Editorial RPG Codex Retrospective: Roguey fights for social justice in Josh Sawyer's Icewind Dale II

[tuluse]

No, then that something shouldn't have been included in the first place. The onus it's not on the players to larp their way through games that in no way reward said larping (beyond not becoming ridiculously easy to complete) just to have some medium of challenge, it's the developers' job to design the game in such a way that those methods are not only not pathetically easy to exploit but actually not exploitable at all. I will not do their job for them by iron manning the bloody game just because nobody thought that allowing resting everywhere is a terrible idea and never bothered to balance the game without it properly. Fuck that.

Rest spam is a flaw in IE games, but it's a flaw that can be worked around.

 

[Infinitron]

No, then that something shouldn't have been included in the first place. The onus it's not on the players to larp their way through games that in no way reward said larping (beyond not becoming ridiculously easy to complete) just to have some medium of challenge, it's the developers' job to design the game in such a way that those methods are not only not pathetically easy to exploit but actually not exploitable at all. I will not do their job for them by iron manning the bloody game just because nobody thought that allowing resting everywhere is a terrible idea and never bothered to balance the game without it properly. Fuck that.

I agree with you, but my approach here is more pragmatic.

If you have a finished game which contains obvious flaws or exploits, it's the smart, commonsensical thing to do to try to avoid those flaws or exploits, if you can recognize them.

 

[evdk]

I agree with you, but my approach here is more pragmatic.

If you have a finished game which contains obvious flaws or exploits, it's the smart, commonsensical thing to do to try to avoid those flaws or exploits, if you can recognize them.

I have to admit that I am unable not to exploit glaring flaws in game design. It might be pathological, but not taking advantage of the rest spamming mechanic is almost causing me physical pain.

 

[Infinitron]

I agree with you, but my approach here is more pragmatic.

If you have a finished game which contains obvious flaws or exploits, it's the smart, commonsensical thing to do to try to avoid those flaws or exploits, if you can recognize them.

I have to admit that I am unable not to exploit glaring flaws in game design. It might be pathological, but not taking advantage of the rest spamming mechanic is almost causing me physical pain.

You know, I might have felt the same way if I'd played BG2 first, where they added the "rest until healed" feature with auto-casting of healing spells. In vanilla BG1 you could only sleep in 8 hour intervals and you had to cast all the spells by yourself, which made it pretty obvious that you weren't really supposed to repeat that over and over. When I got to BG2, I preferred to keep playing the same way.

 

[Grunker]

I dunno. I like adding difficulty that makes the "exploits" needed better. Sword Coast Stratagems, for example, pretty much requires resting at short intervals.

 

[crawlkill]

Crawlkill reminds me a bit of some gamers I remember complaining how easy all the battles in BG2 were. When questioned about how they approached Twisted Rune (for example), it turned out they save-scummed until they knew all the spawn positions and then spammed high-level thief traps to go off as the enemies ported in.

in a game without permadeath, 'savescumming' just means 'adapting your strategy based on what you learned last time.' in the case of crazed lich BG2 fights, I'd add "whn you had no hope of winning the first time." once again, like with resting, we have to ask "who are you to decide the appropriate number of rests, the appropraite number of saves? are you supposed to pretend you didn't experience the fight you just failed on last run?"

this argument is especially hilarious since every mage in BG2 has an insanely powerful Contingency ready at all times. apparently NPCs are supposed to always be ready for you, but you're never supposed to be ready for them~!

stuff

What he meant was the -perceived- tactical challenge of IE games, which you've just proven. Apparently if you pretend enough core elements don't exist then even IE games can be challenging. It cannot be said often enough: pre-4E D&D games gave mages and clerics 80ish options every round and every other class one option, modifiable by powers like Kai or Called Shot. The -model- of top-down RTwP class-based power-based RPG combat is valid, but the -realization- (in IE games) is not. Even when you're pretending that built-in balance elements don't exist.

that doesn't make IE games bad! I fucking love them! but the combat is always either easy or a chore, never challenging to someone using any kind of sense/not imposing arbitrary rules on himself. what saves IE combat for me is the screen shaking and the character screaming something voiced when they crit someone. I know it's primitive, but I dig it.

 

[Gozma]

So what is the benefit of wedding Sawyerist balancey/MTGish design to this new description of IE as "a la carte everything" game design? Rtw/P in particular is not separable from a la carte design, because pausing too much is clearly analogous to quickloading too much or resting too much.

 

[Infinitron]

So what is the benefit of wedding Sawyerist balancey/MTGish design to this new description of IE as "a la carte everything" game design? Rtw/P in particular is not separable from a la carte design, because pausing too much is clearly analogous to quickloading too much or resting too much.

I don't follow. The IE games were flawed. I'm describing how I played them to avoid those flaws, not some platonic ideal of what an IE-like should be like.

If you think Sawyer should be trying to prevent players from pausing too much, well, that's what the slow motion is for.

 

[crawlkill]

pausing too much is clearly analogous to quickloading too much or resting too much.

n...no. no it isn't. pausing is recognizing a choice to make. loading is recognizing a choice you didn't make.

 

[Gozma]

pausing is recognizing a choice to make.

Pausing is stopping time to do more shit and groom the AI. There is no limit to the number of times you ought to pause if you want the gameplay to go better - you will always be able to optimize a path/select a target/react between turns/whatever at least slightly better than the AI with 6 character or however many the IE games had. The games are unplayably shitty and boring if you are playing with a gameplay-optimal number of pauses, exactly like quickloading or or buff or rest spamming, so people do a la carte "self-patching" to keep the design from being absurd. It's exactly the same issue.

 

[Midair]

Resting, reloading, grinding random encounters, overpowered spells, etc. are all safety valves to be used sparingly. They are necessary to prevent unwinnable states in the game. Another mechanic is encounter scaling. A convincing argument against the resting mechanic would specify which alternative should be used to govern difficulty.

 

[Gozma]

I don't follow. The IE games were flawed.

Oh, I thought you were saying the "do whatever maaan" design was a feature and I was sympathetic. People love to trot out the "LET ME DO WHAT I WANT YOU FASCIST FUCKER" argument for free save/load, even though it is an a la carte design by nature.

I personally dunno if I would necessarily want a rationalized game design for something like Might and Magic. It's a box of toys with lots of interactions that lead to perverse incentives (Lloyd's Beacon is a throbbing metastatic cancer of exploits all by itself) and it would have to be completely different to be an honestly interesting game you have to strive to win.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

According to Sawyer's own definition, "degenerate" playstyle means playing in a way that wasn't intended by the devs. No one can tell me that rest spamming wasn't intended in IWD2, simply because that's what already happenend in IWD1. Since they didn't take any steps to prevent this/ provide feasible alternatives, how can it be degenerate?[...]

It wasn't intended, just bad design they weren't capable of fixing. Like the guys in charge of Fallout 1&2 obviously didn't intend for you to turn into a psychotic human version of Boo and always go for the enemies' eyes, but the rules ensure eyeshots are always the best option.

I think Sawyer's definition is more along the lines of "playing the rules" instead of according to the rules. The IE games are doable without resting after every encounter, but since there's no disadvantage for spending 30 years taking naps in Irenicus' dungeon, people do it.

 

[Sacred82]

According to Sawyer's own definition, "degenerate" playstyle means playing in a way that wasn't intended by the devs. No one can tell me that rest spamming wasn't intended in IWD2, simply because that's what already happenend in IWD1. Since they didn't take any steps to prevent this/ provide feasible alternatives, how can it be degenerate?

Because you are engaging in gameplay not because you enjoy that gameplay but because the game's mechanics put you at a disadvantage for not taking advantage of it.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/299951097563329086

I do think that the fight / rest cycle became degenerate and not fun. I believe there are solutions to that, but most of them run counter to the spirit of 3E D&D.

If you subscribe to this definition, then why did you not engage in this "degenerate" gameplay? I suggest you change your article to: "this game can be hard if you intentionally shoot yourself in the foot. That's a lot more fun than playing this game in a way that makes sense btw".

 

[Darth Roxor]

Breaking games is half the fun, fuck y'all niggers.

 

[Excidium]

The other half is complaining about how broken it is.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

You can rest in IE games ? Damn, that explains a lot.

 

[Roguey]

If you subscribe to this definition, then why did you not engage in this "degenerate" gameplay? I suggest you change your article to: "this game can be hard if you intentionally shoot yourself in the foot. That's a lot more fun than playing this game in a way that makes sense btw".

Because it would decrease my enjoyment and it's unnecessary to do so to complete it.

I've given myself self-imposed limitations for pretty much every RPG I've ever completed. I'm dissatisfied with them all, but the alternative would be to not play any.

Of course this entire conversation is a good demonstration of why balance is as important as Sawyer says it is.

As far as learning-to-do-it-with-your-eyes-closed goes, IE games are way simpler than, say, your average Rubik's Cube. Anyone who says he's playing the games for their combat and not for their STORYFAG...needs to go play some game that's actually challenging.

http://rpgvaultarchive.ign.com/features/interviews/icewindii_b.shtml

Both Icewind Dale and Heart of Winter suffered from many character generation and game balance criticisms. Both of these aspects of the game are crucial to a player's overall fun. It pained me to hear stories about frustrated new players dying twelve times in a row fighting the Easthaven goblins. Hopefully, we won't suffer those problems in Icewind Dale II.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/57754-josh-sawyer-at-gdc-europe-2011/page-2#entry1139703

Also, yes a larger problem with IWD was that it was tuned for people familiar with AD&D. I was there for the entire QA process. There were fights that Kihan Pak and I breezed through on the first try that infuriated and completely blocked testers. Let me repeat that: there were professional game testers whose job it was to play AD&D CRPGs who were completely blocked by fights in the original IWD, unable to proceed. In contrast, other testers and some developers (notably Kihan and I) had little to no difficulty with these same encounters.

PC gamers back in 2000.

 

[Grunker]

Both Icewind Dale and Heart of Winter suffered from many character generation and game balance criticisms. Both of these aspects of the game are crucial to a player's overall fun. It pained me to hear stories about frustrated new players dying twelve times in a row fighting the Easthaven goblins. Hopefully, we won't suffer those problems in Icewind Dale II.

I was fucking 10 when I played Icewind Dale and I had no concept or understanding of the rules. How can any grown person die twelve times to what is essentially and automatic winning encounter? Either Josh is bullshitting or there are grown people legitimately worse at Icewind Dale than a 10-year-old just randomly clicking on shit till he finds out what works.

More importantly: How can you find any sort of solace in Josh wanting to cater to these imbeciles?

I've given myself self-imposed limitations for pretty much every RPG I've ever completed. I'm dissatisfied with them all, but the alternative would be to not play any.

keep 'sperging 'sperging 'sperging, uh!, keep 'sperging 'sperging 'sperging, uh!

Of course this entire conversation is a good demonstration of why balance is as important as Sawyer says it is.

Or rather, a demonstration of how it's important to people with severe autism.

For Sawyer, player experience and fun is important. So many love the unbalanced proported "pieces of shit" of old. Evidently balance isn't that important, huh?

 

[Wyrmlord]

Both Icewind Dale and Heart of Winter suffered from many character generation and game balance criticisms. Both of these aspects of the game are crucial to a player's overall fun. It pained me to hear stories about frustrated new players dying twelve times in a row fighting the Easthaven goblins. Hopefully, we won't suffer those problems in Icewind Dale II.

I was fucking 10 when I played Icewind Dale and I had no concept or understanding of the rules. How can any grown person die twelve times to what is essentially and automatic winning encounter? Either Josh is bullshitting or there are grown people legitimately worse at Icewind Dale than a 10-year-old just randomly clicking on shit till he finds out what works.

Because grown people have a serious lack of perseverance with games, obviously.

If I were getting into RPGs for the first time now rather than at age 12, I'd also just half arse click random stuff, not try my best, and get frustrated when things don't go my way. As a 12 year old, I just wanted to press everything and see, "What does this do? What does this do?"

I do think the dumbing down of games partly has to do with the increase in age of the average gamer, with some 40 year olds getting into gaming for the first time.

So many love the unbalanced proported "pieces of shit" of old. Evidently balance isn't that important, huh?

I know exactly what you mean. If RPG fans wanted balance, why is BG2 - with all its cheese - one of the most popular games of all time?

(Grammar nazi mode: The word is purported, not proported.)

 

[Sacred82]

I've given myself self-imposed limitations for pretty much every RPG I've ever completed. I'm dissatisfied with them all, but the alternative would be to not play any.

That's fine by me, I tend to do the same, but it's not really helpful in the case of a review. Someone may go into IWD2 expecting a challenge, at least early on, because you say that combat is difficult.

 

[Septaryeth]

There is always something you can "spam" with in a game. It truly depends on your perception on challenges and difficulty.
Heck...even "saving before going to the next level" may considered to be spamming for some people.
"You should only save before you enter the dungeon and after you completely finish it!"

Not going to argue who's right or wrong, because people should have the right to decide how they play games,
but as long as it's not compulsary or overly tempting, it should be at least forgivable.
Or do we really need some mechanisms from early Fire Emblem or The Witcher 2 like kidnapping players' saves?

 

[Roguey]

More importantly: How can you find any sort of solace in Josh wanting to cater to these imbeciles?

I don't see the problem with someone wanting to present information in a more understandable fashion. IWD2 didn't dumb down the gameplay, in fact it smartened it up.

Or rather, a demonstration of how it's important to people with severe autism.

For Sawyer, player experience and fun is important. So many love the unbalanced proported "pieces of shit" of old. Evidently balance isn't that important, huh?

I'm not autistic.

I doubt a significant number like those old games because they're lacking in balance. Newer RPGs can be just as if not more unbalanced.

Also http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/351870865417192878 http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/330578902298688741

That's fine by me, I tend to do the same, but it's not really helpful in the case of a review. Someone may go into IWD2 expecting a challenge, at least early on, because you say that combat is difficult.

I listed several ways one can make the gameplay trivial. With my playstyle, it was difficult in parts. That was my subjective experience (I used these exact words too).

 

[evdk]

More importantly: How can you find any sort of solace in Josh wanting to cater to these imbeciles?

I don't see the problem with someone wanting to present information in a more understandable fashion. IWD2 didn't dumb down the gameplay, in fact it smartened it up.

It depends on who are the people that someone is trying to make understand. There is such a thing as too much.

 

[Sacred82]

I listed several ways one can make the gameplay trivial. With my playstyle, it was difficult in parts. That was my subjective experience (I used these exact words too).

Possibly. As I read about the "difficult" combat and your weird digression into rape fantasies, everything just blurred before my eyes. It was entertainingly written though up to that point.