Obsidian dumbs "downer"

[csoulsby]

Eh, just a general note here: If you already know what you are doing, pretty well versed with DnD and know how to tune your characters, aka once an Infinity/NWN-nerd, I don't think it is such a stretch of mind to imagine there being hardly any challenge in new commercial

renditions of DnD combat in the computer medium. They are, afterall, built to accomodate beginners as well.

 

I agree with that 100%. I played through the game as a rogue and found the game really hard. I had to use tactics in every battle to win, because of that i found combat a lot of fun. The battle with the red dragon was almost impossible to do.

 

I re-played the game but with a fighter/blackguard and found it to be far too easy on hardcore level. No one will ever be able to create a AD&D game that caters to these extremes.

[Morgoth]

I never really cared about tactics, neither in NWN1 or 2. I just clicked and flattened down the enemie ASAP. Also, I used to shower the enemies with tons of fireballs and all that explosion stuff. Just making it quick to get over the tedious combat. Dumbs down for an oudated PnP rulesystem.

[EUIX]

IWD2 had hard (relatively) combat. I suppose it was challenging in its own way, but it was mostly just tedious and dull. "Fun" seems a good thing to aim for, I think. If it is fun why does it matter if it hard or easy?

 

Try IWD 1, I nearly pulled my hair out in the first dungeon. Kresselack's Tomb, I can't spell the word. Reload, reload, reload....

[Pidesco]

I thought IWD2 was properly challenging.

 

IWD1, on the other hand, I didn't find particularly hard. Not that it was easy, either.

[LadyCrimson]

I've never found RPG's all that difficult (on 'normal' difficulty, assuming it had different difficulties) combat wise, except for a few of the boss/act end type battles. Not that I mean they were "sooo easy", either - but it's more about patience and persistance than difficulty - I rarely feel like "omg, this is so hard/impossible." FPS give me that sensation a lot more, since they're more based on hand-eye, which I suck at.

 

I've always personally liked combat possiblities where you're not really supposed to 'defeat' a monster at the chr. lvl you first encounter them, but if you're determined, you can try, and might be able to win. Like, in one of the Might & Magics where you could try and defeat the dragon in the cave on the 'starter training' island. Pretty darn hard - and required some tricksy behaviour - but wildly fun when you managed it. :D

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The only games I have really ever found to be of any sort of diffculty would RTS's, and then not so much. FPS's are on the whole easier than RPG's.

[Farbautisonn]

People who badmouth Planescape: Torment should have their pantaloons infested with swarms of angry and hungry ants.

 

-Farb

[taks]

Also, I used to shower the enemies with tons of fireballs and all that explosion stuff. Just making it quick to get over the tedious combat. Dumbs down for an oudated PnP rulesystem.

if you put the slider on "hardcore D&D rules," this combat style will lead to many situations in which the fireball caster is all that is left of your party. nothing quite like the beginning in which neeshka ends up with a wand of lightning and my front side tanks are dropping off due to the fact she thinks it's cool to zap the enemy. i had to take away the wand since i didn't want to otherwise micro-manage (read: puppet mode) my characters.

 

taks

[LadyCrimson]

The only games I have really ever found to be of any sort of diffculty would RTS's, and then not so much. FPS's are on the whole easier than RPG's.

Actually, I kind of agree on the RTS's. Although in my limited experience it's usually because the AI "cheats" and comes at you in 10 minutes with full armies while you're still carrying a hoe. The surprise and overwhelm factor.

 

FPS - do you think the actual combats are easier than RPG's? I mean, I've always had terrible aim & reaction speed, so I figure my problem with those is mostly that ... thus hard for me to judge. Although, I did think Doom3 wasn't as difficult as I was expecting. Doom and DoomII, those final few crazy battles were killers for me. FPS do seem to have changed their combat tactics somewhat, these days.

[mr insomniac]

Actually, I kind of agree on the RTS's. Although in my limited experience it's usually because the AI "cheats" and comes at you in 10 minutes with full armies while you're still carrying a hoe. The surprise and overwhelm factor.

 

Agreed. Haven't really enjoyed an RTS since Myth: The Fallen Lords. The enemies could overwhelm you and really kick your butt, but there was no AI cheating.

[Sand]

There are a lot of complexities in a computer implementation of D&D that go beyond what you would experience in tabletop sessions. When a character dies in a tabletop game, it's easy for the DM to track and/or gloss where that character's body and equipment are, ignoring things like encumbrance in the process. It's also easy for the DM to allow a simple exit for the party to make it back to a convenient healer.

Sure if you want to make death inconsequential. I don't do that.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sure if you want to make death inconsequential. I don't do that.

The point is that it's an easy option for the DM in annoying circumstances. One that many DMs take because the alternative usually massively irritates the players. In a CRPG, the death rules are what they are -- usually tremendously irritating unless a lot of work has been done to do things like transforming the corpse into a container, allowing the container to be picked up and put in inventory, easily distributing items that blow out characters' encumbrance rules, etc. How many times have you run a game where you force specific tracking of encumbrance of corpses and had the players jump up in joy and say, "HELL YEAH, not only did we win that fight by the slimmest of margins, but now we have to drag our three dead companions back through a swamp and leave half of their gear behind! This is living!"

 

Considering that most players are going to reload in a CRPG to ensure that no one dies, I'm not convinced that "for real" death is something worth modeling in most CRPGs. However, I do think it can work in CRPGs if a lot of time and effort are put into it.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

It only really works if you do something akin to that of the Bards Tale series, when a character is dead it is dead end of story, you can take their stuff, even revive the character 8 months later, but that character is pretty much perminantly dead, no reloading, unless you actually physcially backed up the character.

 

Frankly I prefer that approch, but it's in no way going to help the commercial needs of any company in developing a game which will sell.

 

Thus I am inclined to agree with Sawyer.

Edited May 29, 2007 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[J.E. Sawyer]

One of the most basic things to consider is really the time it takes to backtrack to a safe location. In pen and paper, this can take as long as the DM needs to say, "Okay you go back to town." In a CRPG, your characters moving at 1/3rd speed actually have to cover all of that ground in real-time.

[Pop]

Damn, there are a lot of devs in the room right now.

 

Hey boys!

[Dark_Raven]

All of these devs and only one talking.

[Azarkon]

One of the most basic things to consider is really the time it takes to backtrack to a safe location. In pen and paper, this can take as long as the DM needs to say, "Okay you go back to town." In a CRPG, your characters moving at 1/3rd speed actually have to cover all of that ground in real-time.

 

The DM can also say, "you attempt to backtrack, but runs into a HUGE dracoliche, which you left for dead but is, in fact, ALIVE (err, relatively speaking, anyway)!" (rolls dice) "You die."

 

It depends on the DM, in other words, how difficult the move is in a game. With CRPGs, a program (or more accurately, the devs who design the program) is the DM, and while the computer is not nearly as flexible as a human, it can still make many of the same decisions. The example you gave would be rendered moot, for instance, if the player could instant map travel from anywhere, presuming that he's not in a "dire" situation and has a clear path to the exit (all calculable variables). Might make for a rather short game, it's true, but then who really enjoys walking anyhow

[J.E. Sawyer]

Again, developing all of the logic and code to govern that is real work, and it's of dubious value if a lot of people are going to try avoiding it through a reload -- especially since PC gamers are so insistent on being able to save pretty much anywhere at any time outside of combat.

[Azarkon]

That is true, but really then it comes down to a what-players-want issue and in that respect roshan has a point regarding Obsidian "caving in" to today's ease-of-play sensibilities.

 

But then again I've long since accepted the fact that CRPGs were more interactive books than tactical combat simulators. It'd be nice, though, if combat could be made meaningful beyond the motions you go through to reach the next plot point. Besides, as much as we might hate to admit it, the save anywhere, reload anytime paradigm could use some rethinking.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Azarkon

[Wistrik]

Actually, I kind of agree on the RTS's. Although in my limited experience it's usually because the AI "cheats" and comes at you in 10 minutes with full armies while you're still carrying a hoe. The surprise and overwhelm factor.

 

Agreed. Haven't really enjoyed an RTS since Myth: The Fallen Lords. The enemies could overwhelm you and really kick your butt, but there was no AI cheating.

I greatly enjoyed Age of Kings, after I rewrote the random map AI scripts to get rid of computer cheating. I recoded them to use actual Scout units for scouting rather than any old unit, and to only make decisions based on what they explored or learned from their allies. I also got rid of cheap rush tactics because I like long game sessions. Thus it wasn't uncommon for a single game with 7 computer players to last up to eight hours. Sometimes I'd be in just the right situation where I would remain relatively unscathed and could watch them fight each other. All in all I tried to emulate reality rather than some designer's idea of a quick skirmish. It was hard to do though because of the engine's limitations. The game remains a favorite because the graphics and play have a certain charm. I tried Age3 but didn't like it and got rid of it. Pretty graphics do not a fun game make (unless it's a computerized jigsaw puzzle.)

[Sand]

One of the most basic things to consider is really the time it takes to backtrack to a safe location. In pen and paper, this can take as long as the DM needs to say, "Okay you go back to town." In a CRPG, your characters moving at 1/3rd speed actually have to cover all of that ground in real-time.

I WOULD LOVE THAT!

 

Um... Maybe I am just weird.

 

Of course in most games in which a party member dies which I didn't have the means to raise them I would just loot the body and ditch it.

[Wistrik]

I prefer the way SSI did it in their Gold Box games. Your character only fell unconscious at zero hit points. If he had between -1 and -9 hit points, he'd be bleeding and would lose one hitpoint per round unless bandaged. If a character reached -10 or less hit points, they died and would need to be resurrected at a temple, assuming their body was intact. Bandaging could be done during combat, with the character doing the bandaging sacrificing one combat round to help the fallen comrade. After battle the bandaged characters would rise up with one hit point. You could either heal them and continue, or make haste back to an Inn or Temple.

 

All CRPGs I've played since that golden era lack such a basic feature, and I've missed having it. Maybe it's not in the rules anymore, but if so I don't know why. It made a lot of sense.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Wistrik

[Volourn]

It's always been in an optional rule. I wish more PC games used it.

 

P.S. The NWN series (both 1, and 2) have it as the default death rule yet both BIO and Obsidian decided to nullify it for the actual OCs. L0L

[J.E. Sawyer]

Besides, as much as we might hate to admit it, the save anywhere, reload anytime paradigm could use some rethinking.

I certainly don't hate to admit it. I think it's pretty weak. Allowing the player to only save so often or at certain locations emphasizes the importance of resource management over time. I think it adds an interesting gameplay element. That said, designers have to be very careful about how they space those save points throughout gameplay to avoid frustrating players.

[Sand]

The problem with that is not everyone has the time to wait to go to a certain point and save. I often play my games up tot he point just prior I need to go to work and if I can save at that point, well, I would be S.O.L. which would bring only frustration.