Interview Nostalgic KOTOR 2 Retrospective Podcast at Eurogamer

[undecaf]

if you want to make a proper "pure" RPG, you probably shouldn't include first person shooting as a mechanic.

You can still move an FPS into more complex and interesting territory by adding so-called "RPG elements". I think DraQ would actually like this more than systematic removal of any interesting element because ZOMG stupid popamolers didn't like it.

Watching a reticule shrink isn't an interesting element. A game that has shooting should have good shooting. RPG elements are not an excuse for having unfun shooting. Otherwise you're just contributing to the trend of "RPGs as bad action games".

Do RPG's even need to be "good action games" -- shouldn't the "RPG" still come first? If I fire up a game that says "I'm an RPG", I would expect it behave like one, first person or not -- the nuances and the magnitude of character dictated effects and hindrances (to the player) are debatable, but the combat is good if the rules that govern it create clear rewarding progression. If I find myself bitching that I can't headshot everyone and their dog with immense precision and speed while playing, I'd think I'm playing a wrong game for that particular moment (but that's just me, of course).

 

[Infinitron]

Do RPG's even need to be "good action games" -- shouldn't the "RPG" still come first?

If a game has action elements, shouldn't those elements be good?

Here's a quote from VD's legendary Oblivion review which I recently repaired that illustrates this slippery slope:

Oblivion is a new generation action-adventure Elder Scrolls game. At some point, The Elder Scrolls games were leading role-playing games that pushed the genre forward, but action games traditionally sell more, which explains several attempts to jump on that bandwagon. Battlespire sucked, but it's finally been decided that it sucked not because the design was bad, but because it was sold as an action game. At that pivotal moment the design for Oblivion was born: an action game for casual gamers sold as an RPG! Brilliant! Why brilliant? Well, any complaints about the action elements would be met with "It's an RPG! Duh!", while any complaints about the RPG elements would be met with "It's not your grandpa's RPG with die rolls and skill checks. It's an action game! For next generation! Duh!"

the combat is good if the rules that govern it create clear rewarding progression. If I find myself bitching that I can't headshot everyone and their dog with immense precision and speed while playing, I'd think I'm playing a wrong game for that particular moment (but that's just me, of course).

You can create rewarding progression, but it doesn't need to be as crude as a "wait for accuracy" mechanic.

Besides, even in a good pure shooter, it shouldn't be so easy to headshot everyone and their dog. That means the game is too easy.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Watching a reticule shrink isn't an interesting element.

What do you think would be an interesting rpg element in shooting then? For instance, none of the stuff RK47 mentions - waiting longer to reload, walking slower, waiting longer to draw - sounds any more interesting than waiting longer to aim properly as an element.

 

[Infinitron]

Watching a reticule shrink isn't an interesting element.

What do you think would be an interesting rpg element in shooting then? For instance, none of the stuff RK47 mentions - waiting longer to reload, walking slower, waiting longer to draw - sounds any more interesting than waiting longer to aim properly as an element.

I don't agree. They are more interesting, since they have an effect on how you perform in the heat of combat, but without having such a detrimental effect on the game's overall pacing.

The reticule shrink mechanic has the effect of turning the game into a series of mini-ambushes. "Let's stand here where the enemy can't see me, aim for his head, wait for the reticule to shrink and....FIRE!" Rinse and repeat. First person shooting gameplay can be more than this.

 

[undecaf]

Do RPG's even need to be "good action games" -- shouldn't the "RPG" still come first?

If a game has action elements, shouldn't those elements be good?

Only as good as the RPG part allows -- unless the action is the sole focus. Though, there is the question "who finds what kind of action, and delivered in what manner, good in an RPG".

Here's a quote from VD's legendary Oblivion review

Just goes to show that the clumsy Bethesdian middle ground design is full of shit, and designed and marketed to people who don't give a fuck. The action was awful from every point of view, action game and RPG alike. It's right there in your quote: "an action game for casual gamers sold as an RPG!" and "Well, any complaints about the action elements would be met with "It's an RPG! Duh!", while any complaints about the RPG elements would be met with "It's not your grandpa's RPG with die rolls and skill checks. It's an action game! For next generation! Duh!"" The game was the best selling oxymoron in the history of games.

the combat is good if the rules that govern it create clear rewarding progression. If I find myself bitching that I can't headshot everyone and their dog with immense precision and speed while playing, I'd think I'm playing a wrong game for that particular moment (but that's just me, of course).

You can create rewarding progression, but it doesn't need to be as crude as a "wait for accuracy" mechanic.

It doesn't, that's true, there are many ways to make (at least semi) satisfying skill progression. But the premise and (progressive) results are pretty touchable and clear there, rewarding, one could say. The point, though, was not so much to defend shrinking reticles (though they can, imo, work if the circumstances are favorable), but to put weight in what I said initially: "Do RPG's need to be good action games?" Why would they, they are supposed to be RPG's?

 

[Infinitron]

"Do RPG's need to be good action games?" Why would they?

They do if they aren't just RPGs! Do you really think Deus Ex is in the same genre as Fallout and Baldur's Gate?

 

[undecaf]

"Do RPG's need to be good action games?" Why would they?

They do if they aren't just RPGs! Do you really think Deus Ex is in the same genre as Fallout and Baldur's Gate?

But to what extent and at what cost? Of course I don't think that, Deus Ex is only an example about a specific type of game.

 

[Infinitron]

"Do RPG's need to be good action games?" Why would they?

They do if they aren't just RPGs! Do you really think Deus Ex is in the same genre as Fallout and Baldur's Gate?

But to what extent and at what cost? Of course I don't think that, Deus Ex is only an example about a specific type of game.

You're looking at this in the wrong way. There doesn't need to be a "cost". Look at the game as a whole, instead of as two opposing elements competing with each other for dominion over the gameplay mechanics.

 

[DraQ]

In my talk, I gave specific examples, like the shooting mechanics in Deus Ex vs. the shooting mechanics in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Given a choice between the shooting mechanics in the original and the shooting mechanics in the new game, I doubt many players -- RPG, FPS, RTS -- would choose the former -- because it feels terrible. If you're going to ask players to aim the reticule themselves, you should probably make it feel GOOD. Are there people out there who prefer the shooting mechanics in ME1 to ME2? Really? Because in ME2, they basically just made the shooting feel more like a "regular" FPS.

You have successfully removed Josh Sawyer from your bro list.

Compensated by DraQ adding him (though I'm not entirely sure about ME1 vs ME2)

I understand where Sawyer is coming from, and his quest for better gameplay.
But at what point the game stops being an RPG any more? In an interview Avellone said about a desision that while made the game a better game , it made it a worse RPG. Where did you draw the line?

Funny thing is JS is probably right about DX1 and DX:HR, but for completely wrong reasons.

Mechanically they aren't that different in terms of shooting - both have variable width reticles impacted by movement, both have skills augs reducing that, both have skills/augs influencing recoil, both have random walk when sighting in, and both have lolhax laser sight eliminating targeting uncertainty.

The main difference is presentation. DX:HR does better job justifying inaccuracy most of the time - for example because of ironsights being available on most weapons without scope and because they offer improved accuracy, player will be experiencing random walk inaccuracy more often, which combined with recoil is actually more severe with iron sights than with scope, because weapon model is visible and prone to occluding the target - both increasing the difficulty of shots an making more difficult to determine their effectiveness immediately.

There are some mechanical differences but they are mostly small improvements - for example separating recoil management from general stabilization.

As for shotguns, they are just as bad in both games.



So DX:HR has superior gunplay not because it's fundamentally different from DX1, but because it's mostly the same, except better presentation and some polish.
Shame about the lack of telescopic sight aug, though.

 

[undecaf]

"Do RPG's need to be good action games?" Why would they?

They do if they aren't just RPGs! Do you really think Deus Ex is in the same genre as Fallout and Baldur's Gate?

But to what extent and at what cost? Of course I don't think that, Deus Ex is only an example about a specific type of game.

You're looking at this in the wrong way. There doesn't need to be a "cost". You're falling into the trap of "RPG as bad action game", instead of striving for action-RPGs which excel at both action and RPG, without those two elements competing or cannibalizing each other.

There most usually is a cost in favor of either element. But then, it's a matter of what kind of action is expected of an RPG. Good, is the usual answer, but good in what ways? The governing rules exist to restrict the player, but how much of said restrictions can be applied for it to remain good? That's obviously delving into the territory of personal tastes, but I tend to favor drastic measures in designed progressive improvement over mechanical fluidity from the get go (generally speaking).

 

[Infinitron]

The governing rules exist to restrict the player

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's a good way of defining the role of the RPG elements in an action-RPG. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

 

[undecaf]

The governing rules exist to restrict the player

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's a good way of defining the role of the RPG elements in an action-RPG. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

How would you put it?

 

[Infinitron]

The governing rules exist to restrict the player

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's a good way of defining the role of the RPG elements in an action-RPG. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

How would you put it?

I think the character in an action-RPG can have "progression" without necessarily feeling like he's being "restricted" when he's low-level.

Read DraQ's post to see how DX:HR does that (although personally I think DX:HR fails by not amping up the difficulty of the combat in the late-game to compensate for the player's increasing abilities, so it's only half-fixed)

 

[Roguey]

I think New Vegas 'Increased bullet damage' based on skill is the wrong way to go.
A shotgun, handled by anyone from the untrained elderly to the elite, is still deadly when discharged to the face.

Fallout New Vegas is not a reality simulator.

Even the perks are hilarious damage boosters or critical % increments.

Um
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Rapid_Reload
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Run_'n_Gun
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Quick_Draw
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Agility

Modifies: Action Points available for V.A.T.S., draw and holster speed, reload speed, and the Guns and Sneak Skills.
...
The holster/reload time is modified in percentage by +10(5-Agility)%, or by multiplier 0.1(5-Agility)+1. Agility below 5 makes reloading slower.

The reloading and drawing speed modifiers weren't in Fallout 3.

 

[Lancehead]

If you want the low level character to be under-capable in most situations, then the way to do is to make the content challenging at that level. Creating the challenge by making the player fight the mechanics is straight out of retardo school of design.

 

[undecaf]

The governing rules exist to restrict the player

Hmmm. I'm not sure that's a good way of defining the role of the RPG elements in an action-RPG. Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

How would you put it?

I think the character in an action-RPG can have "progression" without necessarily feeling like he's being "restricted" when he's low-level.

Read DraQ's post to see how DX:HR does that (although personally I think DX:HR fails by not amping up the difficulty of the combat in the late-game to compensate for the player's increasing abilities, so it's only half-fixed)

My angle is this. You don't necessarily need to feel "restricted", I wouldn't say that's the point, but you are (if you put your mind to it, you can't miss it while playing). The rule is there to limit you, and the progression is there to open the knots and remove the limits. If you remove the restriction, you cease to need progression (because there's nothing to achieve).

I read DraQ's post, it's a good explanation. Though speaking of DX:HR, I would've wanted it to retain the skills alongside the augs and have more drastic effects than it did have.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Watching a reticule shrink isn't an interesting element.

Yes, watching a reticle shrink very slowly is something discourages us from using guns. But the reason it is discouraging is that when we don't have points in pistols or rifles, then the game can't really encourage us to use pistols and rifles.

Having a 20% chance to hit in Fallout with a rifle is not an interesting element. It's tedious to see the Vault Dweller repeatedly misfire. But is it not a self-defeating thing to be using skills without points in them? So of course it won't be fun.

I feel - and I am not saying anyone has to agree - that Deus Ex did have fun shooting, provided you built JC right. Give him a Plasma Rifle, a rapid speed augmentation, and a high rifle skill, and he is running around slaughtering everything in sight at great speed. And early game, as long as rifle skill is high and you ask Paul for a sniper, you could confront some of the NSF folk by using the rifle as if it is a pistol.

I think this discussion is hurt by how every game is being boxed and categorized. If it is a shooter, it must be a good shooter, and if it is a RPG, it must be a good RPG. Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but it helps to just think of a game as a game. Not as a shooter, nor as a RPG, nor as a shooter-RPG hybrid. I reckon we should ask whether the game's mechanics make sense in themselves. How far are we going to take this "But is it good as a RPG?" logic? Eventually, every cRPG made could be considered a bad RPG, because it fails to perfectly emulate the pen-and-paper RPG experience.

 

[Infinitron]

The rule is there to limit you, and the progression is there to open the knots and remove the limits. If you remove the restriction, you cease to need progression (because there's nothing to achieve).

I have to disagree. Or rather, what does "limited" mean? How are you limited? I say your "limitations" in an RPG can be defined by the abilities of the obstacles and enemies opposing you. You become more powerful, or "progress", so that you can overcome new and more powerful enemies and obstacles, not because you start the game inherently weak and want to become competent.

That's how DX:HR both succeeds and fails. It succeeds by making you start out competent, but fails by not making the opposition powerful enough to justify continued progression in the late game.

 

[undecaf]

The rule is there to limit you, and the progression is there to open the knots and remove the limits. If you remove the restriction, you cease to need progression (because there's nothing to achieve).

I have to disagree. Or rather, what does "limited" mean? How are you limited? I say your "limitations" in an RPG can be defined by the abilities of the obstacles and enemies opposing you. You become more powerful, or "progress", so that you can overcome new and more powerful enemies and obstacles, not because you start the game inherently weak and want to become competent.

You explained it yourself. It means you are "limited" to being just as powerful against any given situation as your characterbuild (and progress so far) allows you to be. You can't tackle against impossible odds before you are competent enough with your tools of choice - lucky strikes aside. Or, if you can, the rules are failing to do their job at rewarding your progression competently (one more DX:HR's failings, imo, not enough worthwhile progression possibilities - invisibility, hacking and energy were mostly all that made any real difference to my recollection, and those were early maxed if you focused on them - alongside with the stale difficulty curve; you probably should've been weaker early on, rather than competent).

 

[Infinitron]

You can't tackle against impossible odds before you are competent enough with your tools of choice - lucky strikes aside.

OK, but what does that have to do with Deus Ex? You can tackle anything in Deus Ex with low pistol skill, you just have to wait for your stupid reticule to shrink before you do it. You're not underpowered vs your enemies, you're just kind of inherently crappy.

It's character progression as rise from weakness to competence, rather than character progression as rise from competence to specialization.

 

[tuluse]

The rule is there to limit you, and the progression is there to open the knots and remove the limits. If you remove the restriction, you cease to need progression (because there's nothing to achieve).

I have to disagree. Or rather, what does "limited" mean? How are you limited? I say your "limitations" in an RPG can be defined by the abilities of the obstacles and enemies opposing you. You become more powerful, or "progress", so that you can overcome new and more powerful enemies and obstacles, not because you start the game inherently weak and want to become competent.

That's how DX:HR both succeeds and fails. It succeeds by making you start out competent, but fails by not making the opposition powerful enough to justify continued progression in the late game.

I remember being way more of an unstoppable killing force in DX1 than HR.

 

[undecaf]

You can't tackle against impossible odds before you are competent enough with your tools of choice - lucky strikes aside.

OK, but what does that have to do with Deus Ex? You can tackle anything in Deus Ex with low pistol skill, you just have to wait for your stupid reticule to shrink before you do it. You're not underpowered vs your enemies, you're just kind of inherently crappy.

We (well, I, at least) kinda strived away from that. DX is not perfect in that regard by any stretch of the word, but it does make you appreciate the skill progression. Wouldn't you feel better about the combat if you - evetually - weren't just inherently crappy?

 

[Infinitron]

The rule is there to limit you, and the progression is there to open the knots and remove the limits. If you remove the restriction, you cease to need progression (because there's nothing to achieve).

I have to disagree. Or rather, what does "limited" mean? How are you limited? I say your "limitations" in an RPG can be defined by the abilities of the obstacles and enemies opposing you. You become more powerful, or "progress", so that you can overcome new and more powerful enemies and obstacles, not because you start the game inherently weak and want to become competent.

That's how DX:HR both succeeds and fails. It succeeds by making you start out competent, but fails by not making the opposition powerful enough to justify continued progression in the late game.

I remember being way more of an unstoppable killing force in DX1 than HR.

Yeah, pepper spray + Dragon's Tooth Sword + LAMs = roflstomp

I didn't say DX was any better in that regard, although it does make for up its brokenness with crazier, more interesting stuff to do.

 

[RK47]

I think New Vegas 'Increased bullet damage' based on skill is the wrong way to go.
A shotgun, handled by anyone from the untrained elderly to the elite, is still deadly when discharged to the face.

Fallout New Vegas is not a reality simulator.

Even the perks are hilarious damage boosters or critical % increments.

Um
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Rapid_Reload
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Run_'n_Gun
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Quick_Draw
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Agility

Modifies: Action Points available for V.A.T.S., draw and holster speed, reload speed, and the Guns and Sneak Skills.
...
The holster/reload time is modified in percentage by +10(5-Agility)%, or by multiplier 0.1(5-Agility)+1. Agility below 5 makes reloading slower.

The reloading and drawing speed modifiers weren't in Fallout 3.

Yeah I did forget to credit NV with the quick draw and rapid reload perks, but really, why would you pick it when your choice is between 50% crit damage, +10% damage bonus etc?
There's hardly any instance where these perks make a shitload of difference.
It's like those useless enemy tag-scan augments in DX:HR - nobody would ever consider spending their precious points on it.

 

[Outlander]

If you want the low level character to be under-capable in most situations, then the way to do is to make the content challenging at that level. Creating the challenge by making the player fight the mechanics is straight out of retardo school of design.

The problem is that in most games, 'challenge' starts, or begins to feel present in the middle of the progression (roughly), if this doesn't happen the game tends to be labelled 'unbalanced' or 'overpowered'. As I said this is a problem because in my opinion, the game should 'punish' the player in the beginning, not in the end. The first two Gothics are the most close examples I can come up with but even in those games the player steamrolls everything from the second half on, but the beginning is teh hard. This is very nice and all, but popamole devs would't even think of designing a game like that because of popamole 'gamers'.