Poor beastiary, Unsatisfying Creature variety "Unacceptable".

[Sacred_Path]

Wizardry 8 did monster recycling p. sweet.

 

Yes it was 'same monster different color', but they had different attack types, inflicted different status effects, had different (not just higher) resistances etc.

 

If you have to use monster recycling, do it this way.

[bussinrounds]

but if there are 50 monsters and 5 colors are being used you suddenly get 250 monsters.

No you don't. You just have 50 monsters with some different colors.

 

I'm all about having great monster variety. One of the big reasons I was drawn to fantasy and d&d going back to the 80s in the first place. All those crazy monster types, you didn't know what the hell you were gonna run into. And also a huge pet peeve I have concerning modern RPGs (among many other things) the horrible lack of creature variety.

[Umberlin]

If two thirds of this forum was to be believed then Obsidian is a talentless hack studio, one which has never made a game, ever, in any incarnation, whose employees are completely ignorant of how RPGs are made in every aspect and whose writers and artists are amongst the most inexperienced and useless in all creation. I'm sure that two thirds of the forum will also agree with you, dear original poster, that the beastiary, and its variety, are completely unacceptable.

 

Luckily, for those of us whose mental states perceive reality, that two thirds, of this forum, are also the same people who post from their local looney bins, hopped up on their daily meds.

 

Personally I'll wait and see what the experienced RPG studio, full of experienced RPG makers, who hail from experienced RPG making studios prior, actually do . . . instead of screaming that the sky is falling before I've even been delivered to a location from which I can even see the sky.

[Parallax]

One single Dragon can really set a tone in any fictional work (Smaug).

 

13-14 Dragons ruins it and makes Dragons boring (Skyrim).

 

Dragons, like any potentially powerful and dangerous foe, are subject to the Conservation of Ninjutsu. I imagine Baldur's Gate 2 would have been pretty boring if every third boss were a demilich. But there is only one Kagnaxx, and boy, are we glad that's the case...

Edited December 13, 2012 by Parallax

[Osvir]

but if there are 50 monsters and 5 colors are being used you suddenly get 250 monsters.

No you don't. You just have 50 monsters with some different colors.

 

Visually yes, is that true mechanically and tactically as well? Do you deal with Blue the same way you deal with Red?

 

Blue could be great at magic, having a large mana pool.

Red could be more melee and damage, having a large health pool.

 

Anyways, I get what you are saying, but 1 monster with 5 different colors is true what you say, it is the same monster, the same family. Just different varieties of it. It does​ still make the bestiary feel bigger than it is (Final Fantasy 1-7). They still share different traits, one monster is bigger, stronger and more physical, hard working laborer. The colors are simply indicators for "This one is different than the other one I faced".

 

I think there are some 4-5 same type looking soldier in FF7 that feels like different types of soldiers, but really all they are are different colors. In the game Lore (of FF7) they would be classified as different "Ranks". One is a simple Guard, one a Veteran, another one an Elite Guard. Physically they look the same, the only difference is Red & Blue.

 

EDIT: Let's turn it around, if you were a developer, would you want to make 100 individual monsters for your world? Possibly, yes. But do you have enough time, or does it take time from something else that also is important in a game (locations/houses/areas/quest effects/spells etc. etc.). What would be most effective?

 

Instead of having regular guard and elite guard have different animations, gear, abilities etc. etc. it could be easier to simply give Reg. Guard the color White and the Elite Guard the color Black. Same animations, visually the same, but still having different abilities, strengths & weaknesses. Though, perhaps Equipment could take into consideration how the Humanoids of P:E look like (those capable of wearing Equipment~) whilst monsters are something different.

 

Thinking about it, in BG there are Gnolls, Gnoll Veteran, Gnoll Elite and Flay (or something like that) and they have some minor color adjustments, some have major color adjustments. Ogrillon+Half-Ogre are pretty much the same, one has a helmet and some armor, but their animations are pretty much the same.

 

Small adjustments in color tone and some adjustments to "gear" (visually) really does a lot for immersion.

 

Here are some examples from BG (animals) that are the same (top of my head):

* Black Bear

* Brown Bear

* Bear

* Polar Bear

 

* Wolf

* Winter Wolf

* Dog

Edited December 13, 2012 by Osvir

[bussinrounds]

Those are actually different creatures though, even though the models might be the same. And that's cool. When someone said 'different colors', i was thinking the exact same creature, just with a different color, in which case I wouldn't be fine with that. (unless it was done very sparsely)

 

I would be all for taking time from certain other aspects of the game to add creature variety. (if it was really weak, as it is in most all modern RPGs)

[Osvir]

Here is a great site for reference... how many monsters did Baldur's Gate have?

http://mikesrpgcente...e/bestiary.html

 

EDIT: Quick counting I get it to 74. Doing a quick head count I get it to something like "32" unique monsters. <- These numbers aren't accurate, I just skimmed, doing a quick head count.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Osvir

[Umberlin]

You know, quest for glory, if you take it game by game, instead of as their entire five entry series . . . they didn't have tons of monsters. Just a few new ones per game. For an example of why this was preferable let's take Quest for Glory II.

 

Quest for Glory II had very few enemies, like other entires. and why I bring it up is that it's probably the best implementation of the existing enemies. Each enemy had very specific abilities, attacks, patterns and behaviours to learn and exploit. If you went to the Guild and trained with Uhura, it wasn't just a way to build up your skills, it was a way to learn different enemy behaviours and attack patterns. She'd give you advice as you trained. She'd change how she attacked, tell you how to defend against different attacks and enemies. These were all part of learning the larger system.

 

The system really began when you got out there and started fighting the enemies. The giant black scorpion could grab you with its impale you with its stinger. The Ghoul drained your stamina, and you would be unable to attack, defend or anything that cost stamina. All this little eccentricities then translated into something more. Those dangerous things; the claws, the tail and other things you could loot off a dead body? They had further use. Go down to the apothecary. He buys these things, specifically, for his business. Why is this important? Well, obviously, you make money, but try buying up his wares in mass. See what happens. He runs out. He needs ingredients to replenish his stock.

 

Few enemies with specific abilities, with remains that have specific uses, in an economy that needs these remains to make its wares to further your own goals as a hero. Your health pills. Your stamina pills. Your mana pills. Etc. Part of the circle of, um, heroism . . . or something.

 

-

 

Yes, you could make such a system with 'more' enemies, but, typically, systems with a mass of enemies have a bunch of very 'stupid' enemies, with uninteresting attack patterns and no real variety. In the end I think I'd rather . . . they start small, make the enemies they have solid, and branch out from there, slowly, paying the attention to detail that each type deserves. If the end result is not that many? I'd still prefer it, because at least they'd, in theory, be well made. They'd fit, and they'd be interesting to fight. Still, it's true, the best laid plans of mice and men, and all that. Anything that can go wrong . . . I'll just hope for the best.

 

In short; I'm happy with few enemies, as long as the quality is there. Quality concerns me more than quantity. Be there few, be there many, be there somewhere in between, quality is my concern. If the quality is there, I'm happy.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Umberlin