Challenging lockpicking process

[Sacred_Path]

The player's job in a rpg is to choose the character's stats reasonably, so that the character *can* pick a lock when the player want's him to do so.

 

It's like in the business world, the boss doesn't need to know anything about engineering, his job is to hire a competent engineer.

Let me gently introduce a new word into the discussion: puzzle.

 

Is a game an RPG if it has puzzles? Is it ok if said puzzles are independent of character skill? Is it ok if they factor in character skill somewhere?

 

If lockpicking had a puzzle aspect to it, would that be ok? Would that game still be (gasp) an RPG?

 

O_O

[moridin84]

Way I figure it, people who want lock picking in the game like mini games, people who don't want lock picking in the game don't like mini games. 

 

People who play RPGs generally like combat so maybe the solution would be it make it more like combat in RPGs.

• Allow pausing
• Not twitch based
• Not puzzle based
• Integrated into the story
• Not time limited
• Not repetitive
• Party based

How's that?

 

 

[Keyrock]

While the idea itself is sound, delving this deeply into a single aspect of Project: Eternity, especially a fringe aspect like lockpicking, just doesn't seem like a good use of time and resources.  Something like this would be great for a game focused of stealth and subterfuge, but implementing it here would mean taking away from other aspects of the game.  In short, no thanks.

[Sacred_Path]

"not twitch based" and "not like a puzzle" doesn't leave many compelling options, m i rite? You either have to react quickly, or you have to think. Of course the term puzzle is fishy.

 

Wizardry 8's system would fit that description (not your other points tho). There's a pop up window where you manipulate tumblers, more or less efficiently based on your skill. You can also cast a knock spell (manipulating more or fewer tumblers based on spell power). There's no challenge at all though, and therefore it begs the question why it's in the game at all.

 

Now I guess this could be improved upon if i.e. there were actual consequences for tumblers coming loose again while you're still fiddling with others, like the trap blowing up in your face. The amount of times you have to try to move one tumbler gives you an indication of how big a challenge the lock is, if you should go on and risk the first tumbler coming loose again. Also the additional option of casting a knock spell would meet another of your points (party based). Maybe the higher the power level of the spell, the more likely it is to move more tumblers; if the spell level is too low vs. lock level, moved tumblers may come loose again. Of course as we know there probably won't be a knock spell in P:E and also no spell power level (that you actively choose).

[Umberlin]

what I'm saying is that character skill may determine your options, you play them out.

No, the action is your characters, you, at most, in a true RPG, give the command. That's it. That should be the absolute end of your input. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to pick the lock. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to swing their sword. The command to your character telling them to 'attempt' to move to a given location. These actions are theirs, their abilities based on the numbers telling you what the character is, and dictating what they can do in the world. The extent of your input is the command. Commands that mean nothing, and should mean nothing, unless the supporting numbers are there to carry them out.

 

Your character is not going to pull off a charismatic dialogue option unless he has the numbers in the supporting areas to allow for it. Your character is not going to pull off hitting an enemy with a blow unless he has the numbers in the supporting areas to allow for it when contrasted with the numbers of the target and the terrain. These are the things that force you to actually play a role, to roleplay, as the character because their limitations are set in the numbers. What you think and what you can do mean nothing, and should mean nothing, if a game is an actual RPG.

I may not be able to swing a sword and hit, but when I am able to, it is my actions that determine whether or not I swing it.

No, you order your character to do so. Whether they're actually able to do anything about the order is wholly up to the character, their supporting numbers, the environment and the numbers of the presumed target. Ever played an RPG where you wanted your character to do something and there was a lapse, maybe a complete failure for them to act or a failure of the action itself? This isn't a mistake. This is their numbers not supporting the action in question, because you tried to get them to do something outside of their capabilities.

In a similar vein, I think it's perfectly ok to determine the difficulty of lock-picking by character skill (or whether or not you can actually attempt the pick) while still letting the player do it.

I've never seen one, Fallout 3 and Skyrim as just two examples, and far - far - from the only examples, where the player couldn't have a baseless effect on the outcome of the lockpicking. If your numbers are not the 'only' thing determining the success of the attempt, if you can have any effect yourself on the outcome, then it's faulty. A failed attempt at an RPG system. The extent of your input should be the command to 'try' and never to get involved in a 'player hands on' manner. All the successes and failures, the actual attempts and actions themselves, are the character.

 

You can disagree all you want, but in the end, if you do, what you want is not an RPG. You want one of these games that are saturating the market right now, having any old gameplay they please and slapping the RPG label on it. Anything from Mass Effect to Dragon Age and many other 'supposed' RPGs in the modern day are all guilty of this nonsense.

 

If your character doesn't know how to walk, for some ungodly reason, and your order the character to walk, it should fall on its face no matter how much you command it to walk. You're just going to have to accept that they only know how to crawl, and you're going to have to work within those means. That's the point, working within the means of your character and having NO way around that from the player end. This forces you to think as if you were in the shoes of the characters. In this manner your command become dictated by what the numbers allow. This limitation is the essential essence of an RPG, because you are being purposefully limited, and offered no 'player skill' solution to get around these limitations. You can think all you want but the thoughts have to work within what the character is capable of, the numbers dictating your thoughts - you are now in the shoes of the character through the only means an RPG should put you in the shoes of the character, by forcing you to think like them, think within their means and do things as they would . . . never as you would.

[moridin84]

"not twitch based" and "not like a puzzle" doesn't leave many compelling options, m i rite? You either have to react quickly, or you have to think. Of course the term puzzle is fishy.

 

Yet combat in RPGs (at least IE-like ones) are neither twitch or puzzle based. 

 

You are arguing that combat and lock picking are similar right? Conceptually at least. I think that if they were similar in a significant way, then it should be perfectly viable. And obviously so. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Now you're only arguing against twitch elements. I hope you're aware of that.

Yep, I don't like twitch elements.

If you're drunk and you make stupid decisions that lead to your character dying in combat, that's ok for you. If you're drunk and therefore not as precise in the movement of your mouse/ not as quick in your reactions, that shouldn't have an effect on the character's performance.

Yep.

I'll spell it out if it hasn't come across yet: your distinction between governing your character's hand movements (lock picking, swordfighting) and governing his leg movements (walking) and intellectual activities is completely arbitrary. Therefore, you shouldn't try to sell this as a good mindset for designing games.

You must not be very good at spelling.

 

You control everything the PC does. You decide that they will pick a lock. The difference is that in one system success is determined by the characters skill at picking locks, while in the other success is determined by the player's skill at clicking/pressing buttons.

You might want to reread that sentence and then rephrase it yourself. What you're saying is that your idea of the holy grail of CRPG design is to find a way to make the character carry out the player's wishes automatically, which isn't possible yet so sadly the player has to push buttons constantly. If it were possible to make the character act out the wishes of the player automatically, this would make the character more independant of player skill.

And since I have stated that having player skill should not be a factor in the PC's success, this a problem how?

[Sacred_Path]

If you're drunk and you make stupid decisions that lead to your character dying in combat, that's ok for you. If you're drunk and therefore not as precise in the movement of your mouse/ not as quick in your reactions, that shouldn't have an effect on the character's performance.

Yep.

Hmm. And you see nothing problematic there? As in, arbitrary and contradictory?

You

control everything the PC does. You decide that they will pick a lock. The difference is that in one system success is determined by the characters skill at picking locks, while in the other success is determined by the player's skill at clicking/pressing buttons.

No. Or rather, only partially. For the umpteenth time, noone argues for a lockpicking mechanic that leaves out character skill.

You might want to reread that sentence and then rephrase it yourself. What you're saying is that your idea of the holy grail of CRPG design is to find a way to make the character carry out the player's wishes automatically, which isn't possible yet so sadly the player has to push buttons constantly. If it were possible to make the character act out the wishes of the player automatically, this would make the character more independant of player skill.

And since I have stated that having player skill should not be a factor in the PC's success, this a problem how?

The problem is that 1) you're making an outrageous claim ("it's unfortunate that the player has so much influence on a character's performance. It should all happen automatically, we just can't do that yet"), you're 2) not trying to explain why that would be a good thing (don't try, it's impossible), you're 3) contradicting yourself (when my character carries out my wishes automatically, how does that make him independant of me?).

Yet combat in RPGs (at least IE-like ones) are neither twitch or puzzle based.

I have to remind of the aptly named "combat puzzle".

 

I wasn't trying to be negative, simply stating that if you want to make lockpicking interesting it's hard to do if you set out saying to yourself "it shouldn't be twitchy and it shouldn't be a puzzle".

Edited February 26, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[JFSOCC]

I think both character skill and player skill is necessary, they're two sides of the same coin. One part is the role playing, the other part is the game playing. You need both.

[JOG]

 

 

The player's job in a rpg is to choose the character's stats reasonably, so that the character *can* pick a lock when the player want's him to do so.

 

It's like in the business world, the boss doesn't need to know anything about engineering, his job is to hire a competent engineer.

Let me gently introduce a new word into the discussion: puzzle.

 

Is a game an RPG if it has puzzles? Is it ok if said puzzles are independent of character skill? Is it ok if they factor in character skill somewhere?

 

If lockpicking had a puzzle aspect to it, would that be ok? Would that game still be (gasp) an RPG?

 

 

 

Puzzles are one thing, the riddle-mouths and sliding-puzzles of the early 80's mostly vanished when CRPGs got joinable NPCs and real conversations. And I don't think the genre lost much, when suddenly progress was blocked by other things than stone mouths asking questions. Of course RPGs still ought to have puzzling situations for the *player*'s mind to solve, (though in the last decade they introduced quest markers to make them not so puzzling for the casual player).

 

A puzzle that represents a mundane act you do hundreds of time is something different than a puzzling quest or the occasional lever-puzzle, though, it's a minigame. Betryal at Krondor did it first, and those that still remember that game, certainly don't swoon over it it because of the lockpicking minigame (that actually was a puzzle)...

 

You are going to have to learn to think before you act, but never to

regret your decisions, right or wrong. Otherwise, you will slowly begin to not

make decisions at all.

 

This is why we remember the game fondly.

Edited February 26, 2013 by JOG

[Sacred_Path]

Puzzles are one thing, the riddle-mouths and sliding-puzzles of the early 80's mostly vanished when CRPGs got joinable NPCs and real conversations. And I don't think the genre lost much, when suddenly progress was blocked by other things than stone mouths asking questions.

If by "other things" you mean "things other than puzzles", I can't agree. It's a bold thing to say that people don't want puzzles (at least for a game like P:E), and that it's better not to have them.

Of course RPGs still ought to have puzzling situations for the *player*'s mind to solve, (though in the last decade they introduced quest markers to make them not so puzzling for the casual player).

Like I said, the term puzzle is fishy. Let's say "obstacle that takes some mental effort" (maybe look at my suggestion of an improved version of Wizardry 8's lockpicking)

 

A puzzle that represents a mundane act you do hundreds of time is something different than a puzzling quest or the occasional lever-puzzle, though, it's a minigame. Betryal at Krondor did it first, and those that still remember that game, certainly don't swoon over it it because of the lockpicking minigame (that actually was a puzzle).

o rly

 

Speaking about BaK, the problem was IMO that while it was a nice diversion on the first playthrough, it became only a nuisance on subsequent playthrough because it had no variety. Also IIRC character skill didn't matter at all for the puzzle chests.

[JOG]

 

 

Puzzles are one thing, the riddle-mouths and sliding-puzzles of the early 80's mostly vanished when CRPGs got joinable NPCs and real conversations. And I don't think the genre lost much, when suddenly progress was blocked by other things than stone mouths asking questions.

If by "other things" you mean "things other than puzzles", I can't agree. It's a bold thing to say that people don't want puzzles (at least for a game like P:E), and that it's better not to have them.

 

 

I mean riddle mouths like in Bards Tale, the early Wizardrys, Legend of Faerghail etc. Basically sentient wall-ornamentations that ask you riddles before they let you pass.

 

Past warscapes fought by men long dead,

and treasures lost on bloodied fields,

the One God lifts his thorn-crowned head,

and lays a strength on friendly

 

Answer: shields (needs to be typed in, of course, no pre-written multiple-choice player responses back then.)

 

Those puzzles were replaced by things the party has to do (like solving the mistery of the missing gatekeeper, or picking the lock using (gasp) the thief's lockpick skill)

 

 

A great puzzle I remember from back then was the sword in the stone in Legend of Faerghail with a sign reading "The one who pulls this sword from stone will never sit on the king's throne" (only a female character can do it.)

Speaking about BaK, the problem was IMO that while it was a nice diversion on the first playthrough, it became only a nuisance on subsequent playthrough because it had no variety. Also IIRC character skill didn't matter at all for the puzzle chests.

Jep. Sure you can randomize the puzzles, and I'm not against the occasional lockless puzzle-protected door, but I'm no fan of the idea of having to pick every lock myself, when my character has a lockpicking skill.

 

 

Another example of puzzles going wrong it is Skyrim's dragon-claw-doors. This would have been a mind-twisting mean puzzle to remember for the ages, if there had been only one of them, and if the solution hadn't been betrayed during pre-release pomotion.

Edited February 26, 2013 by JOG

[forfs]

people hate on fallout 3 lock-picking mini game, but I really like it, the problem in F3, F:NV and Skyrim is that the screen is always the same no matter what lock you try to pick. So the chest in ancient ruins has the same looking lock as a door in a village and a night stand? besides, FNV mini game is first person, while P.E. is isometric, which creates sort of dissonance. 

 

 

God dammit, please just leave lockpicking to something like either Fallout or KOTOR. We don't need a bloody lockpicking minigame screwing with our flow!

FNV style would be the best i think. at most you can add the need for specific lockpick types for specific lock types but no more than that. let's say 3 diferent types of locks and 3 diferent types of picks if you have the right pick and the skill you can try to open the lock fallout style and that's it.

 

yeah, but wasn't that somehow already covered by levels? (you couldn't pick hard lock below 75 skill etc). I'm all for some mini game, but there would have to be some system that lets you skip it on your 100000th lock or else it becomes a chore

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hmm. And you see nothing problematic there? As in, arbitrary and contradictory?

Not at all. You don't need to press buttons so your character can breathe, eat, walk, ****, etc. successfully do you?

No. Or rather, only partially. For the umpteenth time, noone argues for a lockpicking mechanic that leaves out character skill.

I don't see why you keep bringing noone in to this.

 

I wasn't arguing that someone was arguing for that. The deciding factor is the player's skill. Success hinges on the players ability to press buttons or click, even though the character skill may make it easier.

The problem is that 1) you're making an outrageous claim ("it's unfortunate that the player has so much influence on a character's performance. It should all happen automatically, we just can't do that yet"), you're 2) not trying to explain why that would be a good thing (don't try, it's impossible), you're 3) contradicting yourself (when my character carries out my wishes automatically, how does that make him independant of me?).

1. How is it outrageous? The technology clearly isn't available at this time.

2. Because it would make the character completely independent of player skill, which I said was my preference.

3. I did state that the character should act exactly within the character design the player created. Having the character act as someone designed them independent of further player input isn't a contradiction, unless you also think that dynamic AI is a contradiction.

[Sacred_Path]

Not at all. You don't need to press buttons so your character can breathe, eat, walk, ****, etc. successfully do you?

(emphasis mine)

 

So what RPGs have you played where you don't need to press a button for your character to walk to a certain location?

 

Also, props for mostly missing the subject. I said:

 

If you're drunk and you make stupid decisions that lead to your character dying in combat, that's ok for you. If you're drunk and therefore not as precise in the movement of your mouse/ not as quick in your reactions, that shouldn't have an effect on the character's performance.

By stupid decisions I obviously didn't mean "forgetting to let your character breathe" (unless you're underwater. In that case running out of oxygen is a dumb thing to do), but making bad decisions in combat, breaking&entering in broad daylight, casting Firebolt at the king, etc. All of which has negative consequences that you say you can live with, despite the fact that you claim a player's skills/ condition shouldn't have an influence on the character.

1. H

ow is it outrageous? The technology clearly isn't available at this time.

Trolling much? Obviously the point isn't the technology, it's outrageous because, even in the near or far future, noone will be interested in playing a game, or rather loading up a game, where the character makes all decisions by himself.

2. Because it would make the character completely independent of player skill, which I said was my preference.

good luck waiting for "less player control!" to become a trend in CRPG design. Edited February 26, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

(emphasis mine)

 

So what RPGs have you played where you don't need to press a button for your character to walk to a certain location?

You obviously don't understand what "successfully" means. In what RPGs have you played where moving from point A to point B required the player to press a series of buttons so the character did not trip and fall with every step?

Also, props for mostly missing the subject. I said:

 

 

If you're drunk and you make stupid decisions that lead to your character dying in combat, that's ok for you. If you're drunk and therefore not as precise in the movement of your mouse/ not as quick in your reactions, that shouldn't have an effect on the character's performance.

By stupid decisions I obviously didn't mean "forgetting to let your character breathe" (unless you're underwater. In that case running out of oxygen is a dumb thing to do), but making bad decisions in combat, breaking&entering in broad daylight, casting Firebolt at the king, etc. All of which has negative consequences that you say you can live with, despite the fact that you claim a player's skills/ condition shouldn't have an influence on the character.

 

 

Hey if you completely lose control of your mental faculties when you have a bit too drink don't blame me. Some of us are capable of holding our liquor enough to still make ration decisions even if we are a bit drunk.

 

What if "drunk" was replaced with "sick" or "injured"? There would be no reason for the character to suddenly start sucking at picking locks or missing enemies in the game, but they would because the guy pressing the buttons would suddenly be unable to do so as effectively.

Trolling much? Obviously the point isn't the technology, it's outrageous because, even in the near or far future, noone will be interested in playing a game, or rather loading up a game, where the character makes all decisions by himself.

Well I'm sorry that noone feels that way. I still don't see what noone has to do with this.

good luck waiting for "less player control!" to become a trend in CRPG design.

Someone missed the last decade. Edited February 26, 2013 by KaineParker

[Sacred_Path]

You obviously don't understand what "successfully" means. In what RPGs have you played where moving from point A to point B required the player to press a series of buttons so the character did not trip and fall with every step?

You obviously don't understand that a character's movement depends on the player's skill; often, as you just noted, entirely so!

 

Have you played the IE games? Do you just let your characters stand around leisurely, or do you move them around tactically? Ever retreated into a doorway? Run away when you figured that 2 more hits would take you down? Have you played whack-a-mole in a first person RPG? Then you should get my point.

 

 

Hey if you completely lose control of your mental faculties when you have a bit too drink don't blame me. Some of us are capable of holding our liquor enough to still make ration decisions even if we are a bit drunk.

reading comprehension over 9000

What

if "drunk" was replaced with "sick" or "injured"? There would be no reason for the character to suddenly start sucking at picking locks or missing enemies in the game, but they would because the guy pressing the buttons would suddenly be unable to do so as effectively.

What if "sick" or "injured" was replaced by "tired"? So your character's performance shouldn't suffer if you play with your eyes closed/ snoring? Once again I challenge you to explain where the fundamentil difference is in playing badly (making all the wrong decisions) and aiming/ lockpicking badly.

Someone missed the last decade.

You can say what you want about Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, but at least they still require a player to operate the basic mechanisms! Hey, I haven't even looked at it like that before. Thanks, I guess. Edited February 26, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You obviously don't understand that a character's movement depends on the player's skill; often, as you just noted, entirely so!

No it depends on the player telling a character where to go. The player does not need to press a string of buttons so the character does not fall down.

Have you played the IE games? Do you just let your characters stand around leisurely, or do you move them around tactically? Ever retreated into a doorway? Run away when you figured that 2 more hits would take you down? Have you played whack-a-mole in a first person RPG? Then you should get my point.

Have you ever had to press a button to keep them from falling down, or after you told them where to go, did they do it?

 

 

reading comprehension over 9000

Well some of us here have to know how to speak English.

What if "sick" or "injured" was replaced by "tired"? So your character's performance shouldn't suffer if you play with your eyes closed/ snoring? Once again I challenge you to explain where the fundamentil difference is in playing badly (making all the wrong decisions) and aiming/ lockpicking badly.

Can you explain what the **** fundamentil is? Is that some kind of lentil?

 

If you meant "fundamental" the difference is that one is determined solely by the player's interpretation of what the character would do, while the other is determined by the player's ability to press buttons. So success would depend on what the character is able to do in a system that only utilizes character skill, and player skill in the other system.

You can say what you want about Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, but at least they still require a player to operate the basic mechanisms! Hey, I haven't even looked at it like that before. Thanks, I guess.

In ME and DA, the character talks and moves without input from the player. So yes, player control was lessened. Edited February 26, 2013 by KaineParker

[Umberlin]

You can say what you want about Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, but at least they still require a player to operate the basic mechanisms! Hey, I haven't even looked at it like that before. Thanks, I guess.

Because they aren't RPGs. They're action RPGs (and the RPG portions remaining are just BARELY there, especially in regard to nonsense like Mass Effect). Get that through your head. Action RPGs are not RPGs. The difference is obvious an action RPG is more reliant on the player, but it's an entirely different genre for that reason. Obsidian, by their own description of P:E, are making an RPG. Not an action RPG, just an RPG. That means the twitch elements, and elements that let the player overcome the numbers - like lockpicking mini games - have no place here.

 

The character picks the lock. Not you. Their skill matters. Not yours.

 

If you're looking for that sort of nonsense, games like Mass Effect are perfect for you, but if that's the sort of game you want then why in the name of everything and anything are you looking at an actual RPG in the style of older RPGs more true to the RPG concept than modern 'supposed' RPGs? It's like you've gone on a forum for an FPS and complained that it doesn't have enough RTS elements.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Umberlin

[Sacred_Path]

No it depends on the player telling a character where to go. The player does not need to press a string of buttons so the character does not fall down.

You need to press buttons to navigate around traps. You need to press buttons and use your own timing to stay in the shadows, if the stealth system requires it. You need to press buttons and use your own foresight to navigate a battlefield with your squishy mage. Your point: there is none.

Well some of us here have to know how to speak English.

You're wise and humble.

If you meant "fundamental" the difference is that one is determined solely by the player's interpretation of what the character would do, while the other is determined by the player's ability to press buttons. So success would depend on what the character is able to do in a system that only utilizes character skill, and player skill in the other system.

Whenever you want to degrade a certain activity on part of the player you talk about "pressing buttons". I wonder why that is. Button phobia much?

 

Performing well in combat and other activities demands player skill. Lockpicking in most cases does not. The reasons for this discrepancy hasn't been properly explained by anyone yet.

In ME and DA, the character talks and moves without input from the player. So yes, player control was lessened.

Remember that "branching dialogue" hasn't been a standard for ages, so I wouldn't call it, as the young folks say, "massive decline".

[Sacred_Path]

Because they aren't RPGs. They're action RPGs. Get that through your head. Action RPGs are not RPGs. The difference is obvious an action RPG is more reliant on the player, but it's an entirely different genre for that reason. Obsidian, by their own description of P:E, are making an RPG. Not an action RPG, just an RPG. That means the twitch elements, and elements that let the player overcome the numbers - like lockpicking mini games - have no place here.

There is so much hyperbole in this post I don't even.

The difference is obvious an action RPG is more reliant on the player, but it's an entirely different genre for that reason.

The fact that it's a composite word should probably tells us that one is a sub genre of the other. Also I challenge the claim that ARPG's are "more reliant on the player". While I have to manage my own movement in combat in a TES game, I have to manage the movements of 6 characters in an IE game. What the ARPG demands in twitch skills the IE games demand in tactics. Dialogue in a 'true' RPG (i.e. Arcanum) tends to take more thought than in an ARPG.

The character picks the lock. Not you. Their skill matters. Not yours.

Yes, usually. Doesn't it make you wonder?

If you're looking for that sort of nonsense, games like Mass Effect are perfect for you, but if that's the sort of game you want then why in the name of everything and anything are you looking at an actual RPG in the style of older RPGs more true to the RPG concept than modern 'supposed' RPGs? It's like you've gone on a forum for an FPS and complained that it doesn't have enough RTS elements.

There is so much hyperbole in this post I don't even.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You need to press buttons to navigate around traps. You need to press buttons and use your own timing to stay in the shadows, if the stealth system requires it. You need to press buttons and use your own foresight to navigate a battlefield with your squishy mage. Your point: there is none.

Does any of that require you to press buttons so the character does not fall down?

You're wise and humble.

Thank you.

Whenever you want to degrade a certain activity on part of the player you talk about "pressing buttons". I wonder why that is. Button phobia much?

 

Performing well in combat and other activities demands player skill. Lockpicking in most cases does not. The reasons for this discrepancy hasn't been properly explained by anyone yet.

So hitting someone with a sword requires player skill in the IE games? I must have missed that. I seem to recall that it used a RNG to determine a number 1-20 and used that to see if a hit was made.

Remember that "branching dialogue" hasn't been a standard for ages, so I wouldn't call it, as the young folks say, "massive decline".

But it is a lessening of player control. And it is a trend. So the trend of "less player control in cRPGS" is already here.

[Sacred_Path]

Does any of that require you to press buttons so the character does not fall down?

There's one word for this: autism

So hitting someone with a sword requires player skill in the IE games? I must have missed that. I seem to recall that it used a RNG to determine a number 1-20 and used that to see if a hit was made.

Easy: if combat in an IE game doesn't have anything to do with player skill, a veteran of ~200 hours in the IE games should do just as well as a complete noob.

But it is a lessening of player control. And it is a trend. So the trend of "less player control in cRPGS" is already here.

Now you just have to explain why that is what you want/ how the genre profits from it. I'm all ears. O_O Edited February 26, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

There's one word for this: autism

So you accept that successfully walking has nothing to do with player skill? Good. I was beginning to think you couldn't understand anything but assembling Volkswagens, Sven.

Easy: if combat in an IE game doesn't have anything to do with player skill, a veteran of ~200 hours in the IE games should do just as well as a complete noob.

Sure. It isn't like combat relies on anyone's reflexes or has requires the player to master pressing a series of buttons in quick succession.

Now you just have to explain why that is what you want/ how the genre profits from it. I'm all ears. O_O

I want the ability to completely script all aspects of a PC in a cRPG and have them accurately act as I designed them completely independent of any player input, because that would be a marvel of technology. Not only would one get to be able to put the game on "auto-pilot" if they wished, if they wanted to play someone whose tactical ability was far beyond the greatest generals in history or with a mindset completely alien to them, they no can. The genre can heavily benefit by now being able to create reliable AI for the party and foes, who will both be more dynamic and effective in combat.

[Sacred_Path]

Sure. It isn't like combat relies on anyone's reflexes or has requires the player to master pressing a series of buttons in quick succession.

You're dodging. Try to back up your position that no skill is needed whatsoever to perform well in IE combat.

I want the ability to completely script all aspects of a PC in a cRPG and have them accurately act as I designed them completely independent of any player input, because that would be a marvel of technology. Not only would one get to be able to put the game on "auto-pilot" if they wished, if they wanted to play someone whose tactical ability was far beyond the greatest generals in history or with a mindset completely alien to them, they no can. The genre can heavily benefit by now being able to create reliable AI for the party and foes, who will both be more dynamic and effective in combat.

I see. So you could take a backseat while your character analyzes the battlefield and orders everyone around, leaving you to wonder why you didn't think of that. That would surely be better than playing. ô.ô Edited February 27, 2013 by Sacred_Path