Jump to content

Difficulty after 1.1 - Game is still too easy


Recommended Posts

It's actually quite a leap to go from "they're called mind flayers" to "they literally do damage to your intellect stat and when your intellect hits 0 you die." That's really only the logic someone who's already played D&D or a D&D-like can possess.

Dude please you're killing me. You can probably make an educated guess if your Minscs fall in close combat to some tentacle things around vats full of brains, that something might be wrong, just like when something is wrong when fighting vampires in close combat. Even if you don't figure out the INT thing right away (which I figured out by simply checking character sheets after one of the fights first time it happened), you don't need it to defeat these enemies. If you feel like melee doesn't work, you sit back, think for 2 seconds, and try ranged combat/summons because melee doesn't work for you. Even without this knowledge you will come to an effective tactic from a simple realisation that you shouldn't be hit. After this realisation, all the paths are open to you and game gives you tools for this.

 

Like I said, it was the simplest and most extreme example I could think of. It is not, by far, the only example. (And you really could tackle it at a relatively low level once you know the game. Traps - so incredibly OP - will get you through all the lich fights leading up to it without any problem. And you can hoard those protection from magic or protection from undead scrolls you periodically find.)

You are arguing against gimmicky fights that can't be won without knowing gimmick by stating multiple and many things in the game that allow you to win these sort of fights right here. Suddenly, Sawyer is wrong that you can't fight without wizards, because traps and scrolls can win against liches. Oops.

 

I mean, I see the fact that traps are viable as a positive thing. You can fight fair, or if you're bad/lack something, use some cheesy traps.

 

Can you use some cool traps in PoE1? I think you can install like 1 and they ****ing suck and do nothing against high level mobs. I'd prefer powerful traps to that.

 

I don't see how this follows, other than a general gripe against Dark Souls.

Basically DS bosses come in 2 variations, plus minus a combination: things that can be won by simple reflexes, and things which require guessing and may end up easier if you know some "gimmicks". Players argue that some secret boss with deep lore TM and which does something that other bosses don't is "gimmicky" (like having multiple stages or whatever) so it's "bad", but dudes in armor who only require to roll and slash them with weapons are good because they are "true skill" cause reflexes = skill.

 

This is somewhat of a debate between souls-people. The worst example of gimmicky boss is Bed of Chaos which is basically you step onto something and lol you die (and I believe it's not optional, since it has a quest item). But there are also good examples.

I think developer's explanation for this was something like "this is a lesson that sometimes... you die. and can't do anything about it." Japanese are mega philosophical like that.

 

For Deadfire, I can say I would probably enjoy something like you walk in and oops you die happening at least once. Just to break the overall monotony of the game and feeling of total invulnerability with your super summons/foods/bombs/almost infinite money/rich XP rewards etc.

 

It's also "gimmicky" in the way most problematic foes in BG2 are gimmicky. After ToB, Kangaxx isn't even unique

Define "gimmicky".

 

Illithid have dominate, are somewhat resistant to magic, and dangerous in melee. If that's "gimmicky" for you, I have bad news - most of D&D bestiary is "gimmicky" then.

 

Kangaxx is a pure example of "gimmicky", it's more of a puzzle than classic enemy. You solve the puzzle, you feel smart about yourself. So? You will hate all the puzzles?

 

If anything, what you said about Kangaxx shows that you can even defeat him with simple brute force. As you said you only need a good weapon. But the ways you can defeat/counter him are multiple. Every player will have their own story how they did it, from changing form, to using some weapon, or character like Korgan or Viconia, etc.

It is ultimately a memorable thing about the game we're arguing here in 2018. Instead of arguing about packs of lions from PoE1. I wonder why.

Edited by Shadenuat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kangaxx is a pure example of "gimmicky", it's more of a puzzle than classic enemy. You solve the puzzle, you feel smart about yourself. So? You will hate all the puzzles?

 

 

If anything, what you said about Kangaxx shows that you can even defeat him with simple brute force. As you said you only need a good weapon. But the ways you can defeat/counter him are multiple. Every player will have their own story how they did it, from changing form, to using some weapon, or character like Korgan or Viconia, etc.

It is ultimately a memorable thing about the game we're arguing here in 2018. Instead of arguing about packs of lions from PoE1. I wonder why.

 

 

Well said. On both Kangaxx and mind flayers. And it's excellent analysis to show that Kangaxx was a puzzle that the designers hid within the game's combat/bestiary. The great thing about these fights is they forced you to get out of whatever rote power protocol you were running against most of the tough fights. It's not just about buffing your party and casting AOE damage spells.

 

And yeah, the proof is in how memorable these things are, years later.

 

Does anything in Deadfire even come close to this? Honestly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not for me anyways.

 

But, it doesn't matter if it has exactly something like Kangaxx or not. The problem is it has nothing to replace it. Just like PoE1 first had no immunities but also did not replace them with anything.

 

PoE can have it's own thing, maybe not the gimmicky one. What's important is that thing or things should a) deconstruct combat so you're not stuck on pressing same buttons all the time and b) it should be memorable. Vampires are a good example even if, ultimately, they are basically made of (and broken by) 1 single ability and everything else they have is not what we haven't seen before (teleport + basic class abilities). Shadows in PoE1 are another.

Edited by Shadenuat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I loved the Eothas Temple shadows. Because that's the first test where the game says, "do you understand that there's ref/fort/will and you can target these differently? do you understand that certain damage types will work better against certain enemies? do you understand that you can't walk up to a doorway and create an impenetrable barrier every time? Now, how will you come up with cool new ways to deal with this challenge?"

 

Sadly, it didn't last, but it's a great moment. Why have all these cool systems if you never need to use them? Why compose a song with great bass and drums if you just listen to a 56khz mp3 on a bus with $10 earbuds? What's the fun in having all the rules for basketball and all the tactics if you then get five Stephen Curries to play five Donald Trumps? Systems matter and make things fun when there is a meaningful challenge presented, and it is possible to have such a challenge across multiple difficulty levels without forcing everyone to play POTD or forcing everyone to play with their feet to be challenged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's actually quite a leap to go from "they're called mind flayers" to "they literally do damage to your intellect stat and when your intellect hits 0 you die." That's really only the logic someone who's already played D&D or a D&D-like can possess.

Dude please you're killing me. You can probably make an educated guess if your Minscs fall in close combat to some tentacle things around vats full of brains, that something might be wrong, just like when something is wrong when fighting vampires in close combat. Even if you don't figure out the INT thing right away (which I figured out by simply checking character sheets after one of the fights first time it happened), you don't need it to defeat these enemies. If you feel like melee doesn't work, you sit back, think for 2 seconds, and try ranged combat/summons because melee doesn't work for you. Even without this knowledge you will come to an effective tactic from a simple realisation that you shouldn't be hit. After this realisation, all the paths are open to you and game gives you tools for this.

 

I'm not really interested in litigating this in detail, but just to highlight a few points: the mind flayers are basically the only thing in the entire BG series that has this alternate death mechanic, the effect is highly temporary, and in the mix of combat and an un-filterable combat log, you might not notice that minsc (or anyone) was still reasonably healthy when they died. By contrast, level drain is fairly common, and the effect of level drain is extremely noticeable ("hey where'd my spells go?") and permanent (so if you win the fight you'll notice what happened, whereas you could win a fight with mind flayers and the effect wears off pretty quickly), and there are many things in the manual (spells mostly) that talk about level drain. Literally nothing talks about intelligence stat hit and 0 stat death.

 

 

Like I said, it was the simplest and most extreme example I could think of. It is not, by far, the only example. (And you really could tackle it at a relatively low level once you know the game. Traps - so incredibly OP - will get you through all the lich fights leading up to it without any problem. And you can hoard those protection from magic or protection from undead scrolls you periodically find.)

You are arguing against gimmicky fights that can't be won without knowing gimmick by stating multiple and many things in the game that allow you to win these sort of fights right here. Suddenly, Sawyer is wrong that you can't fight without wizards, because traps and scrolls can win against liches. Oops.

 

I mean, I see the fact that traps are viable as a positive thing. You can fight fair, or if you're bad/lack something, use some cheesy traps.

 

Can you use some cool traps in PoE1? I think you can install like 1 and they ****ing suck and do nothing against high level mobs. I'd prefer powerful traps to that.

 

There are gimmicky fights, but that doesn't change the fact that BG/BG2 also has cheese (mostly BG2). The fact that traps are so poorly balanced in BG2 that they are basically an i-win button in almost any fight where combat doesn't start immediately out of dialogue does not erase the fact that there are gimmicky fights.

 

Parenthetically: PoE1 vanilla traps are bugged and suck because they are bugged. PoE1 white march traps are super mega awesome and if each party member sets one (even with 0 mechanics because they all have huge accuracy bonuses beyond what the tool-tip says) you can roflwin any fight in the game. It is the biggest balancing mystery to me that--even if the poe1 vanilla traps weren't bugged--that for the same price point you can get like a super lame sunlance trap that does ~40 single target damage if you're lucky or a wilting wind trap that does 80+likely-crit damage to a huge area.

 

Japanese are mega philosophical like that.

Oh brother.

 

For Deadfire, I can say I would probably enjoy something like you walk in and oops you die happening at least once. Just to break the overall monotony of the game and feeling of total invulnerability with your super summons/foods/bombs/almost infinite money/rich XP rewards etc.

In Deadfire, there is one puzzle dungeon somewhere you get hard game over if you don't have the right stats. There's another encounter where you get a hard party member loss if you don't have the right stats. I'd say the number of times this happening in a cRPG being countable on one hand is enough. I prefer dying in "fair" ways.

 

They could add a magran's challenge mode that turns all sigils of XXXX into sigils of death and you can't get wardstones anymore. Maybe that would satisfy you? (Actually, I would totally play that)

 

 

It's also "gimmicky" in the way most problematic foes in BG2 are gimmicky. After ToB, Kangaxx isn't even unique

Define "gimmicky".

 

Illithid have dominate, are somewhat resistant to magic, and dangerous in melee. If that's "gimmicky" for you, I have bad news - most of D&D bestiary is "gimmicky" then.

 

You don't need to give me that bad news, since after first playing BG/BG2 I enmeshed myself in D&D monster manual (mostly third ed) and yes, much of the notable D&D bestiary is gimmicky. (I remember drooling over the Tarrasque; that's probably the ultimate gimmick fight I can recall off the top of my head, something like bring it down to -30 health then use a wish to keep it dead not to mention all the silly protections it has).

 

Gimmicky fights in and of themselves are not necessarily bad (I love Chrono Trigger, but upon watching my wife try it for the first time a year ago I realized that lit. all of the major boss fights are technical fights to some degree; and it made them interesting). The problem is that people who seem to think about BG or BG2 as having some glorious difficulty curve that PoE/Deadfire has failed to capture seems to be forgetting that the games are not difficult, honestly, at all, not even close to 1.1 deadfire POTD. Whatever difficulty they had was really people learning the gimmicks of each fight, the hard way. Once you've learned that, BG and BG2 are basically roflstomp fests (except early BG or BG2 where you have less means of preventing instadeath and/or (especially low-level BG) you can just get a series of bad rolls, which is not fun).

 

Kangaxx is a pure example of "gimmicky", it's more of a puzzle than classic enemy. You solve the puzzle, you feel smart about yourself. So? You will hate all the puzzles?

 

If anything, what you said about Kangaxx shows that you can even defeat him with simple brute force. As you said you only need a good weapon. But the ways you can defeat/counter him are multiple. Every player will have their own story how they did it, from changing form, to using some weapon, or character like Korgan or Viconia, etc.

It is ultimately a memorable thing about the game we're arguing here in 2018. Instead of arguing about packs of lions from PoE1. I wonder why.

Again, I'm saying that BG or BG2 didn't have some wonderful difficulty curve. Sure, it's a puzzle enemy. It was hard because you were solving a puzzle. Not because it was a great encounter or was a great fight. Don't get me wrong, BG2 and ToB did have some actual decent fights (note that I am excluding BG from this, and I would weight it heavily towards ToB even amidst the inevitable improved alacrity time stop wizard spam), but I would go so far as to say that most of the hard stuff that people remember were just people slamming their heads into a gimmick.

Edited by thelee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In other words, what is your motive for setting any baseline for others? You can set your own baseline and what others do is not your concern in my opinion.

 

It's only my opinion. You think seem like I have more opportunities to change something? It's not like that at all.

 

P.S: This mod written specially for those of you who find POE2 too easy.

 

Edited by Khagmas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the mind flayers are basically the only thing in the entire BG series that has this alternate death mechanic

Not sure, in theory you could lose stats some other way and die (there are a few debuffs, traps, spells that can do this), but yeah it wasn't common. If it was very common, it wouldn't make these enemies special.

 

but I would go so far as to say that most of the hard stuff that people remember were just people slamming their heads into a gimmick

You still did not provide explanation why you think something is a gimmick or not. I fail to see how illithid and kangaxx are in the same boat.

 

But whatever, I think the topic was exhausted enough. I seen this discussion 9000 times especially during PoE1 development. PoE1 development I think proved that people who are for more complicated rules for bestiary instead of one design suits all were right.

Edited by Shadenuat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In other words, what is your motive for setting any baseline for others? You can set your own baseline and what others do is not your concern in my opinion.

 

It's only my opinion. You think seem like I have more opportunities to change something? It's not like that at all.

 

P.S: This mod written specially for those of you who find POE2 too easy.

 

 

 

In general, I would assume that those who are vocal have a higher probability to influence (whatever they want to influence) than those who are not. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and of course, others have the same opportunity to be vocal. 

 

I am just constantly baffled by opinions who express their will to impose on others. I do not understand why would anyone want to remove an optional feature. Since it does not compute to me, perhaps naively, I think that your suggestion comes from omission and/or flawed reasoning. 

 

I have used this parallel on this board before, but to me its like if there was a hill to climb, there was a medal for reaching the top, and there also was a cable-car leading to the top. Then someone, who like to get to the top on foot, would suggest .. remove the cable-car. It just makes no sense to me. If I want to get to the top on foot, the fact that cable-car exists is irrelevant to me so is whether others use the cable-car or helicopter to get to the top. To ask for cable-car removal is nothing else but imposing on others for no rational reason.

 

If someone explains it to me, why to impose on others without rational reason, perhaps I will stop asking about it.

Edited by knownastherat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In other words, what is your motive for setting any baseline for others? You can set your own baseline and what others do is not your concern in my opinion.

 

It's only my opinion. You think seem like I have more opportunities to change something? It's not like that at all.

 

P.S: This mod written specially for those of you who find POE2 too easy.

 

 

 

In general, I would assume that those who are vocal have a higher probability to influence (whatever they want to influence) than those who are not. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion and of course, others have the same opportunity to be vocal. 

 

I am just constantly baffled by opinions who express their will to impose on others. I do not understand why would anyone want to remove an optional feature. Since it does not compute to me, perhaps naively, I think that your suggestion comes from omission and/or flawed reasoning. 

 

I have used this parallel on this board before, but to me its like if there was a hill to climb, there was a medal for reaching the top, and there also was a cable-car leading to the top. Then someone, who like to get to the top on foot, would suggest .. remove the cable-car. It just makes no sense to me. If I want to get to the top on foot, the fact that cable-car exists is irrelevant to me so is whether others use the cable-car or helicopter to get to the top. To ask for cable-car removal is nothing else but imposing on others for no rational reason.

 

If someone explains it to me, why to impose on others without rational reason, perhaps I will stop asking about it.

 

 

Personally I prefer the per rest system from POE 1 

 

But for me I argue that POE 3 would be best if caters to both groups by using simple tick box let people choose.

 

Like you never really understood this need to tell each other what's best and try remove things. To me more you can add that gives choice more you can please. It also gives greater replay ability as you have more options you can try more settings and have slightly different game each time. There the bonus to been able make game as difficult as you want with more options.

 

Answering your question I think some people can only see the value in there own arguments and therefore can't see value in others. Some simply selfishness and they simply want world revolve around themselves. Some people lack empathy and therefore closed to how others feel. Some simply allow there emotions to cloud there minds and argue with to much passion, blinding themselves to what others say and think. Probably few more answers I not thought of here but would if spent time on it. 

 

Anyone reading my personal thoughts only on question someone asked and reflects no judgements towards any persons. 

Edited by Stephen Unsworth-Mitchell
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't design every game system around box ticking. Rest & resource management in general is pretty important part of the core experience.

 

I agree that resource management and rest management are important for me to as I like to make things interesting and challenging to level I am comfortable and happy with.

 

But I do see some people point that resource and rest management is boring and not what everyone wants, therefore why argue if simple tick box system lets people choose what they prefer and everyone wins. 

 

People that like and argue for resource and rest management are minority most want fast game and not keep going back and forth, therefore people want resource and rest management keep arguing they mostly lose and hence most games don't have lots resource management.

 

Both systems need reworking as both got there issues to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that resource management and rest management are important for me to as I like to make things interesting and challenging to level I am comfortable and happy with.

 

But I do see some people point that resource and rest management is boring and not what everyone wants, therefore why argue if simple tick box system lets people choose what they prefer and everyone wins. 

 

People that like and argue for resource and rest management are minority most want fast game and not keep going back and forth, therefore people want resource and rest management keep arguing they mostly lose and hence most games don't have lots resource management.

 

Both systems need reworking as both got there issues to.

 

 

Except that everyone doesn't win, you end up with a compromise. Whichever system you use, you need to balance the game around it. Items, classes, abilities, enemies, other game mechanics, what have you. So if you give an option of two systems to use, you'd need to do that twice. Which costs time and money, which now has to be split. And I expect it also makes design more restrictive in general, since some things would probably only work in one of the two systems. Which means either you have to make certain items or abilities or whatever specific to one system (meaning either more work to get the same number of items, or fewer items per system), or not designing such items in the first place (abandoning a good idea for the sake of compromise). Which is not to say that it cannot or should not be done ever, but there definitely is a cost to it. 

 

To give an imperfect comparison, it is a bit like designing a game for both single and multiplayer. It's certainly possible to do so successfully, and to create both a rewarding single- and multiplayer experience. But invariably it does come at a cost, and it is likely that had that game been designed solely or primarily as single- or multiplayer, it would have been better at what it chose to focus on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can't design every game system around box ticking. Rest & resource management in general is pretty important part of the core experience.

 

I agree that resource management and rest management are important for me to as I like to make things interesting and challenging to level I am comfortable and happy with.

 

But I do see some people point that resource and rest management is boring and not what everyone wants, therefore why argue if simple tick box system lets people choose what they prefer and everyone wins. 

 

People that like and argue for resource and rest management are minority most want fast game and not keep going back and forth, therefore people want resource and rest management keep arguing they mostly lose and hence most games don't have lots resource management.

 

Both systems need reworking as both got there issues to.

 

 

This is a nice thought, but it's fundamentally untrue. You can't make two games at once. Or if you try, you will end up making zero quality games. There's more to a system than simply moving some spells and abilities to be "per rest" versus "per encounter". There's more to it than just switching back to two camping supplies instead of food. You have to rebalance skills around this. For example, fireball can be quite strong when it costs your mage significantly more than it costs your fighter to use knockdown. If the two cost roughly the same? Then they have be roughly the same effectiveness.

 

Moreover, fights themselves and even entire dungeon designs have to be crafted around what tools the player has available. This is why, as I've said previously, you can have a dungeon like the Temple of Eothas actually be challenging in the original, whereas it would be a cakewalk in Deadfire. I sympathize with your thinking, and it'd be nice to create a game that could please a broad cRPG fanbase, but there's only a finite amount of labor game companies can devote to a game. You can't make a Deadfire-set RPG that has both the rulesets of PoE1 and the sequel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they need to decide on a design philosophy and then design the game around it. YOu can tack on a few tickboxes for minor stuff at the end, but otherwise you're basically making 1.5 games and it's not going to work. I love attrition, but if they're going to water it down and half-arse it like this, maybe they should just get rid of it and balance the challenges around that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try answer few peoples comments in one here.

 

Unfortunately if we accept what people are saying then attrition system really going die out as they mostly wanted by the few for many reasons.

 

Now if POE 3 has no attrition system then like POE 2 I believe it do well enough but will never be truly legandery game and honestly I think it be dead road for POE type games.

 

Lot people say they want per encounter don't want be punished or made to make returning trips to town, but honestly that ends up building game that really is easier and nothing memorable. Like been given car for nothing might enjoy driving it but not same feeling as having work hard and save for it, memories that special come from feeling you achieved something special, push through what you believed your limits were and found that success. 

 

Truth is per encounter leaves emptiness because every fight feels same and is not anything special. I agree per rest did have way to many trash fights in POE 1 and rest system need work but it gives you rewards and makes you feel you achieved something special.

 

Everything is compromise problem is compromise normally to majorities advantage and also to those most able to argue there points. Lastly those who can shout loudest.

 

Yes I understand that having mutiple ideas and systems with in game will make lot harder work but thats for companies sort out. Honestly does company want just make money which case might well go route of micro transactions and building games for majority, but those companies games will never be remembered and nor will company when they gone. If company really wants stand out then got try new ways please more people and try make legendery games.

 

If I take resident evil games I always remember res 1-4 beyond those four will be forgotten. (not tried 7 so can't comment on that one yet) Why will those be forgotten cause there nothing really stands out. Moved away from what made resident evil ah resident evil.

 

Tke kotor games 1st was great game and then second was something different as in made you question meaning of good and bad and the force, that was new but it did keep what made kotor special to. Kotor 3 which became MMO tried be MMO with to many compromises and to many new directions and really should been left same as kotor 1 and 2 If they wanted MMO they really should started new star wars saga.

 

Compromise doesn't have to mean going one way or another can include both but ultimately good franchise must keep what makes it shine and stand out.

 

Non my comments are disrespecting said game companies both sets games I love. I just stating where both went wrong in my opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is going to sound pedantic, but we have to better define "the hardest."

In modern game design it's "for people who actually like RPGs / combat".

 

No. Just no. RPGs can be fun without a high difficulty, heck story quality and game difficulty are not linked. Combat can also be fun without being masochistic. Don't conflate your taste with everyone's standard of fun.

 

Though I am of the opinion that challenging gameplay can often enhance a story, I agree here. Heck, Planescape: Torment is hardly a very challenging game yet there are several in this forum (as shown by this poll I made a few months back for example) who consider it one of the greatest RPGs ever. I don't think the people who take part in the official forum for a developer dedicated primarily on the development of RPGs are not gonna be people who don't "actually like RPGs". Combat, now, that is a very different thing - but again, taking Torment's example above, combat isn't necessarily what RPG fans look at in their RPGs.

  • Like 1

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I understand that having mutiple ideas and systems with in game will make lot harder work but thats for companies sort out. Honestly does company want just make money which case might well go route of micro transactions and building games for majority, but those companies games will never be remembered and nor will company when they gone. If company really wants stand out then got try new ways please more people and try make legendery games.

 

It's not about that though, it just a simple matter of finite resources: time, money, manpower. Regardless of whether a company is looking for a quick cash grab or is truly dedicated to making great games, they can only expend those resources once. Building two quite different gameplay modes into a game will inherently mean that resources will have to be split between them. Anything spent building one mode cannot be spent building the other, therefore the quality of each mode will almost certainly be less than it would have been had they decided to just implement that mode.

 

And personally, I think a game is much more likely to be great if the developers have a clear focus and vision and just go with that; rather than trying to hedge their bets and make something that appeals to everyone (or to a larger audience, at any rate). Not guaranteed by any means of course, the courage of conviction can just as easily lead to spectacular failure (ahhh, Daikatana...). But going for compromise and mitigating risk, I can't really ever see that going anywhere legendary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is going to sound pedantic, but we have to better define "the hardest."

In modern game design it's "for people who actually like RPGs / combat".

 

No. Just no. RPGs can be fun without a high difficulty, heck story quality and game difficulty are not linked. Combat can also be fun without being masochistic. Don't conflate your taste with everyone's standard of fun.

 

Though I am of the opinion that challenging gameplay can often enhance a story, I agree here. Heck, Planescape: Torment is hardly a very challenging game yet there are several in this forum (as shown by this poll I made a few months back for example) who consider it one of the greatest RPGs ever. I don't think the people who take part in the official forum for a developer dedicated primarily on the development of RPGs are not gonna be people who don't "actually like RPGs". Combat, now, that is a very different thing - but again, taking Torment's example above, combat isn't necessarily what RPG fans look at in their RPGs.

 

That's actually a poor comparison. Planescape Torment isn't an open world game. It's difficulty also doesn't go up or down much any way you play it. The issue with POEII is, like with Skyrim, Fallout 3/4 and Dragons Dogma, that you can level yourself to crazy heights and even with level scaling you will overpower your enemy. It's the levelling system that is to blame together with the choice to go open world. Nothing else. This takes the fun out of the game. Planescape doesn't have you completely overpower your enemy, the difficulty remains more or less the same. Whether you find it challenging is a different topic altogether.

Edited by AeonsLegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the general per rest vs per encounter discussion, I would argue that ultimately the best way would be to get rid of both. Though per encounter does work considerably better than per rest, in my view. I think the problem of the per rest system is that it is a holdover from P&P games that just never really worked in computer games. Generally speaking, neither the resting itself nor time having elapsed has any real cost associated with it, so by itself there is no disincentive to rolling through a dungeon with your band of merry narcoleptics, dozing off at every turn. Whereas in P&P the DM could just sick some ogres on them or whatever, or have all the hard work clearing out monsters be pretty much undone by the time they wake up, because as it turns out reality isn't static when outside the protagonist's view. 

 

Of course the resting can be restricted artificially in various ways, which works to some extent but to my mind doesn't really solve the core problem. What (I would argue) makes the need for attrition and resource management and such interesting is that you need to be strategic, tactical. You need to weigh the benefits of using some resources now against possibly needing them later. But for there to be actual strategy and tactical thinking to that, you need at least to some extent to be able to plan ahead, and thus you require information about what may be next. But there is often no organic way to really obtain that. It would require much greater ability to gather relevant information in different ways (which would also greatly increase options for adding valuable non-combat skills to the game), in terms of scouting, scrying, infiltration, studying tracks, what have you.

 

But similarly, it would probably need (and should encourage) much more tactical options for approaching a situation. Preparing an ambush, creating a distraction, but also actually being able to run away (and in the same vein it would be great of course if enemies can actually decide to run away (instead of suicidally keep attacking when it's clearly pointless), surrender, raise an alarm,rather than encounters essentially being in an isolated bubble disconnected from the rest of the world). In other words, make the world potentially more predictable and give the player more options to use information they have gleaned and make resource management and such actually strategic. Because as it is, it comes down much more to metagaming: you can manage your resources because having previously played through the same bit before; or there is a big glowing arrow saying "dungeon boss through this door", and you know you can bust out the big spells now. In that regard, it would also help in another sense to make the world less predictable as well, by making it dynamic; meaningfully changing over time as well as between playthroughs / reloads. Which could also easily make resting much more impactful: the world will have changed around you; the path you cleared behind you may not be clear anymore; you may have been detected and the defenses ahead been shored up, or an ambush may be around the next corner. 

 

Anyway, just some meandering thoughts; I just feel that though per encounter approaches clearly have their issues, the old school per rest approach doesn't fix them. And mind you, much of the above in a way can be applied to individual encounters as well. Adding forms of attrition within encounters. Adding more options for strategy, meaningful use of terrain. Making them less predictable (have reinforcements show up, have that fireball knock over a tree and cut off part of your party). In general I think, make things less binary, discrete (would feel much more interesting if there weren't for example fixed numbers of spells to cast, but casting (bigger) spells just makes the mage more exhausted and their subsequent spells less effective in various ways). Though admittedly that is much more difficult to design, but one can dream... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is going to sound pedantic, but we have to better define "the hardest."

In modern game design it's "for people who actually like RPGs / combat".

 

No. Just no. RPGs can be fun without a high difficulty, heck story quality and game difficulty are not linked. Combat can also be fun without being masochistic. Don't conflate your taste with everyone's standard of fun.

 

Though I am of the opinion that challenging gameplay can often enhance a story, I agree here. Heck, Planescape: Torment is hardly a very challenging game yet there are several in this forum (as shown by this poll I made a few months back for example) who consider it one of the greatest RPGs ever. I don't think the people who take part in the official forum for a developer dedicated primarily on the development of RPGs are not gonna be people who don't "actually like RPGs". Combat, now, that is a very different thing - but again, taking Torment's example above, combat isn't necessarily what RPG fans look at in their RPGs.

 

That's actually a poor comparison. Planescape Torment isn't an open world game. It's difficulty also doesn't go up or down much any way you play it. The issue with POEII is, like with Skyrim, Fallout 3/4 and Dragons Dogma, that you can level yourself to crazy heights and even with level scaling you will overpower your enemy. It's the levelling system that is to blame together with the choice to go open world. Nothing else. This takes the fun out of the game. Planescape doesn't have you completely overpower your enemy, the difficulty remains more or less the same. Whether you find it challenging is a different topic altogether.

 

 

I was never making a comparison in the first place. Torment is an RPG, one that has found a very devout niche audience, and yet not a very hard one at that. In that sense, it proves that not all people who "actually like RPGs" are people who are actively looking to beat a game at its hardest difficulty or who even care about whether a game is hard or not at all. Whether it is an "open world game" or not, or whether difficulty goes up or down or sideways or whatever, is moot (and arguable too, considering how grinding is an option in that game that is largely non-existent in Deadfire, but again, it's all moot). The point is merely that saying "the hardest" means "for people who actually like RPGs" is a rather bull**** remark when it is utterly demonstrable that plenty of players who "actually like RPGs" don't necessarily play them in their hardest difficulty or look for a challenge when playing these games at all. It's just an asinine "no true Scotsman" remark that does absolutely nothing to answer the question it is allegedly responding.

Edited by algroth
  • Like 1

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not sure what your point is. Is it that the game is hard or something? If you take the OPs, sure, but not at all if you look at the replies each discussion has garnered (and one of them was because the OP dun goofed his build and had the Nameless One using Porphatys' Dagger, which made him lose control during the battle).

Edited by algroth

My Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/alephg

Currently playing: Fallout 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...