Whats so fun about Hack n Slash?

[Kaftan Barlast]

The trend right now in CRPGs is "action before story" and I have never been able to understand this concept. When I was in my early teens we had great fun playing ordinary PnP games with big battles and fights, and that was fun even though Ive long since tired of that kind of playing. But Ive never been able to get the point with hack n slash in CRPGs. I watched some of my friends go crazy about Diablo and play that night&day when it came but it bored the hell out of me. When I wanted to go on a killing spree Id play Quake or some other game that had real, hands-on action, not just pointing and clickling

 

 

But Ive since understood that levelling and finding new spells and weapons also play a major part, that one I also recall from my early PnP days except no swedish game had levels so it was just nagging our GM to come up with new cool magic things for us. But that doesnt translate well into CRPGs either, its just a lot of looking through dead enemy bodies for "+3 dagger of frost".

 

 

So, point being, what makes people play and love these games? And what makes companies go more for that type of game than a BIS style with proper story, characters and roleplaying?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'll admit I find something appealing in going from gimp to vorpal bunny from hell. Wheter it's from an action adventure (ie, Zelda) or pure dungeon crawling (ie, roguelikes) perspective, what gets me is the methodical development of the character, the thrill of exploration (specially in roguelikes, which tend to randomize things, making it a thrill time and again), and the combat.

 

It's just another form of character growth as far as I'm concerned. Both story and H&K elements allow for character development in their own way, but while I appreciate both, I also tend to frown at H&K shadowing story and other roleplaying elements in most CRPGs, when there's so much you can do with story and roleplaying that get neglected in favor of phat lewt.

[Darth Sirius]

I know what you mean, I made the mistake of buying Champions: Return to Arms, a while ago and damn was my money wasted, how it has the cheek to put RPG anywhere in its discription is beyond me <_<

[Baley]

Whats so fun about Hack n Slash?

 

The slashing,man,the slashing

 

 

It would be even better if it had Vin Diesel play every character..yes even women

 

PS: Bah,H&S is IMHO boring and repetitive...

 

 

...But if you add a great story you get Kult

[Reveilled]

Because sometimes, at least for me, I've spent a long day doing nothing but thinking, and I feel like doing something which doesn't take much thinking at all for a while. Even playing something like Quake requires you to do things like aim. Not every game I play has to be intellectually engaging. Sometimes, just clicking things and watching them die is fun.

 

Also, if like me you find listening to music hard to do (my hands and eyes get bored because they don't have anything to do), something which you don't have to engage with can provide a useful diversion while you listen to the music. Whenever I play Diablo, I put on a CD I want to listen to, and play that in the background while I click things.

[Oerwinde]

Whats so fun about Hack n Slash?

 

The slashing,man,the slashing

 

 

It would be even better if it had Vin Diesel play every character..yes even women

 

PS: Bah,H&S is IMHO boring and repetitive...

 

 

...But if you add a great story you get Kult

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree. I think the hacking is what gives it its appeal. The slashing is just something they tacked on and feels very underdeveloped.

[Baley]

Yes but slashing slashes...hacking only hacks people..thus slashing is more apreciative...

 

+All the fun you get by clicking a 1000 times..happy days

[Darque]

Diablo 2 is fun.... I'm not sure why, but it is

 

Somehow Blizzard caught lightning in a bottle

[kalimeeri]

Diablo 2 is fun.... I'm not sure why, but it is

 

Somehow Blizzard caught lightning in a bottle

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure why, either. It's the only one of this type of game that I actually played and really enjoyed; its co:op multiplayer shines. It's still loads of fun if you have a LAN and a couple good friends. The rest of the H&S genre get tedious pretty quickly, but this one doesn't seem to age.

 

@Reveilled

 

  Because sometimes, at least for me, I've spent a long day doing nothing but thinking, and I feel like doing something which doesn't take much thinking at all for a while.

 

True. I'm sure everyone has been at that point from time to time. But is it 'fun'? I think not, if the aim is to go somewhere else for a while and numb out.

 

Building a character from a wimp to a god has appeal, for some more than others. But there has to be something else to recommend a particular game over and above the H&S masses. For Dungeon Seige, it was music and graphics, but that in itself was not enough to keep it consistently interesting.

 

So what element makes one H&S more appealing than others? What did Diablo have that makes it different? I'd really like to know.

[angshuman]

One thing that I found great about Diablo II's SP mode was that the feeling of achievement as your character leveled up was excellent, and at the same time your character never got uber-powerful. I have no clue how Blizzard managed to achieve this, since it seems to be a very hard thing to do.

 

It's more than balance -- if the monsters you're fighting are pretty much always at the same level as your PC, you'll never get that sense of achievement. A Level Up in that game often translated to a substantial increase in your power, and you could go on a killing spree for a while. Slowly, your effectiveness would decrease as you progressed through the more or less linear sequence of levels, until the next Level Up.

 

Seems very simple, but few games do this as well as Diablo II. The skill trees were simply awesome, the items were great, and the randomized item generation was well implemented. It wasn't a pure RPG, but for what it set out to do, it did it marvelously well.

 

-- Angshuman

[Tsel]

I like playing Hack-n-Slash games from time to time.

 

H-n-K is more like a game of tactics.

The tactics you choose decide whether your battle is an easy one, or a very difficult one, or you simply get your a** handed to you in a hand basket. ( TOSTED!) :D

 

Tsel

[kirottu]

Diablo 2 is fun now and then... I have this strange urge always to play a hardcore character and when he dies diablo magically uninstalls.

[Ellester]

I enjoy hack n slash games if they have tactics, like the IWD games or Wizardry 8. It requires you to think up a plan and tactic that you will use against the enemy, so it

[Reveilled]

  Because sometimes, at least for me, I've spent a long day doing nothing but thinking, and I feel like doing something which doesn't take much thinking at all for a while.

 

True. I'm sure everyone has been at that point from time to time. But is it 'fun'? I think not, if the aim is to go somewhere else for a while and numb out.

 

Building a character from a wimp to a god has appeal, for some more than others. But there has to be something else to recommend a particular game over and above the H&S masses. For Dungeon Seige, it was music and graphics, but that in itself was not enough to keep it consistently interesting.

 

So what element makes one H&S more appealing than others? What did Diablo have that makes it different? I'd really like to know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I'd call it fun. A fun diversion, but still fun. As to what makes a particular game more appealing, that would depend on what sort of hack 'n' slash game you're looking for. Since I play my own music in the background, music isn't important in a hack 'n' slash game to me. Graphics might be important, but I quite liked the original Diablo's graphics. Strategy appears to be important to some. Complexity might be important, but simplicity might be too. They all have different qualities. Personally, I preferred the original Diablo over the second one, mainly because it wasn't as long, was much simpler in design, savegames loaded right at the exact point you saved them (Diablo II took you back to town and regenerated all the monsters), and going down through a dungeon is more fun for me than running about fields and deserts. But that's just me. Everyone has their own criteria in their choice of HnS game.

[metadigital]

I enjoy hack n slash games if they have tactics, like the IWD games or Wizardry 8. It requires you to think up a plan and tactic that you will use against the enemy, so it

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Wizardry 8? No! No! No! That game is the epitamy of what is wrong with H&S.

 

The random encounters burdenedsome; not because the loot is not good; because the interface is exquisitely irritating: sixteen members of every enemy group and the mandatory five second delay between every combatant's attack and the next ... and you have to explore a vast expanse and then turn around and go back and encounter more random hordes of killer crabs/ants/jellies/giant orcs, making each fight take over thirty minutes to win.

 

No, that is not fun. Drilling a new ear with a power tool is more fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The movement delay could be somewhat 'fixed' with changing combat speed.

 

Actually, what I felt were the main problems in Wizardry 8 were the use of phase based as a combat model, which is definetely more tedious and less tactical than turnbased in some ways; and 'fusing' all the characters in the party in a single 'creature'. This worked in step-by-step, dungeon hacks of old; but it just breaks down in full 3D with 360

[Ellester]

The movement delay could be somewhat 'fixed' with changing combat speed.

 

Actually, what I felt were the main problems in Wizardry 8 were the use of phase based as a combat model, which is definetely more tedious and less tactical than turnbased in some ways; and 'fusing' all the characters in the party in a single 'creature'. This worked in step-by-step, dungeon hacks of old; but it just breaks down in full 3D with 360

[LadyCrimson]

(This went reaaalllly long, sorry)

 

I've honestly never really understood this debate about PC games. I can understand there's a major difference between sitting around a table w/friends and roleplaying vs. an attempt by a programmer to emulate that process via pixels and giving 'story choices' but to me, the only major difference between 'serious' CRPG's and 'hack n slash' RPG's is that the former fills up time between the combat sequences with dialogue storyboards. Many feel that the former method is more 'immersive' for CRPG's, but I don't really see that aspect myself.

 

In terms of combat alone, in BG1, you'd move your party forward though a drawn dungeon/outside, encounter monsters, pause the game, give all your guys orders (cast this spell, use this potion, this person stand here, this person melee), unpause, and watch it play out in a chaotic mess. Pick up any items of interest to keep or sell - and the items, just like in hack n slash, would increase in usefullness/strength as you progressed. Repeat till a map was all explored.

 

In a 'hack n slash/FPS', you skip the pausing part and have to think on the fly, react to that monster coming in the room at the 9th hour without being able to pause to think about what trick you might have that you can pull out of your backpack. In that sense, they are more 'adrenline' pumping.

 

And yet, even in many hack n slash games, if you rush into big mobs of monsters that out-class you without any thought or familiarity or the 'good equipment' or 'good or well developed skills', you're likely going to die or at least have a very difficult time. You have to do all your 'pause thinking' before you enter comabt - ie, 'town' - what spell to equip, what weapon to use, etc. And then you go marching around, hoping what you've chosen will suffice.

 

It's funny because in GuildWars, you see it all the time, where stupidity and lack of tactics means the entire party is wiped out, when with good tactics the same battle is a lot easier or almost cake and pie. Hack n slash doesn't always mean 'no tactics required'. Yes, sometimes it's like that, particularly older games, but I don't think it's the real norm.

 

All of the RPG's have the element of 'item tinkering' - monsters drop items, you decide whether to use them or not - and all of them have multiple character-specific skills where the choice is left up to the player which ones to try and use/specialize in.

All of the RPG's have some element of tip-toeing around corners to try and trigger only a few baddies at a time instead of a hoarde.

 

Some people require emotional attachment to characters (hence they want more in-game story) to feel involved and adrenline rushed or as if there's a 'point' to playing - whereas me, since there is really rationally no 'point' to playing any game except to kill time in a way that is enjoyable, even if there is a great story, the game still boils down to the same old combat-grind of 'move forward, kill, move forward, item tinker, repeat'...

 

So I flip back and forth, and I'm a fan of both games like BG1, Kotor, and Diablo2. And games like CaesarIII. I love that game.

[metadigital]

The movement delay could be somewhat 'fixed' with changing combat speed.

 

Actually, what I felt were the main problems in Wizardry 8 were the use of phase based as a combat model, which is definetely more tedious and less tactical than turnbased in some ways; and 'fusing' all the characters in the party in a single 'creature'. This worked in step-by-step, dungeon hacks of old; but it just breaks down in full 3D with 360

[Diogo Ribeiro]

@Ellester: I mentioned it was more tedious because unlike the step by step approach of combat, movement and tactical planning of turnbased, phase based is a bit more automated (as players define actions and they get all executed automatically in the following phase... Making it a bit like IE combat, make decisions, let characters go, and sit back and watch it play out), and becomes a bit less tactical in the sense that, since you can't fully gauge enemy movement and actions, the actions you have decided at the beginning of the round may either be rendered useless or counter-productive. This means that a single wasted movement or slight error cannot be as quickly fixed, and entire battles may be lost because of one minor problem that we were unable to predict, or even powerless to avoid. While I don't care much for pause'n'play, at least it manages to give players a bit more of control over the situation.

 

Other than that, it friggin' rocks.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I bought Wizardry 8 because I like Wizardry 2 and 3 so much (not to mention Akalabeth). Even so, Wizardry 8 just seemed to clunky for me. I didn't like the combat mechanics at all. And the story seemed pretty uninteresting, although I must say I only played th game for about 40 hours, so I didn't get far into it (exposed the green map from one end to the other and did some not-very-convincing dungeon crawling).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, basically, while it isn't the greatest story ever told (and even though it has its touches, I think it's only above average) the story will make a bit more sense if you played the previous games, 6 and 7, as they expose the Umpani and T'Rang races, as well as the Dark Savant's overal plot. Pretty interesting how they remembered the long time fans and made it so you could import your 10 year old save from Wiz7 into 8... There's three different beginnings depending on what you did in Wiz7 and if you imported those saves. The spaceship crash landing is actually a 'newcomer' beginning, for players new to the series, who do not have a 10 year old save stored away.

[Ellester]

Fair enough metadigital, I really wasn

[Loof]

Interesting...

I actualy found wizardrys phase based combat more taktical then turnbased generaly is. Because it was more important to know your enemy and plan ahead. Which for me was a very enjoyable challenge, I aslo found that if you played smart you almost never ran into unforseeable, unrepairable situations.

 

But then you should probably take this with a grain of salt since it was a loong time since I played wiz8...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's always important to know your enemy and plan ahead, whatever combat model is being used. The thing with Wizardry 8, and phase based in general, it that you're locked into a sequence of actions with no way of altering them on the fly. While this happens with turnbased as well, in turnbased you have the element of turns, which allow you to act along the course of a sequence, from time to time... PB generally doesn't interrupt the sequence to give you control (exceptions could be coded, sure; and the only one I remember from Wizardry 8 was when deciding to move during the party's phase), it's automatic until the beginning of the next round. This leads to a lot more aggravation than any other combat model.

[Loof]

Yes agreed, but that was what I found challenging and fun.

 

All a matter of taste I guess...