Can I even handle a game like PE any longer? Well, I sure hope so!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I don't enjoy challenges built for reloading in any games. A challenge that's designed to kill you until you memorize the right moves is just lazy design masquerading as difficulty. It doesn't reward skill, insight, or creativity, only persistence.

 

I think so many games are like this purely for historical reasons. Arcade games had to have an exponentially ramping-up difficulty curve to keep people pushing in the quarters, and this carried over to computer games where it no longer made sense. Now we're just used to it and expect it, and some of us even think they're somehow superior gamers for having a higher-than-average tolerance for frustration.

 

 

Well you've just described most games in existence and not just computer games. Which also includes such classics like Fallout 1. I'd be sceptical if anyone was able to kill the Mother Deathclaw in the L.A. Boneyard Warehouse on their very first play through. They would have had to reload and change their tactics to kill her.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[PrimeJunta]

"Feeble." "Dishonest." You're a real charmer, Stun.

 

<plonk>

[Stun]

Your argument deserves no less.

 

 

Edit: Hell, I'm giving you too much credit. You're not even putting up an argument. You're simply taking a game, and mindlessly bashing it.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Stun

[Monte Carlo]

Some people call it meta-gaming. Me, I call it knowing the rules.

[PrimeJunta]

Well you've just described most games in existence and not just computer games.

Uh... ok, I guess?

 

Which also includes such classics like Fallout 1. I'd be sceptical if anyone was able to kill the Mother Deathclaw in the L.A. Boneyard Warehouse on their very first play through. They would have had to reload and change their tactics to kill her.

I agree, most of the classic cRPG's are mechanically awful and way too reliant on "save frequently and in different slots."

[PrimeJunta]

Some people call it meta-gaming. Me, I call it knowing the rules.

Not the same thing. Metagaming is "I know there's a spellcaster around the next corner with buffs A, B, and C, who's going to open up with attacks X, Y, and Z, so I need to prepare counters a, b, c, x, y, and z." Or "I know the best magic weapon in the game is a two-handed sword, so I'll specialize in that." Or "I know that the following scene will get interrupted by a sudden attack of powerful undead, so I'll prepare my anti-undead spells." And so on.

[Metabot]

 

I don't enjoy challenges built for reloading in any games. A challenge that's designed to kill you until you memorize the right moves is just lazy design masquerading as difficulty. It doesn't reward skill, insight, or creativity, only persistence.

 

I think so many games are like this purely for historical reasons. Arcade games had to have an exponentially ramping-up difficulty curve to keep people pushing in the quarters, and this carried over to computer games where it no longer made sense. Now we're just used to it and expect it, and some of us even think they're somehow superior gamers for having a higher-than-average tolerance for frustration.

 

 

Hmm I don't think challenges are "built" for reloading but reloading is a necessary outcome of something being challenging...

Edited January 14, 2014 by Metabot

[Monte Carlo]

@ PrimeJunta. Fair enough. But once you've beaten a game, who cares? If I know the best sword for a paladin is a two-hander why wouldn't I choose that skill?

[PrimeJunta]

Hmm I don't think challenges are "built" for reloading but they are a necessary outcome of something being challenging...

Occasional reloading certainly is. You do slip up sometimes and there should be consequences for that.

 

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading. That's what the tired and threadbare "boss fight" trope is traditionally all about.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Metagaming is "I know there's a spellcaster around the next corner with buffs A, B, and C, who's going to open up with attacks X, Y, and Z, so I need to prepare counters a, b, c, x, y, and z." Or "I know the best magic weapon in the game is a two-handed sword, so I'll specialize in that.

 

And this is not limited to crpgs. It's the same with rts, fps, arpg and many other computer and non-computer games. It seems it's not a certain type of computer game that you're having trouble with but games in general.

[Stun]

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading.

So?

 

I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter.

 

Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so....

[PrimeJunta]

And this is not limited to crpgs. It's the same with rts, fps, arpg and many other computer and non-computer games. It seems it's not a certain type of computer game that you're having trouble with but games in general.

Not games in general. Just certain recurring features in many games. Also don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed most of the games being discussed here tremendously, but I've enjoyed them despite these features, not because of them.

 

Here's one that doesn't do this: Total War. That series is mechanically relatively complex, and it's often taken me several tries to get a proper campaign started (I usually play on Hard). I have quite enjoyed that process, because I've felt that I'm learning the rules, not memorizing counters to "canned" challenges.

[Lephys]

I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of "What's wrong with (insert game aspect here)?!" questions being posed in response to Josh's (and others') observations are completely missing the point of the referenced problems being about the extent of the game's aspects, and not the sheer existence of them.

 

Reloading, for example. Reloading isn't bad. Reloading because a dice roll either places or removes the lynch pin of even your cleverest strategy is bad.

 

Scouting and planning isn't bad. Scouting and planning, then magically augmenting 17 aspects of your party before even beginning combat, just so you can be on par with OR instantly annihilate your foes is bad.

 

One quick note on "pre-buffing": Josh has said that buffs are currently planned to be combat-only abilities. This in no way prevents you from "pre-buffing," in function. You just have to wait until combat technically starts, but the first thing you can do is buff accordingly. There aren't rounds, so it's not like you might have to wait 3 seconds to buff AFTER stuff starts charging you because you missed the previous round window. And it's not as if the only way to be "in-combat" is to run out into the open and wave your arms at your foes. In BG and BG2, you could attack/cast on enemies who didn't even know you were there yet. Of course, once you finished your spell, they knew you were there. But you already got to cast it, and "get the jump" on them, so to speak.

 

Also, I've gotta second the question: What is fully-preperatory (outside-of-combat) chain buffing really adding to the game in terms of significant choice? "Do I want to be WAY better in this next bout of combat, or don't I?" What's the alternative? In combat, choices are significant, because if you DO thing A, then there'll be X consequences, and if you DON'T do thing A, then there'll be Y consequences. Those are weighable against each other. What kind of a choice is "Hmm... should I boost all my stats and damage and defenses NOW? Or should I wait until stuff's attacking us to do that?"

 

There'd be entire mercenary groups of Buffers in a world like that. Just 15 people that all cast a different spell, all at once. "Want to assassinate the king? We'll enhance you so much that you can take out ALL The guards, 8D! For a fee..."

 

I mean, in combat, if you could just queue up all your offensive spells/abilities by "casting" them all before combat, then just release them all in a single moment IN combat, would combat be more interesting or less interesting?

 

Again... extent. There's planning, and then there's The One Plan To Rule Them All.

[Lephys]

 

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading.

So?

 

I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter.

 

Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so....

 

Wait... so you don't deny that, ideally, things would not be designed thusly, yet you actively advocate not trying to design them better, simply because you believe they wouldn't actually be designed better?

 

You do realize there are two different things there, right? You can think something is objectively problematic, AND simply believe it's not fixable. Deciding that somehow means it isn't problematic doesn't solve anything.

[ItinerantNomad]

This topic reminds me of what a food conneisseur would descirbe after living in an area of food insecurity for a decade, and then wondering whether he can ever get back to good, fresh, home cooking since he's addicted to junk food now.

 

ARPGs are the crappy every-day games that you play to interact with your children and socialize and put your mind on hold. I expect PoE to be the 200-something year old bottle of champagne that you crack open and savor slowly.

Edited January 14, 2014 by ItinerantNomad

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This thread makes me question the sanity of forum members.

[Fatback]

Hard counters don't add anything but frustration soft counters are a necessity for tactical fun challenging combat

[Yonjuro]

...

Scouting and planning isn't bad. Scouting and planning, then magically augmenting 17 aspects of your party before even beginning combat, just so you can be on par with OR instantly annihilate your foes is bad.

 

....

 

 

 No no. That's good. And, if you also set spike traps and summon skeleton warriors it's extra good.

 

 But, I agree with the other things you said.

 

 Oh, except:

 

 

....

I mean, in combat, if you could just queue up all your offensive spells/abilities by "casting" them all before combat, then just release them all in a single moment IN combat, would combat be more interesting or less interesting?

 

 

 That's Timestop. I love Timestop. (When I do it. I hate it when someone does it to me (but, love it if they do it to my summoned kobold commando; is that wrong? it can't be wrong if it feels so right)).

 

 Anyway, yes - I think Mr. Sawyer's original list is fine (with some reservations about the precombat buffs item)  and it looks like his goal is to make something challenging but with fewer 'rough edges' than we had in the IE games. I'll bet he succeeds, because, you know, hindsight and experience and stuff.

[Stun]

 

 

However, there are CERTAINLY encounters designed for repeated reloading.

So?

 

I've never in my life played a game that contained combat, that DIDN'T have at least 1 such encounter.

 

Oh and by the way, POE won't be any different, so....

 

Wait... so you don't deny that, ideally, things would not be designed thusly, yet you actively advocate not trying to design them better, simply because you believe they wouldn't actually be designed better?

 

You do realize there are two different things there, right? You can think something is objectively problematic, AND simply believe it's not fixable. Deciding that somehow means it isn't problematic doesn't solve anything.

 

Or maybe I don't see it as "bad design" when developers toss in a couple of encounters that you're not meant to just stumble upon and win? Encounters that are supposed to be the combat version of a puzzle, to be solved via trial and error, instead of yet another "tough boss fight" to test your power on?

 

What's wrong with that? Why do you assume its a design flaw when (at least in BG2's case) these combat puzzles are 1) all optional, and way off the beaten path 2) the rewards for coming up with a solution happen to be some of the best loot in the game (Ring of Gaxx; Staff of the Magi)?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

No no. That's good. And, if you also set spike traps and summon skeleton warriors it's extra good.

Could you elaborate? How is it good, specifically in relation to instead simply having to deal with an encounter that is designed to be feasibly tackled without increasing a bunch of values before going in?

 

That's Timestop. I love Timestop. (When I do it. I hate it when someone does it to me (but, love it if they do it to my summoned kobold commando; is that wrong? it can't be wrong if it feels so right)).

But... does it actually make combat more interesting? I like being invulnerable, because it's simply nice to not take any damage. But then, does it really enhance combat, which is basically about a challenge in the first place? In other words, if, instead of being a spell, all enemies just didn't react to you for 10 seconds after you started the battle, or if you could just always launch infinite abilities at once, instantly, would combat be better, or worse, overall?

[Lephys]

Or maybe I don't see it as "bad design" when developers toss in a couple of encounters that you're not meant to just stumble upon and win?

Why is everything either one extreme or the other?

 

Oh, so because I don't want a bout of combat that's basically try 17 different things that are intelligent and tactical plans, but all fail, so I reload each and every time, then find the one strategy that the encounter was designed specifically to be beaten by, somehow that means I want combat to be easy?

 

There's a difference between the game having tough combat encounters that to raise the bar for victory, and having encounters that hide the bar in the woods like an easter egg in an easter egg hunt, and have you simply search for it until you find it, at which point you win.

 

Combat has puzzle aspects, surely, but I think when it becomes a puzzle, it's crossed the line. A puzzle only has one solution. Combat is more than just a puzzle.

 

For the love of all that is holy... extent. If you taste a meal, and it's too salty, you can adjust the recipe to have less salt. Your only 2 options aren't:

 

A) The amount of salt currently in there, or

B) Absolutely no salt.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Why is everything either one extreme or the other?

 

Oh, so because I don't want a bout of combat that's basically try 17 different things that are intelligent and tactical plans, but all fail, so I reload each and every time, then find the one strategy that the encounter was designed specifically to be beaten by, somehow that means I want combat to be easy?

 

There's a difference between the game having tough combat encounters that to raise the bar for victory, and having encounters that hide the bar in the woods like an easter egg in an easter egg hunt, and have you simply search for it until you find it, at which point you win.

 

Combat has puzzle aspects, surely, but I think when it becomes a puzzle, it's crossed the line. A puzzle only has one solution. Combat is more than just a puzzle.

 

For the love of all that is holy... extent. If you taste a meal, and it's too salty, you can adjust the recipe to have less salt. Your only 2 options aren't:

 

A) The amount of salt currently in there, or

B) Absolutely no salt.

The 2 encounters I cited don't work like that. There are 50 different ways to beat Kangaxx the demilich. Not just one.

 

What typically happens for first time players is a total party wipe. Then, Second try: they discover something that works, right before they get wiped again. Then the third time they put up a decent fight....they come closer.... better than before. then they put together everything they've learned and Eventually they figure it out completely and they win.

 

Then they come online and share their joy and satisfaction on a message board. Then they stick around the forums and wait for someone else to do a thread entititled: "how do I beat X?!?", where they then quickly show up to post advice.

 

Then later someone does a song about it.

 

I'll ask again, what's wrong with that? does everything have to be "usual"? does every single encounter have to be completely winnable the first time out?

Edited January 15, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Why is everything either one extreme or the other?

 

Oh, so because I don't want a bout of combat that's basically try 17 different things that are intelligent and tactical plans, but all fail, so I reload each and every time, then find the one strategy that the encounter was designed specifically to be beaten by, somehow that means I want combat to be easy?

 

Pot calling the Kettle Black. Why do you counter with extreme examples yourself?

 

And there is more than one way to win an encounter in the IE games. You don't have to try 17 different things to find the one that works. And I highly doubt if they're intelligent and tactical if you had to reload 17 times.

[Robsidious]

This thread makes me question the sanity of forum members.

 

What are you talking about? This thread is awesome.

 

Granted it has become more argumentative than the earlier discussion of sharing and expressing views, and there has been some incivility, yet I'm highly enjoying listening to people express what they enjoyed and found frustrating in the IE games. As others have commented, all this talk is making me really excited for Eternity. It's as if you don't find anything of value in dissenting opinions. Though if your comment was supposed to be a meaningless throw away joke I apologise for misreading it, ignore me and carry on

[Yonjuro]

 

No no. That's good. And, if you also set spike traps and summon skeleton warriors it's extra good.

Could you elaborate? How is it good, specifically in relation to instead simply having to deal with an encounter that is designed to be feasibly tackled without increasing a bunch of values before going in?

 

 

 (It isn't necessarily good, it is a matter of degree.) Some things are more on the strategic end of the scale and some are more on the tactical end. Working out useful buffs, trap placements etc. especially non-obvious uses of them can be a lot of fun.

 

 

 

 

That's Timestop. I love Timestop. (When I do it. I hate it when someone does it to me (but, love it if they do it to my summoned kobold commando; is that wrong? it can't be wrong if it feels so right)).

But... does it actually make combat more interesting? I like being invulnerable, because it's simply nice to not take any damage. But then, does it really enhance combat, which is basically about a challenge in the first place? In other words, if, instead of being a spell, all enemies just didn't react to you for 10 seconds after you started the battle, or if you could just always launch infinite abilities at once, instantly, would combat be better, or worse, overall?

 

 

 I think Timestop made combat more interesting. It gave you (and many of your opponents) a stack of about 3 or 4 spells at a time. Late game, at the point when you could do it, that didn't usually end the more difficult fights (and some of the really difficult enemies were immune to it anyway) and you probably only had one or maybe two Timestops memorized, so it wasn't something you could do that often. So again, its a matter of degree. Certainly, infinite uncontested spells, by you or your opponents, would not be interesting.