Common pitfalls of CRPG games to avoid

[Messier-31]

While I enjoyed all IE games, I believe that Icewind Dale II was by far the worst. The graphics and music were astonishing, but still the game was more hack n' slashy then its predecessor, but that's not the point. The point is the story. Here's a couple of evildoing evildoers, they've been naughty because the "good" guys were naughty first. So they will kill everyone in the world, starting with Ten Towns apparently. That's poor. I mean, that's shallow. Reasons and motives behind the evil scheme were so trivial, and the means to pull it off plain and simple as well.

 

Oh, and Josh said somewhere that the mega-dungeon (Od Nua) will be resembling the Dragon's Eye (Eye of the Dragon?) from IwD2, somehow. For me that was the most dreadful part of the entire game. God I hope it will be something completely different and worth playing.

 

Best regards, cheers and lots of love.

[Suburban-Fox]

Telling me to look for someone "in Baldur's Gate" is like telling me to look for someone "in New York." Except worse, ecause there isn't a phone book, there aren't streets with names, and there aren't any signs telling me where the hell I am.

 

It could be said, then, that Baldur's Gate is where the streets have no name!

 

Seriously though, I'm totally with you on that one. I like the fact that handholding, quest markers, etc, have been done away with, but that does mean that the quests have to work. If you're tasked to find somebody in a big city, there needs to be a way to locate that person. You should be able to ask people if they know whereabouts he/she might be - at least which district he's in. We need something to work with.

 

Also agree on the "trapped with a foe you can't hope to defeat" thing. It's okay to have such situations as long as there's some kind of fore-warning that gives you a chance to prepare before you trap yourself, because nothing's more frustrating than having to go back to a 3 month old save because your only other save is past the Point of No Return in a dungeon you physically can't finish because you forgot to get the Sword of Plot Device Slaying from John Smith's Plot Convenient Weapons Emporium.

[Sarex]

While I enjoyed all IE games, I believe that Icewind Dale II was by far the worst. The graphics and music were astonishing, but still the game was more hack n' slashy then its predecessor, but that's not the point. The point is the story. Here's a couple of evildoing evildoers, they've been naughty because the "good" guys were naughty first. So they will kill everyone in the world, starting with Ten Towns apparently. That's poor. I mean, that's shallow. Reasons and motives behind the evil scheme were so trivial, and the means to pull it off plain and simple as well.

 

Oh, and Josh said somewhere that the mega-dungeon (Od Nua) will be resembling the Dragon's Eye (Eye of the Dragon?) from IwD2, somehow. For me that was the most dreadful part of the entire game. God I hope it will be something completely different and worth playing.

 

Best regards, cheers and lots of love.

 

I think you are being very subjective. IWD2 was a good game and while the story was not the best and it was linear, it's gameplay eclipses that of any IE game, not to mention the setting, atmosphere and the soundtrack.

 

I am currently playing IWD and I haven't seen a single thing that is better then in IWD2 (the soundtrack is atrocious). So for me I truly hope that PoE is the closest to IWD2 gameplay and setting/atmosphere wise.

[Bryy]

 

While I enjoyed all IE games, I believe that Icewind Dale II was by far the worst. The graphics and music were astonishing, but still the game was more hack n' slashy then its predecessor, but that's not the point. The point is the story. Here's a couple of evildoing evildoers, they've been naughty because the "good" guys were naughty first. So they will kill everyone in the world, starting with Ten Towns apparently. That's poor. I mean, that's shallow. Reasons and motives behind the evil scheme were so trivial, and the means to pull it off plain and simple as well.

 

Oh, and Josh said somewhere that the mega-dungeon (Od Nua) will be resembling the Dragon's Eye (Eye of the Dragon?) from IwD2, somehow. For me that was the most dreadful part of the entire game. God I hope it will be something completely different and worth playing.

 

Best regards, cheers and lots of love.

 

I think you are being very subjective. IWD2 was a good game and while the story was not the best 

IWD's story was fine.

 

The script was horrible.

[Sarex]

IWD's story was fine.

 

The script was horrible.

 

Could you elaborate, I don't understand what you mean by script.

[Messier-31]

It could be said, then, that Baldur's Gate is where the streets have no name!

 

What is interesting is that the streets (at least some) were named on the map - you know, that real map, paper map, included in the game box. I don't remember if there were street names during gameplay, though. I guess not.

 

 

I think you are being very subjective. IWD2 was a good game and while the story was not the best and it was linear, it's gameplay eclipses that of any IE game, not to mention the setting, atmosphere and the soundtrack.

 

I am currently playing IWD and I haven't seen a single thing that is better then in IWD2 (the soundtrack is atrocious). So for me I truly hope that PoE is the closest to IWD2 gameplay and setting/atmosphere wise.

 

I did enjoy it, but still had the least fun out of it. You're saying that you "haven't seen a single thing that is better then in IWD2", well that's also pretty subjective. I might say otherwise! Because we all have different tastes. So that's pretty much it, we could delve deeper into things we liked and/or disliked, and wouldn't be nearer to agreement. I just wanted to share my thoughts, that's all.

 

In the end we'll all end up adventurin'

Edited April 8, 2014 by Messier-31

[Bryy]

 

IWD's story was fine.

 

The script was horrible.

 

Could you elaborate, I don't understand what you mean by script.

 

The dialogue, the execution.

[Failion]

There being a optimal path the community can agree upon on. In fallout 2 if you were a slaver you were treated like a piece of **** which is awesome. But being the goody good shoes felt too unnatural. There should be waaaaay more consequences if you cross evil people. Irl crossing psychopaths could you get murdered, lose your job or even get you in trouble with the law. I think its dumb in crpg when the heroes confront evil "well hurr we can just kill them and problem solved." I want to see a more complicated scenarios when dealing with such groups or persons. Like if you refuse to work with them or attack them. They become more aggressive and sinister.

[constantine]

To be honest, sometimes I feel classes have talens and skills just to have something. In many cases rigid classes seems almost..restricting.

 

Call me a heretic, but honestly, I'd rather do away with fixed classes and have skills anyone can learn (where it makes sense) and you can specialize in a class if you fit the requrement.

 

To help you visualize, think of it as having no classes at hte benining (or beingin classes are nothing more than starter skill packages), like in Skyrim, but if you fit specific requirements you can specilize, kinda like prestige classes. THEN you get special, unique powers/feats)

 

 

No friend, that is, as you said yourself, heretic.

 

PoE will have Classes, not fixed ones like in D&D rules but custom-made through abilities/talents selection. But Classes they will be. You can play Skyrim for those features you like. Most of us backed a whole different kind of game.

[Hormalakh]

Josh, the lead designer of iwd2, stated that the story was written in 2 days almost right before the game was finished. This is not something that had much control over. The production cycle for it was extremely short.

[Volourn]

"I don't know how "common" this is, but I would definitely call it a pitfall: trapping us in a place where we have to fight a monster who can only be hurt by a certain weapon we probably don't have and may not specialize in even if we do have it, and then giving that monster regenerating health.

I've been fighting Kagour (sp?) on the Werewolf Island in Tales Of The Sword Coast, and frankly, he is impossible for my party to beat even with the Sword Of Balduran and using cheesy kiting tactics. Which wouldn't be so bad, if I had any other options than to fight him. But I'm stuck on the island, and the only way to move the story along is to fight a character I straight-up cannot defeat. At this point, I'm just going to give up and edit his entry in Shadowkeeper until I can beat the motherf***er.

Does that bother you, Baldur's Gate grognards? It sure bothers me. I don't want to cheat, and I wouldn't, but the game cheated me first."

 

The game didn't cheat.  You just sucked at the game. Don't blame your failure on the game. It's a game. That means losing should be a possibility.  As for you 'cheating'. Meh. It's a SP game. I don't care what you do in your copy as it don't effect me.

[Ffordesoon]

Being unable to beat situations unwinnable without metagaming knowledge is absolutely the game cheating you. To say otherwise, that it's somehow my fault an encounter was badly designed, is asinine in the extreme. If I ran a race, and someone tripped me in the middle of it, would you say I suck at gravity because I didn't expect someone to trip me?

 

If you would, you are a deeply troubled human being, and I hope you get the help you unwisely begrudge others. If you wouldn't, we might be able to talk like human beings.

 

There is a valid argument for design that requires metagaming. There is no valid argument for elitism.

[PrimeJunta]

But do they NEED to become stronger? If they are already strong. Do they have to be the greatest weapon ever?

 

If the strongest weapon in the game is a +3 and the sword you found and customized is a +2, used it, and made a name for it (maybe even NPCs may recognize it) -  will you throw it away?

 

The out of control level/power inflation is the bane of most RPG's settings

 

For most people, the answer to your question is "yes." 

 

People respond to incentives. Games are built around incentive systems. They work. If you want to give the game long-lived artifacts that stay with your character, then don't provide artifacts which outclass them. Either make them gain in power with the character, make them insanely powerful to start with, or make them cursed so the character can't be rid of them. But expecting the player to keep a +2 sword around when a +3 is available for role-playing reasons is unreasonable.

 

Of course, there's nothing to stop you, as the player, from doing just that anyway. But designing the game around the assumption that you will is bad design.

[TrashMan]

But, well... Let me explain. I'm wandering through the eponymous city in BG1 right now, and it's very easy to get lost in it - which is a good thing overall, even if I'm not always lost for the right reasons. However, the quest journal, which has until this point been sufficiently helpful, now tells me nine times out of ten in the descriptions that the person I want to find is "in Baldur's Gate." Baldur's Gate has nine districts, each packed with virtually identical houses that are not labeled as anything on my map or in the world, many of which are the only place I can find the NPCs I need to find. Telling me to look for someone "in Baldur's Gate" is like telling me to look for someone "in New York." Except worse, ecause there isn't a phone book, there aren't streets with names, and there aren't any signs telling me where the hell I am. It is, in other words, a mite irritating.

 

I'm all for having to pay attention to the gameworld, but this is just bulls**t.

 

I like the way Outcast handles it.

 

Now only does it tell you the reegion ,but you can ask any NPC where to find person X. And they will point you in the right direction (if they know). Like a compass.

 

They literately turned towards the direction the NPC is, point a finger and say "I think I saw him that way".

[TrashMan]

 

But do they NEED to become stronger? If they are already strong. Do they have to be the greatest weapon ever?

 

If the strongest weapon in the game is a +3 and the sword you found and customized is a +2, used it, and made a name for it (maybe even NPCs may recognize it) -  will you throw it away?

 

The out of control level/power inflation is the bane of most RPG's settings

 

For most people, the answer to your question is "yes." 

 

People respond to incentives. Games are built around incentive systems. They work. If you want to give the game long-lived artifacts that stay with your character, then don't provide artifacts which outclass them. Either make them gain in power with the character, make them insanely powerful to start with, or make them cursed so the character can't be rid of them. But expecting the player to keep a +2 sword around when a +3 is available for role-playing reasons is unreasonable.

 

 

No, it's not.

I've done it and I know other poeple who turned down more powerful weapons.

 

The incentive just has to be something different other than purely numerical.

You have to get the player to love that +2 sword. Then he won't want to give it up.

[Lephys]

The incentive just has to be something different other than purely numerical.

You have to get the player to love that +2 sword. Then he won't want to give it up.

Sure, the differences don't have to be numerical, but they still have to be mechanical.

 

You can't just get the player to love being Level 5, and have that suddenly be a reason for the player to intentionally not reach Levels 6-12.

 

It's not just about giving them a reason to do something, but about them one that actually competes with the mechanical reasons for doing the opposite.

 

Get the player to love that +2 sword, and the other sword is still +1 more sword. Maybe the player loves healing things, but he still has to damage things to progress. Damaging things doesn't lose its value just because other things can also be valuable.

[Moragauth]

The ones I loathe most are being too reliant on stereotypes or archetypes and not shaking it up a little.

 

My pet peeves are adorning a race with a name like 'elf' and then shoehorning it into the slim, wields a bow archetype that D&D distilled from LOTR and has set in stone. Even games like WoW, which supposedly broke the mould, still do this. The other thing I dislike is homogeneising these races too much with humans. They should maintain an element of distinctiveness.

 

The same could be said of classes. I think Pillars of Eternity is already on good footing in introducing some new classes, however I appreciate that with classes there are some boundaries as to what their functionality is. Still, I like classes like the warlock of 4E D&D, which is an offensive spellcaster with good durability, single target focus and a focus on rapid, fast damage. So basically a mix of archetype classes, like the holy quartet of the priest, warrior rogue and mage, and some others that mix things up a little.

 

The main thing for me is really the excessive use of the same old racial tropes over and over, like elves being a dying race giving way to humans. This is so over-done as to instantly put me off any game using it. It's no longer interesting to me, if it ever was. 

[constantine]

The ones I loathe most are being too reliant on stereotypes or archetypes and not shaking it up a little.

 

My pet peeves are adorning a race with a name like 'elf' and then shoehorning it into the slim, wields a bow archetype that D&D distilled from LOTR and has set in stone. Even games like WoW, which supposedly broke the mould, still do this. The other thing I dislike is homogeneising these races too much with humans. They should maintain an element of distinctiveness.

 

The same could be said of classes. I think Pillars of Eternity is already on good footing in introducing some new classes, however I appreciate that with classes there are some boundaries as to what their functionality is. Still, I like classes like the warlock of 4E D&D, which is an offensive spellcaster with good durability, single target focus and a focus on rapid, fast damage. So basically a mix of archetype classes, like the holy quartet of the priest, warrior rogue and mage, and some others that mix things up a little.

 

The main thing for me is really the excessive use of the same old racial tropes over and over, like elves being a dying race giving way to humans. This is so over-done as to instantly put me off any game using it. It's no longer interesting to me, if it ever was. 

 

 

I believe there would be no reason for you to have such fears for PoE as the Campaign World already moves to new grounds via the importance of souls in the world.

 

Definitely many fantasy stereotypes are present, but IMO this is grand as the game would alienate otherwise. Although they are here, I have faith the new lore will blow fresh air around them, all the while staying true to the fantasy standards we all love & grew up with. 

[Moragauth]

Yes, I am silently optimistic about the game. It may well prove to be the next BG2.

[Volourn]

"I believe there would be no reason for you to have such fears for PoE as the Campaign World already moves to new grounds via the importance of souls in the world."

 

This is not new. Souls are important in many fantasy worlds.

[Gromnir]

 

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.

 

handedness. handedness? taken literal, we find this amusing. weapons themselves can't have handedness, so...

 

The Southpaw Spear of Destiny:

 

when wielded by a lefty, the weapon may deliver an invariably fatal  coup de grâce to any prone, immobilized or otherwise defenseless humanoid creature. a right-handed wielder suffers progressively debilitating nightmares. the dreams vary, but always end with the wielder drowning in blood. from a practical standpoint, the wielder receives a cumulative 1 point penalty following each nightmare to all ability scores until he rids himself of the spear. etc.

 

handedness. *snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

That's a great magic item idea!

[Hormalakh]

 

 

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.

 

handedness. handedness? taken literal, we find this amusing. weapons themselves can't have handedness, so...

 

The Southpaw Spear of Destiny:

 

when wielded by a lefty, the weapon may deliver an invariably fatal  coup de grâce to any prone, immobilized or otherwise defenseless humanoid creature. a right-handed wielder suffers progressively debilitating nightmares. the dreams vary, but always end with the wielder drowning in blood. from a practical standpoint, the wielder receives a cumulative 1 point penalty following each nightmare to all ability scores until he rids himself of the spear. etc.

 

handedness. *snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

duh. he means one- or two-handed. A one-hander would mean that you can carry a shield in your other hand, reducing your deflection rating, whereas a two-hander would mean that you cannot. you have to make a decision as to whether you are willing to sacrifice deflection for increases in DPS. Enchantments are balanced around this decision as well.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

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.

 

handedness. handedness? taken literal, we find this amusing. weapons themselves can't have handedness, so...

 

The Southpaw Spear of Destiny:

 

when wielded by a lefty, the weapon may deliver an invariably fatal  coup de grâce to any prone, immobilized or otherwise defenseless humanoid creature. a right-handed wielder suffers progressively debilitating nightmares. the dreams vary, but always end with the wielder drowning in blood. from a practical standpoint, the wielder receives a cumulative 1 point penalty following each nightmare to all ability scores until he rids himself of the spear. etc.

 

handedness. *snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

duh. he means one- or two-handed. A one-hander would mean that you can carry a shield in your other hand, reducing your deflection rating, whereas a two-hander would mean that you cannot. you have to make a decision as to whether you are willing to sacrifice deflection for increases in DPS. Enchantments are balanced around this decision as well.

 

am quite aware o' what he "means." duh.  nevertheless, we noted that literal meaning o' handedness leads to ridiculous outcome.  

 

...

 

so, how does it feel to be the one guy who doesn't "get it?"  kinda embarrassed?  no? well, that is kinda funny too.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Fatback]

Lol