Unwinnable Battles

[Schazzwozzer]

To toss out something a bit more nuts 'n bolts, the act of FLEEING can actually be a pretty enjoyable gameplay experience, if handled correctly. For instance, I can recall at least two console platformers that have you running away from some big, bad enemy that you have no way of defeating, or even attacking. I've also played numerous real-time strategy games with missions in which you're supposed to successfully retreat from or hold out against an overwhelming enemy. Blizzard games in particular like to do this, it seems (several missions in Warcraft 3 and at least one I can remember from Starcraft).

 

The question this brings up is, do the game mechanics support this sort of gameplay? I think it works well for console platformers because, in these games, it's just plain fun to maneuver your little guy around the screen. It works in real-time strategies because so much of the core gameplay revolves around fielding armies of disposable units. Conversely, in your typical Black Isle/Bioware style of RPG, maneuvering around isn't really that enjoyable, and your party members are far from being expendable. So another question to consider is, even if you get the player to accept that they can't fight their way to victory, how do you make sure the scenario is going to be enjoyable to play through?

[Slowtrain]

The entire escape sequence in Deus Ex during JC's second visit to Hell's Kitchen which starts with the MJ12 assault on the hotel room where JC and Paul are hiding and continues on to the Battery Park subway station (if you can make it that far) is unwinnable. JC will eventually be captured and imprisoned. Its required for the advancement of the narrative, but there is a lot of possibility within that entire sequence for different things to happen. I think its the best sequence on Deus Ex and I don't recall ever hearing anyone complain about it.

[Tigranes]

Man, some of you are just not paying attention. That is exactly what I have been saying! Sheesh. rolleyes.gif

 

The critter is still killable, within the rules of the game, and if you have the strategy and good enough weapons then you should be able to win in a straigh on fight, but it will be difficult as hell to do so.

 

Sorry, I skimmed your posts.

 

Anyway, Cantousent seems to have done the hard part for me, which is nice - I don't need to waste breath trying to explain then. We are all indeed in agreement that 'unkillable' artificial scripts are stupid, but presenting alternative outcomes to battles is good. I was pretty much trying to get a bit more specific and present specific methods.

 

On STB's point, I recognise it but tend towards to MC's view more, in that the player will quickly pick up that this game is different, after a few early hints and demonstrations. If you have ONE creature in the world who is magically unkillable then it will confuse you. But even in existing games there are enemies who cant be killed until you've done specific things, especially in JRPGs, so it can be done.

[Pidesco]

The entire escape sequence in Deus Ex during JC's second visit to Hell's Kitchen which starts with the MJ12 assault on the hotel room where JC and Paul are hiding and continues on to the Battery Park subway station (if you can make it that far) is unwinnable. JC will eventually be captured and imprisoned. Its required for the advancement of the narrative, but there is a lot of possibility within that entire sequence for different things to happen. I think its the best sequence on Deus Ex and I don't recall ever hearing anyone complain about it.

 

 

Those bastards cost me a lot of LAMs, for nothing. I was not happy. And I tried really hard to kill Gunther.

 

Now you can recall one person complaining.

[Dark_Raven]

A battles should be winnable and all characters killable. If a direct attack is not hte case for a situation to be won, then you have to use your brain to win it another way.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, your level 1 character will just have to think of a way of killing that dragon.

 

personally, I think players should be killed if they take on battles that are clearly out of their league. Or should we start using the Oblivion scaling system?

[Dark_Raven]

Sure why not.

[Cantousent]

You want the whole list or just the top ten?

[Maria Caliban]

A battles should be winnable and all characters killable. If a direct attack is not hte case for a situation to be won, then you have to use your brain to win it another way.

 

Wait, wait.. So, in the scenario I presented, the NO should be able to kill the Lady of Pain? And while he's whacking away at her, she's not going to instantly maze him or tear him to shreds, even though she has the power to do so?

[Dark_Raven]

If someone has god lick abilities they should be able ti take on a god. Of course a 1st level player could not take on a god, they would be swatted away like a fly.

 

But even mortals have taken on the gods, not directly but through subterfuge and trickery and have beaten them and have become demi-gods. In other words nothing should be unkillable or a battle unwinnable, there are many way to win a battle than a front attack. Even gods can die.

[Maria Caliban]

If someone has god lick abilities they should be able ti take on a god. Of course a 1st level player could not take on a god, they would be swatted away like a fly.

 

But even mortals have taken on the gods, not directly but through subterfuge and trickery and have beaten them and have become demi-gods. In other words nothing should be unkillable or a battle unwinnable, there are many way to win a battle than a front attack. Even gods can die.

 

But, you're not answering my question.

 

Are you saying that if the Lady of Pain appears in one scene in Planescape: Torment, the developers must create side quests to discover who she is, what her weaknesses are, and an elaberate way of disconnecting her from Sigal so the NO can kill her?

 

Are you saying that all characters in all games should eventually get god like abilities? Because, unless you're willing to give god like abilities to all characters in all games, then if a character interacts with an NPC over a certain power level, you're admitting that the PC should not be able to beat them.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Maria Caliban

[Llyranor]

Devoting a lifetime to finding out the way to kill a particular god is one thing, but how much is it roleplaying when you know that attacking said deity will be completely inconsequential, since you'll just reload and pretend nothing happened? Wiping out entire cities with impunity is fine, but it's easy to claim the roleplaying high road when you're just one click away from reloading.

[Maria Caliban]

Devoting a lifetime to finding out the way to kill a particular god is one thing, but how much is it roleplaying when you know that attacking said deity will be completely inconsequential, since you'll just reload and pretend nothing happened? Wiping out entire cities with impunity is fine, but it's easy to claim the roleplaying high road when you're just one click away from reloading.

 

 

I agree that everything can be undone in the majority of games with one click, which robs a cRPG of much of the tension of PnP.

 

However, I'm uncertain as to your meaning within the context of this thread

[Tigranes]

I'd respond to DR, but that seems rather pointless.

 

Llyranor, the thing is the idea of 'unwinnable' battles, or rather battles with different outcomes than simple victory or the annihilation of the enemy, is infinitely possible despite the current conventions of gaming: but to prevent or discourage reloading is much more tricky. I do th ink some older conventions need to be brought back - i.e. it's ridiculous that in NWN series you can save in the middle of a freaking battle. Rest rules shoudl apply to saves; no savingduring battles or near hostiles, and probably no saving in particular areas either (i.e. a mine that is collapsing and you need to escape - no saving unless the sequence is something like 30 minutes long.) But in saving/reloading in general.. to go back to save-points of the old CRPGs is rather silly, and I'd love to see if there is a suitable solution here.

 

MC: I think his point is that one of the focal points of the whole original idea by Cantousent et al is the fact that not thinking about how to accomplish your objective and blindly rushing in will cost you; you will learn from your mistakes; and there are multiple sollutions. All these can be compromised if the player goes "I'll try A, then reload, and try B, till I get the outcome with the most loot." This effectively makes a mockery of the idea and the player eventually 'railroads' himself, using the logic of I'll do whatever to get the most rewards then move on to the next story-node. That was one of the reasons i think Cant said some choices should not have their outcomes revealed instantly, but a long time after. If you give a homeless man some money, in today's games he'll ususally turn out to be the man with the solution to your problem or help you in the next story-encounter. But if that man actually turned up rather later, then most people would not reload.

 

So two things - don't make it possible to save anywhere, and when possible have some long-term consequences; even this won't prevent people from reloading when they like, but that's their prerogative in the end.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Tigranes

[Llyranor]

Devoting a lifetime to finding out the way to kill a particular god is one thing, but how much is it roleplaying when you know that attacking said deity will be completely inconsequential, since you'll just reload and pretend nothing happened? Wiping out entire cities with impunity is fine, but it's easy to claim the roleplaying high road when you're just one click away from reloading.

 

 

I agree that everything can be undone in the majority of games with one click, which robs a cRPG of much of the tension of PnP.

 

However, I'm uncertain as to your meaning within the context of this thread

The point is that it isn't so relevant that some NPCs could be unkillable. The roleplayer would never actually figure it out. That's powergamer speak. You can decide to roleplay and decide whole legions, but if you know that any risk that your character may face is irrelevant, how much of a role are you actually playing?

 

Ironman mode is awesome. More games need to take into consideration when designing gameplay and balancing.

 

EDIT: Hmm, this is tempting me to reinstall Wizardry VIII in Ironman mode.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Llyranor

[Maria Caliban]

The point is that it isn't so relevant that some NPCs could be unkillable. The roleplayer would never actually figure it out. That's powergamer speak.

 

Hmm, if I understand you correctly, I disagree. Yes, if you're role-playing an insane person, it's possible that your character doesn't understand that they are not all powerful. However, most people/characters would understand that they are not Superman. I'd say it's metagame knowledge that leads people to play characters would never run away from a fight, sneak pass a powerful foe, or simply not attack a powerful person who isn't hostile to them.

 

I do believe that the game world ought to offer clues to other's power.

[Llyranor]

Well, let's see how games have been implementing 'tough' NPCs.

 

1) You can't attack NPC.

2) You can attack NPC but can't kill him/her. Reload.

3) You can kill NPC. You either die or succeed. The problem lies here. Unless the game has been designed into accommodating the potential death of said NPC, the consequences are going to be pretty shallow. The

'pay a fine and all is well' approach is hilarious.

 

An alternative is everyone going hostile for the rest of the game, effectively breaking it. But then, why give the option if it just breaks the game (because the game wasn't designed with said option in mind). Otherwise, there's the faction/town hostilities as well. Only said faction/town goes hostile against you for the rest of the game (.... or until you pay the fine -___- ). It works, but it's a rather simplistic consequence. Still, it IS a consequence. BG had the right idea, but terribly executed by having some Flaming Fist dawgs chase after you if you had a horrible reputation. You were essentially playing the same game, except for some occasional people coming out to hunt you. If you're a wanted fugitive, the gameplay should be vastly different. Unfortunately, unless the game caters to it prominently, you essentially WILL be playing the 'same game' with minimal changes. No bounty hunters tracking you down and laying traps and ambushes or false leads, no having to hide your identity and sneak around. Roleplaying a fugitive could be pretty compelling, but when it's such a small part of any particular CRPG, you can't expect the devs to invest such disproportionate resources on it. Which is where paying a fine comes in.

[Atreides]

I like the idea. Just

1. Make the enemies play by the same rule sets too. Vastly powered with bling? Cool. Irenicus's multiple defensive spell contingencies firing up? Uncool.

2. Make it clear to the player what's needed of them in the battle. It's unwinnable, accomplish an objective and get out. Could make an interesting roleplaying situation where your 2nd in command yells at you for a few times and if you still insist on fighting, they'll do it at first. But when everyone's low on health, No2 calls a retreat and you lose influence at a discussion within the group at a later recovery point.

[Humodour]

I think every battle should be winnable. SOme battles should be very very very very very tough and you will need an extraordinary luck to win, but still winnable.

 

Rubbish. Bring luck into the equation and you're going to piss of many many fans; and with good reason.

 

Skill (FPS) or probability/strategy (a much more consistant luck) work, but something beyond the player's (and indeed, designer's) control rarely ever will.

[Rosbjerg]

I don't like the idea of an unwinnable battle - but I most definitely don't support making all battels automatic winnable (like say do X and he'll die). If you are a lvl 1 Paladin and you take on a Dragon, it would require a disproportional amount of planning to even scratch it. So the battle is - in a sense - unbeatable, but the dragon is mortal, so if you were strong enough or planned it well enough, you could kill it/hurt it. Things shouldn't be toned down nor up.

Any resonable person wouldn't take on a lion, without considerable weaponry, in real life - but it is possible to kill one with your bare hands even so.

 

I would however love to see consequences to losing a battle and surviving. In an RPG this would probably mean that your enemies became stronger or at least less weakened. It's all too often either win or die (reload). This would also be great in Strategy Games like C&C etc.

[Cantousent]

So the battle is - in a sense - unbeatable, but the dragon is mortal, so if you were strong enough or planned it well enough, you could kill it/hurt it. Things shouldn't be toned down nor up.

 

How would a 1st level paladin plan for a fight against a dragon? Unless you contrive some ridiculous way for the character to beat the dragon, it is an impossible battle. Sure, you could give the character super powered equipment, contrived to allow the character to put the dragon in a bad position, and maybe even provide some outside support to the character. A dragon is not a lion and it would be ridiculously stupid for a man to take on a lion with his bare hands unless he were forced to do so.

 

It's all too often either win or die (reload). This would also be great in Strategy Games like C&C etc.

 

Actually, it's all too often reload until you get the desired effect. A character who takes on a dragon at first level, without gaining the experience, the help, and the equipment to do so should die. This isn't really my point anyhow, however. I was thinking of it more as a battle, part of the narrative, that the NPC cannot win. If you are in a village of 100 people, you will not defeat the 10,000 well armed and battle-tested orcs. The adult population in your town would not stand a chance unless I, in designing the area, contrived some way to do so.

 

Let me be clear, I think there are moments where the design team should let the character beat the dragon against the odds by some clever action. There are times when the design team should let the player defeat the invading army with determination and intelligence.

 

I don't want unwinnable battles in every game and perhaps extremely rarely in any game. What I suggest is that an unwinnable battle, properly done, might enhance the dramatic impact of the scene.

 

I continue to consider how such a battle might be implemented. What we really need is a specific, completely detailed scenario that shows how it might be done. I will try to think of such a scenario and I hope that, building on some of the examples we've seen thus far, some of you will do the same.

[Rosbjerg]

and it would be ridiculously stupid for a man to take on a lion with his bare hands unless he were forced to do so.

Exactly!

 

I understand your argument.. We just disagree on the definition - I agree with you till the point that the battle is by definition unwinnable - I want the player to mature to the point that s/he realizes when something is lost and gives up by free choice instead of being forced to. Will it cause frustration? great - Will it create anger? Even better.. Computer games could be so much more than mere entertainment.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Calax]

I would however love to see consequences to losing a battle and surviving. In an RPG this would probably mean that your enemies became stronger or at least less weakened. It's all too often either win or die (reload). This would also be great in Strategy Games like C&C etc.

They did that in a PS2 game called Kessen. Basically it went through the end of the Warring states period and a series of fights between the Toyotomi and the Tokugawa and you were one of the major lords. Now when you lost a fight you'd usually loose a major character and be forced into another fight that was much easier.

 

The devs used this to WONDERFUL effect.

[steelfiredragon]

i do not believe in the hopeless battle.

i do not agree with it at all.

 

there are however tactics that can steal victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

at terrain where numbers count for nothing.

 

while there may be no retreat, there is tactical withdraw.

[Cantousent]

I'm not saying we should break the ruleset to create an unwinnable battle. I'm saying that, in designing an area, it is easy to make a battle unwinnable. I've never designed a computer game. however, in creating campaigns, the biggest problem isn't making an unwinnable battle. it's making sure the players can actually survive while still being challenged. See, that's why I find the dragon idea so ridiculously idiotic. I don't have to find a way to make sure the players can't beat the dragon. If I have one in the game, I have to go to great lengths to make sure they can survive it.

 

Furthermore, I agree with Ros. Let the player finally realize, after 5,000 tries that he simply doesn't have a chance of winning. Unfortunately, that breaks the fun for folks like Llyranor and Maria. All those reloads kill the fun for some folks.

 

Finally, maybe we should define unwinnable, just like Atreides and Tigranes have tried to do. Maybe we shouldn't even use the term "unwinnable." Maybe we should instead say, battles without victory but with a number of alternate outcomes.