Sawyerism and High-Level Design

[DreamDancer]

First of all: Excellent thread. Definitely going into the Meta-Gaming here, because it basically comes down to the question: How do you approach a game?

It's about style and personal preference really. I bet you can ask a dozen people how they play a game and come up with 12 different answers. How we play a game, how we engage with its mechanics and the game world it presents is less of a technical issue and more of an emotional one. Why? Because we play games to have a good time and enjoy ourselves, don't we?

 

If we don't like certain game mechanics (like the excessive buffing prior to any combat) we will try to avoid it and find a way that we do enjoy (like the rogue approach or luring enemies into traps). In any case, what happens is that we try to make the game bend to our will and personal preference, and a good game gives lots of options to play the game "right", right being the way that fits a player's individual, unique approach to gaming.

 

Considering the nature of the issue there is no way to make it "right" for everyone, so the only way to still appeal to a bigger crowd is to offer as many option as possible for overcoming challenges. Granted, this is of course mostly combat/dungeon crawling related, but as these are common elements of this particular genre, it is important that they are designed well, dynamically and in a flexible way. At least appeal to the three categories the OP mentioned so people falling into those categories can all have a good time with the game.

 

Now for closure my personal take on this. I pretty much shifted from one extreme to another when it comes to how I play games. A few years ago I was pretty much a power gamer, min/maxing like crazy and trying to squeeze the absolute optimum performance out of my character and his party. I cared a lot about game mechanics and the math behind it. I also tried to get all the gear in a game so I could create a ridiculously powerful character.

 

Ah...those were the days. Nowadays it's all about the story for me. The experience, the immersion. I am approachng it more from a writer's perspective and as someone who enjoys a good story being told. That being said, game mechanics and all the InGame preparation needed for combat encounters, are getting in the way. If possible I put the game difficulty on the easiest setting and try to get to the story (or RP centric) parts as fast as possible. And I am having one hell of a good time, although I do occasionally still enjoy a well made combat mechanic and some number crunching.

 

So I hope the devs will offer a broad range of ways to proceed through their game, because we all enjoy our games for different reasons

[JFSOCC]

It took me a long time to figure it out, but I am definitely of the third group you described, Hormalakh. And I'm not great at games. I enjoy them, especially RPGs, so I've gotten good enough at playing them. But I do miss things constantly and I am well aware that I don't fully understand IE games. I know there's something I'm missing, I just can't figure out what it is. For that reason at least, I found your post (and the Sawyer post that inspired it) to be very interesting. I'm glad a developer is looking out for players like me and I hope they're better able to teach the game mechanics than most, but I would really like to be better at games myself. Should I pick up a D&D book and start there or do I need to sit down at a table with others to figure it out? I guess what I'm asking is if you think the gap between enthusiastic players that are okay and players that are great revolves mainly around understanding rules/mechanics or getting feedback from other players?

 

this is why rogues rule; i've ended numerous difficult encounters by using my rogues to take out enemy casters unawares (lovely backstab baby) and then leading the "enraged" melee into snares or a mage bomb (horrid wilting for example)for me, that is the best approach and provides a longer more satisfying encounter.

 

I thought rogues were just walking trap-be-gone until I easily took out an entire room of enemies that were single handedly dropping my whole party using only Annah and liberal backstabbing. Rogues indeed rule and I wouldn't know that if the game hadn't challenged me.

I don't think that you're a bad gamer if you didn't figure out the exact mindset of the game developer when he created a challenge. I often find that, especially in older games, solutions to puzzles (especially in adventure games) would be so incredibly contrived that only the game designers could have thought of it.

If a sizable chunk of your playtesters fails to buff for 6 (!) rounds to get past an encounter, the failure is not in their understanding but that of the designer. Not because the player shouldn't have to buff, that may well be the case. The trick is to teach it subtly, not handholding the player, but showing them how it's done. If they come across enemies which they have trouble defeating not because the enemy is so strong in attack, but because the enemy keeps buffing, then that demonstrates to the player how powerful buffs can be.

Rogues are indeed powerful tools and it goes to show that a good game has more than one solution for every encounter, even if both solutions are combat. That shouldn't make the game easier, just different.

As a hyper-elite Tier One operator from a wargaming background, I don't get what Sawyer is saying.

 

I grew up with Squad Leader and hex paper. All of this is second nature.

 

I blame story-tymers and promancers myself.

I'm firmly a "story-timer" Playing Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition has thought me much that as a teenager I couldn't figure out.

There are more ways to play a Role Playing Game than just shining through combat. That's not to say being great at combat isn't a fine way to play. But I do expect some freedom that allows for more than just a few playstyles to be correct. Maybe you could challenge yourself for your second playthrough of PE and try to avoid combat. maybe then you'll come across similar problems as some story-timers do in combat.

 

One a different note. I think good teaching mechanics never insult the players intelligence, they don't hold hands, or point to themselves and say "YOU MUST LOOK AT ME"

Rather they should take the form of doing similar things with ever increasing elements. A simplified example: First encounter, man vs man, second encounter man vs man with a special ability, third encounter man vs man with buff, 4th encounter man vs man with buff and special ability.

Seeing your opponents do what you can do, them telegraphing their moves would go a long way to helping players figure out combat systems.

As for dialogue. maybe instead of [tags] you could have a player talk to an NPC see a few dialogue options, then achieve something come back and see that an additional dialogue option or two are present. Do this for the different influences a player's choices, stats and abilities can have, so it's apparent all of these can affect conversation, and you could do away with tags entirely.

 

Sawyer is absolutely right that players can miss things, despite being intelligent. (I think RPG's draw a more intelligent crowd anyway)

But rather than expect the worst and assume players will miss things, why not give the players the tools they need to become better, to figure it out.

Let us fail, and then let us learn from our mistakes. That same intelligence which misses things can see them once it knows what to look for (and where to look)

Otherwise you run the risk of handholding your players too much.

it's a fine line, but I think that might just be the difference between a good game and an average one.

[Ineth]

For the most part I agree with the OP, but I very much reject this particular notion:

 

Don’t build Irenicus’s dungeon – and make everyone suffer through a tutorial.

 

Irenicus Dungeon was a pretty darn well-designed cRPG dungeon. If you equate playing through it with "suffering", then why are you playing this kind of game in the first place?

 

Now I completely understand that many prefer to skip this dungeon when replaying BG2 for the 10th time, because if you already know everything in advance then a dungeon that relies more heavily on atmosphere and story than on advanced tactical combat opportunities will loose it's appeal.

However while replayability is nice, it should not dictate level design.

 

To suggest that Irenicus Dungeon was nothing more than a tutorial for weaker players, and more capable players should have been "spared" from going through it even on their first play-through, is to my mind quite absurd. It was an important part of the overall BG2 experience, and as I mentioned at the outset, a far above average cRPG dungeon in its own right.

[Doppelschwert]

Buffing is great, and removing it altogether would just simplify the gameplay - too much cost. As Sawyer said once, there's a super simple solution - allow customizable buff package scripts and tie it to hotkeys / quick bar so you can cast Buff Set #1, #2, etc.

 

That would be one solution I could live with and which I'd use. However, I still think that has its own flaws. If buffs are time dependent, (one lasts 10 rounds, one 5 minutes, etc) the order in which you cast those spells still matters and you'd still have to wait for every single buff to be cast one after another, or otherwise, some would last longer than they would if cast individually. So if the casting time for a spell is 6 seconds, not much is gained in the time regard, thats still tedious.

At the same time, the way buffs are normally used, they aren't really tactical decisions imho. They just make you greater at anything they improve, there is no drawback. While fighting against a boss, there is absolutely no decision involved, as it is a no brainer to use them. So most of the time, either buffs are a no brainer, or most likely not necessary at all. Tactical decision? I don't think so. The song of a bard is a much more tactical buff. You can only maintain one at the same time and you have to choose carefully from which you benefit the most at the moment. Combat modes come with advantages but also disadvantages. Buffs can be maintained happily at the same time, so there is no drawback which one to use (given sufficient duration) so they are really just no bainers.

 

I don't want to deny the existence of buffs, whether you like them or not is just a matter of taste in the end, but in the IE games, you're just weak if you not use them at all, which I think is kind of bad game design (and this is independent of the tedious casting process).

Edited December 10, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[Malekith]

Buffing is great, and removing it altogether would just simplify the gameplay - too much cost. As Sawyer said once, there's a super simple solution - allow customizable buff package scripts and tie it to hotkeys / quick bar so you can cast Buff Set #1, #2, etc.

 

That would be one solution I could live with and which I'd use. However, I still think that has its own flaws. If buffs are time dependent, (one lasts 10 rounds, one 5 minutes, etc) the order in which you cast those spells still matters and you'd still have to wait for every single buff to be cast one after another, or otherwise, some would last longer than they would if cast individually. So if the casting time for a spell is 6 seconds, not much is gained in the time regard, thats still tedious.

At the same time, the way buffs are normally used, they aren't really tactical decisions imho. They just make you greater at anything they improve, there is no drawback. While fighting against a boss, there is absolutely no decision involved, as it is a no brainer to use them. So most of the time, either buffs are a no brainer, or most likely not necessary at all. Tactical decision? I don't think so. The song of a bard is a much more tactical buff. You can only maintain one at the same time and you have to choose carefully from which you benefit the most at the moment. Combat modes come with advantages but also disadvantages. Buffs can be maintained happily at the same time, so there is no drawback which one to use (given sufficient duration) so they are really just no bainers.

 

I don't want to deny the existence of buffs, whether you like them or not is just a matter of taste in the end, but in the IE games, you're just weak if you not use them at all, which I think is kind of bad game design (and this is independent of the tedious casting process).

IE games didn't forced you to use buffs. I'm in the camp of players who didn't used any buffs.Still IE games weren't difficult.The only IE games that were designed with buffs in mind were IWD series, and it had the most combat difficulty,but still you could win the encounters without buffs but with diffirent tactics like ambushes,backstab,traps,hit and run tactics...

That is good game design.Sawyer said in a comment that if he read walkthroughs and all of then suggest the same tactic against a particular encounter, he failed in his job. The thing is, in IE games there was no single way to win.Sure, there were easyer ways and more difficult ways but thats not a problem

[Sacred_Path]

I don't want to deny the existence of buffs, whether you like them or not is just a matter of taste in the end, but in the IE games, you're just weak if you not use them at all, which I think is kind of bad game design (and this is independent of the tedious casting process).

 

Since buffs are only one component of overall balance, I don't see the point in hating on them. You'd either have to make characters stronger, or direct damage spells stronger, or make monsters more susceptible to status effects, or increase weapon damage. If your 1.90m tall character with a longsword can duke it out with a giant w/o buffs, I think you put too much emphasis on the wrong balance components (HP bloat, ludicrous strength scores, etc.)

 

What noone wants is the tedious and mindless task of applying all your buffs at once all the time, then rest to regain your spells after every encounter. The optimal solution IMO is to reduce rest spamming and thereby restrict magic, and thereby make players think about exactly what spell they need and when and who to cast it on. Cast haste now on your archer to take out an enemy mage quickly, or cast a dispel later on your tank should he become mind-controlled.

[Hormalakh]

Ah, so he is saying that suckers deserve an even break, right?

 

Or that building your single player game around the top .1 percent of players, is probably not a good idea.

 

Having a mode for that kind of group is all well and good, but making it difficult, or impossible, for majority of players to be able to get passed specific segments without brute forcing, or out right cheating is not.

...

 

What I'm trying to say is that the Developer shouldn't build the game around what he considers the most twinked out party there is, but around the fact that every player will have a different approach to the combat. It won't always be easier going one way or an other, but it should always be possible. There should be no sun laser I have to make to get passed any single part.

 

Actually I'm sort of saying the opposite. I'm saying build your game around the 0.1% but give the 99.9% of other players an opportunity either in the manual or in the game to learn the basic concepts of the game. For those who don't read the manual, then seriously, that's their fault. This game is meant to be for people who want to read: it has dialogue that you need to read!

 

If the game is built around a twinked out party with a specific sequence to be followed, give those players who don't realize that (and you will see this in game-testing) some sort of resource to realize it. Give them the first steps toward the path you think would work. Obviously, some players will find their own way. Others will build upon the beginning steps and learn.

 

I'm afraid that a lot of what I'm saying here can be misconstrued as "let's dumb down the game for 'poorer' players" but that's not my intent at all. My intent is to have games made for experts, but to give the non-experts resources manual/in-game to become experts.

 

Josh Sawyer wrote on the SA forums a while back,

I think many of you would be blown away by how often players will look directly at a description of an option, pause, seem to analyze it, and then select it without putting 2 and 2 together until much later.

 

When that happens and the error results in, let's say, ~15 minutes of lost time, as a designer I go, "Hey dummy, pay attention." When that happens and the error goes unnoticed for 5... 10... 20 hours, the problem is so far in the past that I would rather just sigh and slide an emergency exit button toward them.

 

As a non-system-related example, in Fallout: New Vegas, we pop up a message box before the end of the game. It says (paraphrased) HEY MAN THIS IS THE END OF THE GAME. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP PLAYING, YOU SHOULD NOT START THIS. BECAUSE IT IS THE END. AND THE GAME WILL BE OVER. Even so, a huge number of people missed it or claimed to have missed it, so we later had to hard-code in an extra auto-save game at that point.

 

I could take some sort of grumpy tough-guy attitude and say "Well, tough poo poo," but I don't think that's beneficial to me or the player.

 

But what to do? I mean Sawyer says its not beneficial to him or the player. But what if his design of the game around that player, breaks it for all his other players?

 

I've been thinking about this from last night and how not utilizing the manual really should be grounds for "don't give a poo poo." At the end of the day, it didn't really affect me: I was able to figure out most of the rest of the stuff myself (minus a few things). But playing PnP did make BG2 a richer experience (there are actually things called Drow and people play this stuff in RL!? I wonder if all that stuff Haer D'alis was saying could actually make sense? What's this "Planescape?" OMG) I think that players who do have a half-decent manual have a lot going for them, and those who don't use it, are ultimately losing out not because the developers did anything wrong. If they don't RTM, then that's their fault. Devs shouldn't design for them. But if certain concepts and topics don't make sense to a majority of your players (those that actually RTM) then there is something wrong with the way you wrote it. You figure out what doesn't make sense by play-testing and noticing where people are tripping up. Either we let the newer players in on a few secrets, and still watch them struggle, or we leave them out there alone and rage-quitting.

 

I'm not saying make the game easy or simple; just keep in mind not everyone is an expert. Well-written manuals are only one step towards informing your players.

 

Sawyer is absolutely right that players can miss things, despite being intelligent. (I think RPG's draw a more intelligent crowd anyway)

But rather than expect the worst and assume players will miss things, why not give the players the tools they need to become better, to figure it out.

Let us fail, and then let us learn from our mistakes. That same intelligence which misses things can see them once it knows what to look for (and where to look)

Otherwise you run the risk of handholding your players too much.

it's a fine line, but I think that might just be the difference between a good game and an average one.

Yep, basically. People fall into mindsets from the previous games they've played. Ultimately, I see a good video game like a good book. It should challenge my mind and engage me. I'm not looking for a trashy romance novel, I'm looking for the next classical masterpiece.

 

@Wirdjos I've been there man. It happens

[Doppelschwert]

IE games didn't forced you to use buffs. I'm in the camp of players who didn't used any buffs.Still IE games weren't difficult.The only IE games that were designed with buffs in mind were IWD series, and it had the most combat difficulty,but still you could win the encounters without buffs but with diffirent tactics like ambushes,backstab,traps,hit and run tactics...

That is good game design.Sawyer said in a comment that if he read walkthroughs and all of then suggest the same tactic against a particular encounter, he failed in his job. The thing is, in IE games there was no single way to win.Sure, there were easyer ways and more difficult ways but thats not a problem

 

To be fair, I'm playing IWD2 at the moment so my judgement is propably clouded. However, I think most walkthroughs on IE games highly recommend using buffs, and it clearly is a superior way to play the game if you can be bothered to use them, as you're far stronger. My point is that your alternate strategies are not mutualy exclusive to buffing, you can buff your party AND do an ambush / backstab / traps etc. Regardless of what you were doing, buffs made it easier. My issue is the following:

When buffs are necessary to win, there is no choice about using them. If buffs are not necessary to win, the game propably is to easy if you use them. Finding a middleway is difficult.

 

I don't want to deny the existence of buffs, whether you like them or not is just a matter of taste in the end, but in the IE games, you're just weak if you not use them at all, which I think is kind of bad game design (and this is independent of the tedious casting process).

 

Since buffs are only one component of overall balance, I don't see the point in hating on them. You'd either have to make characters stronger, or direct damage spells stronger, or make monsters more susceptible to status effects, or increase weapon damage. If your 1.90m tall character with a longsword can duke it out with a giant w/o buffs, I think you put too much emphasis on the wrong balance components (HP bloat, ludicrous strength scores, etc.)

 

What noone wants is the tedious and mindless task of applying all your buffs at once all the time, then rest to regain your spells after every encounter. The optimal solution IMO is to reduce rest spamming and thereby restrict magic, and thereby make players think about exactly what spell they need and when and who to cast it on. Cast haste now on your archer to take out an enemy mage quickly, or cast a dispel later on your tank should he become mind-controlled.

 

I agree on the second paragraph, but you could also restrict magic and therefore restrict rest spamming to achieve the same goal, which is what I would propose by restricting the number of simultanously active buffs or giving them some downside.

You're achieving the same thing this way, you have to think about which buffs is most useful at the moment while at the same time a buff heavy party won't be several power levels above your ordinary, non-buffed party.

 

Regarding the first paragraph, personaly, I think someone with 10 buffs from a cleric being a near undestrcutable half god is way more ridiculous than HP bloat or high strength, but thats just a matter of taste, as I've already stated. I also think that buffs are not a part of overall balance but rather a system that makes everything better on top.

[Sacred_Path]

I agree on the second paragraph, but you could also restrict magic and therefore restrict rest spamming to achieve the same goal, which is what I would propose by restricting the number of simultanously active buffs or giving them some downside.

You're achieving the same thing this way, you have to think about which buffs is most useful at the moment while at the same time a buff heavy party won't be several power levels above your ordinary, non-buffed party.

 

Uhm yes I also suggest restricting resting, didn't I say so? About restricting the number of active buffs... I'd rather not. I'd prefer it if I could dump a dozen buffs on my two tanks now if I chose to, but only with a duration of 2 minutes each and after that my reservoir of magic is empty and won't come back for quite some time; or else only put two buffs on each of them and have more spell slots over for direct damage spells. More options for player choice there and no arbitrary limit (did I mention I also hate summoning limits?).

 

I think the thing with buffs is the question of how powerful magic in general should be. If you have extremely powerful magic at high levels (wizard), they should also cast some v. powerful buffs. It's just more believable that way.

But DnD and its derivatives always had the problem that powerful wizards couldn't even heal a cut anyway. In PE we'll have the same derpy restriction. I would therefore propose the following: Priests are the main buffers, but their buffs aren't very strong. After all, they are more combat ready than DnD clerics anyway. Mages should have a tiny number of buffs too, ranging from weak to v. strong (on the highest levels). That way, for most of the game, buffed characters won't be much stronger than unbuffed, but still enough so to make it a tactical choice if you want to put a buff, or several buffs, on your characters for tough fights.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Hormalakh]

I'm trying to keep away from using specific examples in this thread guys, because ultimately "buffing" was only an example used to discuss high-level design. Please try to stay o/t.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

An encounter that requires 6 buffs is the combination of the following limitations:

 

-player must realize 6 buffs are required

-player must have access to 6 buffs

-player must not have already used the six buffs on something else earlier

-6 buffs must be used on certain characters/in a certain order

 

The sum total is that, even assuming that these limitations can be overcome, the buffing solution becomes the only 'correct' answer. If any encounter cannot be consistently cleared using any other methods, it is an objective failure. What is the point of creating a PC, gathering a party and selecting gear/abilties if there are events with exactly ONE solution? If I wanted a linear adventure game I'd play Zelda and not be offended when the game required me to use the hookshot to jump that gap or the spinning slash to stun that boss.

 

The point of a good RPG isn't that you can steamroll through all content using the same tactics over and over, but that there should always be multiple solutions to a problem. Maybe instead of the buffs you could recruit NPC allies to reduce the enemy ranks. Flood the dungeon to create an enviornment where some of the enemy's abilities won't work. Use diplomacy or bluff (maybe a disguise) to get by the enemies or get some of them to leave. If the player is willing to take the time maybe all of the above will work.

 

Likewise, a worthy antagonist should be doing the same thing. Many PnP campaigns I've read state that NPCs will have spies/magic watching the PCs so they know what tactics/abilities they like to use so that they can prepare their own 'six buffs' to use against them.

 

An RPG shouldn't just be a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors where there is one objective 'right' answer to a given situation. It should be closer to a chess match, where your move depends on what your opponent does, and what they are in a position to do in response to you.

[Doppelschwert]

What noone wants is the tedious and mindless task of applying all your buffs at once all the time, then rest to regain your spells after every encounter. The optimal solution IMO is to reduce rest spamming and thereby restrict magic, and thereby make players think about exactly what spell they need and when and who to cast it on. Cast haste now on your archer to take out an enemy mage quickly, or cast a dispel later on your tank should he become mind-controlled.

I agree on the second paragraph, but you could also restrict magic and therefore restrict rest spamming to achieve the same goal, which is what I would propose by restricting the number of simultanously active buffs or giving them some downside.

You're achieving the same thing this way, you have to think about which buffs is most useful at the moment while at the same time a buff heavy party won't be several power levels above your ordinary, non-buffed party.

 

Uhm yes I also suggest restricting resting, didn't I say so?

 

The difference is the cause/effect. You proposed to reduce the rest spamming so that you had to limit your magic usage per battle until you're able to rest again. I proposed to limit the amount of buffs you can cast so that there are still some buffs left for the next fight, which means that the number of available spells run out more slowly and there is no need to rest as soon.

 

About restricting the number of active buffs... I'd rather not. I'd prefer it if I could dump a dozen buffs on my two tanks now if I chose to, but only with a duration of 2 minutes each and after that my reservoir of magic is empty and won't come back for quite some time; or else only put two buffs on each of them and have more spell slots over for direct damage spells. More options for player choice there and no arbitrary limit (did I mention I also hate summoning limits?).

 

I think the thing with buffs is the question of how powerful magic in general should be. If you have extremely powerful magic at high levels (wizard), they should also cast some v. powerful buffs. It's just more believable that way.

But DnD and its derivatives always had the problem that powerful wizards couldn't even heal a cut anyway. In PE we'll have the same derpy restriction. I would therefore propose the following: Priests are the main buffers, but their buffs aren't very strong. After all, they are more combat ready than DnD clerics anyway. Mages should have a tiny number of buffs too, ranging from weak to v. strong (on the highest levels). That way, for most of the game, buffed characters won't be much stronger than unbuffed, but still enough so to make it a tactical choice if you want to put a buff, or several buffs, on your characters for tough fights.

 

You're right, its really about the question of how the role of magic should be. I can see where you're coming from, and I understand this point of view, although I don't agree with it. However,

 

I'm trying to keep away from using specific examples in this thread guys, because ultimately "buffing" was only an example used to discuss high-level design. Please try to stay o/t.

 

in order to respect OPs intention, I'd propose we agree on disagreeing on that topic for now, as it most propably boils down to personal preference anyway.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Doppelschwert

[Hormalakh]

TY. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62972-buffing-your-party/

[Ineth]

An encounter that requires 6 buffs is the combination of the following limitations:

[...]

 

It seems to me though like you may be beating a straw man here, because in what existing cRPG that has buff spells were you ever confronted with an encounter that truly matches this description?

I don't see any evidence that the existence of buff spells would lead to such a scenario.

 

In the Infinity Engine games, each particular encounter could be won in many different ways, heavily influenced by the particular party makeup and carried items. Having buff spells memorized was just one more factor that allowed one to gain an advantage.

Meticulously orchestrated combat tactics with un-buffed characters, would still almost always trump inattentive selecting-whole-party-and-clicking-nearest-enemy with highly buffed characters.

 

An RPG shouldn't just be a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors where there is one objective 'right' answer to a given situation. It should be closer to a chess match, where your move depends on what your opponent does, and what they are in a position to do in response to you.

 

Agreed.

 

In fact I think that in the past, cRPG's haven't developed the idea of "chess match" like combat encounters nearly as much as they could have. It would fit in perfectly with the turn-based or realtime-with-pause gameplay of these kinds of games.

Maybe it was a matter of AI technology not being advanced enough, but Project Eternity - coming out in 2014 - should not have this limitation. Especially since some games in other genres achieved such an effect quite well (for example the awesome Frozen Synapse).

[TMTVL]

I'm actually good at these games when I take my time, making good use of everything I have in my arsenal, mainly because I like "utility" spells in concept. But I play these games for the story, not the copmbat. The combat is pointless, I've got load & save, I'll win eventually. Even without load & save I'd win eventually, but it'd feel more fulfilling.

 

But I'm not gonna like P:E as much as, say Way of the Samurai 2 or Academagia, because of the Real TIme With Puase tactical combat. It's why I like Arcanum more then Baldur's Gate.

[Malekith]

I'm actually good at these games when I take my time, making good use of everything I have in my arsenal, mainly because I like "utility" spells in concept. But I play these games for the story, not the copmbat. The combat is pointless, I've got load & save, I'll win eventually. Even without load & save I'd win eventually, but it'd feel more fulfilling.

 

But I'm not gonna like P:E as much as, say Way of the Samurai 2 or Academagia, because of the Real TIme With Puase tactical combat. It's why I like Arcanum more then Baldur's Gate.

You play for the story, you think combat is pointless, and yet you prefer turn based combat? You lost me here...

[Zenning]

So, I was thinking about what Horm was saying, and I think I get what hes getting at. Feel free to say how wrong I am, but you're trying to say that the developers should go ahead and build their encounters as difficult, or awesome as they see fit, but should properly teach the players how to deal with these encounters.

 

For example, Dragon Age Origins had some pretty damn difficult encounters, that became exponentially easier the more you varied your party (Or err.. Just used Wizards. But we'll ignore that), and used the correct stances, and spells that worked best for that fight. It did not however feel like the Soup can + Moon = Laser sun, simply because they made it fairly obvious what each of those powers did, and slowly exposed the player to these powers so he will always be experimenting with their arsenals. They also made the tool tool tips, and spell descriptions explicitly say what they did in no uncertain terms.

 

This way, even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic, but that that tactic is naturally what you'd need to use for that encounter.

 

If this is what you're saying, I can completely get behind that. Sure, it might not be the freedom that something like Dark Souls provides, but it makes sense for the genre it's in. And hey, if I feel like I came up with the tactic that succeeded myself, I'll still feel very satisfied, even if that was one of the limited tactics that the developer decided would be viable on that enemy.

[Hormalakh]

So, I was thinking about what Horm was saying, and I think I get what hes getting at. Feel free to say how wrong I am, but you're trying to say that the developers should go ahead and build their encounters as difficult, or awesome as they see fit, but should properly teach the players how to deal with these encounters.

 

For example, Dragon Age Origins had some pretty damn difficult encounters, that became exponentially easier the more you varied your party (Or err.. Just used Wizards. But we'll ignore that), and used the correct stances, and spells that worked best for that fight. It did not however feel like the Soup can + Moon = Laser sun, simply because they made it fairly obvious what each of those powers did, and slowly exposed the player to these powers so he will always be experimenting with their arsenals. They also made the tool tool tips, and spell descriptions explicitly say what they did in no uncertain terms.

 

This way, even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic, but that that tactic is naturally what you'd need to use for that encounter.

 

If this is what you're saying, I can completely get behind that. Sure, it might not be the freedom that something like Dark Souls provides, but it makes sense for the genre it's in. And hey, if I feel like I came up with the tactic that succeeded myself, I'll still feel very satisfied, even if that was one of the limited tactics that the developer decided would be viable on that enemy.

 

You're getting closer. I don't want developers to beat us over the head with "HEY THIS IS THE WAY YOU DO IT." But, it would be nice for those who don't know to get a *gentle* (and I mean gentle) nudge in the right direction. I don't want tactical combat to be completely explained to the players: they need to figure it out. But put them on the right track. For example, show them that buffs work. Then they've got to figure out which buffs to use.

[Somna]

So, I was thinking about what Horm was saying, and I think I get what hes getting at. Feel free to say how wrong I am, but you're trying to say that the developers should go ahead and build their encounters as difficult, or awesome as they see fit, but should properly teach the players how to deal with these encounters.

 

For example, Dragon Age Origins had some pretty damn difficult encounters, that became exponentially easier the more you varied your party (Or err.. Just used Wizards. But we'll ignore that), and used the correct stances, and spells that worked best for that fight. It did not however feel like the Soup can + Moon = Laser sun, simply because they made it fairly obvious what each of those powers did, and slowly exposed the player to these powers so he will always be experimenting with their arsenals. They also made the tool tool tips, and spell descriptions explicitly say what they did in no uncertain terms.

 

This way, even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic, but that that tactic is naturally what you'd need to use for that encounter.

 

If this is what you're saying, I can completely get behind that. Sure, it might not be the freedom that something like Dark Souls provides, but it makes sense for the genre it's in. And hey, if I feel like I came up with the tactic that succeeded myself, I'll still feel very satisfied, even if that was one of the limited tactics that the developer decided would be viable on that enemy.

 

You're getting closer. I don't want developers to beat us over the head with "HEY THIS IS THE WAY YOU DO IT." But, it would be nice for those who don't know to get a *gentle* (and I mean gentle) nudge in the right direction. I don't want tactical combat to be completely explained to the players: they need to figure it out. But put them on the right track. For example, show them that buffs work. Then they've got to figure out which buffs to use.

 

Everyone should be exposed to a wizard casting Time Stop, followed by 4 PITA buffs. That'll drive the point home REAL fast.

[PrimeJunta]

You're getting closer. I don't want developers to beat us over the head with "HEY THIS IS THE WAY YOU DO IT." But, it would be nice for those who don't know to get a *gentle* (and I mean gentle) nudge in the right direction. I don't want tactical combat to be completely explained to the players: they need to figure it out. But put them on the right track. For example, show them that buffs work. Then they've got to figure out which buffs to use.

 

^- QFT.

 

It ain't rocket science people, just introduce a mechanic properly as it comes into play, whether it's a mad new technique, or a scary new monster. Beyond that, make 'em as fiendish as you want. At highest difficulty levels the toughest fights damn well better be sadistic nightmares of encounter design artistry.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic

 

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of how you play DAO. You must always have at least one tank and one healer to not get wiped really fast. There is precious little room for variance, since these fill half your party slots. So, I'd prefer if the devs would stay as far as possible from DA and its kind.

[Monte Carlo]

Dragon Age... although elements of it were occasionally fun, the gameplay mechanics were unfathomable, they couldn't make their minds up what rogues were for and Mages were hideously OP.

 

I played it with a pretty vanilla sword and board fighter and enjoyed it, gave up on my rogue because it didn't feel rogue-ish enough after a while.

[Zenning]

even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic

 

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of how you play DAO. You must always have at least one tank and one healer to not get wiped really fast. There is precious little room for variance, since these fill half your party slots. So, I'd prefer if the devs would stay as far as possible from DA and its kind.

 

Actually, 4 Sorcs wipe the floor with everything. It's safer to have one tank in there too, but really you only need 4 sorcs. The point was though, I managed to get through the game with my character layout, without feeling like I had no choice but to play with a particular build. Sure, if I really look at it, I'll realize that rogues are really completely useless, and Going anything but sword and board for the Warrior would never compare to anytype of Sorcs, but I didn't have that much of the meta-game in my mind at the time, so I'd just experiment until something worked, and feel clever when it did.

 

This really only applied in nightmare difficulty by the way, since the other difficulties were fairly simple.

[Karkarov]

even though you're only really fighting the way the Developer intends, it never feels like you're arbitrarily railroaded into a specific tactic

 

Actually, that's pretty much the opposite of how you play DAO. You must always have at least one tank and one healer to not get wiped really fast. There is precious little room for variance, since these fill half your party slots. So, I'd prefer if the devs would stay as far as possible from DA and its kind.

Actually I beat Dragon Age Origins on it's highest difficulty setting with no healer just potions and one mage only. I also got the achievement for beating the game without your main character ever dying on that playthrough too. You most definitely did not have to have a tank and a healer, it just made it easier.

 

As for all this buffs debate, no, buffs suck. There is absolutely nothing fun about playing buff chess. Years of WoW raiding taught me that real fast, hell even Blizzard doesn't do that anymore in their fights, or does it very little period. What used to be a wall of like 10-20 buffs in that game is now like 6-7 and they all last so long that unless you die you only have to cast them once every hour or more and auto target your whole group when you do cast them.

 

There is nothing tactical about taking 5 minutes to cast 10 buffs before you start a fight. Or casting the same 5 debuff spells every time you fight a mage to undo his buffs. It is just busywork.

 

A fight should be won based on tactics, player skill, party skill, party "power", and to a lesser extent party composition (since it effects what skills and tactics are available).

Edited December 11, 2012 by Karkarov

[XenoReaper]

I agree with Horm on this subject. The designers do have to make an effort to explain the internal logic of the game in some way- whether it be from the first few encounters (like running into a buff mage early if buffing is expected- not saying I like buff chess but that's an example) or from other experienced adventurers/mentors giving you early advice so as not to lead you astray.

 

An example of where this would have been nice- Dark Souls.

 

Now, in Dark Souls (as another poster already mentioned) the types of strategies available are very open-ended and, at least when playing mostly SP, are actually surprisingly balanced. There is no one, best build... which is awesome. However, even though you can read the manual and gleam info from other in-game sources... you can still end up more or less screwed in the end, as what happened to me in my first playthrough.

 

I got about 30 hours into Dark Souls and was closing in on the last several bosses of the game (which you can basically challenge in any order you see fit... which I also love) and came across a bit of a problem. Although the weapons I had been using were sufficient to a point, I could no longer get by on what I had. I needed a better weapon, period.

 

The problem is that I didn't know that high level weapons weren't so much about base damage, but relied very heavily on having related stats at very high levels (a one-handed Dex sword does tons more damage if you have like 30+ Dex, for example), but since I didn't know this, I sat there wondering where the better weapons were. I looked online at wikis and discovered the hard way that I was expected to have a crapton of points in one or two stats at most if I wanted to play a melee fighter... and I hadn't done that. The other problem? I figured I could use powerful one-handed weapons and a shield by having high strength. Not so! I was expected to have high Dex to do such a strategy... or have like 30+ points in Strength to use a two-handed sword in one hand... whoops!

 

Too bad I figured it out only then. I determined that I needed to level up about 12 more times in order to use the weapon of my choice... and I was already the ideal level for the part of the game I was at. At that point, I just stopped playing altogether. (Bought it for PC last week, and am much better prepared now, but I feel like I'm not the only one who made that mistake!)