Awor Szurkrarz
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 21,899
I never did the Kangaxx quest in BG2.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
I really fucking hate dungeons/caves/crypts/sewers in RPGs.
- Thread starter LordDenton
- Start date
Excidium
P. banal
Neither did I. Can't believe I missed something major like that, not with my OCD which goes to the point of revealing every spot in the map ( I hate fog of war...).
ArcturusXIV
Cipher
Yeah, Baldur's Gate it's important to break into houses. Loading screens between cities and houses/inns hinder this... I think that is a major problem. If you *have* to go somewhere, make it fluid, otherwise the problem becomes the mechanic.
As far as BG2, I liked it, but I found it far too chimeric, where I was far more interested in a streamlined experience like Diablo (even though it is simpler and not as deep gameplay wise), or a deep experience not so reliant on throwing every perfected western gameplay mechanic in the melting pot--with none of them merging flavors. I found the real-time-with-pause well done, for instance, but I'd much rather have a unique, well-crafted real-time OR turn-based mechanic than something that tries to please everyone by making soup out of every damn ingredient in the house. None of them matching... Something that tries to "appease" everyone usually ends up appeasing no one, which is why DA2 gets piss poor reviews from gamers on Metacritic--they tried to make a game that appealed to everyone by intentionally dumbing down, rather than making the game THEY wanted to play. Gamers are intuitive--they sense when you are treating them like a dummy. And even if they didn't like your previous game, if they smell the insult, they will walk--only the flavor of your own shit smells good.
Not to criticise--one of my favorite games, though I never got through the second one. Actually, finding ways to rob inns was fun, unintentionally I suppose, because you had to find ways to "trick" the game so you weren't caught lockpicking and pickpocketing, which is exactly what I approve of--emergent gameplay.
Cities can have their own culture, and so can dungeons, but without a firm background they tend to bore. Morrowind, for instance, was amazing for it's creativity, but I never grokked why there were floating jellyfish or mushroom houses--they were never fully explained in context of the game, and thus did not merge completely with one another, or the entire gameplay experience. One thing A LOT of western RPG's need to work on is LORE, instead of just tacking Tolkien onto a generic brand-name RPG (Any D&D based game besides Planescape), or coming up with a LOT of creative ideas with no mythology behind their actions (Morrowind).
As an example, money without an economy to explain it is bland. Actions without consequences are bland. Land without history or connective lore, same. Elder Scrolls had great lore, but never bothered delving into the paleolithic aspects of the gameworld, or giving them a "context," which makes the entire experience more compelling, to find an ancient ruin and gradually unravel the culture that left it behind, to come to a city and understand precisely *why* they use curved roofs (because the rain would drench normal ones and they would sag over the years! Duh.) Things like floating jellyfish perhaps need a little more explanation, when 3 steps later we come across something different--it would be different if that "something different" were a food source for the tentacled creatures, and somehow the tentacles made that food convenient for the aforementioned species. Or allowed the jellyfish a genetic advantage against their food source. This creates a web of meaning behind the RPG, and the same goes for creating a web of action for the player, or a lore for your world.
Basicallly, a good Loremaster knows when something has a history, and when it doesn't need it, which is significant to the experience. If something becomes tedious, it is usually superfluous because it is not a well-thought out mechanic, just sort of tacked on for "awesome factor!". Games that try to do everything well, without doing one thing EXCELLENTLY, usually fail because they are copycats that do NOTHING with a sense of acceleration beyond previous concepts.
Sadly, one thing NOBODY mentioned is how in Call of Duty (first one) you could NOT break boxes, but in the original Half-life, years earlier, you could. A sad example of gameplay regression that worked, and then sold...
Which is why I don't trust marketers. Or marketed games...
Conclusively, I'd still like to hear not *why* dungeons bother you, but what games specifically had dungeons that bothered you, because that is more telling. Perhaps if you'd grown up with first-person games in compelling dungeons, your opinion would reverse, perhaps even undergo a pole shift, to where cities were less compelling--as it is in my case, because I never played Fallout growing up, only Wizardry and Lands of Lore.
Artist > Marketing team
As far as BG2, I liked it, but I found it far too chimeric, where I was far more interested in a streamlined experience like Diablo (even though it is simpler and not as deep gameplay wise), or a deep experience not so reliant on throwing every perfected western gameplay mechanic in the melting pot--with none of them merging flavors. I found the real-time-with-pause well done, for instance, but I'd much rather have a unique, well-crafted real-time OR turn-based mechanic than something that tries to please everyone by making soup out of every damn ingredient in the house. None of them matching... Something that tries to "appease" everyone usually ends up appeasing no one, which is why DA2 gets piss poor reviews from gamers on Metacritic--they tried to make a game that appealed to everyone by intentionally dumbing down, rather than making the game THEY wanted to play. Gamers are intuitive--they sense when you are treating them like a dummy. And even if they didn't like your previous game, if they smell the insult, they will walk--only the flavor of your own shit smells good.
Not to criticise--one of my favorite games, though I never got through the second one. Actually, finding ways to rob inns was fun, unintentionally I suppose, because you had to find ways to "trick" the game so you weren't caught lockpicking and pickpocketing, which is exactly what I approve of--emergent gameplay.
Cities can have their own culture, and so can dungeons, but without a firm background they tend to bore. Morrowind, for instance, was amazing for it's creativity, but I never grokked why there were floating jellyfish or mushroom houses--they were never fully explained in context of the game, and thus did not merge completely with one another, or the entire gameplay experience. One thing A LOT of western RPG's need to work on is LORE, instead of just tacking Tolkien onto a generic brand-name RPG (Any D&D based game besides Planescape), or coming up with a LOT of creative ideas with no mythology behind their actions (Morrowind).
As an example, money without an economy to explain it is bland. Actions without consequences are bland. Land without history or connective lore, same. Elder Scrolls had great lore, but never bothered delving into the paleolithic aspects of the gameworld, or giving them a "context," which makes the entire experience more compelling, to find an ancient ruin and gradually unravel the culture that left it behind, to come to a city and understand precisely *why* they use curved roofs (because the rain would drench normal ones and they would sag over the years! Duh.) Things like floating jellyfish perhaps need a little more explanation, when 3 steps later we come across something different--it would be different if that "something different" were a food source for the tentacled creatures, and somehow the tentacles made that food convenient for the aforementioned species. Or allowed the jellyfish a genetic advantage against their food source. This creates a web of meaning behind the RPG, and the same goes for creating a web of action for the player, or a lore for your world.
Basicallly, a good Loremaster knows when something has a history, and when it doesn't need it, which is significant to the experience. If something becomes tedious, it is usually superfluous because it is not a well-thought out mechanic, just sort of tacked on for "awesome factor!". Games that try to do everything well, without doing one thing EXCELLENTLY, usually fail because they are copycats that do NOTHING with a sense of acceleration beyond previous concepts.
Sadly, one thing NOBODY mentioned is how in Call of Duty (first one) you could NOT break boxes, but in the original Half-life, years earlier, you could. A sad example of gameplay regression that worked, and then sold...
Which is why I don't trust marketers. Or marketed games...
Conclusively, I'd still like to hear not *why* dungeons bother you, but what games specifically had dungeons that bothered you, because that is more telling. Perhaps if you'd grown up with first-person games in compelling dungeons, your opinion would reverse, perhaps even undergo a pole shift, to where cities were less compelling--as it is in my case, because I never played Fallout growing up, only Wizardry and Lands of Lore.
Artist > Marketing team
Johannes
Arcane
I barely broke into any houses in Baldur's Gate. Just didn't feel the need to. Finished the game around level 4-5 party iirc, sure I could've enjoyed many of the quests I passed, but the game was just fine as it was too. I don't need to do everything before finishing a game and moving on. It's a free world (both ours and BGs'), you're totally free to ignore some things you don't like to do.
It's like complaining that there's too many romance mods available, because now you must try them all in order to find out if any of those contains extra loot or something.
It's like complaining that there's too many romance mods available, because now you must try them all in order to find out if any of those contains extra loot or something.
ArcturusXIV
Cipher
Breaking into houses for new quests = more content for money.
Since most people barely play a game, much less beat it, much less beat it TWICE, I'd rather be thorough than play a good game once, regret that I'd missed a couple quests, and then be stuck with a bunch of bad games because I'm lazy and don't feel like replaying content...
The problem, of course, is making that process non-tedious, i.e. having exciting events, no loading screens between city/houses, et cetera.
Since most people barely play a game, much less beat it, much less beat it TWICE, I'd rather be thorough than play a good game once, regret that I'd missed a couple quests, and then be stuck with a bunch of bad games because I'm lazy and don't feel like replaying content...
The problem, of course, is making that process non-tedious, i.e. having exciting events, no loading screens between city/houses, et cetera.
ArcturusXIV said:
WAT?
MMXI
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,196
Yeah. WAT? I can't think of anything worthwhile that you find in random houses in Beregost or Baldur's Gate. There are quests, I know that, but nothing that rewards you heavily. A few gold pieces, a reputation bonus, a small amount of experience? Not worth it when you can get enough gold pieces to last you the entire game by doing the Bassilus quest in the first chapter, get 20 reputation by the time you've done the Nashkel mines, and hit your level cap by the time you go back to Candlekeep.Jaesun said:
Awor Szurkrarz
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 21,899
You can't kill everyone without breaking into houses.Jaesun said:
ArcturusXIV
Cipher
If you're a completist, you want to know for stategic reasons where everything is. In BG, I found it far more significant because I would find enchanted rings and other items at the start of the game. Thus, my character left home with an advantage for the wilduous, boonious, wilderness. And people, don't get angry, I am going on memory here! It has been a long time, but honestly, a lot of games don't provide incentive to break and enter as well as they used to. It just may be that I started RPG's before that era, and few games provided as much incentive since.
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 27,245
The reason Ultima Underworld serves as such a good example of a well-designed dungeon is not because of architecture, since the game engine is pretty primitive, only covers 2.5 dimensions and is still grid-based. Still, they pulled off some nice things with it, so it's not bad by any means.
No, it's because it's a dungeon that's ALSO a habitat. It's a home for an interesting variety of creatures. It's a closed ecosystem. Many of the levels, for example, have rivers running through them, and the level with the most water, and therefore the most humidity, is where the Lizardmen live. The Stygian Abyss is not only a dungeon, it's a dungeon that things live in. When you're about to enter an area known to contain a predator, you'll find bones and remains of gear left behind by previous meals of the current occupant.
This is less noticable in UW2, because instead of being in one large location, you're continually jumping between 9 different locations, some of which have some really... unorthodox ecosystems. But it's still there.
How many dungeons have you been through where the monsters are only there to provide you with filler combat? To serve as mobile speedbumps along your path to the endboss?
No, it's because it's a dungeon that's ALSO a habitat. It's a home for an interesting variety of creatures. It's a closed ecosystem. Many of the levels, for example, have rivers running through them, and the level with the most water, and therefore the most humidity, is where the Lizardmen live. The Stygian Abyss is not only a dungeon, it's a dungeon that things live in. When you're about to enter an area known to contain a predator, you'll find bones and remains of gear left behind by previous meals of the current occupant.
This is less noticable in UW2, because instead of being in one large location, you're continually jumping between 9 different locations, some of which have some really... unorthodox ecosystems. But it's still there.
How many dungeons have you been through where the monsters are only there to provide you with filler combat? To serve as mobile speedbumps along your path to the endboss?
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.