Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!

[C2B]

Catherine?

 

Seriously?

 

(I mean that Catherine has very few actual rpg elements. A crpg doesn't have to feature combat (if there's another system for conflict resolution), but Catherine is a terrible example. It's a game based on player skill, charachter skill only has a minimal influence.)

 

The combat log helps determine what your charachter actually does. In a 2D game such as this it HAS implications on role-playing. If we would be talking about a full 3D game this information could also be told visually, but P:E isn't it.

Edited June 11, 2013 by C2B

[Sensuki]

And how stuff works.

[IndiraLightfoot]

The first part, where you think a few remarks about the combat log is "outrageous", is still so over the top. Surely, you must see where he's coming from there. And why childish deliberate misinterpretation? Having fun starting a flame war?

 

But the quote below makes more sense, and it gives me hope of your RPG-sanity, as it were:

 

 

RPGs are tailored towards the casual gamer today, they may be a misguided interpretation, but this is where stuff like "skip the combat" from BioWare etc came from. People going QQ combat ist to hard, game is too combat-focused, and as less effort was put into the combat systems they became dull and boring, and also easy.

P:E is an Obsidian game, if there's anything that they're good at it's the RPG side. Getting the combat right is really important.

 

 

Yes, Obsidian are great at making RPGs, and gosh, I really do wish this game become a challenging one combat-wise. What I've read so far from Josh makes me very optimistic indeed. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the necessity of good, sound combat mechanics - and that I commend you for, but never mix that up with a combat log. I've played them all, and not just casually, I assure you: BG1+2, IWDs, Fallouts, ToEE, and I next to never used a combat log. I also remove it when I can do so. To me it breaks the RPG "immersion" one step too much. I know it sounds dorky, snobbish even, but it does. I'd much rather just reload and try a new tactic.

Edited June 11, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Rahelron]

Catherine?

 

Seriously?

 

(I mean that Catherine has very few actual rpg elements. A crpg doesn't have to feature combat (if there's another system for conflict resolution), but Catherine is a terrible example. It's a game based on player skill, charachter skill only has a minimal influence.)

 

The combat log helps determine what your charachter actually does. In a 2D game such as this it HAS implications on role-playing. If we would be talking about a full 3D game this information could also be told visually, but P:E isn't it.

 

ok, let me explain. If we split what RPG core mechanics from the tools that are used to achieve those mechanics we see that they usually allow the player to do 3 things:

 

1- Choose (usually achieved through a dialogue choices that lead the game to different final outcomes).

2- Achieve (usually achieved through defeating enemies through combat and growing your character through levelling).

3- Construct an alternate self (usually achieved through avatar creation, equipment, classes and customization in general).

 

In Catherine you can do all these three things, so it is an RPG.

 

Some would argue that RPGs also have a fourth core mechanic that is "Experience a different reality" (achieved through world design and exploration), but I don't think it is the case. To me an RPG can be an RPG even if its setting is our reality. That's why to me Watch Dogs is an RPG.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Rahelron

[C2B]

No?

 

Apart from you currently pulling a random distinction out of literary nowhere (and is debatable to hell and back) role-playing means acting a charachter. The systems you use for that are different, so trying to categorize them is weird in the first place. Your 2 point *achieve* has nothing to do with that either (unless you mean it in the sense of charachter development, in which case *achieve* is a weird description).

 

Neither do your own skills. What makes a (crpg in this case) is charachter skill. The more systems that are in place to support the different aspects of said charachter skill, the more is it a role-playing game. While Catherine certainly has rpg elements, its game mechanics are almost solely reliant on player skill (as well as its main conflict resolution system).

 

Vincent is a as given a charachter as he can be, with his own abilities having no real influence. A lot of visual novels support more rpg elements than Catherine does.

 

Catherine is an adventure puzzler with rpg elements. Not more, not less. It's also an awesome game in general.

 

Edit: Arguing about rpg definitions is fruitless anyway. And I don't think it has mucch of a point anyway. The only thing I actually wanted to say, that the combat log is/can be important to roleplayers too, so it certainly should be in (with the option to *hide it* of course)

Edited June 11, 2013 by C2B

[Sensuki]

I next to never used a combat log.

I look at the combat log more than the actual combat, particularly if I've already played the encounter.

[Rahelron]

You currently pulling a random distinction out of literary nowhere.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework

 

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

 

I was using the word "Mechanic" instead of "Aesthetic", sorry for that I didn't remember corretly.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Rahelron

[Sannom]

1- Choose (usually achieved through a dialogue choices that lead the game to different final outcomes).

No. The 'choice' aspect of a RPG involves dialogue options, but also the choice different path to the resolution of problems and the choice of the tools used to resolve the problems. All those choices should interact with each other, sometimes restrict each other, sometimes expand each other.

 

For example, in Alpha Protocol, playing stealthily is noted by the characters and can lead to some new choices in dialogs, while choosing the right dialog option can lead to an easier stealthy path to an objective.

 

The stupidity of your statement is why I am completely against Bioware ever implementing some sort of 'skip combat' button, as it simply can't improve their games and won't drive them to get out of that tired 'combat, then dialogue, then combat, with no interactions between the two phases of gameplay' formula they've been using for years.

[C2B]

 

You currently pulling a random distinction out of literary nowhere.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework

 

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

 

I was using the word "Mechanic" instead of "Aesthetic", sorry for that I didn't remember corretly.

 

 

You're still applying things to *rpgs* randomly. Using a structure such as the MDA doesn't change that. Especially since that structure does not not automatically make gerne definition.

 

See Sanom above me who has a different interpretation. It's not that specific.

Edited June 11, 2013 by C2B

[Rahelron]

 

 

You currently pulling a random distinction out of literary nowhere.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework

 

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play

 

I was using the word "Mechanic" instead of "Aesthetic", sorry for that I didn't remember corretly.

 

 

You're still applying things to *rpgs* randomly. Using a structure such as the MDA doesn't change that. Especially since that structure does not not automatically make gerne definition.

 

 

As you wish.

 

Anyway we are way off topic and trying to define the RPG genre doesn't help the discussion about the interface. So I think we can stop here.

[Malekith]

 

I next to never used a combat log.

I look at the combat log more than the actual combat, particularly if I've already played the encounter.

 

^That. I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

 

 

I usually went for "core" settings, especially when the games were based on D&D. And no, visceral gameplay of the kind I think you mean here is not my cup of a tea. Still, I'm surprised you'd rather watch that combat log than enjoy the game. Those games weren't that difficult, especially if you had a solid PnP background. Certainly no need to let that little window take over your gaming experience, but to each their own, I guess. I recall, although not so fondly, mates that were all about rules and stats, and they min-maxed as much as they could. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into RPG- characters the way C2B explained in his post. Rather, the opposite, I'm afraid. Still, some of those guys were fun to hang out with anyways.

[C2B]

 

I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

 

 

I usually went for "core" settings, especially when the games were based on D&D. And no, visceral gameplay of the kind I think you mean here is not my cup of a tea. Still, I'm surprised you'd rather watch that combat log than enjoy the game. Those games weren't that difficult, especially if you had a solid PnP background. Certainly no need to let that little window take over your gaming experience, but to each their own, I guess. I recall, although not so fondly, mates that were all about rules and stats, and they min-maxed as much as they could. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into RPG- characters the way C2B explained in his post. Rather, the opposite, I'm afraid. Still, some of those guys were fun to hang out with anyways.

There's all kinds of players, for better or worse. Obsidian can't control that. But, they can support these different preferences which is why a good overall package is important.

[Theedarkcorner]

 

 

I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

 

I usually went for "core" settings, especially when the games were based on D&D. And no, visceral gameplay of the kind I think you mean here is not my cup of a tea. Still, I'm surprised you'd rather watch that combat log than enjoy the game. Those games weren't that difficult, especially if you had a solid PnP background. Certainly no need to let that little window take over your gaming experience, but to each their own, I guess. I recall, although not so fondly, mates that were all about rules and stats, and they min-maxed as much as they could. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into RPG- characters the way C2B explained in his post. Rather, the opposite, I'm afraid. Still, some of those guys were fun to hang out with anyways.

There's all kinds of players, for better or worse. Obsidian can't control that. But, they can support these different preferences which is why a good overall package is important.

 

 

True, the way the game is played will vary from person to person. Some will play in real time, others turn based. Some people will watch the combat log while others won't. As long as they enjoy it, there's really no reason to deny their play style.

 

 

Personally, in any serious fight I'll be playing turn based while watching the combat log intently. There are, what, 54 spells and 56 unique abilities already? Even if they were to create unique graphics for each one, I don't know anyone who could keep track of them all. If a mage casts a spell that makes them immune to magical weapons, then watching the combat log is the fastest way to find out because it tells you right when the mage starts casting it. You could then take measures to dispell it, or equip your melee fighters with non-magical weapons before the spell even has a chance to be useful. I find it fun and empowering.

[Malekith]

 

I spent more time watching the portraits to monitor the health and status effects and the log than the battle itself. I don't know what kind of experience some had, but i don't remember IE combat being a "visceral" experience, nor should it be.

 

 

I usually went for "core" settings, especially when the games were based on D&D. And no, visceral gameplay of the kind I think you mean here is not my cup of a tea. Still, I'm surprised you'd rather watch that combat log than enjoy the game. Those games weren't that difficult, especially if you had a solid PnP background. Certainly no need to let that little window take over your gaming experience, but to each their own, I guess. I recall, although not so fondly, mates that were all about rules and stats, and they min-maxed as much as they could. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into RPG- characters the way C2B explained in his post. Rather, the opposite, I'm afraid. Still, some of those guys were fun to hang out with anyways.

 

Despite how it comes, i don't play games for min maxing the numbers. I play them for the story and roleplay. If it were up to me the game would be more like PS:T and have huge walls of text. I don't have a huge problem with the option to turn of the log. But  i didn't disagree with karkarov only in that. Pretty much everything he prefers is terrible design for my tastes. He encapsules everything that is atrocious about modern games(pretty much anything). But i don't have a problem with games existing that he likes. All AAA RPGs are the crap he likes. It's us who don't have any games to play outside of kickstarter. And now he wants to make these games "modern" as well. That's why some of us react so negatively to his posts. 

[khango]

Regardless of whether the combat log is 'necessary' or not, it was the mechanism for enabling the communication of necessary information in classic IE games - without it you might not know that your slashing or blunt or whatever type of weapon you were using was practically useless or extremely effective. There may be a means other than a combat log to communicate such things, but having them communicated via some convenient means is necessary. If something is bulletproof or completely immune to steel or magic or extra flammable and is so in a way that'd be obvious to someone participating, it ought to be communicated in some clear way to the player. If I, as a level 12 warrior find it blatantly obvious that my axe of flame utterly toasts water nixies (evaporated in a puff of steam) but is completely useless against a fire bobo, then as a player those things should be clear also.

All that said, I can't imagine playing original IE games without the combat log.  Outside of the easier difficulties it'd be a lot like playing the game blind.
 

[rjshae]

^^^ It might be nice to have the ability to flag certain combat states as causing some type of GUI interaction, whether creating a floaty string, providing audio feedback, or even pausing the game. Maybe through a configuration dialogue?

[Stun]

 

Let me quote myself.

 

Where in that statement do you see "Take the combat log out of the game!", "There is no reason to use the combat log!", or "The combat log serves no purpose!"?

 

If you see any of those things in that quote I need you to stop and read it again. Keep doing that until you actually read what it says, not what you want it to say. Cause I pretty much said "I expect the combat log to be in game and understand why people use it."

 

LOL

 

 

HP changes are going to be pretty obvious on screen since the UI will have HP bars.

 

Also I know asking is a waste of time, but why does knowing you rolled a 3 on and attack and missed matter?  A miss is a miss, knowing you missed because of RNG doesn't make it any less of a miss.  Nor do you need the log to "detect" RNG.  Missing 15 attacks in a row isn't RNG, it's you are outmatched by your enemy. 

 

I also can't think of even one reason why you would want to know specifically how much HP you lost 5 rounds ago in a quasi real time game with pause.  Either you need to do something to heal... or you don't.  Knowing that 5 rounds ago you took 10 stamina damage from a wizards magic bolt makes no difference.  You could argue you are trying to determine who the bigger threat is but again... three normal looking bandits and one guy in the back with a staff that has flames coming off it... I don't really need a combat log to tell who the biggest threat is.

 

Lastly, I really don't care whose name is in the credit list as long as the game is good and isn't BG 1990 edition with new graphics.

Completely proves true all of the things I said in the other post, hello casual gamer. You are part of the cancer that is killing current RPGs.

 

Can I just requote this because of its sexiness?

 

I escaped the hopeless black hole known as the Bioware Social network circa 2013, only to have it follow me here. I'll ask again. Who are these people?

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *do* what to know what I rolled to miss. Especially when we're dealing with a complex combat system where multiple and varied bonusses and penalties are being applied to my rolls.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *do* care to see exactly how much damage, down to the single digit, I'm doing at all times.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *am* one of those freaks who believes that Reading is an essential life skill and that those who don't know how to read, or don't like reading should not be playing RPGs in the first place, thus there's no need to design RPGs for such people.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *am* one of those people who uses a combat log for more than just determining who's "doing more damage". I *am* one of those people who understands the subtle things in a decent combat system, which a combat log can show, such as attacks of opportunity when they happen, or minor penalties incurred from using your bow in close quarters. Stuff like that (good luck getting such info on the main screen!)

 

<gag>

 

TLDR: It's not up to Karkarov to decide what *WE* think is useless and what we don't.

 

PS: Contrary to your repeated meanderings and silly attempts at hyperbole, Baldurs Gate did not come out in 1990.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Stun

[common swift]

IWD2 had an iron golem that was immune against low-level weapons. BG2 also had some golems, but I don't remember their requirements. Fighting against them might be possible without a combat log on low difficulty. On higher settings especially in IWD2-HOF-mode I don't want to miss it.

PE might not have immune enemies but in HOF-mode I definitely want to have a combat log.

[Karkarov]

Maelkith, Stun, Sensuki...

First off you guys do realize replying with flames and personal insults makes you look like a bunch of third graders?

 

Second....  Diablo 3... king of the mix/maxer lets eek out every little stat point and build the perfect toon designed to maximize every single aspect of combat games this gen... Has no combat log.  When a game that is 100% about nothing but min/maxing and combat doesn't think it needs a combat log that speaks clearly to designers thoughts on how important a combat log really is.

 

Lastly, specifically for you Sensuki.  The first major forum uproar happened when Sawyer said there would be no experience from combat because they wanted to design a game that did not encourage degenerate gameplay such as killing everyone you could just because it got you the most EXP.  He even said many objectives in the game could be completed without any combat at all.  At one point they apparently actually played with the idea of making it possible to beat the entire game with no combat.  I don't think they went that route, but they thought about it. 

 

That should tell you something about how "combat focused" the game really is. 

 

Combat will be important, no doubt, but it is not the be all end all of the game.  Nor are people who don't stare at the combat log "casuals who are killing RPG's" because they don't need to see (roll=10 modifer +4+1+3=18 THAC0 14 Enemy AC -2 : hit) to notice they just hit a mob.

[Gorth]

First off you guys do realize replying with flames and personal insults makes you look like a bunch of third graders?

Nice summary. Try to keep it civil guys (which is the PC way of saying 'stow it' with the personal insults). If you feel a need to debate mechanics, I'm sure there is already an appropriate thread somewhere for it.

[Stun]

Lastly, specifically for you Sensuki.  The first major forum uproar happened when Sawyer said there would be no experience from combat because they wanted to design a game that did not encourage degenerate gameplay such as killing everyone you could just because it got you the most EXP.  He even said many objectives in the game could be completed without any combat at all.  At one point they apparently actually played with the idea of making it possible to beat the entire game with no combat.  I don't think they went that route, but they thought about it. 

 

That should tell you something about how "combat focused" the game really is.

This says nothing about how combat-focussed the game is going to be. All this tells us is that PE will give you tons of choices/options for conflict resolution. Don't forget, there's going to be a friggin 15 level mega dungeon in this game. It will probably contain enough combat on its own to render the entire game "combat oriented".

 

So no. Don't confuse the two concepts. They're different.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Stun

[WorstUsernameEver]

Second....  Diablo 3... king of the mix/maxer lets eek out every little stat point and build the perfect toon designed to maximize every single aspect of combat games this gen... Has no combat log.  When a game that is 100% about nothing but min/maxing and combat doesn't think it needs a combat log that speaks clearly to designers thoughts on how important a combat log really is.

Doesn't seem like a good example to me at all, given the different style of combat and gameplay. Despite some visual similarities, in terms of actual character progression and handling of the combat encounters, action-RPGs and IE-style RTwP titles never felt too similar, at least to me.

 

Anyway, this seems like a pointless discussion given that the devs have already confirmed that combat log will be in but can be disabled, so both groups of players can play the game to their preference.

[Jajo]

Second....  Diablo 3... king of the mix/maxer lets eek out every little stat point and build the perfect toon designed to maximize every single aspect of combat games this gen... Has no combat log.  When a game that is 100% about nothing but min/maxing and combat doesn't think it needs a combat log that speaks clearly to designers thoughts on how important a combat log really is.

 

Combat log is not about the size of the stat, but about how you use it. How, after pages of examples, is this still not clear?

 

1. Diablo's rules of engagement are nothing compared to D&D or equivalent rules. Prone, stun, helpless, sneak attack, attack of opportunity, flanking, spell resistance, spell DC, damage reduction, grappling, sundering, charging, bull rushing, size category, tumbling, concealment, displacement, ... their combat mechanics are several worlds apart in complexity.

 

2. Diablo's combat lives in a world of statistics. This is due to character's and monster's HP bloating and in some cases having a very high frequency of attacks. Outcomes can therefore be very accurately predicted to a small margin of error. Therefore, combat log would always carry much less information for Diablo than in D&D.

There are no 5 minutes worth of real time beat downs on the bosses in D&D. And even without pausing the game, the frequency of attacks is at least one order of magnitude lower. Using RNG for almost anything does not  mean, that statistics will accurately predict an outcome. One also has to have a large enough sample count.

 

3. In Diablo you control one character. It's much much easier to painstakingly monitor what's happening (or has happened) to one character than to do so for six of them.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Jajo

[Sensuki]

Maelkith, Stun, Sensuki...

 

First off you guys do realize replying with flames and personal insults makes you look like a bunch of third graders?

 

Second....  Diablo 3... king of the mix/maxer lets eek out every little stat point and build the perfect toon designed to maximize every single aspect of combat games this gen... Has no combat log.  When a game that is 100% about nothing but min/maxing and combat doesn't think it needs a combat log that speaks clearly to designers thoughts on how important a combat log really is.

If you think Diablo 3 of all games is the king of min/maxers then you clearly haven't played min maxers LOL. Diablo 3 doesn't even let you choose attributes.

 

Lastly, specifically for you Sensuki.  The first major forum uproar happened when Sawyer said there would be no experience from combat because they wanted to design a game that did not encourage degenerate gameplay such as killing everyone you could just because it got you the most EXP.  He even said many objectives in the game could be completed without any combat at all.  At one point they apparently actually played with the idea of making it possible to beat the entire game with no combat.  I don't think they went that route, but they thought about it. 

 

That should tell you something about how "combat focused" the game really is.

Thanks for the history lesson bro, but I was there and partook in those very threads. There have been many, many statements since then that reinforce the opposite. This website is not the only source of information. Sure you will be able to complete quests without combat. But long after the discussion about no XP from kills, the game has been reinforced as a game where "if you (plural, third person) don't like combat, it's probably not gonna be your type of game".

 

Combat will be important, no doubt, but it is not the be all end all of the game.  Nor are people who don't stare at the combat log "casuals who are killing RPG's" because they don't need to see (roll=10 modifer +4+1+3=18 THAC0 14 Enemy AC -2 : hit) to notice they just hit a mob.

It's not just to see whether you hit a mob. Someday you might realize that. Maybe.