Delterius
-
Posts
308 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Delterius
-
I am not asking if player freedom is important, I'm asking wether its more important than balancing game mechanics since you can pretend the 'exploitable' (which is a fallacy unto itself, since the player isn't exploiting anything, he's playing the game as it is: badly designed) parts don't exist. But back to the second question. When you died, did you fight that same battle or was there some cheesy, unbalanced 'skip the battle' button? Yes, that freedom is better than the alternative. And when I died, I fought the same battle. I really don't think I get your point. And what is the alternative? Repeating content because, Heaven's forbid, you made a bad decision? Well, you did fight those same battles more than once, didn't you? -
I am not asking if player freedom is important, I'm asking wether its more important than balancing game mechanics since you can pretend the 'exploitable' (which is a fallacy unto itself, since the player isn't exploiting anything, he's playing the game as it is: badly designed) parts don't exist. But back to the second question. When you died, did you fight that same battle or was there some cheesy, unbalanced 'skip the battle' button?
-
All of those examples are things you can simply not do if they bother you. Its very easy to just not reload if you fail a pickpocket attempt. I think we want to hear examples of the save system negatively influencing other design choices that you simply can't avoid. Personally, I felt like the classic infinity engine games were designed with no thought to the save system. You played the game and you saved when you wanted. They didn't leave out traps or pickpocketing because you could just save and reload to always get the desired result. It was very easily abused, but only if you chose to abuse it. I can't think of anything that was designed to make up for the save system. Do you believe this sort of player freedom should be a basic part of a game's design? Do you believe that any unbalanced and exploitable game mechanic isn't bad design simply because the player can pretend its not there? I think requiring players to repeat content that they have already gone through is worse design. Here's another question then: did you ever die in a IE game? I'm still waiting for the answer of my first question.
-
All of those examples are things you can simply not do if they bother you. Its very easy to just not reload if you fail a pickpocket attempt. I think we want to hear examples of the save system negatively influencing other design choices that you simply can't avoid. Personally, I felt like the classic infinity engine games were designed with no thought to the save system. You played the game and you saved when you wanted. They didn't leave out traps or pickpocketing because you could just save and reload to always get the desired result. It was very easily abused, but only if you chose to abuse it. I can't think of anything that was designed to make up for the save system. Do you believe this sort of player freedom should be a basic part of a game's design? Do you believe that any unbalanced and exploitable game mechanic isn't bad design simply because the player can pretend its not there?
-
Quite frankly, the discussion was predictable. In the end, it was bound to be about wether this is frustrating or challenging. In this level, whatever you can contribute is far too personal and its the call of the developer anyway. However, there are some arguments that I don't think hold ground. I'm not familiar with it, but I'm pretty sure the 80s PC games used save checkpoints (sometimes merely discouraging spam saving in the outside) and Save&Quit systems. And then the people you have issue with just save/quit and reload. Save&Quit is a common feature that deletes the save file when it is reloaded. This isn't really true, is it? I remember dying in those games.
-
That's my suggestion. Save&Continue when (relatively) safe and Save&Quit for dangerous areas. That also doesn't rule out saving in the middle of dungeons, provided the devs can find a good explanation for your (relative) safety. For one, Raise Dead isn't readily avaiable. And if it is, its because you had the forethought of memorizing some Raise spells - but even then that doesn't make it a infinite resource like save scumming. If Raise Dead isn't avaiable, something else is. Death might work like in DA:O; Death might work like in PS:T; but Death most certainly isn't going to be permanent (as a standard difficulty feature, that is). Regardless, save scumming is relevant to many more mechanics and features than companion death. Losing a companion isn't the only mistake you don't have to cope because saving and loading is convenient. Actually, you could say that there's no mistake that you don't have to deal with because saving is convenient. And I believe that makes saving too convenient. I do not believe anyone is exploting anything. I believe that the games were designed with the real possibility of Death and player mistakes in mind, but that its all negated by how saving is implemented. Again, second paraphraph of the original post.
-
I hate "raise dead". It's cheesy and implausible and removes nearly all the penalty from dying. In terms of making the game easy it's much worse than save scumming. Actually I'd like to propose that all versions of "raise dead" even at a temple are removed in expert mode. The whole mechanic is just silly. If that's what people mean by permadeath then I am all for permadeath. Raise dead has its penalties, financial and experience wise. Not to mention that to use Raise Dead, someone has to have died, which isn't the case with save scumming: if you think that removing the penalties for dying is a issue, then you should be against save scumming.
-
Yeah maybe with a COOLDOWN that only allows you to start the game after 10 minutes have passed. No seriously I don't think that would be a good idea. IMO restricting saves can easily lead to a frustrating experience. As an option maybe? Well, I think its weird when people deny a idea because it might be too frustrating. Once I even read one post, and I paraphrase, 'I'd much rather a hassle free and strategic experience'. For me that was weird: wouldn't the very need of strategy or forethought be a hassle? Of course, that's not the case if by tactics you're satisfied with Pokémon's element game. Mind you, that doesn't mean your question isn't legit because, in fact, I can't answer it. After all, aren't game mechanics are sorted 'frustrating' and 'challenging' is ascertained by testing? Raise dead.
-
Second paragraph. MInd you that my suggestion isn't a further limitation on top of ironmanning - it would add a new level of complexity to ironmanning, but only because the original game itself has become more complex. The original game would be less exploitable, but certainly not as hard as ironmanning itself is.
-
This. If this was a suggestion about improving another player's experience, sure. My way of playing the game isn't better than anyone else's. But these forums are about design. And what that implies goes without saying. I, personally, believe that save scumming can (and did) lead to bad design. And I believe this was the case in the Infinity Engine games. It cuts 'unnecessary' features quicker than Bethesda can 'balance' (read, cut major chunks) their games. You may disagree with me, which you're entitled to, but saying that people should play however they like isn't much of a argument and does not include 'playstyles' that end up negating the quality of game mechanics.
-
Character death loses it's meaning? Seriously? So if your penalty for dying is not to replay the entire game from the start then that makes dying worthless? Also, what wild mage? I haven't heard PE mention anything about a wild mage. Well, first things first: those examples are not from PE. They are from the IE games. Wild Mage is specific to Baldur's Gate, Rest ambushes and character death are specific to the Forgotten Realms games where you can resurrect a companion. But then again, you won't ever need to drag a companion's body to the altar because no one is going to die. You are going to save before every encounter and if things don't go smoothly, you are going to reload. And you won't even try to finish the adventure, not the entire game, with a casualty. If you're forced to go a couple of battles (again, not the entire game) without reloading, then things might get more interesting. And for added emphasys, you're confusing ironmanning with save scumming. Ironmanning is replaying the entire game because you died, save scumming is reloading the entire game after every little mistake. And that's why character death lost its meaning in the IE games, because its very likely you won't accept anyone's death. Lastly, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you must complete a entire dungeon without reloading. Its certainly a option, but not a ideal one.
-
There's a rather long list of game mechanics, ideas and even classes that lost their value in the IE games because save scumming was allowed. Character death, rest ambushes, the Wild Mage, etcetera. Furthermore, a player that can save scum isn't encouraged to make good decisions. If I could save and reload right before every pit during a Mario run, I wouldn't ever have bothered with trying to get better at the game. Of course, its not like save scumming doesn't have some value. You can design encounters around the idea of the player trying over and over again. But that's not necessarily the case.
-
I pose that, limiting the locations where the player may save, would greatly limit save scumming in general. Perhaps not anywhere in a dungeon, perhaps simply not in a dungeon - regardless, I believe that being able to save whenever and wherever causes gameplay to suffer. The value of randomness and risk is negated and the player is encouraged to deny his own choices (and, therefore, become strangely selective of what constitutes a 'fair' game or not). But of course, that causes another issue. What if someone happens and you've got to stop playing the game? Well, for that I suggest a second form of saving - a save&quit - that boots you from the game and can be used at any moment. Maybe even during combat. Feel free to flame me for this idea as much as you like, but I'm not selling this as gospel. I do question wether save scumming should be minimized or not, and would like to know what you think about it.
-
Preferably if it can't be exploited.
-
[Merged] Cooldown Thread
Delterius replied to Ieo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Yes, cooldowns are best as a in-battle mechanic in Action games such as MMOs. If people assumed that rest spamming was part of the game's design (and not a issue that wasn't fixed), they will also assume that waiting for their cooldowns to end between every battle is needed. -
[Merged] Cooldown Thread
Delterius replied to Ieo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Is it not acceptable when camping in a clearing of a forest/cave/dungeon filled with <insert monster type here> that some of them may regroup? Well, appearing monsters would be acceptable, I suppose, in most every circumstance where rest is actually relevant. After all, rest would only be relevant when you've got a certain (relatively high) number of encounters - which, I suppose, might as well as imply that the scenery is dangerous. I believe you can't blame the players for what was simply bad design. Rest should have been limited in the IE (hell, the D&D games in general) games, period. You can teabag/educate those same players who employ the bethesda line of thought (Vancian is terrible because of the rest spam). -
[Merged] Cooldown Thread
Delterius replied to Ieo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
I was describing circumstances that occur constantly in IE games. Dark Souls is an excellent game, but it also solves the problem in the opposite direction. It respawns creatures after rest, not on your way back to the campfire. This is also acceptable within the fiction of Dark Souls because it is quite close to being a world full of monsters and undead. This is not always the kind of area population that the BG/IWD games had. Well, I myself played BG/IWD and currently NwN2 (on blind playthroughs even) without rest spamming and never ran afoul of these circumstances. I could certainly go and rest (or, go back to a supposedly safer zone and rest), but then I wouldn't have to use all of my resources. Such as potions that I bought precisely because your 'inherent resources' (such as a Wizard's spellcasting) are limited throught a entire adventure (should rest be limited). Actually, I always thought that was how designers intended the game to be played. Sure, that would mean they were shy of making rest more punishing, but they sort of 'implied' it with (unfortunately mostly irrelevant) ambushes. -
[Merged] Cooldown Thread
Delterius replied to Ieo's topic in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
This is an interesting question but the basis of the "experience of walking back" being redundant assumes that the campsite and encounters are poorly placed via inept level design. The final point that everything is killed between you and the campsite lends me to believe you aren't thinking creatively about how to solve this at all, which is not encouraging. I'm going to use the example of quite simply the best old school feeling game that has been released in recent years, Dark Souls, as an example of how to do this right. Before you go on to say "this is an action game, not a cRPG" please be aware that the entire concept of the bonfires in DS is based upon PnP concepts of resting at only safe locations so it is entirely valid. The only thing that changes is the level and encounter design when going from aRPG to cRPG. DS also uses a memorization system of magic so that makes it even more relevant. Let me just say now right off the bat, Dark Souls handled resting perfectly in my opinion. Let's take a close look at how it works: Players can rest at bonfires, recharging their resources and memorizing new spells Bonfires are placed strategically throughout levels to avoid abuse Using bonfires comes at a cost - all the monsters in the area revive The third point here, is key. Turn resting into something that affects the game experience. For instance, time passes while resting and SOME monsters come back. Perhaps there are certain areas where super rare monsters only appear after resting at a campsite. You can mix this up with a day night cycle to really get some cool random stuff happening. DS also does something with magic that makes the player really think about when and how they are going to use spells. You get a certain number of uses of a particular magic. It's excellent as it encourages the player to really think about conserving certain spells for tough situations. Of course, you do not have to think about any kind of conservation when there are cool downs involved. You just wait and go onto the next encounter. The point is, that by focusing on the potentially boring experience of walking back to a campsite you are throwing a red herring into the discussion. Quite simply - you are focusing on the wrong thing. The innate gameplay benefits that having a system that encourages thought, strategic planning, and conservation while promoting real tension tension far outweigh the chance that walking back to a campsite is going to be slightly tedious. And, as I've already mentioned, if you think creatively you can even turn resting into a gameplay mechanic that provides new potential challenges/benefits to the player. This is very interesting. While its certainly possible to play the IE games without resting (as I did from the start), there might be a good reason why the developers didn't make resting more punishing, which I believe are all negated by DS's approach. The player won't run out of options and the run back to the 'safe area' won't ever get boring. I can certainly envision encounter and level design benefiting greatly from this, with the player tackling the adventure more and more like a puzzle. -
I tried not to use the rest feature but that was something me as a player did to restrict myself, not something the rules did, and so for the purposes of comparing systems I would not take it into account. From personal experience (I only recently played the IE games and refused to spam-rest from the start, no problems there) and taking into consideration that A) The Rules tried to limit resting (but were too shy about it) and B) The actual Vancian system (as in PnP) doesn't need to explicitly limit resting (the GM's going to make you suffer if he wants to), I'd say that's unwise.
-
Because for me, and many, many others the opposite is true. Well, I'd like less filler combat myself. Rather spend a few hours trying to solve a few encounters than kill 50 goons followed by a anti-climatic 'boss' battle.
-
Its weird how common this concern is voiced. Not only is the setting new, but its being developed especially for a CRPG series. The believability of a setting depends on it's internal consistency. If something doesn't fit with the way the rest of the setting has been set out then it will stick out like a sore thumb to me. It's precisely because they are building it from scratch that I would like to see them take the opportunity to build the best world they can, and as it's being built especially for cRPG I see that as more reason for them to try something new rather than go with the Vancian model. With regards to setting-building, you're preaching to the choir - though I'd like to point out its not hard at all to fit a magic system in a world's workings. As for the part of ditching the Vancian system, I disagree wholeheartedly. To me, the rules should be built around the lore, I find that not all magic systems work well in all settings and I tend to pick up on the dissonance when a magic system has been blagged into a setting. I don't see why you wouldn't want to see a new system, the Vancian system is not perfect and trying out alternate systems would be good. To me, new rules should be built around the lore. But when neither rules or lore have been estabilished, then you make good rules first and build the lore around it. Though it seems Obsidian has a older vision for the lore than it did for the rules, it is still time to adjust both to each other. Regardless, magic systems are amongst the most easily justifiable things. Discussions about the internal consistency of settings generally revolve around other things. And why I'd prefer the Vancian system? Well, its both strategic and tactical as opposed to pretty much everything else. All they need to do is implement a decent rest system (that keeps you from resting in every encounter) and voilá.
-
You're spamming over the course of the adventure. Well there's nothing wrong with mages actually doing something all of the time. That would make Mages and non-Mages (ideally) equally useful in every encounter. As opposed to the IE games, where well placed spellcasting (in mid-lower game, since in higher levels things are different) could and would save your party almost single-handely. I highly doubt that in your system, you'll have something like Sleep, that triggers instant kills out of most everything for its level. Try not doing that. Unfortunately, the games were shy of really punishing you for being obtuse, but they were still designed around rational resting - and they gain actual quality if you don't exploit the weak ambushes.
-
You're spamming over the course of the adventure, not necessarily during the entirety of a encounter but you're spellcasting during every encounter. If Magic is limited for a entire day, then you won't just 'carefully' choose who to buff with each given spell (which ends up being a obvious choice, regardless), but rather when to buff - if at all.
-
Finish it again, then. =p
-
Its weird how common this concern is voiced. Not only is the setting new, but its being developed especially for a CRPG series. The believability of a setting depends on it's internal consistency. If something doesn't fit with the way the rest of the setting has been set out then it will stick out like a sore thumb to me. It's precisely because they are building it from scratch that I would like to see them take the opportunity to build the best world they can, and as it's being built especially for cRPG I see that as more reason for them to try something new rather than go with the Vancian model. With regards to setting-building, you're preaching to the choir - though I'd like to point out its not hard at all to fit a magic system in a world's workings. As for the part of ditching the Vancian system, I disagree wholeheartedly.
