Why so much AoD butthurt?

[likaq]

I hate AoD.

Ok. Remind us, how many times have you completed shit games like kotor? And obligatory:

 

[RK47]

I hate AoD.

Ok. Remind us, how many times have you completed shit games like kotor? And obligatory:

Irrelevant. Thread asked for his opinion, he gave it.

 

[John Yossarian]

When VD released his first combat demo people were telling him about the issues with combat (although they weren't as obvious there since there was nothing but combat). Judging by reactions of VD to those and recent criticisms - he basically selected testers who liked his vision of "skip all game with dialogues, fuck everything else" and the ones who pointed out that combat was unbalanced and "lololo you got ambushed 101th time" design is not the right way to go were told to GTFO.

Except GBG was one of the testers and he's always criticized difficulty. He's still a tester. Also, combat difficulty went up because testers were finding the game too easy after a few playthroughs.

So judging by how pre-release game is - VD basically had testers that told him what he wanted to hear. As a result you get a game where it's very easy to just skip all the combat, but very hard to create a combat char that doesn't suck at what he does.

A Sword+dodge char can finish the demo without any meta knowledge (as in without needing to do any sidequests apart from Feng's), and a Spear+Craft char with 5 int can breeze through all fights in demo. You just have to know the strengths of your build and adjust your style. But they're not hard to "create".

And not because the combat is challenging, but because VD team never ever tested it as evidenced by absolute inability to play the game as a ranged character/melee chars not being able to attack because they are getting killed before it's even their turn to move in many encounters since VD just teleports the player into the middle of enemies which is a shit design, no excuses.

WTF?? Did you play the second build of the public demo? First, they changed the 1st IG quest so that you could approach the enemy how you wanted (since it's your party who's ambushing the caravan), with the thugs you're given 3 different dialogue options for different starting distances, and with the raiders you can start in the middle of the camp or you can start outside and kill your way in. Second, with some fights, you being surprised/surrounded is part of the quest (Lidia,Miltiades,duel after IG1,squatters, thief ambush) but there's no way you die before your first turn in any of them. Third, in the last IG fight, one of the hardest in demo, the only way you die before your turn is if you have low dex (so enemies attack first), low con (little hp), low armor, low block and low dodge. Do you really think that is a combat char that should stand a chance in this fight?

If there was a freedom of approach that even the most casual "RPGs" have the combat wouldn't be such a mess.

Try this: make your best combat char and attack any of the guilds, just for kicks. Here you have complete freedom of approach, since it's not part of a quest. Let us know how much easier the combat is.

VD faced a reality where not everyone enjoys skipping gameplay through storyfagism.

Skipping what gameplay? Walking to places?

But instead of saying "yeah guys, we've fucked up" VD is going "ololo you are just casual fags" even if "casual fags" spend time playing such casual games as 4X, global strategies, flight/racing/whatever simulations and oh yes - RPGs with char permadeath too.

Right. It's not like they changed the combat system after the first build because people found it unbalanced or anything.

While "hardcore" AoD doesn't even need a quest compass because you are being teleported right to the quest completion destination all the time.

Please. In quests where it's not imperative that you dont leave you're always (well im not 100% sure about always but AFAIK it is) given the chance to prepare/get there on your own. But for some quests it would be stupid for your questgiver/guildmates to let you walk around town.


I think, aside from a few imbalances, the combat is very good. It has difficulty, it has consequences, and allows for very different styles.

OTOH, I agree non-combat gameplay is just too easy. Here, I think VD has used the "combat should be the hardest path" a little too heavyhandedly. However, aside from adding some kind of dialogue minigame that mimics the combat one, I don't see how they can fix that. But it is somewhat unfair that AoD gets hammered on for this when that's the same way it was in FO, Arcanum, PST etc. If you have enough stat/skill points, you pass the check, otherwise you dont. And in AoD they have mixed checks with two skills, some that take stats+skills into account, reputation checks, body count checks, and many of these have more than pass/fail results. Plus VD never promised anything different from the old check formula.

 

[EG]

It's not Fallout.

 

[Vault Dweller]

OTOH, I agree non-combat gameplay is just too easy. Here, I think VD has used the "combat should be the hardest path" a little too heavyhandedly. However, aside from adding some kind of dialogue minigame that mimics the combat one, I don't see how they can fix that.

Pretty much. R1 was 'harder', but it only led to 'you have to meta-game' complaints. The complaints were justified. If you're a few points short, you fail the check and since you can't go and kill a few monsters to level up, you're screwed. That's why we added check synergies in R2, but they make it easier.

Since mini-games aren't an option, the only choice here is to focus on branching (we're tweaking diplomatic paths in other cities now).

 

[Ion Prothon II]

If you're a few points short, you fail the check and since you can't go and kill a few monsters to level up, you're screwed.

Why just not add some randomness in skillchecks, a chance to get through a check if the particular skill is below required value, but in a reasonable margin. Thing can depend on difficulty level.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's similar to what we did - if one skill is a bit low, but another is high enough, you'll pass a check. For example, if you're trying to convince someone to make a deal with you, that's persuasion + trading. The check has min values for both skills and the sum, which is the check's value. So, if you persuasion is low (but not too low), but trading is high enough, it will be enough to pass the check.

This approach makes it much easier to make a character you want to play without having to hoard points, but it doesn't address the difficulty.

 

[Morkar Left]

OTOH, I agree non-combat gameplay is just too easy. Here, I think VD has used the "combat should be the hardest path" a little too heavyhandedly. However, aside from adding some kind of dialogue minigame that mimics the combat one, I don't see how they can fix that. But it is somewhat unfair that AoD gets hammered on for this when that's the same way it was in FO, Arcanum, PST etc.

I think it becomes a problem when you have no other choices e.g. simply using the environment in combination with your skills/wits/gear. The game seems to lack that sort of interaction almost completely. Things like sneaking around, open chests and lockpicking, blow something up, distract guards by making noice etc. somewhere else, choose your ground in advance before combat begins etc. When such options are available it's never part of the world but only a part of a dialog choice. That's why some people aren'T satisfied with it and criticize the teleporting and CYOA-style.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, to be fair, I can't think of any game (maybe my memory is playing tricks on me though) where you do things like 'blow something up, distract guards by making noice etc'. Even destructible environments are a rare feature these days. In 95% of RPGs the only interaction you do is click on chests to get more loot, which isn't much and can hardly be called interaction.

We can add chests, that's not a problem. Sneaking - without a decent system, either a-la Thief or that turn-based sneaking idea, clicking on your character to turn him/her invisible and parade him/her around in plain sight is kinda retarded (but maybe it's just me). Sure, you can sneak-attack, run away, rinse and repeat, but I was never a fan of this approach. Choose your ground - in a game without a party and focus on ranged combat, it's hardly an issue. I mean, what -are- your options there? Regardless, we're tweaking it too and we added option to start combat from a comfortable distance for rangers.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

We can add chests, that's not a problem.

Make a poll.

 

[John Yossarian]

This approach makes it much easier to make a character you want to play without having to hoard points, but it doesn't address the difficulty.

Probably way too late for this, but since you are changing the rest of the game..

Non-combat checks have the advantage of not necessarily being lethal if you fail them, so instead of going the combat way (hard for beginners, normal for experienced) make the optimal outcome of those checks hard for everyone. As in make the mins of the several skills/stats checked very high. Of course, you would then have to add a couple of partial successes, like you did in palace infiltration and other places in the demo, and make sure that they actually represent a compromise between suboptimal successes. Like convincing one guy, but just barely because your skills were not good enough for the optimal success, so that you know you'll only be able to get his assistance/agreement/whatever once, and you either use your "favor" now or later. Lot of work I know, but hey...

And of course some people will hoard points and reload to get the best outcomes, although it may possible to balance the game such that in order to get enough points to get those outcomes, you have to get partial successess in others. But the important part is that people who have a certain build in mind, and try it out from the start, will not feel like they chose wrong and have to start hoarding. They get shitty results sometimes, but get by with enough success so that if they play to their builds strengths, and find the checks where they can get the best outcomes, they can finish the game. But if they dont stop to think where their build can be must successful, and keep attempting shit that only gets them shitty results, then they'll be stuck, and it'll be their fault, not the system's.

 

[Morkar Left]

Vault Dweller
I will buy AoD and I'm sure I will enjoy it for the most part and it will surprise me at least sometimes. But I'm unsure if I will be excited about it.

At the moment I think it has the potential to become some sort of "classic" or "must-play" but it still lacks some things. The points I mention further down in response to you are basically these things to prevent AoD to become a "classic" or "must-play" for me.

Well, to be fair, I can't think of any game (maybe my memory is playing tricks on me though) where you do things like 'blow something up, distract guards by making noice etc'. Even destructible environments are a rare feature these days. In 95% of RPGs the only interaction you do is click on chests to get more loot, which isn't much and can hardly be called interaction.

You forgot Fallout? You could use TNT to open doors, you could use a walkie talkie to distract the super mutants. The later one was scripted but it was something you had to figure out completely on your own. There was no dialog box to choose that option from.

Exploding barrels (not the diablo ones...), as cliched as they are, provide some tactical oportunities for example.

Jagged Alliance 2 is a good example for non-scripted guard-distraction or if you allow some non-rpgs; Desperados, Commando, Thief. But even BG1+2/IWD allowed such things. At least when it comes to choose your battleground before killing enemies.

Gothic 2 allowed you to circumvent the guard before the storeroom in the city by jumping down behind him from the roof. It was neither easy nor obvious to do this and completely unscripted. Entering the city over the wall, too.

And you don't need destructible environments. They were always rare, unfortunately. It's nice to have but not necessary for an rpg. Just give players the oportunity to discover and handle stuff their own way. Provide a playground for them to try their own things that aren't scripted by you. Reward players for being smart and find their own solutions you probably haven't even thought of.

We can add chests, that's not a problem. Sneaking - without a decent system, either a-la Thief or that turn-based sneaking idea, clicking on your character to turn him/her invisible and parade him/her around in plain sight is kinda retarded (but maybe it's just me). Sure, you can sneak-attack, run away, rinse and repeat, but I was never a fan of this approach.

Chests with locks and traps would be a start. But to make it good you would need owners looking for / guarding their chests, a sneaking system and / or a day-night-cycle (two conditions should be enough).

Personally I think having a simple abstract sneaking-system is always better than having none at all because it gives you instantly at least one more option to approach things. Besides that, thieve-skills are an established skill-set in modern rpgs (and with modern I mean mostly the 90's). And rightfully, though. They were one of the first skill-sets that allowed you to solve problems in a rpg without having to kill somebody/something to reach a goal.

EDIT: Pickpocketing can provide others solutions / oportunities as well (Fallout and bombs for example)

Choose your ground - in a game without a party and focus on ranged combat, it's hardly an issue. I mean, what -are- your options there? Regardless, we're tweaking it too and we added option to start combat from a comfortable distance for rangers.

I agree with you that a game without a party doesn't allow you the tactical approach as one with a party. I respect your decision to have a single-char rpg even when I had hoped otherwise. But that's just a matter of taste afterall.
But I think that especially chars with a focus on ranged combat for example would choose their battleground wisely, especially when nobody is there to protect them.Even alchemists and meleefighters would probably benefit from it by setting up some traps etc. before they start the battle.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, to be fair, I can't think of any game (maybe my memory is playing tricks on me though) where you do things like 'blow something up, distract guards by making noice etc'. Even destructible environments are a rare feature these days. In 95% of RPGs the only interaction you do is click on chests to get more loot, which isn't much and can hardly be called interaction.

You forgot Fallout? You could use TNT to open doors, you could use a walkie talkie to distract the super mutants. The later one was scripted but it was something you had to figure out completely on your own. There was no dialog box to choose that option from.

Exploding barrels (not the diablo ones...), as cliched as they are, provide some tactical oportunities for example.

Jagged Alliance 2 is a good example for non-scripted guard-distraction or if you allow some non-rpgs; Desperados, Commando, Thief. But even BG1+2/IWD allowed such things. At least when it comes to choose your battleground before killing enemies.

Gothic 2 allowed you to circumvent the guard before the storeroom in the city by jumping down behind him from the roof. It was neither easy nor obvious to do this and completely unscripted. Entering the city over the wall, too.

And you don't need destructible environments. They were always rare, unfortunately. It's nice to have but not necessary for an rpg. Just give players the oportunity to discover and handle stuff their own way. Provide a playground for them to try their own things that aren't scripted by you. Reward players for being smart and find their own solutions you probably haven't even thought of.

I'm finding it extremely tiresome how VD constantly compares his game to the worst parts of RPGs instead of aspiring for the best. "LOL environmental interaction = chest opening, I CAN SAFELY IGNORE THESE GAMES ENTIRELY"

 

[Vault Dweller]

Likewise, I find it extremely tiresome how people hold AoD to the highest standards imaginary ideals, forgetting, for a moment, that it's an indie game developed by 4 people without previous experience. Hell, if it's decent, it's already an achievement.

As for the environmental interaction, it does. not. exist in RPGs and the examples above only prove it. In Fallout you could open a door with a lockpick or with TNT. Plus an item that triggers a scripted event. Interaction with the environment? Seriously? Click on a well to magically repair it? We have all that - you can use bombs to blow up doors, you can use acid on metal gates, there are items that trigger scripted events, etc. The only difference is that we do it in the dialogue window, robbing the player of the precious opportunity to click on a bomb, drop it near a door, run away, and wait.

BG/IWD had static background. Zero interaction there, unless we count chests and doors. Gothic 2 belongs to a different category of games - first/third person sandbox were you actively explore and navigate the environment and can jump, climb, swim, levitate, etc. These things do not apply to isometric games.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

AoD wasn't able to cure my grandfather's cancer. How could you fail so badly, VD? How could you?!

 

[Vault Dweller]

It didn't? He must be playing it wrong.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

He tagged energy weapons first, so you're probably right.

 

[Morkar Left]

Likewise, I find it extremely tiresome how people hold AoD to the highest standards imaginary ideals, forgetting, for a moment, that it's an indie game developed by 4 people without previous experience. Hell, if it's decent, it's already an achievement.

As for me, I'm neither holding AoD to the "highest standards" nor "imaginary ideals" which my various examples from other games should show you.

I thought it's about design and not technical limitations? Nobody's gonna argue with your gamestructure if they would know that it is just a technical limitation and not a designdecision that you think improves gameplay.

As for the environmental interaction, it does. not. exist in RPGs and the examples above only prove it. In Fallout you could open a door with a lockpick or with TNT. Plus an item that triggers a scripted event. Interaction with the environment? Seriously? Click on a well to magically repair it? We have all that - you can use bombs to blow up doors, you can use acid on metal gates, there are items that trigger scripted events, etc. The only difference is that we do it in the dialogue window, robbing the player of the precious opportunity to click on a bomb, drop it near a door, run away, and wait.

BG/IWD had static background. Zero interaction there, unless we count chests and doors. Gothic 2 belongs to a different category of games - first/third person sandbox were you actively explore and navigate the environment and can jump, climb, swim, levitate, etc. These things do not apply to isometric games.

I'm confused. What's environmental interaction for you?

As for Gothic 2; wouldn't it be cool to have jump, climb, swim, levitate, etc. in AoD for example? You could use skills/attributes for that to handle success like in the RoA series which had things like that on specific and nonspecific spots. And for the Fallout bomb and walkie talkie; it wasn't in a dialogue box to choose from. You had to figure this out on your own. And the tnt timer allowed you to do other things as well instead of just blowing up doors.

But let's just take the simple example of BG which offered you only doors and chests (and traps). It already allowed you a lot more of skill uses in the engine. Neither of your skills in AoD is embedded in the engine. It's all in dialog boxes. Which reminds the player everytime that he can never choose or do something that you haven't scripted. Everything feels like it is on rails, therefore CYOA and the criticism that you have the wrong engine when you want to do something like that. There was a reason why Wasteland got a lot of praise when it was released.

Exploration and letting players do things on their own are cornerstones of rpgs. They come right after combat and improving skills.

 

[Ion Prothon II]

It's similar to what we did - if one skill is a bit low, but another is high enough, you'll pass a check. For example, if you're trying to convince someone to make a deal with you, that's persuasion + trading. The check has min values for both skills and the sum, which is the check's value. So, if you persuasion is low (but not too low), but trading is high enough, it will be enough to pass the check.

This approach makes it much easier to make a character you want to play without having to hoard points, but it doesn't address the difficulty.

It provides an alternative, but not an emergency way. Someone neglected a skill (lacks 1 point), has no free skillpoints in pocket, can't grind it- he's still fucked and has to either get back to the n-th older save or ragequit.

My character can be screwed with combat skills, but I *may* manage to get through a suicidal combat after the n- th try and a prayer to the pope. But when skillcheck appears... it's just [failed].
I'm not a fan of rolls and all that shit D20 took to its extremes, but sometimes it's unavoidable.

Remember first NWN and case of fugly dwarf (PC) in a brothel. Now what's better: always fail, or "a x% of chance, can succeed if I'll be trying enough times"?
I doubt such solution would break the game balance and eat unborn children.

Can't imagine playing AoD w/o hoarding points, unless sb played it few times and memorized all skillchecks knows in general... uh... every single point should go into diplomacy and / or streetwise? It's really funny while playing combat- oriented idiot.

I will peacefully fuck off if the thing was already discussed and I get the link or some keywords.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for me, I'm neither holding AoD to the "highest standards" nor "imaginary ideals" which my various examples from other games should show you.

I was replying to Infinitron. You position has been very reasonable from day one.

I thought it's about design and not technical limitations?

It is. The way I see it, environmental interaction is a very interesting and much needed feature, but it doesn't exist yet. We chose to focus on an equally interesting (imo) feature that barely exists - branching plot, choices & consequences, etc. There is only so much you can do in one game with limited resources, although it seems to apply to all games, regardless of resources.

I'm confused. What's environmental interaction for you?

An ability to use the environment as you would in real life, or as close as possible. Ironically, that's the main reason we did text adventures. When I was re-playing Fallout 2 where you have to run around some fence to get to that car with a spare part, I thought how nice it would be to climb the face or cut a hole in it or even blast it with TNT. While doing animations and new assets would be expensive and time-consuming, throwing in a text box that would check your Agility and teleport you to the other side of the fence if you pass the check would be very easy. That's when the idea to do things the way we did was born.

As for Gothic 2; wouldn't it be cool to have jump, climb, swim, levitate, etc. in AoD for example?

It's not the same in isometric games, imo.

... it wasn't in a dialogue box to choose from. You had to figure this out on your own....

I guess that's the main issue here. Not the actual interaction but the fact that we took too much control (or the illusion of it) from the player.

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't see it as figuring it out on my own. I used both the radio and the dynamite without thinking about what to do with these things. The radio was clearly an item to be used in a specific event. Sealing the cave was cool, but it was a single use scripted event (not that there is anything wrong with it). Sure, some people missed it, but I would tie it to your character's perception (like we did in the graveyard) and tell you that your character noticed a weak spot if you pass the check and give appropriate options.

But let's just take the simple example of BG which offered you only doors and chests (and traps). It already allowed you a lot more of skill uses in the engine. Neither of your skills in AoD is embedded in the engine. It's all in dialog boxes. Which reminds the player everytime that he can never choose or do something that you haven't scripted.

Yet AoD offers more options that most RPGs.

We can easily add chests and locked doors, since looting appears to be a beloved and dear feature. It's already there. A dead body is a container that looks differently. In Dead State you'll be able to loot proper containers and fiddle with doors all you want (and it's the same engine).

 

[Vault Dweller]

It provides an alternative, but not an emergency way. Someone neglected a skill (lacks 1 point), has no free skillpoints in pocket, can't grind it- he's still fucked and has to either get back to the n-th older save or ragequit.

Or he can try another option, which would have a lower check but some consequences.

Remember first NWN and case of fugly dwarf (PC) in a brothel. Now what's better: always fail, or "a x% of chance, can succeed if I'll be trying enough times"?

Always fail is better (for me) as long as there are other options.

I doubt such solution would break the game balance and eat unborn children.

It wouldn't, but it doesn't mean it should be in the game.

Can't imagine playing AoD w/o hoarding points, unless sb played it few times and memorized all skillchecks knows in general... uh... every single point should go into diplomacy and / or streetwise?

And yet it's not the case at all. You don't need to memorize anything unless you're trying to raise the max number of skills and don't want to waste a single point.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

I think I might've seen you in the wrong light, VD. AoD, much like PoI (is the similarity a coincidence of prophesy?), is an elaborate scheme which will net you loads of money at the end but also a load of butthurt, drama and attention whoring! Instead of viewing AoD as a rival to PoI, I should view it as its natural evolution. Praise the lord for I have seen the light! IT BURNS!

But more importantly: Can I have that review copy now?

 

[Melcar]

Meh, The Codex just likes to bitch. VD made it clear what kind of game they were making and what we could have expected. A single player TB stat based RPG with a bend of strategic combat and a heavy dose of C&C. If you morons expected something else then it's your fault.

 

[John Yossarian]

We can easily add chests and locked doors, since looting appears to be a beloved and dear feature.

Please dont. I can't recall any RPGs where lockpicking was not a chore for chars that could succeed, and a non-option for those that couldn't (i.e. even worse than a simple skill check), and you don't seem to have the time to come up with and implement anything better. Having 3 or 4 things like Feng's vines per major location, and 1 for the small ones would be better IMO.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ok, fine, you talked me into it.

Not to everyone: from now on please direct your inquiries regarding the lack of looting, pillaging, pixel hunting, barrel inspecting, and other form of environmental interactivity to John Yossarian. It's his fault now.