Shooting for 30 hours?

[Gromnir]

"Yup BG had the best level progression, levelling up was a HUGE deal especially since there were only 7 (iirc) levels in the game."

 

you and hades and Gromnir like slower level progression. too bad, 'cause the handfil of us not mean squat to developers. anybody who read the bg boards post release and the bg2 development boards will tell you that one of the big complaints 'bout bg1 were the slow leveling.

 

so gve it to 'em. you can give the folks who play crpgs primarily to level exactly what they want w/o screwing up the game for Gromnir and others. sure, is more difficult for a developer to come up with balance and options for 20+ levels as 'posed to 7, but that is what they get paid for, right? make sure that the rule system has depth and we doubt that anybody complains 'bout spending 1 minute every hour or two to level-up.

 

and bg1 were a crappy game for levels 'cause we could make almost 0 meaningful choices as we level.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Haitoku]

As long as the game is still challenging, should it really matter how fast the characters level up?

 

For me, game mechanics have never been part of the actual story of the game. They are just there for gameplay purposes, getting them involves just causes problems.

[Judge Hades]

As long as the game is still challenging, should it really matter how fast the characters level up?

 

Yes. Reaching Godlike power in 30 hours is stupid and poor game design.

[Surreptishus]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

[Llyranor]

A story where your enemies would be godlike would be a great story. Why only save the world when you can save the bloody multiverse?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

As long as the game is still challenging, should it really matter how fast the characters level up?

 

Yes. Reaching Godlike power in 30 hours is stupid and poor game design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if the game was designed so that you needed to increase in power as fast as you could in order to counter the villain's own race for power? Assume the game becomes harder the more time you take to level up, that the gameworld suffers more and more destruction the more time you take to become stronger because the villain is actually struggling for power as well and is not waiting for you to go around the gameworld becoming stronger so you can beat him? Still stupid?

 

Of course, this is an "what if?" case that at least has a justification for levelling to occur in a fast paced way. Personally I'm more adept of slower level progressions.

[Haitoku]

As long as the game is still challenging, should it really matter how fast the characters level up?

 

Yes. Reaching Godlike power in 30 hours is stupid and poor game design.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What if levels don't mean the game thing in this game? What if level20 or whatever isn't godlike?

[Gabrielle]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah Hades like the monkey said. My level one warrior is going against a level 30 mage/fighter witha +1 wacking sword and keeps getting his ass handed to him.

[LadyCrimson]

A story where your enemies would be godlike would be a great story. Why only save the world when you can save the bloody multiverse?

Riftworld: The Game.

Oh wait, they tried that already. Betrayal of Krondor. I heard that was bad or something.

 

Edit: Hmm I guess it's freeware now. Maybe I should check it out. Has anyone actually played it? Maybe it was Return to Krondor that got the bad reviews.

Edited January 15, 2006 by LadyCrimson

[Judge Hades]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because you shouldn't be going against godlike opponents in that short of time. You should be still facing orc cheiftens and goblins with class levels. Or at the most young adult to adult dragons.

Edited January 15, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Darque]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because you shouldn't be going against godlike opponents in that short of time. You should be still facing orc cheiftens and goblins with class levels. Or at the most young adult to adult dragons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Computer games aren't PnP games and thus don't fit within your self created measure of leveling speed.

[Gabrielle]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because you shouldn't be going against godlike opponents in that short of time. You should be still facing orc cheiftens and goblins with class levels. Or at the most young adult to adult dragons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOLOOLO

 

Yeah that made with 5 hit points will last at one chop.

[Haitoku]

what if your enemies are godlike? is it still stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because you shouldn't be going against godlike opponents in that short of time. You should be still facing orc cheiftens and goblins with class levels. Or at the most young adult to adult dragons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Computer games aren't PnP games and thus don't fit within your self created measure of leveling speed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They are using PnP rules, so they should be.

 

Atleast, that's what he believes. "

[Magnum Opus]

Gotta admit, I don't see where the confusion is, here.

 

Some people like action and leveling up and loot and don't want that hamstrung by concerns of plausibility.

 

Others, where levels are significant at least, as in DnD, prefer a slower pace. Why? Because they value the Setting, the Story, and maintaining the integrity of those things above achieving Godhood in under 30 hours.

 

Call it Believability, call it Immersion, call it Good cRPG Design, call it what you want, it all boils down to what you value in a game; action and challenge, or a believable setting where all the rules are known and make sense, and where those rules actually define the setting. The number of monsters you face, where they're found, how soon you face them, how quickly you advance, what you get in terms of relative power when you advance (if DnD was a system where a character's potential was largely tapped out at level 1000 instead of level 30, going up to level 20 in a 30 hour game wouldn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, would it?), what sorts of items you get and where... all of these things matter.

 

'course, some people just want to follow the rules for the same of following the rules, but I don't think that's Hades, here. Not really, anyway. After all, he names BG1's rate of level advancement as being ideal in cRPGs, and that was quite a bit faster than your typical DnD PnP session, I think. Hell, most PnP characters are more into politics and retirement when they hit level 9 and 10, aren't they? They're too damn old to be running off to save little Timmy every time he falls down a dungeon.

 

Some people just want different things from their cRPGS, that's all.

 

Me, I've seen enough Action RPGs for a while. I want one where there's a little consistency and plausibility regarding the setting and the character's place within that setting. In general, though, that seems to be too much to ask for.

[Junai]

Agree. 30-40 hrs isn't all that much.

BG2 length is fine.

[Arkan]

Agree. 30-40 hrs isn't all that much.

BG2 length is fine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

BG2 is the exception, not the norm.

[Judge Hades]

BG 2 should be the norm.

[mr insomniac]

Have to agree with Volourn. Took roughly 40 hours to complete Torment the first time I played it... missed a few things in the first third of the game... and despite being quite linear and fast-paced in the second half, that was the most enjoyable game I've ever played.

 

If NWN2 is a quality game, 40 hours for the single-player portion is plenty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are assuming that the MAXIMUM estimate of the developers is the correct one. However normally even the minimum estimate is normally an overexaggeration. This is from my experience, at least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...

 

it had to happen sooner or later... roshan managed to be making a genuine point.

 

anybody 'round here live near the ocean? has the seas turned to blood yet?

 

while Gromnir would be perfectly satisfied with a 40 hour game, developer estimates is typical ridiculous. vol points to ps:t as being 40 hours... but estimated hours were 60+. anybody recall HoW? that game were so short and so underwhelming that to salvage some of their dwindling reputation with fans, fergie had bis develop a free add-on to HoW. get josh on the board and get him to tell you what were bis announced estimates of the 10-15 hour HoW.

 

even if you is one of the folks that does every possible quest and dialogue in a crpg, a safe bet is to cut bottom end of developer guestimate by 1/3. 30-40 hours becomes 20.

 

*shrug*

 

regardless, the important thing to 'member is that roshan had a real point. so please excuse us while we go get started on our bomb shelter.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyone who's played Torment knows that there is missing content. Curst in particular was scarred. It's been almost 6 years to the day since I first completed the game, and at least 5 years since it was a "main" topic back on the old IPlay boards, so my memory is kinda fuzzy on whether this was covered anywhere... say, on the old Developer's Cage boards, but I'm wondering whether that 60+ hours of gametime was estimated before or after the final product shipped?

[alanschu]

"Freshness of it's approach? A world with a linear plot, sidequests, and tons of monster killing? I guess you didn't play RPGs before Baldur's Gate. You could have at least mentioned a game like Ultima, which actually granted the player the opportunity to do stuff other than quest (like bake bread if you wanted to!)."

 

Oh please. Don't give me that 'old skool RPGs were awesome RPG games'.  Outside of Ultima, 'old skool RPGs' were nothing more than dungeon haks that were leveling treadmills. As deep as POR2 is at its most shallow.

 

I;m sorry but while the GB games were fun when I wa slike 10 they didn't know what role-playing was.  GB, M&M, Wizardry, and a host of other games were all like that.

 

Ultima was the EXCEPTION not the RULE.

 

I agree. In fact, I certainly do not think that old school RPGs are awesome RPG games. And I was including Baldur's Gate (which is a game I really, really enjoyed) as not being all that particularly different from them. It was a linear plot, that had some sidequests, and a ton of monster killing with map exploration. I was saying that if Lyric felt that this was a fresh approach, then he must not have played earlier games because it seemed be all it took to be defined as an RPG game.

 

The reason why I said Lyric should have at least mentioned Ultima, was because he was the one harkening about older RPGs being better. All other games, especially from a more roleplaying point of view, I felt were rather junk. He used Baldur's Gate as his example...I considered it a poorer one. But I do think that Baldur's Gate was a better game than most RPGs.

 

"Unless you consider doing sidequest X before sidequest Y as a "distinct" difference....but that wouldn't differentiate between the game and other games at all)."

 

BG may noy be the best role-playing experience; but outside of Ultima and a few other games it CRUSHES 'old school RPGs'.

 

I would consider newer RPG games to be better. Though I'll let this go because you had the impression that I felt older RPG games were better. I also agree that Baldur's Gate is an excellent game, but I felt it was similar to them in terms of the linear plot and all that other stuff mentioned. Just on a really, really large scale.

 

 

"The original Baldur's Gate had it right. Leveling was never intrusive and effectively reflected the development of your character through the adventure, the latter being the point of the game..."

 

BG is an excpetion; not the rule. Most old school games (GB aside) were all about fast leveling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This was not directed at me...but I was too lazy to delete it from the post...even though it would actually have been less work to delete it, rather than explaining it.

Edited January 16, 2006 by alanschu

[alanschu]

And it consists of a handful of games...Baldur's Gate not being one of them.

 

Which is but a testament on how bad 'roleplaying' computer RPGs have gotten considering Baldur's Gate is better then everything released this past few years.

 

Make no mistake, the reason i choosed BG1 as the object of my argument is exactly that the game had many inherent flaws, yet, it succeeded in those elements which i consider pivotal of a great roleplaying experience.

 

Truly, from your last reply you seem so stuck with game mechanics you have completely forgotten why those games need to be played to begin with.

 

You ask me what difference is there between 'THAT' and an adventure game, or reading a (fiction) book, i say: there is none. They all serve a similar purpose. Their approach may be different, but they share the same goal.

 

The issue here is that you cannot focus on how a particular medium goes about achieving this particular common goal and nothing else, because there is no value in that by itself.

 

Seriously, what do you get out of those so called 'roleplaying options'? What does it mean to you to be able to be 'evil' or 'good' in itself? Torment is often slandered for lacking 'roleplaying options'. Please, feel free to explain to me the appeal of having options in itself, with no regard as to whether they are REALLY worth taking in the first place.

 

If you are using Baldur's Gate as a baseline for playing at your own pace, then literally every RPG is just as good. Pacing is moot in most RPGs, which let you (despite the fact that the hordes of bad guys are coming, or a meteor is coming, or whatever) wander aimlessly doing pointless little fun sidequests. You can play through KOTOR at your own pace as well.

 

I say Baldur's Gate offered a great level of freedom that i have yet to experience in an RPG since. The main quest literally doesn't start until you enter Baldur's Gate.

 

Many people seem to be rather tired of the common 'save the world' plot scenario, and Baldur's Gate is often cited as one of the games that didn't follow this tired device. Why do you assume?

 

Freshness of it's approach?  A world with a linear plot, sidequests, and tons of monster killing?

 

Again, quit being so obsessed about game mechanics. The freshness i'm referring to applies to Bioware, not the game. The way Baldur's Gate is crafted is very natural and direct. Every other game they made since has a 'forced' quality to it, like they are trying too hard to please their fans whereas in BG1 they allowed themselves more personal freedom.

 

Torment achieved it because you were actually able to play through the game in a relatively distinct way.

 

Nonsense. Torment was such a successful attempt because the game was developed following the criteria of the developers themselves. The chemistry behind the group effort that produced this game is almost palpable.

 

You see, in Torment options actually meant something, because whilst their number was relatively limited compared to 'some' games i could mention, each one of them offered as unique an experience as the developers were able to design.

 

For comparison there was thousands of things you could do in Morrowind but none of them amount to jack. This is why i'm not at all impressed when you talk about 'roleplaying options'...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Morrowind is not a particularly good RP game either, given it's complete lack of substance and interaction.

 

When I look at "roleplaying" though, I like to at least be given the illusion of making choices of some substance. As for the main plot of Baldur's Gate, I felt it was pretty clear that it got started once you were told to go and find Khalid and Jaheira. Maybe it was less obvious to you. Good luck entering Baldur's Gate prior to doing things such as clearing out the mines. I would have appreciated a bit more discussion with the party members, outside of "Gah, you still do not look for Dynaheir...DIE!" from Minsc (which was funny, because I actually had him go ape**** right when I got to the Gnoll Stronghold). I think the Good/Evil characters bitched and moaned when your reputation was not what they wanted. It was still a piss poor game if I wanted to play a murderous character. It's only fun avoiding the Flaming Fist guards that spawn on the maps with a low reputation for so long.

 

 

I was never really able to play through Baldur's Gate in any different way. I felt that both Baldur's Gate 2, and Torment, did a much better job. While Torment did have a linear story (a very good one IMO), it still allowed you to play through that similar story in a slightly different way, particularly via dialogue. Baldur's Gate provided opportunities for me to play through aspects of the story in a variety of ways, and enjoy the story in that variety. It's why I've been able to playthrough it in its entirety many more times than the original Baldur's Gate.

 

 

As for criticizing me for using the term "roleplaying options," the main reason why I did was because you were going on talking about how "RPGs are meant to be a roleplaying experience." So what exactly is a "roleplaying experience?"

 

Given that it seems RPGs are meant to contain it, is it safe to assume that it's something at least relatively distinct to a game within the RPG genre?

[alanschu]

NWN 1 I ran, but Bloodlines I walked not because that it was something my character would do but I was indeed savory the eye candy.  Don't worry about the werewolf thingie, though.  I was able to kill him with my Celerity 5 character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm just curious, but how did you disable to auto-run?

 

Or did you seriously walk around holding down the walk key? (Default shift?)

 

 

In any case, I still can't see how you'd even be close to past Downtown, let alone beating the werewolf with level 5 Celerity (heh) so soon after removing the game and chastizing Troika about it.

 

Though I guess it MIGHT be possible, given that your first attempt at the game didn't seem to be a very thorough one. I assumed you were actually doing sidequests though.

[CoM_Solaufein]

BG 2 should be the norm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A good RPG should be modeled after BG2. They got it right with that series.

[Musopticon?]

BG 2 was too long. It's good that devs haven't taken it as a norm.

[Gabrielle]

BG2 was about right in the regards of game play, could have been longer though. I prefer a long game with lots of quests, character interaction and meeting new exciting people and kill them.

[Arkan]

BG 2 should be the norm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Maybe, but for those of use who live in the real world, those length of games are just no longer feasible.