Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards

[Ffordesoon]

That's the way it is supposed to be done.

I have a feeling you say that a lot.

[Lephys]

Seems to me it's more about fixing the players than the game. I know I've gone through BG2 without sleepscumming, savescumming, without doing the same several counters against mages, BG1 without HP-on-level-up savescumming.

Whenever people bring up save-scumming in relation to a proposed problem or flaw in design, the save-scumming is a symptom, not the problem. That's great that you can play a game without ever doing any of this. Maybe you can go a whole day with itching powder all over you and never scratch yourself once. Doesn't mean everyone should just put up with an itch because you do.

 

The other thing is, eliminating that itch doesn't even make the game easier. It just means more of the challenge is in dealing with the situation at hand, and not at trying to figure out how not to be swiftly eliminated. Just because your foes don't have 15 ways in which to immediately eliminate key members of your party if you don't specifically counter them doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on how hard it is to kill those foes. It's not like if they don't get to petrify you, they've lost the battle. (Except it's a bit close to that, in a lot of cases, which is another issue that's already been brought up.)

 

I still think people are imagining the BG spell system, then just ripping out the things that are being perceived as issues. Then thinking "Man, that fight would be NOTHING if those creatures didn't have that handful of really, really threatening abilities that you have to counter or pretty much lose to." But, this game isn't already BG, and they're just removing stuff from it. They're not removing anything from the game, because they're building the game without it. Whether or not the encounters are still challenging has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not they make things function exactly like the old IE games had them function.

[Zeckul]

 What's wrong with BG2?

 

Let's start.

 

1: Counter the Mage.  I am pretty sure I have covered this elsewhere but Tic Tac Toe isn't a great combat system, and it is exactly what 50% percent of all encounters in Baldur's Gate 2 boiled down to thanks to the constant non stop wave of mage after mage after mage after mage....  There is nothing fun about casting the same half dozen counter spells, sending my melee in, watching mage guy die in one round (cause I countered everything) 500+ times.  It isn't fun, it isn't exciting.

Your math is a wee bit off. And so is your head. I can help you with the former. 50% would suggest that half of both the bestiary and the encounters are mage battles. This of course, is beyond dishonest. Beyond grotesque hyperbole. It's a flat out deliberately false statement.

The bestiary doesn't need to be 50% mages for 50% of the encounters to feature mages. Besides, most of the bestiary boils down to creatures that cast spells (i.e. "mages") and creatures that don't; only some have any special ability. I don't know what you were trying to achieve by listing the entire bestiary.

 

Anyway, 50% is probably an inaccurate, hyperbolic figure, but you miss the point which is that mage encounters (i.e. encounters with creatures that cast spells) were very common and all involved the same repetitive mechanics.

 

That's 33 different classes, if you're keeping count. 33. Thirty-Three.

 

And even that isn't the whole story. You can Multi-class. Or Dual class to produce countless different combinations of builds.

 

Again, missing the point: character development. The ability to choose from many classes at the start of the game does not provide meaningful character development. 

 

What do you do on a level up in Baldur's Gate? You click Ok, Ok, Ok, done. Sometimes you get a proficiency point, and some classes - Sorcerers, Thiefs - get to spend points or choose a spell. If you're human you get to dual-class once in the entire game. That's the extent of character development.

 

This is exacerbated by the fact that classes define every weapon you can wield and to what proficiency level, every armor you can wear, etc. Once you've chosen your class, there's not much other choice to do but to watch your character level up throughout the game.

 

 

Get over it already. You can save scum in every cRPG for a billion various reasons. You might as well just come out and voice your dislike of the entire f*cking Genre.

 

Dark Souls would be a counter-example to that claim.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Zeckul

[Sarex]

Dark Souls would be a counter-example to that claim.

 

Dark Souls is an action rpg, and there is no "gameover" in Dark Souls, you just spam encounters until you grind enough souls to be strong enough to pass the boss with your skill, or until you learn the pattern of the AI.

[Zeckul]

 

Dark Souls would be a counter-example to that claim.

 

Dark Souls is an action rpg, and there is no "gameover" in Dark Souls, you just spam encounters until you grind enough souls to be strong enough to pass the boss with your skill, or until you learn the pattern of the AI.

 

It's still a cRPG, and he said "every cRPG". Your description would apply to most RPGs actually; either you get stronger by getting a ton of xp (which more often than not involves killing a lot of stuff), or you learn how to counter exactly what the enemy is doing. Even in Baldur's Gate that description applies. 

 

Other RPGs mitigated the save-and-reload issue by disabling characters usually instead of killing them, i.e. NWN. It's addressed differently by different games, but BG2 is certainly not an example of how not to rely on save and reload.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Zeckul

[Sarex]

It's still a cRPG, and he said "every cRPG". Your description would apply to most RPGs actually; either you get stronger by getting a ton of xp (which more often than not involves killing a lot of stuff), or you learn how to counter exactly what the enemy is doing. Even in Baldur's Gate that description applies. 

 

Other RPGs mitigated the save-and-reload issue by disabling characters usually instead of killing them, i.e. NWN. It's addressed differently by different games, but BG2 is certainly not an example of how not to rely on save and reload.

 

In Dark Souls when you revive the enemies respawn thus you can just farm them for souls (xp), in IE games you have a finite number of enemies and thus XP. So no I would say it's not the same. Especially in the IWD series.

 

As for learning the AI, well in Dark Souls that consists of either timing the counter attacks or knowing at what time to roll and at what time to attack, while in IE games ,I dare say, you had more stuff to learn.

[Zeckul]

 

It's still a cRPG, and he said "every cRPG". Your description would apply to most RPGs actually; either you get stronger by getting a ton of xp (which more often than not involves killing a lot of stuff), or you learn how to counter exactly what the enemy is doing. Even in Baldur's Gate that description applies. 

 

Other RPGs mitigated the save-and-reload issue by disabling characters usually instead of killing them, i.e. NWN. It's addressed differently by different games, but BG2 is certainly not an example of how not to rely on save and reload.

 

In Dark Souls when you revive the enemies respawn thus you can just farm them for souls (xp), in IE games you have a finite number of enemies and thus XP. So no I would say it's not the same. Especially in the IWD series.

In Baldur's Gate when you rest in a wilderness area or dungeon, random enemies often spawn. You can do this an infinite number of times. Even without using this mechanic, if an encounter is too hard you can usually leave it and come back later when you've become stronger. So it's basically the same concepts.

 

As for learning the AI, well in Dark Souls that consists of either timing the counter attacks or knowing at what time to roll and at what time to attack, while in IE games ,I dare say, you had more stuff to learn.

 

Yes, it's a lot more complex in BG, and the whole focus of the game is different, I'm not trying to say the games are the same, only that the heavy reliance on save-and-reload found in BG is not a feature of every RPG.

[Stun]

I'm not trying to say the games are the same, only that the heavy reliance on save-and-reload found in BG is not a feature of every RPG.

No, you're saying that it's a feature in every cRPG except for games like Dark souls... where Death is irrelevant.

 

Which means all you're really saying is that to cure save scumming all you have to do is: 1) eliminate Death; and/or 2) make the game so easy that there's no heavily reliance on save scumming.

 

In other words, we've successfully eliminated one type of degenerate behavior.... by dumbing down the game experience for everyone else.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Stun

[Ffordesoon]

Death in Dark Souls is irrelevant? Are we thinking of the same game? Because it's pretty darn relevant in the one I'm thinking of. It's just not the save-and-reload death of BG, which is only relevant inasmuch as it wastes the player's time.

 

And no, I'm not saying PoE should be the same as Dark Souls. It should learn from Dark Souls.

[Zeckul]

 

No, you're saying that it's a feature in every cRPG except for games like Dark souls... where Death is irrelevant.

 

Which means all you're really saying is that to cure save scumming all you have to do is: 1) eliminate Death; and/or 2) make the game so easy that there's no heavily reliance on save scumming.

Death is a core mechanic of Dark Souls. If there's a game that makes death relevant it's Dark Souls.

 

I really don't see where you're coming from with the ideas of eliminating death or making the game easier, which I in no way suggested or implied. Nothing's easier (and more boring) than saving and reloading.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Zeckul

[Stun]

Ok, I'll elaborate.

 

Lets start from here:

Other RPGs mitigated the save-and-reload issue by disabling characters usually instead of killing them, i.e. NWN.

^i.e. eliminating death. Making death mean something other than "You're Dead because you failed". Consequently, this is basically the developer saying: "hey kiddo, if you recklessly and foolishly approach combat throwing all caution to the wind, don't worry about it. You, and your companions are immortal." ie: Neverwinter nights.

 

Nothing's easier (and more boring) than saving and reloading.

Save scumming is neither mandatory, nor is it supposed to be exciting. When we're talking about combat, it is the player-imposed RESULT of failure. It occurs when a gamer has failed to rise to a game's challenge and now wants to escape his deserved in-game penalty for failure.

 

But the Solution is NOT to reduce the challenge or reduce the penalties. The solution is to...Not Give a F*ck about the playing habits of crappy gamers.

 

Also, Save scumming is hardly limited to combat. Gamers save scummed a lot in Neverwinter Nights... for other reasons. Loot distribution, for one. Neverwinter nights has randomized loot drops. So gamers often saved before opening a chest. Then opened the chest, saw its contents and if they didn't like what they saw, they reloaded and opened that chest again in the hopes of getting something better.

 

Save scumming also occurs in games that have wonderful choice and consequence. What do you propose the Devs do about THAT? hmm? If the writers decided to write up a complex dialogue session between the PC and an important NPC and player chose a dialogue option that resulted in a not-so-excellent outcome, that player will be tempted to reload and try a different dialogue choice. <---again, what's the solution to that? Make all dialogue choices lead to the exact same outcome? Eliminate all negative consequences from all choices?

Edited April 16, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

 What's wrong with BG2?

 

Let's start.

 

1: Counter the Mage.  I am pretty sure I have covered this elsewhere but Tic Tac Toe isn't a great combat system, and it is exactly what 50% percent of all encounters in Baldur's Gate 2 boiled down to thanks to the constant non stop wave of mage after mage after mage after mage....  There is nothing fun about casting the same half dozen counter spells, sending my melee in, watching mage guy die in one round (cause I countered everything) 500+ times.  It isn't fun, it isn't exciting.

Your math is a wee bit off. And so is your head. I can help you with the former. 50% would suggest that half of both the bestiary and the encounters are mage battles. This of course, is beyond dishonest. Beyond grotesque hyperbole. It's a flat out deliberately false statement.

The bestiary doesn't need to be 50% mages for 50% of the encounters to feature mages. Besides, most of the bestiary boils down to creatures that cast spells (i.e. "mages") and creatures that don't; only some have any special ability. I don't know what you were trying to achieve by listing the entire bestiary.

 

 

 

 Well, we could count the actual encounters. Let's take Windspear Hills. I think there are two mage fights there: one in Samia's group and Conster, the disciple of Firkraag. There are also, Hobgoblins, more Hobgoblins, Crimson Deaths, a Ruhk and some kamikaze koblds, Orc Archers,  Golems, a Troll, Orcs, more Orc archers, Vampires, Greater Mummies (depending on when you go there), Shadows and Shadow Fiends ... lots more ... and a Dragon.

 

 Stun makes a reasonable point about the variety of encounters and the entire bestiary is really not a bad proxy for the actual number of encounters in the game.

 

 

 

Anyway, 50% is probably an inaccurate, hyperbolic figure, but you miss the point which is that mage encounters (i.e. encounters with creatures that cast spells) were very common and all involved the same repetitive mechanics.

 

 

 Fine - hyperbole is allowed.   However, there are a lot of ways of dealing with mage encounters. If you have a high level monk in the party then the monk goes and beats the mage to death. If you have a paladin, then the paladin goes and beats the mage to death with Carsomir. If you have a cleric, the cleric summons skeletons. If you have a mage, the mage casts breach etc. .... You could probably play each of the mage battles with a different tactic if you wanted to (maybe not all of them; I'm being hyperbolic; that's allowed).

[Volourn]

"^i.e. eliminating death. Making death mean something other than "You're Dead because you failed". Consequently, this is basically the developer saying: "hey kiddo, if you recklessly and foolishly approach combat throwing all caution to the wind, don't worry about it. You, and your companions are immortal." ie: Neverwinter nights.
 "

 

Only if you play it wrong.

 

 

"But the Solution is NOT to reduce the challenge or reduce the penalties. The solution is to...Not Give a F*ck about the playing habits of crappy gamers."

 

Agreed 100%.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I always found games where you cannot die and be immortal to be less challenging as you can brute force your way through the game. Your health goes down to zero, you wait a few seconds and then you keep going. I found it odd when I first played a FPS that had this. Then care went out the window as I couldn't die.

[Hassat Hunter]

Same answer I gave to a guy who complained in Divinity: Original Sin crates got randomly generated so 'obviously' everyone will save and reload for better lootz, and he wanted it fixed in the final version by making some fixed drop by using a seed;

 

"Why? What's the problem. If they want to let them. I personally not going to bore myself with it, but more power to them. What's the problem. Why does it *need* to be changed?"

[Volourn]

Actually, there's a way to fix the randomness but still have it though I don't what kind of scri[pt/computer power one would need to do it (I'll leave that to 'experts'). Why not have the 'random loot drop' be determined  at the very first save/start of actual game. That way, if someone hates the loot drop they would have to retsrat the game. This will stop the savwe scumming.

 

That said,   people shouldn't be worried about other people save scumming in a SP game. It should not matter. It doesn't hurt you in any way.

[Sheikh]

I think to be realistic, this issue of what is better described as accessibility at the cost of a certain type of DEPTH that has alot to do with metagaming is best taken for what it is. It has nothing per se to do with old school vs new school and we ought to break it out of that cage. How hardcore do you want this game to be? Thats the question. Sounds like mediocrely hardcore, which is fine.

 

Hell, at times I did appreciate the convenience provided by Oblivion over Morrowind - for example. But after that, now having played with both with and without such convenience, I started to prefer the lesser convenience and a more hardcore gaming experience not a further more softcore gaming experience perhaps provided by Skyrim (havent played it).

 

So I would like to see oppurtunities for hardcore gaming in Poe like something similar to hof mode and a save and exit mode. Just optionally. Softcoreness is not always ONLY a bad thing and sometimes (rarely) is only a good thing. Though I think the latter is not the case with what has to do with those gotcha moments. On the other hand, maybe I'll enjoy not getting ****ed over by doing something wrong and not reading the manual on my first playthrough. But the hardcore aspects are what bring the replay value up for real. Thats why they are great as optional things when possible to implement them as such.

[Monte Carlo]

My stock answer, Sheikh, is difficulty sliders, options and game modes.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with content tourism. It's a single-player experience.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with hardcore, perma-death endurance gaming. It's a single-player experience.

 

Sawyer has shown with games like NV that he understands this and from Icewind Dale onwards BIS / Obz games have had a wide range of difficulty and customization options. I, personally, am looking forward to tinkering with these to give me my preferred option, which is hardcore-but-not-torturous (hardcore lite? Mid-core? who cares?).

 

Mechanics are a different issue, and one which I doubt I'll personally agree with Sawyer on, but I will reserve judgement.

[Sheikh]

My stock answer, Sheikh, is difficulty sliders, options and game modes.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with content tourism. It's a single-player experience.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with hardcore, perma-death endurance gaming. It's a single-player experience.

 

Sawyer has shown with games like NV that he understands this and from Icewind Dale onwards BIS / Obz games have had a wide range of difficulty and customization options. I, personally, am looking forward to tinkering with these to give me my preferred option, which is hardcore-but-not-torturous (hardcore lite? Mid-core? who cares?).

 

Mechanics are a different issue, and one which I doubt I'll personally agree with Sawyer on, but I will reserve judgement.

Yeah customization of difficulty is easily the most reasonable way to solve this problem. The important thing is, that hopefully it will be there and will be well customizable. I like some kind of midcore myself.

[Lord Gorchnik]

While reading up on the wiki I noticed that one of the main caveat's of expert mode was the ability to turn off seeing what kind of personality traits you would be exhibiting with certain answers and coversation styles.  While most of them you can probably figure out without too much trouble, I always like it when the answers aren't 100% crystal clear which path is which.