Ffordesoon

@Malekith: I agree, although high difficulty (as defined here: " ") is something I value quite a bit as a player. But I do wish more games would focus on being fun to play first and foremost. @Infinitron: I would agree that guys who hit really hard are a crucial component of difficulty, but if all your game has is guys who hit really hard, you've created what the video above defines as a punishing game, not a difficult one. If the player can both grasp and trust the rules and tools laid out before them, then your game is difficult.

There is also the concept of "failing forward," which I find intriguing. As Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo write in the 13th Age Core Book: I'm not advocating for this argument, necessarily, but it is interesting.

@Stun: They weren't "littered with bad gameplay." They were littered with design decisions that didn't work as intended, just like every game. PoE will be no exception, I'm sure. And some of those design decisions will work out better than expected, and some will work out worse than expected. The IE games worked, and continue to work, in spite of their puzzling and/or frustrating quirks, because they were wonderful games overall. And I would say most of the changes are honestly closer to Pathfinder, which has been largely embraced by the old-school fans of D&D, and currently reigns unchallenged at the top of the tabletop pops.

I think The Witcher is a good game to draw from in this aspect. The preparation should be in learning which enemies are weak against which types of damage/spells/etc. The BG series already did this in the manuals to some extent, so it would hardly be blasphemous if PoE were to let you learn in-game that, to use a D&D exampIe, trolls regenerate health and are most likely to be killed using fire and acid attacks. I would like to see it not be as linear as The Witcher in terms of alternate approaches to encounters, though. One of the things that is nice about the way BG did things is that you have so many tactical options in how you approach encounters. Whereas in The Witcher, learning about monsters translated far too often in practice to "Which sword do I use?" and "Which oil does this book say I should use?" Which is fine, but that's the end of the tactical consideration for most fights in that game. Where BG went wrong, I think, is in having too many encounters you could brute force your way through (especially if you had enough buffs stacked before a battle), and in communicating what to do instead in a fight that requires more tactical foresight. Weirdly, both Dragon Ages had this problem, too, though to a far lesser extent. It changes the game flow; instead of every encounter being challenging, you have ten sit-back-and-mow-'em-down encounters followed by one encounter where you have to reload five times to figure out how to solve the murder puzzle. Those end up feeling more like speedbumps than challlenges, because it's Diablo for ten encounters, and then suddenly, jarringly snaps back to a That One F***ing Guy encounter, with no in-between. I've been playing Bravely Default, and although the game has plenty of problems and is a totallly different sort of game, combat has a great flow to it. Regular enemies are brute-forceable, but it's exceedingly rare that you'll find one which doesn't cast some kind of irritating debuff that ends up costing you in the long run. Grinding is never quite snoozeworthy in the game*, because you're always being presented with a different set of long-term problems that make encounters interesting. This then prepares you for the toughest enemies, who often cast multiple debuffs and buff themselves multiple times. * - FULL DISCLOSURE: I have a high tolerance for JRPG grinding.

@Fatback: Actually, if you hadn't flown off the handle, I would have mentioned that I play just about everything released, Dota 2 included, and that it is worth looking at in terms of copping tactical mechanics. The Infinity Engine did start out as an RTS engine, after all. Furthermore, had you stayed your tongue but a moment, you might have learned that some people who frequent these boards have a more liberal definition of the term "RPG," myself included. While I wouldn't call Dota 2 an RPG, I would call a lot of things - including things I don't like, such as MMOs - RPGs. I would in a pinch even call The Sims an RPG, in fact, and that's arguably more "out there" than calling Dota 2 an RPG! You might also have learned that many of us - again, myself included - are acutely conscious of the mechanical deficiencies of the Infinity Engine games we love so much, and are absolutely open to a more tactical, in-the-moment experience. But instead of reaching across the aisle, you chose to throw an ugly little temper tantrum because one person didn't immediately agree with your conception of what an RPG is. That's just as bad as the worst actions of those you have demonized. I recommend taking a look in the mirror, friend.

I agree. If it's the RPS article I *think* we're talking about, his only real complaint (aside from the stuff you mentioned) was that the quests that he got to see were "standard fare". He cited a nobleman at a bar who was looking for his daughter, and a cemetery that had a ghoul like creature who was lamenting about its plight and asking for help.I'm not sure what he was expecting. He was given a pre-alpha demo of the first couple of hours of the game. Did he expect to be instantly tossed into an earth-shaking, super dynamic, faction-changing, branching quest line that early on? The *good* games don't do that. They ease you in gradually. As it stands, that entire article did nothing but make me more excited about the game! Well, that's the problem with previewing any game. You can either take the devs' promises at face value and report on them, in which case you'll be accused of shilling, or you can report on what you actually saw, in which case you'll be accused of being overly critical. You can't win. An RPG of this nature poses special problems. Show someone the first thirty minutes of Baldur's Gate, and they'll come away thinking it's about a kid who grows up in a library and talks to dudes in green robes. Show 'em the first thirty minutes of BG2, and they'll think it's about escaping some weird dude's dungeon. First thirty minutes of Divine Divinity makes you think "Diablo clone," or, if you're generous, "weirdly ambitious Diablo clone." Games like PoE are straight-up bad at conveying the totality of their scope in half an hour. And that's exactly what we love about them, which makes it infinitely more problematic. Publishers want games journalists to be psyched after thirty minutes, so they water down RPGs until they're things which can be comprehended in thirty minutes. It's a diseased system.

Who are you talking about, besides Nathan Grayson of Rock Paper Shotgun? I don't think he was unimpressed, or even "not very impressed." He just said that, for him, it wasn't as immediately impressive as Wasteland 2, and that the combat he was shown looked basic. That's not "unimpressed," that's "I was impressed, but I have some reservations." Which is fair enough. And yes, I'll gladly cop to being an RPS fanboy, but I would think it's lame to take three or four sentences in a very long article out of context even if we were talking about an IGN article. @Infinitron: I enjoyed The Rock. It makes absolutely zero sense, and it's still a Michael Bay movie with all the requisite Michael Bay beats and tics, but it's fun enough. Because Nicolas Cage. Speaking of Nicolas Cage, Drive Angry is an infinitely better "Nicolas Cage being Nicolas Cage in a role only Nicolas Cage would take" movie. I still want a sequel.

To the surprise of nobody who's ever read one of my posts anywhere on the entire internet, I agree completely. Also, as someone who reads/listens to as much of the dialogue in a game as possible, no matter how stupid, I greatly appreciate Josh's stance on that issue. Writing dialogue for people who hate dialogue leads to bad dialogue, period, end of story. It's like making all movies for the guy who won't sit still unless EXPLOSIONS SHOUTING EXPLOSIONS AMERICA is happening constantly. And that's how we get Michael Bay movies.

@Lephys: Infinitron is right, I believe. I think the approach PoE's taking is more similar to the original Deus Ex's approach than anything dice-based. Which is fine by me, since failing a lockpick check is only fun/interesting in PnP, and Deus Ex's system is my absolute favorite lockpicking system ever in anything. @Infinitron: Ah. Well, now you know my opinion on a thing you weren't talking about, you lucky fella!

My feeling is that it should depend on the context of the check, and that, for dialogue checks, NPCs should remember failure. Which doesn't necessarily change the fact that you can succeed, but changes the nature of that success, in terms of flavor if nothing else. Simple example: the old "trying to pass a guard and get into a city" chestnut. You walk up to the guard, he says nobody's allowed into the city. You try to pull the old "These are not the droids you 're looking for" bit, but your Charisma isn't high enough to bring it off successfully. So the dude's like, "Yeah-huh, whatever, smartass." You can come back later and try again, as it's ultimately a low-pressure, non-time-sensitive check, but maybe the guy's like, "Look, I told you..." And then you get the option to force a purse of gold into his hands. Now, maybe that was already an option, but because you thought you could be Rico Suave the first time, you didn't take it, raising the requirements for success next time. Maybe you have to use the equivalent of Charm Person now, should you not be inclined to pay up. But, like, with vanilla Lockpicking checks, you should be able to retry those as many times as you have lockpicks for, because there's no chance a chest is going to get pissed off at you for not picking it correctly, or whatever. That seems like the best way to handle it from my perspective.

Whenever I read one of those posts, I always think of the horse from Ren & Stimpy that would get a sour expression on his face and go, "No sir, I don't like it!"

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Taking the rest of your post into consideration, doesn't all that planning make the fact that it's decided by die roll worse? If I'd formulated a plan of action like that, I'd want it to pay off in some capacity. Maybe not in instant death, but at least in a lot of damage. The problem Josh is talking about is the fact that it's both all-or-nothing and random. You might disagree that it's a problem, but a lot of players would disagree with you, myself included.

Hey, I said nobody else would recommend it.

Fair warning: these games can be very overwhelming at first, they're damned unforgiving, and they take their time to get going. Presentation-wise, more recent games like Dragon Age are absolutely more impressive and welcoming to new players. Treat them like you would a classic novel. Don't be afraid to look up strategies or optimal party builds for your first time through, and look for lists of recommended mods. Also, for the love of God, mod the walking speeds in BG1 if you start with that one (which I recommend, since you can bring over characters from BG1 to BG2 (though you're really just bringing over the build; don't expect continuity with your specific BG1 choices and experiences)). You can start with either, but the full experience is so much more affecting if you go through everything in one big gulp. I personally would start with a game nobody else here will recommend you start with: Icewind Dale. It's a linear dungeon crawler focused on combat, and as such acts as a lengthy tutorial for the BG games. Planescape is the other best starting point, but it has a very slow opening. IWD is much more straightforward, and isn't as initally overwhelming or bewildering as BG or Planescape. I know that makes it sound like a lesser game, and it is a slighter one, but that's still pretty hefty by comparison to the games I'm (probably unfairly/wrongly) assuming you're used to. Maybe not quite DA:O or Skyrim-level, but grander in terms of play than, say, Mass Effect. But you can really start with any of them and have a great time.

...

@Qistina: While I see what you're saying (and feel rather sad that I know at least one person is going to post the equivalent of "NO IT DOESN'T SHUT UP" screeched in a reedy voice, but that seems to be the price of doing business where geeks are concerned), a lot of us find party positioning and management much more enjoyable from a fixed top-down perspective, myself included. The games which PoE is primarily a successor to do admittedly have some tremendously irritating issues on that score, but those are problems with the games rather than inherent problems with top-down play. If the game is of the quality we're expecting, I promise you that what you're describing won't be a problem. And, in fact, it wasn't a problem in the games on which PoE is based. They did have issues, most notably with AI and pathfinding, but not once in any Infinity Engine game have I ever encountered things like enemies attacking you from offscreen. The games are designed in such a way that it is a non-issue.

@Stun: But what if the celery ends up tasting like ice cream?

I absolutely understood what you meant. The only problem with your example is as Kjaamor said: it's damage-based, which makes it sound to those who skim as if you're saying that Thieves aren't "useful" unless they can do as much damage as Fighters. Which is not your point, obviously, but Timothy Grognardskimmer has already been possessed by the spirit of Gygax at that point, you know? Then again, ol' Tim doesn't seem to have shown up yet, so maybe your example did work as well as it could've. I was just trying to protect you against folks who would deliberately misunderstand your point.

Still no better summary than that one. If you're wondering what Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment are, well, I envy you. You're in for about six hundred hours of some of the greatest video games ever made.

Considering that one of the design goals is to let the player kill everyone in the game, I don't see that restriction being likely. What I suspect is closer to the truth is that buffs will be designed to only be necessary in combat. That is to say, the longest a buff will last is probably to the end of an encounter instead of multiple in-game hours.

@Jarrakul: No, I failed to make it clear that I was not arguing with you. My bad. My point was that while I agreed with your argument, your example wasn't ideal for the point you were trying to convey. The "I don't see what's so heretical about that..." line was meant as an aside directed at people who do find Sawyer's proposed changes heretical, not as a direct challenge to you.

Am I the only one who starts humming the Aqua Teen Hunger Force theme every time he reads "the mob rulers?"

@Jarrakul: I would say that you're using the wrong example, because most people, myself (and yourself, seemingly) included, would argue that Thieves should be weaker than Fighters as straight-ahead combatants. Yes, they may not be as useful as a Fighter in that specific situation, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above the threshold of usefulness (I am so stealing that, BTW) in enough common combat and non-combat situations so as not to be considered useless. The problem in 2E specifically, one that is worsened in computer games, is that Thieves are either unnecessary dead weight for the party for long stretches of time, or the DM has to spend ages constructing contrived scenarios that just happen to always have a Thief-ish solution - which, unless the DM is a golden god of DMing with unlimited time and willpower and understanding, probably just ain't gonna happen. There's actually much less separating a Thief and a Fighter in 2E than separates a Rogue and a Fighter in PoE, as far as I can tell. In 2E, you get to be a crap Fighter with a few flavor skills that make you a bit less crap outside of combat. In PoE (assuming the design works as intended), you have a totally different combat role from a Fighter, and you get bonuses in certain skills that a fighter doesn't. Which is very similar to how Rogues are in Pathfinder, but with 4E's tighter focus on tactical action and hard-coded class skills (those being bad for PnP and perfect for a videogame). I don't see what's so heretical about that; it makes a lot of sense to me.

What about NWN2? I haven't played it extensively, but it seems to have a pretty complex spell system.