|
Don't worry Tobberoth, there are plenty of people who think these game systems are actually flawed despite what the rabid fans will say. It's ok to criticise these games; they're great, but far from perfect.
|
On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:45 Stratos wrote:On March 08 2012 18:34 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:27 Stratos wrote:On March 08 2012 18:15 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:08 Stratos wrote:
1. Oh right you can actually sleep in the mines. And sleeping refreshes the spells. Nobody told you? Or are you ACTUALLY complaining about being unable to get a good shot at the clump of kobolds? I hope not.. Although I'm not quite sure what I'm hoping for here anymore.
2. Diverse the NPCs with another PC to disarm safely if possible.
3. Okay, so the game is retarded because it's forcing you to make up your mind and not just blindly follow the recommendations. That's a good attitude, I see. You would probably love to play a game like D2 that precisely tells you what to do in each and every step of the way. BG is not your mother, deal with it.
4. There's luck involved, yes. You have to account for that luck, you can either risk it or you can play it safe. Luck is involved in basically any game and dealing with it in BG is as easy and exciting as in any of the good games. Yes, you will sometimes fail. So what, does that make it a bad game?
You're complaining about a game being just random and lucky while it's a game that requires actual thinking and skill. And if you acknowledge the requirements, you call them "the game being retarded". Seriously, grow the fuck up. 1. So I should sleep one kobold, go rest, sleep another, go rest, sleep another? Please, do YOU think this sounds like good game design? If it works, it's even dumber, like a sleep spell literally makes enemies sleep forever. 2. I would find this to be an exploit, but sure, this could work. 3. Are you dumb? BG IS telling me exactly what to do, it's just lying about it. 4. I AM playing it safe, but in your opinion, playing it safe means "grind until it's made easy by you being overleveled". Thanks, that sure makes you seem like more of a "player" than me. I didn't say it was a bad game? I said "what where they thinking when they balanced the challenge", because at lvl 1, it's 90% up to pure luck. 1. What. Sleep will put 6-7 kobolds out of a 9 pack to sleep usually. Are we talking about the same game? 2. Why would you call that an exploit? It's just using means of the game to accomplish what you need. There's nothing exploitive about that. 3. No I am not dumb. A creature in BG is trying to show you the way and it's a good way, it's just that it doesn't say you can't stop by the road to prepare. 4. I just completed the quests that were in the reach while traveling to Nashkel mines. I wasn't overleveled, I was just playing smart, you were playing like a zombie, admit it LOL  I did quests as well, I just didn't go around talking to every damn person in every damn town, which is more being a zombie than actually trying to make the game move forward IMO Maybe I misunderstood your second point, I thought you meant creating a new character from scratch (you can do that in multiplayer at least, right?) and use that. I would consider that sort of an exploit compared to just playing with in-game NPCs. If you meant finding an NPC who is better at imoen at disarming traps, sure, that wouldn't be an exploit. No idea where I would find one though Personally, I think it's ridiculous to claim it's "playing smart" to grind. Playing smart is generally something you consider about people who make it harder for themselves and still succeed. Since I did several quests on the way, I'd say I was playing smart enough. Again, if the game demands you do every single quest on the way to progress the story, I'd still say that's a balancing issue for low levels, it wouldn't be needed if the game was more forgiving when it comes to low hp. Uhm nope I wasn't refering to adding a member in a multiplayer game, I didn't really think of that before and wouldn't use that, I guess I would call that an exploit, too. Anyway, the game most certainly doesn't demand you to do every single quest on the way. And I didn't do them either. It only demands you to, again, use your own brain while only giving you some basic advice. You can come up with a solution for each fight, you can replace someone in the party, you can buy a specific gear, or if everything fails you can go level up, or give up. My point is that there are way too many ways of getting your chances to a point where you are basically guaranteed success, to call the game random - and this is true from the very first levels. It's just that you don't know the game enough to tell. Anyway, this aspect of the game, where you get to experiment, get creative and are basically free to choose which way you want to deal with it, is what I consider to be the most beautiful part of the game. That's why I got a little angry reading your post, so sorry for that... Obviously we all have different expectations and standards for a game. Ending the discussion now to go finish a quest in Fallout 2  Peace out, and if you decide to try to beat the game again, best of luck - it can be a pain in the ass, just like BW, but if you conquer it, you will feel it was worth all of it. Well, I didn't mean to imply that the game should be dumped down and you should be able to beat it at level 1, most certainly not. I just feel like the AD&D system lends itself to being a bit "broken" at lvl 1 because things don't really scale. You have extremely low hp, while normal arrows from a normal shortbow from a normal "lvl 1 enemy" can do really big damage, and there's very little you can do about that. I mean, you can sleep every kobold but one, but all he needs is one critical dice roll and you still lose a member. Sure, it's shitty luck, but if you're in a higher level situation, that can't happen because one arrow isn't enough, so luck takes more of a backseat role, and that was what I meant with "margin of error", one shitty dice roll shouldn't decide a fight. That was my complaint, sorry if I made it sound like I think the whole game is a random pile of shit lol. Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. I disagree. There's no need for luck to represent "fuck ups" because the real player can do that himself. What if tanks did a random amount of damage in SC2 to represent the tank driver farting just as he's about to aim? Everyone would hate that since the game is supposed to value your skill instead of forcing you to play badly because a random number generator thought it would be a great moment to make a tank miss its target. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need.
You are mistaking a game like this with a game like Skyrim. In Skyrim they decided to let you (the player) control your character directly. And if you move backwards and get stuck at a wall or you cannot target shit and always miss then Yes, you fucked up and died.
In BG1, you character has lets say 18 Dex and is really adept and dodging blows. Average human has 10 or 11. And you don't actually control your character. You just tell him what to do. Fucking up or not fucking up then is not in your hands. Then they use random rolls to see if your Dex 18 char fucks up or not (and Dex 18 lets him fuck up a lot less often). Even if you could control your character controling a Dex 18 char and Dex 11 char would be a vastly different experience and this would no longer be a D&D game.
|
On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:45 Stratos wrote:On March 08 2012 18:34 Tobberoth wrote:[quote] I did quests as well, I just didn't go around talking to every damn person in every damn town, which is more being a zombie than actually trying to make the game move forward IMO Maybe I misunderstood your second point, I thought you meant creating a new character from scratch (you can do that in multiplayer at least, right?) and use that. I would consider that sort of an exploit compared to just playing with in-game NPCs. If you meant finding an NPC who is better at imoen at disarming traps, sure, that wouldn't be an exploit. No idea where I would find one though Personally, I think it's ridiculous to claim it's "playing smart" to grind. Playing smart is generally something you consider about people who make it harder for themselves and still succeed. Since I did several quests on the way, I'd say I was playing smart enough. Again, if the game demands you do every single quest on the way to progress the story, I'd still say that's a balancing issue for low levels, it wouldn't be needed if the game was more forgiving when it comes to low hp. Uhm nope I wasn't refering to adding a member in a multiplayer game, I didn't really think of that before and wouldn't use that, I guess I would call that an exploit, too. Anyway, the game most certainly doesn't demand you to do every single quest on the way. And I didn't do them either. It only demands you to, again, use your own brain while only giving you some basic advice. You can come up with a solution for each fight, you can replace someone in the party, you can buy a specific gear, or if everything fails you can go level up, or give up. My point is that there are way too many ways of getting your chances to a point where you are basically guaranteed success, to call the game random - and this is true from the very first levels. It's just that you don't know the game enough to tell. Anyway, this aspect of the game, where you get to experiment, get creative and are basically free to choose which way you want to deal with it, is what I consider to be the most beautiful part of the game. That's why I got a little angry reading your post, so sorry for that... Obviously we all have different expectations and standards for a game. Ending the discussion now to go finish a quest in Fallout 2 Peace out, and if you decide to try to beat the game again, best of luck - it can be a pain in the ass, just like BW, but if you conquer it, you will feel it was worth all of it. Well, I didn't mean to imply that the game should be dumped down and you should be able to beat it at level 1, most certainly not. I just feel like the AD&D system lends itself to being a bit "broken" at lvl 1 because things don't really scale. You have extremely low hp, while normal arrows from a normal shortbow from a normal "lvl 1 enemy" can do really big damage, and there's very little you can do about that. I mean, you can sleep every kobold but one, but all he needs is one critical dice roll and you still lose a member. Sure, it's shitty luck, but if you're in a higher level situation, that can't happen because one arrow isn't enough, so luck takes more of a backseat role, and that was what I meant with "margin of error", one shitty dice roll shouldn't decide a fight. That was my complaint, sorry if I made it sound like I think the whole game is a random pile of shit lol. Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this.
In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue.
Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG.
|
On March 08 2012 20:34 Brett wrote:
Don't worry Tobberoth, there are plenty of people who think these game systems are actually flawed despite what the rabid fans will say. It's ok to criticise these games; they're great, but far from perfect.
Tobberoth's problem isn't that he's criticising flaws, but core gameplay mechanics which he apparently does not understand. He's arguing from a perspective of modern games, where skill and knowledge will ultimately yield results and may even prevent any harm from coming to the player. D&D tabletop and cRPG games do not work this way.
|
On March 08 2012 20:36 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:45 Stratos wrote:On March 08 2012 18:34 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:27 Stratos wrote:On March 08 2012 18:15 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
1. So I should sleep one kobold, go rest, sleep another, go rest, sleep another? Please, do YOU think this sounds like good game design? If it works, it's even dumber, like a sleep spell literally makes enemies sleep forever.
2. I would find this to be an exploit, but sure, this could work.
3. Are you dumb? BG IS telling me exactly what to do, it's just lying about it.
4. I AM playing it safe, but in your opinion, playing it safe means "grind until it's made easy by you being overleveled". Thanks, that sure makes you seem like more of a "player" than me.
I didn't say it was a bad game? I said "what where they thinking when they balanced the challenge", because at lvl 1, it's 90% up to pure luck. 1. What. Sleep will put 6-7 kobolds out of a 9 pack to sleep usually. Are we talking about the same game? 2. Why would you call that an exploit? It's just using means of the game to accomplish what you need. There's nothing exploitive about that. 3. No I am not dumb. A creature in BG is trying to show you the way and it's a good way, it's just that it doesn't say you can't stop by the road to prepare. 4. I just completed the quests that were in the reach while traveling to Nashkel mines. I wasn't overleveled, I was just playing smart, you were playing like a zombie, admit it LOL I did quests as well, I just didn't go around talking to every damn person in every damn town, which is more being a zombie than actually trying to make the game move forward IMO Maybe I misunderstood your second point, I thought you meant creating a new character from scratch (you can do that in multiplayer at least, right?) and use that. I would consider that sort of an exploit compared to just playing with in-game NPCs. If you meant finding an NPC who is better at imoen at disarming traps, sure, that wouldn't be an exploit. No idea where I would find one though Personally, I think it's ridiculous to claim it's "playing smart" to grind. Playing smart is generally something you consider about people who make it harder for themselves and still succeed. Since I did several quests on the way, I'd say I was playing smart enough. Again, if the game demands you do every single quest on the way to progress the story, I'd still say that's a balancing issue for low levels, it wouldn't be needed if the game was more forgiving when it comes to low hp. Uhm nope I wasn't refering to adding a member in a multiplayer game, I didn't really think of that before and wouldn't use that, I guess I would call that an exploit, too. Anyway, the game most certainly doesn't demand you to do every single quest on the way. And I didn't do them either. It only demands you to, again, use your own brain while only giving you some basic advice. You can come up with a solution for each fight, you can replace someone in the party, you can buy a specific gear, or if everything fails you can go level up, or give up. My point is that there are way too many ways of getting your chances to a point where you are basically guaranteed success, to call the game random - and this is true from the very first levels. It's just that you don't know the game enough to tell. Anyway, this aspect of the game, where you get to experiment, get creative and are basically free to choose which way you want to deal with it, is what I consider to be the most beautiful part of the game. That's why I got a little angry reading your post, so sorry for that... Obviously we all have different expectations and standards for a game. Ending the discussion now to go finish a quest in Fallout 2 Peace out, and if you decide to try to beat the game again, best of luck - it can be a pain in the ass, just like BW, but if you conquer it, you will feel it was worth all of it. Well, I didn't mean to imply that the game should be dumped down and you should be able to beat it at level 1, most certainly not. I just feel like the AD&D system lends itself to being a bit "broken" at lvl 1 because things don't really scale. You have extremely low hp, while normal arrows from a normal shortbow from a normal "lvl 1 enemy" can do really big damage, and there's very little you can do about that. I mean, you can sleep every kobold but one, but all he needs is one critical dice roll and you still lose a member. Sure, it's shitty luck, but if you're in a higher level situation, that can't happen because one arrow isn't enough, so luck takes more of a backseat role, and that was what I meant with "margin of error", one shitty dice roll shouldn't decide a fight. That was my complaint, sorry if I made it sound like I think the whole game is a random pile of shit lol. Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. I disagree. There's no need for luck to represent "fuck ups" because the real player can do that himself. What if tanks did a random amount of damage in SC2 to represent the tank driver farting just as he's about to aim? Everyone would hate that since the game is supposed to value your skill instead of forcing you to play badly because a random number generator thought it would be a great moment to make a tank miss its target. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You are mistaking a game like this with a game like Skyrim. In Skyrim they decided to let you (the player) control your character directly. And if you move backwards and get stuck at a wall or you cannot target shit and always miss then Yes, you fucked up and died. In BG1, you character has lets say 18 Dex and is really adept and dodging blows. Average human has 10 or 11. And you don't actually control your character. You just tell him what to do. Fucking up or not fucking up then is not in your hands. Then they use random rolls to see if your Dex 18 char fucks up or not (and Dex 18 lets him fuck up a lot less often). Even if you could control your character controling a Dex 18 char and Dex 11 char would be a vastly different experience and this would no longer be a D&D game.
Exactly, this is what I mean by needing luck because there's no realistic option. You can't really create BG without a luck component, it would be a completely different game. That said, by having a margin, you let luck have a big impact, but it doesn't take over the game. Yeah, you have low dex, you're clumbsy and you miss with your attacks and get hit more often... this is perfectly fine. But if you have acceptable dexterity, average human, the game shouldn't let that be a reason for you to die immediately, you need options to work around it. For example, your dex is horrible, but you have good armor, so it's ok to be hit a few more times than the nimble thief. Or you have bad intelligence, so you decide not to use spells. Your confined by the system, not cheated by it.
EDIT: And what about the luck which isn't really representing anything? In BG, the amount of HP you get when you level is based on luck. It's not pure luck, it's affected by constitution etc, but there's still a big variance. What's the point of that? My character has 18 constitution, his a huge burly warrior with almost demi-good constitution... but the game decided to roll the dice badly, and now he's frail as a kid. This doesn't make much sense, and will just lead to exploiting (such as reloading until you get a decent score, taking a potion of constitution before leveling up). People are exploting, cheating the game, just because they are annoyed by the game cheating them.
|
On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 18:45 Stratos wrote:[quote] Uhm nope I wasn't refering to adding a member in a multiplayer game, I didn't really think of that before and wouldn't use that, I guess I would call that an exploit, too. Anyway, the game most certainly doesn't demand you to do every single quest on the way. And I didn't do them either. It only demands you to, again, use your own brain while only giving you some basic advice. You can come up with a solution for each fight, you can replace someone in the party, you can buy a specific gear, or if everything fails you can go level up, or give up. My point is that there are way too many ways of getting your chances to a point where you are basically guaranteed success, to call the game random - and this is true from the very first levels. It's just that you don't know the game enough to tell. Anyway, this aspect of the game, where you get to experiment, get creative and are basically free to choose which way you want to deal with it, is what I consider to be the most beautiful part of the game. That's why I got a little angry reading your post, so sorry for that... Obviously we all have different expectations and standards for a game. Ending the discussion now to go finish a quest in Fallout 2 Peace out, and if you decide to try to beat the game again, best of luck - it can be a pain in the ass, just like BW, but if you conquer it, you will feel it was worth all of it. Well, I didn't mean to imply that the game should be dumped down and you should be able to beat it at level 1, most certainly not. I just feel like the AD&D system lends itself to being a bit "broken" at lvl 1 because things don't really scale. You have extremely low hp, while normal arrows from a normal shortbow from a normal "lvl 1 enemy" can do really big damage, and there's very little you can do about that. I mean, you can sleep every kobold but one, but all he needs is one critical dice roll and you still lose a member. Sure, it's shitty luck, but if you're in a higher level situation, that can't happen because one arrow isn't enough, so luck takes more of a backseat role, and that was what I meant with "margin of error", one shitty dice roll shouldn't decide a fight. That was my complaint, sorry if I made it sound like I think the whole game is a random pile of shit lol. Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG.
Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did).
In D&D, spellcasting is about increasing the odds and using your combat time wisely. You still got options and many of them, they are just different options. Try to look at it this way and it will be logical. I understand you are used to another way to play but that does not mean this one is inferior.
In BG games you can prepare in advance with protection spells to make yourself immune or increase the chance of the random roll. Those are your tactical choices (or mistakes as you call it) before combat (and those are usually limited resources or an item that only 1-2 of your characters can have). Then during combat you get a tactical choice to provoke the enemy to attack the guy with best chance to resist (best odds). Also note that all the most powerful spells usually have weak or 0 effect if one resists. So they (or you if you cast that on others) risk taking you down in one shot or do nothing. And there are always other spells that have lesser effect if they are successful and lesser penalty if not. Those spells and attacks are similar to what you are used to with new games.
Also these kind of Save or Die spells make games exciting and dangerous. They give choices. Do I kill the Demon that is going towards my mage or do I go straight to the enemy mage that is flinging most dangerous spells?!
|
now i really want to play it,AGAIN!
thx @tobberoth
that it is why BG is such an awesome game,you cry about your stupid warrior who was beaten by an arrow to the head,
you love your mage who destroyed a spider with a rock between the eyes, so many random "unfair" things can happen at any level and you rage about it or you love it!
|
On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 18:50 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Well, I didn't mean to imply that the game should be dumped down and you should be able to beat it at level 1, most certainly not. I just feel like the AD&D system lends itself to being a bit "broken" at lvl 1 because things don't really scale. You have extremely low hp, while normal arrows from a normal shortbow from a normal "lvl 1 enemy" can do really big damage, and there's very little you can do about that. I mean, you can sleep every kobold but one, but all he needs is one critical dice roll and you still lose a member. Sure, it's shitty luck, but if you're in a higher level situation, that can't happen because one arrow isn't enough, so luck takes more of a backseat role, and that was what I meant with "margin of error", one shitty dice roll shouldn't decide a fight.
That was my complaint, sorry if I made it sound like I think the whole game is a random pile of shit lol. Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did).
This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse.
See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work.
HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low.
This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks.
|
On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:
[quote]
Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks.
This post makes plenty of sense. Imagine if the guy who first tries to kill you in candlekeep wasn't hardwired to do just 1 damage. If he rolled normally with a dagger doing 1d4 + chance of critical against your mage with 4 hp BAM, you may just die.
Yes, you could have "prepared" and used a magic missle or something on him, but without hindsight this isn't always intuitive and forces you to restart often. Plus there are situations where even preparing doesn't work and you're stuck with a bad roll and die (hold spells in BG1 come to mind).
Also, as part of the roleplaying element you shouldn't be resting after each battle, you should be trying to force your way through, resting at most once in a dungeon (I know, this makes the game pretty hard). Resting for 8 hours every hour of exploring sounds as silly as when it's done in tabletop RPGs.
|
On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:18 -Archangel- wrote:
[quote]
Actually at high levels you got spells that kill you if you fail one roll, so no, even at high levels AD&D is not absent of luck factor. And that is why we like it. How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks.
You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck.
I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc?
The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it.
|
On March 08 2012 21:34 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 19:27 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
How can one possibly like that? Having to be prepared, sure. Having to use proper tactics? Absolutely. Using proper composition? Definitely. But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it. Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff. Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you. Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks. You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck. I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc? The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it.
I would recommend you to not take a class in game design if you're so defensive about people discussing game concepts. I haven't said any genre is "shit" or "flawed". I've said luck factor in games should be kept as low as possible because it generally doesn't add anything, that doesn't mean any game which isn't fully deterministic is crap. My dex is low I get hit a lot. I think "Man, my dude is too clumbsy." My dex is low and the game is cheap, I'm killed by one attack. I think "Man, this game is BS, that's just pure random luck".
Exageration? Most definitely, but I'm just discussing the concept how luck can be "something in the background which matters to the gameplay" or it can be something you're conciously thinking about.
|
@tobberoth
please don't consider this question as flaming or so, but have you played games like BG before and are you familiar with d&d?
it is a serious question,don't bash me
|
On March 08 2012 21:53 FluXxxx wrote:@tobberoth please don't consider this question as flaming or so, but have you played games like BG before and are you familiar with d&d? it is a serious question,don't bash me
Of course I have, I played Fallout like crazy when that came out. I've never played D&D or AD&D in real life though (but I personally don't find that all too relevant since it's so different from digital adaptions).
|
Russian Federation1401 Posts
The stats and dice factor are there to better represent a real situation in order to allow multiple character parties to be viable AND play tabletop RPG.
In a one-character FPS, you can manualy dodge a fireball by tumbling somewhere. The DEX stat is whatever you are able to do by pressing keybourd buttons with your own hand-eye coordinations. However, doing so with 6 characters in BG is not possible. The DEX stat is there to determine if your thief has managed to hide behind a barrel and shield himself from the incoming explosion or not.
Without these dice stats, in computer games, 6 characters would not be ''realistically'' handable. And in tabletop it would all become a fight of player vs dungeon master. DM: -enemy wizard casts fireball. Player: -I dodge. DM: -no you don't. PLayer: -yes I do! etc etc etc
|
On March 08 2012 21:44 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:34 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 19:40 -Archangel- wrote:
[quote]
Because it represents realism. You can be the best swordsman in the real world but if you step on a stone and lose balance and get your throat open you are dead. You can be best at resisting spells but if you suddenly see a girl that reminds you of your long lost sister and a spells hits you at that moment you are dead. Random rolls represent this stuff.
Modern games hold your hand and tell you that you are always perfect and outside sources can never harm you.
Random rolls also make each fight dangerous and exciting. Unlike boredom that was DAO and DA2. If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks. You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck. I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc? The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it. I would recommend you to not take a class in game design if you're so defensive about people discussing game concepts. I haven't said any genre is "shit" or "flawed". I've said luck factor in games should be kept as low as possible because it generally doesn't add anything, that doesn't mean any game which isn't fully deterministic is crap. My dex is low I get hit a lot. I think "Man, my dude is too clumbsy." My dex is low and the game is cheap, I'm killed by one attack. I think "Man, this game is BS, that's just pure random luck". Exageration? Most definitely, but I'm just discussing the concept how luck can be "something in the background which matters to the gameplay" or it can be something you're conciously thinking about.
Ok, my bad, I thought that since this is the BG thread, you were kinda hinting/relating stuff to BG. But apparently, you just felt like blogging and couldn't quite get there. That is acceptable.
|
On March 08 2012 22:00 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:44 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 21:34 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 19:49 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
If I'm concentrating and doing my best, the computer shouldn't tell me "Oh you're doing good, but life isn't fair man. You're dead." If I die because I screw up, that's all the representation of realism you need. You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks. You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck. I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc? The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it. I would recommend you to not take a class in game design if you're so defensive about people discussing game concepts. I haven't said any genre is "shit" or "flawed". I've said luck factor in games should be kept as low as possible because it generally doesn't add anything, that doesn't mean any game which isn't fully deterministic is crap. My dex is low I get hit a lot. I think "Man, my dude is too clumbsy." My dex is low and the game is cheap, I'm killed by one attack. I think "Man, this game is BS, that's just pure random luck". Exageration? Most definitely, but I'm just discussing the concept how luck can be "something in the background which matters to the gameplay" or it can be something you're conciously thinking about. Ok, my bad, I thought that since this is the BG thread, you were kinda hinting/relating stuff to BG. But apparently, you just felt like blogging and couldn't quite get there. That is acceptable.
If you actually read chains of posts instead of jumping in in the end of a long dicussion, you would know what I was talking about and how it's connected to BG. Instead, you thought your opinion in the end of a long discussion would be so important that it wouldn't even matter what was discussed. Good job.
|
On March 08 2012 22:05 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:00 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:44 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 21:34 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:03 Shockk wrote:
[quote]
You apparently do not understand the point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME.
Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks. You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck. I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc? The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it. I would recommend you to not take a class in game design if you're so defensive about people discussing game concepts. I haven't said any genre is "shit" or "flawed". I've said luck factor in games should be kept as low as possible because it generally doesn't add anything, that doesn't mean any game which isn't fully deterministic is crap. My dex is low I get hit a lot. I think "Man, my dude is too clumbsy." My dex is low and the game is cheap, I'm killed by one attack. I think "Man, this game is BS, that's just pure random luck". Exageration? Most definitely, but I'm just discussing the concept how luck can be "something in the background which matters to the gameplay" or it can be something you're conciously thinking about. Ok, my bad, I thought that since this is the BG thread, you were kinda hinting/relating stuff to BG. But apparently, you just felt like blogging and couldn't quite get there. That is acceptable. If you actually read chains of posts instead of jumping in in the end of a long dicussion, you would know what I was talking about and how it's connected to BG. Instead, you thought your opinion in the end of a long discussion would be so important that it wouldn't even matter what was discussed. Good job.
How are any of the examples you've given related to BG? You've died in a cave once, when you played it a while back, partly because of a bad dice roll, mostly because you were inexperienced (ie, I didn't even think it was possible to get to that stage and still be level 1).
Nevertheless, you're more than entitled to state you don't like the game's "randomness" implementation and not play it. I would love to talk about the random element in games, in general, I just don't understand why you need to do it here, while also constantly hinting about the fact that BG is kinda bad because of the luck factor and following every example with "Ofc, that's just an exageration".
"But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it."
"It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here"
"there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact"
You add "Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG." - For the record, I completely agree with what you're saying, what does it have to do with BG3?
|
On March 08 2012 21:57 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 21:53 FluXxxx wrote:@tobberoth please don't consider this question as flaming or so, but have you played games like BG before and are you familiar with d&d? it is a serious question,don't bash me Of course I have, I played Fallout like crazy when that came out. I've never played D&D or AD&D in real life though (but I personally don't find that all too relevant since it's so different from digital adaptions).
so i assume that you are not really familiar with all the rules?everything that is done in the background?
edit: i have met many people who couldn't enjoy baldur's gate or similar games, because they were not interested in the rules at all, other people that were enjoyed it even if luck wasn't on their side
|
N0ise pretty much nailed it.
In relation to being underleveld in the cave: I like it when there are areas where the enemies are simply too strong for you and you have to choose wisely were you go. I just cant get into it if your hero can go anywhere and the enemies are always on his level. It takes away from really feeling like your getting stronger and more powerful.
Kill Dragons in an epic battle on lvl 1 and then later struggle with some bandits on lvl 20 because they scaled with the hero? Can't get into that at all. Dont like it in Skyrim, hated it in DA2 where the most random bandits just had ridiculous hitpoints later in the game.
|
On March 08 2012 22:22 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:00 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:44 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 21:34 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 21:05 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:56 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 20:37 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 20:12 Shockk wrote:On March 08 2012 20:06 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Lol @ thinking the most important aspect of a role playing game is that it's based on luck. Hyperbole much? You don't seem to get it, either. The point of a role playing game is to play a role, preferably as realistically as possible (realism in a way that does not conflict with a fantasy setting, obviously). Your character is no immortal deity, no flawless fighter superior to all of his peers. Even the greatest make mistakes, trip, lose their grip in combat, accidently reveal things they shouldn't have said, lose their keys ... whatever. A real RPG will reflect this. And since you can't demand that a scripted computer game (or a real life dungeon master, for that matter) can manually consider the outcome for every scenario, dice rolls deal with this. In my opinion, you should be playing the role in an RPG. It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here. If I do something stupid, that should have consequences in the game, not the other way around. Of course, your ability has to match your character, just because you're good at X in real life doesn't mean your character in a game has to be as good at it, and like you said, the only way to realisticly represent this is by random number generation. But there's a gap here where there can be random number generation which feels natural and fair to represent lack of skill etc, and there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact. This is what I'm talking about with this margin of error, if being decently unlucky kills you regardless of what you're doing, you get to a situation where you try it, reload, try it, reload. That's not playing a role, that's waiting for the luck you need for the game to let you continue. Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG. Ah but they are and in a much better fashion then modern games. In modern games spellcasting is usually pure math. It is always measured in DPS and only thing that is unknown at beggining of fight is resistances of target which you find out after 1st cast (by seeing how much less damage you did). This discussion is getting way too long, so I'll just answer this part to show that this has nothing to do with me being a new gamer. I've played computer games for aeons, I'm not your random "lulz FFXII was my first rpg". It's that I've studied game design and I know that just because something is different doesn't have to mean you have to accept it as different even though it's worse. See, in a "modern" game as you call it, it could be deterministic. Spell X always do Y damage to enemy Z depending on your stats and enemy Zs stats. Cool. This might be considered simple or easy, and this is cRPG we need more luck, you need planned resistances yada yada. Fine, different systems, both work. HOWEVER, when you get to a point like... a battle depends on spell X killing enemy Z. You have one chance. It's a strong spell vs Z and you're stronger than him, this is definitely the right choice. You throw spell... it fizzles. Fuck, reload, try my luck again. The spell hits and.... enemy Z resists. WTF!? Reload.... spell hits, but dice throw for damage is just slightly too low. This is where it becomes ridiculous. See? My problem isn't with RPG mechanics controlled by the dice, such as in D&D. It's when a game allows situation where the system breaks. You have access to a whole party, to various tools, you don't HAVE to reload to get the max HP gain on leveling, you don't HAVE to reload to kill enemy Z because realistically there is no encounter where you have only one opportunity to pass, completely based on luck. I understand, you don't like the concept behind it, but wtf are you doing, are you arguing that a genre people play for almost half a century is shit, flawed, etc? The dice is there, as people have stated a billion times, to represent realism. You don't like it, just don't play it. I would recommend you to not take a class in game design if you're so defensive about people discussing game concepts. I haven't said any genre is "shit" or "flawed". I've said luck factor in games should be kept as low as possible because it generally doesn't add anything, that doesn't mean any game which isn't fully deterministic is crap. My dex is low I get hit a lot. I think "Man, my dude is too clumbsy." My dex is low and the game is cheap, I'm killed by one attack. I think "Man, this game is BS, that's just pure random luck". Exageration? Most definitely, but I'm just discussing the concept how luck can be "something in the background which matters to the gameplay" or it can be something you're conciously thinking about. Ok, my bad, I thought that since this is the BG thread, you were kinda hinting/relating stuff to BG. But apparently, you just felt like blogging and couldn't quite get there. That is acceptable. If you actually read chains of posts instead of jumping in in the end of a long dicussion, you would know what I was talking about and how it's connected to BG. Instead, you thought your opinion in the end of a long discussion would be so important that it wouldn't even matter what was discussed. Good job. How are any of the examples you've given related to BG? You've died in a cave once, when you played it a while back, partly because of a bad dice roll, mostly because you were inexperienced (ie, I didn't even think it was possible to get to that stage and still be level 1). Nevertheless, you're more than entitled to state you don't like the game's "randomness" implementation and not play it. I would love to talk about the random element in games, in general, I just don't understand why you need to do it here, while also constantly hinting about the fact that BG is kinda bad because of the luck factor and following every example with "Ofc, that's just an exageration". Show nested quote +"But enjoying that a dice throw, nothing else, can force you to reload? I don't see how you or anyone else can like that. Luck just really has no place in games unless there's no other realistic way of doing it."
"It's a role playing game, not a dice throwing game, we're not playing yatzy here"
"there's number generation where it feels like playing the game is a waste of time since you can just as well throw dice because your choice aren't making an impact" You add "Remember, I'm just talking about the concept here, not saying it's like this in BG or any other RPG." - For the record, I completely agree with what you're saying, what does it have to do with BG3?
The discussion started in a discussion about BG and developed from there. These latest post indeed do not have anything to do with BG3 or BG, in particular, those are just example of games where luck is a big component. Still, discussions develop, should you just stop them because the discussions become slightly off-topic? It's a discussion about gaming concepts which matter to the series, is it that bad to discuss it in the topic, it's not like people who aren't interested have to read or comment, but I would expect people who like baldurs gate to have opinions about use of luck in games. I mean, if people found it so off-topic and out of place, I don't understand why people kept arguing. Seems to be that people did care.
You'd like to discuss it, but not here? So where? I could write a blog about it, but it wouldn't have come up if it didn't start in this discussion here, and it just feels weird to suddenly create a blog about something in the middle of a discussion in a thread. However, we could discuss the way forums work and should work, but it has nothing to do with BG3 either, so let's not, I've apparently forced the discussion way off-topic enough allready.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
