Eating my own words: Geneforge 5 is pretty good

[Elwro]

I got my Avernum Trilogy CDs in cheap plastic cases. Nothing spectacular.

 

[Micormic]

thats nice

 

[SuicideBunny]

the pc police will get you in your sleep.

 

[Xor]

Congenitally retarded people aren't allowed to post in my threads, sorry Micormic.

I'm guessing you count yourself as an exception to that rule?

 

[Murk]

you made your intro as a spammer and derailed many threads into mindless post-whoring. your post count is ridiculous considering how long you have been here...

... is the hostility really any mystery?

 

[Murk]

No, not really. There's always random new people joining but most people are the same ones that have been here for a year +. Your CF account is ... what 7 months old? Guess you made a big impression, a big bad impression anyway.

 

[Thrasher]

I just hate that oaf. Have you ever read an interview with him? He says the most retarded things.

Quote these 'retarded things'. I always thought that he has a simple and pragmatic outlook on gaming and RPGs in general which is nice considering the usual dev PR epic, gritty and immersive bullshit.

^This. I particularly like his focus on gameplay dseign elements rather than the "ooh look at he purty graphcs." One thing he wrote about I was particulalry impressed by was his desire to remove junk random encounters of hordes of enemies, and instead spending time to customize encounters. Quality over quantity.

 

[SCO]

I wish the main map (the one with all the areas) was scrollable. I understand that its a big surprise when you get that the game has twice the areas that you see on the map, but after a while stopping in that fortress just to cross into the other map got old. A simple arrow in the map after entering the second view would suffice.

Spoiler

Was also quite irritated that only could cross into western shaper land at the end. Spent quite a lot of time defusing that minefield for nothing. Also would like to be able to skim the other geneforge. Where is it supposed to be btw? In the inner rebel fortress where the rebel generalissima escapes?

Favorite part:

Spoiler

Managing to get all the rebel cannisters and spells by sneaking. By far the hardest sneak to pull off, but possible by stategically placing creations in the patrols route, to allow to see them at a distance.

 

[Micmu]

Curing pods/pouches are your friends. They only cost 3 APs to use so you can still perform your standard attacks and spells. Having lots of poison and acid resistance (the easiest to achieve) is also a good idea.
If you're playing with a fighter, poison/acid blades are the best choice, IMO, because you can basically hit each less dangerous creature only once so the poison does the rest while you concentrate on other creatures. And it saves you from annoyance of chasing them when they decide to flee.

 

[Monocause]

Yea, I'm in Mera-Tev and I'm still 1-2-3 hit killing monsters. I'm playing on normal, is it going to get any harder soon? Or should I up the difficulty?

Up it. SW games are more enjoyable on hard, with the exception of Avernum 5 which got more tedious because of ridiculous amounts of enemy HP.

 

[betamin]

It depends on the character, for the most part the fighter has the most difficult path (unless you go solo-thats the biggest challegenge) but later the game become pretty difficult.

 

[Monolith]

I particularly like his focus on gameplay dseign elements rather than the "ooh look at he purty graphcs." One thing he wrote about I was particulalry impressed by was his desire to remove junk random encounters of hordes of enemies, and instead spending time to customize encounters. Quality over quantity.

Yup, I remember that. And from what I've seen it worked out quite well in Geneforge 5 (althrough I haven't played past the demo yet).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yea, I'm in Mera-Tev and I'm still 1-2-3 hit killing monsters. I'm playing on normal, is it going to get any harder soon? Or should I up the difficulty?

Most monsters aren't very challenging, but there are plenty of tough fights. Here is a quick test. Go and try to kill an Unbound (there is an old Mera-Tev fort taken by the Unbound). Have fun.

 

[Jasede]

Look, in a turn-based RPG, with a small number of dudes fighting a small number of dudes, there isn’t much in the way of tactics that is possible. The math isn’t there! I think you’re wanting something closer to chess. Sure, chess is complex, but that’s sixteen pieces on sixteen. For a single-player RPG, the fun is in the story (on a high level) and the stat building and lewt finding (on a low level). The combat is a means to an end. So make it fast and lively, end it, and get on to the next fast, lively combat. I do put in fights with odd tactics, generally weird or boss encounters. It’s nice variety. But combat is still the means to an end.

If you really want tactics in an RPG, play chess and give your pieces cute names. Like, “I declare, forsooth, that Queen Zzelma, my 18th level Rogue-Paladin, doth move 4 spaces diagonally in defiance of the Darkbeetle Empire. Hark, she hath slain a Knight, and is thuseth Level 19. Huzzah.” Chess is about quality. RPGs are about quantity.

 

[nomask7]

I've been playing on hard from the beginning, and some special battles have been quite challenging, and the general level of difficulty seems about right. I'll add that I'm not excited about the combat, but the game as a whole seems interesting.

 

[Thrasher]

It's a matter of degree. GF5 is no chess, but it's a lot better than most of the generic RPGs and combat tactics out there.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Look, in a turn-based RPG, with a small number of dudes fighting a small number of dudes, there isn’t much in the way of tactics that is possible. The math isn’t there! I think you’re wanting something closer to chess. Sure, chess is complex, but that’s sixteen pieces on sixteen. For a single-player RPG, the fun is in the story (on a high level) and the stat building and lewt finding (on a low level). The combat is a means to an end. So make it fast and lively, end it, and get on to the next fast, lively combat. I do put in fights with odd tactics, generally weird or boss encounters. It’s nice variety. But combat is still the means to an end.

If you really want tactics in an RPG, play chess and give your pieces cute names. Like, “I declare, forsooth, that Queen Zzelma, my 18th level Rogue-Paladin, doth move 4 spaces diagonally in defiance of the Darkbeetle Empire. Hark, she hath slain a Knight, and is thuseth Level 19. Huzzah.” Chess is about quality. RPGs are about quantity.

Oh, so that explains why his games are so unplayably awful (to be fair I've only played the avernum ones), despite having so many of the elements that I would normally enjoy.

I can't imagine anything more boring than purposely untactical RPG combat. Without tactics, what exactly is the point of the hundreds of battles you're going to fight? You won't have to think to win those battles, and you won't have to use twitch action gameplay either, so your input will be minimal. It's essentially just a really bad movie with hundreds of scenes of a little pixel man killing little pixel goblins, followed by some mediocre fiction.

His point about needing lots of units to have tactics in a game shows that he has no idea what hes talking about. The less units you have, the less room for mistakes there should be in a highly tactical environment, as one mistake could reduce your force by 25%. If you've ever played competitive multiplayer turn based tactics (like say PoxNora), you'll have little doubt that tactical play in a turn based environment is highly, highly possible with only a few units per side, although of course you need a well designed core combat system, which his games arguably lack.

 

[Jasede]

Quoted it because they asked for stupid Vogel quotes.

 

[nomask7]

Look, in a turn-based RPG, with a small number of dudes fighting a small number of dudes, there isn’t much in the way of tactics that is possible. The math isn’t there! I think you’re wanting something closer to chess. Sure, chess is complex, but that’s sixteen pieces on sixteen. For a single-player RPG, the fun is in the story (on a high level) and the stat building and lewt finding (on a low level). The combat is a means to an end. So make it fast and lively, end it, and get on to the next fast, lively combat. I do put in fights with odd tactics, generally weird or boss encounters. It’s nice variety. But combat is still the means to an end.

If you really want tactics in an RPG, play chess and give your pieces cute names. Like, “I declare, forsooth, that Queen Zzelma, my 18th level Rogue-Paladin, doth move 4 spaces diagonally in defiance of the Darkbeetle Empire. Hark, she hath slain a Knight, and is thuseth Level 19. Huzzah.” Chess is about quality. RPGs are about quantity.

Oh, so that explains why his games are so unplayably awful (to be fair I've only played the avernum ones), despite having so many of the elements that I would normally enjoy.

I can't imagine anything more boring than purposely untactical RPG combat. Without tactics, what exactly is the point of the hundreds of battles you're going to fight? You won't have to think to win those battles, and you won't have to use twitch action gameplay either, so your input will be minimal. It's essentially just a really bad movie with hundreds of scenes of a little pixel man killing little pixel goblins, followed by some mediocre fiction.

His point about needing lots of units to have tactics in a game shows that he has no idea what hes talking about. The less units you have, the less room for mistakes there should be in a highly tactical environment, as one mistake could reduce your force by 25%. If you've ever played competitive multiplayer turn based tactics (like say PoxNora), you'll have little doubt that tactical play in a turn based environment is highly, highly possible with only a few units per side, although of course you need a well designed core combat system, which his games arguably lack.

This has something to do with what I said in a post I made in the RPG Design Discussion section of this forum:

It sounds like the player would have to spend unusual amounts of time thinking about the combat mechanics (what magic word to say each turn), and so combat would take a relatively long chunk of time compared to other stuff in the game, even in comparison to games like Baldur's Gate (assuming the combat is mostly not optional). That sounds more like a strategy game than RPG—not that the two genres can't be combined, but personally I think any strategy game more thick in RPG elements than Dark Omen is overdoing it, and any RPG with more strategy in it than other stuff seems like a strategy game that's a bit too thick in RPG elements, the elements begin to taste like sugar coating [that is too thick]...

So I'd say I tend to agree with Vogel. If you want tactics, why aren't you playing tactical games, of which there are plenty? Seriously.

Just out of curiosity, is there an RPG game with tactical battles that don't soon start to feel like same-old same-old for the majority of time, do you think? The question came to my mind after I had made that comment about the GF5 combat not being exciting. I must admit I can't really think of any. ToEE is fun at first, but its Mersenne twister really needs an overhaul, and even that might not save it in the long run.

There really is very little need for tactical thinking in any RPG combat after you've learned the basics and some tricks, and the excitement simply comes from the randomness of a difficult fight ("please hit, hit hit hit hit! NOOOOOOOOooo!"). Occasionally, a completely new type of enemy might force you to adapt your tactics, but such adaptation is quickly over and rare enough for it to be rather irrelevant here.

PS. And the combat in GF5 is at least more interesting (after you've learned to make some creations) than combat in Fallout.

 

[Thrasher]

Combat more interesting than Fallout is not saying much, though (except for the the over the top gibbing animations).

 

[PorkaMorka]

So I'd say I tend to agree with Vogel. If you want tactics, why aren't you playing tactical games, of which there are plenty? Seriously.

I tend to play tactical RPGs, in the broadest sense of the term. This makes up a rather broad spectrum of games, but a lot of the time, those games are very similar to the spiderweb games, except the Devs apparently tried a bit harder to make you think about your moves (aka use tactics).

I typically don't play spiderweb games, because the combat is so thoughtless and unrewarding. I was just explaining why.

Just out of curiosity, is there an RPG game with tactical battles that don't soon start to feel like same-old same-old for the majority of time, do you think? The question came to my mind after I had made that comment about the GF5 combat not being exciting. I must admit I can't really think of any. ToEE is fun at first, but its Mersenne twister really needs an overhaul, and even that might not save it in the long run.

Not really, no. Games almost always *are* the same old same old after a while, with minor changes like new enemies and spells. But the same old same old can often hold my interest, if it's accompanied with challenge that requires tactics (aka you the player using your brain) to overcome, typically in the form of a good AI and good encounter design. When the same old same old really starts to drag, and when I uninstall the game is when the battles get mindless, which typically means too easy. Turn based combat (or RPG combat in general) that's super easy has very little going for it from my point of view.

I ask you, what is the appeal of spending many many hours fighting non tactical RPG battles, that don't require you to think, yet also don't require your reaction time? How do those battles contribute to the game, when they are so numerous yet require no meaningful input from you since you almost always win? Wouldn't they just get in the way of the story at that point?

There really is very little need for tactical thinking in any RPG combat after you've learned the basics and some tricks, and the excitement simply comes from the randomness of a difficult fight ("please hit, hit hit hit hit! NOOOOOOOOooo!"). Occasionally, a completely new type of enemy might force you to adapt your tactics, but such adaptation is quickly over and rare enough for it to be rather irrelevant here.

I don't really agree. Even Baldur's gate 2 required the player to come up with a plan and use tactics for a substantial number of fights, and that's by no means an example of a tactics heavy RPG.

Newer school RPGs like KOTOR2 don't require any tactical thinking sure, but that's also why I don't like them. But I don't think we can say the majority of RPGs reach KOTOR2 level of non tactical combat.

 

[Monocause]

in your opinion whose better, the rebels or the shapers? the rebels have the drakon and the unbound and they created the rogthroth, but the shapers have order and they mastered the abilety to shape

 

[nomask7]

Combat more interesting than Fallout is not saying much, though (except for the the over the top gibbing animations).

The point is, if Fallout is one of your favorite games, you should enjoy Geneforce 5 as well and be HAPPY to pay for it. Or I could put it this way: the combat in MotB was usually less interesting than the combat in GF5. Of course, if you haven't played MotB, then you should play that as well. (MotB had its moments in terms of combat if you weren't always well prepared: rushing out of town through the town gate and trying to beat Okku and his mob of spirits immediately after I got out of the caverns was fun, I succeeded after a few tries; trying to kill the crazy witch in the weird place somewhere somewhere was fun when I didn't have a way of sealing my characters' minds against her mental intrusions, I succeeded beating her after a couple of dozen tries; and there were a few others.)

Either way, a codexer would have to be crazy not to support indie RPGs when they are this good.

 

[nomask7]

So I'd say I tend to agree with Vogel. If you want tactics, why aren't you playing tactical games, of which there are plenty? Seriously.

I tend to play tactical RPGs, in the broadest sense of the term. This makes up a rather broad spectrum of games, but a lot of the time, those games are very similar to the spiderweb games, except the Devs apparently tried a bit harder to make you think about your moves (aka use tactics).

I typically don't play spiderweb games, because the combat is so thoughtless and unrewarding. I was just explaining why.

Why do you think you don't have to think about your moves in Vogel's games? Play GF5 on hard, and it's pretty obvious moves matter once you can make a couple of creations (that is, pretty much right from the beginning). However, as with other RPGs, the combat ain't chess. You don't, as a rule, have to think about your moves more than a second or a fraction of a second. That's true of every RPG I've played. There simply isn't much to think about in battles where you can control only a few different characters, each of which has a specific, simple function (healer, fireball guy, archer, here's-Johnny). RPGs aren't tactical games, period.

Just out of curiosity, is there an RPG game with tactical battles that don't soon start to feel like same-old same-old for the majority of time, do you think? The question came to my mind after I had made that comment about the GF5 combat not being exciting. I must admit I can't really think of any. ToEE is fun at first, but its Mersenne twister really needs an overhaul, and even that might not save it in the long run.

Not really, no. Games almost always *are* the same old same old after a while, with minor changes like new enemies and spells. But the same old same old can often hold my interest, if it's accompanied with challenge that requires tactics (aka you the player using your brain) to overcome, typically in the form of a good AI and good encounter design. When the same old same old really starts to drag, and when I uninstall the game is when the battles get mindless, which typically means too easy. Turn based combat (or RPG combat in general) that's super easy has very little going for it from my point of view.

I ask you, what is the appeal of spending many many hours fighting non tactical RPG battles, that don't require you to think, yet also don't require your reaction time?

That's where GF5 got it right: the combat is quick—if you think quick. You really don't spend much time fighting monsters in that game, because the combat doesn't take lots and lots of time as it does in ToEE or other combat simulators. There isn't too much of it to begin with. There is even less unless you go looking for it. It's not a Wizardry. What's more, in GF5 you can sneak around the monsters if you want to, you can manipulate machinery to destroy or avoid "bosses", or use your charisma to avoid combat—you can avoid it altogether, Fallout style.

I don't really agree. Even Baldur's gate 2 required the player to come up with a plan and use tactics for a substantial number of fights

BG2? Sure, unless you've played AD&D before, in which case your brain is constantly on autopilot in the combat encounters. The excitement of a challenging battle is always fake in BG2, because the excitement really comes from the randomness. How can you even use tactics, when anything can happen? It doesn't matter how carefully you think about your moves: one unlikely miss and a challenging fight becomes impossible. The game doesn't really have challenging fights: if the battle is balanced, ie, if your opponent is about as powerful as you are, you either win or lose based on nothing except random chance.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Why do you think you don't have to think about your moves in Vogel's games? Play GF5 on hard, and it's pretty obvious moves matter once you can make a couple of creations (that is, pretty much right from the beginning).

You do, of course have to think about it a little. But his games have been very poor in terms of tactical combat from what little I've played and his quote illustrates for me that this is partially due to a lack of effort/desire to make the combat tactical or interesting.

However, as with other RPGs, the combat ain't chess. You don't, as a rule, have to think about your moves more than a second or a fraction of a second. That's true of every RPG I've played. There simply isn't much to think about in battles where you can control only a few different characters, each of which has a specific, simple function (healer, fireball guy, archer, here's-Johnny). RPGs aren't tactical games, period.

You've been playing rather bad RPGs if you never got wiped out by a boss and had to reload, stop and think about a tactic to beat him. RPGs would really be an awful genre of games if they were as you make them out to be, games where you purely win or lose based on luck.

BG2? Sure, unless you've played AD&D before, in which case your brain is constantly on autopilot in the combat encounters. The excitement of a challenging battle is always fake in BG2, because the excitement really comes from the randomness. How can you even use tactics, when anything can happen? It doesn't matter how carefully you think about your moves: one unlikely miss and a challenging fight becomes impossible. The game doesn't really have challenging fights: if the battle is balanced, ie, if your opponent is about as powerful as you are, you either win or lose based on nothing except random chance.

While I'm no fan of excessive randomness, you're wrong if you think that tactics do not play a role in games where there is a random element in the success or failure of character attacks and actions.

Most "tactical" games have a random element, such as a percent chance to hit with your sniper rifle, and you have to factor that into your decisions on how you use your troops. BG2 is no different, although it's overall not particularly deep in terms of tactics, you do need to use some.

While you can lasso and click for most of the trash fights (not necessarily a bad thing) you have to think (a little) and form basic plans for many of the boss or "big" fights. A plan that takes into account that spells can fail as can attacks, and factors in that randomness, similar to how in say Combat Mission, you have to take into account the fact that all your panzers might miss.

Unless you really overpowered your characters, you most likely had to think up some tactics to beat Saverok at the end of BG1, not just lasso and click.

Tactics, being simply the direction and maneuver of military units, is almost an essential element of party based RPGs. Really, the only time I've seen a party based, non real time game entirely do away with tactics, is KOTOR2, where you could simply autoattack/AI fight your way through the game (at least for the first several levels, after which I stopped).