Grimrock 2 impossible for some?

[Anurias]

Here is the real exchange:

Just like using Invisibility and Force Field in Grimrock, and even the Rage Spell for making things as easy as possible. It's entirely possible to do a single character run with all "hard" options yet still beat the game with ease - using simple tactics like kiting and hiding.

Yes beating LoG2 with a single character on "Hard Ironman" is doable but if you want to try this with all the OP things(*) put into the game you could also go with an entire party.
... (*) Heavy Weapons, Heavy Armor, Spells, Alchemists, Alchemy

Hence ~all of the character options in TES are implemented as minor bonuses...

Same holds true for Grimrock. Some of the character classes aren't even worth playing due to bad implementations, like the Knight and Wizard classes. Bonuses like Energy gains are almost a joke in Grimrock; and at least half the skill tree is irrelevant.

Skill in those games does not mean competence or enablement, it means 'easier'.

Just like using Invisibility and Force Field in Grimrock, and even the Rage Spell for making things as easy as possible. It's entirely possible to do a single character run with all "hard" options yet still beat the game with ease - using simple tactics like kiting and hiding. Taking this approach, the game loses what little RPG aspect it has and becomes more about individual player theme park tactics.

Azel these two answers alone tell that you are not able to keep the most basic things of a RPG apart.

Yes beating LoG2 with a single character on "Hard Ironman" is doable but if you want to try this with all the OP things(*) put into the game you could also go with an entire party. Not that much of a challenge, right? Now strip all those "bonuses" away, restart fresh and all of the sudden the walk in the park feeling is gone.

(*) Heavy Weapons, Heavy Armor, Spells, Alchemists, Alchemy

According to this Azel quoted in the right order and the only thing that was left out was the first response to Isaac. The responses are slightly different approaches at illustrating to Isaac that his reasoning behind claiming that the Elder Scrolls games are poor RPGs is flawed. This point appears to be being missed by Dr.Disaster as the responses from Dr.Disaster are specifically about LoG and only responding to the second response by Azel to Isaac. Since the first response isn't really addressed there doesn't seem to be a need to include that in any quotes about the 'Real exchange' since there was no actual exchange involving it. In this specific case I think Azel did quote accurately according to what Dr.Disaster posted as the 'true' exchange.

It also shows Dr.Disaster being on a different train than the one the topic was on at the time, which is also a different train than the thread started on.

[Dr.Disaster]

According to this Azel quoted in the right order and the only thing that was left out was the first response to Isaac. The responses are slightly different approaches at illustrating to Isaac that his reasoning behind claiming that the Elder Scrolls games are poor RPGs is flawed.

Aye and different approaches lead to different outcomes.

This point appears to be being missed by Dr.Disaster as the responses from Dr.Disaster are specifically about LoG and only responding to the second response by Azel to Isaac. Since the first response isn't really addressed there doesn't seem to be a need to include that in any quotes about the 'Real exchange' since there was no actual exchange involving it. In this specific case I think Azel did quote accurately according to what Dr.Disaster posted as the 'true' exchange.

I can't talk about TES in regard of it's RPG aspect since i haven't played any of those games. Thus i did comment both quotes together and not separately. Yet i know RPG's and the quoted answers show that Azel missed RPG 101. Just one example: allegedly bad implemented classes. Any(!) RPG has classes that look less attractive then others. It's up to the player to make them work and prove their critics wrong.

The part about LoG is a reply to Azel's claim of "using simple tactics" to "beat the game with ease" playing solo. In general i agree but that's also where it ends. My counterpoint is that what i named "all the OP things" also matter; some of them are even required to allow Azel's "simple tactics" to work and if the player does not (want to) have them at his disposal - a.k.a. challenge - this "theme park" feeling is gone. Playing single character parties is usually about challenges.

Now when you look at his "real exchange" nobody get's that my point is about the challenge of single character play and not how easy the game can be beaten.

It also shows Dr.Disaster being on a different train than the one the topic was on at the time, which is also a different train than the thread started on.

This thread is off the rails since Azel joined it on page 6. Don't blame me for this.

[Anurias]

According to this Azel quoted in the right order and the only thing that was left out was the first response to Isaac. The responses are slightly different approaches at illustrating to Isaac that his reasoning behind claiming that the Elder Scrolls games are poor RPGs is flawed.

Aye and different approaches lead to different outcomes.

Of course different approaches lead to different results... that's why you change approaches when one doesn't work. Azel's first approach didn't result in Isaac understanding that his reasoning was flawed so Azel tried another way to illustrate that in the hopes that the result would be the intended result of the first attempt that had failed. Not really sure why you feel the need to point out the obvious of different approaches leading to different outcomes though.

This point appears to be being missed by Dr.Disaster as the responses from Dr.Disaster are specifically about LoG and only responding to the second response by Azel to Isaac. Since the first response isn't really addressed there doesn't seem to be a need to include that in any quotes about the 'Real exchange' since there was no actual exchange involving it. In this specific case I think Azel did quote accurately according to what Dr.Disaster posted as the 'true' exchange.

I can't talk about TES in regard of it's RPG aspect since i haven't played any of those games. Thus i did comment both quotes together and not separately. Yet i know RPG's and the quoted answers show that Azel missed RPG 101. Just one example: allegedly bad implemented classes. Any(!) RPG has classes that look less attractive then others. It's up to the player to make them work and prove their critics wrong.

So you can't talk about TES in regard of its RPG aspect, so you just completely disregard the actual subject being discussed at the time in favor of a topic that was not being discussed at all? (Referring to the topic of 'OP things in LoG' as the topic that wasn't actually being discussed at the time). The only part of your response that could even begin to apply to both quotes is where you say,

Azel these two answers alone tell that you are not able to keep the most basic things of a RPG apart.

However, you don't really qualify this statement anywhere.

As to your comment now about 'Any RPG having classes that look less attractive than others' and 'it being up to the player to make them work' (Do not mistake those for exact direct quotes that have been misquoted as they are paraphrasing trying to preserve as much of the original language used as possible but still make them make sense in the sentence) I have to disagree with this. There are many RPGs out there that have very distinct classes that are suited to the specific role the class was made to serve and all classes provided in those games are implemented quite well while other RPGs fall short on this. Not all classes will appeal to all players, but that doesn't mean class X in random RPG Y is overall less attractive, it just may not satisfy the way a particular player decides to play the game. As for it being up to the player to make it work; the player does have an impact on the viability of a particular class, but that doesn't change that sometimes a class is just plain implemented badly.

For example I'll use Azel's idea that the wizard class is implemented badly in LoG2 since I'm not convinced yet that he's right about the knight. The wizard starts with low health and high energy and every level gain marginal health and high energy and gets a bonus of 2 willpower to start (stats do not affect gains from leveling like they did in LoG 1 so getting 2 willpower to start with has no difference from getting 2 willpower later from a potion, favorite food bonus, or any other source of base stat increase). On the other hand, the battle mage gets more health to start with and the same energy, gains moderate health each level and moderate energy each level (2 points different in both per level resulting in a total of 40 additional health and 40 less energy over the course of 20 levels, the energy difference amounts to 1 high energy spell or 2 weak low energy spells at best). The battle mage also only counts half the weight of worn armor so can more easily wear the heavier armors without having to dump a ton of points into strength to up the carry capacity just to wear it AND gets bonus defense and resistance when using a caster staff or orb (The wizard doesn't even get this). With how the game was designed around the concept of being able to start with any classes and train them into any other role you want it really makes it so that there is literally no point in taking a wizard since the only thing they bring to the table is a marginal amount of extra energy. That is poor implementation and anything the player can do to make the wizard more viable would have better impact being done on a battle mage.

The part about LoG is a reply to Azel's claim of "using simple tactics" to "beat the game with ease" playing solo. In general i agree but that's also where it ends. My counterpoint is that what i named "all the OP things" also matter; some of them are even required to allow Azel's "simple tactics" to work and if the player does not (want to) have them at his disposal - a.k.a. challenge - this "theme park" feeling is gone. Playing single character parties is usually about challenges.

Your counterpoint was off topic. The topic in Azel's second post was trying to illustrate that TES using skills to make things easier is similar to things LoG uses to make the game easier. Then provided the example of running the game with a single character with all the hard mode settings turned on and still being able to complete the game with ease by using what the game provides to make things easier the way TES makes things easier with the skills. Azel wasn't trying to say the game can't be made to be challenging, you can always self-impose your own restrictions to make any game harder. He was just trying to show Isaac that Isaac was using faulty reasoning and you didn't appear to grasp that since you changed the topic to something completely different.

Now when you look as his "real exchange" nobody get's that my point is about the challenge of single character play and not how easy the game can be beaten.

We get your point, it's just not on the topic that was being discussed between Isaac and Azel at that time, so doesn't contribute to the subject.

It also shows Dr.Disaster being on a different train than the one the topic was on at the time, which is also a different train than the thread started on.

This thread is off the rails since Azel joined it on page 6. Don't blame me for this.

I don't think anyone is claiming the thread isn't off the rail or that it started with you... I already stated that the discussion between Azel and Isaac was off topic from what the thread originally was. You just changed the topic a second time while apparently thinking you were on topic.

[Dr.Disaster]

According to this Azel quoted in the right order and the only thing that was left out was the first response to Isaac. The responses are slightly different approaches at illustrating to Isaac that his reasoning behind claiming that the Elder Scrolls games are poor RPGs is flawed.

Aye and different approaches lead to different outcomes.

Of course different approaches lead to different results... that's why you change approaches when one doesn't work.

If i would change approaches i would never go back to the very beginning of this nonsense. Yet that's what i did.

So you can't talk about TES in regard of its RPG aspect, so you just completely disregard the actual subject being discussed at the time in favor of a topic that was not being discussed at all? (Referring to the topic of 'OP things in LoG' as the topic that wasn't actually being discussed at the time). The only part of your response that could even begin to apply to both quotes is where you say,

Azel these two answers alone tell that you are not able to keep the most basic things of a RPG apart.

However, you don't really qualify this statement anywhere.

For me the actual subject at this precise point was that some clueless pretender tried to tell others how RPG's work. I am both RPG player and game master for over 25 years now. I have only seen a similar lack of the most basic RPG knownledge when i mastered game sessions with total RPG noobs trying it for the very first time.

For example I'll use Azel's idea that the wizard class is implemented badly in LoG2 since I'm not convinced yet that he's right about the knight.

He's wrong in both. Especialy regarding the wizard he is wrong on his very own terms. What was Azel's reasoning again? "simple tactics" like kite and hide (or something like that) and the game is an easy win? A character that is never hit has no need for armor or resistances. For someone supporting/using "simple tactics" the battle mage is for sloppy play and the wizard the only real option to go.

Your counterpoint was off topic. The topic in Azel's second post was trying to illustrate that TES using skills to make things easier is similar to things LoG uses to make the game easier.

If in TES skills make things easier it would match Issacs description.
In LoG skills make things possible, like spell casting. Without skills there is no spell casting. A simple chain of effects.
"possible" is way different from "easier" which makes Azel's try a massive fail.

[Azel]

Aye and different approaches lead to different outcomes.

The only outcome is that you didn't understand the premise of my response to Isaac at all. You missed the mark terribly and now derailed the topic whining to anyone who calls you out on the screw up. It's pretty hilarious

I can't talk about TES in regard of it's RPG aspect since i haven't played any of those games.

So you interjected yourself in a conversation that you knew nothing about. Glad you were able to admit to at least one aspect of how you approach derailing a topic.

Thus i did comment both quotes together and not separately. Yet i know RPG's and the quoted answers show that Azel missed RPG 101.

Wrong. You thought I was wrong about RPG's because I purposely posted something "bad" about Grimrock to mock Isaac. You didn't know it was mockery and retarded your way in to a retort.

Just one example: allegedly bad implemented classes. Any(!) RPG has classes that look less attractive then others. It's up to the player to make them work and prove their critics wrong.

A point you did not have to make because I wasn't really saying that Grimrock did anything bad with its classes. It was mockery to prove that Isaac's dismissal of TeS games as RPG's is incorrect.

The part about LoG is a reply to Azel's claim of "using simple tactics" to "beat the game with ease" playing solo.

Again, I was mocking Isaac's over simplification of traits in TeS games by over-simplifying tactics in Grimrock. You were too dense then to realize it, and too dense now to see it.

In general i agree but that's also where it ends. My counterpoint is that what i named "all the OP things" also matter; some of them are even required to allow Azel's "simple tactics" to work and if the player does not (want to) have them at his disposal - a.k.a. challenge - this "theme park" feeling is gone. Playing single character parties is usually about challenges.

Even worse, you took my mockery and agreed with part of it on a literal sense

Now when you look at his "real exchange" nobody get's that my point is about the challenge of single character play and not how easy the game can be beaten.

It's not that nobody gets it, simpleton. It's that your point doesn't matter because you are trying to counter-argue something that doesn't really exist; no one was really trying to prove anything about the challenge of single character play.

For me the actual subject at this precise point was that some clueless pretender tried to tell others how RPG's work

I'm the one who has played more RPG's than you - as you admitted, you never played the TeS games. That makes you the pretender.

Especialy regarding the wizard he is wrong on his very own terms. What was Azel's reasoning again? "simple tactics" like kite and hide (or something like that) and the game is an easy win? A character that is never hit has no need for armor or resistances. For someone supporting/using "simple tactics" the battle mage is for sloppy play and the wizard the only real option to go.

Which means it's silly to say that Grimrock isn't an RPG... just like it's silly to say that TeS games are not RPG's. That was my point using mockery and satire. No matter how many ways it's explained to you, and from different people at different angles, your head is just planted firmly so far up your corn hole that you are afflicted with "head up ass tunnel vision." Your inability to turn that light bulb on in your head is truly remarkable.

As for the Wizard class, your literal interpretation of the satire leaves you concluding that a Wizard is a better option than a Battle Mage if kiting/hiding is used. That makes absolutely no sense because things need to be carried and the player will eventually take damage. Which means that the Battle Mage is 100% a better option than a Wizard no matter what the case, for the very reasons Anurias pointed out. Grimrock 101 fail.

If in TES skills make things easier it would match Issacs description.
In LoG skills make things possible, like spell casting. Without skills there is no spell casting. A simple chain of effects. "possible" is way different from "easier" which makes Azel's try a massive fail.

In LoG skills make things EASIER not just possible. Example: you can wear any Armor in the game without ever having to invest in the Armor skill. Many gamers actually suggest this because the bonuses from the Armor skill are arguably not worth the skill point. If you do invest the skill, it makes things "easier" by removing Evade deductions. The fact that you didn't know this means you fail at Grimrock 101.

Skills in both LoG and TeS work very much the same. You wouldn't know that because you never played TeS. But you have played Grimrock yet you didn't realize that skills make things both easier and possible. Your very limited understanding and massive fail of RPG 101, Grimrock 101, and Reading Comprehension 101 has caused you to say some of the most profoundly idiotic things in this debate. You can't even hang on to the derailing you caused. It's almost painful to watch you drool your way from post to post.

And now for my favorite Dr. Disaster quote to date:

I am both RPG player and game master for over 25 years now. I have only seen a similar lack of the most basic RPG knownledge when i mastered game sessions with total RPG noobs trying it for the very first time.

LOL! That's too easy. Poor lil fella.

[Dr.Disaster]

aaaand as expected there goes our flip-flopper again. First it was "satire", then suddenly serious and now it's mockery again. What comes next, a Mitt Romney revival? Going copycat with my lines won't save your day

[Azel]

... meanwhile, back on Planet Earth:

For example I'll use Azel's idea that the wizard class is implemented badly in LoG2 since I'm not convinced yet that he's right about the knight. The wizard starts with low health and high energy and every level gain marginal health and high energy and gets a bonus of 2 willpower to start (stats do not affect gains from leveling like they did in LoG 1 so getting 2 willpower to start with has no difference from getting 2 willpower later from a potion, favorite food bonus, or any other source of base stat increase). On the other hand, the battle mage gets more health to start with and the same energy, gains moderate health each level and moderate energy each level (2 points different in both per level resulting in a total of 40 additional health and 40 less energy over the course of 20 levels, the energy difference amounts to 1 high energy spell or 2 weak low energy spells at best). The battle mage also only counts half the weight of worn armor so can more easily wear the heavier armors without having to dump a ton of points into strength to up the carry capacity just to wear it AND gets bonus defense and resistance when using a caster staff or orb (The wizard doesn't even get this). With how the game was designed around the concept of being able to start with any classes and train them into any other role you want it really makes it so that there is literally no point in taking a wizard since the only thing they bring to the table is a marginal amount of extra energy. That is poor implementation and anything the player can do to make the wizard more viable would have better impact being done on a battle mage.

Exactly. I love the Wizard class in Grimrock but right now my Rattling Farmer turned out to be a way better magic caster than any Race of Wizard could hope for. That can easily be remedied with a game update. For example, the only strategic advantage that the Wizard offers is being able to cast spells with their bare hands. The problem is that in the current version of the game, you can grab a magic casting weapon within the first hour of starting a new game. That means the strategic advantage a Wizard offers is only good for a whopping 45 minutes during the intro. Great character class, not-so-great game implementation.

Some basic ideas on how to make the Wizard shine:

1) A true Wizards Challenge obstacle in multiple locations in the game, where all weapons are removed from all characters. Frogs can do that, so the concept of removing weapons is already in the game. It just needs to be improved upon to take advantage of Wizards free-hand casting.

2) Allow Willpower to impact weapon effectiveness, like Damage and Duration.

3) Dual Casting! Let the Wizard cast spells with each hand, giving a magic cool down to each hand independently.

4) Make the Earth Elemental tree actually usable.

That last one, number 4, won't actually help make Wizards better over other classes... I just really want the dev's to fix Earth spells already

[Anurias]

Battle mages can also cast spells with bare hands, they just get defensive bonuses for having a staff or orb. I think that 2 changes would make wizards on par with Battle mages.

1 - Similar to how Barbarians gain 1 strength every level, let wizards gain 1 willpower every level, but don't give that to Battle mages.

2 - Let willpower increase the damage that spells do the way strength increases damage of many melee weapons and thrown weapons.

[boyflea]

crawling (late) onto this thread: glad I am not alone. Am about to restart as started on hard, threw in a farmer for a laugh and found myself basically being stuffed and now starving, so it really is game over - having only just reached the cemetary... bit demoralising, but enjoyable nontheless. just my 2p. thanks all.

[Azel]

So I was having an RPG discussion with co-workers today, which lead to some fun Google searches. Specifically "top RPG's of all time."

I take them with a grain of salt but what I found interesting was the various mix of games like Dungeon Master along with Bethesda titles like Fallout 3 and TES (which rank very high on multiple lists) :

http://www.ign.com/top/rpgs/7
http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/72005953.html
http://www.listal.com/list/100-rpgs
http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/addfwy ... 100/28690/

Reading those reminded me of this thread so thought I'd post it