Yakoob on 13/9/2011 at 17:27
Quote Posted by UnrelatedComa
thats madness! what is the point in chiding such an old game for that?
Learning from past mistakes. If anything, the Game Industry is actually a pretty good example of how humanity actually manages to do that (for the most part).
Quote Posted by Papy
I didn't like Baldur's Gate and so didn't play for long with it, but I don't remember that game as using obfuscation to make the game difficult. I took a look at my old manual and I can tell you that an ability score of 17 in Strength will give the character a +1 hit and damage adjustment, a weight allowance of 170 and a bashing chance of success of 18%. I can also tell you that a Leather armor has an armor class of 8, with +2 modifier against piercing weapons. I'm not sure what rules are hidden in this game since I think all rolls of dice could be seen in the game.
Now, try that again knowing NOTHING about AD&D. Yea, wtf does +1 mean? +1 to "hit?" On what scale? 1-10? 1-100? +1 doesn't sound like very much so I guess it's a shit weapon.
And yea, I know it's in the manual but let's not kid ourselves, the 200 page stats-filled novel wasn't very inviting to newcomers. Integrating the tutorials into games, in the form of actual STORY and GAMEPLAY (as opposed to wall-of-text, not to dissimilar to manuals) was definitely one of the best "lessons" the gaming industry has learned, imho.
Quote Posted by Papy
Anyway my point is that a game cannot be for everyone. Either you target newcomers with a simplistic game (The Legend of Zelda), or you target veterans with a deep and complex game (Wizard's Crown). A newcomers will never be able to understand a deep and complex game, no matter how good the introduction is, and a veteran will never find a simplistic game satisfying.
I completely understand your logic, but nonetheless, I feel there may be a way to marry two world. If you think of the game as systems (i.e. controls/navigation system (isometric point and click vs. TPP), combat system (stats vs. player skill), economy system (how much moneys you get, how your stats influence barter), etc. etc. Then we can say the game grows more complex with more systems, and with each one being more complex in of itself (a simple "click to shoot" system of CoD is way simpler than "manual reload and ballistics" system of Red Orchestra or OFP).
But when you think about it, its not about how complex the system is, but how it's exposed to the player. Compare paper-based DnD and BG. Both are the same systems, but because they are "exposed" to player differently (i.e. manual dice throws and adding numbers vs. auto-computer with nice graphics), the expeirence is much different.
So how about this: making a really complex system, but having two ways of exposing it: the "easy" one that obfuscates the complexity and does the more ardous tasks for the player, and one that gives the (power)user full access. And it HAS been done. Alpha Centauri - you can manage all cities manually (veterans) or you can let the AI governors manage them for you (newbie). Or Arcanum, with hectic real time combat (newbie) and more strategic turn-based (veteran). I would concede that both did have big issues and ultimately dont work so well to distinguish the veteran/newbie demographic, but I feel at least they show that, when properly polished, there is a potential solution to bridge the gap between veterans and newbies.
Although this does not work so well in MP competetive games (i.e. CounterStrike), but that's a whole different beast of its own.
icemann on 13/9/2011 at 18:42
Quote Posted by Yakoob
So how about this: making a really complex system, but having two ways of exposing it: the "easy" one that obfuscates the complexity and does the more ardous tasks for the player, and one that gives the (power)user full access. And it HAS been done. Alpha Centauri - you can manage all cities manually (veterans) or you can let the AI governors manage them for you (newbie). Or Arcanum, with hectic real time combat (newbie) and more strategic turn-based (veteran).
So having to click on a "Roll Dice" to roll for result type thing (as that is what giving full control would mean) ? Assuming D&D deals with hits + damage the same way or similar to how Warhammer does it you`d need to roll a dice first to hit, then roll again to see how much damage. That would get VERY boring and tedious fast. And that's just for melee and ranged weapons. Spells get alot more particular from spell to spell. Once again boring and tedious.
In a game like BG that would have meant a complete change to the entire combat style from being real time with the ability to pause at any time, to completely turn based + alot more clicking.
If people wanted to go roll dices they'd play a board game or a video game remake of one (ie Monopoly).
Eldron on 13/9/2011 at 21:14
Quote Posted by icemann
So having to click on a "Roll Dice" to roll for result type thing (as that is what giving full control would mean) ? Assuming D&D deals with hits + damage the same way or similar to how Warhammer does it you`d need to roll a dice first to hit, then roll again to see how much damage. That would get VERY boring and tedious fast. And that's just for melee and ranged weapons. Spells get alot more particular from spell to spell. Once again boring and tedious.
In a game like BG that would have meant a complete change to the entire combat style from being real time with the ability to pause at any time, to completely turn based + alot more clicking.
If people wanted to go roll dices they'd play a board game or a video game remake of one (ie Monopoly).
Something like this, usually if you try to support two systems you'll end up with both suffering, take something like xcom:apocalypse as an example, where they tried to support both realtime and turnbased combat.
icemann on 14/9/2011 at 06:01
I recall the majority of people just went with real time and totally forgot about the turn based option with Apocalypse.
UnrelatedComa on 14/9/2011 at 08:53
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Now, try that again knowing NOTHING about AD&D. Yea, wtf does +1 mean? +1 to "hit?" On what scale? 1-10? 1-100? +1 doesn't sound like very much so I guess it's a shit weapon.
it sounds like this sums up the argument against old rpgs and while i see and understand the point, i believe it to be invalid. this mindset is basically saying people dont want to learn about a new system or new set of lore. thats just too bad. you have to learn something new with every game. did people say Fallout was garbage cause it wasnt medieval?
gamers have to have an open enough mind to allow a different game than theyre familiar with teach them something new. you learn by playing. if you can learn how the game is supposed to be played then judge it objectively and not judge it by how
you think it should be played then you will see success of games far more often.
Thirith on 14/9/2011 at 09:12
Quote Posted by UnrelatedComa
it sounds like this sums up the argument against old rpgs and while i see and understand the point, i believe it to be invalid. this mindset is basically saying people dont want to learn about a new system or new set of lore. thats just too bad. you have to learn something new with every game. did people say Fallout was garbage cause it wasnt medieval?
I have no issue whatsoever with games introducing mechanics that seem obscure at first - I just wish they introduced them
better. As you say: you have to learn something new with every game, but games could be much better at
teaching these new things.
In that respect games sometimes remind me of young maths or science teachers fresh out of university: they understand the material but they often fail to see that the people they're teaching don't have the same understanding and aren't on the same level (yet). I've found that this understanding and ability to pick up your audience and bring them to your level is lacking in many young teachers because they're too close to the material. And some gamers add to this with the weird sort of obscurantist elitism that sees
all attempts to make something more approachable as "dumbing down", even when it's more accurately a case of teaching players better how to play the game.
UnrelatedComa on 14/9/2011 at 09:26
Quote Posted by Thirith
I have no issue whatsoever with games introducing mechanics that seem obscure at first - I just wish they introduced them
better. As you say: you have to learn something new with every game, but games could be much better at
teaching these new things.
i suppose. some people find certain concepts to grasp easier than others however. how well a game teaches is a person by person basis. i wouldnt and havent faulted any games for their learning curve. *shrug*
june gloom on 14/9/2011 at 18:35
Quote Posted by UnrelatedComa
did people say Fallout was garbage cause it wasnt medieval?
I wouldn't put it past some people.
Jason Moyer on 14/9/2011 at 19:54
In regards to old school vs new school, I felt the infinity engine games explained their rules far far better than either Dragon Age game has. I still have no idea what half of the talents or weapon properties do and I've played through DAO twice, all of the DLC, and DA2 with all of the DLC.
scarykitties on 14/9/2011 at 21:14
Personally, I miss games like Arcanum, Planescape:Torment, etc. which had simplistic isometric graphics that were detailed enough for you to get a sense of scale and dimension and identification, but beyond that relied on text descriptions to let you know what was going on. I would much rather read "[Her lips peel back from her sharp teeth in a sadistic display, flecks of blood and torn flesh marring her gums from sight.]" than have a stiff-faced mannequin of an NPC gesture at me Deus Ex/Mass Effect/Oblivion-style while I try to contain my laughter at their wooden responses.
