Editorial Matt Chat: Baldur's Gate

[AlaCarcuss]

I like Matt's interviews a lot, especially the ones with Tim Cain, but when he just show a game it kinda sucks. Is not a review nor a commented gameplay, just he starting the game and playing (sometimes very badly) the beggining...

And how can a man who has a youtube show about CRPG's and wrote a fucking book on the subject say he doesn't know how tabletops RPG's work? That's really lazy.

Because his show and book is about CRPG's not PnP RPG's?

I've been playing RPG's since the early 80's and I've never even met anyone who's ever played a PnP RPG. Mind you, that's probably because they tend to avoid sunshine and are usually asleep in their basements during the day or hanging upside down in a loft somwhere.

 

[Archibald]

So how long till Fallout will be considered shit around here?

 

[felipepepe]

I like Matt's interviews a lot, especially the ones with Tim Cain, but when he just show a game it kinda sucks. Is not a review nor a commented gameplay, just he starting the game and playing (sometimes very badly) the beggining...

And how can a man who has a youtube show about CRPG's and wrote a fucking book on the subject say he doesn't know how tabletops RPG's work? That's really lazy.

Because his show and book is about CRPG's not PnP RPG's?

I've been playing RPG's since the early 80's and I've never even met anyone who's ever played a PnP RPG. Mind you, that's probably because they tend to avoid sunshine and are usually asleep in their basements during the day or hanging upside down in a loft somwhere.

I think we can all agree that CRPG's came from PnP RPG's, so it's not ask much that you research it's roots if you are to write a book about them. I've seen lot's of gamers that started playing games like ToEE just cause it's based on D&D. Still, there are people claiming his book is good, so at least his CRPG's knowlegde must be impressive.

And sorry, I keep forgetting that CRPG's players usually are badass lumberajcks that spend their whole time fucking porn stars or saving the world....I can't even imagine them doing somethin as nerdy as a internet forum.

 

[Archibald]

Well if anyone cared to watch his video then he said that BG interface/art/whatever reminds him a bit of player hanbooks and stuff like that. So i`d assume that he has at least downloaded some pnp books and looked at the pretty pictures.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

So how long till Fallout will be considered shit around here?

Fallout is overrated and I can't believe the people who act like it's some amazing game now and talk about it normally

it wasn't like this in the old days

 

[felipepepe]

Well if anyone cared to watch his video then he said that BG interface/art/whatever reminds him a bit of player hanbooks and stuff like that. So i`d assume that he has at least downloaded some pnp books and looked at the pretty pictures.

I noticed that, and was puzzled. Baldur's Gate art really reminds a lot the Player Handbook, but the 3rd Edition one, that was released after BG 1, close to BG 2. AD&D books before where quite bland. Since BG was very succesfull at the time, it's possible that D&D 3rd copied BG art, not the oher way around. Quite amusing.

 

[DraQ]

First, please do excuse me

Why

for not quoting

the fuck

each line individually.

not?

The reason why I won't bother is because the argument seems to boil down to the fact that I find all the supposed benefits that real-time introduces to not be benefits at all.

Except there is nothing to discus. Discretization always reduces resolution of variable being discretized.
If game is built around high precision and arbitrary moments of action initiation (usually meaning free-for-all in complex environment), then going TB will castrate it just as going obligatory RT would castrate Wizardry 8.

You may see the introduction of turn-based combat to The Elder Scrolls as being detrimental to the real-time nature of the games. Of course it is! And that's my point. I don't particularly like real-time games at all and thus the less my own agility and reflexes are tested the better. Removing all possible player skill from fundamental actions performed by the character is a big plus in my book, even in a game that sits within a sub-genre that emphasises the merger of player skill and character skill (the action RPG). It's purely a matter of taste.

It's not. We are not discussing preferences here. We are discussing what works with what, which can be assesed much more objectively. If I said that Chess would be better in RT, would this statement be any less retarded if I turned out to really dislike TB? No.

That's your stance and I'm fine with it. I don't like FPSs at all and tend to stick with turn-based games almost exclusively. In other words, I find that real-time is almost always detrimental to my enjoyment of a game. That's all there is to it.

But that's pretty stupid stance, especially when you extend "I prefer" to "should".

I tend to prefer RT, wide open emergent sandboxes and either single char, highly customizable character or same, but with AI fllowers, plus maybe limited ability to issue orders.

It doesn't change that some of my best RPG experiences include Wizardry 8 and PS:T and it doesn't change the fact that making the former single character RT game or making the latter open game with highly customizable protagonist would result in utter suckage in both cases.

Some sets of features mesh well together. Others don't.

So given that, what started the decline from my point of view if I felt the need to pinpoint a single game? I don't know. Probably something in the long line of games that led to Oblivion and Fallout 3. Baldur's Gate had real-time combat but I'm far more comfortable with pausing and issuing orders than I am with swinging a sword in real-time. I'm also far more of a fan of party combat than I am of single character combat. From my point of view Daggerfall would be a far more likelier culprit than Baldur's Gate. How about Baldur's Gate II, though? They both led to things I hate about modern RPGs. Baldur's Gate II led to shitty BioWarian romances and characters while Daggerfall led to more Bethesda games.

Oh, by the way, I actually like Daggerfall and quite like Morrowind, just to clear that up. Similarly, I actually quite enjoy Baldur's Gate II. I hope this confuses you.

Except you still don't seem to grasp this thing with the root of the decline.

It's not that the game has features you dislike. It's not even that it objectively sucks. It's when it somehow becomes successful and bad set of features associated with it is considered good and catches on, especially if it stiffles the more promising subgenres.

The problem with BG is that it dominated mainstream idea of cRPG with it's "RTS featuring 6 fantasyfags running around killing things".

The problem isn't that I didn't like, for example RTS interface of BG. I like RTS interfaces in games where I must coordinate large amount of units, but each of them with limited depth or precision - like RTSes. But it's hard to not notice that the interface, combined with simple and error-prone pathfinding AI just fails when you have to coordinate but six 'units', but each of them must do precisely what you want it to and requires precise management of stuff like spellbook or inventory. And, the other problem is that you can do much more interesting things with a cRPG than making it a simplistic simulator of stomping generic kobolds into generic grassy meadows.

Similarily oblivious - "unfocused FPS you can larp in". We can't say that Daggerfall or Morrowind declined RPGs even if they were prequels to oblivious, because bad set of features popularized by oblivious has no or few elements in common with its prequels.

 

[MMXI]

Except there is nothing to discus. Discretization always reduces resolution of variable being discretized.
If game is built around high precision and arbitrary moments of action initiation (usually meaning free-for-all in complex environment), then going TB will castrate it just as going obligatory RT would castrate Wizardry 8.

Except you've conveniently missed out that the discretisation of both time and even space shifts the entire focus of the skill set required by the player. Instead of it being far more advantageous to perform a "good enough" action instead of spending far more time deciding on an even better action, it makes optimal actions well worth the time required to think up. It's this precise difference that distinguishes real-time strategy games from turn-based strategy games.

Have you ever implemented the A* path-finding algorithm for a real-time game? Rather than calculate the best route from A to B in one go it is usually better to cut short the search in order to move the agent in an estimated optimal direction so that the search can be iterated on across multiple frames. This is basically the same thing.

In other words it does come down to preference because some may prefer to think up tactics without a time constraint, while others may prefer to adapt their tactics in a real-time environment to iteratively reach the end of combat through successive suboptimal actions. While the former gets better by adapting their tactics with experience of the game system, their characters and their enemies, the latter improves partially like the former but also partially by learning just how to balance reactivity and thought.

Similarily oblivious - "unfocused FPS you can larp in". We can't say that Daggerfall or Morrowind declined RPGs even if they were prequels to oblivious, because bad set of features popularized by oblivious has no or few elements in common with its prequels.

But that's a lie. Real-time single character first person RPGs were in a very small minority group back in 1996. Now look at that group. It probably makes up a quarter to a third of the genre in the mainstream. If you look at sales figures instead of the number of games it may even make up half the RPG genre. Without Daggerfall this probably wouldn't have happened.

 

[DraQ]

Except you've conveniently missed out that the discretisation of both time and even space shifts the entire focus of the skill set required by the player.

Which is secondary if it also changes the focus of the entire mechanics.

Instead of it being far more advantageous to perform a "good enough" action instead of spending far more time deciding on an even better action, it makes optimal actions well worth the time required to think up. It's this precise difference that distinguishes real-time strategy games from turn-based strategy games.

Is optimal action that requires several minutes of thinking to make a decision still optimal when you have but few seconds to make the choice?

Isn't it rather glaring case of character ability being overshadowed by that of the player?

Have you ever implemented the A* path-finding algorithm for a real-time game? Rather than calculate the best route from A to B in one go it is usually better to cut short the search in order to move the agent in an estimated optimal direction so that the search can be iterated on across multiple frames. This is basically the same thing.

No, but I have seen pathfinding algorithms in action and I wouldn't want to rely on them when it comes to using my character's speed and agility to lose the pursuers by hopping across a chasm and scaling some misc obstacles.

(And I do realize that the parallel was referring to finding optimal solution VS using a fast heuristic method repeatedly)

In other words it does come down to preference because some may prefer to think up tactics without a time constraint, while others may prefer to adapt their tactics in a real-time environment to iteratively reach the end of combat through successive suboptimal actions. While the former gets better by adapting their tactics with experience of the game system, their characters and their enemies, the latter improves partially like the former but also partially by learning just how to balance reactivity and thought.

Indeed. It also encourages to think forward and plan responses to various variants of different situations in advance.

But that's a lie. Real-time single character first person RPGs were in a very small minority group back in 1996. Now look at that group. It probably makes up a quarter to a third of the genre in the mainstream. If you look at sales figures instead of the number of games it may even make up half the RPG genre. Without Daggerfall this probably wouldn't have happened.

I don't see any explosion of RT FPP RPGs following Daggerfall, but I do notice explosion of mini-RTSes after BG superseding once flourishing genre of FPP dungeon crawlers - both RT and TB.

Besides, while I wouldn't even try to suggest that RPG market is thriving, uniform distribution across subgenres would still give us 1/3-1/2 FPP RPGs, with half of them being RT. So, from 1/6-1/4 to 1/4-2/6?

Doesn't seem like even a strong trend.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

It's not that the game has features you dislike. It's not even that it objectively sucks. It's when it somehow becomes successful and bad set of features associated with it is considered good and catches on, especially if it stiffles the more promising subgenres.

The problem with BG is that it dominated mainstream idea of cRPG with it's "RTS featuring 6 fantasyfags running around killing things".

This claim is bandied about the Codex a lot...and it never has made any sense whatsoever. How can anyone Baldur's Gate "dominate" the mainstream perception of RPGs? If it did such a thing, then there would be evidence of domination, namely a lot of "clones" and games with highly similar core design. But there aren't that many. Let's look.

-Baldur's Gate 2
-Icewind Dale
-Icewind Dale 2
-Neverwinter Nights
-Neverwinter Nights 2
-Knights of the Old Republic
-KOTOR 2
-Dragon Age: Origins
-Dragon Age 2
-Drakensang
-Drakensang: The River of Time

Now let's eliminate the Bioware games from the mix, as well as the sequels by Bioware Jr. Counting them makes little sense at all when trying to determine influence on the genre as a whole.

-Drakensang
-Drakensang: The River of Time

Now consider both of these games are almost a decade apart from Baldur's Gate, and that marketing for these was more focused on the similarities to BG to try and carve out a little bit of the "semi-hardcore" market.

Quite frankly, Baldur's Gate influenced the RPG genre very little. Much like Bethesda, Bioware is a studio that does well for itself, but whose models aren't really adopted by the rest of the industry. Nobody is stepping up to try and compete with Bioware at making KOTOR/DA likes and to my knowledge nobody tries to emulate Bethesda and make huge, open world RPG affairs (New Vegas aside, of course). While Bioware and Bethesda certainly are large and indicative of the mainstream to us, their influences are relatively small. Few copy their designs. Baldur's Gate is certainly not an influential game like DOOM, Diablo, Halo, World of Warcraft, and Grand Theft Auto; games that spawned numerous clones, and whose influence is seen all over the industry.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Mattchat does go into detail about tabletop RPG's in his book, Dungeons and Desktops, so I am not sure what is going on in this thread, or why he said what he did. However, he did show his ignorance by not knowing what THAC0 means in the book, and since he played the Goldbox games so much in his youth....

In his book, he also goes into sports RPG's (again the old tabletop variants that used stats, etc, before fantasy RPG's existed) and tabletop wargames, then shows how they came together to eventually form the CRPG.

As for the BG 'clones', I think someone needs to distill the essence of Baldur's Gate, and then we can compare this to CRPG's that came out afterwards. I know there are other games I would term as 'clones', such as that horrid game where you have a talking sword and your name is Rezondas. German game. The name escapes me.

 

[Johannes]

What's so horrible with "RTS featuring 6 fantasyfags running around killing things" anyway, if it's sensibly executed? But yeah, there really aren't many notable games like that.

 

[CorpseZeb]

As for the BG 'clones', I think someone needs to distill the essence of Baldur's Gate, and then we can compare this to CRPG's that came out afterwards. I know there are other games I would term as 'clones', such as that horrid game where you have a talking sword and your name is Rezondas. German game. The name escapes me.

"Gorasul: The Legacy of the Dragon" - by any chance...?

 

[DraQ]

What's so horrible with "RTS featuring 6 fantasyfags running around killing things" anyway, if it's sensibly executed?

What is so horrible with squares, if they are round?

Even PS:T made planes suffer considerably by being built on such mechanics, though overall it was an awesome game.

 

[CorpseZeb]

What is so horrible with squares, if they are round?

But problem is, you can't play RTS'ness in BG's/IWD's combat situations. You must individually control each character, unless you want find yourself very dead. Exploration=!combat. At the end of day, I don't see much difference between, say, Pool of Radiance tb and BG's/IWD's non-tb system combat – they can be equally strategic.

Ps. Hint, never use AI pathfinding but always manually direct characters to desired spot of their destination, and you'll be good.

Ps2. DraQ, if I have understood rightly, TB version of BG's/IWD's combat system will be OK for your taste, correct?

 

[DraQ]

You must individually control each character, unless you want find yourself very dead.

That's the main problem with BG control scheme, yes.

Ps. Hint, never use AI pathfinding but always manually direct characters to desired spot of their destination, and you'll be good.

If I want to abuse my mouse so, I play Diablo. It's lighter on the space bar too.

Ps2. DraQ, if I have understood rightly, TB version of BG's/IWD's combat system will be OK for your taste, correct?

Why not - assuming the AI would not require constant adjustments in mid-turn?

 

[CorpseZeb]

That's the main problem with BG control scheme, yes.

No, that is main advantage (but how RTS'ness and individual control can both be problem at the same time is beyond me...).

Why not - assuming the AI would not require constant adjustments in mid-turn?

Does path finding belong to NP class of problem by any chance...?

 

[DraQ]

That's the main problem with BG control scheme, yes.

No, that is main advantage (but how RTS'ness and individual control can both be problem at the same time is beyond me...).

The problem is that they are both applied at the same time. RTS interface built for ordering legions around simply doesn't mesh well with RPG need for deep and precise control over few units.

Why not - assuming the AI would not require constant adjustments in mid-turn?

Does path finding belong to NP class of problem by any chance...?

I think it doesn't. A gameplay area, if tiled, pathed or at least treated with limited precision is basically a graph and finding shortest path in graph can be done in quadritic time or less. Plus, there is no reason why game shouldn't use extra cycles between turns when it waits for player's input for stuff like refining its found paths or AI decisions. Stopping those on pause is just sloppy.

 

[MMXI]

Is optimal action that requires several minutes of thinking to make a decision still optimal when you have but few seconds to make the choice?

Isn't it rather glaring case of character ability being overshadowed by that of the player?

But that's exactly where I was going with the argument. You end up with completely different games. And if you much prefer turn-based combat over real-time combat then of course it can make sense to call perceived advantages of real-time combat flaws. Similarly, someone could have a polar opposite view point and think that everything turn-based brings is a flaw. I don't know about you but I've seen so many modern console kids call turn-based combat slow, boring and outdated. If you boosted their IQ by 50 or so I'm sure you'll get a reasoning more along the lines of them preferring the balance of thought and reflex action to pure thought.

No, but I have seen pathfinding algorithms in action and I wouldn't want to rely on them when it comes to using my character's speed and agility to lose the pursuers by hopping across a chasm and scaling some misc obstacles.

But that's not what I...

(And I do realize that the parallel was referring to finding optimal solution VS using a fast heuristic method repeatedly)

Oh. Good.

I don't see any explosion of RT FPP RPGs following Daggerfall, but I do notice explosion of mini-RTSes after BG superseding once flourishing genre of FPP dungeon crawlers - both RT and TB.

Besides, while I wouldn't even try to suggest that RPG market is thriving, uniform distribution across subgenres would still give us 1/3-1/2 FPP RPGs, with half of them being RT. So, from 1/6-1/4 to 1/4-2/6?

Doesn't seem like even a strong trend.

Not quite sure that I'm with you on this. You don't see many mini-RTSs today. Dragon Age: Origins and Drakensang? If Dragon Age II is any indication then BioWare don't give a fuck about mini-RTSs today. And didn't Radon Labs go bankrupt? On the other hand, Bethesda is still going strong producing real-time single character first person RPGs, though admittedly I can't think of many other companies doing the same thing. Probably way too much effort to create.

 

[Archibald]

The problem is that they are both applied at the same time. RTS interface built for ordering legions around simply doesn't mesh well with RPG need for deep and precise control over few units.

Could you clarify what exactly wasn`t good enough for controlling individual units?

 

[CorpseZeb]

The problem is that they are both applied at the same time. RTS interface built for ordering legions around simply doesn't mesh well with RPG need for deep and precise control over few units.

C'mon DraQ Manic Miner this is not. You do not need to be Pixel Perfect.

 

[empi]

BGII was a very good game, it had decent combat (OMG i said that!?!?!?), some pretty interesting quests, satisfactory writing, nice loot, many quests avaiable, few nice dungeons to explore, fun encounters etc.

Saying it's the cause of the decline because it shared features with most RPGs that preceded it is just ridiculous. If more games like BGII were made now RPGs would be in a much better state, because it was an enjoyable game.

 

[CappenVarra]

Disclaimer first: I don't think BG is the best RPG ever. But I also don't think it's the worst RPG ever, an avatar of the decline with no redeeming points whatsoever. So I'm not taking any sides

However, I think I can understand where the "BG was the Oblivion of its time" sentiment comes from, because there is an actual parallel you can make. I'll conflate Oblibion and FO3 in the example, because they are the same game for all practical purposes

- BG could have been an awesome (yes, awesome ) RPG experience for you - if you never played any of the Goldbox games, or haven't actually played any D&D games before, or weren't bored with the Forgotten Realms (or even never heard of them at all). If BG was an introduction to the whole "my character has an insanely low THAC0, fuck yeah" deal for somebody, they are likely to consider it great and subjectively credit it more than the actual game deserves. On the other hand, if you spent years playing the Goldbox games and liked them, starting BG was more likely to trigger the "wtf is this newfangled shit, Marilyn fucking Manson, I don't even" reaction (historical inaccuracy inserted on purpose). However, some Golbox players actually found it enjoyable and were happy to get a new AD&D game and see the new genre possibilities. Its success resulted in a number of further games using the same engine, some of which were actually good. So it goes...

- Oblibion could have been an awesome (insert image of Toddler's blank stare) RPG experience for you - if you never played an RPG before, and the whole idea of creating and controlling an imaginary character in an imaginary fantasy world was a revelation for you. FO3 could blow your mind with a universe of possibilities that you never even suspected existed in games - if you never played an RPG before (as above), and especially if you never played the real Fallout. If FO3 was an introduction to the whole "my character has Bloody Mess and a Forced Evolutionary Post-Human just exploded all over a faux-50s background" deal for somebody, they are likely to consider it great and subjectively credit if more than the actual game deserves. On the other hand, if you replayed FO1 seven times and are looking forward to the eight, starting FO3 was more likely to trigger the "wtf is this newfangled shit, VATS is the fucking Oblibion Nostril Conversation Zoom, I don't even" reaction. However, some people with actual RPG experience found it enjoyable and were happy to get a new... well, something - and see the new genre possibilities (insert mandatory sentence involving Tim Cain and Oblibion, actual words of which are painful to write). Its success resulted in a number of further games using the same engine, all of which were shit. So it goes...

Notice the pattern?


To even things out a bit, that's where the similarities end. BG is dead, and nobody today is spending money funding BG-style games (which, as somebody noticed, while possibly sub-optimal would still be vastly preferable to the current state of the industry). Obllibion and it's foul spawn (on the other hand) still obliviate us to this very day. And while pissing on graves you consider unfairly venerated by the unwashed masses is fair codexian game, pissing on living and breathing monstrosities venerated by the unwashed masses is both more pertinent and requires a higher-level monocle. Just sayin'.

 

[DraQ]

The problem is that they are both applied at the same time. RTS interface built for ordering legions around simply doesn't mesh well with RPG need for deep and precise control over few units.

Could you clarify what exactly wasn`t good enough for controlling individual units?

Ever tried herding mentally impaired lemming-cat hybrids? Me neither but I bet it would be similar to BG combat.

The problem is that they are both applied at the same time. RTS interface built for ordering legions around simply doesn't mesh well with RPG need for deep and precise control over few units.

C'mon DraQ Manic Miner this is not. You do not need to be Pixel Perfect.

The-right-side-of-the-fucking-area Perfect would suffice.

Alas, the game insisted on whispering suicidal thoughts to trailing party members given an order to do something along with the rest, so that I could discover them sizzling in a lightning trap on the opposite edge of the map some seconds later after I diverted my attention from some mean big enemy carrying phat lewt and requiring sophisticated tactics to beat yet another group of retarded kobolds.

I guess it just thought it was funnier this way.
Haha.

But that's exactly where I was going with the argument. You end up with completely different games.

And that's why you should neither attempt to make TES TB, nor Wizardry RT.

And if you much prefer turn-based combat over real-time combat then of course it can make sense to call perceived advantages of real-time combat flaws. Similarly, someone could have a polar opposite view point and think that everything turn-based brings is a flaw.

And I would call both stances what they are - irreversible dumbfuckery.


TB is better for highly abstract games like Go or Chess. TB is also clearly and unambiguously superior if you're controlling an entire party because human players and computer HIDs are shit for dealing with six simultaneous inputs. As for decision making, it's only actually interesting because you're bound by time in some manner (though not necessarily game time) - otherwise it would just boil down to exhausting the tree of possibilities and choosing the most favourable branch.

RT, otoh, has the advantage of high temporal resolution and not introducing, nor having to work around artefacts of discretized time. Even if you go simultaneous phase based and get rid of discretized time from mechanical perspective, you still have limited control due to discretized time from input perspective.

So both modes have advantages and both modes have flaws. If you don't notice ones or the others for one or both of the modes, then you're a retard.

If you claim that flaws of one of them are advantages and vice versa, then you're terminally brain damaged.

I don't know about you but I've seen so many modern console kids call turn-based combat slow, boring and outdated.

Well, it's only fair since modern console kids tend to be slow and boring. And actually, a well executed TB can be lightning fast (unless it involves large amount of units, but there are workarounds and you can go simultaneous anyway), while, for example, RT combat in oblivious was what I'd call excruciatingly slow and boring.

The "slow" line of argumentation only works if you're going for some particular aesthetics - for example I can't imagine TB Witcher.

Not quite sure that I'm with you on this. You don't see many mini-RTSs today. Dragon Age: Origins and Drakensang? If Dragon Age II is any indication then BioWare don't give a fuck about mini-RTSs today. And didn't Radon Labs go bankrupt?

So where did all those LoLs, EoBs and Wizardries go? Because from what I've seen they had their heads nomonomed by BG and Diablo, though admitting that the latter is the source of decline pains me as it's really enjoyable mindless clicker.

On the other hand, Bethesda is still going strong producing real-time single character first person RPGs, though admittedly I can't think of many other companies doing the same thing. Probably way too much effort to create.

Except there was a huge gap between Morrowind and Daggerfall, and during this time Bethesda almost croaked, got bought and had its founders kicked out. You CAN'T argue that Daggerfall spawned a lot of clones, therefore you can't argue that it declined (or inclined) the genre.

Oblivion declined the genre by being wildly popular derp game (also the problem with BG1).
Morrowind can be credited for starting the decline but that's because it helped Bethseda build a consoletard target rather than through any flaws of its own.

 

[DragoFireheart]

This topic:
cRPG

Baldur's Gate 2 is NOT a cRPG. It's a western style jRPG!

Get it fucking right.