Question for the long time cRPG'ers

[DraQ]

Accessibility never meant dumbing down.

In a perfect world, perhaps.

If you simplify the interface as much as possible, you have accessibility.
If you simplify it more, along with the gameplay, you have dumbing down.

 

[PlanHex]

Shakespeare didn't write books.

Oh, shut up. You know what I meant.

 

[oldschool]

"And yet, Infinity Engine games have far more challenge than NWN, despite being more simple and accessible."

Not, really.

BG1, BG2, and IWD yes.

IWD2, and PST no.

It has NOTHING to do with the engines. Dumbass.

Name one Aurora Engine game that has tactical combat. Or any decent gameplay at all, for that matter.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the engines.

 

[mountain hare]

BG2 wasn't accessible. Even assuming the average mongrel could make it out of the first dungeon, there were tons of ways to get wiped out if you weren't paying careful attention (or just had bad luck) and enemies like Liches/Undead/Golems/Werewolves/Dragons/etc were tricky up to until you gained epic-level spells in ToB.

Is there a general consensus as to what exactly constitutes 'accessible'? BG2's spell system was easily accessible, you simply clicked on the spells you wanted to memorise in your spellbook. Then you clicked on the spell icon in your toolbar to cast it, also clicking on the target if necessary. That's easy peasy, any idiot can do that.

However, BG2's spell system was rather complex. Saving throws and modifiers, different damage types, resistances, modifying to hit and armour class, different durations, summoned creatures, different spell protections affording different forms of protection, some area effect spells harming friendlies whereas others do not, some effects stacking while some do not, spell combos which allowed for total pwnage, etc etc. Playing a successful mage or sorcerer was an art in BG2, which is why so many guides have been written on the topic.

And that's just the spell system. BG2 had numerous classes and subclasses/kits, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, allowing for a totally different gaming experience on each replay.

I don't understand how anyone could call BG2 a 'bad' game. It's story and dialogue may not be of the same calibre as Planescape: Torment, but then what is? What BG2 lacks in story it makes up for in atmosphere, voice acting, sheer multitude of choices, non-linearity, and engrossing gameplay.

 

[Volourn]

"Name one Aurora Engine game that has tactical combat. Or any decent gameplay at all, for that matter."

All of them but SOZ. They all have way better combat than either IWD2 or PST. no contest. And, they're all more complex than any IE combat, and that btw, includes SOZ there.


Aurora > IE

It's not even a contest. Only morons think the IE is better as an engine. Don't mistake actual games for engines idiot.

BG2 > NWN OC

This is fact.

But, NWN OC has a better engine.

This is also fact.

 

[dagorkan]

Why is Aurora a better engine than IE?

Because it has 3E? More feats and skills?

Not arguing with you I haven't thought about it.

Also what would say about ToEE vs NWN?

 

[Emotional Vampire]

What BG2 lacks in story it makes up for in (...) sheer multitude of choices, non-linearity

Did you know that hog's orgasm lasts thirty minutes? It's true.

X > Y
This is a fact

Unless X and Y are numbers this is more of a bullshit.

 

[ghostdog]

wtf, BG2 is nothing like FO3, the writing and rpg aspects of BG2 are a million times better than FO3.

 

[Black]

BG2 > NWN OC

This is fact.

I like your facts

Here's my fact.
black > red

 

[cares]

BG2 > NWN OC

This is fact.

I like your facts

Here's my fact.
black >

fixed

 

[Disconnected]

Is there a general consensus as to what exactly constitutes 'accessible'?

I think so, yes. At least, I know how I define it. Accessibility, to me, is a question of interface and information.

Take BG2. The interface was legible; the function of icons was obvious from a combination of very simple symbols and colour-coding. Game/rules information was exhaustive, but presented in context. And the font size was readable.
The interface was functional; any function you could perform was integrated into the part of the GUI you'd be looking at, at the time. You didn't have to click your way through a menu to get to your inventory, take a nap, pick a lock or whatever. Sure, there were hotkeys for everything, but apart from quicksaving, the interface didn't penalise you for not using hotkeys.

It wasn't the perfect interface. The lack of a bestiary and rules encyclopaedia was annoying, the pause, AI and party selection icons needed to be larger and better placed, and though the game scaled well with the officially supported resolutions, those resolutions were limited to 640x/1024x.

TES:Fallout, by comparison, is utterly fucked. The interface is too large, and functions aren't available in the context you need to use them. But it isn't as big a problem as it would have been if TES:Fallout had been a mouse-driven game, and it is mitigated further by the fact that you rarely need to use the PIP-Boy thingy.
It's also near-totally devoid of relevant information, but again it isn't much of a problem since no understanding of the game is required to excel at it; the optimal strategy at all times is to rush, hit vats and click the head icon as many times as you're allowed.

Thus both pass, one because the GUI works fairly well, the other because it isn't important. While something like NWN2 fails, because it's got all the problems of FO3 (too small rather than too large, but..), yet the GUI is as integral to playing as it is in BG2. PS:T falls short of BG2, because it prompts the player to ask himself "Why can't I just click ...?" - A product of the Right-Click Wheel of User Hostility. ToEE falls even shorter by not only having the RCWUH, but also failing to present relevant information in context. Sure, it has the encyclopaedia instead, but it should have had both. Having just the encyclopaedia is like forcing a guy to read an entire shelf-full of books when he just wanted the magazine in the middle.

 

[DraQ]

Accessible + not dumbed down = Frontier.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Actually I heard from at least two different people that they steered clear from BG series in general because of 2E ruleset. You know, ThAC0, AC, values which half of the time are better the lower they are, stats, saving throws.

 

[Melcar]

Actually I heard from at least two different people that they steered clear from BG series in general because of 2E ruleset. You know, ThAC0, AC, values which half of the time are better the lower they are, stats, saving throws.

I bet those people are retarded. Just a guess.

 

[Disconnected]

I bet those people are retarded. Just a guess.

But I was gonna say that!

Still, it's true that AD&D2ed isn't a very consistent or intuitive (more the opposite at times) rules system. That's all the more reason for having an encyclopaedia of the rules in games that use them. But games that use complex mechanics should provide exhaustive information on them, both in context and in an encyclopaedia. BG2 only does the former, and I'm fairly sure that would have annoyed me to no end if I wasn't an AD&D2ed player.

It could have been much worse though. Just imagine how annoying BG2 would have been if you didn't have all available game functions on screen. Or if it had used extremely busy symbols instead of simple ones. Of if most of the text and buttons had been insanely small. Or if it hadn't used simple colour-coding.. Basically, just imagine what a monumental pain in the ass BG2 would have been, if it had the GUI of NWN2.

I can see a lot of the really fucking annoying GUI decisions in NWN2 are the product of a desire to keep the interface off screen. Despite the good intent, that's as fucking retarded as trying to tax your way out of an economic system that centralises wealth. Just like the latter ends up being nothing more than punishment for being good at using the system, the former is nothing but punishment for people who somehow failed to integrate reflex knowledge of all hotkeys in their spinal cord, upon hitting the executable.

Hiding shit players don't use is a perfectly admirable idea. The trick is that GUI designers don't design people. Thus you either have to forego hiding stuff, or let it be the player's choice. When you start hiding stuff without consulting the player, you're no longer removing clutter, you're instead punishing the player for trying to play the game. Or making the game inaccessible, if you prefer.

 

[The Feral Kid]

Anyone care to explain why it's a bad thing for games like BG2 and FO3 to be accessible, or simplified as the codex puts it

BG series in general being more "accessible" or "dumbed-down" or "simplified" or whatever other bullshit invented by the codex intelligencia, compared to PS:T or Fallout is just a codex myth and nothing more. BG series is as original and compelling as PST and Fallout.

And I can't believe you're stupid enough put shit like FO3 in same sentence with BG2 as if they're alike. What a fucking drone you are.

 

[Applegate's Breasts]

We should start compiling a list of accessibility best practices:

- Tutorial of some kind. Optional, even better (I liked ToEE's...though the tutorial itself could of been done more good).

- Intuitive, clean interface - user subjective so why not do what Guild Wars/a lot of MMO's do: user customizable interfaces where you can move and resize screen elements to your preference. This is probably the last thing a developer on a tight schedule has on their list of nice to haves.

- Context-sensitive mouse cursors with default actions you could override (IE games). I liked the exploding pie radial in ToEE since it gave you all options available within 2-3 nests. NWN2 right-click menu also does the same thing but doesn't look as cool.

- Linked civilopedia explaining rules in-depth (Civlization series/ ToEE again). If your implementing some ruleset you expect you're players to know this is much helpful than a thick manual or, lately, a stinking .pdf you have to alt-tab to.

- User customizable hotkeys.

- Tooltips. Tips during loading screens. Video playback of gameplay (The Intro Overseer video in Fallout showed the Pip boy map interface leading to Vault 15)

('Cause you can put all that shit into a game, but in the end, there are people out there who will still say it's too hard/complicated and would rather spend they're free time to play Left 4 dead and Madden 238967925 because they already know American football rules and shit.)

 

[Volourn]

"Why is Aurora a better engine than IE?"

Better graphics, better combat system, more power, can be modded to a higher degree, and, etc. Just look at the differences between NWN2 and TW. 'Nough said.


"Because it has 3E? More feats and skills?"

Not just that, but it's truer to the system. More options > Less options


"Also what would say about ToEE vs NWN?"

Combat system? Tough to say; but I would give the edge to TOEE. Actual engine, though? Aurora. Same with actual combat. Aurora wins (not counting SOZ SOZ).


"Still, it's true that AD&D2ed isn't a very consistent or intuitive (more the opposite at times) rules system."

Wrong. Then again, AD&D wasn't marketed at retardoes.

 

[oldschool]

"Name one Aurora Engine game that has tactical combat. Or any decent gameplay at all, for that matter."

All of them but SOZ. They all have way better combat than either IWD2 or PST. no contest. And, they're all more complex than any IE combat, and that btw, includes SOZ there.


Aurora > IE

It's not even a contest. Only morons think the IE is better as an engine. Don't mistake actual games for engines idiot.

BG2 > NWN OC

This is fact.

But, NWN OC has a better engine.

This is also fact.

Come on, man. You're not even trying. Are you honestly trying to take the stance that the quality of gameplay in a game has nothing to do with the game engine? How can I take that seriously?

If you're trying to make the point that it takes more than just a good game engine to make a good game, then I'll have to agree with you there. No matter how clumsily you make the point.

It is possible to make a bad or mediocre game with a good game engine. It certainly isn't possible to do the opposite.

There are no tactical decisions to be made in an Aurora game. You click on your enemy and then go get a cup of coffee while the little people do the dance of death. No tactics. No options. Just filler combat until you get trapped in the next dialogue box or cutscene.

There you go. Instant accessibility for all the Pretty Princesses of the world. No need to learn how to play. No need to get good at it. No need to think about anything at all. Just roll you up some uber munchkin and away you go into epic CRPG glory without ever having to excercise your mind in the process.

If that is honestly the way you like to play, I can't really fault you for it. But you are definitely missing out.

And that is fact.

 

[Volourn]

NEWSFLASH: The poster above is an idiot.


"You click on your enemy and then go get a cup of coffee while the little people do the dance of death. No tactics. No options."

IE games fit this description a lot more than most Aurora games.Then again, you probably think SOZ is awesome.

R00fles!

 

[Jaime Lannister]

NWN 1 is overrated because you can only control one character.

Fallout is overrated because you can only control one character.

I saved you the trouble of writing a witty response.

 

[poocolator]

Volourn is the prettiest princess out there.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

There are no tactical decisions to be made in an Aurora game. You click on your enemy and then go get a cup of coffee while the little people do the dance of death. No tactics. No options. Just filler combat until you get trapped in the next dialogue box or cutscene.

Just to point out, Storm of Zehir has several encounters that prove you're full of shit here.

The problem with Aurora games is not the engine. It's that most of the time the encounter design is ass.

And it would be fair to point out that any IE combat that didn't involve mages/dragons/liches/Kangaxx (all warmly remembered) was a lot of times just the thing you described there.

 

[Volourn]

"Just to point out, Storm of Zehir has several encounters that prove you're full of shit here."

STFU! SOZ is SOZ aka Shit is shit!

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

That's moar liek it Volly!