Editorial Don't Ask Questions Until the Player Can Answer

[DragoFireheart]

Don't worry: school likely won't have you do that for much longer.

thank god i can finally achieve my american dream: live the rest of my life as a lazy, ignorant, and stupid moran that can drift on the roads of mediocrity all the while enjoying my auto-aiming, auto-regening corridor shooters with lots of SPECIAL effects, no reading, and boobs. i can work at mcdonlands and play CoD12 and never have to worry about doing anything.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I guess he haven't heard about game manuals.

Nobody wants to read those unfortunately. So the way developers do it now is by including introductory tutorials in the game.

Unavoidable too, so people won't skip them and later complain online about how they cannot find the button that throws grenades.

You can still fuck up your character in Gothic (NOTR at least). Its fairly easy to try to multiclass & fail (eg by leaving you with too few mana points). Characters can always be fucked up by bad choices, whether at the start or during the game; I guess it just depends how much idiot proofing you feel you have to do.

And that is how it should be. I don't think that the game should prevent you for doing stupid things that can make the game harder for you, or maybe even impossible.

Depends on what you mean by "stupid things". I don't see how anyone could like "YOU GUESSED WRONG ROFLMAO SKILL X IS ACTUALLY USELESS".

 

[Mastermind]

I don't see how anyone could like "YOU GUESSED WRONG ROFLMAO SKILL X IS ACTUALLY USELESS".

I don't see how you don't see this considering Fallout is perpetually in the codex top 3.

 

[Cassidy]

He is still misguided. The right phrase is "Don't ask questions to the player. Let the game answer them automatically and hold the player's hand." for the decline Vogel embraced.

 

[coaster]

But I look at differently, when you are in the gameworld, and you gain the information about it, then that is the time when you should figure out on what is the best way to gain advantage in this word, or archive your goal. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to plan at all. Just gather enough info to decide how you want to play, and yes playing in the gameworld gives you better information then only reading the descriptions of the spells/skills.

Agreed, I think part of the problem is that there is an underlying assumption that players will only play through a game once, with one character choice. Vogel doesn't allow for the trial & error which is part of the RPG experience - in C&C but also in character development.

Even if I do only play a character through to the end once in an RPG, it is rare that I will have completely fucked up. This is because I will have had about half a dozen false starts with various characters, to learn more about the different classes, mechanics, the nature of the gameworld etc.

But maybe Vogel's right - in the sense that maybe a lot of his customers go from start to finish in one go only, muddling through with spazzy character and skill choices and a limited understanding of the rules. Its a little sad he wants to lean over too far to cater to that niche though.

 

[The Wizard]

Gothic and Risen did it, and there's nothing wrong with Gothic and Risen outside of being forced to play as some boring guy without the slightest hint of character or sexyness or charm.

the nameless hero in gothic 1-2 had plenty of character. that of a mega sarcastic douche.

of course you wouldn't know having played the retarded english localisation.

 

[PorkaMorka]

He's right.

He is using it as an excuse to dumb down his games but he is definitely right.

The difference between a decision and a guess is how much information you have.

If the game doesn't let you see the formulas then at character creation you are just guessing with a lot of your build choices, even though many of them are permanent and important. Skill descriptions typically do not provide much to go on. You have no basis to decide if you should specialize in maces or axes, you just take a guess and hope for the best.

If you can't see the formulas but you make the decision later in the game, at least you have some experience with the game to provide some rational basis for your decision. "Hey, bows are kind of useful in this game, guess I'll put some points in them" or "enemies get to melee range in one turn and most encounters start pretty close up, guess I'll skip bows".

Some people describe character creation as an example of choices and consequences, but in most games without visible formulas, it is a lot closer to guesses and consequences. Allowing in game experience to play a role in decision making helps get the guess a little closer to a "decision".

But Avadon was still the worst character development system of any Spiderweb game I played, so I'm not optimistic that Vogel being right in a blog post is going to result in incline of his games.

 

[Claw]

Depends on what you mean by "stupid things". I don't see how anyone could like "YOU GUESSED WRONG ROFLMAO SKILL X IS ACTUALLY USELESS".

Wouldn't that mean that the real problem are useless skills?


Despite all concerns, valid as some may be, it seems to me that if a developer believes a player can't make an informed decision about how they want to develop their character at the start, he's suggesting that either the player or his game design is retarded.

I've played plenty of oldschool RPGs and created my characters without any knowledge of the gameplay and I never had any trouble. In party-based RPGs I simply make a balanced party with all relevant skills, while in most single-player RPG I can just chose which type of character I like to play.
Moreover, I've never seen an RPG that required an optimal character or party build. I played through Star Trail and Shadows over Riva with a party containing a rogue and a jester. From what I recall, both were of little use outside combat and a liability in fights, limited to light armour, specialized in piercing weapons that were regularly ineffective and prone to breaking.

I see this argument largely as an excuse for bad game design. Oh it's allright, the player can adjust to it. It's just like "mods will fix it" with Bethesda games. Bah!

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah, the problem isn't that the player doesn't know whether the spear skill is useless or not, the problem is implementing spears but then making them useless but nevertheless presenting the spear skill at character creation as equally valuable as the others.

That's bad design right there.

 

[Kawaii Theurgist]

the nameless hero in gothic 1-2 had plenty of character. that of a mega sarcastic douche.

of course you wouldn't know having played the retarded english localisation.

I see. That's kind of sad, I really like mega sarcastic douches.



Too bad my german is epic fail.

 

[Crichton]

The problem isn't just the utility of any given skill, it's the overall utility of a character and knowing all the rules won't help with that unless you also know what the game environment is like.

Ex: Both Intimidate and Diplomacy are useful skills in NWN2, but having both is a waste since there are few times when Intimidate will do something that Diplomacy won't. That doesn't make Intimidate useless on its own, after all some classes don't have access to Diplomacy. But it makes the combination sub-optimal.

On the other hand, the Stealth skill and Obfuscate power in VtM:BL complement each other nicely despite both being "stealth" abilities because there are both long sections where stealth is useful and short ones where the stealth skill is generally insufficient.

In most 2E D&D cRPGs, you just about have to have a thief to deal with traps (PS:T and DS:SL spring to mind as exceptions) but in 3E, rogues are optional because the traps aren't such a big deal. It's a matter of taste (thieves/rogues are still useful in combat for backstap/sneak attack damage) and it really has more to do with the level designer's preference than with the rules differences. But there's no way of knowing until you've played through the game(s). Basically:

The first playthrough is always fucked.

Most people just accept that, as others have pointed out, few games are so difficult that it matters all that much.

 

[Kraszu]

Depends on what you mean by "stupid things". I don't see how anyone could like "YOU GUESSED WRONG ROFLMAO SKILL X IS ACTUALLY USELESS".

Wouldn't that mean that the real problem are useless skills?

The problem isn't just the utility of any given skill, it's the overall utility of a character and knowing all the rules won't help with that unless you also know what the game environment is like.

This, none skills should be useless, but some configuration of skills can be worse then others. You wouldn't want to end up with a system balanced in the way that all your choices will be equally good.

And sometimes it is obvious, like say Fire Bolt spell in D2 before synergies, if you were thinking that adding points there is a good idea then you were just stupid. There should be abiliy to see how the skill will change with levels, but still you was able to see few levels ahead, and how small the dmg increase is, and that high lvl spell will be almost certainly better even at 1st lvl.

And yes weapons, and other things should be balanced, but:
-nobody will balance everything perfectly so it is better if you can make the choices at least with some game world data.
-what if the strength is about the same, but you find out that you for example dislike melee system, but you like how range combat is implemented?

 

[el Supremo]

I hate it when the game welcomes me with a character creation screen. If I start a game, I want to play it rigt away, not stare on countless stats, and table, and wonder what is of any use, or what kind of character I want to build. Also, just recently I decided to give Mass Effect 2 a try, and damn it, I cannot create sexy female Shepard. Two days, and I still havent gone past character creation :dizzy:

 

[devilkingx2]

i agree with most of yall that you should have the freedom to screw up your character if you wish, but it should be obvious how to do it right

take oblivion for example, it was entirely possible to screw yourself if you only had non-combat skills as your major/minors but taking no combat skills in a combat based game is like pumping strength on your wizard, its your own retardation that sowed the seeds now you must reap the downs syndrome plant

 

[Clockwork Knight]

i agree with most of yall that you should have the freedom to screw up your character if you wish, but it should be obvious how to do it right

take oblivion for example, it was entirely possible to screw yourself if you only had non-combat skills as your major/minors but taking no combat skills in a combat based game is like pumping strength on your wizard, its your own retardation that sowed the seeds now you must reap the downs syndrome plant

I'm guessing you didn't actually play unmodded Oblivion. Screwing yourself in Oblivion was easy if you took the skills you wanted to use as majors, Especially if they're all combat oriented since they get the most use and you can't choose when to use them (unlike Speechcraft, for example).

You use your major skills often because that's your favorite playstyle + they level much faster because they are majors = you end up leveling much sooner than you should, facing enemies appropriate for your level but not for your stats. You can catch up with the computer if you're careful, but the fact that it's very counterintuitive remains.

On the other hand, it forces you to play better just so you can survive, so I didn't mind it that much. It was kinda cool having the siege of Kvatch be an actual nightmare instead of the pleasant stroll it's supposed to be if you start the main quest at a low level. OH GOD THE TOWN HAS BEEN INVADED BY THOSE STUNTED SCAMPS THAT IMPERIAL WATCHMEN KILL IN ONE HIT, WHAT WILL WE DO? WE'RE DOOMED, DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

 

[devilkingx2]

i agree with most of yall that you should have the freedom to screw up your character if you wish, but it should be obvious how to do it right

take oblivion for example, it was entirely possible to screw yourself if you only had non-combat skills as your major/minors but taking no combat skills in a combat based game is like pumping strength on your wizard, its your own retardation that sowed the seeds now you must reap the downs syndrome plant

I'm guessing you didn't actually play unmodded Oblivion. Screwing yourself in Oblivion was easy if you took the skills you wanted to use as majors, Especially if they're all combat oriented since they get the most use and you can't choose when to use them (unlike Speechcraft, for example).

You use your major skills often because that's your favorite playstyle + they level much faster because they are majors = you end up leveling much sooner than you should, facing enemies appropriate for your level but not for your stats. You can catch up with the computer if you're careful, but the fact that it's very counterintuitive remains.

On the other hand, it forces you to play better just so you can survive, so I didn't mind it that much. It was kinda cool having the siege of Kvatch be an actual nightmare instead of the pleasant stroll it's supposed to be if you start the main quest at a low level. OH GOD THE TOWN HAS BEEN INVADED BY THOSE STUNTED SCAMPS THAT IMPERIAL WATCHMEN KILL IN ONE HIT, WHAT WILL WE DO? WE'RE DOOMED, DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

level to 10 using only non-combat skills, dont raise anything that benefits your combat(like strength) then go out and just fight something, anything let me know how that works for you

 

[J1M]

While this is good in theory in practice it means playing a generic character for the start of the game and a slightly less generic character for half of it, with distinct and cool gameplay differences only appearing at the end. We certainly aren't going to see an extensive (optional) tutorial level like what existed in the days of Deus Ex and Half-Life again.

Yes, it would be helpful to know if stealth or bluff will be supported in the game I'm about to play. I don't need to play the game for 5 hours to know that though, since the game designer can tell me.

 

[Mastermind]

Yes, it would be helpful to know if stealth or bluff will be supported in the game I'm about to play. I don't need to play the game for 5 hours to know that though, since the game designer can tell me.

It's sad that anyone would even have to wonder if a skill that is available in the game will be useful. If it's not, why the fuck is it there?

 

[Mastermind]

level to 10 using only non-combat skills, dont raise anything that benefits your combat(like strength) then go out and just fight something, anything let me know how that works for you

1. Buy staff.
2. ...
3. Profit because staff >>>>>>>>>>> any other piece of shit weapon and takes no skill to use.

Alternately, just enchant your sword. A 100 Blade swordsman still does shit damage compared to a 5 blade wizard with a 70 point fire enchantment and a weakness to fire/magicka spell.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

level to 10 using only non-combat skills, dont raise anything that benefits your combat(like strength) then go out and just fight something, anything let me know how that works for you

When you said it's "entirely possible to screw yourself if you only had non-combat skills as your majors* ", I thought you meant something that people could do on accident, by staying a while on town leveling their non-combat major skills without finding things to kill. This is just improbable and requires you to go out of your way to make your character as wimpy as possible. It's like saying you can easily screw yourself over in Torchlight if you put all your points into your alchemist's Strength.


* not including the " / minors" part of the original quote because in Oblivion there's only "major" and "minor" skills, so I'm assuming you had a brainfart there. Alternatively, maybe you didn't really play unmodded Oblivion and / or I'm being trolled hard.