Leveled loot and monsters

[Keldryn]

'twas not meant to be directed at you, though I accept that it is easily read as such. You mentioned Zelda, hence it stuck in my head when typing the response.

Well, your post was the second post after my first one, which I think was the only mention of Zelda in this thread, so it seemed to be quite directed at me.

I'm just tired of reading the same 'Gothic's controls suck' comment. I do not think they suck. Others think they do. There's no point in arguing. The makers of the game made the controls with a deliberate design purpose. I know this, for I have read them say so in interviews. They have enough people liking the controls for them to retain them. G3 will feature the mouse-friendly stuff many people prefer.

I've always found the controls in Gothic to be among the most clunky and unnatural-feeling controls I've ever used in a game. I'm not locked into only being able to play with one style of controls; I've played games of every genre on every platform since I got an Intellivision for Christmas some 24 years ago (now THAT was a crappy controller). I understand that the designers made the controls work a certain way for a specific purpose; however, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good decision.

They could allow for multiple control schemes quite easily, by giving a more complete list of actions and allowing the player to bind keys/buttons as he or she sees fit.

I also liked the fact inventory is not hot-key-able. I hope this does not change, as it is part of the design integrity - in a real-time action combat simulation you should have to find your stuff, not have it magically appear to hand instantaneously.

On one hand, I do agree that in a real-time combat system, you shouldn't just be able to drink a potion at the touch of a button in the middle of a fight. On the other hand, such games are always more "real time" for the computer than they are for the player, as the player has to cope with an input device and user interface. Hot keys do allow for a player to overcome the limitations imposed by the interface. If you have a potion assigned to a hot key and, when pressed, the character stops fighting, pulls the vial out of his backpack, drinks it, and only then draws his sword again, then I think that is a fair use of a hotkey in a real-time combat. Many games just heal you when you press the hotkey without any interruption. A healing "amulet" or other device that you wear always made more sense to me if one expects to be engaging in a lot of combat.

Your statement 'the controls are not intuitive' I think is rubbish. The controls are intuitive, once you learn what they are (basic WASD, but with the control-button held down. This is for a reason.)

Define 'intuitive'.

I would define "intuitive" as being able to figure the controls out without having to learn what they are first. A natural, instinctive knowledge of how they work.

A few quick Googled definitions:

"Perceived immediately by the mind, instinctive knowledge or feeling."

"Describes 'user-friendly' software that instinctively provides options or information the user needs"

"Spontaneously derived from or prompted by a natural tendency"

Saying "the controls are intuitive, once you learn what they are" is sort of paradoxical, don't you think?

So far, your definition is comprised of 'it is different to Zelda's'. Elucidate if you like. But I won't argue much. It's now well past moot.

I think I've specified more issues than that,

- first off, I think the keyboard is a piss-poor input device for playing an action-oriented game. Yes, they have been used that way for decades, but that doesn't mean it is a good input device. The only people I know who prefer playing games with a keyboard are computer geeks. The keyboard was not designed as a real-time interface for games, and it's only been co-opted as such because every computer system has one.

- holding down CTRL and pressing up, down, left, or right to interact with objects is not what I would call intuitive. I don't interact with objects in the real world that way any more than I do by pressing a button when a context-sensitive icon appears above my head. However, one of those actions is instinctively discoverable in the context of a game, and the other is not.

- for all the talk about the interface being designed to interact with objects in a realistic way (by pushing forward, backward, left, or right I suppose), you still can't move an object on the ground in such a fashion, unless the object is specifically intended to be used that way. For example, in Ultima VII through IX, you can drag/move objects in the world to another location with the mouse. Yes, you can pick up objects, walk to another location, and put them down, but you have to select it again from your inventory to do that when it logically would still be in your hands. Also, that way may be more realistic, but it is incredibly tedious and time-consuming, and doesn't make for a better game.

Ugh, I have to go... I don't think that Gothic has poorly-designed control because they aren't like Zelda's. Zelda just happens to be the best-designed example of a control scheme for this style of gameplay that I can think of. Fable's is good as well, other than the fact that switching between attacking and blocking (on the Xbox; I haven't played the PC version) is not as smooth is it would be if blocking was assigned to a trigger instead of a face button. Kingdom Hearts has a control scheme so shitty that I would much prefer that it used Gothic's.

 

[Keldryn]

Just by way of contributing to the search for plurality, I found the Gothic controls fine after a short learning curve. Part of the function of the controls is to make one-on-one fights the rule (with all of the retreat-dodging, etc.) such that fighting two opponents at once is extremely dangerous. On the other hand a smoother control scheme like Fable's has no such vulnerability.

I think that's a poor design, to set up the controls to inhibit the player like that. There are other ways to make multiple-opponent fights dangerous without building it into the controls.

There is another dimension to UIs besides intuitability - power. Consider good old vi, the classic Unix text editor. It is entirely unintuitive (it's hard to even quit the program naively), but someone who has mastered the interface can use it with amazing speed and capability.

There are no words in the English language to express how much I loathe vi. That has to be one of the most horrific user interfaces that I have ever experienced in my life. Emacs wasn't much better. Being forced to use one of those two text editors on green monochrome-screened dumb terminals with a command-line Modula-2 compiler was a key factor in my decision to drop out of computer science and major in psychology instead.

Yes, someone who has mastered the interface can use it with amazing speed and capability, but you can say the same about any program. So long as it has keyboard shortcuts, you can do that with any text editor. And it's a TEXT EDITOR. 99% of what you're doing is typing in text, and the length of time it takes you to perform any other functions isn't really going to make much difference. Having to press CTRL-K-D to move the cursor down a line, for example, is simply moronic. Yes, the keys are all the same keys that you use for typing, as opposed to the arrow keys, but that's three keys to accomplish the same thing as one arrow key. I hate, hate, hate that program.

The best interfaces will be both intuitive and powerful, but one can get in the way of the other. Game interfaces can also add a dimension of "game" to the UI, which is what the "micro" of RTS is, among other things.

I think that in a well-designed interface, one will not get in the way of the other. For example, combining a discoverable GUI with keyboard shortcuts that experts can use. I don't like the approach of adding a "game" dimension to the UI; I think it's cheap and lazy. And my greatest criticism of RTS games is that it's only real-time for the computer. It doesn't have to cope with an interface. In my experience, mutliplayer RTS games are less about strategy, and more about who can navigate the interface the fastest, making sure that no units or buildings are sitting idle.

 

[Perishiko]

That's not necessarily true, though, not in every case. When, eventually, creatures in a dungeon respawn, they may just be tougher versions of the earlier creatures.

Of course it's not in every case. But it happens - often enough to be very noticeable (as in Morrowind), and to jerk you out of the 'I'm in another world' into 'That's daft, this is just a poorly designed game'.

And why not? Are you planning to go repeatedly into the same dungeon over & over again for some cheap, easy skill boosting?

Oh, right. So you're saying your game is completely linear, and any attempt to play it as otherwise is just plain forbidden.

You should put that on the box.

Morrowind had flaws. We can both completely agree on this. It's combat was a major flaw. Why did bethesda change it? Because they thought it needed to be redone. My point is, they're trying as much as possible to listen to the complaints about systems just as what you're pointing out.

How did he at all come close to stating the game was going to be linear? Just because they want to make it a tiny bit harder to exploit gaming systems by getting cheap, easy skill boosting and other related things?

It sounds like you were just completely disgusted by morrowinds system. Be glad that this isn't a morrowind2, this is TES 4. Just like the differences from arena-daggerfall-morrowind, there will be huge differences in oblivion. Of course we don't know the exact facts, but you'll just have to wait till the game gets out and see some real reviews before making judgements that you know nothing about.

As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of the TES series. But, i also hated alot of things about morrowind, i just also noticed that the gaming genre of "sandbox" playing was really crappy back then. Morrowind was above alot of issues that others were having and came with alot of flaws at the same time (All huge game worlds do, it's just a matter of what they focus on the most.)

My personal idea's of leved creatures are simple:

Guards and creatures guarding important quest related things should level up to a certain point. Guards should always be able to "guard". Just as well, when you get higher level, you'll have better spells and items to be able to squish them like bugs. I personaly love having a system with leved creatures to a point. If i have a problem killing a townsfolk with a level 24 mage/warrior/ect then i'll be pissed, but if that guard can't guard anything, that pisses me off as well.

I think only certain area's (perhaps with good "scary" music themes) should have leved creatures. Such as a well known "warrior/mage/ect" that I'm suppose to "have trouble with"... I've had horrible experiences in games where I kill a guy with great ease and shortly after the pc character (that I'm controlling) states something like "Wow, that was a tough battle! Huff, puff!"... anyhow, people that are supposedly "strong" should level up to keep that "Strong" title. Either way, if you battle them at lvl 78, it won't matter what level they are, because you should have no problem with the items/magic at your dispense.

 

[RGE]

And characters in fantasy and sci-fi novels (and films) don't wander around "levelling up" before taking on greater challenges. I think it's a terrible, outdated convention that should have been abandoned a long time ago. If the difference in a character's power level between the early game and late game is much less extreme than it is in most games, "levelling" becomes less of an issue, and learning the right skill or obtaining the required item becomes more central. And I think that's in line with most heroic tales. At least the ones that I'm familiar with.

I agree, and I believe that I have mentioned it in previous posts. Such as this one.

 

[kingcomrade]

That's what I was talking about, getting rid of the level system and replacing it with more plot or exploration elements to progress the character's power. I would rather find an item or gain a power that lets me take on previously undefeatable monsters than just run around killing hobbits for half an hour, then suddenly having the power to fight this monster.

 

[obediah]

That's what I was talking about, getting rid of the level system and replacing it with more plot or exploration elements to progress the character's power. I would rather find an item or gain a power that lets me take on previously undefeatable monsters than just run around killing hobbits for half an hour, then suddenly having the power to fight this monster.

Sounds great to me. I can think of two reasons why we don't see it often.

1) It's a lot harder to implement than, "I want this mother fucker to be hardkore! double hit points and +10 to strength"

2) It will turn a 40 hour game into a 10 hour game with minimal reduction in development effort. Since people bitch about short games (not me of course ), what publisher is going to chose this when they could axe dialogue trees, and kill 8% of the development cost with less than 1% cut in game length.

I fucking hate bizness.

 

[Keldryn]

2) It will turn a 40 hour game into a 10 hour game with minimal reduction in development effort. Since people bitch about short games (not me of course ), what publisher is going to chose this when they could axe dialogue trees, and kill 8% of the development cost with less than 1% cut in game length.

Of course, if doing so turns a 40 hour game into a 10 hour game, one has to wonder about the quality of those "missing" 30 hours. I'll generally choose 20 quality hours of gameplay over 60 hours of mostly tedious gameplay with some occasional high points.

 

[obediah]

Of course, if doing so turns a 40 hour game into a 10 hour game, one has to wonder about the quality of those "missing" 30 hours. I'll generally choose 20 quality hours of gameplay over 60 hours of mostly tedious gameplay with some occasional high points.

no need to wonder., it's 30 hours or repetitive shit. But codexer requests aren't exactly the driving force in the game industry.

 

[bryce777]

If the game system is fun and interesting, the combat and its rewards should be fun, too.

 

[obediah]

If the game system is fun and interesting, the combat and its rewards should be fun, too.

Good rp or story drives gameplay for me much better than good combat. I can nitpick combat in Fallout, Arcanum, BG2, Planescape, Geneforge - but I played all of them exclusively to completion. I really enjoyed combat in ToEE, JA2, etc, but I play those games off and on - I'm not driven to play just 5 more minutes, or leave work early.

I can't think of a good rpg, that I went looking for random encounters just for the joy of more combat - at least beyond initial acclimation to the combat system. Now the rewards part I get - and what we're talking about is a system that isn't built on the rewards of random encounters. It wouldn't need to necessarily be less combat, you could substitute more designed encounters for random, meaningless, treadmilling.

 

[Crichton]

Keldryn wrote:
And characters in fantasy and sci-fi novels (and films) don't wander around "levelling up" before taking on greater challenges. I think it's a terrible, outdated convention that should have been abandoned a long time ago. If the difference in a character's power level between the early game and late game is much less extreme than it is in most games, "levelling" becomes less of an issue, and learning the right skill or obtaining the required item becomes more central. And I think that's in line with most heroic tales. At least the ones that I'm familiar with.

I agree, and I believe that I have mentioned it in previous posts. Such as this one.

I concur. The only end served by leveling is that its often best not to give a player all of the potential abilities/weapons at the start of the game. But these should never be tied to random combat so that one is forced to "farm" kills. New abilities or weapons should be granted naturally as the story progresses a la jedi outcast/academy or second sight. Heroes shouldn't concern themselves with money or spend time chasing goblins through a forest to up their kill count.

 

[denizsi]

Levelled items & monsters could be nice, if they were only tied to story elements, not player's stats. No matter how subtle they may be, I think that's just a sad excuse for keeping a "dynamic" world in the game ( ie. that dungeon where rats used to be is now inhabited by goblins because goblins apparently drove the rats out and made it their new home or because they were able to move in since player killed all rats ). This kind of thing is plausible to a degree in a not-repeating-often fashion, but the fact that it's based on player stats is just illogical ( mind you, I'm somewhat on the realism front ).

I'm sure this will add gameplay variety to the game for many people, myself included, but I just can't see how it could ever be ideal. I agree that better and more intelligent design in terms of placement is a better solution. And like I said, tie such changes to story, quests, whatever is happening in the game world. Not because a low-life worked hard and became a semigod.

Also the creatures in cRPGs should be more than just kill-things. Goblins, giants, x-monsters, they are all the same things, just that some of them take longer to kill. There's no feel of what these creatures are or where they originate from. Do they have lairs? Can I stalk one to there? Is attack-on-sight a genetic perk? I loved orcs in Gothic for this reason (not for that genetic perk ). The way it seems, the the biggest, major factor which motivates a player into going on killing these things is the whole character development thing, I think that's just as a faulty concept.

I'm not against character development. It provides one of ( but definitely not "THE" ) firmest feelings of an achievement ( but, like it's mentioned many times, it just goes to absurd lengths, ie. becoming a semigod within weeks, months) and this is what makes actions like combat, magic and thieving more compelling. But if that's whole driving factor behind putting kill-things in the gameworld for developers, and to find and kill kill-things for player, then I think that's an incredibly poor gameplay design and gaming experience. For me at least. The imposition of the 3 archetypes is bad enough as it is now, being the current standart.

The emphasis on pushing your character forward should be replaced with pushing your environment, the story forward, and the player's curiosity.


I'm also against the whole HP system, as well as the damage rating of weapons and armor ratings. Come on, if you are a skilled swordsman, then there's no such thing as "sword A damage:1-8, sword B damage: 12-20" for you; both are equally lethal in your hands. The only varying factors are the materials of the swords, their conditions, maybe -with a little more bit of roleplaying- their quality -meaning how well they were forged and crafted- and the same conditions of the weapons and armors of your opponent in addition to his stats.

If you take a well-placed serious blow to your unprotected head, you should start bleeding to death if not just black out or die right there. Where's the gameplay value in that? Well if you are asking this, you should know this is not your kind of thing and you better don't play it. But ok, that could perhaps be a little stretched.
[/b]

 

[Balor]

Well, I'd also go for 'no-hp' system - a system where all injuries are treated separately.
The 'character development' thingy would affect how you'll take them - pain and bloodloss, in particular, but a dagger in heart/eye/liver or severed tendon would should always have dire consequences...
But, as you get better at dodging/find better armor you'll have much less changes of such getting such wounds.
Or up your running speed and you'll be simply invincible

 

[kingcomrade]

For monsters, I've always had the sort of idea where every monster you come across is going to be a boss fight of sorts. Not necessarily one that progresses the plot or have to happen every game, but tough battles that don't happen very often. Sorta like Fallout without the world map battles. People just don't come out of nowhere and attack you, they attack you if you bug them or steal from them or whatever. I mean, bandits aren't pushovers, they're usually tough and clever people with skill at their weapons. Goblins probably aren't pushovers either. You still might have random battles, but they should be much less frequent (sticking with my Fallout example, maybe three times a game).

 

[kingcomrade]

Balor, I'm not so sure that would be all that condusive to gaming. I mean, having every shot that connects be devastating to your health would be kinda tedious.

 

[bryce777]

There's already no puzzles any more, and most of the games keep you on rails. If you take out combat or make it a tiny part of the game it really will just be a movie.

 

[kingcomrade]

Who cares about "most games?" I'm not talking about making it a tiny part of the game, either. I'm actually talking about making it a more important part of the game. Going around killing kobolds for 50 exp so you can gain a level after 20 of them, in order to kill the kobold+1 isn't exactly game-enhancing.

 

[Balor]

Balor, I'm not so sure that would be all that condusive to gaming. I mean, having every shot that connects be devastating to your health would be kinda tedious.

Well, not every shot that connects shold be devastating. If you'll remember, a lot of people that were high on adrenaline failed to notice VERY serious wounds.
Of course, some of them died from them, eventially, but anyway:
Are you familliar with Ja2?
You could be easily killed with a couple well-placed bullets, etc - but people completed it on 'iron man' mode, or even - main char death == new game' mode!
It all comes down to proper balance.

 

[kingcomrade]

I wasn't saying it was realistic, I'm just saying that some things have to be sacrificed to make a game playable. Normall I'm big on realism (or at least authenticity, hence my thread about stuff like short swords and such), but what I do hate is stuff that makes me have to load my game. Game saving should be for when you have to quit playing, not for when you have to make a choice.

 

[Balor]

Well, see above.
It's a matter of balance.
After all, a critical for 10x damage from a powerful rifle will kill your character outright even in HP-based system, right?
It all comes to balance, and you being cautious.