I agree, good (and meaningful) combat is kind of the whole point to the rpg character advancement that's core to these games. Without combat, what do you have, an interactive novel or something?
'You can complete the game without combat!' and 'Combat does not give experience' = huge turnoffs for me in a CRPG.
Now it's been a very long time since I've played PS:T but as I recall there was fuck all loot to be had. The combat was never the compelling reason to play that game. It was 100% story and the environments you found yourself in.
You could finish Planescape: Torment with minimal amounts of combat. I finished it many times including a run through with a full int/wis/cha character who talked his way through every encounter. I don't remember if you could actually avoid 100% of combat, but I don't think so. PS:T is one of the best (arguably THE best IMO) CRPG ever.. You could hack your way through everything if you wanted but in my opinion if that's what you want to do then games like BG/BG2 were better.
I don't remember if combat in PS:T gave you XP. Anyway I loved Planescape: Torment and I have high hopes for this one.. I kickstarted it but I'm not going to play it until it's ready.
It does if the combat way is 1.5 hours and the talking way is 10 minutes.If you gain exp by completing a quest goal does it really diminish choosing to complete that goal via combat if you also had a way to talk your way to the same goal? Personally I don't think so.
It does if the combat way is 1.5 hours and the talking way is 10 minutes.
Tyranny feels unfinished but it's very good. I would highly recommend it, even though the obviously missing content and mechanics are a bit odd. I was enjoying the game a lot and then it abruptly ended.. feeling like a game is too short is a good sign IMO.Has anyone played 'Tyranny'? I was considering picking that up as well.