Editorial Jeff Vogel to develop God of War 3

[somnium]

Why does he focus so much on combat when talking about crpg's ?
Reading these articles makes me believe combat is all he See's in crpg's.
Of course if you compare the combat of a crpg to that of a straight action game it will be bad, why should you expect otherwise?

He do has point about the grinds tho. But his solution is idiotic, since the difference in combat between earlier and later levels mostly lies in numbers and visuals. So it doesn't change anything fundamental about the quality of the combat(not counting the player feeling an imagination) if you suddenly start the game at a high level instead of a low one.

The solution to grinding seem simple to me, remove 90% of all the combat in the said crpg, adjust the xp/level system accordingly and tha da ! you got a game without grinding and a 10-20 hours shorter.
I wonder how he would feel about such a game.

 

[Dhruin]

He's saying the opening of most RPGs is pedestrian and should be interesting. He's saying corridors of identical foozles is boring.

How the hell can you disagree with that? He even says he's guilty of the same things and will try better in the future. Hello? Hello?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Seriously, is there some Ritalin shortage overseas?

 

[Drakron]

The opening of a game always serve as introduction of gameplay mechanics, its were the players are going to start to get a feeling for how it plays.

"Interesting" can only be done by storytelling at that point to get the player desire to progress in the storyline, you cannot push much for "interesting" gameplay because the player is still getting familiar with the game.

 

[somnium]

hello to you too.

He's saying the opening of most RPGs is pedestrian and should be interesting.

Personally I find i more interesting to play a relative commoner (such as a thief/mercenary/bandit/diplomat/scout) in a crpg with a well developed setting, dialogues and quest. Then to play the supper dupper wizard king in the same game.

He's saying corridors of identical foozles is boring.

How the hell can you disagree with that? He even says he's guilty of the same things and will try better in the future. Hello? Hello?

I didnt disagree with that, i found his comparisons of crpg's with "god of war 2" stupid.
Why not focus on getting more alternatives to combat instead of just focusing the genre even more on it by requiring most fights to be just as interesting as in most action game's and thus spending even more of development time on the combat.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

"Interesting" can only be done by storytelling at that point to get the player desire to progress in the storyline, you cannot push much for "interesting" gameplay because the player is still getting familiar with the game.

Not sure I agree with that. At the very beginning of games like Metal Gear Solid, Thief 2 and System Shock 2 I was having more fun exploring the environments, engaging in combat and testing out character and game possibilities than I usually have with most RPGs. They've got interesting premises and gameplay elements which grab players from the get go while most RPGs' starting premise is "fetch me a shrubbery" and for the most part don't really go beyond that, except when they're asking you for a bigger shrubbery.

 

[EvoG]

I do find it interesting though, that when I made such suggestions in the past I was somewhat discouraged or dismissed. Let's see how people react to his suggestion of looking at other genres.

You and me both if you recall.

Not sure I agree with that. At the very beginning of games like Metal Gear Solid, Thief 2 and System Shock 2 I was having more fun exploring the environments, engaging in combat and testing out character and game possibilities than I usually have with most RPGs. They've got interesting premises and gameplay elements which grab players from the get go while most RPGs' starting premise is "fetch me a shrubbery" and for the most part don't really go beyond that, except when they're asking you for a bigger shrubbery.

Exactlly. I've been very interested in pushing marginal increase of abilities to reward player growth, but start higher and end only a bit higher than that. Stalker actually does this well with your equipment, but in fact you never actually get better yourself and do more or less the same thing at the end that you do at the begining, only more competently (and moreso confidently).

Of your examples RP, of course SS2 is the closest to an RPG with growth and even then, you're not signifcantly better in the end than you are in the begining. The game is immediately engaging from the get go without having to hold the players hand, and they dont find the need to artificially pump the player up to deal with the enemies, also artificially pumped, later in the game.


I know not a terribly huge contribution to this thread, but I'll post more later. :D

 

[The_Pope]

Just get rid of hit point inflation. Then you can do interesting things right from the start without having the end become plain silly.

 

[EvoG]

Just get rid of hit point inflation. Then you can do interesting things right from the start without having the end become plain silly.

Whats interesting Pope (not sure how long you've been around), but back when a few of us were talking about numberless systems, I believe some of the ideas revolved around removing the escalating attrition of combat, no different really than practically any action game in existence. Like Kingcomrade said, you're the same Master Chief in the begining of Halo as you are in the end, including health. Works fine there.

 

[Drakron]

Not sure I agree with that. At the very beginning of games like Metal Gear Solid, Thief 2 and System Shock 2 I was having more fun exploring the environments, engaging in combat and testing out character and game possibilities than I usually have with most RPGs. They've got interesting premises and gameplay elements which grab players from the get go while most RPGs' starting premise is "fetch me a shrubbery" and for the most part don't really go beyond that, except when they're asking you for a bigger shrubbery.

MGS initial levels are pretty easy, SS2 had a separate tutorial and if not mistaken so did Thief 2.

You are free to explore and test things (like messing with the projector in MGS2, even if the result is game over) but they are build in a way there is a progressive dificulty.

The Halo example is bad because initial Halo levels do not put send the player against Brutes or clocked Elites ... all games have a difficulty curve to some extent.

 

[The_Pope]

I think that's the kind of curve vogel is advocating - you start off fighting real enemies, and end up fighting somewhat tougher enemies. Not starting by fighting dust with your +1 broom and ending by saving 400 universes from ultimate evil #3434563246.

 

[Drakron]

I do not think so, it sounded he wanted a static powerful character that can mop the floor at lower levels and have a challenge at mid-end game.

That I disagree, like it or not levels are measure of character power and the moment you are taking any level progression you are closing doors, you are in fact removing all character advancement.

 

[EvoG]

He's not saying that at all Drakron. You're singularly arguing this as an opposition to advancement, again something he's not saying.

RPG's contain filler for character "advancement" ideally with moments of greatness. Games like God of War (keeping with his example) is pretty much devoid of fluff, and nothing but continuous streams of greatness. You're character advances most definitely, but Kratos isn't remarkably 'better' by the end of the game. Sure you're a bad ass in the begining, but you're still challenged as you acclimate to the game. You enjoy periods of competency while learning how to to play the game on your way to mastery, with which then, ideally, a game ups itself a notch and gives you a new challenge for you to master. If it stopped giving you NEW challenges and merely gave you harder monsters, it gets old pretty fast, and thats what most RPG's end up doing in between the 'cool' stuff.

I too enjoy the feeling of growth, but fewer and fewer games are offering interesting gameplay while you're on your way up, and thats exactly what he's referring to. Sure it conceivable a designer can give you fun things to do at low levels, let you get 'better' to get to the cool stuff, but at that point, you're investing a lot of time to get to the stuff you may just want to get to. His subtext is that these games are huge investments just to get to the best parts of the game.

 

[Dhruin]

I didnt disagree with that, i found his comparisons of crpg's with "god of war 2" stupid. Why not focus on getting more alternatives to combat instead of just focusing the genre even more on it by requiring most fights to be just as interesting as in most action game's and thus spending even more of development time on the combat.

Where does he say you can't have alternatives? You're assuming that particular example encompasses the sum total of everything he meant - "I want console action gamez plz".

I think he more broadly means the opening content (and the rest) should be as engaging as the good stuff 3/4 of the way through.

 

[Claw]

My gut reaction was that he needs a kick in the groin (didn't I say so the last time?) but I'm more willing to agree after reading it through. I just think he's using a crass language AND I have an indie issue with an indy RPG developer whining about the quality of RPGs. Don't tell us, show us!

Exactlly. I've been very interested in pushing marginal increase of abilities to reward player growth, but start higher and end only a bit higher than that.

While I approve, that strikes me as the wrong focus. It seems to me that he is complaining about the quality of early quests etc. rather than the statistical character development.

I think that's the kind of curve vogel is advocating - you start off fighting real enemies, and end up fighting somewhat tougher enemies. Not starting by fighting dust with your +1 broom and ending by saving 400 universes from ultimate evil #3434563246.

Well, that strikes me as a trivial insight on Vogel's part. I've been complaining about that for years - whithout denouncing the genre as a whole.
Like a sensible person, and like people do with other genres, I place the blame with the games and their developers.

I think he more broadly means the opening content (and the rest) should be as engaging as the good stuff 3/4 of the way through.

That's how I interpreted it, although I found it poorly expressed.

 

[Jim Kata]

Silent Storm is a great example of a game that is not like this. You start off competent, and you do improve but you don't become magically insanely, illogically good/immortal.

 

[EvoG]

I'm beat down tired so this will be short, but Claw, while I think we're in agreement, I dont believe what he was saying is as simple as "better quality" for starting characters. If that were the case, I think he would've just said that and ranted on quality in todays games. He 'was' talking about the mundane things you do do as a low level character, quality aside, and rather, enjoyed getting to the visceral elements right away in other games. His Jedi example was actually quite good, as really when it comes down to it, people want to be Jedi's, and not Jedi's with powers, but Jedi's with powers and a lightsaber. Doesn't mean that the game has to devolve into a uber hackfest with the lightsaber, but that the character feels more capable and ready for intense challenges, not having to kill space rats(high quality space rat killing mind you) to earn the right to be what he signed on for.

Yes, Silent Storm is another great example, thanks Jim.

 

[somnium]

I didnt disagree with that, i found his comparisons of crpg's with "god of war 2" stupid. Why not focus on getting more alternatives to combat instead of just focusing the genre even more on it by requiring most fights to be just as interesting as in most action game's and thus spending even more of development time on the combat.

Where does he say you can't have alternatives? You're assuming that particular example encompasses the sum total of everything he meant - "I want console action gamez plz".

I think he more broadly means the opening content (and the rest) should be as engaging as the good stuff 3/4 of the way through.

If he means that then he uses poor examples and words to express his point imo.

That is why I am enjoying playing Company of Heroes so much. It's a real-time strategy game set in World War II. For the very first mission, you get to attack Omaha Beach. How cool is that? If it was an RPG, I'd have to spend 30 hours killing Nazi rats before I got to do anything that interesting

Most computer games with fightin' in them have lame enemies to wade through. One solution to this tedium is the extreme one - get rid of everything that isn't a boss. The excellent action game Shadow of the Colossus does this. It's just 16 boss fights (with tedious but relatively quick horse rides between them). It's awesome.

Solving the problem of trash is both very easy and very hard. All you need to do is make an effort. Make the fights interesting. Make the corridors shorter. Cut down on the number of foes. And do something interesting! Think about what you're designing! A neat setting, a new special ability for the bad guys, a different number or mix of enemies...

Seems to me that he is talking about how boring the combat in crpg is (witch he is right about) and the solution is to make the combat better, more interesting enemies and so on. Wile i think that is true i think he is forgetting that it should not only be an interesting fight but also an interesting scenario at the whole.
Give the gamer background information about his/her foes, give him a reason why they are there, instead of "they are here to be killed".
Don't force him into all the combat, yes some fights will probably be unavoidable.
But if there is a reason why a foe is there, maybe you can reason with him, trick him, intimidate him, bribe him to betray his master(s) and so on.
Isn't that so much more fitting for a crpg then "just" killing him interesting way's ?

And take for example kotor do you honestly think that the combat it becomes any better on 3/4 of the game ? it doesn't in my opinion, you just get some force powers and span that instead of some grenades and use a light sable instead of a sword witch fights exactly the same. The only difference is that you as the player feel more powerful

 

[Kraszu]

You don't have to kill space rats when you don't have lightsaber, and actually you didn't in kotor (what was so different about quest at beginning and middle game?), combat in that sucked so it almost didn't matter but I like levels in JK when you don't have lightsaber they aren't worse just different. Game would be worse without them, and progress is good if it don't force you to boring things to get somewhere.

 

[Maia]

By more recent, you mean Icewind Dale 2, right? Unfortunately I wouldn't have noticed since I only played through 1.5 times (once normally, once through the best part, the beginning half, on heart of fury). I never noticed any level-scaling in Baldur's Gate 2 even after playing that quite a few times.

Which means that it has a good, unobtrusive scaling system. I know for certain that on the Temple Ruins maps, in the Planar Sphere and in Firkraag's lair certain enemies either become more numerous or are replaced with tougher creatures according to the PC's level. I imagine that the same is the case in the other big sidequest areas. Thus, no matter in what sequence these quests are tackled, they don't become absurdly easy.

The main problem with TES-style scaling is the "do anything at any level" maxime, which results in nonsensical ease of certain encounters at low levels and lack of the sense of power at high ones, as the wildlife is as agressive and hard-hitting as ever. I prefer the first Gothics, which didn't have any scaling and had powerful monsters strewn around from the start, but allowed one to identify the beasts in advance by their sounds and to run away from fights that were turning sour.

I don't understand peep's obsession with "being special" and "cool" from the start. To be honest, I'd have loved a pure "rags to riches" RPG, without any world-saving and/or destiny stuff. However, I am all for a more gradual progression curve, particulary as regards the HPs and the attack bonuses, etc. IMHO those shouldn't increase more than 3fold during the game. The character progression should focus on more options becoming available to the player, social gains and equipment, IMHO. I am also all for better quest design in the early game, but again fail to see what it has to do with the "coolness" of the protagonist.

 

[Ladonna]

Seems to me that he is talking about how boring the combat in crpg is (witch he is right about) and the solution is to make the combat better, more interesting enemies and so on. Wile i think that is true i think he is forgetting that it should not only be an interesting fight but also an interesting scenario at the whole.
Give the gamer background information about his/her foes, give him a reason why they are there, instead of "they are here to be killed".
Don't force him into all the combat, yes some fights will probably be unavoidable.
But if there is a reason why a foe is there, maybe you can reason with him, trick him, intimidate him, bribe him to betray his master(s) and so on.
Isn't that so much more fitting for a crpg then "just" killing him interesting way's ?

And take for example kotor do you honestly think that the combat it becomes any better on 3/4 of the game ? it doesn't in my opinion, you just get some force powers and span that instead of some grenades and use a light sable instead of a sword witch fights exactly the same. The only difference is that you as the player feel more powerful

+1

 

[Drakron]

Oh?

Go play IWD and realize that when every fight is a fight for your life there is no sense of improvement.

RPGs should be realistic in the sense you get enemies that can mop the floor with you if you are not capable enough and enemies that you can mop the floor with when you are far more capable that they are.

 

[Astromarine]

since when was mopping floors fun? I pay someone to mop mine.

 

[kingcomrade]

They have Mexicans in Swissland?

 

[Astromarine]

yes. We call them Portuguese :D