Jump to content

Wombat

Members
  • Posts

    1063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wombat

  1. First, it seems to me that I have to clear that I don't have clear vision of what CRPG should be different from some people here. However, I don't agree with J.E. Sawyer at the point that strategy or tactical element is not appropriate to computer games since he is definitely ignoring the fact that some of tactical/strategy games are alive and kicking even now. We simply don't see its combination with RPG. I understand it is because of popularity but not because of defects of system itself since it doesn't explain why some strategy titles are still popular. Learn-by-doing system was originally from Chaosium's Basic Role-Playing system. Also, the multi-cultural backgrounds of Morrowind remind me of old Chaosium settings, where Ken Rolston worked. Especially, "Live Another Life in Another World" motto attracted even sim fans. There are many more factors in tabletop RPGs than what you can see in D&D. Not so many in that respect, which is why I continued on the argument as "general RPG systems". The number of character matters. More characters/equipments mean more choices in this kind of game. In fact, in NWN2, I was often frustrated by forgetting to keep a stealth character in the party. My party needed to go back to the bar or the keep to change party members. If the developers allow players to choose characters in each map (or series of maps, if it is the design decision of the designer), then, it would have been more convenient. Since the main game-play in tactical games is resource-management and deciding general actions I would like the designers to maximize the fun elements and reduce the nuisances. Either way, "a" character has to undertake the stealth action. The high-level tactical gameplay involved doesn't give the stealth game aspect a free pass to use a randomized mechanic. And in Commandos, it was a more direct stealth experience. You saw sound ripples from your characters, saw vision cones from the enemies. You had to time your movements and take actions based on these elements. Despite the view, this still has a lot more in common with Splinter Cell and Thief than it does with Baldur's Gate or Fallout, where click button = roll dice to hide. Probably, a better example would have been Silent Storm but the problem here is that I only played the demo. At least, as far as a single character stealth mission goes, I surely find the stealth element is too much on the skill of stealth character and, as you say, "proximity" produced by that: when the concealment is broken, I needed to reload. There is no option for any better risk management. Even worse, if I keep the character in stealth, the chance of being revealed becomes higher as time passes - this makes proximity almost necessity - This is a bad design decision. At least I don't see a point of single character stealth missions. However, if I use stealth characters as a part of team tactics, where I can disperse risks so that I can deal with a few "bad lucks," things worked well. As I wrote before, dealing with "proximity" is a part of the game-play in this kind of tactical games. If the designers don't give players options of maximizing their tactics, (in this case, by limiting controllable character to one character), then, they don't know how things work in this kind of game. This is why I think the problem is rather about implementation than an innate problem of stats-based "proximity". I understand the frustration - the article doesn't tell much about the definitions. The details seem to be confidential. In fact, I think you are comparing Deus Ex column with Thief's one...please check the order. "Warfare" is an easier piece of the puzzle since Deus Ex lets the players use heavy weapons against massive robots, for example. That is what I meant by "When you are found out, you are out." I think the problem is just about expression here. A miss or a simple bad luck claims more from Garret than Sam. However, I think this kind of "proximity" worked quite well in the series. Of course, this must have been different if there were no reload "function," though. Kill or not, in Thief, you are confined into stealth actions, rightfully for that game but it is just an element in RPG. I wonder if I need to repeat that I think you are mixing up a lot of elements here.
  2. They can only maximize their tactics if they have the ability to directly influence the outcome. Most D&D skill checks don't really allow for much of that. Take picking a lock on a door. You can raise your Dex with a potion or spell, or you can use masterwork lockpicks, but there's really nothing else you can do to change the fact that the major component determining success or failure is a randomized number between 1 and 20. I am not willing to defend D&D system (You keep talking of D&D but there are various original systems even in tabletop RPG.) but, in general RPG systems, probably the character should be more skilled in different areas, which enables his/her party to deal with the situation, which is, even if you have no single character with a high picking skill in your party. I said resource management but this includes "human"(character?) resource management as well. These are a part of maximizing tactics and game-play in tactical games. Why are tactical RPG players unhappy with restricting control on PC, you think? It robs them of game-play of party management. In tabletop sessions, you are unlikely play as a party (except you are playing for missing members) and CRPG was already developed in a different way. Why? Do you think that the environments in "stealth action" games like Splinter Cell aren't interactive puzzles? Yes. I have been talking of differences and not about which is superior to which. They are different types of puzzles from what is expected in party-based "bird view" tactical simulation games. In fact, my criticism on your previous post is about the point where you mixed up essences in different genres (Reading your new post, I've got an impression that you are still comparing party-based tactical simulation games with single-player stealth action games too directly). The puzzles should be different in 1st person action game and 3rd person party-based tactical one. If you played old Comandos, you may well get the idea of possible puzzle essences in bird view tactical games. You use stealth characters to lure/bypass/destruct hostile NPCs and deploy assault characters for backups, where random factors shines. This is the reason why I wrote the maps should be designed as interactive puzzles emphasizing fun factors, which, however, doesn't necessary mean that I think the maps of action games have no puzzle essences. You can certainly be discovered and still continue the game in Thief. In fact, you can kill pretty much anyone/everyone in most levels if you want. You can also selectively take people out of you want to. As long as you hide the bodies well, you're good to go. The Thief designers developed an extensive perception system so that AI was not omniscient and did not automatically detect cries for help from allies. And just like Sam Fisher can select his load-out at the beginning of each mission with a stealth or assault load in mind, so too could Garret in the very first Thief. Well, to be honest, that's totally different from my style and probably I missed something. However, there are hostiles which cannot be gotten rid of in Thief series and, generally speaking, Garrett is often described as "puny" when compared with Sam Fisher. There is a more professional analysis on this topic. I wonder if Obsidian hires static analysis company but I think some of bigger companies must be doing something like this. There are too many games to play and they must need more statistical analysis to organize subjective opinions. In any case, if you haven't read this already old article, please read it or, if you have read it, take a look at the figure 3 on page 3, where you see comparison of four stealth games: Splinter Cell, Deus Ex, Metal Gear (Solid and Acid) and Thief. "Attacking" has the lowest score but, at the same time, the differences are relatively small like you wrote. However, rather than backing up my point, I'd rather like to hear your opinion about the analysis. My point is that when you have a GM, a GM can adapt to whatever goofy stuff you try to do. This is why tabletop experiences can be fun in spite of the fact that you're just rolling dice to simulate everything. A computer simulates exactly what it is made to simulate. Truly "randomized" simultations that are based on a number give terrible feedback and give the player less control over influencing the outcome of any given contest. Then, a clearer example would have been an open-dice session. However, computers have reload function if things were messed up only because of the randomization. You say you have less control because of the randomized factor but you have more control on the stats of characters. Some tactical RPG fans are unhappy with real-time micromanagement since they don't regard these physical manipulation as a fun game-play. Simply, they are different types of controls, means, whether you have control on each action of a character or more generalized action and resource management of characters. If you are unhappy with proximity, you could remove all the randomness from "rule-sets" but this would be an unpopular game design decision. Nobody would be happy with total randomization but a spoonful of randomness is a different story. As I wrote in my previous post, this is a game-balance issue rather than a defect in mechanism. Haven't you played games outside of action games recently, have you? A part of Oblivion's success is that it gathered people from various genres such as action games, SP/MMORPG and even sims. We know what is fun for ourselves but as a professional game designer, isn't it important for you to know what is/can be fun for other people? Even if you wouldn't like to play other games, you can still listen to other designers and look into statistics. Anyway, you must be talking of the coordination between what offered by modern psychics engines and "rule-set" simulation. Means, what you see and hear can be different from the outputs of "ruleset". Indeed, the difference becomes hardly ignorable in first person view. I haven't played Hitman but I don't know why developer made disguise-check based on "rule-set" while it is a near-first person action game with a predefined character. In fact, many people complained of the believability of stealth in VtM. You probably need someone specialized in the job like Emil Pagilarulo (as you probably know, a Thief II designer hired by Bethesda for Oblivion, in which he designed stealth in general and the series of Dark Brotherhood faction-based scenario.) in order to make stealth believable when making a (near) first person action RPG, where character stats and intuitive believability need to be come together. You know you don't see such kind of information even in Fallout. In fact, NPC interaction showed almost no progress or even digress thinking of Oblivion. BTW, talking of NPC interactions, I heard SC: Double Agent has a newly implemented faction-based reaction system but I don't have time to put my hands on it.
  3. If tactical games are cleared by simply reloading, it is the problem of balancing - not the game-play itself. Of course, trough trial and error, the players should maximize their tactics like they improve physical manipulation in action games. In a stat-heavy CRPG with "a bird view," I'd rather want to see more tactical aspect of stealth. For example, the skill would work better in darker places even if character's level is low and the players need to think which is the safer route for their characters. This would make maps and NPCs on them as interactive puzzles. What players need to do is to decide which route their characters should take for the best bet. Of course, the game-play is more of resource management and deployment like in computer tactical simulation games, which is undoubtedly the kin of this type of "RPG". Comparing stealth in this kind of game with that of action stealth game is rather awkward. As for your argument on Oblivion and other games, you mixed up a lot of aspects ranging from fixed/customizable character, learn-by-doing/experience point, real-time/turn-based and (near) first-person view/a bird view system. For example, even in Oblivion, it is tough to go stealth if you haven't developed your character in that way. Thief? You have already chosen stealth character when you bought the game. If you are found out, you are out - you need reload. This type of stealth heavy action game had difficulty in adding variety of game-plays, which probably lead to the demise of Deadly Shadows. This is why some more popular implementation of stealth action games are more forgiving like Splinter Cell, where you can normally choose assault or stealth anytime when you feel it fits your style. This can only be done well when the developers took balance really carefully. Reading this article, I think at least you need to talk with developers of stealth action games about the mechanism... Of course, (near) first person-view and real-time interaction would be good for immersion and I understand its popularity but why should you mix up things in a so unorganized manner? Also, I think your logic doesn't hold water about computer vs human GM. It must be much more difficult for computers to replace human GM in NPC reactions rather than in action scene you described. In fact, it was not physical but psychological reaction of the NPC what Mr.Beach did well in his GM session. So, the example is rather weakens your point. That said, however, I agree with you at that the computer RPG doesn't need follow the mechanic of PnP RPG since a mere physical simulation doesn't make any type of role-playing game. Likewise, even if the physical simulation is replaced by computer-based one, it is still possible to make an RPG. In fact, Fallout is not a mere tactical simulation game but an RPG which enables players to make "meaningful choices with regards to their character and role in the story. For me, it's just a question of if Obsidian could do much better than what Troika did with VtM. Sorry to post rather critical comment on your brand new blog and good luck on your work.
×
×
  • Create New...