Balance dogma VS accessibility dogma. Which one produces more decline?

[Van-d-all]

Definitely accessibility. While balancing might snuff-out min-maxing fun and buildcrafting, accessibility means massive dumbing down all around until the entire game (not just mechanics) becomes suitable to every brainlet out there. Meaning boorish plot, banal combat, trite characters, moronic quests & corridor maps. The Outer Worlds. It's effectively making the lowest common denominator into a quality standard.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Baldurs' Gate has 300 spells... which perhaps only half of them are worth using most of the time

The obvious solution isn't to cut the remaining 150 spells you don't use, but make them useful, and then introduce more.
People who complain about bloat are pussies.

Sure, if you can make 300 well designed and not useless spells. If you can't then it is bloat shit that is a waste of space and player's time.

In case of DnD vieo games that 300 is added because it is DnD video games, not counting that CRPG is limited by its medium whereas PnP player can make creative use of useless spells.

But if you are making a new game with a new system you need to work bottom-up (What spells I am going to make ? -> I ended up with XX number of spells) instead of the reverse (I want to make XX number of spells -> end up being 90% unused garbage).

 

[Sweeper]

Sure, if you can make 300 well designed and not useless spells. If you can't then it is bloat shit that is a waste of space and player's time.

In case of DnD vieo games that 300 is added because it is DnD video games, not counting that CRPG is limited by its medium whereas PnP player can make creative use of useless spells.

But if you are making a new game with a new system you need to work bottom-up (What spells I am going to make ? -> I ended up with XX number of spells) instead of the reverse (I want to make XX number of spells -> end up being 90% unused garbage).

Yeah that's fair enough.
I still think cutting stuff is a bad way to go purely on principle, just look at what Bethesda has done.
Underrail has quite a few useless feats (that might as well be considered RP flavor feats) I never end up picking in any of my builds, but I'd still rather have them in the game than have Styg cut them.
More is always better.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Mastuebation is accessible, but you wouldn't call it a good hobby.

goes to say something, stops himself.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Sweeper]

ninja looter + burglar + trap expert

Never use 'em.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Also quite a fan of disassemble although due to above i could never squeeze it in

Disassemble + 5 spec points.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Baldurs' Gate has 300 spells... which perhaps only half of them are worth using most of the time

The obvious solution isn't to cut the remaining 150 spells you don't use, but make them useful, and then introduce more.
People who complain about bloat are pussies.

Sure, if you can make 300 well designed and not useless spells. If you can't then it is bloat shit that is a waste of space and player's time.

In case of DnD vieo games that 300 is added because it is DnD video games, not counting that CRPG is limited by its medium whereas PnP player can make creative use of useless spells.

But if you are making a new game with a new system you need to work bottom-up (What spells I am going to make ? -> I ended up with XX number of spells) instead of the reverse (I want to make XX number of spells -> end up being 90% unused garbage).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding things that are flavor or "noob traps" to video games.
I was being completely serious with this post

cause you don't want player to figure out the best build 1 hour into the game.

It should be at 50 hours.
Games should be as arcane, convoluted, and obfuscated as possible.

And just because something is mechanically weak on paper does not mean it can't have uses in gameplay or story portions of a game. This is the equivalent of "creative use of useless spells", it can be done but it requires the developers to actually care to do it.

 

[Sweeper]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding things that are flavor or "noob traps" to video games.
I was being completely serious with this post

I mean sure but once you know the good stuff from the bad it just sits there being all useless and shit.
Noob traps are still based though.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

And just because something is mechanically weak on paper does not mean it can't have uses in gameplay or story portions of a game. This is the equivalent of "creative use of useless spells", it can be done but it requires the developers to actually care to do it.

Sure, I can agree with this one. But that's the point only if the devs care enough to do it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding things that are flavor or "noob traps" to video games.
I was being completely serious with this post

Well, agree to disagree. Fundamentally I find "noob trap" to be a waste of space and time for both the dev and the player. Especially for games without proper documentation. They can go to refund button.

What you ended up having is basically a game where half of the thing is useless. This is even true for BG, nearly half the total spell lists are useless in the context of the whole game and are just there for.... the player to do trial and error? I guess in case of BG you can argue that getting access to actual good stuff might not be immediate and the bad spells work as an intermediary. And some of them are so bad that you can just discern through the description.

I might agree with you when I was 12 or something and think that "WHOA I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT I AM SO SMART" but today? Not so much.

If something you put in the game only acts as "let's the player sort this out and never use this again for their 40++ hours of gameplay" then don't put it in in the first place.

 

[Trashos]

Accessibility is downright evil.
(It is desirable in the sense that developers should put some thought into making their game user-friendly without compromising its core, but that is not the stage we are at, is it now?)

Balance is mostly a good thing, and it only became a bad thing when Sawyer disguised his selling out his soul as "balance".

 

[Lawntoilet]

And just because something is mechanically weak on paper does not mean it can't have uses in gameplay or story portions of a game. This is the equivalent of "creative use of useless spells", it can be done but it requires the developers to actually care to do it.

Sure, I can agree with this one. But that's the point only if the devs care enough to do it.

If the devs don't care enough to do it, they're decline anyway.
Conjure Spirit in Arcanum is a "useless" spell, but the game would be poorer without it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

And just because something is mechanically weak on paper does not mean it can't have uses in gameplay or story portions of a game. This is the equivalent of "creative use of useless spells", it can be done but it requires the developers to actually care to do it.

Sure, I can agree with this one. But that's the point only if the devs care enough to do it.

If the devs don't care enough to do it, they're decline anyway.
Conjure Spirit in Arcanum is a "useless" spell, but the game would be poorer without it.

only problem with conjure spirit was that it didn't have more uses
most people probably aren't even aware nearly every NPC in BG1 has unique charm dialogue, some of it quite extensive

 

[Lawntoilet]

And just because something is mechanically weak on paper does not mean it can't have uses in gameplay or story portions of a game. This is the equivalent of "creative use of useless spells", it can be done but it requires the developers to actually care to do it.

Sure, I can agree with this one. But that's the point only if the devs care enough to do it.

If the devs don't care enough to do it, they're decline anyway.
Conjure Spirit in Arcanum is a "useless" spell, but the game would be poorer without it.

only problem with conjure spirit was that it didn't have more uses
most people probably aren't even aware nearly every NPC in BG1 has unique charm dialogue, some of it quite extensive

Of course the ideal would be for every NPC (or at least every quest-relevant NPC) to have unique afterlife dialogue, but I think that Conjure Spirit is a good benchmark to aim for. There are a couple more uses than the ones I knew about, as it turns out:
https://arcanum.fandom.com/wiki/Spell_Colleges#Uses_of_Conjure_Spirit

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Balance became paramount once random encounters/player-directed leveling went away.

In the beforetimes, you would level your way out of problems. There was no mistake you could make in Wizardry that you could not solve via more grinding.

But you fucks whined about muh random encounters. So encounters become fixed, which means XP becomes finite, which means choices become a lot more permanent. Which means all choices have to be valid and more or less balanced against each other.

The concept of having a 'bad build' is totally a nuRPG issue. Not present in old games. Your build was a function of playtime and grinding, not the game handing you levels at precise developer-determined intervals. You determined how strong your characters were, not the game developers.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

They both amount to the same thing. Simplistic design means nothing really fails. Balance smooths out all meaningful distinction between choices, which means everything works relatively on par. Which one is more pernicious is a coin toss on the fetishes of the developer.

 

[Trashos]

Grampy_Bone, if that is the problem, it has been solved at least since PST. PST featured a totally optional dungeon with respawning enemies, which solves all such issues. You do not need random encounters.

 

[Silly Germans]

What does balance even mean in regard to rpg's ? It is a fairly clear cut term for strategy games but when it comes to rpg's, people seem to have their own definition which differs notably from person to person.

 

[Sweeper]

What does balance even mean in regard to rpg's ? It is a fairly clear cut term for strategy games but when it comes to rpg's, people seem to have their own definition which differs notably from person to person.

It's balance between classes, weapon types and abilities, innit?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Blutwurstritter It's become a euphemism for meaning that no class, skill, attribute, ability, spell, or item has any significant advantage over others. Furthermore, nothing should be so effective as to give the player advantages outside the bounds of the designers intent. It might be appropriate to rename it "egalitarian design".

 

[Silly Germans]

I still find it strange to complain about balance. It seems rather that the problem is at what level balance is implemented. Implementing it at the most basic components of a game leads to the described problem but implementing it at say the party level such that different party compositions have no significant advantages over each other is sensible. If balance isn't implemented at all you will most likely end up with a similar problem of "same-ness" in the sense that one choice is the best. The sort of balance, where you have individually unbalanced components that form together balanced sets if weighted against other sets, is of course much harder to achieve and most games fail at it. But balance as such is not bad. Developers trying to take the easy route by making everything "balanced" by being similar is the problem and simply a sign of incompetent design, but the goal to achieve balance is not a problem. It is actually desirable.

 

[Lurker47]

Lukewarm take but balance is best when it just buffs the stuff that's shit and leaves well-enough alone. I think bloat is largely a non-issue, presuming it doesn't eat up development time. I hate metafaggotry more than anything and the idea that there is always a most optimal build that outshines every other in all situations infuriates me. However, it is something I can accept more than the basic fundamentals of character-building being horribly unbalanced (the FPS Fallouts where Charisma is a complete dump stat.)
The metafaggot build is even more palatable to me when it takes a lot of knowledge, time, and even some skill to create because it relies on some obscure bullshit and weird interactions. Because of this, "accessibility" is way worse because it makes metafaggotry easier and balancing a race to the bottom.

 

[Wunderbar]

Also quite a fan of disassemble although due to above i could never squeeze it in

Disassemble + 5 spec points.

the game is already full of loot, why are you looking for more stuff to manage? Disassemble reduces the quality of components, it's not good.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

"Accessibility" here just seems to mean "easy games". That term is usually used in reference to creating colorblind-friendly user interfaces and stuff like that.

I think it's more about "how easy can the game get picked-up by a new player" rather than just how hard it is. For example, Fallout 1 is not very accessible compared to many modern games since right after the start you need to familiarize yourself with multiple systems and make some of the most important choices in the game. However after you familiarize yourself with the system the game become relatively easy. On the opposite side you have old NES games (like Battlefrogs). These are extremely accessible, in fact they were made to be played by children, however they can be very hard to beat.