Scorpia and Baldur's Gate, a discussion from 2006

[cherry blossom]

You download a film and watch it. 90 minutes on average. It doesn't get any easier than that ( until such time when we will be able to fast-stream films directly to our neurocognitive system and will need a moment or two to take it all in. I can imagine films-as-drugs experiences that overstimulate you and drop you in all sorts of trips). At worst, your lack of exposure to different styles and waves of cinema, or willingness to make the mental investment to try and understand, can leave you clueless or unappreciative of a good work.

With games, there are all sorts of comparative problems, foremost being backward compatibility, evolution of interfaces and a lot of good games taking a while -usually a lot longer than 90 minutes- to get a good sense of its qualities. Good games that require the time investment and some degree of prior familiarity with the form are more demanding than films. It's an "ethusiast medium".
( I guess we can all agree that fast-stream-playing of game codes into our neurocognitive systems would be a very bad idea, right? All those bugs, glitches, save-scumming and restarts as well as insidious neuroinhibitive DRM and experimental arthouse indie games would most certainly result in cases of complete brain death, though there is much potential for games-as-drugs and even better: multiplayer-as-drugs. Oh-shit-wow, the possibilities! )

So the big publishers only do the most commercially sensible thing; condense the experience of a full length game down to the consumability of a cinematic experience and spread that cream thin over large pieces of bread. And commercialize its own marketing industry.

In this sense, I find that it doesn't help to make comparisons between films and games. The action of experiencing, consuming them is so different.

 

[animlboogy]

The media themselves should not be compared, no, but I set off this discussion by contrasting how critics currently respond to them. Which holds up. Film critics are usually fans more like the people around here, or they're aging journalists settling into an easier beat for their twilight years. Meanwhile games journalists are underpaid, starved animals in dire need of content, living in constant terror of being barred from the teat of preview coverage.

Even though Hollywood wields far broader cultural influence, they are largely powerless when it comes to controlling the criticism of their work. Somehow the games industry has managed to get critics on lockdown, to the point that the fans themselves are trained to respond angrily to any legitimate criticism of these products.

The difference between the two is creepy, to say the least.

 

[cherry blossom]

What I meant to say is that instead of comparing to the films and film criticism, we should be distancing ourselves from it. Some games are shorter, simpler, more straightforward and everything; by no means a measure of its quality, good or bad. And then some are longer, way longer, way more complex and may demand a specific type of mindset, a specific type of player.

What is happening in mainstream game journalism, then? A deliberate distancing from the latter form because "that is not how games are made any more". Game journalism is made to be a product, just as easily marketed and consumed as the games.

So how do you distance yourself from that sort of crap in any form with any momentum worth something?

What the fuck do I know, I should have gone to sleep 5 hours ago. But fuck films ( in the sense of being a standard to measure games by ). The act of playing is a fundamental difference.

Perhaps what needs being done is taking our own shit a bit more seriously by investing a bit in the periphery social sciences to make sense of our tendencies, on why we like the things we like, what they represent to us and formalize ways of some sort of a measure by consensus. Because we choose to "throw away" our lives by sitting through software ordeals for hours at an end, we owe it to ourselves to make some sense of it in a language that promotes empathy and criticism instead of camp divisions and shit-flinging.

Finding that common ground in the unifying reactionary shit flinging in response to Doritos journalism feels so good, though, I know.

 

[pippin]

I don't know if I've said this before but for me the difference is more or less clear. Movies still have standards, believe it or not. They have to get some stuff done, and meet a certain criteria. Games don't. In games, everything goes. Games just have to sell to be recognized as something worthwile.

 

[aweigh]

Is Birdman one of your favorite films?

No. Birdman was alright but the script was tepid. Great actors who came ready to deliver but hamstrung by a mediocre script that had little depth to it.

My favorite movies include Serpico, All That Jazz, Taxi Driver, 2001, Deer Hunter, Tetsuo: The Iron Man, Rocky 1, Ran, Fistful of Dollars, etc.

more modern fare would be: Bronson, It Follows, There Will Be Blood, Rocky 6, Oldboy, Thirst, Contact, Tokyo Fist, Zodiac, Interstellar, Mishima: A Life In Four Chapters, etc.

pretty common list of good movies all in all as I don't usually list the experimental films I like as "favorites" as they are not films I watch more than once or twice or with other people. An example of an "experimental" film I enjoy is something like Aguirre: The Wrath Of God. It is certainly a favorite film of mine but I would not list it or recommend it to anyone, which is why I use it as an example in an aside.

Also, pippin just summed up the entirety of this thread in that one post. He is 100% correct. Film still operates under the illusion that they are making art (it is not true), but the illusion sometimes becomes reality and this shapes the industry and all of its facets.

Video game making is under no such illusion and suffers for it. The problem, in my view, is largely that people who try to "infuse" video games with "art" ape and copy what they perceive to be artistic elements in cinema and this is 100% fail because video games are not film.

True "art" in video game making is in something like Wizardry 1, where the confluence of every single element in that game's design came together to create a video game that is still not only more engaging 30 years later than any recent game but is also deeper and features more mechanical depth than any recent game. That is the "art" in video game making.

 

[cherry blossom]

Eh, I disagree with the films part of it. Standards only come into being in the presence of a commercial or intellectual failure or both. Plenty pass under the radar without getting attention for either.

 

[Daemongar]

For example, her comments about the RNG in BG -- the combination of self-aggrandizement and certitude about something that is almost certainly incorrect is pretty lame: "The RNG is cheating!!!!" is one thing to exclaim in the privacy of your own home when you a point-blank burst in X-Com or Fallout, but it's kind of dodgy in a formal review

She wasn't saying the game was "too tough" or such. She was saying the RNG purposefully dragged out combat, in a sense to pad the game, or ad time to hours played. In this... I think she is right. I'd have to install the original unpatched installation, but I had the same impression as she did. I played the game with "Show rolls" enabled. The only difference is that I liked BG1, and played it in spite of the flaws. It was a poor time for RPGs, but I guess I had assumed this was the next logical progression of the POR type play-style. And it did pretty much mirror where tabletop games were going, for good or bad.

Say what you want about how BG1 sucks, let it be said that the sales of Diablo 1 had THAT BIG of an influence on game publishers. For all intents and porpoises, you'd have to be insane to have a pure turn based RPG in '98.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

An artist is someone who earns his living by producing and works in the fields of which are defined as an art form, useless but absolutely essential.
An artist can produce absolute shit, but if it sustains his living, they are artists. They also can be mean or/and stupid.
I loathe Peter Molyneux games, his megalomania and delusions, Todd Howard's design ideas and his ideal of greed, Kiarostami's boring films, but I won't deny them their status of artists, because that's what they are.

 

[Lilura]

For all intents and porpoises, you'd have to be insane to have a pure turn based RPG in '98.

Fallout came out in late-97 and Fallout 2 came out in late-98, just a few months before Baldur's Gate. Those RPGs sold just fine and represent the REAL renaissance of RPGs, imo. And Baldur's Gate would have been superior if its combat system was turn-based, instead of this awkward middleground between Diablo and Fallout; this clunky, imprecise compromise and sellout known as RTwP. The encounter design and area/dungeon design may have benefited from being built from the ground up with TB in mind, too!

 

[Severian Silk]

Very glad I was there at the beginning.

And now you're here at the end. Enjoying it?

derp

 

[MRY]

For example, her comments about the RNG in BG -- the combination of self-aggrandizement and certitude about something that is almost certainly incorrect is pretty lame: "The RNG is cheating!!!!" is one thing to exclaim in the privacy of your own home when you a point-blank burst in X-Com or Fallout, but it's kind of dodgy in a formal review

She wasn't saying the game was "too tough" or such. She was saying the RNG purposefully dragged out combat, in a sense to pad the game, or ad time to hours played. In this... I think she is right. I'd have to install the original unpatched installation, but I had the same impression as she did. I played the game with "Show rolls" enabled. The only difference is that I liked BG1, and played it in spite of the flaws. It was a poor time for RPGs, but I guess I had assumed this was the next logical progression of the POR type play-style. And it did pretty much mirror where tabletop games were going, for good or bad.

Say what you want about how BG1 sucks, let it be said that the sales of Diablo 1 had THAT BIG of an influence on game publishers. For all intents and porpoises, you'd have to be insane to have a pure turn based RPG in '98.

Absent overwhelming proof that an RNG is cheating, I refuse to believe it.

In basically every RNG-oriented game I've ever played, I've felt that there was unfairness when I got a run of bad numbers (n.b. no one seems to feel that an RNG is cheating when they get a run of good numbers), but that's just the nature of chance. Sometimes tails comes up ten times in a row.

It strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely that Bioware would've gone through the extra work of creating a rigged RNG to make combat more annoying. It strikes me as extraordinarily more likely that someone who thinks you can't afford to play as a fighter without 18/51 STR, 18 DEX, and 17/18 CON is used to fudging random numbers like crazy when she plays AD&D, and is completely unaware that a 9 is an average stat. (She describes an "average" stat as "10+.") Once you get used to cheating, true randomness* feels outrageous. (* Yes, yes, it's not "true" randomness but a seeded algorithm. Okay.)

--EDIT--

By the way, I don't disagree with the sentiment behind her complaints. I never liked D&D as a kid precisely because played without cheating, you miss way too often and the randomness is way too significant. (It is entirely possible that you might play as a fighter and wind up with four HP by level two.) It's like there's a disconnect between the kinds of stories the game pushes toward and the way the stats work in a non-cheating setting. I suspect that's why tomfoolery like the Book of the Elves or whatever had all these super-duper classes, which really just normalized the cheating practices that already were de facto the only way to play the game. And even with those cheating classes, there's still always the chance that a random critical hit from a trash enemy can kill you.

It's interesting to read about how the Lake Geneva guys actually played D&D and understood it to be played -- not primarily as a narrative vehicle but as an adversarial game that you could "win" as well as "lose" (neither concept really existing in the way RPGs are played nowadays -- everyone always reaches the end, so it's meaningless to talk about either winning or losing). At its heart I guess D&D is really about fragile adventurers semi-comically dying in a perilous world, not about superheroes fearlessly exterminating every foe in the land. But the latter is the way that everyone I ever played with (myself included) wanted to play, and the way in which every computer incarnation of (A)D&D seems to work, notwithstanding an unsuitable rulest.

(I should add that I don't think I ever got past second edition, but I gather that the rules now are conformed to computer games, so these complaints can be replaced with popamole grousing.)

 

[Daemongar]

For all intents and porpoises, you'd have to be insane to have a pure turn based RPG in '98.

Fallout came out in late-97 and Fallout 2 came out in late-98, just a few months before Baldur's Gate. Those RPGs sold just fine and represent the REAL renaissance of RPGs, imo. And Baldur's Gate would have been superior if its combat system was turn-based, instead of this awkward middleground between Diablo and Fallout; this clunky, imprecise compromise and sellout known as RTwP. The encounter design and area/dungeon design may have benefited from being built from the ground up with TB in mind, too!

Yes, and Fallout 2 sold 400,000 copies compared to 2.5 million Diablo units (a weak bit of Googling on this.) I loved Fallout 1 and 2, but don't blame Bioware for trying to appease both crowds with rtwp in BG1. Fallout 2 was great, but they didn't exactly extend an olive branch to casuals like BG1 did. Saying BG1 was shit ignores the elephant in the room, and that is Diablo. Nobody before Diablo believed an "rpg" could sell that many units, and after it succeeded, nobody would settle for less.

 

[pippin]

IIRC BG1 was still marketed as a full rpg, IWD was the "hack and slash with a twist" game.
But yeah, Diablo changed everything when it comes to sales and marketing.

 

[Daemongar]

Absent overwhelming proof that an RNG is cheating, I refuse to believe it.

Yeah, as I said, I'd have to boot up the unpatched CD's i have of BG1 to confirm. Maybe I was also being pedantic.

By the way, I don't disagree with the sentiment behind her complaints. I never liked D&D as a kid precisely because played without cheating, you miss way too often and the randomness is way too significant. (It is entirely possible that you might play as a fighter and wind up with four HP by level two.) It's like there's a disconnect between the kinds of stories the game pushes toward and the way the stats work in a non-cheating setting. I suspect that's why tomfoolery like the Book of the Elves or whatever had all these super-duper classes, which really just normalized the cheating practices that already were de facto the only way to play the game. And even with those cheating classes, there's still always the chance that a random critical hit from a trash enemy can kill you.

It's interesting to read about how the Lake Geneva guys actually played D&D and understood it to be played -- not primarily as a narrative vehicle but as an adversarial game that you could "win" as well as "lose" (neither concept really existing in the way RPGs are played nowadays -- everyone always reaches the end, so it's meaningless to talk about either winning or losing). At its heart I guess D&D is really about fragile adventurers semi-comically dying in a perilous world, not about superheroes fearlessly exterminating every foe in the land. But the latter is the way that everyone I ever played with (myself included) wanted to play, and the way in which every computer incarnation of (A)D&D seems to work, notwithstanding an unsuitable rulest.

(I should add that I don't think I ever got past second edition, but I gather that the rules now are conformed to computer games, so these complaints can be replaced with popamole grousing.)

I really like your analysis of the D&D Lake Geneva guys. Until you've "retired" a character at level 15 after playing them for 3 years, out of fear of them dying, that's not something most CRPG players would understand. The fact that your characters were mighty as well as very flawed made D&D sessions great. You couldn't "autorest" for full health in pnp sessions, so running into a mob with almost no health meant parlaying the fuck out of the encounter with everything on the line. No reloads.

 

[Lilura]

I never said BG was shit, btw. I have written an in-depth retrospective that praises many aspects of the campaign. Show me a better write-up; I would like to read it. I do think RTwP is shit, though.

 

[MRY]

I remember reading some article about, like, a D&D "tournament" with some impossible dungeon. The guy(s?) who won did something like drive a herd of cattle through the dungeon, setting off all the traps. Literally every part of the story seemed ridiculous to me. A DM who was trying to kill off all his players? A D&D "tournament"? Behavior that would ordinarily amount to "asshole players ruined my game" being widely praised? Like I said, a big disconnect.

Lemme see if I can find the thing I'm talking about.

--EDIT--

"Tomb of Horrors." That the dungeon. But it looks like I may have conflated several different annecdotes. http://www.wired.com/2008/03/alttext-0312/

 

[Daemongar]

I remember reading some article about, like, a D&D "tournament" with some impossible dungeon. The guy(s?) who won did something like drive a herd of cattle through the dungeon, setting off all the traps. Literally every part of the story seemed ridiculous to me. A DM who was trying to kill off all his players? A D&D "tournament"? Behavior that would ordinarily amount to "asshole players ruined my game" being widely praised? Like I said, a big disconnect.

Lemme see if I can find the thing I'm talking about.

Well, if you are talking about the "Tomb of Horrors" I guess you'd have to be there. It may be the most impossible modules ever written, BUT it's also one of the most famous modules of all time. Written by the master himself, it kind of became a badge of honor to not just die there, but to talk to others about where you died. Think of it as a Wizardry 4 of it's time. To this day, when folks tell me they completed the Tomb of Horrors, I look at them sideways. (Note: I completed the Tomb of Horrors.)

 

[Lhynn]

Baldur's Gate would have been superior if its combat system was turn-based

Agree for the most part. Tho you seem to forget just how royally a game can fuck up TB combat.

instead of this awkward middleground between Diablo and Fallout; this clunky, imprecise compromise and sellout known as RTwP.

This is nonsense, RTwP in BG1 and especially on BG2 was a thing of beauty, and very superior to some examples of turn based weve come to see over the years. They had precise controls and the only real problem was slightly wonky pathfinding in the first game which you would only have a problem with in very small spaces like firewine ruins.

The encounter design and area/dungeon design may have benefited from being built from the ground up with TB in mind, too!

If they went with hexes? maybe.

 

[Lilura]

Agree for the most part. Tho you seem to forget just how royally a game can fuck up TB combat.

RTwP is fucked up by nature.

This is nonsense, RTwP in BG1 and especially on BG2 was a thing of beauty, and very superior to some examples of turn based weve come to see over the years.

A thing of beauty? You have no aesthetic taste, Lhynn.. ToEE's combat system is a thing of beauty.

If they went with hexes? maybe.

You don't need hexes for TB to be good. See Jagged Alliance 2 and ToEE.

 

[Jaesun]

Baldur's Gate would have NEVER sold as well as it did if it was a turn-based game. Just FYI.

 

[felipepepe]

Gotta remember the historical context, RTS were at full power back then:

1995 - Warcraft 2
1996 - Command & Conquer: Red Alert
1997 - Age of Empires, Total Anihalation, Myth, Dungeon Keeper
1998 - Starcraft, Myth 2

The BioWare docs were pretty honest about this - their game was D&D meet RTS, heavily influenced by Warcraft 2 and Jagged Alliance.
They rode the RTS wave and resurrected a practically dead genre. Might not be the best & most inclined gameplay style, but what else would you pitch in the late 90's? It was either this or a FPS hybrid, like SS2 and Desu Ex.

We all love Fallout and Jagged Alliance 2, but those were niche games, that sold as such.

 

[SwiftCrack]

If that vampire chick cover is april 99's issue (no. 177), then that same issue has the Scorpia guide to character building in BG1. http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1999&pub=2&id=177

Bite me!

Suck down 3 horror games.

I laughed.

 

[Neanderthal]

I remember reading some article about, like, a D&D "tournament" with some impossible dungeon. The guy(s?) who won did something like drive a herd of cattle through the dungeon, setting off all the traps. Literally every part of the story seemed ridiculous to me. A DM who was trying to kill off all his players? A D&D "tournament"? Behavior that would ordinarily amount to "asshole players ruined my game" being widely praised? Like I said, a big disconnect.

Lemme see if I can find the thing I'm talking about.

--EDIT--

"Tomb of Horrors." That the dungeon. But it looks like I may have conflated several different annecdotes. http://www.wired.com/2008/03/alttext-0312/

Yeah Acererak's kip were a fuckin nightmare, none o my players ever completed it, smart ones got the fuck out while prats died. Dint think anybody'd allow a herd o cattle through dungeon, way too many stairs, pits an such plus Tombs set in middle o a vast swamp in south o Great Kingdom of Aerdy.

Used to be you earned your fuckin corn like any other game, now adventures practically fellate players from start to finish, fuckin safe space numpties.

 

[cherry blossom]

Fallout came out in late-97 and Fallout 2 came out in late-98, just a few months before Baldur's Gate. Those RPGs sold just fine and represent the REAL renaissance of RPGs, imo. And Baldur's Gate would have been superior if its combat system was turn-based, instead of this awkward middleground between Diablo and Fallout; this clunky, imprecise compromise and sellout known as RTwP. The encounter design and area/dungeon design may have benefited from being built from the ground up with TB in mind, too!

With the encounter design and the amount of grind it had, BG is better for the RTwP. It is still slow and too many but I dread to think about what a drag it would have been were it TB. One way to improve the combat experience would be to make it like WL -what's that style called now?

 

[Lilura]

With the encounter design and the amount of grind it had, BG is better for the RTwP. It is still slow and too many but I dread to think about what a drag it would have been were it TB.

Which is why I said the campaign would be built from the ground up with TB in mind, resulting in different combat encounter design and area/dungeon design.

No one really knows for sure how a TB Baldur's Gate would have been received because it wasn't made; it's just a general consensus Codex assumption that TB would not sell like RTwP. Fallout sold quite well despite being TB and employing an unknown ruleset. BG is D&D in the Forgotten Realms...