Do people want this game to be as "Hardcore" as 90's RPGs?

[metiman]

I've noticed lots of people here getting boners over the thought of being sadistically punished by the game mechanics of old. I understand and endorse the concept of making the player think more and do more within their game; something only the older games provided. But i do think that bringing back some of the unnecessarily tedious and frankly outdated game mechanics of the 90's would only be a detriment to the game.

 

Accept it or not, but it's factual that many game mechanics and gameplay elements have been improved since the 90's. Yes, many have been stripped of complexity, but it's foolish to say that nothing has improved.

 

So my question is: Do you want a carbon copy the "hardcore" game mechanics of the 90's, or do you want the more complex elements mixed with some modern mechanics and gameplay elements?

 

I don't accept it. Nothing has improved. Are you calling me a fool? Moderator! You haven't given even a single example of what you are talking about. Are you expecting us to be psychics? What did you have in mind? Better graphics perhaps? I would welcome that, but it is unlikely due to cost constraints. In terms of actual gameplay cRPGs most definitely have not improved since the 90s. What is there to improve? It's really just graphics that you'd expect to progress with time. Action games did improve between the 90s and the new millenium, although they seem to have stagnated for now until the new consoles are released. But RPGs? No, they have not improved.

[andreisiadi]

Why should be the tutorial dungeon a nightmare in normal difficulties? What's this? Age of Decadence where you supposedly must have a Master Degree in Age of Decadence to beat the first combat?

 

Because I want people that are the opposite of smart to be unable to play the game. I want imbeciles to be discriminated against. And from that I will derive pleasure.

[gandalf.nho]

I don't like excessive hard games, but I think the IE games had a good difficulty level. Only of the few things I really want in this game is the "save anywhere/save anytime option", because isn't fun to replay a good portion of gameplay because of things outside of your control (the IE games hava this option, the only limitation was "no enemy nearby")

[Lady Evenstar]

I want to be able to save whenever I'm interrupted (usually by an elderly dog that needs to be carried outside). I'm not looking for punitive, but I do want to have to pay attention to tooltips, conversational clues, and environmental signals. Since the game was promoted as being reminiscent of the IE games, I'm expecting approximately their degree of difficulty.

[Umberlin]

I definitely don't want my character's level or power to be the final deciding factor. I like games to require I think, I never want to walk through a door and just bulldoze the competition. Any challenge the game throws at me, regardless of what it is, I want to have to think tactically and be punished if I don't or if I do something stupid like walking into a trap, be it a laid trap or an ambush or what have you.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Umberlin

[KateM]

I don't want to play a game that requires system mastery just to create a decent character.

 

It's obnoxious when a game wants me to spend all of my stat points and lock my character's future in stone right at the beginning when I haven't even begun to play and have no idea how the system even works. Should I put three points into swords or four? Stats are just abstract numbers with no meaning to me until I've had a chance to play and see how things work. Let the character grow as I play, don't force me to build him all at once.

[Umberlin]

I don't want to play a game that requires system mastery just to create a decent character.

 

It's obnoxious when a game wants me to spend all of my stat points and lock my character's future in stone right at the beginning when I haven't even begun to play and have no idea how the system even works. Should I put three points into swords or four? Stats are just abstract numbers with no meaning to me until I've had a chance to play and see how things work. Let the character grow as I play, don't force me to build him all at once.

 

Personally I don't feel like true challenge has to come from requiring players to min-max stats. In fact a good DM in a PnP game will tend to punish players for min-maxing and over specializing readily. They do this by requiring broader and more varied tactical thinking from a player, so when I ask for real challenge I don't mean requiring min-maxing, nor do I mean pumping up monster health and damage to absurd proportions. I mean the tactical approaches that enemies can use, their abilities and set ups, their mobility, and so on, require more than just that straight line power build that's always best.

 

Coming from a PnP background I love DMs that just smirk as they riddle the supposed power builds, that over specialize themselves, with holes. Because, while I know some people enjoy that, when games are made to specifically cater to that playstyle . . . the results can get pretty monotonous pretty fast for anyone that was looking for actual roleplaying or tactical, strategic, combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As mentioned earlier, if you want hardcore you should probably look to the '80s. Wizard's Crown is an excellent example of a game with deep and challenging combat.

[Gargantuan]

Some very salient and astute observations here. I also believe the challenges and difficulty 'plateau' should be distributed on a variety gameplay options in an encounter or objective. Like mentioned before, the difficulty could hinge upon environment where there is a restriction of movement, placement of enemies, or even a time limit. And the solution should reflect the variety of design that is available. If the combat is difficult, then there could be a diplomatic option. There could be a very dangerous area, but you could skirt around it to reach a destination, although it may be a bit longer to trek and outside of reaching possible side objectives. There could be secret areas where one could definitely visit for the sake of difficulty alone.

[limaxophobiacq]

On second thought: Combat as hardcore as the games of the 90's? I'm going to take that to mean that it'll be about as punishing as PS:T combat, and yeah I'd probably like that.

Edited September 19, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Terror K]

I know I'm probably a minority here, but I personally found the best middle-ground was the likes of NWN2 and Dragon Age: Origins. To me the perfect RPG would be somewhere between these. Dragon Age: Origins was almost perfect, IMO, but lacked depth and challenge in certain areas, such as not having things like level-drain, enemies taking control of your party characters and using them against you, some of the more advanced traps and deeper spells, curses... stuff like that. And more varied enemies that encompass these things. It also lacked in the player freedom department, such as being able to become head of a guild, etc. but that's less a gameplay factor than it is a content one.

 

And for me, most of the annoying factors from BG1 were rectified in BG2 (such as the game automatically unpausing when going to the inventory screen and my characters getting slaughtered because I couldn't see what was happening and time was still advancing). There are some factors I just find annoying rather than challenging though, largely because I think it's too easy for them to occur. I've never been a fan of complete character death in combat for instance, and in games it happens to my companions I usually reload to before the combat section.

[Zombra]

I want a challenging game with robust mechanics. By "robust" I mean I don't want a game that encourages you to "metagame" it, with nonimmersive tricks such as "pulling" away enemies one at a time to make it easier. I want the challenges to be built with the entire game design in mind, and I want to be rewarded for using all the tools at my disposal creatively, but I want nonintended behavior to be difficult and/or impossible.

 

Does that make sense?

Edited September 19, 2012 by Zombra

[KhaineGB]

I would very much love this game to be similar to the RPG's of the late 90's and even the early 2000's.

 

Baldur's Gate 2 was probably my favourite RPG. If I could have a game that was a mixture of that, and Dragon Age: Origins, I'd be happy. The combat of Origins was awesome, as was how much you could control the camera (I basically played it top-down view), but I liked a lot of the character features in Baldur's Gate 2 (like the 100-odd spells mages and clerics get.... yeah, I'm probably over-exaggerating, but you get my point compared to DA:O mages).

 

Just, for the love of god, don't make it like Dragon Age 2. That game forced you down a very specific path, the combat felt more like an Action game rather than an RPG (all it was missing was hitting buttons at the right time for super-awesome-epic-power-combo!!!!!!) and the story was kinda meh. I like my computer RPG's to feel as close to pen'n'paper as possible. Maybe unrealistic, but that's what I enjoy.

[Ieo]

DA:O was to me like a mix between isometric party with pause and MMO tactics. Pulling, line of sight, laying traps and whatever. Since I also play an MMO, it felt more natural to me than my friends who rarely touch CRPGs and do mostly pen-paper.

 

If Project Eternity is supposed to be in the same 'experience class' as the old IE games, I wouldn't expect that kind of hybrid combat system (which required mobile camera for best effects).

 

I'm rather neutral on the topic so long as the actual combat mechanics are smooth, without cheese, and generally better than PS:T's.

[Nakia]

No, give them the tutorial set to easy. Let them have their moment of fun and lull them into thinking the game is easy then the step into the real game world, easy vanishes and the net tightens. Everything gets harder, more complex.

[DarthAdamRG]

I want it to be hard, I want it to be challenging and call for some use of intellect, but unlike the 90's I do have a life and a career now and couldnt spend countless hours on the game progressing through content, so in a way not as hardcore as some of the 90's rpgs, but a throwback to them definitely, I do not mind death coming at a penalty and actually like the idea of having to cure and heal yourself and party members up, but definitely do not want to be constantly wiping cause the content is just ridiculously hard for the sake of it.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I want it to be challenging and satisfying. I want to fail because I messed up.

So yeah if that means 'hardcore' I want it.

[Bobby Null]

As most of us folks working on this title are pretty "old school", I'd say it's a safe bet you old-timers will feel right at home. That being said, just because it was in a game 15+ years ago, doesn't always mean it is great design. We'll be looking at our system designs very carefully to ensure we satisfy you sadistic types that enjoy the pain, while giving options to the folks that are not as hardcore. Josh did a great job with this in New Vegas.

[LadyCrimson]

I want it to be "hardcore" in terms of gameplay mechanics complexity and where I don't feel like I can "LOL faceroll" through it from the very start. I want to take plenty of damage and wonder if I'm going to make it through to the next area/city or thru the woods to grandma's house without companions falling or running out of resources.

 

But I do not want to feel like every minor combat I come across = instant death and constant re-loads to make it through, because that's just cheap. imo.

Edited September 19, 2012 by LadyCrimson

[Gurkog]

I want it to be 'hardcore' in that language arts majors have a joygasm playing it. While my language skills are subpar, I would like to think that a video game can inspire future generations of writers into thinking about dialogue and narrative from a different perspective.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Gurkog

[Monkcrab]

As long as the game allows for flexibility in playstyles, bring on the hardcore-ness (although they should have a slider for those otherwise inclined). The only thing that bothered me about the 90's is that it was all too easy to gimp your characters on your first playthrough, when you didn't know what you were doing, and you only realize it 20 hours later. I have limited time to play these days---like many people, I suspect---and the alternative of flipping through a wiki/faq every single time you level up just make sure you're doing it right is not appealing.

 

I think Obsidian stated somewhere----a comment picked up by Gamebanshee, IIRC---that they're trying to avoid the gimping-without-going-out-of-the-way-to-be-stupid problem, though. So with that in mind : bring me nefarious traps, stat drains and computers behaving like a sadistic DM. Hardcore is fun as long as it's fair.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

As most of us folks working on this title are pretty "old school", I'd say it's a safe bet you old-timers will feel right at home. That being said, just because it was in a game 15+ years ago, doesn't always mean it is great design. We'll be looking at our system designs very carefully to ensure we satisfy you sadistic types that enjoy the pain, while giving options to the folks that are not as hardcore. Josh did a great job with this in New Vegas.

 

ngggh I know I'm going to somehow regret this and I really didn't want to say anything as I love Mr Sawyer's work BUT my only complaint about F:NV is that it's way to easy even with his mod :< On Very Hard Hardcore.

 

Make it harder....hehe.

[Sensuki]

I have literally never completed the prologue to IWD without at least a dozen reloads - if a single goblin or orc rolls higher than maybe 13 then that will one shot a wizard or thief, or a cleric if the enemy gets a good damage roll. A single critical hit will one-shot any level one character. There's nothing you can do tactically to prevent that, short of composing your party entirely of fighters and having each one run away after the first time they get hit (and hope you don't get critted). Baldur's Gate is about the same, except you don't get such large groups of enemies from the beginning so you only need to get lucky on a few rolls.

 

Really?

 

I had that problem when I was younger and didn't know the D&D rules / game mechanics inside out, but with a well-optimized party and 'safe' play, it's hard to even lose a character in the prologue.

 

The main threats are the goblins with the bows at the start, just make sure your lowest AC characters go in first and the arches/spellcasters aim them.

 

Then there's the Ogres and the casters in the cave. If you're properly rested with the right spells and once again, safe play (lowest AC chars take the aggro), there's enough healing pots around to make up the damage as well.

 

Baldur's Gate 1 has a weird mechanic where a lot of the time monsters will get a critical hit on the first attack, for instance, the Ogre in the area south of the Friendly Arm Inn, send your main character in first against him and he will 1 shot you. Send Imoen in first and he'll never kill her in one hit (or rarely anyway).

 

And that's what Xzar and Montaron are for :D cannon fodder for the Ogre and Tarnesh on the stairs, hehe.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Sensuki

[Bobby Null]

As most of us folks working on this title are pretty "old school", I'd say it's a safe bet you old-timers will feel right at home. That being said, just because it was in a game 15+ years ago, doesn't always mean it is great design. We'll be looking at our system designs very carefully to ensure we satisfy you sadistic types that enjoy the pain, while giving options to the folks that are not as hardcore. Josh did a great job with this in New Vegas.

 

ngggh I know I'm going to somehow regret this and I really didn't want to say anything as I love Mr Sawyer's work BUT my only complaint about F:NV is that it's way to easy even with his mod :

 

Make it harder....hehe.

 

How hard are we talking here? Temple of Elemental Evil "Iron Man" mode?

[Moonlight Butterfly]

As most of us folks working on this title are pretty "old school", I'd say it's a safe bet you old-timers will feel right at home. That being said, just because it was in a game 15+ years ago, doesn't always mean it is great design. We'll be looking at our system designs very carefully to ensure we satisfy you sadistic types that enjoy the pain, while giving options to the folks that are not as hardcore. Josh did a great job with this in New Vegas.

 

ngggh I know I'm going to somehow regret this and I really didn't want to say anything as I love Mr Sawyer's work BUT my only complaint about F:NV is that it's way to easy even with his mod :< On Very Hard Hardcore.

 

Make it harder....hehe.

 

How hard are we talking here? Temple of Elemental Evil "Iron Man" mode?

 

MOAR HARD. :D ( I want to be tempted to break my keyboard!!!)

 

But seriously I just want a game that punishes you for not paying attention really and that it's satisfying when you beat an enemy encounter

Edited September 19, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly