What can a "smarted-up" CRPG look like?

Would it require perma-death? Perhaps having a "lives" system where you could save and reload anywhere but the profile spot you save under keeps a record of how many deaths you are allowed before game over is not out of the question?

Do you have to draw maps by hand? In a non-grid-paper dungeon could I set my map to treat my avatar(s) like a thick pencil in MS paint, making wherever I walk a map (meaning if I screwed around while having the 'map-me' box checked my map would need a lot of editing in addition to adding text-box notes and quick reference icons, ie doors, treasure, etc)?

Should there be so much stuff going on and info being introduced all at once that one needs to take and shift through extensive notes? Could the game have a journal that only gets filled with stuff the player types out or adds in by way of modern word-processor tools (select/all, copy, paste, drag and drop, etc) interacting with npc text-boxes?

Does such a game have to have quests/enemies/actions that once completed add to your avatar's(s') experience points, or can these just be fun to complete of themselves/flavor and/or offer new abilities/equipment with all experience points that can be used in a playthrough available from the game's beginning (using them all at the beginning on your attributes, a few beginners' skills, and mastering use of cheap equipment would not be a good idea in such a case)?

That is all I will inquirer for now. Also, feel free to just address the title question if that is more your fancy.

 

Fuck PermaDeath. That's a clunky feature designed to make the game SEEM harder while in practice just force people to play conservatively, cowardly, and rage-inducing. Is it any kind of fun to play? No.

Fuck handdrawn map. That's just a nostalgic feature from the day of counting computer memory in kilobyte. Is that any kind of fun to play? No.
On the other hand, a skill like cartography to make the game autodraw maps for you is nice. The better the skill, the clearer the maps.

Fluff data is... depended. Whether your writers any good? Cause we will just ignore them right the fuck out if it's boring. I skipped all the writings of Morrowind during my plays, cause they still are boring as shit. Mind you, I occasionally read Icewind Dale 2 writings, though I dont call them nice. Readable, that's the ticket.

Quests can be a gamechanger. Fluff quests, which are loot provider mechanics, are so so. But a nice quest chain that could lead to a previously occupied region being liberated into a free region can be very nice. Might and Magic 8 has done it well with the Minotaur's lair where you gain access to the previously flooded town.

As examples of smartening-up games, are Fallout 2 compared to Fallout, Silent Storm Sentinels compared to Silent Storm, Space Rangers 2 compared to SR1.

 

Right on. BUT have it as an options if people want.

I suggest such a thing everytime this discussion comes up. Make cartography or a 'reveal' spell mandatory if you want an automap that is filled in, with as you say putting more points into such things allowing you to get better, more detailed maps. If on the other hand you want to jew those skill points for something else, then you certainly have the option of mapping by hand like in the old days.


As for the other stuff I agree wholeheartedly. If it's not worth reading or has any real relevance to the world you are in then why waste time? I like how Bioware at least just adds a codex entry to stuff you discover and you can read it or ignore it without your game experience changing. Of course they could afford wasting manpower on making such a detailed journal/codex and it's utility is dubious in their case as the world as presented in game is limited and uninteresting. I wouldn't want Obsidian or inXile to waste effort on this too much, with the effort going into the immediate game world and making your interaction in it more coherent and involving rather than having a 20 page book to read in every house.[/QUOTE]

 

Multiple degrees of success and fail is probably what I would want if the game claims its a 'SMARTED UP CRPG'
Too many RPGs are binary as fuck when it comes to judging player's success/failure.

 

About smartening-up features, I think of one

Randomizing random combat encounter.
Make a large pool of enemies types.
Ensure that each encounter got the chance to entroduce no-similar enemies. Like you got 17 types of chess pieces: footmen, horsemen, bowmen, crossbowman, priest healer, big-gun magician, hero-like commanders, v.v... Each encounter has the chance to get 5 types, with the harder difficulty get bigger number. If your luck is good, RNG get you some mismatched units. If it's bad, you got some deadly combination like a few meatshield that occupied your party while two big-gun magician finish casting up two fireballs on the whole group.

 

Any game that doesn't make you feel like it's assuming you're a child with learning disabilities is smart enough.

 

Good AI.

 

For combat, I'd say a smart RPG needs a good AI that doesn't act like it knows more than it should (ie: no 'target spellcaters' unless there is a visible means of knowing who the spellcaster is, either by them casting or obviously carried equipment. Which means a rogue with a staff and robes should be able to be mistaken for the spellcaster if your settings wizards tend to carry staffs and wear robes), monsters/enemies that operate according to the same rules as the player characters and no ARPG loot explosions (when you loot a bad guy, you should get what it's using and if it has a great magic item, it should be using it against the party from the start).

 

I would prefer if there's a different AI routine for orcs without leader, orcs WITH leader, animals, ogre, according to their INT stats.

 

Unnecessary flavour. I would say that only have these things as extra entertainment (side stuff) and as fluff.

 

Should be coupled with permadeath though, otherwise it doesn't change much.

 

Permadeath is shit unless the game is completely randomized. Replaying the exact same content all over again because you died - FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU

A complex system with many viable character builds, quests that can be solved in multiple ways - more important than multiple endings/results are multiple ways of approach -, challenging combat encounters (preferably optional and avoidable with a diplomatic character - and not only by a simple diplomacy skillcheck but you have to carefully choose your dialogue options), writing that isn't shit and characters that actually have their own motivations (preferably with instances where these characters lie to the PC and try to use him for their own goals), exploration that is rewarding and secrets that are actually hidden and take an effort to find, and giving the player a choice which faction/side to join.

In short: a game that doesn't treat the player like an idiot but like an intelligent adult person who can think for him/herself without being led by the hand all the time.

 

A game (at least to the best extent the ruleset can provide) designed around the expectation that the player is a sentient being capable of thinking beyond what the quest log tells them to do, devising all sorts of improvisations and considerations as to how they could proceed with the task they've been given...and that takes those into account.

"Why does it matter if I kill the person and bring their money to the tax collector? Couldn't I just give them my own money, nobody being the wiser?"

"Instead of helping this mage in exchange for their translating the scroll, shouldn't there theoretically be others in the world equally willing to do so should I find them, and perhaps more sellfess in their propositions? Or better yet, couldn't my character attempt to translate it on their own using attribute/skill checks?"

"What if I were to kill this NPC and only inform the others of their treachery after the fact - would their death be viewed in a different light?"

"How about instead of being flavor text to give the illusion of choice, have an inept character demanding a reward up front cause the NPC to take offense and possibly be less willing to reward them, whilst a very persuasive/capable looking character would perhaps be given consideration for a greater reward (or some in advance as collateral), to ensure that they run the NPC's errand as soon as possible because this may be the only truly competent person they'll come across in a long while?"

You obviously can't develop a game with a million contrived ways to go about doing every quest, but I expect at least a few things like this here and there.

 

Stop lying.

 

Not necessarily, by limiting saves to taverns and on exit you avoid the pitfalls of ironman but yet makes the player think twice before ambushing a band of ogres.

I think that it strikes the perfect balance between mind numbingly easy and ball-crushingly punishing. If you manage to get half your party wiped out before the final boss you can reload an earlier save and don't have to replay the whole game, yet you probably can't be arsed to reload an earlier save if your lvl 2 rookie dies several levels down in a dungeon because that means you would have to replay a large portion of the game.

 

Giauz Ragnacock

Alright. I will take the bait.

I am assuming that you mean "tactically challenging" by smarted up right? If you don't please let me know. If you do, I can write a small essay as to why this implies good AI in specifics and some necessary conditions on the game design from a very naive point of view.

 

I don't think smart was the word the OP was looking for. Smart implies a game play style that makes you use your head and think. The OP seems to be focusing on game mechanics to provide challenge so I'll go from there.

"Challenging" game mechanics really come down to a players APM, sort of a measure of a players physical ability to push buttons in certain combinations.

You can make the most intricate, and detailed game encounters ever, with 50 flavors of death and enough actions per minute to make a three legged Chinese acrobat blush but that won't say anything about how smart the encounter is.

Any game that makes me think the entire way through I'd consider "smart'. Mapping out a maze or solving riddles can be one aspect of that, but it isn't my entire definition of smart by any means. I'm not sure I can give an all encompassing definition of what "smart" for a game means to me, but I know it when I play it and I know many games these days are not "smart".

Not all games are meant to be smart though, some games are fun just to test out your APM skill and there isn't anything wrong with that.

 

What OP describes is not "smarted-up" but "hipstered-up" shit.

This thread sucks and OP is a faggot.

I come back to read this forum after Nov 28 2012 and what is this

 

Not sure if you are serious or not but here is a wiki article on APM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actions_per_minute


It's hard to set intent of words across the internet. I wasn't trying to imply that the only challenge possible in a game is from physical button pushing skill, I was trying to point out that is my perception of the reality of game design these days.

In recent games I've played (and many of these older games as well) "Challenge" is how many different ways an encounter can make you push the same buttons or use the same actions. Thought doesn't factor much into that so I wouldn't consider it smart as much as learning the best combinations of buttons to push in order to "win" different situations.

As for a mental challenge, most fetch quests or even quest lines in games don't require much thought to complete.

However, I guess it's not helpful if all I do is talk shit about games and not toss out any ideas.

hmmm... I think a faction system is one aspect that can help make a game "smart" as long as it's not easily manipulated and it's varied enough to not have one optimal faction path.

 

Eschalon actually screwed this up by making the quality of the map skill-dependant. Let's say you map out a whole level with your Cartography skill at 2. Then you find an Explorer's Cap (or whatever it was called) that adds +2 to your Cartography skill while worn. If you wanted a better map of the area, you'd have to retrace your steps to fill out the whole map AGAIN. BUT, here's the kicker, if you take off the hat at a later date, then the game will re-draw the map and actually REMOVE and UNDO all the features of the automap that were added while you had the "temporary" skillboost. Since this was in both Eschalon games (and probably will be present in Book 3) then I assume that this "feature" is deliberate, and absolutely pants-on-head retarded.

 

Any game whose premise is "Good vs Evil" or "Evil vs Good" I'd have a hard time labeling smart.

 

Yeah, but if the game is completely randomized permadeath can be pretty awesome.

 

Games need better randomization options.

 

Beat me to it.

To be honest, complexity of the game is sometimes a bandaid for challenging AI.

 

What the fuck ?


"Challenging" game mechanics can be a ton of different things. And in no case is the level of "challenge" directly comparable to APM required. This should be so obvious tat I don't really even want to elaborate... Are you, Flunklesnarkin, any good at some truly challenging game, I wonder...

Does chess require a lot of APM?
Will the player who mashes buttons the fastest, win in Tekken?
Will a fast pace of hitting buttons in and of itself, make you any good at an RTS?
Even those reflex games that only measure your mouse accuracy, don't require you to click awfully fast - focus is on precision.

Some games require you to do a lot of actions fast in order to compete. But even in such games the ability to press those buttons fast, comes first and foremost from the ability to understand WHAT exactly you need to press. From there, pressing them comes naturally with practice.