Yeah, this is something I've long noticed in many videogames, though I certainly understand the need for the balance. One game that did a good job of it was Baldur's Gate. Mages (especially high level Mages) had spells that were definitely more powerful than what the fighters could do, but magic took time to activate. If you tried to do it without some sort of Fighter protection, enemies would just run up and beat the tar out of them before they got the spell off. So it was balanced in the sense that you sort of needed everyone to make your party function well.bauke67 said:Videogames have this nasty habit of "balancing" things out, but realistically, how can shooting fireballs from your hands at will not be the strongest option? Without the constraints of videogames a mage should be able to wipe out armies with their unlimited power, whereas the other classes might be good in videogames, realistically, a figther would be the weakest since a stray arrow could potentially take them out, while they can only fight one person at a time. The rogue is also useful since, if he remains undetected, he can beat many people, but that advantage will hardly ever last beyond one or two kills.
Yeah that's true, it also depends somewhat on the lore surrounding the magic and what powers it gives you exactly, but that sounds like a really nice system.Ihateregistering1 said:Yeah, this is something I've long noticed in many videogames, though I certainly understand the need for the balance. One game that did a good job of it was Baldur's Gate. Mages (especially high level Mages) had spells that were definitely more powerful than what the fighters could do, but magic took time to activate. If you tried to do it without some sort of Fighter protection, enemies would just run up and beat the tar out of them before they got the spell off. So it was balanced in the sense that you sort of needed everyone to make your party function well.bauke67 said:Videogames have this nasty habit of "balancing" things out, but realistically, how can shooting fireballs from your hands at will not be the strongest option? Without the constraints of videogames a mage should be able to wipe out armies with their unlimited power, whereas the other classes might be good in videogames, realistically, a figther would be the weakest since a stray arrow could potentially take them out, while they can only fight one person at a time. The rogue is also useful since, if he remains undetected, he can beat many people, but that advantage will hardly ever last beyond one or two kills.
Nah, nothing boring about it. It can be really fun depending on the game. Some games are built so that you feel like a total badass playing a sword/board. Others, not so much. I personally enjoy all 3 playstyles, but it varies from game to game. Like Dragon Age 2, for all it's story faults, had a fun combat system that I really enjoyed. And it was one of the times in recent history, where I preferred to play a warrior instead of a mage/thief. I think it depends on how much combat momentum you have when you are diving into the thick of it. If you are constantly engaged, with some kind of attack, or defensive maneuver, triggering a reaction attack, etc, it feels really damn fun, and engaging, and leaves me wanting more.Malfrun said:Warrior, sword and board.
I can't get more boring, right?
I went Argonian Spellsword in my first time. It was pretty fun to interrupt the dragons' shout with a double-handed lightning bolt. But yeah, I sneaked all the time (to the point it reached the 100 skill points) and shot arrows to unsuspected enemies whenever I had the chance.kris40k said:Personally, I lean towards stealth in most games to start off with. Being sneaky, gaining info, and thinking things out before I take action is the way I operate.
![]()