I bought it at Mac App Store, knowing I would give less money to the developer, something not very cool. But Jeff CD are very cheap, and for me too easy to lost. And digital is a little burden. When I buy a game on Steam, GamersGate or Mac App Store I know I'm taking a risk that a day I'll lost forever the game because the source could disappear. But until then, with all three I can install, remove, re install, no worry to keep somewhere a copy backup. It's very very handy. Also to compensate I think I'll pick the ipad version too, if I really like the game but just for curiosity.

Cough cough, huu thanks, it's cool you could get over the (probable) very approximative English.

After Avernum? A first point is as I'm playing the 6 and didn't play the whole series but only some, I got the feeling it was time to switch to something else. I get a strong feeling of replaying the 5 when playing the beginning of 6. New system, new classes, new skills, new fight system, all those excitement are missing to the series and a fresh new approach would be great. About the party or not: I vote strongly for party, they allow much more diversity and offer potentially much better fights than with a single character. But a switch to party with companions would be very welcome. Companions require much more time to develop their characters, their stories and relationship but they can add so much to the mood. A mix system like seems have Nethergate (I have the CD but never tried it) seems rather interesting. I like temporary companions that join and left according to story and quests developments. Well when those companions are also developed, when they are only pieces of wood this doesn't add much. I also like companions you choose from a roster. And I like smaller party pick among a roster constantly available without to have to worry about xp of companions waiting in the roster. Another point about party, party splitting, for exploration and fights. A great tool for designing interesting puzzles. And even better with a game based on roster constantly available. But a big party involves many problems: The problem is managing the big party during exploring mode. And if to manage this you choose make two distinct mode, explore mode and fight mode, then the problem is to manage the switch and continue have a careful tuning of fights. And this switch require not only a mode switch but also an area switch to have explore area and different fight area to fit a large party during fights. A great point would be to invent a new system allowing bigger parties but I don't see many solutions. BG series like with a bigger scale than Avernum allows 6 and not more. 3D or scale like Avernum won't allow much more than 4. And systems based on party icon/character switch to different area during fights are all similar with negative and positive points. Despite all the problems involved I would vote for having bigger party than 4 and use only one character or few during exploration mode and switch to different area for fights with bigger party like 6 to 8. But I don't know if this could attract some younger players. About a SF thematic it's a good idea because most CRPG use a Fantasy setup but for me SF is a more sensible subject that is quite more difficult than Fantasy to write well.

Dintiradan: Lol that is an amazing setup. Randomizer: What's the morale of the story???

Plays with basic elements is quite different than make monsters from them. I quote from a wiki about Paracelsus: * gnomes, earth elementals * undines, water elementals * sylphs, air elementals * salamanders, fire elementals. That's quite different than pure elementals of D&D. That said you'll find plenty energy beast in old SF that are closer to D&D elementals.

It's clearly tough to invent new monsters, for most you'll find close links to past monsters. But yes, it's details that will count at the end. I wonder how many variations around elves have been done but quite a lot and quite different. If elves could be found in Tolkien, Dark elves of D&D seems original anyway. Also to the tribute to D&D, aren't Jelly original D&D design? It's tough to setup a copyright on this but still seems original. EDIT: And some more that seems to me (could be wrong) good candidate for a tribute to D&D monsters: - Lich: The mixture seems original. - Elemental: I wonder from what old myths and legends it could come. - Mimic: The idea of a monster disguising into an item isn't inventive but the variation seems. - Blink Dog: Well again a basic principle, teleportation but the mix seems quite original.

Lol ok but then how many time I should write that I have seen the difference? Despite this, I still feel them quite close. When looking from fictions written in English I found this surprising free reading, it seems ok so I quote it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/267621/Borges-Jorge-Luis-Labyrinths You perhaps already read it, it's a classical, Labyrinths by Jorge Luis Borges. EDIT: I just read the first story, so in English, just a naive reading but dam that was cool. I laugh so much and in parallel I was constantly tempted to play the game with the author and quite often get imagination exploded by the mind games and the (certainly) false constructs that look so right (sometimes). I have read many stories from this author but in my native language, cool to quote I can appreciate even in English.

Both (Zork and Wolf) are clearly games and none is better written than the other. I don't see more. But again I agree one has RPG elements and not the other.

There's three components, some npc list them and the hidden mage give hint location for two of them when some other npc give hint location for some of them.

Ok I see what you mean but just don't do the fights and refuse decisions from dice and you get a "choose-your-own-adventure" book. EDIT: About gamebooks most was more like cyoa I don't rememeber that at all. For example there was many Jackson/livingston books that was more like wolf books.

Lol so it's exactly that sort of book I quoted. The url I quoted is a series of book like described in the wiki. Those book had been released as book. And much later the author agreed that some people make a html version of them and put them free on the net.

Do you mean books like that? http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Home I tried some when I wasn't anymore so young and tried few from the url quoted. Well I don't remember that paper help those game have a better writing quality. Well at least for me some computer RPG have a quite better writing quality.

Originally Posted By: Quieter Places While A2 is generally better at pulling those emotional strings than A1, the game becomes much more A1-like in the fourth chapter, which is the vast majority of the game. I wonder if you use "emotional strings" as a sample shortcut or if that really summarize all. That's certainly the easier part or the more obvious but I don't think that stuff like story surprise, suspense, mystery, tricks to rise the curiosity, mind games and more are related to "emotional strings". Even humor, is it an emotional string? I quickly give a look to a definition of emotion and didn't found humor nor the other but surprise. I'm not very clear about what make a story more than good but it's clearly not just emotions. A nice example was a few morale choices you have to do in Mask Of The Betrayer, choices for each where is the "good" morale choice isn't obvious at all. Here is a trick that can raise the appeal of a story but even more of a game scenario where unlike in a novel the player has to really do a choice. Another example is a mind game with time travel paradox that you can find in a novel like "The Anubis Gates" by Tim Powers. A nice story with emotions and more but also few fine mind games around time travel. Clearly western RPG tend to under use "emotional strings" when many JRPG tend to abuse a bit of this. But there's much more ways to make a story more than good. And a game scenario of RPG could take profit of those tricks too.

I'm starting A2 and when playing the beginning around Motrax I found this part well done, I don't know what to expect to follow but that's good point. In A1 I just remember one event like this, in the destroyed fort with the ghost that vanish. It's quite strong but too much in fact. From this point of view it makes the rest of A1 a little pale in comparison. It's writing quality, generating emotions but also suspense, tension, surprise, humor, curiosity. And for emotions for sure tricks around sadness is an easy tool but there's also for example revolt, happiness, and so on. That could be obvious, but I don't feel A1 played much with those sort of tricks. It's possible that the series improved later on this. No book is needed for this, game like RPG can produce this sort of stuff even if some are very difficult to merge with the action of playing.

I just finished A1 but still have to finish A5. I like a lot the organization of A1, less linear and like a web. It's a cool choice to have setup three main quests like this. But it has many little flaws I noticed most was solved in A5. Also its first half really grab me but at some point I felt it lack of thrill and played it with less interest. The cause of this isn't clear at all, I can only make some guess: Perhaps it's because I solved most in first half and get less stuff in second half, a sort of consequence of the high freedom. Another possibility is that it's because slowly the fights was easier and easier, I suppose I should not have use the NPC you can hire or I should have change the difficulty level. It's also possible that the game was a bit too long for me. Or perhaps because I during a long time I look at far sight spell as a far sight spell(!) and used my patience in looking at secrets until I finally realize the spell description was wrong. Still a good game, I like its setup and despite many details I dislike I found the whole quite good and the three main quests final was cool. But At this point I can't say I prefer it than A5 I just don't know.

I played some of Mass Effect I never saw more boring reading than in this game. I wonder if I succeed to read fully a single entry in the encyclopedia without to fall asleep from my chair. Dialogs ain't better and for action I didn't saw much than a low level shooter.

Do you mean that now you are used to E2 and A5 you won't be able to play another RPG using a different system?

For a story/scenario point of view time travel would be an interesting base but organize a scenario around this could be quite tricky. Among possible tracks that time travel could open: - Play with a dragon era, and an option would be to bring from the past some dragon because they have totally disappeared and this involved some weird unexpected consequences. - If it's not already done in the series, it would allow play with humans Avernum era much before the 1st expedition. - That would be certainly very difficult but Time travel could allow some scenario parts with an interesting use of action choices and choices effects. - Not sure if this would be possible or not from a story point of view but Time travel could allow play with NPC seen in first Avernums.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer Tactics in battle are way different. In Avernum you should let attackers come to you instead of having your fighters run up to them. I'm close to the end of A1 and see it totally differently. I have the reverse feeling in A1 to have to throw asap the fighters to attack enemy magic users asap. Ie it's the reverse than waiting. In A5 I feel it different but that's not the right forum place. Among other typical stuff in A1 battle it's the use of slow, either it really slow enemies so it is very efficient either it make them lost time to cast multiple haste to cancel the slow. Obviously haste can be interesting too. Mass summoning can help provide targets for enemy mass attacks. Most often Battle Rage is more a priority than Shield. And most often the best multiple target spell is divine fire that you get later in the game. Until that and even when you have DF Repel Spirit is often a nice choice anyway against any undead stuff. I don't know for exile, but for Realmz I felt fights are working much better as a general system than in A1 and A5. That said in A1 at normal difficulty, the game gradually become easier and it's not easy to decide when to change and rise the difficulty setup.

Yes notes on map would be nice. In fact a more complete system could be quite cool: A nice encyclopedia implementation like seen in some RPG of the 00's. Ability to put notes on global map and automap. Ability to add in Journal dialog or messages like it's already done. Ability for the player to write an entry in the Journal or/and add comment to an entry. Ability for the player to take a snapshot of an automap part or terrain part, or even a NPC, and add it to the Journal as an entry, with a comment or not. And to give a nice in game tool to manage all of that for a quest point of view, the ability to link with quests, entry in the encyclopedia, entry in the Journal, map note. Well ok a sort of in game blog that could use the player to manage his quests. In fact with such system implemented I'd like come back RPG that let player keep tracks of quests instead of having some automatic obvious stuff. Typically the player listen a rumor and decide to make it a quest is quite different than listen a rumor and see it automatically added in the quest list. EDIT: one or more entry of the encyclopedia would be about trainers and books, or at least the in game blog would let the player build this list easily.

Originally Posted By: Toby-Linn Ah okay, I get you. You meant widescreen monitor users see a stretched image. Well that said all, no you don't need get a stretched image if you use a widescreen monitor! Originally Posted By: Toby-Linn Which is a strange thing to say, as not all Windows users would have a widescreen monitor. Lol ok Windows users with a widescreen! Also I saw weird Windows behavior but not sure if it was the OS or not, through standard Windows setting have stuff like 1024*768 despite the monitor was widescreen and get stretched image

Originally Posted By: Toby-Linn It worked! Edit: I'm confused by what you mean Vent, why would it appear stretched when the game is made to be shown in 1024x768? If you have a widescreen monitor that means that its size has the proportion 16/9 or 16/10 when the standard proportion is 4/3. This means that the proportion between the height and width is fixed even if the resolution can be changed. For example, 1024x768 is 4*256 x 3*256. This will have the right proportion on a standard 4/3 monitor. But on a widescreen this resolution can be used full screen with no black borders only by stretching the width. Then the image shown is stretched with a larger width than its original design. And you see everything larger than it should normally. The point is that plenty Windows games, even with full 3D card and engines, have an original 4/3 design and implement a widescreen fullscreen just by using a stretching resolution managed by the video card and the monitor. But some game manage this differently and show an image larger on a widescreen and use a non stretched resolution for the fullscreen on widescreen. Also few game (don't remember which one I saw offer the choice of a fullscreen stretched or with black borders for widescreen.

Interesting suggestion, I tried on OSX and on OSX A4 and A5 behave in the same way, I set resolution to 1024*768 stretched and start the game with the option to not change the resolution... and the game change it anyway for both to 1024*768 not stretched. LOL That said if you want stretched anyway you can use Command H to hide it then again change the resolution to 1024*768 stretched and switch back to the game and then you get both games full screen but with distortion. Clearly the behavior on Windows isn't the same as in OS X both games behave in the same way. EDIT: Stretched image is quite ugly, I wonder how Windows users can bear that.

Myself I don't see the difference between A4 and A5 with an Apple 30" 16/10 and OS X. Both use the full height not the full width and both has same width. In Windows I noticed some games use a resolution that stretch the picture to have it full screen on a 16/9 or 16/10 screen which means you get full screen but some graphics distortion. And the snapshot you provided is in 1024*768 not a widescreen resolution but a standard display. So I bet your A4 fullscreen is with distortion on your widescreen, myself I don't consider that as a plus... But on my 30" I don't care as fullscreen is ugly in any case.