soundman on 12/5/2003 at 22:35
Yeah I agree with most of the improvements, also the charging of the weapon for an attack, I know its been a staple of UW and Arx but its totally unnrealistic (maybe its the best way to do it though, perhaps a combo system like the spells?). More variation with NPCs and dialogue would be good (multiple endings?) it feels too linear. Being able to talk to people about what your next mission is, tips etc would be nice. Also a staus report like UW (time of day, how poisoned, hungry or not etc). Also being able to actually get levitate to work wold be nice. Running without having to cast a spell would also be good.
The spells: Yeah, I know this way is realistic, but how would 3 per level be? I mean you could alternate by pressing shift and the number key of the level and then 1,2 or 3 for the spell. This would be user friendly, or maybe some sort of book system. I think the jumping wasn't too bad, It is hard to gauge distances though, being able to jump further would be nice (If you look at Metroid on the nintendo GC, they handled jumping superbly for a 3d platform game).
I'm only raising these points because I really like the game but I think it could be better, I hope the next one is just as cool! (with a few improvements here and there of course). Keep it up Arkane!
:thumb:
lancaster6 on 29/5/2003 at 00:43
there are 3 complaints i had about arx 1. way fewer complaints than positives.
1- that inventory popup, not an uncommon gripe huh? lol
2-no clues about lord inut, and the best weapons in the game-
had to find out from .coms
3- the unidentifiable "lord inut's sword"
no way to identify this thing?
as far as simplifying the stats..... why?
for me building the character might be the most fun part of any crpg
as far as making backstabbing on/off, assasin/nonassasin.......why
if put in the position where i need to backstab some1, why do i have to make a
choice whether i can or cant, i say leave that up to the individual, dont restrict it
as far as more fluff........why?
in my opinion, the fluffy games are less interesting. in some u end up with 50 types
of swords, and u can only use 1 at a time, so whats the point. more interesting and
plot related is better
i loved this game, everything had its place and a purpose. i never finished morrowind for 2 reasons; plots were boring and uneventful (not to mention those rediculous immemorable names), and things just didnt seem to have a purpose. but... the water effect was masterful..... incorperate that in arx 2. in my opinion less can be more if it has its place in the game, and u made me figure out that place. block moving, ive already played lara croft. thats old hat, and not very interesting. dont mean to rain on ur parade, but some of these ideas seem played out.
ultimately, i would love an arx 2, and am looking forward to it.thx 4 the 1st 1 and ty 4 this chance to voice my opinion.
crpg-er
TeeJay on 10/7/2003 at 01:14
Those above have come up with a number of good suggestions. Here's another one from me: Please put a copy of the manual on the game CD. I bought this game used at EBGames and the package did not include the manual. I usually do not pay much attention to manuals, but in this case I almost returned the game in frustration. Fortunately, I stuck with it and found the information I needed on the web. I still hope to see that dang manual some day . . .
James Sterrett on 10/7/2003 at 02:16
A few quick thoughts on combat systems...
Whether or not we like it, the "hold to swing" system does have some grounding in reality. [My basis for the following: I was a fencer for 6 years, spent a summer on grounds crew mostly using a machete, and have had sporadic training with other bladed weapons.]
1) It makes you go back and forth. That's reality, folks. Fights with bladed weapons are grounded in distance. Back off, prep to attack, duck into range to attack and back out before the enemy can reply.... it's real. I spent a tremendous amount of time as a fencer both learning to play with, and playing with, the distance to my opponent.
2) The hold down the mouse to swing... a heavy weapon take a lot of time and muscle to wield. Even a machete, which is a fairly light sword, takes a noticeable amount of time to ready, even when you're trying to work fast and know what you're doing. A heavy sword makes matters worse. A two-handed great-sword is six feet of steel and four to six inches across. Its momentum is amazing; it takes a lot of effort to make it move, and a commensurate effort to stop it (thus it delivers a lot of energy to the target, making it a deadly weapon). In other words, holding down the mouse to prep your next swing isn't unrealistic.
None of this means you have to *like* holding down the mouse button. That's a different issue. :) But it does produce some realistic effects.
If you really want a realistic treatment of the sword, you have to look at Die By The Sword - though it skirts the ragged edge of Trespasser's sin, in making you learn a new interface to control "your" body.
jbd on 10/7/2003 at 05:23
I'm glad to hear they are revamping stealth -- some elements of it weren't terribly logical in the original. For example, you could shoot someone with your bow from the shadows, and they'd essentially wander randomly in short circles. The only time they would spot you is if you missed, at which point they would run straight towards you.
Spitter on 10/7/2003 at 16:23
James: good points. And you probably know a lot more on this subject than I do, anyway. But...
But.
Perhaps my post above can be summed up like this:
I really enjoy combat maneuvers in movies. Realistic or not, I get really excited by all those nifty battle choreographies in movies such as The Matrix or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Thus, I'd really like a game with a combat system which can make me feel like Aragorn in the middle of thousand of hungry orcs (with pointy teeth!), swinging my sword from side to side and sharing death upon the vile monsters.
Arx, on the other hand, doesn't quite extend to this. In fact, not even close.
I'm not sure which sort of a combat system would be best for Arx 2, but I'd much rather be an Aragorn than a realistic fencer in it, though :p
BTW, I've played Die by the Sword. It's a step (an old step) into the right direction, but not quite what I'm looking for. I'm more into the idea of a huge catalogue of different, pre-made moves which are triggered by logical "mouse swings" or some such instead of a completely free sword movement.
<small>Yes, I know I'm really picky.</small>
James Sterrett on 10/7/2003 at 22:36
Spitter - nobody says you have to like the click-and-hold. :) And, in fact, I'd say all the methods wind up being flawed. DBTS seemed terribly clunky to me. Wiggling a mouse or keys or stick to et special combo moves doesn't turn me on. And, I agree, the click-and-hold isn't perfect either.
We're all stumbling forward on trying to improve an interface that tries to seamlessly and transparently simulate physical actions by using other physical actions - but the second set has no real relation to the first.
Weapon-aiming with mouselook seems to have solved this problem for the most part for firing guns/lasers and the like; look at the target to aim, click to fire. The physical mechanics of moving the mouse and clicking the button have virtually nothing in common with aiming a rifle, but the mental attitude is at least somewhat similar.
Melee weapons haven't had a similar breakthrough. DBTS tries to simulate your controlling your motion, but since so much of that is done without concious thought, it feels unwieldy. Click-and-hold produces an interface that's easy to use, but feels colourless to many. Combo moves give you more variation on swings and thrusts, but memorizing combos has even less to do with swinging a weapon than moving a mouse does with firing a rifle.... Where's the solution? Beats me. :)
There's a similar debate in flight-sims about "padlock", a feature which lets you "padlock" your view to an enemy aircraft so you don't lose track of it. It's very handy and, done properly, demonstrates the power of the fighter pilot's adage, "Lose sight, lose the fight." But how to implement it? Some insist that the player should have to move the view personally all the time (no padlock). To me, this seems like simulating my controlling my neck muscles - no thank you! On the other extreme, there are versions of padlock that let you track an enemy aircraft even when it cannot be seen, which is a bit odd. In the middle are debates on finding the plane, then locking it, or simply cycling through the things within visual range [do you force the sim-pilot to keep a visual scan up, or give the sim-pilot a benefit for having to deal with the world through a soda straw?]
Chade on 11/7/2003 at 13:01
Quote:
Originally posted by James Sterrett We're all stumbling forward on trying to improve an interface that tries to seamlessly and transparently simulate physical actions by using other physical actions - but the second set has no real relation to the first.
I would disagree with that. Well, maybe that IS what people are trying to do, I wouldn't know, but it's a bit silly if true, really. You don't need to simulate physical actions at all, you just need a system that provides interesting gameplay that resembles swordfighting to the user. (Remeber, the average user has never sword fighted in their lives. If it's fun, they'll tend to think of it as realistic, unless that's totally implausible.)
That's not to say I have any great idea's, as I don't, but trying to do even a half decent job of simulating physical actions with the mouse and keyboard and expecting such an attempt to be fun seems like an exercise in futility, to me.
Now, I'm not actually advocating combo's, because I don't like them either, and in Arx Fatalis, where I imagine they do not want the user to be concentrating on learning an interface, it especially wouldn't work, but nonetheless I wager you'd find the majority of player's feel that combo's make them feel their fighting is more realistic then the "hold down to power up" system. And in the end, that's what counts.
James Sterrett on 11/7/2003 at 16:17
Yes, good points, and generally what I was driving at, in fact - albeit rather unclearly! :)
Chade on 12/7/2003 at 03:42
Oh ... well ....
:eww:
