The fighting interface in almost all the QFG games have been different. Which one did you like the best. |I
I liked the fighting interface of QFG 4 & 5 equally.
Since QFG 2 VGA hasen't been done yet i have not included it in the polls.
[Polls] Fighting Interface in Quest For Glory games.
Moderators: adeyke, VampD3, eriqchang, Angelus3K
-
Schloss Ritter
- Knight Status
- Posts: 347
- Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 11:07 pm
-
Brainiac
- Royal Vizier Status
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:20 am
- Location: Somewhere in Ohio...
- Contact:
Dragon Fire
Heh; I remember when I first got that spell. I set it to my shortcut bar, clicked it's trigger number...and watched my health drop to almost zero. NEVER do that; always set the spell manually and set it nowhere near Ego.Schloss Ritter wrote:Dragon Fire is too easy to kill yourself with
Being under Hide is good for Dragon Fire though (especial with a Summoned Staff). Since you can set the spell far away from Ego, you make it harder for monsters to figure out where you are (whereas Frost Bite kind of gives your position away).
Unlike QFG 4 i did not find Hide spell all that usefull in QFG 5. in QFG 4 if you cast hide spell the enemy just goes away while in 5 the enemies stay put and only notice you if you move around or attack while the spell is on. So i only used this spell in battles as a time out and take health, stamina, mana pills.
dazzle spell is the best to stop your enemies while you move and attack. calm spell breaks the moment you attack anyone under its influence.
Dragon fire spell is only usefull for effectively killing the dragon of doom which does otherwise take many hits before dying. frost bites remains the most effective spell for me through most of the game. it works only in limited range but atleast it dosent take you out along with all others like dragon fire spell.
dazzle spell is the best to stop your enemies while you move and attack. calm spell breaks the moment you attack anyone under its influence.
Dragon fire spell is only usefull for effectively killing the dragon of doom which does otherwise take many hits before dying. frost bites remains the most effective spell for me through most of the game. it works only in limited range but atleast it dosent take you out along with all others like dragon fire spell.
-
Brainiac
- Royal Vizier Status
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:20 am
- Location: Somewhere in Ohio...
- Contact:
Dragon Spells
Dragon Fire is not all that helpful against the Dragon of Doom.Alanor. wrote:Dragon fire spell is only usefull for effectively killing the dragon of doom which does otherwise take many hits before dying. frost bites remains the most effective spell for me through most of the game. it works only in limited range but atleast it dosent take you out along with all others like dragon fire spell.
Katrina's Dragon Frost, on the other hand...
Hmm... really 
Haven't used it against the dragon so far. Maybe I will try it next time i play QFG 5 again.
Dragon fire does look by far the most powerfull spell than frostbite though. And you can use it while staying far away from the enemy unlike frostbite which is limited within a range and difficult to use on anything teleporting or flying fast.
Haven't used it against the dragon so far. Maybe I will try it next time i play QFG 5 again.Dragon fire does look by far the most powerfull spell than frostbite though. And you can use it while staying far away from the enemy unlike frostbite which is limited within a range and difficult to use on anything teleporting or flying fast.
How come the fighting interfaces of the EGA games aren't in there?
Anyway, here's my rating:
QFG1 EGA: My least favourite...it's very hard to avoid getting hit and the only strategy to survive against most monsters is to out-attack them, which isn't my thing. Kudos for the BIG sprites of enemies. Those cheetaurs and Toro sure look hella intimidating up-close.
QFG1 VGA: My favourite. The combat scenes have a background showing your surroundings (as opposed to QFG1EGA, QFG2 and QFG3) and the monsters are well-drawn and detailed. Defending is no longer virtually impossible and both the swing and stab have their uses. There's a fair amount of variety in attack behavior too. (brigands are defensive, saurus rexes pure offense, ogre lowers his guard before attacking, manta ray floats around and can only be hit when close, etc...)
QFG2: Average. Some monsters have a black background during fights, which is a pity. I personally didn't see the use in having 3 different attacks/dodges/blocks which all seemed to do the same. Going crazy on the attack was still a tad too effective. Sprites weren't as detailed as in most other games.
QFG3: Below average. The visible parts of monsters were drawn well, but parts of them were merged into the black background. (which, in itself, is another con) Health of monsters drains slowly, so it takes a while for them to die, even if your hit was strong enough to be fatal. I liked the combat music less than in the previous games. I must say the doppleganger battle was neat though.
QFG4: Above average. Different combat backgrounds, large and detailed sprites. There was a great deal of variety in opponents and each battle sequence felt different. Nice variety of moves for both monsters and hero. Not Seibert's classic theme in the background, but I liked the battle music nevertheless. Strategy mode good for people with less nimble fingers. The only downfalls were that stats took more of a backseat than they did before, stamina recovery was a tad cheap and big spells were ultra-cheap.
QFG5: Average. Flexibility was the big pro. You could use the surrounding area as cover or pick up spears from the cart to toss at enemies. You could use a huge amount of different weapons and spells and blackjacking is just plain enjoyable. There were quite a few different enemies too. The cons were the simplification of attacking and defending (clicking on an enemy or holding the right button) and the fact dodging/circlestrafing was impossible for the player but not for enemies. Also, the ability to use pills/potions in battle made combat more a matter of endurance. I personally like closeup combat scenes more than the in-game fighting of QFG5, especially since fighting near the back was a pain. Thumbs up for the music though.
Anyway, here's my rating:
QFG1 EGA: My least favourite...it's very hard to avoid getting hit and the only strategy to survive against most monsters is to out-attack them, which isn't my thing. Kudos for the BIG sprites of enemies. Those cheetaurs and Toro sure look hella intimidating up-close.
QFG1 VGA: My favourite. The combat scenes have a background showing your surroundings (as opposed to QFG1EGA, QFG2 and QFG3) and the monsters are well-drawn and detailed. Defending is no longer virtually impossible and both the swing and stab have their uses. There's a fair amount of variety in attack behavior too. (brigands are defensive, saurus rexes pure offense, ogre lowers his guard before attacking, manta ray floats around and can only be hit when close, etc...)
QFG2: Average. Some monsters have a black background during fights, which is a pity. I personally didn't see the use in having 3 different attacks/dodges/blocks which all seemed to do the same. Going crazy on the attack was still a tad too effective. Sprites weren't as detailed as in most other games.
QFG3: Below average. The visible parts of monsters were drawn well, but parts of them were merged into the black background. (which, in itself, is another con) Health of monsters drains slowly, so it takes a while for them to die, even if your hit was strong enough to be fatal. I liked the combat music less than in the previous games. I must say the doppleganger battle was neat though.
QFG4: Above average. Different combat backgrounds, large and detailed sprites. There was a great deal of variety in opponents and each battle sequence felt different. Nice variety of moves for both monsters and hero. Not Seibert's classic theme in the background, but I liked the battle music nevertheless. Strategy mode good for people with less nimble fingers. The only downfalls were that stats took more of a backseat than they did before, stamina recovery was a tad cheap and big spells were ultra-cheap.
QFG5: Average. Flexibility was the big pro. You could use the surrounding area as cover or pick up spears from the cart to toss at enemies. You could use a huge amount of different weapons and spells and blackjacking is just plain enjoyable. There were quite a few different enemies too. The cons were the simplification of attacking and defending (clicking on an enemy or holding the right button) and the fact dodging/circlestrafing was impossible for the player but not for enemies. Also, the ability to use pills/potions in battle made combat more a matter of endurance. I personally like closeup combat scenes more than the in-game fighting of QFG5, especially since fighting near the back was a pain. Thumbs up for the music though.
Last edited by Erpy on Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Brainiac
- Royal Vizier Status
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:20 am
- Location: Somewhere in Ohio...
- Contact:
System Rankings of Erpy
So Erpy, your standings are:
QFG1VGA
QFG4
QFG2 & QFG5
QFG3
QFG1EGA
Care to tell us your opinion on where AGDI's QFG2 will stand on that list (I'm not asking for details, just your opinion - and maybe comparisons to the other systems)?
QFG1VGA
QFG4
QFG2 & QFG5
QFG3
QFG1EGA
Care to tell us your opinion on where AGDI's QFG2 will stand on that list (I'm not asking for details, just your opinion - and maybe comparisons to the other systems)?
Well I think i heard somewhere here that QFG2 VGA fighting interface is going to be similar to QFG1 VGA.
personally i would have liked it to be like QFG4 rather that QFG1.
I dont think they could have made it like QFG5 because its fighting interface is very much different from others who have a special screen for fights. There be many other reasons too.
And i didnt include EGA version QFG games because the graphics were really bad then and most people probably dont play EGA games anymore. I myself dont play anything less than VGA.
personally i would have liked it to be like QFG4 rather that QFG1.
I dont think they could have made it like QFG5 because its fighting interface is very much different from others who have a special screen for fights. There be many other reasons too.
And i didnt include EGA version QFG games because the graphics were really bad then and most people probably dont play EGA games anymore. I myself dont play anything less than VGA.
I'm not sure where you heard that. It's a bit of a hybrid between QFG2 and QFG4.Alanor. wrote:Well I think i heard somewhere here that QFG2 VGA fighting interface is going to be similar to QFG1 VGA.
personally i would have liked it to be like QFG4 rather that QFG1.
It would have been impractical. QFG5's battle system is made for mass battles and few combat scenes in QFG2 qualify as such.I dont think they could have made it like QFG5 because its fighting interface is very much different from others who have a special screen for fights. There be many other reasons too.
"Most people"? I think lots of sierra fans play EGA games, especially if there's no VGA counterpart. They're not really that bad. I play the QFG1EGA version from time to time myself. Also, since this thread is about battle systems and QFG1EGA and QFG2 each had their unique battle system, it would have been fair to include them.And i didnt include EGA version QFG games because the graphics were really bad then and most people probably dont play EGA games anymore. I myself dont play anything less than VGA.
-
MusicallyInspired
- The Master of All Things Musical
- Posts: 4031
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:57 pm
- Location: Manitoba, Canada
-
Ghost_Rider
- Knight Status
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 3:45 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
I voted for QFG1VGA. It feels the smoothest and seems fairest, yet still challenging.
I might have voted for QFG2EGA if you had included that. I like it because it is different in that you can attack or defend high, mid level or low. Defending is somewhat challenging in combat and also in practice combat with Uhura. I like that keys 1 through 9 can be used on the keypad. CGA and EGA games were what I started off with, so I guess I still have a soft spot for them.
I might have voted for QFG2EGA if you had included that. I like it because it is different in that you can attack or defend high, mid level or low. Defending is somewhat challenging in combat and also in practice combat with Uhura. I like that keys 1 through 9 can be used on the keypad. CGA and EGA games were what I started off with, so I guess I still have a soft spot for them.
-
Ibanezrg82
- Knight Status
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:14 am
Well I agree with Erpy that QFG4 was pretty good combat, altough hard to use and racked with bugs.
Certain commands don't exist, why cant a Paladin throw a dagger?
Maybe AGD is quiet about QFG2 because Trial had a good combat system. You could throw a dagger if you had one, a rock if you wanted to.
Altough the pre combat in Trial sucked. Good luck trying to cast calm before the scorpion initiated combat.
Certain commands don't exist, why cant a Paladin throw a dagger?
Maybe AGD is quiet about QFG2 because Trial had a good combat system. You could throw a dagger if you had one, a rock if you wanted to.
Altough the pre combat in Trial sucked. Good luck trying to cast calm before the scorpion initiated combat.
I personally found QFG4's combat pretty easy once you got used to the controls. The only bug was that projectiles came at you at the speed of light on a fast computer, meaning that closing in on a spell-casting Chernovy was like swimming up a river full of logs.
Paladins couldn't toss daggers because they had a shield on their arm, I believe. Not to mention the fact you actually need throwing daggers. And I'm quiet about the battle system because I've already said a lot about it.
Paladins couldn't toss daggers because they had a shield on their arm, I believe. Not to mention the fact you actually need throwing daggers. And I'm quiet about the battle system because I've already said a lot about it.
-
Ibanezrg82
- Knight Status
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:14 am
Sorry Erpy. I didn't know too much about the new combat system until now.
The controls for combat in Shadows worked fine for me, I will agree, with the original DOS version.
The Windows version has problems I cannot get past.
I remember throwing daggers as a Paladin.
I also have always had problems with the WIN version between ducking, jumping, and blocking. Sometimes different monsters define what hero will do, duck, or block.
Anyway, this is not a Shadows site, so I will shut up about it.
The controls for combat in Shadows worked fine for me, I will agree, with the original DOS version.
The Windows version has problems I cannot get past.
I remember throwing daggers as a Paladin.
I also have always had problems with the WIN version between ducking, jumping, and blocking. Sometimes different monsters define what hero will do, duck, or block.
Anyway, this is not a Shadows site, so I will shut up about it.