posted
Actually, some of my favorite games of all time are isometric CRPGs (computer roleplaying games in which you view your character or party from above and get into lots of big fights). The Fallout series, mostly. But somewhere along the line, it became the standard practice to balance these games against exploitation and endless saves.
Case in point. In Lionheart, you play a single character with no permanent allies. Therefore, an enemy creature which is an interesting challenge when fought on its own becomes completely impossible to fight in squads of three or four, because you have nowhere to divert the extra damage they deal out. The only way to defeat them is to take advantage of their limited AI by fleeing until one or two of them head back to base ... or by leaving the zone and healing two or three times during the battle. This is frustrating because neither strategy would work in reality, and it makes me all too aware of the phoniness of the game.
Likewise, the Icewind Dale series throws you into frantic, difficult battles from the first moment of each game, and it is virtually impossible to get through any important battle the first time without ONE of your characters biting it. Which means playing the same "successful" battle ten or twelve times until the die rolls all line up and everyone survives. Then on to the next reloadfest.
This is all pretty ridiculous. Reloading isn't fun, and being forced to exploit isn't fun. Yet I get the impression that these games are balanced with exactly these issues in mind. "Well, the player has unlimited saves, and they can zone out at any time, so it's okay to make this battle impossibly hard." NO! If you base your game balance around non-fun issues, your game will quickly become not-fun.
Star Wars: KOTOR got it right, in my opinion. There were only two big reloadfests for me when I played it, and one was because I'd missed learning one of the controls Unlike Icewind Dale, I could "barely win" a battle without having to reload, because party members would automatically "come to" after a battle. And unlike Lionheart, the battles were evenly balanced, so exploitation wasn't necessary. As a result, I remained absorbed in the world, and felt like a competent warrior instead of an exploiting player.
So. We've got Greyhawk coming out next month. Let's see if Troika can do what no one else apparently can.
posted
Geoffrey, I don't know about Lionheart (couldn't stand the demo) but if you haven't yet, you must learn to embrace the autopause capabilities of the venerable Infinity engine games. Once I got the hang of using the pause feature to make combat in Icewind Dale semi-turn based it became much more enjoyable and I was able to go really long periods without losing party members. I usually opt for 5 members in my IWD party, a couple straight up fighters (Paladin and plain warrior), a couple ranged units (rogue and multi class fighter/cleric) and a hardcore magic user.
I think it is the turn based combat of the Fallout games that helps to prevent them from being reload fests. Likewise, I use the pause feature of Infinity games to help make the combat less infuriating. I did the same with the masterpiece Planescape Torment. And it became very possibly my most satisfying PC game experience ever.
Just a thought.
Posts: 240 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd disagree with saying that nobody in recent history has made a CRPG that isn't a reload fest.
Neverwinter Nighs was far from a reload-fest, far from it, actually. In many of the areas the battles are so easy that experience comes in at a trickle, making it nigh-impossible to level up. (in a sit down game of D&D, the system NWN is based off of, one can expect a level every two sessions or so, at least in a combat-heavy campaign)
While I've died many a time in Troika's Arcanum, usually it's because I wandered into an area I shouldn't be, and got owned as a result. I didn't find any areas in the core storyline that I had trouble with.
EDIT: And why are you singling out isometric CRPGs, or RPGs at all? Morrowind had some pretty harsh moments, and that was first-person. Halo often involved constantly dying and reloading (admittedly that was half the fun, learning the dance of death that made one an excellent multiplayer opponent). Even the amazing Half Life had AI holes that could be exploited to make the game easier, and it too had some save-n-reload moments.
I do agree with you that it takes a good deal of fun out of the game.
posted
Still looking forward to The Temple of Elemental Evil, a turn-based isometric CRPG using 3.5e D&D rules (in the Grayhawk world no less!!). It will be very true to the original module, so if the module said there were 7 Gnolls in the room, there'll be 7 Gnolls in there. It'll also be fairly non-linear, so if your party can't take on 7 Gnolls, you just don't go in there, but stick to the outlying areas with the goblins, hobgoblins, and giant frogs. . . .
posted
With Morrowind, what I've found is if I'm having trouble with something, I'm really not ready for it! Case in point, I recently went to Mournhold for the first time. I quickly found out, as I strode confidently up to a guard and attacked (hey, I can kill normal ordinators, right?), that I was not quite strong enough. Also, sometimes you need to change tactics. If a full on assault doesn't cut it, try a ranged assault and then wade into the fray. It's what I love about some of the more recent CRPG's.
(just started playing BG2 again)
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
twink, I think the Icewind Dale series were Black Isle games, and they used the Infinity Engine, but I don't think they were developed by BioWare. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure ...
Jexx, autopause was useful, and I used it constantly, but I still had a bunch of reloadfests that seemed to come down to luck more than skill. Maybe I'm wrong, and it WAS my lack of skill
It's true that turn-based combat takes a lot of the randomness and chaos out of the system, making a game far easier to balance fairly. WheatPuppet, I'm singling out isometric CRPGs because they come from a long history of turn-based play, and have begun to move, clumsily, into the real-time arena, where balancing is more difficult, and where developers have made a lot of mistakes, in my opinion. A game like Diablo 2, while light on the RPG elements, was designed around real-time play, and does it really well. If more thoughtful, story-based games could do the same thing, I think the whole genre might improve.
The difference between Lionheart and Morrowind is linearity. While there are different story threads in Lionheart, there is definitely a short list of encounters you can have in each area, and it's pretty easy — and often necessary — to hit them all before moving on. This means that at any given point in the game, the developers can accurately predict what level you are. This makes it possible for them to balance the game fairly ... but unfortunately, it ALSO means that if they do a bad job, you have no recourse. There ARE no more badguys to fight, to make yourself more powerful, the way there are in Morrowind. Just the battle right in front of you. That's it. If you can't win that one, your game is over.
So maybe that's the big problem. Many recent RPGs are too linear. It makes sense — with the rising cost of development, and with production standards getting constantly nudged up by the FPS genre, wasted assets are a huge concern. No one wants to invest millions of dollars in "extra" game features that many players might not even see. So the stories are pared down, and the sense of freedom and ease of balance decline.
The new PCGamer "Alternate Lives" columnist makes a good point this month when he points out that a lot of recent RPGs and MMORPGs are missing that feeling of living in a different world. Too many games seem constructed entirely from objectives and quests and encounters, and the environment is merely a servant of those ends, rather than an end in itself.
A big temptation for a designer is to focus on the grand purpose of a game — achieving a high level, a high score, getting a cool sword, seeing an awesome cinematic, winning the game — and then to set up a bunch of annoying challenges between the player and the grand purpose, thinking that if the purpose is cool enough, the player will do anything to get there. This is stupid. The reverse is far more applicable. Make the process of playing the game incredibly fun, and you will capture the player's devotion, and make them want the purpose MORE.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Too many games seem constructed entirely from objectives and quests and encounters, and the environment is merely a servant of those ends, rather than an end in itself.
Except that venturing too far the other way has concequences as well. For instance, in Star Wars: Galaxies nobody is really a hero, nobody goes on big quests to slay an ancient evil, and nobody's name is known galaxy-wide. It makes for realism--I mean, how many ancient evils can there possibly be? But it deterrs casual gamers or people who want to really do something. I don't know about you, but I want to do something more than make Ghaffi-sticks in any given evening of gameplay, which, apparently, is a common player profession in SW:G.
I do think that a game should be a cinematic experience, not entirely cinematic because that often requires linearity, but enough cinematic moments to give the illusion of a living world.
One thing that I have yet to see implemented well is convincing innocent bystanders. If I'm playing a game set in a city, I want there to be hundereds or thousands of independant AI bystanders. While this adds a massive overhead to your processor, meaning that graphic quality needs to be sacrificed, it more than makes up for it in immersion factor.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Single-player and small-scale cooperative RPGs need to be looked at as a whole separate category from MMORPGs like Star Wars: Galaxies. However, I see your point. It IS possible for a game to suffer from open-ended overkill. Hasn't happened too often recently, with trends dragging games in the other direction. But I've heard some complaints that Morrowind can feel disfocused, as well as a few others.
What some RPGs need, I think, is a gameworld where you can have fun just screwing around, ignoring the main plot, along the lines of Grand Theft Auto. In GTA, there are missions to pursue and a general storyline to follow, but just stealing cars, uncovering secrets, playing minigames, and (of course) brutally murdering innocent people is loads of fun, no matter whether you accomplish anything or not.
I'd really like to see a fantasy RPG do the same thing. You could make up a world with a limited size (like GTA) to offset the extra cost of creating the open-ended features. Say an underground city (a la Arx Fatalis), or a not-underground city (a la Bard's Tale), or the environs of an ancient temple (a la Greyhawk: TOEE), or whatever. Then just fill the place with inhabitants, bickering factions, and just general stuff to do. Create a branching, crisscrossing set of scripted quests, and make up a primary plot with an ending, so you know when you've won the game. But otherwise make the world just FUN and ALIVE, on its own.
Nobody's DOING this, as far as I know. [sigh] I guess that means it's MY job ...
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, is KOTOR just the awesomest game ever made? I don't have access to an Xbox, so I can't play it yet.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty freaking cool. I couldn't play through it a full two times, but it's rare to find a game that I can (Deus Ex basically stands alone.) But it was pretty unequivocally awesome, with only a few minor bugs and quibbles.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Unlike Icewind Dale, I could "barely win" a battle without having to reload, because party members would automatically "come to" after a battle. And unlike Lionheart, the battles were evenly balanced, so exploitation wasn't necessary. As a result, I remained absorbed in the world, and felt like a competent warrior instead of an exploiting player.
