bad design decisions

[Luckmann]

Here's a fight with Gromnir:

 

Go up stairs... fire all spells.

Go down stair, rest.

Go up, fire all spells.

Go down, rest.

Go up, fire all spells, most enemies are probably dead now.

 

BEST. COMBAT. EVER.

Or just a huge amount of design flaws stacked on top of each other?

That's how you dealt with Gromnir? That's kinda sad.

 

It's not even a combat flaw. It's you abusing other "issues" with the game ("issues" only because a fraction of the player-base decided to cheese and cheat their way through the game; by that logic, I can use the console to activate Godmode in PoE, and then complain that the combat is bad).

[Hassat Hunter]

I did it fairly, but yes, that was possible.

And funny thing, everything I used there comes back in post #1 as stuff Obsidian taken out of PoE, and that were 'Bad Design Issues'.

 

Since apparently the OP and by extension the people agree that doing it the way I described before is 'Good Design'.

 

So, what is it? Do you agree with the OP and say fighting Gromnir like that is good combat? Or do you agree with me that it's cheesing and exploiting and thus REMOVING it is 'Good Design'.

Can't eat from both sides now...

 

 

Two tweaks to Pillars of Eternity (rest anywhere and transition in combat - both have been modded in already in previous versions) and you'd be able to do exactly the same thing.

And that's why they were taken out, and not included without modding. Is that good design, or bad design? I say good, but apparently I suck right. Since I only post an example it MUST have been how I play.

Cause there's no way an example can be merely an example!

 

*shrug*

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

So, what is it? Do you agree with the OP and say fighting Gromnir like that is good combat? Or do you agree with me that it's cheesing and exploiting and thus REMOVING it is 'Good Design'.

 

Can't eat from both sides now...

 

[...]

 

False dichotomy. The fact that it is possible to exploit something and thus ruin it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that something is inherently flawed or not. Removing the ability to perform something completely reasonable, such as attempting to escape from combat, on the basis that it could arguably possibly be used to the cheapen gameplay in a way that is not intended, is utterly unreasonable.

 

It is akin to saying that because Rocket-Jumping could be abused in FPS Game X, you should remove jumping, or remove rocket-launchers, or else you think that Rocket-Jumping, an exploit that cheapens intended gameplay, is "good". It's false dichotomy. Not only are there far more reasonable solutions possible, but it is only an issue for those that abuse it.

 

I've played the IE games since BG1 was first released. Never once have I ever resorted to the run-rest-return-run-rest-return "exploit". It is a veritable non-issue to begin with, and invented issue that destroys gameplay for the numbnuts that decides to engage in it. Why should gameplay be cheapened for all those that choose not to do this? As I have said before, it is like arguing that the console should be removed because you can use it to cheat.

 

Cheater's gonna cheat, but we still leave console functions in for those that use it legitimately, and let the user decide how to use or abuse it.

[bonarbill]

 

 

Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of backers infuriated over the Engagement Mechanic (completely locking down the field of battle for the player, as opposed to the very mobile IE battlefield), the "Combat Only" Abilities (which constantly interferes with performing tactics you'd think would be completely reasonable) and the neutered Stealth mechanic (especially anyone that enjoyed playing an Assassin in BG2).

 

Despite being 3D and Turn Based, I already feel that Larian's Divinity: Original Sin got more "old school" things right and is a better spiritual successor. PoE pigeon holes far too many things for my tastes and comes off as a deeply contrived but inferior form of D&D. I want to believe that many of the things I dislike about PoE are just birth-pangs, but in reality they are fundamental disagreements with design that I find to be deeply not IE. This is not to say I wanted a clone. Look no further than D:OS for an example of what was great about 1990s RPGs being brought to a modern date. Having been very involved in the beta, I cannot reiterate that opinion with PoE.

 

 

I loved D:OS, especially the combat.  Best combat system in a CRPG in I don't know how long, maybe ever.  That said, in the 12 hours I have with the beta PoE feels very much like a successor to BG2.  Combat is a weakness, for sure, but it was in the IE games too.  I enjoyed them despite the combat, not because of it.

 

 

Agreed.  IMO, the combat was never the strong point of the IE games.  Real Time with Pause just isn't a good system at all; it's just a chaotic clusterflunk that gives you less control over battles compared to turn based.  That's the main reason why games like D:OS and ToEE have excellent combat.  Thankfully the other elements of the IE games (exploration, music, story, etc.) made up for the lackluster combat.

Edited February 22, 2015 by bonarbill

[wanderon]

Personally I found combat in ToEE much more tedious than the IE games and would pretty much always prefer RTWP over turn based.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Wow, there's a lot of whining in this thread

 

As someone just starting the beta now I feel like a lot of the complaints I'm seeing in this thread are the results of over-analysis. The game could certainly use some further tweaking (Perception and Resolve seem a little weak right now; the UI is good but could be improved in a few small ways) but overall playing it feels very much like playing the old Infinity Engine games, just better and more modernized -- they've done a good job keeping the spirit but evolving it forward, as I'd expect from a modern game.

 

Comparisons with Divinity: Original Sin are gonna be made yeah. D:OS was a good game but fell a little short in the writing. I expect from what I've seen that PoE will be similarly good mechanically but have better writing. Two similar games can both be excellent without that being a problem, I have time in my life for playing two games, perhaps even three.

 

I actually agree that turn-based in superior to RTWP but the IE games weren't turn based so this won't be either because this isn't in the spirit of the old Gold Box RPGs, it's in the spirit of the IE games. And it succeeds at that even if I personally wish it were a little closer to the old Gold Box stuff. 

 

End of the day the beta feels like it's doing what it says on the package. yeah, there's room for improvement, but in terms of tactical mechanics what I've been playing is pretty damn good as is and as good or better than any tactical map* RPG I've played since, oh, probably the first Dragon Age game; the writing is hard to analyze in this short snippet but  if Avellone's writing in this is consistent with his past work it'll be the best RPG I've played since, oh, probably Planescape:Torment.

 

*I say tactical-map RPG because Darkest Dungeon has neat tactical mechanics also but it's row-based and thus a very different type of game. 

[Sensuki]

And that's why they were taken out, and not included without modding. Is that good design, or bad design? I say good, but apparently I suck right. Since I only post an example it MUST have been how I play.

Cause there's no way an example can be merely an example!

 

*shrug*

It's a double-edged sword, because not being able to transition from combat means you can't run away at all ... which is not very fun. I agree about resting restrictions but I do not like the camping supplies system. I would have preferred resting locations only.

 

That said, these two things have nothing to do whether combat is fun, or whether combat was fun in the Infinity Engine games - how about you go back and play it without exploiting it, and you might find that you actually enjoy yourself.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Sensuki

[Hassat Hunter]

@ Luckmann; Go use "fleeing" in D:OS. You find it similarly OP.

Another genre; Torchlight II. The bossfights were hilarious, since it simply went down to "if you die, simply continue from where you left." Some challenge, eh?

 

If fleeing is an option enemies that have been fled from need to regenerate all their health, spells etc. Of course this too can lead to bad situations, just pick a few of the many games who allow this and bug out, regenerating them in-combat (basically making an undefeatable enemy), just hyper-warping them to their original location with few HP, where you need to be super-careful not to cross that invisible line that's the difference between your work being undone or not. I can't say I found such experiences that joyous either.

 

"So I just tried to position myself mid-combat, and now the enemy has reset. Wow, this is great! Best game design decision ever!" said no one ever...

 

But I assume you don't mind this and leaving mid-combat and enemies remaining damaged is all part of retreating, and is in no way a bad design of itself, right?

Also, funilly, no, I never did so much exploiting regularly in BG2. Sure, I used the Balduran Shield (or what it was again) on the Beholders though.

Still didn't have much of a good time most of BG2. BG1's combat suited me much better.

 

There's a reason Planescape is considered the best IE-game, and the IWD-games the worst... combat really is just not good enough to carry the game. If it was, surely aforementioned was not the case, and this isn't just my interpretation...

[Sensuki]

If you're a storyfan

 

for combatfans it's either BG2 or How/IWD2

 

My favourite is BG2 because the encounters and combat gameplay is awesome. I also really like IWD & HoW. Not so big on IWD2 because 3E in the IE engine sux

 

 

 

. BG1's combat suited me much better

 

BG1 combat is borderline click and forget though, there are a few things you can do tactically with movement but that's about it.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Sensuki

[cresentdark]

I would say BG2 NWN2 IWD2 than BG1 IWD1 NWN1.

BG2 was my favorite but I never cared to the expansions they always feel short due to the fact they take you to a new area and it's never big as the first part it would be fine had you been able to travel to the older places along with the new ones. NWN2 3rd expansion would have been fine had it been longer and had more areas to enter felt so limited. BG2 by far was the longest out of all of them had the most replay value at least for me it did.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

There's a reason Planescape is considered the best IE-game, and the IWD-games the worst... combat really is just not good enough to carry the game. If it was, surely aforementioned was not the case, and this isn't just my interpretation...

 

Well, combat is good enough to carry some games. Hell, it's a lot easier to make a game that gets carried by the combat than it is to make one that gets carried by the writing. That's the reason the whole industry shifted to first person 3D; Skyrim isn't exactly a literary masterpiece, but it's fun to play, for a while at least.Hell, Divinity: Original Sin has great combat, it's fun to play, but after a while the story just sortof peters out and it gets old -- it's not a bad game and the writing is actually pretty decent but even the two together aren't quite enough to take it all the way. 

 

 

By contrast, how many RPGs have you played that actually were carried by the strength of the writing? I can't think of more than a handful, and almost all of them were put out by either the guys from Obsidian or the guys from Looking Glass. That kind of talent is painfully rare. If all this game turns out to be is another Divinity: Original Sin, hell, it'll be worth the price of my pledge, but honestly given what I've seen of the backer beta and these guys' track record with PS:T and New Vegas, I think I'm gonna get a lot more -- actual, quality writing, rarer in this industry than anything else -- and that's what I'm looking forward to.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Karkarov]

Wow, there's a lot of whining in this thread

 

As someone just starting the beta now I feel like a lot of the complaints I'm seeing in this thread are the results of over-analysis.

You will notice this is an issue with many threads on the forums, especially ones created by long term backers who have been at the beta hard since the first day it was released.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

Wow, there's a lot of whining in this thread

 

As someone just starting the beta now I feel like a lot of the complaints I'm seeing in this thread are the results of over-analysis.

You will notice this is an issue with many threads on the forums, especially ones created by long term backers who have been at the beta hard since the first day it was released.

 

 

 

Oh if I'd been around that long I'd be just as likely to be down in the details and down in the dumps as everyone else. It's a natural thing that happens. I'm just fortunate(?) that I didn't figure out I could do an "addon" of the backer beta until a few days ago, so I'm seeing it all fresh for the first time. The game ain't perfect but it's a damn sight better than a lot of games I've been happy to pay good money for, and there's still time for final polishing.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Namutree]

 

There's a reason Planescape is considered the best IE-game, and the IWD-games the worst... combat really is just not good enough to carry the game. If it was, surely aforementioned was not the case, and this isn't just my interpretation...

Planescape is considered the best? By whom? I certainly wouldn't put it on the same level as the Baldur's Gate saga.

[archangel979]

 

There's a reason Planescape is considered the best IE-game, and the IWD-games the worst... combat really is just not good enough to carry the game. If it was, surely aforementioned was not the case, and this isn't just my interpretation...

Planescape is considered the best? By whom? I certainly wouldn't put it on the same level as the Baldur's Gate saga.

 

This. Baldur's Gate games are usually considered best by the majority due to being best of both world.

[Luckmann]

My favourite game by far is Planescape: Torment, but saying that that was because the IE combat was bad but the storytelling carried it is poppy****. The PS:T combat was ass all on it's own, by comparison to the other IE games, and there's a huge amount of people that in no way consider PS:T the best IE game; many go so far as to call it an interactive book, which I don't agree with, but the criticism is still apt.

 

The IE game generally considered the best is without a doubt BG2. That is something I also do not necessarily agree with (BG1 had better characters, better storytelling and better overall pacing) but it is definitely understandable, precisely because the combat in BG2 is quite good, and the in-combat pacing is great. PS:T has rubbish combat by comparison (although I still really enjoy it) and BG1 suffers from a lack of options in that department.

 

Best of all worlds? I'd kill for something with the storytelling, scope and pacing of BG1, the storyline and atmosphere of PS:T, and the combat/character growth/options of BG2.

[wanderon]

My favourite game by far is Planescape: Torment, but saying that that was because the IE combat was bad but the storytelling carried it is poppy****. The PS:T combat was ass all on it's own, by comparison to the other IE games, and there's a huge amount of people that in no way consider PS:T the best IE game; many go so far as to call it an interactive book, which I don't agree with, but the criticism is still apt.

 

The IE game generally considered the best is without a doubt BG2. That is something I also do not necessarily agree with (BG1 had better characters, better storytelling and better overall pacing) but it is definitely understandable, precisely because the combat in BG2 is quite good, and the in-combat pacing is great. PS:T has rubbish combat by comparison (although I still really enjoy it) and BG1 suffers from a lack of options in that department.

 

Best of all worlds? I'd kill for something with the storytelling, scope and pacing of BG1, the storyline and atmosphere of PS:T, and the combat/character growth/options of BG2.

 

I am pretty much with you on this - a mix of BG1/PS:T that allowed your characters to get from leve 1 to levels in the mid teens would be perfect for me - frankly once D&D based games get beyond those levels I just lose interest and the game would also have to lose the BG2 mage buff/debuff nonsense for me as well.

[Sensuki]

BG2 mage duels were one of the best things about the game though. Best spell battles of any game.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Sensuki

[wanderon]

BG2 mage duels were one of the best things about the game though. Best spell battles of any game.

I really hated them along with the whole pre-buffing regimen - perhaps because I could never get on board with them and still almost always play with very limited buffing which of course made such battles much more difficult/annoying for me 

 

I also pretty much never play a PC mage either 

[Gorbag]

BG2 mage duels were one of the best things about the game though. Best spell battles of any game.

QFT.

I really love the way BG2 made use of the extensive spell/counterspell mechanics in 2nd ed. It made those encounters a lot more involving than just having two mages cast damaging/status spells at each other until one of them falls or a status sticks. It wasn't so much about meta-knowledge or pre-buff, it was more about reacting to your opponent. On a side note, BG2 also had Keldorn ready for anyone, who does not enjoy this bit.

[Sensuki]

Exactly, it involved reactive tactics. Unlike this game.

[Mayama]

 

BG2 mage duels were one of the best things about the game though. Best spell battles of any game.

I really hated them along with the whole pre-buffing regimen - perhaps because I could never get on board with them and still almost always play with very limited buffing which of course made such battles much more difficult/annoying for me 

 

I also pretty much never play a PC mage either 

 

 

You could always brute force through almost the whole game with some fireballs and cloud kill spells. The IE game battles had so many issues on the basic level like enemies could get sniped from afar without reacting, didnt chase you through doors etc that it feels like the IE devs didnt care or gave up.

 

I would not call sniping enemies or similar tactics exploits because its something you will do accidently anyway without the intention to break the game. Its such a obvious problem, I doubt that the devs never discussed it. Restricting yourself to make the game play better does only conceal the problems of the IE combat. 

 

tl/dl   You only had to think in IE games if you forced yourself to play in a certain way but thats like playing doom without collecting better weapons.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mayama

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

I also pretty much never play a PC mage either 

 

But then I have to ask you exactly what you actually played, because even disregarding party members (for whatever reason), almost everyone has legit ways to deal with wizards and protection spells. Archers get Arrows of Dispelling, Paladins have Carsomyr, and Assassins simply go up and stab them in the face before they even become an issue.

 

The only "issue" with how spells/counterspelling worked in BG2 was that it could be hard to figure out which protections were up and what you needed to use to dispel it. But even so, just throwing what feels appropriate (which I do, because I can't be arsed to figure out exactly what does exactly what against what, even 10 years down the line) you can just sorta half-ass your way through the game when it comes to mages.

 

Honestly the vast majority of mages I simply swarm and beat on them until they die, this is true all the way up until they get Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting. This isn't because I can't do better, but simply because it's the best solution. One day I'm really going to play the game as a Wizard Slayer/Thief just to see how hard I can wreck the opposition. I'm in Throne of Bhaal with my Assassin run at the moment, and Viconia has 110 Magic Resistance. I mean. C'mon.

[nipsen]

^Wizards are still kind of weak, in other words.

 

 

 

Oh if I'd been around that long I'd be just as likely to be down in the details and down in the dumps as everyone else. It's a natural thing that happens. I'm just fortunate(?) that I didn't figure out I could do an "addon" of the backer beta until a few days ago, so I'm seeing it all fresh for the first time. The game ain't perfect but it's a damn sight better than a lot of games I've been happy to pay good money for, and there's still time for final polishing.

 

See, the thing is that there hasn't been much polishing on the combat flow. They've updated the models a bit (which seems to have upset contrast with backgrounds to some extent, but that's a subjective thing of course), they've added a few arrows. But there was nothing done with the animation, how the animation interacts with the system underneath, with how events are queued up, if the visual feedback makes sense, and so on. All that was left alone, and likely was locked in September last year.

 

Instead, lots and lots of game-mechanical features in the first ruleset.. the first ruleset we saw, anyway.. was cut out or normalized to inexistence in a fairly obvious attempt to make the presentation of the game less chaotic. In other words, they've attempted to simplify the presentation of the game by making the ruleset one-dimensional.

 

So now the result is a one-dimensional ruleset with very little customisation (as opposed to the brilliant solution Josh had put in originally). And it still has a pretty wonky visual presentation. ...Success!

[anameforobsidian]

BG2 mage duels were one of the best things about the game though. Best spell battles of any game.

 

BG2 mage battles were either simple or tedious, or sometimes both.  Even scs could only throw three or four strategies out of the mages, and some of the higher fights felt like wars of spell slot attrition.  BG2 mages were normally overleveled for when you encountered them, just because the AI was not that reactive.  There's a ton of duplication of protection spells with very slight differences, (spell trap / ruby ray / secret word) that make the system more arcane than interesting.

 

Don't get me wrong, the breadth of the spells allowed some interesting fights, but generally the tactic was turtle summon, turtle horrid wilting / meteor swarm, turtle minute meteors.  I thought BG1 was actually more interesting because the spells were more unique and less rock, paper, scissors.