PrimeJunta

"One or two things," huh? I didn't like - the antagonist - the supporting characters - the companions - the dialog - the visuals - the music - the quests - the combat - the voice acting - the "humor" - the AD&D game system In short, I didn't like a damn thing about it that isn't inherent to the Infinity Engine, which I do like. Clear? I'm not finding Icewind Dale particularly hard so far. I mean yes, you do need to play tactically a bit instead of just wading in and hoping, but it's certainly no harder than BG. (At Core Rules difficulty.) Of course you can compare them. They're characters. They're written and, to an extent, acted. They can be written well, or poorly, whether they're comic, tragic, dramatic, or something else. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is a dopey comic character that's written extremely well. Minsc... not so much.

But I didn't like it before it was cool!

I've gone on something of a slow-motion IE game binge lately. I really only got on the D&D cRPG train with Neverwinter Nights, and had only played Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape: Torment. Now I've re-played PS:T and finally gotten around to the original Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale. Only starting with the latter at this point, but still. Impressions. Not including digressions on AD&D and its viability as a game system here; that would be another topic. Baldur's Gate is the biggest disappointment since The Phantom Menace. There's literally nothing I like about it. The combat is a repetitive, slogging chore, the dialog with its godawful pseudo-medievalese feels like it was written by a somewhat dim 14-year-old, the humor would only be funny if you were that 14-year-old's stoner friend, the characters are irritating and dopey, the voice acting is uninspired, the music irritating and forgettable, the scenery is repetitive, generic, and unimaginative, and the quests are generic. The gameplay overall feels like neverending busywork, do-this, do-that, but mostly just trek around and save and load a lot. Yech. Awful. I hope P:E takes nothing at all from that turd. I mean seriously people, this, a classic FFS? And yeah, I do remember Baldur's Gate 2 being much, much better. Perhaps I'll return to it eventually. Planescape: Torment on the other hand is even better than I remembered it. Perhaps because this time I remembered enough to be able to roll up a character set up to make the most of it, and then could just let go and enjoy the ride. It's constantly surprising, delighting, and amazing me. It does the exact opposite of what you'd expect, all the time. Every item, character, and location feels hand-crafted with attention and love. Music that's haunting, atmospheric, And the story! Gods below, the story! Walls of text, yes, and perhaps there are better ways of telling that story in a visual medium than just making you read a lot, but wow. And the combat wasn't nearly as bad as I remembered, either, although definitely not a high point of the game either. (Un)balance issues aside, its greatest failing is the lead-up to the endgame -- Sigil is truly inspired from start to finish, but from Curst onward it starts to fall flat. The final scenes int the game are a wonderful finale, but getting there becomes a slog again. What would I have P:E take home from PS:T? That inspired feel. I don't know if that's even possible, but that. The feeling that the people who made it are constantly bursting with new cool things to do to, and with, the player. Icewind Dale: Now this is a surprise. I had heard it described as one big extended D&D dungeon crawl, which sounded like it didn't really appeal to my tastes, but hey, I'm really liking it. It is one big extended dungeon crawl, so far at least, but it's one hell of a fun one. And it's a really beautiful game. Even at low levels -- where I am now -- the combat has a degree of variety, things have been tweaked so that it is actually possible to play tactically, even if the tactics are fairly rudimentary like setting up a simple ambush and luring the beasties into it, and... yeah, that feeling of inspiration that's so sorely lacking in BG but is present in PS:T is back. I did not really expect to like this much, but it's actually really good. Once I finish this, perhaps I'll try ToEE -- that's another one I haven't played because it's "just a dungeon crawl" but if IWD is this much fun, that ought to be too. What should P:E take from IWD? A great deal. The consistent, hand-made, sufficiently original, and beautiful visuals. The tactically interesting combat that isn't a chore. Basically take a modernized version of IWD, add a plot hook that's a little bit deeper than "you're sitting around in a bar dreaming of the future when the mayor offers you a job," and make it a leetle less of a corridor, with some hub-and-spoke areas rather than a straight sequence (it is a straight sequence, right? or does it open up later?), and we're good. Summary? It's striking how different these games are, even though they're all in the same engine and all use the same basic ruleset and the basic system is so similar between them that you can easily jump from one to another. That, I think, is the real strength of the Infinity Engine -- it's a platform that just takes care of a lot of the boring computer stuff and lets the gamemakers focus on snagging the player's imagination instead, in whatever way you see fit. If the gamemakers have the skills, talent, vision, and passion for that, marvelous things emerge; if not, there will be boredom. The most promising thing about P:E is that Obsidian wants to make it. That bodes well.

Whoo, degenerashun again. I really don't get it: why do some people WANT breakable, exploitable mechanics? Makes no sense to me. But then some people love classic British sports cars and I'm assured a big part of the appeal is that it's a challenge to get the oil pressure, temperature, and electrical system all working, at the same time. Just seems kind of perverse to me. Anyway. I think this, like so many other things, depends on the context. If gold is very powerful in the game -- e.g., it buys the most powerful items, or buys powerful items much earlier than you could find similarly-powerful items by adventuring -- then having unlimited quantities of it available will make the game more difficult to balance, so it makes sense to limit it in some way. On the other hand, if gold is only moderately useful, limiting it will only be perceived as an annoyance. And finally, you can build up entire systems around gold and trading, which can be fun and rewarding in and of themselves. Systems will inevitably mean mechanics, and mechanics mean limitations. For example, different prices at different traders and different locations, some traders only buying some goods some of the time, prices changing over time, limited inventories, loot disappearing (=being scavenged by someone else) if you don't pick it up quickly, and so on. I'm against limitations and complexity for their own sake. I'm for limitations and complexity used to create systems which make for challenging and engaging gameplay. In my opinion it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about a specific mechanic -- such as limited gold -- outside the context of the system in which it's supposed to operate.

Also, I am going to have to make a combat mage who specializes in debuffs, and name him Barkley. Because he jams and slams.

Oh yes. Very much yes. We are actually going to see melee fighters who are able to control space and block movement. This thing alone will make combat leaps and bounds better than any tactical cRPG so far. Favorite update so far.

I'm afraid I can't really be more specific, because there isn't anything specific I dislike about it, other than the wonky proportions/anatomy that I already mentioned. It just felt pedestrian and unimaginative, especially compared to some of the P:E concept art that's already out -- I really liked Orlock Holmes and Sagani, to name two. How would I have done it? Dunno, I haven't really given it much thought. Maybe I'd either have gone for way more over the top, or much subtler. Think Elric of Melniboné, or Mazikeen from the Lucifer comics, or something like that. But whatever it is, that ain't it.

Interesting update. Liked the technical stuff. On the critique side, the godlike concept doesn't do it for me. The proportions and anatomy seem just... off, rather than alien or godlike. Also maybe a bit too much tiefling-aasimar-genasi for my blood; I was expecting something a hair more original. Perhaps it'll turn out better as things get fleshed out though.

This inspired me to give Arcanum another go. This time as a nearly pure diplomat (just spamming Harm for XP), a gnome named Arsène Lutin, Charlatan's Protegé. And... meh. I like the little guy in his smoking jacket and top hat and all, but I still can't get engaged with the game. There must be something wrong with me, because I should like everything about it (except the combat which is atrocious), but I just ... don't. The place feels empty, lackluster. I just can't give a spit about the characters and quests and objectives. So, once again, I let it drop somewhere between levels 10 and 15. It just doesn't do it for me. I was getting worried that maybe I'm just jaded about gaming itself. So I started Planescape: Torment, for the first time in, what, ten years or so. And I'm hooked from the moment I get off that slab. I've forgotten most of the details by now so I can enjoy it almost as if it was fresh, but still remember some tricks of making it enjoyable. And with the widescreen mod, I'm really impressed by the visuals -- I thought they were a bit meh the first time I played, but that was clearly just because I couldn't properly see them. The combat isn't nearly as awful as I remembered either, or perhaps the sheer horror of Arcanum's made me feel better about it. Go figure. I hope MCA gets more out of it than I do. He certainly pushed my buttons with PS:T.

/me checks in This thread still going? /me flips through a couple of pages Oh. Carry on... PS. Raszius is a class act. That avi is unfair, though. Who's gonna argue with Keldorn? PPS. Ceterum censeo, delendam sunt pugna punctorum experientiae.

@MuseBreaks, good thing for you the great majority of games cater to your tastes then.

What do I think has changed most in programming over the past 30 years? Tools. In 1983, toolkits and libraries with high-level prepackaged things were just starting to emerge. So whatever you were doing, you'd have to start from very basic things. You'd be re-inventing wheels every time you go. This has changed completely. Nowadays by far the most code is written against high-level libraries that package very complex things behind simple-to-use interfaces. So if you're designing a user interface, you won't have to start by designing a "menu" or "input field." You'll just pick the one you want -- say, a date input field with a dropdown calendar which formats the date according to the locale and lets you set or get the value as a Date object -- from the framework you're using. You'll only resort to low-level "old-school" programming where it's absolutely needed, for example to open up bottlenecks that slow down your program, or in specialized teams that do work close to the hardware -- drivers, kernels, some embedded systems and such. The principles and practices are still the same, though. Almost all of Alan J. Perlis's epigrams are just as applicable now as they were when he wrote them.

A road to deeper immersion. If the option of going back to a previous save isn't there, I don't think about it. Less metagame thinking -> better experience. Always assuming the game isn't so difficult that going ironman is not practically feasible on a first playthrough.

@Wirdjos, nope, not sarcasm. I was being serious. I'm only objecting to the very common and very lazy game design where there's no way to know how to win against an enemy or a particular encounter except through trial and error, by playing it through multiple times.

@Alexjh, no, there's a third way, and you and @Wirdjos just described it -- give the player enough information that if he's paying attention he won't innocently get himself killed. Players who aren't paying attention have it coming, of course.

@maggotheart, design for save-and-reload has to be executed and buried at a crossroads with a stake through its heart. It's a lazy way to add the illusion of challenge where it adds nothing but frustration.

I can't think of too many ways in which diseases would contribute anything meaningful to the game. If disease is just another relatively short-duration status effect, then yeah fine I guess, but that's about as exciting as catching a cold. OTOH if it's genuinely scary (think plague, mummy rot, leprosy, cancer) then it's most likely just another trigger for ragequit and/or revert-to-previous save. The only positive would be to make plague zombies (or whatever) that much scarier. There are some specific circumstances where it could work. Becoming infected with something and having to get the cure is a legit quest hook, and having to beat the clock because the disease is progressing adds urgency. Or, alternatively, having someone else become infected and having to get the cure and beat the clock to save them. If done well, that can make for some good gameplay, even if it's a bit of a cliché already. (Morrowind much?) But that wouldn't be a systemic feature; it's a scripted one. So I'd vote nay on disease. Do something more fun instead. Curses, lycanthropy, mutation, whatever.

I would hate to be tasked to write these and all the reactions to them. It would be mind-numbingly dull, which I think would affect the quality of the writing. I prefer a more free-form approach with a mix of different tones and responses as contextually appropriate. You could internally flag these with personality traits you're tracking, though, and then create some nice mechanics around those -- for example if you have a reputation of being a mean, surly type of person, suddenly picking a kind, compassionate response could have a bigger impact. Or there was the great "curse" idea where a curse would gradually whittle away your kind, compassionate options until you only have the balls-to-the-wall evil ones left. But yeah, systematizing it like you suggest does sound like a bad idea. Huge chore for the writers with relatively small pay-off. Depending on how you set up the UI, it could also add another layer to selecting those options which would interfere with the flow of conversation.

But Isabel necessary on a bicycle?

Okay, in light of today's update... Name: Reywas Alias: The Equalizer Portfolio: Armorsmiths, balance, and fairness Enemies: Cheaters, degenerates, and Hülm, the god of wine Symbol: Two spoked wheels connected with a triangle Manifestation: Defeated warriors and laborers engaged in repetitive, tedious work will occasionally encounter a slight, tattooed, bearded man balancing on a device consisting of two wheels connected with a triangle. He will gently admonish them about more interesting life choices and, for defeated warriors, offer suggestions on proper choice of weapons when fighting enemies of particular types. A mortal following his advice will always succeed in his or her, or hir next endeavor. An armorsmith calling Reywas's name while forging a suit of armor may find it blessed with additional protection against a particular damage type.

I have a thing for Tibetan dharmapalas. One of 'em, Palden Lhamo, was the wife of an evil king of Lanka. He was bringing up their child as the destined final destroyer of the Dharma. After spending years trying to convince them to change their mind, she did what any decent person would do: killed her child, drank his blood out of his skull, ate his flesh, flayed him, tanned the hide to make a saddle blanket, and rode off on a white mule. The king got a little bit irate about that and tried to shoot her with a poisoned arrow, but hit the mule instead. She plucked out the arrow, and an eye opened where it hit. She is now the protector of all Buddhist governments, specifically the Dalai Lama's one. If P:E has anything remotely as badass as that, I'll be happy. Sadly I'm not creative enough to make stuff like that up meself.

Call of Cthulhu. Your numbers go up by learning something. You learn something by studying, being taught, or practice in the field. Every time one of these things happens you roll d100; if you beat your current skill level, you add d4 to d8 points (sometimes even more) to your skill. IMO works better than XP in PnP gaming where you have a GM to prevent players from gaming the system. Would be tricky to translate to a cRPG without ending up in Oblivion-ville. The Storyteller system awards character points for plot progression directly without the intermediary of XP. So instead of adventure -> XP -> gain level -> points to spend improving your character, you get adventure -> points. Higher-level skills cost more character points to buy. At higher levels this ends up feeling a lot like an XP system though because you need to collect several character points to materially improve even a single skill. Works very well, but with a very different feel -- in CoC you progress organically based on your actions; in Storyteller you progress based on explicit choices about where to put those character points. VtM:B used Storyteller as the basis. Personally I prefer XP-less and classless systems. Class, XP, and level just add unnecessary complexity without adding depth; in PnP it's also a bit of a chore to level up characters, especially if they level up at different times (and no, my players don't usually do this as homework even if they mean to -- some of them have lives). Awarding character points directly cuts out this complication while retaining all of the freedom and depth players have to develop their characters. In practice a Storyteller-like system with additional awards to specific skills for study/practice works best. IMO as always. And yes, I do realize that doing away with classes, levels, and XP would have been too radical a departure from P:E's IE roots that it was very unlikely to start with, so I ain't complaining that they kept them. If a trivial change to the way XP is awarded causes this much anxiety, I can only imagine the howls if they had tried to do something genuinely innovative.

It does affect the bouquet, but whether it makes it better, worse, or just different is a matter of taste. Which do you prefer, Cabernet or Shiraz? I also share your dislike of combat in VtM:B -- it was awful; click-spammy, unbalanced, frustrating. Just plain bad.

@Raszius: it's about the why of those numbers. There are games where the numbers going up are the game, more or less. Roguelikes, MMO's, the Diablo series, arguably some of the more dungeon-crawly of the IE series (the IWD's, ToEE). Then there are games where the numbers are a means to an end. There are numbers and they go up, for sure, and as they go up, you get stronger. But that's not all they're about. The numbers interact with the rest of the game to determine your place in an imagined world, and the imprint you leave on it. I'd put Fallout, PS:T, BG2, MotB, the KOTOR's, and VtM:B in this category. They're games that are about something, and the system is just a way to hold whatever they're about. In general, I prefer that kind of game. So the way I read Ffordeson's intent, and the way I feel about this stuff, is that I prefer games where the system -- the numbers that go up -- are of instrumental value only. They're the vessel that holds the wine. A crystal goblet won't make rotgut any more palatable, and a fine wine will be good even drunk from a cracked clay mug. This is also why I think the most important feature of the game system is that it makes the lives of the vintners as easy as possible; lets them pour in the kind of wine they want to make. That's the main reason (although there are others) I'm firmly in the "placed XP" camp: it's way easier to tune than any form of "systemic XP" and so makes it easier for them to make us a better wine.

You only need one cat. They absorb psychic imprints like you wouldn't believe. Practically live on them. Well-known fact.