Sawyerism and High-Level Design

[Hormalakh]

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!)

 

Thanks for your insight. I would say that the "correct" solution to me, as a gamer, for your problem wouldn't be to give me any sort of respec mode or to suddenly make the game easier. I would say that the game devs failed to initially convey the importance of Dex to me. That's what I think kills theses games for players.

 

It isn't the difficulty. It's the lack of conveying the correct message. It seems to me that had you known (maybe you missed it - I'm not sure what happened exactly) about the dex issue, this wouldn't have been a problem. Maybe it was conveyed and you missed it, and that at that point, I guess I'm not really sure what to say (suck it up, try again?), but if you were paying attention, then ...

 

I haven't played Dark Souls, so I'm not sure about your exact situation, but thanks for the example of what I'm talking about.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Karkarov]

I haven't played Dark Souls, so I'm not sure about your exact situation, but thanks for the example of what I'm talking about.

Good thing since his example doesn't hold water. He could have gone for any number of weapons that have high base damage but aren't based on stats and still been perfectly viable with his character. Dark Souls has no one "best" build sure, but it definitely has an armada of twinky builds all designed to min max and excel at only one thing. He was reading those builds obviously which he probably didn't realize are all also based primarily on PVP not PVE. You really have to try hard to make a character that is useless in Dark Souls, being an all arounder (which most go for at first) is completely viable for the solo story content of the game. It might not be "optimal" but it will work.

[Hormalakh]

^Oh ok, thanks. Yeah like I said I didn't play dark Souls. To be honest, I don't play any newer RPGs and haven't actually. I'll probably get around to them when I'm finished playing all these delicious oldies.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Chippy]

I've got a suggestion for Obsidian (please don't read this as pedantic insistance on a universal truth on how info is absorbed): when the game is playable in parts, take it into a school and have 20 or so kids play it (preferably 16yrs plus) and if the school is open to the concept, treat it as an 'enhancement activity' on learning styles for each learner. Try and get an advanced practicioner to help evaluate the results (they're the guys that advise teachers and assure quality) and obviously draw as much from it as possible.

 

Then disregard half of all info recieved and don't let it impose on/corrupt your instincts as developers. *Waives all responsibility*.

 

One example I'm familiar with - if someone's crap at maths, they might disregard THACO. They might have a barrier to learning (10 years of being told they're crap at maths by crap teachers and believing it), they'll just look at the wall of text in the manual and switch off - so as JE Sawyer mentioned, the developer might have to facilitate this 'back door method' (industry term for me) of relaying the information without the person initially relating it to what their doing, e.g. IE game player identifies THACO going down on character sheet, relates that to going up in levels, then sees +2 sword reduce it further, wonders if it's a bug and reads in the manual/forum that less is more - then makes the link to fighter+mage THACO difference on character sheet.

 

So if I had to explain that game mechanic to someone who hated maths, I'd treat it as a long term outcome based on their experience with the game and initially make sure they appreciate 'less is more, fighters advance chance to hit +1 per level' as even a 5-20 min in-game tutorial on the subject would likely be as off putting as the manual.

[IndiraLightfoot]

This thread is great! Thanks for all the input, guys!

 

My two cents fall close to Karkarov: The tedious buffing before encounters in CRPGs has never been fun and never will be. Obsidian has a chance to build a new system, and I hope it's a more strategic one. There should be several ways to win/survive encounters and preferably they will be about making clever combinations of spells and/or attacks, smart melee positions for and movements of your party in the given terrain, as well as creative choices of skills etc when building your character. I want a smorgasbord of options and a great variety of spells, weapons and attacks that I can combine inte assorted collections of pain and precision. That said, I want as transparent and clear descriptions of all gameplay mechanics as possible. No black boxes beyond the necessary. Finally, I hope Obsidian dares to make encounters that are not predictable, that is, no humdrum run-of-the-mill darkspawn-thingies for seven maps and then gibberlings on crack for five maps, and then a big boss at the end, say a tarrasque toting a machine gun.

Although the last thing would be a bit surprising, I'd much rather have it all messed up and jumbled, like Mulsantir in Motb (both planes) or parts of BG1, where the tempo is all over the place - or rather where you go and how you do it determines your unique rhythm of encounters and difficulty.

 

P.S. I read Monte Carlo's sig as "My mother's outfit is a chain mail bikini". I haven't stopped giggling since... :D

And yep, I did play DAO with a sword-and-boarder too. I gave Alisdair the boot as soon as I heard his BoyZone-voice.

[cyberarmy]

I personally don't mind buffing process ( after playing 6 years of WoW im used to it, especially in Vanilla half of the raid progress was buffing ) but i think its best to use "short duration buffs" like impoved mantle in D&D very powerfull yet not long enough to buff before battle.

Or maybe some buffs that hinders our characters (like Haste/barbarian rage) in long term so we need to be carefull when using them.

[Karkarov]

^Oh ok, thanks. Yeah like I said I didn't play dark Souls. To be honest, I don't play any newer RPGs and haven't actually. I'll probably get around to them when I'm finished playing all these delicious oldies.

Don't take this the wrong way... I am playing BG:EE right now and really enjoy older CRPG's as well. That said, a lot of people on this forum I have noticed don't seem to realize that those games in many many ways were not very well designed. Or at the very least had a ton of room for improvement. Even the more modern iterations like NWN2.

 

My advice? Stop limiting yourself and play something actually made in the last say 3 years. You will be surprised how much easier games are to simply simply sit down and play these days, even the ball bustingly hard ones or games that are heavy on tactics. Such as this years X-Com: Enemy Unknown. Tons of head way has been made in redesigning genres, getting rid of frustrating or un fun gameplay, and or just trying new things. If you gave other games a shot you may find out there there are many games out there far more atmospheric than Planescape: Torment, that combat can be done better than the D20 system, real time combat dare I say it... can still be tactical, and that the best conversation and NPC interaction system in a video game is from an Obsidian product but not the one you are thinking of probably.

 

P:E is a game in the same vein as Baldur's Gate. But that doesn't mean it IS Baldur's Gate or that it needs to play like a game made on mechanics that are near 20 years old. It needs to play like a game that was made based on mechanics of 2013 and it needs to take the isometric genre into the future to succeed, not the past.

 

Or TLDR: If dumped on a desert island alone with a generator that lasted forever and one video game + tools needed to play it and I would never have another game ever again what game would I choose? Well, it wouldn't be BG2.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Karkarov

[Keyrock]

I come from a pencil & paper background and I very much like a non-hand holding approach where the game lets me make my own mistakes and figure out the strategy on my own. Even if it means having my party ruthlessly obliterated in the process, potentially multiple times. I am fully prepared, and even eager, to accept the consequences of dialogue decisions, companion death, etc. I didn't always play games this way, I used to reload again and again until I did it "perfect", but now I just roll with the punches. As long as the game is fair and I'm getting my ass whooped because I made tactical mistakes, and not because of broken or unfair mechanics, I'm okay with that. I also recognize that many people do not play the way I do and that they will enjoy a game more with a bit of guidance and more leniency. This is why I'm excited that I will be able to turn those aids off while others can leave them on. My approach to gaming isn't better or worse, it's just my approach.

 

One thing I absolutely HATE is games brute forcing you down a particular path in a fight. This usually happens with lengthy, multi-stage fights. I'll have "outsmarted" the game or used great tactics and should have beaten the enemy right then and there, but the game insists that the fight lasts into another stage so it forces that next stage on me even if it doesn't make sense or breaks the game's own rules. That sort of thing drives me insane.

[JFSOCC]

I've got a suggestion for Obsidian (please don't read this as pedantic insistance on a universal truth on how info is absorbed): when the game is playable in parts, take it into a school and have 20 or so kids play it (preferably 16yrs plus) and if the school is open to the concept, treat it as an 'enhancement activity' on learning styles for each learner. Try and get an advanced practicioner to help evaluate the results (they're the guys that advise teachers and assure quality) and obviously draw as much from it as possible.

 

Then disregard half of all info recieved and don't let it impose on/corrupt your instincts as developers. *Waives all responsibility*.

 

One example I'm familiar with - if someone's crap at maths, they might disregard THACO. They might have a barrier to learning (10 years of being told they're crap at maths by crap teachers and believing it), they'll just look at the wall of text in the manual and switch off - so as JE Sawyer mentioned, the developer might have to facilitate this 'back door method' (industry term for me) of relaying the information without the person initially relating it to what their doing, e.g. IE game player identifies THACO going down on character sheet, relates that to going up in levels, then sees +2 sword reduce it further, wonders if it's a bug and reads in the manual/forum that less is more - then makes the link to fighter+mage THACO difference on character sheet.

 

So if I had to explain that game mechanic to someone who hated maths, I'd treat it as a long term outcome based on their experience with the game and initially make sure they appreciate 'less is more, fighters advance chance to hit +1 per level' as even a 5-20 min in-game tutorial on the subject would likely be as off putting as the manual.

How about colour coding stats so it's apparent when something is good, mediocre or bad, or even excellent.

That way, even if you don't care about figuring out the stats, you can see at a glance on your character sheet what your strengths and weaknesses are.

Edited December 12, 2012 by JFSOCC

[Ieo]

P:E is a game in the same vein as Baldur's Gate. But that doesn't mean it IS Baldur's Gate or that it needs to play like a game made on mechanics that are near 20 years old. It needs to play like a game that was made based on mechanics of 2013 and it needs to take the isometric genre into the future to succeed, not the past.

 

I'll have to agree with this. Ultimately, people did not back the PE Kickstarter for specific mechanics. (I mean, maybe a few did, like Vancian magic, but they didn't "get" the basic Kickstarter at all, apparently.)

 

We backed the Kickstarter for the gameplay experience, hearkening back to specific titles. This means the "feel" of the execution is going to be far more important to the average PE player than specific numbers; let's face it, the vast majority of backers definitely aren't on these forums. It's entirely possible to be tactical with widely varying mechanics. It's entirely possible to have dialogic depth with different character systems. And despite all the nostalgia, the old games had their fair share of particular global flaws. This is why I'm not sweating the big stuff and leaving that design to the game designers who know what they're doing, both in development and in playing games, so long as their overall approach is one of balance and choice.

 

One thing I absolutely HATE is games brute forcing you down a particular path in a fight. This usually happens with lengthy, multi-stage fights. I'll have "outsmarted" the game or used great tactics and should have beaten the enemy right then and there, but the game insists that the fight lasts into another stage so it forces that next stage on me even if it doesn't make sense or breaks the game's own rules. That sort of thing drives me insane.

 

Ahh, multistage scripted MMO bosses. Huzzah.

[Hormalakh]

Or TLDR: If dumped on a desert island alone with a generator that lasted forever and one video game + tools needed to play it and I would never have another game ever again what game would I choose? Well, it wouldn't be BG2.

The issue I have with newer games isn't because they make some things "easier" like automap. It's that they are actually POORLY designed and focus on the wrong elements. Old games had a lot less "switches and levers" to deal with and so were more intentionally designed. They didn't care about GRAFUX and AWSHUM MUSIC, they cared about FUN and INTERESTING and CHALLENGING. Those were what drove them. There were technical limitations and so they built out of what they had. And they put in a lot of time and effort into it. Yes I understand there have been improvements in gameplay and I advocte for them. I like hotkeys and think that they're important and make a game "easier" to play. Graphics make a game more visually attractive. Music is important. But these things do not define a game.

 

Classic game developers had a different philosophy. Money wasn't their primary focus, fun was. A lot of the newer games are mainstream and made-for-consumption. They're made to be used and disposed. A lot of game makers I've heard talk about how movies cost $10 and last two hours and so therefore games should cost $50 and last five times as long.

 

That's not the point. They forget that movie classics are watched over and over again because there is always something more to get from them. Classic games are the same way. Classic books are also the same way. I shouldn't read Shakespeare anymore because his English is too hard - I should read the newest Twilight book or Fifty Shades of Gray because those books are easy to read and you can consume them quickly.

 

If I thought that P:E wasn't trying to be a classic and just another you pay $50 you get 10 hours of happy-fun time, I'd go read a book. I play the oldies because they are the classics in that genre. I'll wait a few more years until the newer ones have split into the wheat and the chaff. Then I'll pick and choose. My time isn't unlimited and neither is my money. If a book is better than a game in engaging me, then I'll read a book. If I honestly thought PE was not trying to become a classic, I wouldn't even care. But it's the one time I can finally enjoy a game when the developers made it, right when it's made and know that it'll be a classic. If they fail, then I probably won't buy a game for a very long time.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[PrimeJunta]

@Karkarov -- Yes, and no. But mostly no, I think.

 

Yes, games have gotten better in some ways. For example, in general they're better nowdays at exposing their mechanics to the player, either via tutorials or tutorial-like events, and they rarely have any completely useless character-building options, even if it's still entirely easy to end up with a squib if you don't know how stuff works. That is good in my opinion.

 

But no, they're still not rid of the kind of god-awful design bloopers that were a dime a dozen in the good ol' days.

 

And mostly no, they're not better. They've gotten "streamlined" to the point that a lot of the depth and breadth is gone. Instead there's a shallow wading pool of pretty but easily accessible pap. And they rely more on Skinner type mechanics that have you pushing the lever to get the pellet.

 

If I had to name five or ten all-time favorite cRPG's, I think only one relatively recent one would make the list (The Witcher 2). And even that one had some truly bizarre design moments, specifically with some of the boss fights. [God I hated that squid-thing.] OTOH if I had to list ten most forgettable or actually "I want my N hours back" cRPG's, most of those would be relatively recent. This despite the mechanics being really badly broken on some of the golden oldies.

[Rostere]

The issue I have with newer games isn't because they make some things "easier" like automap. It's that they are actually POORLY designed and focus on the wrong elements. Old games had a lot less "switches and levers" to deal with and so were more intentionally designed. They didn't care about GRAFUX and AWSHUM MUSIC, they cared about FUN and INTERESTING and CHALLENGING. Those were what drove them. There were technical limitations and so they built out of what they had. And they put in a lot of time and effort into it. Yes I understand there have been improvements in gameplay and I advocte for them. I like hotkeys and think that they're important and make a game "easier" to play. Graphics make a game more visually attractive. Music is important. But these things do not define a game.

Actually, most music in newer games is ****. I'd guess a larger percentage of development time went into creating music back in the good old days.

[Karkarov]

And mostly no, they're not better. They've gotten "streamlined" to the point that a lot of the depth and breadth is gone. Instead there's a shallow wading pool of pretty but easily accessible pap. And they rely more on Skinner type mechanics that have you pushing the lever to get the pellet.

I respect your opinion PrimeJunta, I do. We will get back to that later.

 

The issue I have with newer games isn't because they make some things "easier" like automap. It's that they are actually POORLY designed and focus on the wrong elements. Old games had a lot less "switches and levers" to deal with and so were more intentionally designed. They didn't care about GRAFUX and AWSHUM MUSIC, they cared about FUN and INTERESTING and CHALLENGING. Those were what drove them.

 

And now we get to the real problem. You two blatantly don't play modern games. You read about the "popular" ones and assume you know. CoD is a modern FPS game, but it is an FPS game targetted at FPS fans not people who play RPG's. More specifically modern FPS is even targeted at people who like multiplayer, since most of them have laughable single player campaigns, some don't even have that anymore. Most MMO's are also RPG's and also really hand holdy.... but they are designed for maximum accessibility so the most people possible can play them.

 

Go play some Amnesia: The Dark Descent by Frictional Games. You will think Planescape had the atmosphere of a gas station bathroom after playing it. It is only 20 bucks too. Assuming you can't find a sale for a better price and can handle the game itself. People say it is kinda scary.

 

If you think Baldur's Gate was "tough" or made you figure things out for yourself I will gladly buy you a steam key for Dark Souls if you can prove you have a pc to run it. You will find out real fast just how tactical real time combat can be and what a game that refuses to hold your hand really looks like. Considering the most common advice I see given to new players is "go read the wiki, no, the whole thing" sort of speaks for itself. By comparison the hardest game Oblivion ever made on it's hardest sitting is a doting grandfather offering you a firm hand holding and a nice piece of candy.

 

Heck you can even get old school hard core first person dungeon crawls still. You just have to play them on hand held systems for the most part and deal with the fact that only Japanese developers make them anymore (go fig). Some of them like Atlus's Etriyan Odyssey even force you to make your own maps.

 

Seriously, try looking at modern games instead of looking at CoD and BF3 and making an assumption. You will be surprised how much fun you maybe could have had plaything through Mass Effect 1-3, or a the new co-op small party action RPG Dragon's Dogma, or the recent X-Com which is easily more tactical than any game Oblivion has ever made. Heck even though I think it is over rated as crap you can even look at things like "The Walking Dead" which completely tosses gameplay in favor of focusing purely on story/character development. Considering the VGA's gave it the "Game of the Year" award despite having no FPS gunplay, pretty par graphics, and no sound track worth talking about it must have done something right. I even got it for 12 bucks and it actually lasts around 10-12 hours on average. (So much for 10 hours = 50 bucks)

 

PrimeJunta at least played the Witcher 2 recently, which sadly is another highly over rated game that he is "mostly" right about.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Karkarov

[Hormalakh]

I have played the modern games - it's not that I haven't. I guess it's more fair to say I've "played" them. Many of them. But I don't play many of them through. I play them on friends' consoles usually, and I've played a few on the Wii. I don't play many of them through to the end because I lose interest. But it's a matter of what I have time for. I've played some of these games for a few hours and really wish I never had. That's what keeps me from trying out the new games. There are a LOT of old games I haven't played. I just find that generally the older gen games have a much higher hit/loss ratio of good/bad games. I'm much more likely to find a good game in the old gen than I am to find in the new gen.

 

A recent example: which isn't an RPG is Assassin's Creed. I've played them through and could barely remember a big portion of those games. Yees, the story's great but it's just a blur to me. I can't sit and remininsce about that game. Yet I played XCOM (1990's) for the first time 4 years ago. I still remember that game, and remember it fondly.

 

Like I said, I wait for the wheat/chaff to separate. There are a few I want to play when I get a chance like FONV, Dark Souls and even DA:O. But I can't play everything out there and I don't intend on spending my money for everything out there. Honestly, if P:E comes out and its a good game, why would I go back and play the crappy ones?

 

Edit: You know what was a good console game that I played and that I remember? Ninja Gaiden for the original XBOX. I don't remember the number but I remember that game. That game was hard. It was fun. I died a lot and I learned how to play it. Then it was fun. It was weird....but fun. And I enjoyed it. I wouldn't mind playing that game again.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Wirdjos]

After reading the responses to Karkarov's post a page earlier, I think Hormalakh nailed the reason people are disagreeing. Games are much more profitable and the most (safest/easiest) profitable in the console market. This means both that games are being mass produced for pure profit on a scale that wasn't really present a few years ago and that those games are being promoted endlessly. It is unsurprising that games made to be consumed quickly and made largely without a love for what's inside are bad. Due to the amount of advertising some of these specific games get, it's also unsurprising that these are the recent games a lot of us know about. We get burned by these bad games and just assume that because that's largely all that's being advertised, that's all that is. If I'm right and others here have shared my experience, it would certaintly explain the hostility towards the new. But Karkarov is right, if P:E just mimics Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, all we are going to get is game that is wildly outdated from the start and noone is going to want to try something like this again.

 

In short, progress has been made and ignoring that will not forge a classic, it will create an experience that will be forgotten as soon as it's over.

 

A note to Karkarov: Think you mean Obsidian when you typed Oblivion. If not, I've missed something and I'd appricated it if someone caught me up.

[Chippy]

I've got a suggestion for Obsidian (please don't read this as pedantic insistance on a universal truth on how info is absorbed): when the game is playable in parts, take it into a school and have 20 or so kids play it (preferably 16yrs plus) and if the school is open to the concept, treat it as an 'enhancement activity' on learning styles for each learner. Try and get an advanced practicioner to help evaluate the results (they're the guys that advise teachers and assure quality) and obviously draw as much from it as possible.

 

Then disregard half of all info recieved and don't let it impose on/corrupt your instincts as developers. *Waives all responsibility*.

 

One example I'm familiar with - if someone's crap at maths, they might disregard THACO. They might have a barrier to learning (10 years of being told they're crap at maths by crap teachers and believing it), they'll just look at the wall of text in the manual and switch off - so as JE Sawyer mentioned, the developer might have to facilitate this 'back door method' (industry term for me) of relaying the information without the person initially relating it to what their doing, e.g. IE game player identifies THACO going down on character sheet, relates that to going up in levels, then sees +2 sword reduce it further, wonders if it's a bug and reads in the manual/forum that less is more - then makes the link to fighter+mage THACO difference on character sheet.

 

So if I had to explain that game mechanic to someone who hated maths, I'd treat it as a long term outcome based on their experience with the game and initially make sure they appreciate 'less is more, fighters advance chance to hit +1 per level' as even a 5-20 min in-game tutorial on the subject would likely be as off putting as the manual.

How about colour coding stats so it's apparent when something is good, mediocre or bad, or even excellent.

That way, even if you don't care about figuring out the stats, you can see at a glance on your character sheet what your strengths and weaknesses are.

 

That would be idiot proof, maybe. I liked the str explanations in 2nd edition (hill giant etc) and the stat descriptions in planescape, they help me put my character in context.

- Related to that; I was reading the Forbes review of BG:EE during which the reviewer hated bears that appear and 1 shot you (I didn't get that). So I asked my 4 year old nephew whether I should shoot a bear from a distance or run up to it and bash it in melee, he replied: "You should run away really fast, because bears have claws and teeth and stuff and if they hit you you might die because they're really stwong". At that point I had to wonder who was the more capable gamer (between nephew and Forbes reviewer) assuming the latter appreciated HP, low level characters, etc.

So maybe that reviewer would actually need a big red sign floating above the bear stating: I'm dangerous and you should really think about your options before resorting to melee.

[PrimeJunta]

PrimeJunta at least played the Witcher 2 recently, which sadly is another highly over rated game that he is "mostly" right about.

 

I've also played Oblivion, Gothic 3 (modded out the wazoo), Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age: Origins, to name a few other relatively recent ones. I put a quite a lot of hours into all of them, but only finished ME, and that because it was so short. I didn't ragequit any of the others, they just started to feel more and more repetitive and tedious the further I played them. As a general rule I stop playing a game if it's less fun than my day job.

 

Not saying I loved all the oldies. Arcanum had the same soporific effect on me as those others I didn't like; that was a real disappointment actually because many people whose taste I generally trust think very highly of it. It just never clicked for me. Felt like so much hitting things until they fall over and doing do-this do-that busywork for various people. Skinnerian mechanics again.

 

(N.b., I also loved the original Witcher when that came out. Or, strictly speaking, after version 1.1 came out, which got rid of the insanely long loading times whenever you entered a building. I just think The Witcher 2 did everything it did only better, and without the tedious back-and-forth trekking of the first one.)

Edited December 12, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[JFSOCC]

snip

Your argument is one I get. I don;t want the game dumbed down. but the most uninteresting part of games, looking at spreadsheets (basically) seeing the stats could be significantly improved.

because let's face it

to hit armor class 0 was a dumbass convoluted concept, that would have been much easier to understand is 20 and below was red, 10 and below was oramge and 0 was green -5 would be blue and I dunno -10 (if you could even achieve that) would be purple.

If strength 9-0 was red, 10 was yellow, 11-14 green 15-18 blue and anything over 19 purple. You quickly learn.

red=really bad

orange= still pretty bad

yellow= not good, not bad

green= good

blue= fantastic

purple= AWESOME. You would still show the numbers but now you'd also be able to see what could use improvement at a glance.

[Jojobobo]

I've only skim read after the first page, because often after that it these threads devolve into a back-and-forth and some very specific points of contention. Hence, sorry if my ideas have already been covered.

 

First off: transparency. I feel like this is a big motivator behind this thread. People need to know how the mechanics work in a game, but they also need to know specifically. A perfect example of this is in KOTOR, where I didn't immediately realise lightsabers were finessible (i.e. they go off the higher of strength or dexterity). These things should not be glossed over, they need to be laid bare for all to see. Beyond the specifics, there needs to be some method to relay information that is less specific to the player (good spell, feat or class combinations in a party).

 

A good example of how this was done was VTMB, where they had a (skippable) tutorial but then they put information on loading screens that helped to sketch out more explicit game mechanics (i.e. things you wouldn't notice immediately). I think this is key, and can be used to convey not only the basics but what feat combinations or spells work well in conjunction with one another (but not everything - people should be required to use a bit of their nouce to both engage and reward them for their ingenuity). This way even casual players don't get tripped up. However, if a player wants to blunder blindly into a game and do whatever they like despite guidance that's their choice. There's only so much help you can give someone.

 

Secondly: buffs, or any other combat system that is enhanced by a party featuring a certain class/spell/whatever combination. Good things in this game should be mutually exclusive - or at least there should never be one class that any party would greatly benefit from (typically, there isn't a single party in old IE games that I've played that wouldn't benefit from a wizard or cleric buffing the crap out of people). This should not be the case.

 

Why? Well it isn't hard or ingenious to select certain spells and cast them for each battle, people have essentially learnt how to play the game but there is no challenge. Buffs IMO need to be specific or situational - so you wouldn't feel like you were missing out by not including a wizard/priest. Other playstyles (i.e. at least 5 very conceptually different viable party set-ups should be in the game - and these should be loose to favour customisation) should be encouraged, it should never be a case of "I must include this class or else my party will fall to pieces". All classes need to be equally weighted.

 

Basically what you need here is a balance - having a system that isn't skewed towards one specific combinations of classes, feats and spells (if it is skewed, have it skewed towards many different options - i.e. all these very different options are powerful, not just one). By forgoing the need for such narrow specificity, you make the game more accessible. However you do need some of these mechanical combinations - or at least strong hints of such - to be made clear to a player and early so they can avoid trouble from later down the line.

[Karkarov]

I've also played Oblivion, Gothic 3 (modded out the wazoo), Fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age: Origins, to name a few other relatively recent ones. I put a quite a lot of hours into all of them, but only finished ME, and that because it was so short. I didn't ragequit any of the others, they just started to feel more and more repetitive and tedious the further I played them. As a general rule I stop playing a game if it's less fun than my day job.

Which Mass Effect did you play again? All of them took me 30+ hours, but then I do play to completion a lot. ME 1 particularly could have a very long play time if you were crazy thorough.

 

I won't go into specifics (other than the fact that Gothic 3 is a terrible game period by most accounts) but will say the games you listed are no more (or less) repetitive than say... Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale.

 

A note to Karkarov: Think you mean Obsidian when you typed Oblivion. If not, I've missed something and I'd appricated it if someone caught me up.

My brain has an auto correct problem. Long story short, yeah, I wrote the wrong thing. What is odd is the forum won't let me edit it. Specifically the game I am insinuating though is an oft panned and critically hated Obsidian game that did one thing really really well. Alpha Protocol.

[Gatt]

After reading the responses to Karkarov's post a page earlier, I think Hormalakh nailed the reason people are disagreeing. Games are much more profitable and the most (safest/easiest) profitable in the console market. This means both that games are being mass produced for pure profit on a scale that wasn't really present a few years ago and that those games are being promoted endlessly. It is unsurprising that games made to be consumed quickly and made largely without a love for what's inside are bad. Due to the amount of advertising some of these specific games get, it's also unsurprising that these are the recent games a lot of us know about. We get burned by these bad games and just assume that because that's largely all that's being advertised, that's all that is. If I'm right and others here have shared my experience, it would certaintly explain the hostility towards the new. But Karkarov is right, if P:E just mimics Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, all we are going to get is game that is wildly outdated from the start and noone is going to want to try something like this again.

 

In short, progress has been made and ignoring that will not forge a classic, it will create an experience that will be forgotten as soon as it's over.

 

A note to Karkarov: Think you mean Obsidian when you typed Oblivion. If not, I've missed something and I'd appricated it if someone caught me up.

 

Just for the record, that's not exactly true.

 

Atari games were generally written by one person over a period of a couple of weeks, in many cases the design phase consisted of a random conversation between a couple people in a hottub while getting tanked. Those games were an order of magnitude more profitable than anything today in terms of ROI. Commodore 64 games were often written by one or two guys over a period of a couple of months at most, Ultima is a wonderful example, I'll guarantee the first few were an order of magnitude more profitable than nearly everything these past few years. Today's games are written by dozens, or even more than 100 people, often with less content than games even just a few years ago.

 

Fallout and Planescape only needed to sell 100,000 units to be profitable IIRC. EA announced recently that if a game doesn't sell 5,000,000 units it's not worth continuing the series.

 

Nor are games the most profitable on a console, in fact, the reality is quite the opposite. The installed base of consoles is miniscule compared to the installed base of PC's, and PC's do not have platform fees, and don't require boxed product. The PC market is easily the most profitable in many ways from games like WoW to games like Minecraft. Publishers ignore it, because the console platform allows them to force studios into slavery. If the PC platform resurges, and it will when the Steambox is released, it'll crush the Publishers as it'll put the money back into the pockets of the Developers instead of the Publishers, and do so on a unprecedented scale.

 

I would also argue that your conclusion is incorrect. While the Playstation generation might not jump on en masse, they're really a tiny fragment of the total market. The average gamer is 37 years old according to the 2011 survey. This group is quite familiar with the mechanics behind Baldur's Gate and Torment. Further, once you get outside of America and Japan, such as into Europe and Russia, games like Torment and BG are embraced.

 

There are currently alot of misconceptions flying around the Press, who in many cases are just offsite PR for Publishers. You've mentioned several of those misconceptions here that they've been broadcasting. The truth they don't want you to know is that the PC market is much larger (and completely out of their ability to control), much more profitable (Especially for developers), and much more diverse (They can't shove just anything out the door).

Edited December 13, 2012 by Gatt

[Zenning]

My brain has an auto correct problem. Long story short, yeah, I wrote the wrong thing. What is odd is the forum won't let me edit it. Specifically the game I am insinuating though is an oft panned and critically hated Obsidian game that did one thing really really well. Alpha Protocol.

 

Ha! I knew that's what you meant! That is still one of my favorite games of all time, and it sucks how many people panned it, and how many more people didn't play it.

 

And I'd have to agree with your general idea that games are not suddenly becoming less in depth, or worth playing. They've changed for sure, and certain genres are becoming less and less common in favor of others, but that's not a bad thing, just change.

[PrimeJunta]

Which Mass Effect did you play again? All of them took me 30+ hours, but then I do play to completion a lot. ME 1 particularly could have a very long play time if you were crazy thorough.

 

The first one. Didn't bother with the others because I didn't enjoy it much. I didn't count the hours, but 30+ sounds about right -- that's short in my book.

 

I won't go into specifics (other than the fact that Gothic 3 is a terrible game period by most accounts)

 

It was utterly awful, borderline unplayable on release. With enough patching, especially community patches, it became quite playable so that wasn't the problem. The problem was that it was an enormous world full of same sameness. It had its moments, but to get them you had to trek through endless deserts of tedium. By the time I was halfway through Nordmar I couldn't take it anymore and just let it drop. It's too bad, really; if they had made the world smaller and dropped 75% of the filler it could've been a hell of a good game. As it is, you have to have a really high tolerance for mindless grinding to get to the good bits.

 

but will say the games you listed are no more (or less) repetitive than say... Baldur's Gate, or Icewind Dale.

 

I'll probably lose all my geek cred here, but I haven't played either of those. I missed BG and went straight to BG2, which I enjoyed enormously once I got over some serious initial frustration. I didn't play the IWD's because I understood that they're basically dungeon crawlers all about the combat challenge, and I prefer to play roguelikes for dungeon crawls and RTS's for combat challenge. I'm getting curious though and might give 'em a shot at some point.

 

What I look for in a game is a bit analogous to what I look for in a movie, comic, or a book. It has to have something to say, and it has to say it in an at least moderately interesting way. That "something" could reside in the gameplay, the story, the characters, the lore, or whatever else. But it has to be there. Hitting things until they fall down, getting better things to hit them with, and eventually running out of things to hit doesn't do it for me. Nor am I very interested in playing the same game over and over again. So I loved Morrowind (unusual, challenging, creative, interesting, believable world) but got bored of Oblivion plenty quick (vanilla, unchallenging, uncreative, boring, repetitive, artificial-feeling world). [Repeat for a half-dozen more like/unlike pairs of outwardly similar games.]

 

That's what's missing in AAA cRPG's these days, mostly. It's like they're really afraid of pushing any boundaries in case somebody doesn't like it. [And the fact that the boundaries are different in gaming than in, say, daytime TV doesn't change it any; it's just pandering to a different audience. Rampant sexism, racism, and blood/gore might be edgy on TV, but it's edgy as potato in games.]

Edited December 13, 2012 by PrimeJunta

[Wirdjos]

Fallout and Planescape only needed to sell 100,000 units to be profitable IIRC. EA announced recently that if a game doesn't sell 5,000,000 units it's not worth continuing the series.

 

I think we are using different definitions of 'profitable' here. When I mentioned profitablity, I was referring to the net gain of a game measured purely in dollars/euros/yen/whatever. This is the definition I believe that AAA companies like EA use when considering making and marketing a game. You seem to be measuring profitability in the percentage of return on investment. While valid and likely more economically sound, I don't believe large companies like EA currently consider that definition when creating a product, which is why they accept so much overhead and why they are so unwilling to take 'risks'.

 

The PC market is easily the most profitable in many ways from games like WoW to games like Minecraft. Publishers ignore it, because the console platform allows them to force studios into slavery.

 

Please elaborate on this statement. It sounds very interesting, but I don't know exactly what you mean here.

 

I would also argue that your conclusion is incorrect. While the Playstation generation might not jump on en masse, they're really a tiny fragment of the total market. The average gamer is 37 years old according to the 2011 survey. This group is quite familiar with the mechanics behind Baldur's Gate and Torment. Further, once you get outside of America and Japan, such as into Europe and Russia, games like Torment and BG are embraced.

 

I think you might have misunderstood my conclusion. When I say that if progress in the RPG genre (and games in general) is ignored it will create a forgettable game, I don't mean that older beloved games like BG and P:T should be forgotten and left to the past. If I did think that, I wouldn't have much interest in P:E as it seeks to revisit old mechanics like the isometeric viewpoint and handpainted (or retouched) backgrounds. What I mean is that if P:E sticks with the familiar, reproduces older games as closely as they can, then it will be bland and uninteresting because it is doing what has been done before. The truth is those games that have stood the test of time are still quite flawed and in ways that would take more than a patch to fix. Some mechanics were just frustrating and added nothing to the experience. What I mean by progress is the steps others have taken to refine or outright change those mechanics to make a more interesting and fun experience. All I was saying was that we, as a community, shouldn't be so hostile to change because change is required for improvement.