So what this really comes down to is an upgrade system which removes conflict from the game.

So that there is no conflict when you have the most powerful weapon, thus designs need to incorporate methods of maintaining a steady level of sources of conflict.

Ie. The "best" weapon bounces off the smallest creatures, and thus makes these creatures more dangerous than the final boss (which dies when it is shot).

Ego weapon? Intelligent weapon? Hm..could be fun. Someone here must have read The Colour of Magic by Terry Pratchet. Discworld? Intelligent, speaking sword? Anyone?

Okay I''ll leave now =)

How about a pacifist sword that tried to talk the opponent out of fighting. Could be a good companion for a "dumb" warrior.

Ah, that brings back memories to Minsc, from BG2...

Let's give him that pacifist sword in the final battle

Minsc: "Evil, meet my sword! SWORD, MEET EVIL!!!"

Sword: "Aww, not again! C'mon, just let that wizard go. Deep inside, he is probably very hurt because of our actions..."

Irenicus: Instant-Death on Minsc.

Sword: "Hey! Why did you do that? You shouldn't fight! You will only cause people to dislike you!"

Irenicus: Desintegrate on sword.

Edited by - Ronin_54 on June 3, 2001 7:08:47 AM

"Rayguns don´t kill Zorgonians, Zorgonians kill Zorgonians"

I think that the emphasis on items and weapons comes not from a need to have these things, but because there are no alternatives.

If you take the real-life approach, a sword is pretty much a sword:

There are only little differences in damage (sharpness of the blade: ten minutes with a whetstone and you´re set; weight of the blade).
There some differences in attack speed, all dependant on the weight of the weapon, but usually it evens out, as slower, more powerful attacks mean that you deal a harder blow to you enemy.

Balance: a well balanced sword can make a difference, your arm doesn´t get tired as fast... but apart from that...


All in all, there are (with swords) probably no more that 15% variance (damagewise) in either direction from the average.....


So? do we need more skills? I dunno.. probably not. But I´m pretty sure I dont really like the idea of "live" weapons.. .that sword in BG2 almost drove me nuts. If a weapon has a personality it must be on a more subliminal level... if you´re interested, read Michael Moorcock´s "Stormbringer".

It´s basically about a sword, which is alive, in a way, but also very very evil. It gives the wielder immense powers, but it also twists him and alters his personality. Oh, and it eats the souls of those it kills....

quote: By, Hase
I think that the emphasis on items and weapons comes not from a need to have these things, but because there are no alternatives.

For the type of games that implement the Spinal Tap approach (turning the Amps to 11 = one louder), to weapon design. One reason is that they figure that giving the player a better weapon is a good way for them to deal with the tougher monsters, it also lends a hypnotic element to the gameplay.
" Need better weapon, must play for another 10 minutes"


But as the +7 wand of instant death shows. The main issue with this is to maintain a balance in the gameplay. As the game will lose a lot of its gameplay if you can continually use one weapon to destroy monsters before they get close to you.

Thus there needs to be a variety in the game. Whether that be in the attack patterns of the monsters, the defence mechanisms of the monsters. (Or ideally in every aspect of the game).