29-01-2005 10:23									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike I actually like history, and I also think games like Civ are a great way to teach some broad historical facts to children (and the more ignorant adults ). But when someone responds to a well argued point on balance from someone who understands the game that they are wrong because it just isn't realistic I want to beat them over the head with a very large stick. Repeatedly.

Just curious - was that a civ2 or a civ3 discussion?

	29-01-2005 11:11									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor Elite2+3 are the best games because they model space in a realistic way.

More realistic, you mean.

	29-01-2005 14:48									#63
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Just curious - was that a civ2 or a civ3 discussion?

It's mostly come up in Civ3 discussions, though has happened with other games as well.

	29-01-2005 21:20									#64
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike It's mostly come up in Civ3 discussions, though has happened with other games as well.

were you around for the civ specific units - good or bad - debate?

	29-01-2005 21:48									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Quite possibly. There were lots of debates, so I can't remember for sure.

	30-01-2005 01:27									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Quite possibly. There were lots of debates, so I can't remember for sure.

guess which side I took. It might surprise you.

	30-01-2005 01:53									#67
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: In DnD i never understood why Plate was a better armour class than Chainmail for stopping arrows?

Probably just a simplification, for gameplay's sake. Concerning armor, I never understood why you need a skill to wear armor.

	30-01-2005 02:10									#68
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yeah it should require strenght, and it should lower dexterity. Though this is modelled by the low dexterity bonus of platemail.

	30-01-2005 02:43									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark guess which side I took. It might surprise you.

Well given that any answer other than 'good' is indefensible I'd hope that's the way you answered.

	30-01-2005 02:48									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

From my point of view, D&D/D20 isabout the worst role playing system ever. That's because all other systems came after it and wouldn't have sold a copy hadn't they been better omehow. Still, the settings and simplicity of D&D make it popular.
My main gripe with Kotor (apart from performance issues related to hardware) was that it used the D20 system, effectively meaning it's almost impossible to specialize your character. Groups of characters in Baldur's Gate 2 always end up looking the same, with the same abilities. I much preferred a system like Arcanum's, which was class-less, but where it was not possible to build up every skill or spell. You chose your profession without being restricted somehow from the start. The D20 ability to change class is good but still far from the flexibility of a system like RuneQuest or all other Chaosium games, whose skill system was very simple.

	30-01-2005 03:30									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

bah, see my argument about about flexibility.

characters in BG2 were not the same!

If anything, D&D provides very unique types of characters.

where as games like Morrowind all the characters end up the same- despite the flexibility. Tell me which is better?

	30-01-2005 03:41									#72
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare My main gripe with Kotor (apart from performance issues related to hardware) was that it used the D20 system, effectively meaning it's almost impossible to specialize your character.

KotOR had some scope for specialisation, but used a simplified version of the Aurora engine. The full Aurora engine used in d20 system games like NWN has even more flexibility. If you think the scope for specialisation in this engine is limited you need to play through again.

And as for the performance issues, you seem to have those on almost every game you mention on these forums. Time to look at other explanations than the game?

	30-01-2005 03:49									#73
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Arcanum provides for unique characters. Morrowind totally lacks dialogues.
BG2 has very similar groups, even if the characters are different. To start with, the PC will always have the max possible number of followers even if he chose to have Charisma of 3. You could add up all the different kinds of characters you wanted, you always ended up doing the single thing D&D can model: Fight. I tried the game with radically different PCs, trying to pick different NPCs in the group, and it always felt the same. There were no diplomacy aspects in these games because diplomacy is not handled by the D&D rules (D20 slightly better than 2nd ed here). Thievery wasn't much of an option either for most of the main quests. So you did end up with fighting machines. In Arcanum, you can play the whole game as a diplomat, with only one place where you need some muscle (which a diplomact can get by hiring a dumb half ogre), or you can sneak your way through the game. Because the system lets you do so.
Your argument about flexibility doesn't take into account the fact that Morrowind lets you become excellent in everything, whereas Arcanum doesn't even though it is flexible.

	30-01-2005 03:55									#74
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

that is a failure of the game of BG2 in itself, not of the D&D system.

Games such as Fallout2 are more flexible because they do allow you to play a diplomat character.

	30-01-2005 12:18									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dissident If anything, D&D provides very unique types of characters.

Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

	30-01-2005 12:54									#76
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by child of Thor In DnD i never understood why Plate was a better armour class than Chainmail for stopping arrows?

Because chainmail is full of holes that an arrow can go through, whereas plate metal has to be punched through.

ACK!

	30-01-2005 15:17									#77
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

In the Aurora engine with multiclassing, prestige classes, and cross class skills if you so desire you have quite a wide spectrum of characters that can be created.

	30-01-2005 16:01									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

One of my friends was complaining about his Xbox KotoR because he had created a specialist character, and backed the character up with specialised henchmen, so that they did the jobs really well as a team. He then found he couldn't finish the game, because all of his henchmen disappeared, and he was so specialised that he couldn't do the final battle without them. There is always a good point to having to master several skills yourself.

	31-01-2005 00:08									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

True. However, most people who like D&D don't really care about creating a broad spectrum of characters. They just want to play the archetypes found in heroic fantasy: fighter, wizard, cleric, thief... Like you pointed out, classless systems are much more flexible. In GURPS, for example, you can play a God emperor if you want, but it will cost ya!

	31-01-2005 00:58									#80
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not true, because in AD&D you have classes. The only way to have more variety of characters is to provide more classes. Contrast this to classless RPG systems such as DragonQuest or Champions. They are far better at creating a broad spectrum of characters.

I like variety, but I also like the classes to be different. I don't like all classes looking similar. As I said before. I don't want druids wearing plate mail and swinging a bastard sword. I want classes to be unique. I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

	31-01-2005 01:05									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

And it adds replayability

	31-01-2005 02:14									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Well given that any answer other than 'good' is indefensible I'd hope that's the way you answered.

Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

	31-01-2005 02:45									#83
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by nostromo And it adds replayability

exactly. I can get more replayability out of a game such as Neverwinter Nights compared to Morrowind. And don't get me started on Dungeon Seige. I couldn't even play that game for more than 3 hours before I became bored of it.

	31-01-2005 02:46									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

they put these in because people requested them. People wanted them to be more unique than in civ2. And more like smac.

It's not like the English civilization existed in 4000 BC anyways. Same with the americans.

	31-01-2005 03:12									#85
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Nope. civ specific attributes in a game beginning in 4000 BC?!?!? the english should be commercial and naval, even if they start in the middle of a huge continent? Breaks the whole lesson of Civ, which is that civilizations histories are NOT predetermined, but dependent on a mix of geographical determinism, choice, and accident.

I *really* hope you are playing devil's advocate there. Otherwise I'm going to have to smack you around the head with a large stick.

	31-01-2005 04:17									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike I actually like history, and I also think games like Civ are a great way to teach some broad historical facts to children (and the more ignorant adults ). But when someone responds to a well argued point on balance from someone who understands the game that they are wrong because it just isn't realistic I want to beat them over the head with a very large stick. Repeatedly.

I can appreciate your position but I believe that if a game has to balance itself by ignoring reality in some obvious way, the designers were lazy people (or forced to be sloppy through time pressure.)

I may be getting my games mixed up, but I think it was Empire Earth that pulled a very simple paper-scissors-stone mechanism with swordsmen, spearmen and archers in the ancient era and similar stunts through its other eras. Contrast that to the Total War series. EE has created balance in a very sloppy way by ignoring reality. TW has worked hard to try and achieve a believable balance that actually teaches the players something while they play. TW still gets tweaked by the grognards to be even more accurate but the fundamentals are right. It doesn't pretend archers can win a melee with an infantry unit just because they are armed with the wrong type of pointy object.

	31-01-2005 04:37									#87
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold I can appreciate your position but I believe that if a game has to balance itself by ignoring reality in some obvious way, the designers were lazy people (or forced to be sloppy through time pressure.) I may be getting my games mixed up, but I think it was Empire Earth that pulled a very simple paper-scissors-stone mechanism with swordsmen, spearmen and archers in the ancient era and similar stunts through its other eras. Contrast that to the Total War series. EE has created balance in a very sloppy way by ignoring reality. TW has worked hard to try and achieve a believable balance that actually teaches the players something while they play. TW still gets tweaked by the grognards to be even more accurate but the fundamentals are right. It doesn't pretend archers can win a melee with an infantry unit just because they are armed with the wrong type of pointy object.

The first point isn't true though, not for Civ anyway. Given the major abstractions that need to take place for the game to even work it just is not true that if what remains is modelled 'realistically' that balance will follow. Your conclusion only holds if everything is modelled, and indeed that reality is 'balanced'; both are questionable, and the first demonstrably so.

As for the second point I agree. By focusing on a much smaller goal (ie the combat side of the game) rather than the span of all history the total war games have managed a far greater degree of accuracy alongside great gameplay. I am all for that, and I appreciate that for some the historical side of the game is the draw.

However, the grand scope of Civ requires more abstractions and some aspects that do not follow reality exactly, if the gameplay is to be as desired.

	31-01-2005 07:50									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike In the Aurora engine with multiclassing, prestige classes, and cross class skills if you so desire you have quite a wide spectrum of characters that can be created.

That's exactly my point. You need to add more classes. Multiclassing and prestige classes are just a kludge to get around the inherent limitations of the system.

	31-01-2005 07:54									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I like variety, but I also like the classes to be different. I don't like all classes looking similar. As I said before. I don't want druids wearing plate mail and swinging a bastard sword. I want classes to be unique. I want them to be able to do things other classes can't do.

I disagree. It's not about classes but characters.

Right now, in AD&D, one druid is like another druid. Skills is a limited remedy to the situation, but it does not fix the problem. If don't want a druid who uses a bastard sword as a weapon, fine, but the system should not exclude such a possibility. What if I want something like that?

	31-01-2005 13:50									#90
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Why do CRPGs need to use rules designed for pen-and-paper RPGs anyway ?