Common pitfalls of CRPG games to avoid

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I was looking at some recent play throughs of BG1 (nearly finished playing a Druid) and my current play through of BG2 where I've finished Spellhold and the Underdark and now back in Athkatla to finish up some quests including Planar Sphere Stronghold, some high level encounters like the Twisted Rune before I head off to the Elven city and finish SoA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing you'll notice is most of the characters in BG2 are still using +2 weapons. Minsc's Flail of Ages and Keldorn's Carsomyr being the exceptions. And they're using the same ammunition like +2 bullets. Also the AC on these guys compared to my characters in BG1 are terrible despite being around level 15. Admittedly I still need to get some stuff like the Gauntlets of Dex for Keldorn.

 

There's a shed load of high level stuff in BG1. Despite this, BG1 is a very fun game and the high level items have never detracted it for me. I do find it funny that my characters in BG2 seem underpowered compared to BG1 but whilst playing BG2, they never seem underpowered. On the contrary, they seem to get through the encounters without too much trouble. I put it down to BG1 characters with their +2 and +3 uber items can't hit for ****, and when they do, they do some but not mega amounts of damage. Whilst BG2 characters can hit everything they come across and pummel the enemy to death in a small amount of time. I conclude that it's not the items, but their bonus to hit (THAC0).

 

This is where I believe Bioware got it right. They either kept or toned down some of the items in SoA. Kept the same ammunition. Toned down weapons like no +3 scimitars. Items like the Ring of Wizardry is part of the stronghold quest. The only time when you do get a lot of awesome +4 or +5 stuff on the main quest is in the Underdark and you don't get to keep it. And then you're back to your old gear. So while SoA does have a lot of cool weapons and armour, compared to BG1, it's not that uber powerful because your characters THAC0 makes up for it. It just appears the weapons are powerful because you're hitting everything and not missing. of course there are some OP items like Mace of Disruption and Celestial Fury, only because of what they can do. Not because they're +5 or +10 weapons. They're only a +1 Mace (before upgrade to +2) and +3 Katana.

 

tldr; I think this is an idea where Obsidan can look at. Keep the +1/2/3 weapons in a sequel but expand on what those weapons can do. Because your bonus to hit will increase and you won't need an abundance of +4 and +5 weapons.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[rjshae]

What does "too much loot" mean anyway? It seems purely a matter of perception. I suppose there's a group of players who prefer "low magic" gaming, which would make magic "rare" in the general population. But rare for your average Joe doesn't necessarily mean rare for an adventurer. Your character is entering fantasy venues where magical power has necessarily been concentrated, so the likelihood of encountering magical loot is greatly increased. The only way to fix the supposed "problem" is to eliminate magic entirely, which isn't an appealing idea in a fantasy genre.

[TrashMan]

 

I think it is you who is obsessed. One of the great things about BG2 is that it had great variety in loot and you are the first person I heard complain about it, in fact what people complained about was the lack of good non-sword weapons, so in fact people want more variety.

 

As for there being plenty of games that have limited loot, well those aren't IE games and they aren't what people singed up for.

 

So why can't it have lots of loot and give you interesting stuff to do, and you can pick up a regular sword through out the whole game. I think you are in a minority here as far as loot goes.

 

 

Argumentum Ad Populum?

 

Don't care about those.

 

Don't care if I was the only person in the world who thinks that - I'll continue to campaign for whatever I see as better.

Items are NICE. Loot is NICE. But they aren't necessary for a great roleplaying experience.

And power inflation can notonly lead toredicolusnes in a setting, it can also ruin the atmosphere.

 

[Sir Chaox]

I'd like to see maybe slightly more loot variety than BG1 in PE. That or less but not more. I want getting my first set of plate mail to be exciting and meaningful, even if it is not magical.

[TrashMan]

 

 

  Because games and stories works in different ways. It is more easy and interesting way to develop a character if u familiar with his weapon. Thats why heroes in stories ussually getting the strongest weapon on the start (Excalibur, Agies-fang etc) and stick with it, rather than change noname weapon after each fight.

 But in games, especially rpg, "dress the Barbie" was always one of the most interesting part of gameplay. 

 

 

 

To you.

However, plenty of games where"dressing the barbie" isn't a center point or there is no dressing prove you wrong.

 

 

 

 

Boooring - almost nobody wants to stick with 1 weapon for whole game, so why should they cripple their game for 99 people just to please one.

 

To you.

Don't claim majority here without any proof.

 

"But a game like that would never work". Yes it would.

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

It's basicly what flintlock sez.

Loot in so many games has no"soul" and it's a treasure hunt more than actual roleplaying.

 

Player characters act like idiots or do stuff that makes little sense...because of loot.

And constant item power inflation just makes things worse.

 

I'd rather have a dozen well made items than a hunderd pointless ones. For the record, I like loot myself, but I don't like it when loot becomes the game.

Edited February 7, 2014 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

 

Let me help you with that. If he likes BG1 loot variety, then he dislikes BG2 loot variety.

 

 

No. That just means I like BG1 more in respect of quantity, usability and atmosphere.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that any of the IE games were ever in danger of being on a Diablo level loot wise, simply because there weren't any item sets and there wasn't any need to hunt down the items to complete said set.

 

Except it has nothing to do with items set, but rather constantly inflating items and the need to have those. For most of the BG series, items went from normal to +3. There were just a few +4/+5 items.

In games like diablo you have starting daggers and two-handed battleaxes that do 10 damage and end ones that do 10000 damage.

 

 

 

*****

 

 

You also have some people complaining about SoA and not just ToB. And that didn't really happen that much in SoA. Also, a lot of the good weapons that you started near the beginning of the game, you also had at the end of the game. And these were either +2 or +3 weapons. eg. Scimitars, Slings. However, Trashman is complaining about magic items being discarded every five minutes which is a nonsense.

 

Take note, I'm talking about RPGs in general, not SoB specificly.

 

 

 

Also, I hate EPIC level tiers.

Edited February 7, 2014 by TrashMan

[Sarex]

No. That just means I like BG1 more in respect of quantity, usability and atmosphere.

 

So you do like how BG2 handled loot? Don't **** foot around it and answer straight up.

[befa82]

 

1. Forgetting to balance enchantments.

 

You have your two-handed weapon, 1h weapon & shield and dual wielding 1h weapons options. Which ones ill you go for? In most CRPG's you'd go for the last two. Why?

 

Because the designers seem to forget that TWO magical items equals TWICE the magical enchantments, hence why such combos are almost always vastly superior to a 2h weapon.

 

You have a paralisis enchantment on that big 2H axe? That's nice, I got a paralisyis enchantment on my 1h sword and a blindness enchantment on my 1h mace. I deal 2(3?) damage types and have twice the chance to incapacitate you.

What's that? But you do more damage 2d6 +5 fire damage? Not bad. I do 1d8+5 fire and 1d6+5 ice damage. Opps. Looks like you underperform there too.

 

Our weapons' enchantments are balanced around their handedness and speed.

 

Sounds good!

[Lephys]

 

No. That just means I like BG1 more in respect of quantity, usability and atmosphere.

 

So you do like how BG2 handled loot? Don't **** foot around it and answer straight up.

 

It seems as though Sarex has abandoned "you guys were totally referencing/judging BG2's loot system!" in favor of "you guys totally SHOULD'VE BEEN referencing/judging BG2's loot system this whole time, because I'm declaring it the core of this discussion, and rejecting all other discussion as invalid, u_u!"

 

Seriously, man... either let it go, or, at the very least, ask politely. There's really no need to get so worked up about stuff. If you've been misunderstood, then reasonable explain how and why. If not, then you'll reasonably discover that you, yourself, did the misunderstanding, and all will still be the better for it. This isn't some kind of life or death competition. It's a forum discussion.

[Sir Chaox]

 This isn't some kind of life or death competition. It's a forum discussion.

 

Sounds like a really bad premise for an anime.

[rjshae]

Another common pitfall: repetitive banter. Characters with a limited set of blurt strings that they say over... and over... and over again.

[Sir Chaox]

Another common pitfall: repetitive banter. Characters with a limited set of blurt strings that they say over... and over... and over again.

 

If you are referring to a Bethesda type game, where NPCs walk around and say the same things or have the same conversations all the time, then I agree.

 

If you are referring to party members being repetitive because they only cycle through a small list of sound bites, then I have one thing to say to you:

 

"Who. Wants. Some?"

[Lephys]

I've noticed that anything forced upon our senses that's that repetitive is a definite thing to avoid. I've been playing Tales of Vesperia, recently, and it's one of those run-into-little-monsters-on-the-map-and-then-battle-starts JRPGs. And, repetitively fighting the same creatures over and over again in a certain area really doesn't bug me that much. But what does? The fact that they call out their attacks, the exact same way, every time they use them. And, worst of all, the fact that it's the exact... same... music... over... and over and over and over and over! AHHHHHHH! *goes crazy*

 

But, really, even if it were three different variants or something, I think it wouldn't really be that big of a deal. There's just sort of a threshold of tolerance, I think. If it's mildly varied, I don't really mind hearing the same thing a bunch of times. As long as there are other things in between, and it's not like every 5 seconds.

[Sarex]

It seems as though Sarex has abandoned "you guys were totally referencing/judging BG2's loot system!" in favor of "you guys totally SHOULD'VE BEEN referencing/judging BG2's loot system this whole time, because I'm declaring it the core of this discussion, and rejecting all other discussion as invalid, u_u!"

 

Seriously, man... either let it go, or, at the very least, ask politely. There's really no need to get so worked up about stuff. If you've been misunderstood, then reasonable explain how and why. If not, then you'll reasonably discover that you, yourself, did the misunderstanding, and all will still be the better for it. This isn't some kind of life or death competition. It's a forum discussion.

 

 

I found BG1 to be almost right. Magis should be magical. Rare. Finding a magic item should be a moment of awe. ToB was horribel in that regard, given that it was raining +5 items left and right.

 

He is intentionally being vague. In his first post he tells us how he doesn't like when every item has magic properties in a game and pretty much describes BG2 among other games, in a later post he says how BG1 did it right and ToB did it horribly, as quoted above (so in fact he was the first one to reference the BG series (and like usuall Lephys, you should read the whole thread)). So when I asked him to confirm what he was saying, he comes up with this "That just means I like BG1 more in respect of quantity, usability and atmosphere".

 

Also where did I reject any other argument?

 

edit: I don't know how I could misunderstand what he said in the quote, you can either have a system where you have only a few magical items a la BG1 or you can have a **** ton of magical items like you have in BG2. He expressed his preference for the former and dislike for the latter in his posts, or did I misunderstand that?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Sarex

[TrashMan]

I think you are half right. Magic should be magical - in a low level campaign. But magic stops being magical when your characters gain enough levels to be able to stop time and summon planetars out the wazoo. And if you don't get to play around with such high-level abilities near the end of the saga, then you don't really progress and everything stays the same. Maybe abilities shouldn't go this crazy, but that's a different thing. What I mean is that it's just normal in-game evolution - you go from being awe-struck by a +2 weapon to being godlike 20 levels later. So I agree with Hiro Protagonist II about ToB - the loot is fine for a full-sized high-level campaign, it's just that ToB shouldn't have been an expansion. As it is, it hits you with everything it's got way too fast and it's over before you get to try out much of it.

 

I think you are defining "progression too" narrowly.

The story progresses.

The character does stuff, meets people, grows and changes. The world is affected by your actions.

Not to mention that I find LIMITLESS POTENTIAL growth and "from zero to hero in 5 minutes" ridiculous concepts.

I don't measure my character by his equipment, but rather by his acts.

 

 

So godly levels, massive powers - I don't want them. They ruin everything and demand that the entire setting/game/plot changes. Instead of bandits and political intrigues, you are now fighting demons and demi-gods, and there is a complete disconnect with the world before.  I don't want to be god-like

[Lephys]

He is intentionally being vague.

Is he, though? Or is he simply having no intention of using BG2 as an example of anything he's said, while you're obsessed with the notion that BG2 must've been the core of half this thread thus far, or all is somehow lost? *shrug*

 

edit: I don't know how I could misunderstand what he said in the quote, you can either have a system where you have only a few magical items a la BG1 or you can have a **** ton of magical items like you have in BG2.

"'If ya 'aint first, yer last'? Aww hell, Ricky! I was drunk when I said that! You can be second, you can be third... hell, you can even be fourth!"

 

 

(I'm fairly certain you can have a system between "just a few" and "a **** ton". Just sayin'...)

[Sarex]

Is he, though? Or is he simply having no intention of using BG2 as an example of anything he's said, while you're obsessed with the notion that BG2 must've been the core of half this thread thus far, or all is somehow lost? *shrug*

 

Whaaa...

 

I found BG1 to be almost right. Magis should be magical. Rare. Finding a magic item should be a moment of awe. ToB was horribel in that regard, given that it was raining +5 items left and right.

 

...aaat?!?

 

 

"'If ya 'aint first, yer last'? Aww hell, Ricky! I was drunk when I said that! You can be second, you can be third... hell, you can even be fourth!"

 

(I'm fairly certain you can have a system between "just a few" and "a **** ton". Just sayin'...)

 

Well that sure as **** is how he described it. You either have 2 or 3 magic items or it's just too much to be "magical"...

[Lephys]

Well that sure as **** is how he described it. You either have 2 or 3 magic items or it's just too much to be "magical"...

See, I gathered that he was describing the relationship between the frequency of magical item presentation/availability and the significance of said items. I must've missed the part where he made it a point to observe some hard threshold.

 

"See, this game only gave you 5 items, but this other one gave you 7. Six even would've been fine, but SEVEN?! The whole point here is that seven is where I draw the line! u_u"

 

I'll go back and look for that bit...

[Sarex]

See, I gathered that he was describing the relationship between the frequency of magical item presentation/availability and the significance of said items. I must've missed the part where he made it a point to observe some hard threshold.

"See, this game only gave you 5 items, but this other one gave you 7. Six even would've been fine, but SEVEN?! The whole point here is that seven is where I draw the line! u_u"

 

I'll go back and look for that bit...

 

It's more like this, "The game should have one magical item and your PC should stick with it". So it's not even 5, according to him 1 is the magic number.

[Lephys]

It's more like this, "The game should have one magical item and your PC should stick with it". So it's not even 5, according to him 1 is the magic number.

This was the closest thing I could find:

 

When you think of Aragorn - was every single thing he carried magical? Did it have to be? Do characters in fantasy storeis switch equipment every 5 minutes? No, they find something nice and stick with it.

Bit of a misquote, don't you think? He simply presented Aragorn as an example, and only stressed, exaggeratively (although sometimes it's actually accurate) that characters in fantasy stories don't need to switch equipment "every five minutes" (the exaggerated-yet-sometimes-accurate part, FYI).

 

Even if we were to assume that, rather than just presenting an example to enforce a point about frequency of equipment swapping/upgrading, he's presenting Aragorn as "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT GAMES SHOULD DO!", Aragorn actually has his spiffy Ranger sword for a long time, THEN swaps to Andúril once it's reforged and he becomes king.

 

Thus, the point STILL isn't even about only ever having one weapon/item/piece of equipment, for all of eternity. It remains a commentary on the frequency of equipment upgrades, mainly via found loot/item availability.

 

Really, it's not even so much the number of magical things that exist in the world, as much as is about the availability of progressively more and more powerful things.

 

 

Here's a great example: You know how sometimes, you find a character who has some iconic weapon? You see that weapon, and it's instantly "OMG, it's THAT guy!" because they're so associated with one another? Well, what good does that do if he just finds a slightly better weapon lying around after every bandit group he snuffs out, and just discards/sells his super iconic "Steve's Legendary Stevey Blade" (let's assume he's the legendary Warrior, Steve)?

 

You can't really have both. You can either give people a reason to stick with a given spiffy item, and it can be iconic, or you have the game give them 17 better items throughout, and, at the end say "Lolz, you're still using that old crappy item, just to make it feel iconic? Well, you're about 20 points behind on your chance to hit, so, have fun with that, u_u...."

Edited February 8, 2014 by Lephys

[Sarex]

Bit of a misquote, don't you think? 

 

/Thread

[Lephys]

 

Bit of a misquote, don't you think?

 

/Thread

 

I'm not following. I directly quoted his exact words, via the forum function. You can check. You put a bunch of words inside quotation marks that were very similar to Trashman's words but weren't the same words, claiming he said that.

 

Oh, wait. You're saying you realize your misquote now, and that his point wasn't what you were thinking it was, thus you have nothing further to argue? Ahhh, I see...

 

"/Thread," indeed. ^_^

 

Oh, except that there's still plenty of room to discuss not only the same pitfall (just not specifically your mistaken issue with Trashman's stance on magical loot), but other pitfalls already brought up in this thread, as well as any that have yet to be brought up.

 

So... ehhh, CTRL Z? /NotThread?

[Bryy]

 

Another common pitfall: repetitive banter. Characters with a limited set of blurt strings that they say over... and over... and over again.

 

If you are referring to a Bethesda type game, where NPCs walk around and say the same things or have the same conversations all the time, then I agree.

 

If you are referring to party members being repetitive because they only cycle through a small list of sound bites, then I have one thing to say to you:

 

"Who. Wants. Some?"

 

I frickin' hate how Bethesda has given rise to the popularity of the Living World.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Damn it Sarex, go back to the owl!

[Silent Winter]

 

 This isn't some kind of life or death competition. It's a forum discussion.

 

Sounds like a really bad premise for an anime.

 

"Locked to their computers, 10 forum goers must now play a deadly game.  Typing the wrong phrase into the system results in one of their counterparts being electrified.  Failing to type for 5 minutes results in themself being electrified.  Nobody knows what the phrases are... [dramatic music].

Through it all, Lephys and Sarex begin an unlikely romance (hey, I'm not judging) but in the end it comes down to just those 2.  Unfortunately, Lephys' propensity for punning results in the phrase 'so these crpgs are too ovoid' and Sarex is electrified.  End of romance.  End of game. [cue melancholy music]"