|
To be Fair.. On lvl 1 AD&D is pretty stupid when it comes to a combat enviroment  .
That randmo arrow that just kills you is not fun, agreed. You can work around it but it's not fun. This changes with a little higher Charlevel, things become exciting and not as random... These possible "instadeaths" create tons of suspense and excitment:
You hear the enemy Mage cast a spell and recognise that it's a necromancy one (alarm bell inside your head rings!).
You see the little green cloud in the Air which means "Finger of Death" (you get a bad feeling in your stomach) and hit pause.
You stare at the screen, you know that there is nothing you can do now, finally you unpause, praying that you will get the saving throw.
This makes the game exciting. WAY more exciting than the Modern-Way of doing things whcih is more like: "I have to interrupt Spell X and do DPS Y to win."
In BG2 your constantly fighting enemies that can directly kill you. You don't pay attention? A single mage and lucky "lightning" (which is a rather weak low leevl spell) can wipe out half your party...
|
The thrill of solo run IWD/IWD2 low lvl casters, 3 hp, will that goblin with a bow roll 20 and kill you? Lvl 2 spells and mirror image enters the fray, a bit more safe! And then high level absolute monstery ofc.
|
On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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.
I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here)
Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason.
The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice.
|
If you don't like anything with random luck ...... what are you doing here? scouting in SC can go either way (unless its a 2 player map not to mention build order loss's) FPS games (e.g crazy highlight reels)...... Fighting games (Knowing all the frame data in the world wont tell you if he really is going to wake up with a 1 fame move vs your 3) there's just alot of random luck involved in everything ........ didn't you say you studied their design?
Sure this add's more random variables into the game but some people like it? think fishing its half skill half luck but you don't say that fish could have been designed better.
Gf is hype for once about a game lol after seeing this thread.
|
Scaling in RPGs is terrible. Its the reason I haven't finished oblivion, skyrim and fallout 3. At higher levels the game just becomes tedious. Even at the highest difficulty it's far too easy and it just makes the later stages of the game feel a lot less epic when you're killing a scaled up version of a feral ghoul instead of a near-unkillable adamantine golem that shits all over your epic gear and powers.
When I first played BG I died so many times trying to go straight into Baldur's Gate (I didn't know the gates were locked) because I couldn't find a way past the damn ankhegs on the way there. I like that, it makes leveling up feel far more important than just a stat increase across the board for you and everything else in the game.
|
Tobberoth once you've played through the whole game (a couple of times, optimally - if you feel like it), come back and tell us if you still feel like overall, the luck involved in the game is too damn high and unavoidable for it to be a significant flaw of the game. We can discuss this more indepth then. I'd be interested, make a blog?
|
In Baldurs Gate 2, there almost every fight is challenging on hardest difficulty. One high level mage can ruin your plan, you need a lot of ruby ray of reversal and breach and pierce magic to get through, and this is just a mage. High level priest (they are rare in fights) are just as fearsome and saving throws and magic resist is really luck based even with good gear. But you can avoid the luck with good preparation and using the exact spells, what you need to beat the foes. Contigencies and spell sequencers can be really useful avoiding luck for example. (But its for the later stages) BG is a little bit frustrating to do it from level1, i enjoyed it when i was a kid, but i like BG2+TOB much more, i play it through once a year atleast.
|
I will say that playing on very low levels with the D&D rules can be stupid at times. They could have started out the characters on lvl 3 or 4 so you dont get oneshot by a single goblin and then go from there (probably why BG2 went a lot smoother). But other than that I don't really think there is a problem with the system.
You know the variables and you have to prepare for all possible outcomes. It Makes the game a lot more challenging later on. The fact that some luck is involved doesn't take away from the tactics and strategies that you have to come up with.They just add another aspect that you have to account for.
|
On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice.
I don't understand you anymore. Now you are just arguing to argue. You do understand that first half of this last post of yours is contradicting the 2nd half?
First you complain about modern RPG leveling enemies according to your level and then you give an example of a game that was the first AAA title to give a free roaming experience where enemies didn't care what level you were. So what if mines were too hard on your lvl 1 chars?! It is what you wanted in the first part of your post. You know that if you move 2 maps to the east from friendly arms inn you run into basilisks and greater basilisk that can whipe out a lvl 6-7 party?!
And I do agree with you that dying from one shot at lvl 1 is not fun ... for pen&paper game. For cRPG it is one load away and it does not happen nearly often enough to warrant such long posts about bad design from you.
EDIT: About your complaint about getting random HP at level up. Yes, that has been frustrating gamers from release of BG1. BG2 even had an option to always get max HP. NWN 1 and 2 automatically give max HP and all monsters get max HP.
Random hp roll has a purpose. All enemies also have random HP. Even that powerful Balor is created by same rules as player character (it has 6 stats, x levels and rolls HP+Con bonus). Spells do random damage and depend on random HP to be useful. In NWN games they fucked up this. They gave max HP to you and enemies and made direct damage spells really weak and useless. Turned mages into buff/debuff or Save or Die casters.
|
On March 08 2012 23:19 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. I don't understand you anymore. Now you are just arguing to argue. You don understand that first half of this last post of yours is contradicting the 2nd half? First you complain about modern RPG leveling enemies according to your level and then you give an example of a game that was the first AAA title to give a free roaming experience where enemies didn't care what level you were. So what if mines were too hard on your lvl 1 chars?! It is what you wanted in the first part of your post. You know that if you move 2 maps to the east from friendly arms inn you run into basilisks and greater basilisk that can whipe our a lvl 6-7 party?! And I do agree with you that dying from one shot at lvl 1 is not fun ... for pen&paper game. For cRPG it is one load away and it does not happen nearly often enough to warrant such long posts about bad design from you.
How is it contradictory? It is my opinion that if you follow the general flow of the game, you should be more or less the perfect level if you don't grind and don't rush. So since it's the first dungeon in the game and you can very easily be lvl 1 there without rushing, especially if you're multiclassing, opponents should be balanced around providing a fitting challenge for a lvl 1 team. What I'm talking about in the first part of the post is about risk reward. In Morrowind, you can go to places you're not supposed to yet, where enemies are more powerful, but maybe you've playing well etc so you can deal with it, and you're rewarded. When an area is "you're not supposed to be here yet" mode, it should be that you're not actually supposed to be there... not that you're supposed to be there, but the game wants to surprise you with some instadeath. The basilisks 2 squares to the other-direction-you're-supposed-to-go, that however is perfect.
|
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.
A) Throwing out that you've taken classes in game design when you're a swede is hardly a merit, since we have a huge amount of universities & colleges who adds CGD just to get more tax money from producing graduates (Uni's and colleges receive a set sum of money for each graduate they produce). Most programmes are not that good, and as with everything else creative, it's very hard if not impossible to teach the real fine points. You either have the talent or you don't.
B) Throwing out a blanket statement like "Oblivion is bad" is only your point of view, a highly debatable and subjective one. Personally, I can't stand Oblivion, however I'd say a few million buyers of that particular game would like a word with you....
For being a student, you're awfully close-minded. If you've been taught that certain succesful gaming concepts are bad, that's probably because your teacher is bad more than anything else. Because, y'know, people like different things. If they actually teach that stuff at your college, I'd recommend that you contest the teacher's knowledge. Because he's bad.
Baldur's Gate I & II are good examples of a great story, with a recognizable ruleset (it follows AD&D 2nd edition very closely) and for the time, pretty awesome graphics, leading to an incredibly succesful game embraced and loved by many. That you don't like certain parts of it is just... Your opinion. Not fact.
|
On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice.
Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though.
I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll.
Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose.
|
Luck is never a factor if you're good enough.
Luck is usually called in games where there is little to no luck - like SC2 for example.
The more skilled you are the less luck has an impact on your game.
Also just equip everyone with a bow and kite everything ~~
|
On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose.
I am playing Icewind Dale and getting wiped here and there , its no big deal as the game is designed to save/load multiple times (Q/L are the hotkeys for it) and well , you can actually improve your rolls with cleric buffs which you absolutely should do on big engagements , try to back the hurt chars and not leave everything to the rolls , just back off and block with more health chars while your cleric heals the hurt in the back.
I am actually having a great time with it , there are certain engagements in which you have to stop and look carefully at your cleric/mage spells available in order to get the full out of them , and even then , leaving a final engagement with one char dead its not a big deal , you can resurrect at the temples.
Edit: And whenever you are in inferior numbers to the enemies , just force them into a corrridor to get the most out of your AOE, I got wiped so many times because of mindless running into chambers full of mobs.
|
On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose.
I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on.
|
On March 08 2012 23:24 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:19 -Archangel- wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. I don't understand you anymore. Now you are just arguing to argue. You don understand that first half of this last post of yours is contradicting the 2nd half? First you complain about modern RPG leveling enemies according to your level and then you give an example of a game that was the first AAA title to give a free roaming experience where enemies didn't care what level you were. So what if mines were too hard on your lvl 1 chars?! It is what you wanted in the first part of your post. You know that if you move 2 maps to the east from friendly arms inn you run into basilisks and greater basilisk that can whipe our a lvl 6-7 party?! And I do agree with you that dying from one shot at lvl 1 is not fun ... for pen&paper game. For cRPG it is one load away and it does not happen nearly often enough to warrant such long posts about bad design from you. How is it contradictory? It is my opinion that if you follow the general flow of the game, you should be more or less the perfect level if you don't grind and don't rush. So since it's the first dungeon in the game and you can very easily be lvl 1 there without rushing, especially if you're multiclassing, opponents should be balanced around providing a fitting challenge for a lvl 1 team. What I'm talking about in the first part of the post is about risk reward. In Morrowind, you can go to places you're not supposed to yet, where enemies are more powerful, but maybe you've playing well etc so you can deal with it, and you're rewarded. When an area is "you're not supposed to be here yet" mode, it should be that you're not actually supposed to be there... not that you're supposed to be there, but the game wants to surprise you with some instadeath. The basilisks 2 squares to the other-direction-you're-supposed-to-go, that however is perfect.
No, this game is just harder then new kiddy so called RPG games. Whichever area you enter expect a challenge and death and you will do fine
Some areas just have a much bigger if not impossible challenge
|
Russian Federation1401 Posts
On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on.
If we go back to tabletop DnD there's always the discussion whether we should play low, mid or high level characters. The level we decide for our characters defines the challenges the DM will put us through. I have once played a Goblin game in which we role played using goblins. We had to create our character sheets three at a time cause our chars kept dying when bumping into lvl 2 adventurers. It was EXTREMELY FUN.
In your BG game case, you are an orphan from Candlekeep, and your experience amounts to killing a couple of gibberlings, maybe a wolf and doing some errands for some people. A kobold is the first thing you can actually expect to kill. Face the challenge and level up. You're just lucky you don't have to fight lvl 2-3 fighters yet :D
|
On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on.
In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem.
|
Baldur's Gate as a series is famous mainly for the freedom it gives to the player. This whole discussion about Nashkel Mines would make sense if there were little to none other options available for the player. And that's aside the fact that it should be doable nonetheless, imo.
Btw. I'm pretty sure there are some NPCs that actually try to persuade you to do some random bullshit that will inevitably cost you your life just for the sake of their own amusement. Would you say the game is retarded because of that? I call that ingenious.
|
On March 09 2012 00:02 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:47 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 23:25 n0ise wrote:On March 08 2012 22:50 Tobberoth wrote:On March 08 2012 22:30 AntiGrav1ty wrote:
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. I agree completely. (I'll keep it on BG topic here) Scaling in RPGs make exploration useless (everywhere is the same, it just looks different), it makes the whole point of leveling, the idea that you get stronger, useless since you're not getting stronger in relation to anything more than your past character. This is why Oblivion is a complete crap game. Skyrim doesn't scale as badly, but is still way worse than Morrowind, exact same reason. The problem I had with BG in this situation is that these mines are the first dungeon in the game. It's not like I went to the final area of the game and expected to get "a bit of a challenge", I went to the first dungeon and expected to be able to do fine. I could have done a few quests before, I could have had a better group for the task (putting everything into lockpick on imoen when she became lvl 2 for example wasn't too smart). The first dungeon being a challenge is not something I'm against at all either. My problem was that I personally felt it was cheap, because of the underlying mechanics, and it's also made slightly worse in the sense that as long as I have some luck on my side, the same problematic encounter is downright piss easy, for the same reason. They can oneshot me, but I also oneshot them, so because of my low level, a bit too much, IMO, is left to the dice. Only thing I can recall about that dungeon is that it was, indeed, pretty tough. I don't think at any point I perceived it as "luck-based", though. I might actually reinstall and go through BG again (kinda hyped:D), but isn't it possible that you're overexagerating the luck factor, due to getting angry about it a long time ago? Honest question, because even if I lost a char or 1-shot a mob randomly, at no point did I feel that I'm in a position purely based on the dice-roll. Also, about the previous discussion, my point wasn't that you should discuss on or off topic, it was that you're veiledly bashing on a game, then defending with "I'm not actually bashing on the game" and that the discussion was generally going nowhere and wasn't pleasant from neither side. Again, I enjoy talking about gamedesign, and for the record I actually love a certain amount of luck in the games I play^^. So this might also factor in why some enjoy AD&D style of random more than others, I suppose. I might very well be exagerating the luck factor because of frustration, it felt really annoying to try several things in a row and be foiled by one-shot arrows every time, it makes it feel hopeless since there's only so much you can do, you simply have to minimize the amount of arrows which can hit your party until you've killed the group, and no matter how you do, you WILL be hit by a few, which still leaves a window, allthough minimized, for the dice to ruin your day. Sleep is obviously a good idea, and I can see my own error in not even trying that, and it's very possible that I've analyzed it too much and the odds of the arrows killing my characters are actually lower than it felt like. Obviously going out and leveling would completely change the situation since arrows wouldn't oneshot anyone anymore. My basic idea though, that the D&D system at lower levels lends itself to becoming to dependant on luck, I still feel is true, because of scaling etc. It's something I personally consider to be a fault with the system, since I really don't see anything good coming out of it, it's more like a bad aspect of a system which is balanced by that same system having benefits later on. In 3.0e D&D default Orcs came with greataxes (1-12 damage), but in 3.5e they gave them Falchions (2-8 damage) instead because at lvl 1 greataxe with one hit could even kill fighters without a critical hit. So, your concerns about low levels was known in pen&paper community as well. 4e decided to give lvl 1 characters about 30 HP but then they would get much less per level so to eliminate this lvl 1 one shot problem.
It blows my mind how this is what I have been talking about the whole time (margin of error) and so many people has been opposing it... turns out, it was fixed (in a way I find very reasonable) in later rulesets.
Well, one thing's for sure, if they actually make a BG3, one would assume they use a later ruleset, so that would fix any issues I might have with the old ones ^^ (Not that it matters since you don't start as lvl 1 in BG2... still) ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
