|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:11PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
True, but many of the games do have new basic principles.
Saying that nothing's changed because most games take most things from other games is like criticizing a new novel as not being innovative because it still uses words.
No that's not like what I'm saying at all, If we're using a book comparison. Story structure hasn't changed since the 18th century and even then very little, and yet new books come out all the time.
I'll admit calling them not innovative was poor word choice though there were clearly new takes on old ideas which IS what innovation is, but my point stands in that they didn't come up with new game design theory to make them.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:11PM
#42
|
|
|
and the survey itself has made me feel even less hopeful. What I saw and what I experience in the playtest packet was a huge step backward in the progress that 4th edition made. It asked questions about spells for wizards and clerics which suggests to me that they are completely abandoning powers for fighters and other non-casting classes.
If we are supposed to be giving feedback on the playtest packet, what feedback can we give them about the fighter powers presented in the playtest?
One box that reads "I swing a sword" that we could choose to check or not?
@MrChamp: Insulting, inaccurate, and edition war bait. That sort of thing has no place here.
This thread might aswell be titled '5th ED sucks because it's not 4th ED'. What else do you expect?
Actually the thread might as well be titled 'I am not qualified to be a playtester, but I am playtesting anyways'.
Unfortunately, that title is a good description of the vast majority of threads on this forum. The average consumer is a terrible playtester, because they unable to provide constructive and/or focused feedback.
-SYB
You make the false assumption that this was only a playtest, when it is also a litmus test to see what they can do with the game without people reaching for torches and pitchforks. It might be a sad excuse for a traditional playtest, but I think the litmus test side of it has been instructive.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:12PM
#43
|
|
|
Tell John McClain that he can't slide down a hallway with two pistols blazing shooting the bad guys in a room as he slides past it.
When I first read that I thought you said "John McCain." Made for an interesting mental image.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:13PM
#44
|
|
|
And after getting a taste of modern game design that isn't trapped in the 70s, I will never again play a game without it.
If 4th ED was your idea of the pinacle of modern game design then hand me some flares and point me back towards the 70s.
4TH Ed was not a roleplaying game, it was a table-top wargame designed to try and leverage even more money out of the 'Magic the Gathering' crowd.
Wow so I guess when I was roleplaying in 4e just like how my group did in previous editions, we were doing it wrong.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:14PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Do you need a "Swing on Chandlier" rule?
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:16PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
May 20, 2011
|
Why should fighters have those special pseudo-magic powers? That's not what they're for. If you want magic, play a wizard, or perhaps a fighter-wizard. Fighters are there for those who want a big lump of muscle in a big lump of armour, smashing things with a big lump of metal; it's simple, direct and very different from how mages operate. Smudging the boundaries between classes may suit some people, and the rules should allow for some smudgery, but starting from that makes the existence of separate classes redundant.
Name one 4e fighter power which was "pseudo-magical."
Come and get it. I always found it too mind domination like.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:17PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
@DarkScarab, what has changed is the amount of understanding of mathematics, psychology, and actual game theory that game designers now bring to their job. 30 years ago there were far fewer RPG's with far fewer designers and a lot less to look back on. Many people state that the industry is evolving. I'd probably say that the industry is maturing. Modern design is different from early RPG design because more designers have entered the market with a greater variety of specialized skills and decades of successful and failed game products to look back on.
Have they been hiring people with degrees in psych and math to design games? Or are you making an assumption here? (Asked honestly, no sarcasm intended) Because if we're talking about laymen then theres no reason to think they have any more (or less) skill in these areas than E.G.G.
And whether a product is successful or a failure in the market may have had nothing to do with how well it was designed. Many well designed RPGs failed simply by virtue of competing against D&D early on.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:17PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
I'm glad they did the playtest this early: it gave me a chance to see the direction in which they were taking the game, and to give them feedback on how to improve it. I applaud them for doing that.
What I am disappointed by is the direction itself, which appears to me a regression rather than a progression.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:18PM
#49
|
|
|
And after getting a taste of modern game design that isn't trapped in the 70s, I will never again play a game without it.
If 4th ED was your idea of the pinacle of modern game design then hand me some flares and point me back towards the 70s.
4TH Ed was not a roleplaying game, it was a table-top wargame designed to try and leverage even more money out of the 'Magic the Gathering' crowd.
Wow so I guess when I was roleplaying in 4e just like how my group did in previous editions, we were doing it wrong.
...if it's any consolation, I roleplay my eldar when I play a game of tabletop Warhammer 40k. Don't think I'd go so far as to call it a roleplaying game (thats what Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader are for), but it's still fun. My primary (read: only) opponent is on a 3-game losing streak; his Ultramarine Space Marine Captain is just -convinced- that my lil mouthy Eldar Farseer is trolling him for some 'Just as Planned' reason. 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 18, 2012 - 3:19PM
#50
|
|
|
Do you need a "Swing on Chandlier" rule?
No more and no less than the Wizard needs a fireball rule.
You want to give me shapeable fireballs with no hardcoded maximum ranges?
Well...if you insist...
|
|
|
