UnrelatedComa on 15/9/2011 at 04:08
Quote Posted by scarykitties
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.
yeah no shit. however im biased towards intelligent narrative since i used to read often. for audiences that dont like reading though you have to mokap the hell out of faces... *sigh*
Forever420 on 15/9/2011 at 04:12
Quote:
yeah no shit. however im biased towards intelligent narrative since i used to read often. for audiences that dont like reading though you have to mokap the hell out of faces... *sigh*
You won't find that in games anymore, except maybe the Witcher. Which is why I read a muthafuckin book these days.
Yakoob on 15/9/2011 at 14:04
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) ?
Well no, that would just be unnecessarily tedious. You can automate anything up until it requires a player's input. It's really the INPUT and FEEDBACK you want to expose differently.
In DnD, the input is actually fairly simple: attack / move / use item / spell, is about all you can do. There isn't a need to really "simplyify" that. But what is convoluted is the feedback. As been pointed out lower AC = better is counter intuitive, a +1 to hit doesn't mean much, etc.
So to follow my example - the veteran mode could have just that: the pure stats, let the people do the math in their head. The newbie system, could overhaul it a bit - instead of "+3 to hit, damage 1d4+2" You'd get: "Chance to hit: x%, Damage: 3-6." It's such a trivial difference on the surface, but it makes a tremendous on how the user perceives the game. Especially if you applied it to most stats (i.e. "saving throw vs. death: 16" -> "Chance to evade death: 38%" or something)
I am playing Planescape Torment and still having trouble figuring out wtf my "Base THAC0" is and what the actual CHANCE of hitting shit I have. A nice little % number would be soo much nicer instead of a set of 5 different stats.
Thirith on 15/9/2011 at 14:41
Seconding Yakoob's post. Basically, you don't need jargon for complexity - you can make things clear without dumbing them down. The more you do that, the better, unless you're afraid of pissing off the people who think that understanding jargon gives them the distinction of being among the select few 'in the know'.
Vernon on 15/9/2011 at 15:03
Yeah I wonder how many devs actually read RPGCodex (other than Vault Dweller)
Avalon on 15/9/2011 at 17:11
Quote Posted by Phatose
It's a ruthless implementation of rules that were intended to be run by a human who could alter them to ensure that everybody was having fun. Of course it's going to end up frustrating - the DM who was supposed to keep it from becoming frustrating has been removed.
I'm going to second this and the rest of Phatose's post - these mechanics just don't work in a computer game environment.
Your characters being killed by a mechanic that you can in no way prevent or survive is simply not fun, which is the case with the majority of the mechanics in the example thrown around here a lot, BG, and a lot of the other "old school" RPGs. The idea that it promotes a "hardcore" feeling of play and what not is one that should simply be buried. Shooting yourself in the face with a pistol isn't fun, I'm not sure why anyone would decide that line of thought is a great addition to a video game.
The other interesting thing I see thrown around a lot - again mostly referring to BG and Infinity Engine games - is that some amount of skill and learning what's going on "under the hood" can improve your play. In most Infinity Engine games, the game is only its hardest in the beginning-to-middle, when you have
nothing to counter what's going on. Knowing how stats operate may help you make more informed decisions when picking stats and gear, and you'll actually know what spells like "Protect from Evil" do, but that point is moot when you don't even have the majority of these spells yet and other than your own character creation, you have not been given freedom over stat allocation and few - if any - new levels to apply more stats. There is relatively little gear available.
There is nothing that your font of knowledge can be applied to yet that will have any meaningful impact on the outcome. It gets easier later when you not only have outleveled the absurdity, but you finally have some freedom to push your ratings and spells around to directly counter it. Even then, it's still subject to the bullshit that is AD&D.
That said, where "old school" RPGs fall flat on their face in combat, they make up for in story and events. New games are so particular about making sure that you get to experience most, if not all, of the content, that they miss out on the stuff we enjoyed a decade ago: Exploring some hidden nook and finding hours worth of gameplay that the game didn't even hint was there, characters with tons of dialogue options to explore the lore if you so desire, all kinds of "useless" shit that is just awesome fun to mess with. I think it's actually the only downside to the evolution of game design - things like all dialogue being voiced mean that you get less information, because not only do the developers have to keep voice over costs practical, they have to be mindful of disk space. You just won't see a character with 10 hours of useless trivia anymore.
UnrelatedComa on 15/9/2011 at 23:16
Quote Posted by Yakoob
In DnD, the input is actually fairly simple: attack / move / use item / spell, is about all you can do. There isn't a need to really "simplyify" that. But what is convoluted is the feedback. As been pointed out lower AC = better is counter intuitive, a +1 to hit doesn't mean much, etc.
So to follow my example - the veteran mode could have just that: the pure stats, let the people do the math in their head. The newbie system, could overhaul it a bit - instead of "+3 to hit, damage 1d4+2" You'd get: "Chance to hit: x%, Damage: 3-6." It's such a trivial difference on the surface, but it makes a tremendous on how the user perceives the game. Especially if you applied it to most stats (i.e. "saving throw vs. death: 16" -> "Chance to evade death: 38%" or something)
the interesting thing is that D&D has started to do that. iirc thats in the updated version of BG2, could be wrong, however its prevalent in DDO - their mmo of D&D.
Quote Posted by Avalon
The other interesting thing I see thrown around a lot - again mostly referring to BG and Infinity Engine games - is that some amount of skill and learning what's going on "under the hood" can improve your play. In most Infinity Engine games, the game is only its hardest in the beginning-to-middle, when you have
nothing to counter what's going on. Knowing how stats operate may help you make more informed decisions when picking stats and gear, and you'll actually know what spells like "Protect from Evil" do, but that point is moot when you don't even have the majority of these spells yet and other than your own character creation, you have not been given freedom over stat allocation and few - if any - new levels to apply more stats. There is relatively little gear available.
There is nothing that your font of knowledge can be applied to yet that will have any meaningful impact on the outcome. It gets easier later when you not only have outleveled the absurdity, but you finally have some freedom to push your ratings and spells around to directly counter it. Even then, it's still subject to the bullshit that is AD&D.
i disagree. starting the game a second time around youve got a sense of whats good and what isnt. armor that seemed superior the first time you realize is subpar. you know when and where to pick up partners to complement the character you created this time. most importantly you realize how powerful those low level spells are. hold person and entangle can carry you through the beginning-to-middle if you want to play that way. *shrug*
it seems like youre just unhappy with the D&D system altogether and thats ok. its not for you. however knowing how things work makes the beginning 1000 times smoother.
knowing is half the battle! :mad:
june gloom on 16/9/2011 at 00:52
Except if we wanted to play D&D we'd... play fucking D&D.
Phatose on 16/9/2011 at 03:34
A first level mage can cast a spell one time. A level two mage can do it twice. I'm pretty sure both of those spells can be saved against, and they'll be lost if you get hit while casting - typically along with your life. That's if you win initiative and manage to get off the spell before the enemy.
That's not strategic adaption, that's praying for divine intervention.
icemann on 16/9/2011 at 05:06
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Except if we wanted to play D&D we'd... play fucking D&D.
This
