Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • 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 can't into modern 3D

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,051
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
The thread started because of visually cluttered, confusing games which are that way apparently not by design but due to simple thoughtlessness, or a misguided assumption that more is always better. I hope we can all agree that a thoughtless design is a bad design.

Definitely. And even in games where anything is interactable, there should be easy to read distinctions between what's useful and what isn't.

Making the environments readable is a lost art in today's AAA industry. Assassin's Creed, as decline as the series is, generally does signposting of climbable objects well enough. You can usually see at a glance which walls can be scaled and which can't, cause the scalable walls have handholds and footholds everywhere. They don't need any glowy bits to point out where you can climb because the visual design of the environments themselves is enough to make it obvious.

Meanwhile some other recent AAA games add a glow to climbable ledges because the artists failed to make their environments readable without artificial signposts.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
DraQ, I appreciate your distinction between "gamist" games and "simulationist" games, but simulationist games are not the only kind of good game. Also, even simulationist games can be focused and uncluttered.
And I am arguing here that cRPGs are inherently anti-gamist.

Gamism benefits from lean mechanics that can designed down to the tiniest detail of what might happen.
cRPGs OTOH are embodiment of combinatorial explosion meaning it's not humanly possible to enumerate all possible variants.
That's guaranteed by stat systems alone unless you purposefuly curb their potential by only making archetypes viable (at which point - why even have stat system).
And if you can't guarantee anything, then you should harness the power of statistics and make it highly improbable that players lock themselves out of the game by providing options. And the best source of options is simulationism because they are already given to both you and the player on a silver platter by being what makes sense in the world.

If you want to play a gamist game, play an abstract strategy (Go, Chess), oldschool shooter, arena shooter or a platformer. Those are genres that fit the philosophy of having lean, gamist mechanics the best.
RPGs don't, just like detailed vehicle sims don't.
It's just that RPGs mostly concern themselves with reflecting how the world works on a different level (how it responds to different "heroes" and differ for them).

Definitely. And even in games where anything is interactable, there should be easy to read distinctions between what's useful and what isn't.
I raise you System Shock 2.

It's by far not a new game, but it does its best to make visually busy environments and actually make that clutter matter in the gameplay.
Namely, while it makes a point of adorning pretty much anything usable (and most things not) with colorful leds, displays and fluorescent patches so you generally don't get any cases of usable dark item being invisible in a dark corner, it goes out of its way to place usable loot in such ways that it's obscured from most angles or blends in with the environment.
Here perceptive players are rewarded with much needed loot just because they have to parse their environment rather than rely on it to be neatly tokenized. This contributes to getting immersed in the environment (as you really need to take everything in or you miss most of the useful stuff) and to game's famous scarcity mechanics.

Amusingly enough, where SS2 went for gamism instead (large parts of its character system, rez mechanics) the results are less than stellar, with poor balance and a lot of trap or nonsensical builds, generously sprinkled with pure nonsense (hurr... OSA grunt can't shoot a pistol, durr...).
The other thing with simulationist approach - which I'm genuinely all for, otherwise I wouldn't be trying to play immersive sims - is how much of this stuff is actually useful. Sure you can throw a wooden plate in Skyrim to keep attention away from your location - but how many times in the game do you actually need that? Yes, in theory, simulated systems allow for a wider variety of approaches - but that doesn't mean you can just throw a bunch of simulated trash in and call it a day. You still have to design your levels in a way that would incentivize the player to tap into that variety.
And what do you mean by useful?
Because, for example Deus Ex had tons of clutter, garbage flavour items and even garbage flavour weapons (has anyone honestly used pepper spray or PS20 in any remotely normal circumstances?), yet every of those was potentially useful - what other game allowed you to blind a guard with an extinguisher, then beat them into submission with a baton while escaping imprisonment by shadowy conspiracy?
The thread started because of visually cluttered, confusing games which are that way apparently not by design but due to simple thoughtlessness, or a misguided assumption that more is always better. I hope we can all agree that a thoughtless design is a bad design.
Yes, but you haven't exactly discovered America here. Yes, thoughtless design is bad design, but neither toughtlessness nor bad design has anything to do with clutter or lack of thereof.
 

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
And what do you mean by useful?
There are two components to that, neither of which is a given.
1) That a given simulation can actually be used to player's benefit. IIRC, the example mentioned above about poisoning food works for Oblivion, but not for Morrowind. Ergo, crates with food in NPC homes are useful in Oblivion but useless in Morrowind.
2) That there are situations where using it is an efficient strategy and not a matter of larping. Stealth in Thief is high-risk, high-reward, so noise distractions are useful. Stealth in Skyrim, on the other hand, is low-risk, low-reward, thus the whole stealth system is not terribly useful, and the noise system within it, completely pointless.
 

Zombra

An iron rock in the river of blood and evil
Patron
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
11,538
Location
Black Goat Woods !@#*%&^
Make the Codex Great Again! RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
And I am arguing here that cRPGs are inherently anti-gamist.
Total nonsense.

I agree that CRPGs are system-driven rather than script-driven, but to state that system-driven games always benefit from adding more systems! MORE MORE MORE!! is patently ridiculous.

As one example, one can look at, say, blobbers, where the interest lies in party building and mastering different statistics, abilities, and maneuvers. How many fighters, how many priests. Should I max dexterity or strength, or balance the two. Etc. Managing stats like this to reach your intended results is the heart of most every CRPG - and these stat systems, while often complex, are generally closed systems. One learns the basics, then refines their understanding of party design over the course of one or several playthroughs. That does not make fishing minigames, physics-based head-buckets, or other distractions and complications automatically worthwhile. Even if you personally like them this much.
 

bddevil

Educated
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
71
It's up to the game to make you look in the right places for the right object/item/whatever. Some games are very bad at this, and some are good at it. Same with conditioning you on what is generally interactive and what generally isn't.
What I personally find disappointing is that when you have these hundreds of unique items, and all of them are just part of the backround. That's so fucking boring. Again, might be an adventure fan in me, but have some hotspots for some silly/random/funny/cool interactions.
Make up your mind. Do you want clearly "readable" games, with focused visual design that discourages distraction, or irrelevant yet interactive "background" items that encourage you to click on every dirty sock and broken pencil?
Um, the latter ? I already made up my mind, not sure how much clearer I had to say it. Irrelevant interactive backgrounds can still have a way for items of interest to the main story/quest/objective/whatever be noticeable.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
3,524
Not really wanting to debate the semantics of what everyone else is discussing but I actually think the Infinity engine games qualify for this, as well as POE. Sure they're pretty levels but they are so packed full of details which LOOK like they should be interactive but aren't. The designers realised this and then had to put in the garish object highlighting which I think is an ugly work-around that is a bandaid rather than a real solution.

I'd much rather the levels to have objects that look interactive only when they are interactive, the rest of the time objects are clearly just background art. You can then ditch the "easy-mode" highlighting trick altogether and give the player the opportunity to visually search for things in the level themselves. As long as devs don't go full pixel hunt and follow their own rules of what is and isn't interactive, the end result would be far better.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom