Casters are stronger, especially in the first game, but the difference is not that wide. If you mean that wizards are too much stronger than fighters, that suggests you really aren't very familiar with the games at an intimate level, particularly Deadfire. After all, there are a great many games in which the disparity between the martial and caster classes is much more significant than either PoE game, yet those games didn't receive the same kind of feedback. Regarding "fighter-wizard parity", I'm not sure what you mean, but the only thing I can think is that you're suggesting wizards aren't overpowered enough, and that confuses player expectations. It's true that some people might struggle with it, but the unpredictability and tension it brings to combats is well worth it. Regarding randomization, many games use this to great effect and so do PoE and Deadfire. Most players just set their fighters to attack and their casters to use damage spells or possibly control and then feel like they can't understand the combat because there are too many changes and potential responses compressed into to short a time. I think the mushiness and confusion of Deadfire's gameplay come from the fact that you're controlling five characters, each with a large number of abilities facing off against a similar set of opponents at an overall very fast pace, at which multiple attacks are being made every second. must attack and fall upon them with a gallant bearing and a fearless heart, and, if possible, vanquish and destroy them, even though they have for armour the shells of a certain fish, that they say are harder than diamonds, and in place of swords wield trenchant blades of Damascus steel. We may see turn-based mode cutting trash fights like that down the line in order to save time. In the arena below the ruins, I've had two fights so far, and neither has actually been in any way challenging - I've had the advantage of numbers both times. My current turn-based campaign is in the Engwithan ruins on the first island. I'd say that's more a problem with the game having been first designed for RTWP, then converted to turn-based. I have a hard time imagining finishing a run with it though, it would take so goddam foreverlong. Turn based no doubt helps people process the game mechanics better. This is part of why it's so common to see people go "I bounced off this game at first and came back later and loved it" - first go, they didn't know wtf was going on, second go, they did. The core problem of this is that the mushiness and confusion of PoE gameplay came from other factors (randomisation, fighter-wizard parity etc.) and turn-based can only mitigate, rather than resolve, these criticisms.Įh, setting aside the "mushy" debate, I think the main actual specific issue most new players have with PoE is that the system is too dense for them and there's too much going on that they don't understand at first. the deliberate and discrete pacing of combat lets the player assimilate information at a steady rate. structured timing and movement allows the player to make more impactful and efficient moves, or e.g. The hope is that turn-based will fix that, because e.g. Player input/output, isn't it? The two common criticisms are that the combat is "mushy" - unresponsive - and visually overwhelming - incoherent. the mechanics are responsive and coherent in relation to what? the relative privileging of these principles determines the actual meaning of 'responsiveness' and 'coherency' as criteria. 1) a non-referential principle (the 'fun' of the internal consistency of the mechanics) 2) a referential principle (the 'plausibility' of the external consistency between the mechanics and a much larger reality). It seems to me there are two antithetical-although probably intertwined-design principles at stake.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |