Interview Dishonored Interview: Players Without Clues Getting Lost

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Thac0 is the way it is to make it less complex, not more.
I admit, though, that the solution they went with in 3rd edition is even more elegant and intuitive and removes the need for subtraction.

Yeah, I thought Thac0 was intuitive and elegant!

So you have a Thac0 of 18 and this monster has an AC of 7. 18 - 7 = 11, so you need to roll 11 to hit. Simple and elegant. But addition is even easier than subtraction so I will admit that the 3rd ed is more accessible. Still, it really isn't hard to figure out.

Thac0 - AC = roll you need to make. Very simple and straightforward, don't you agree? It's not much harder or less elegant than 3rd ed, which is
AC - AB = roll you need to make. ... come to think of it, that's still subtraction...


Now that I think about it, explain to me how Thac0 was more complex when it's as simple as I described.

Or add AB to the attack roll. If AB + AR >= AC, profit. In 2e, If AR + AC >= THAC0, profit.

THAC0 was weird because it used 0 as a midpoint, so you would have to deal with positive and negative values rather than just one or the other. Not hard, but still an extra bit of unnecessary thought (OK, so I subtract[or add] this number. Is it negative or positive? Its negative, so I'm substracting [or adding] a negative...which is adding a positive [or negative]!). Plus articulating your attack value as the roll you needed to hit a hypothetical armor class (which will change with every target), rather than a value that is constant for all attacks is a bit counterintuitive.

 

[Jaesun]

Combat discussion. In a Bethesda thread.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

thread title should be "Players Without Clues Getting Lost", just sayin.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker

All right, I'll give you that, but you still have to look up/memorize something to make AB work in 3rd edition: the AB growth of each class. 1/2 for mages, 3/4th for rogues and clerics and full AB for the fighter types. But I already admitted it was more elegant in 3rd ed, since that's less to remember.

Still, I wasn't calling people out- my remark merely meant "Another thing that's amusing in the same vein is when people try to understand Thac0 on, say, Gamefaqs." as they end up making it out to be the hardest thing in the world when really, as I have shown (Thac0 - AC = roll) it's not.

Obviously, and I agree, I think there are just better examples. Again, like understanding 3ed. I mean, if you can't understand the basics of that inside the first half an hour you read about it/use it, why are you playing video games in the first place?

And here's the real point: People can and do understand these things if they try. It's the ruling paradigm of simple and streamlined that blocks them. Contrary to most people here I don't believe people are especially stupid (besides, "stupid" here means "someone who disagrees with you"). Of course people are not dumb enough that they can't understand simple addition. They are impatient. They don't want to dedicate the minimum of concentration required to grasp a few - and I use this words with heavy quotation marks - "complex" mechanics to get a more enjoyable gameplay experience.

The stupidity every Codexer is so willing to accuse the public of is mostly just people's natural intuition to pick up what they understand the most easily and say "dis is gud shit." Impatience, in other words. We all have it in areas we are not that dedicated to...

Hell, I have a true bro I play P&P with - he gets it all, he loves GURPS, D&D, Hackmaster, the works. However when presented to The-Fucking-Witcher, mechanically the easiest game to grasp in the history of RPG systems, he says "no thanks, I don't want to dedicate time learning this new system."

It's an auto-reply at this point, because the paradigm that's is retold again and again and again and again is simple = good, complex = bad when it comes to video games. Nevermind that the same guy five minutes before the conversation talked about his love of the depth in GURPS.

 

[Mrowak]

Games of old:

Some idiots are given total freedom, but cant find even 1 choice out of millions - "you are not our target group, FPS that way".

New games = "game needs to be accessible to idiots, we dont care if this destroys game for everyone else".

Actually the video by Black...

Try this one- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMV8fViUj-o
Games are now made for idiots like this one.

proves you wrong (that "idiot" does the most common sense, intelligent thing there is, but the game won't let him progress unless he follows the path made of breadcrumbs and does what devs wanted him to do). In most older gamer there's actually only one (maybe two) correct ways of doing things - all others are discarded. The problem is, it's 2012 already and there are still only 1-2 correct ways of achieving goals.

In the mean time there were exceptions - Thief, Hitman, Deus Ex, Arcanum, etc... but as we can see those exceptions are too complex for the crowd.

 

[Jasede]

I suppose we (I) call it "stupidity" out of convenience, laziness or ignorance then.
The truth, and we both agree on that, is that as long as games keep getting more accessible the more problematic this will get. To make them more accessible we often take away from their complexity- and often end up with games that are just boring and unchallenging to us.

 

[Carrion]

Eh? Gunslingers are awesome. Sure, they may be less efficient at killing than harm-spamming mages, which was an unbalanced spell, but they are pretty damn good overall.

People complaining about Arcanum's gunslingers seriously need to die already. The game did a great job with them, exactly because you couldn't just put all of your points into Firearms and walk over every enemy in the game. You had to learn how to craft weapons and ammo and preferably also invest points into other offensive skills (like THROWING, which is actually really useful with the right build) to make it past the early stages of the game, which is exactly how it should be in that setting. The problem wasn't that gunslingers were underpowered (and, by the way, they weren't), it was that melee and Harm were so much more effective right from the start that it was much easier to just stick with them instead of taking the seemingly harder way. Still, playing a tech character really pays off in the later parts of the game when you got access to the best weapons and all the other cool shit.

I don't think all builds should be good or useful. I mean, it's a good philosophy to try to make a game that can be beat with any possible character, but if you make something truly idiotic like a mage that doesn't have the intelligence to cast anything else than cantrips, or a gunslinger who can only defend himself with firearms in a setting where most people are still beating each other with swords and axes, you deserve to get your ass handed to you.

 

[Grunker]

I suppose we (I) call it "stupidity" out of convenience, laziness or ignorance then.
The truth, and we both agree on that, is that as long as games keep getting more accessible the more problematic this will get. To make them more accessible we often take away from their complexity- and often end up with games that are just boring and unchallenging to us.

The worst thing is: Accessibility and streamlining are good things. Great things even. In complex system design, like GURPS or when making administration systems, streamlining a system without losing depth is perhaps the finest thing you do.

Accessibility and streamlining have nothing to do with dumbing stuff down - both of them are ways to make your stuff better designed by being as easy as possible, and as clear as possible, without losing depth.

The problem is, of course, that the industry removed depth from a whole bunch of stuff and then needed some buzzwords to cover for that fact. Streamlining and accessibility were the first words to get hi-jacked.

 

[Jasede]

You haven't really lived if you haven't scavenged materials from trashcans to make your own weapons and ammo.

 

[Icewater]

People go into games with certain assumptions, i.e. "Characters will never lie to me", "Characters will never give me bad information", "I'll never be required to do anything I'm not explicitly told how to do", etc. Virtually every modern game is designed with these assumptions in mind and a great deal of people have only played modern games, so naturally they assume that this is simply how games are.

As Johannes observed, it isn't that they're stupid, it's just that they've become so used to games that hold their hands that they're utterly perplexed when they come to a game that doesn't.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You haven't really lived if you haven't scavenged materials from trashcans to make your own weapons and ammo.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

People go into games with certain assumptions, i.e. "Characters will never lie to me", "Characters will never give me bad information", "I'll never be required to do anything I'm not explicitly told how to do", etc. Virtually every modern game is designed with these assumptions in mind and a great deal of people have only played modern games, so naturally they assume that this is simply how games are.

As Johannes observed, it isn't that they're stupid, it's just that they've become so used to games that hold their hands that they're utterly perplexed when they come to a game that doesn't.

Hah, they are monkey ape stupid if they don't try out new things but have to be trained to do the same things over and over again, while the reward for pushing the awesome button massages their lizard brain.

 

[deuxhero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezjh9YdqwU4

Nice comments there. The underclass is becoming restless.

Why contain it?

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

NOT AS GOOD AS SKYRIM BUT BETHESDA KEEP MAKING AWESOME GAMES !!!!!!!!

 

[Crooked Bee]

thread title should be "Players Without Clues Getting Lost", just sayin.

xD If you say so.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Well, my way includes a play on words. :D

 

[Wise Emperor]

Hah, they are monkey ape stupid if they don't try out new things but have to be trained to do the same things over and over again, while the reward for pushing the awesome button massages their lizard brain.

Not lizard brain but:

casual gamer in a nutshell.

 

[Jaesun]

This is a game Published by Bethesda. Was anyone honetly thinking this would not turn out to be yet another dumbed down console game?

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

sort of.

 

[Black]

Games of old:

Some idiots are given total freedom, but cant find even 1 choice out of millions - "you are not our target group, FPS that way".

New games = "game needs to be accessible to idiots, we dont care if this destroys game for everyone else".

Actually the video by Black...

Try this one- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMV8fViUj-o
Games are now made for idiots like this one.

proves you wrong (that "idiot" does the most common sense, intelligent thing there is, but the game won't let him progress unless he follows the path made of breadcrumbs and does what devs wanted him to do). In most older gamer there's actually only one (maybe two) correct ways of doing things - all others are discarded. The problem is, it's 2012 already and there are still only 1-2 correct ways of achieving goals.

In the mean time there were exceptions - Thief, Hitman, Deus Ex, Arcanum, etc... but as we can see those exceptions are too complex for the crowd.

The most intelligent thing there is, in that situation, would be to use that little trick that tutorial taught you. Which is crouch jumping.

 

[Johannes]

Eh? Gunslingers are awesome. Sure, they may be less efficient at killing than harm-spamming mages, which was an unbalanced spell, but they are pretty damn good overall.

People complaining about Arcanum's gunslingers seriously need to die already. The game did a great job with them, exactly because you couldn't just put all of your points into Firearms and walk over every enemy in the game. You had to learn how to craft weapons and ammo and preferably also invest points into other offensive skills (like THROWING, which is actually really useful with the right build) to make it past the early stages of the game, which is exactly how it should be in that setting. The problem wasn't that gunslingers were underpowered (and, by the way, they weren't), it was that melee and Harm were so much more effective right from the start that it was much easier to just stick with them instead of taking the seemingly harder way. Still, playing a tech character really pays off in the later parts of the game when you got access to the best weapons and all the other cool shit.

I don't think all builds should be good or useful. I mean, it's a good philosophy to try to make a game that can be beat with any possible character, but if you make something truly idiotic like a mage that doesn't have the intelligence to cast anything else than cantrips, or a gunslinger who can only defend himself with firearms in a setting where most people are still beating each other with swords and axes, you deserve to get your ass handed to you.

No. The problem with Arcanum and gun balancing is that it goes totally against the games lore. Guns were supposed to be the easy accessible way to fight but in reality it was the worst by far for a beginner, compared to anything else (melee, magic, throwing... Dunno about bows). Even if by endgame guns almost reach the effectiveness of those f you've got a carefully planned build.

Also gun wielding enemies being total pussies, apart from the very few occasions who use some craftable gun.


Sad to say but it's an awfully balanced game through and through.

 

[St. Toxic]

This is one of the few AAA titles I have any interest in at the moment, and it's not all that hampered by this information. Just don't follow the most obvious thing that's pointed out to you.

But this is the thing that turns games into larp simulators or, well, toys. The challenge removed, the player himself is forced to put limitations on his abilities so as not to get bored to death playing the game. Part of the whole problem-solving mechanic is to solve the problem with as little effort (pot. relative to reward) as possible; in an rpg that would be playing on the skillls on which you have invested. If you bypass that and make the problem solving optional, where minimal effort actually equates to no effort, then why not just watch a lp of a good and challenging game? Even that's gotta be more rewarding right?

Well, in a sense, I sympathize with the brainless sacks of shit. It's easy to see this only from the point of view of someone who actually wants to get something out of an entertainment product, and this type of feature can cut into that by accentuating one solution to such an extent that other alternatives become mere easter-eggs (did u kno u cud use ducts too acess dat room wit dat guy lol?). Many of us, I would imagine, aren't motivated by achievements or unlockables and simply want multiple solutions that are equally viable and rational, on a subjective level naturally.

How about this for a game -- there's the exit; head on out for the final cutscene. Or go to the right to look for the key and actually play the fucking game and make sure it's unforgiving as hell. The exit is just an obvious false choice, nobody would settle for it, but since it's there you have to question why it's there. The only function it serves, as you encounter it throughout the game while the difficulty steadily increases, is as a demoralizing symbol. Even if it were to actually progress you to a later stage of the game, it's still essentially a "give up" mechanic and players, wittingly or not, are penalized for it.

I would imagine the same applies to Dishonored, especially if the dummy options were added on later as a last resort. Dumdums simply won't be playing through the same game; they'll get the watered down version with, hopefully, chunks of vital information and the most amazing sequences omitted, as their low-INT builds chug along doing menial tasks to get the job done. Question is, which is more cruel/motivating? A hard game that distributes content fairly across the entire playerbase, or a game that has a "special needs" path that holds content back from the mentally retarded?

I realize, of course, that the question is moot. The games of this generation normally only have one, retarded and unrewarding path, with a side dish of ocd collect-em-all.

 

[Trojan_generic]

In the good old days, kids were ashamed if they did not learn basic calculations, and they tried to at least conceal it.

Nowadays, they are given a diagnosis and they are made stars of their little group. Somehow they are not told that they are stupid. Then they will eventually run for president and quite possibly win.

 

[tuluse]

Try this one- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMV8fViUj-o
Games are now made for idiots like this one.

proves you wrong (that "idiot" does the most common sense, intelligent thing there is, but the game won't let him progress unless he follows the path made of breadcrumbs and does what devs wanted him to do). In most older gamer there's actually only one (maybe two) correct ways of doing things - all others are discarded. The problem is, it's 2012 already and there are still only 1-2 correct ways of achieving goals.

In the mean time there were exceptions - Thief, Hitman, Deus Ex, Arcanum, etc... but as we can see those exceptions are too complex for the crowd.

Well Half-life was in large part a platforming game. Those parts expected the player to be able to do simple actions with some degree of precision. I'm not sure alternate ways of progressing would have made it a better game, just like Mario wouldn't be a better game for being less linear.

Going back to the original point about old games having more options, not *every* game had all those options. However, some did. Many infact belonging to the genre we think of as RPGs, and those games have essentially disappeared from the landscape.

 

[Carrion]

No. The problem with Arcanum and gun balancing is that it goes totally against the games lore. Guns were supposed to be the easy accessible way to fight but in reality it was the worst by far for a beginner, compared to anything else (melee, magic, throwing... Dunno about bows). Even if by endgame guns almost reach the effectiveness of those f you've got a carefully planned build.

The balancing sucks, but firearms are probably the best balanced weapons in the game as far as difficulty is concerned, meaning that gunslingers get the best sense of progression and best balanced encounters throughout the game when it comes to combat. If you've got a strong melee character or a mage that can cast Harm, the difficulty becomes pretty much trivial from the start, save for some rare encounters here and there.

As for guns supposedly being the "easy accessible way to fight", that's mostly just market talk you'd hear about any new technological innovation, something that Arcanum's lore is full of. It's pretty obvious that weapons technology has not yet reached a point where it would be that common or superior compared to more traditional weaponry.