SPECIAL sucks, Roguey vs aleph on Arcanum, etc

[Sensuki]

Games are not their systems.

Indeed. IMO the content in games is the most important, but content can be definitely a lot better or a lot worse depending on the game systems and how the content makes use of those systems.

 

[Excidium II]

Exactly. Greater than the sum of its parts and all that.

 

[Roguey]

Okay, then give examples. Since there are supposedly so many ways, this should be easy.

Arcanum, super model background. You're bad at fighting, bad at talking, but hey your beauty's sky high. Guess what, beauty's a dump stat. Choosing this background makes the game harder for no real benefit.

Chris Avellone's let's play. Guy puts all his points into talking, then keeps picking fights.

Wrong, that's just a statement Sawyer made and you believe without question. And as an additional point, it doesn't matter who good people in general are at games, just the skill of the people who actually play and buy games matter.

Just look at mainstream RPGs these past ten years, particularly the tens of millions of people who bought Skyrim. Demands went down, sales went up.

Just start with Sawyer's core ideas, which were a) no useless builds, b) distinctions between classes - which implicitly includes different playstyles.

I recall during the backer beta, there were complaints about how you had to play x class to the strengths of their build.

Your attributes-as-skills idea is a non-starter with Josh.

https://forums.obsidian.net/blog/3/entry-121-tunin-tips-and-tricks/

From a single value, avoid deriving multiple values in different subsystems. When you do this, you have created a complex balancing problem for yourself. The classic example of this is the ability score system in pretty much all editions of (Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons. Ability scores affect skills, the use of class abilities (e.g. a paladin's lay on hands), and various class-neutral statistics (hit point bonus from Con, AC bonus from Dex). Every time you adjust one of these skills, abilities, or statistics, you affect the value of the stat that has an input into them. Logically, any time you adjust inputs into the value from which these other values are derived, you affect the expected range of the derived values. The fewer things a single value affects, the easier balance will be for you.

 

[aleph]

Arcanum, super model background. You're bad at fighting, bad at talking, but hey your beauty's sky high. Guess what, beauty's a dump stat. Choosing this background makes the game harder for no real benefit.

Nope, supermodel background doesn't prevent you from being good at talking. You can even play a supermodel that is somewhat good at fighting by focusing on fats weapons like rapiers.
Also, if you are hellbent on playing a supermodel who can do nothing but look good, why shouldn't the game be somewhat harder as a result?

Chris Avellone's let's play. Guy puts all his points into talking, then keeps picking fights.

If Avellone makes a character who is good at talking but never actually utilizes that advantage, then Arcanum's character system is hardly at fault.

 

[aleph]

Games are not their systems.

No, but systems are a large part of their respective games. The similar content can be experience vastly different depending on the systems used.

 

[Roguey]

Nope, supermodel background doesn't prevent you from being good at talking. You can even play a supermodel that is somewhat good at fighting by focusing on fats weapons like rapiers.

Super model lowers your intelligence to the point where you get the dumb dialogues as well as strength.

Also, if you are hellbent on playing a supermodel who can do nothing but look good, why shouldn't the game be somewhat harder as a result?

Because it's your character concept. However, it's one the game content doesn't support.

If Avellone makes a character who is good at talking but never actually utilizes that advantage, then Arcanum's character system is hardly at fault.

Chris has been developing and playing RPGs for something close to 20 years, and he makes these kinds of mistakes. Now imagine the average player.

 

[aleph]

Super model lowers your intelligence to the point where you get the dumb dialogues as well as strength.

IIRC Supermodel gives you -3 on intelligence. Human start at 8 INT and you get the dumb dialogues only with 4 or lower. Not much strength is needed to become an effective fighter if you go for speed. Or you just recruit the dog and make combat trivial.

Because it's your character concept. However, it's one the game content doesn't support.

somewhat harder game /= character concept not supported

Chris has been developing and playing RPGs for something close to 20 years, and he makes these kinds of mistakes. Now imagine the average player.

He has been writing for RPGs for close to 20 years. Also, don't pretend that games like Arcanum are such a complicated "science" that only a select view can play them well. Sport management games are often way more complicated then rpgs and still have a huge following.

 

[Roguey]

Not much strength is needed to become an effective fighter if you go for speed.

Eventually DR/health demands having high strength if you go melee.

somewhat harder game /= character concept not supported

As I said, there's no real benefit to having high beauty, it's purely cosmetic. Additionally, while a good player can complete a role playing game with a bad build, a bad player will find it impossible.

Or you just recruit the dog and make combat trivial.

Metagame knowledge.

He has been writing for RPGs for close to 20 years. Also, don't pretend that games like Arcanum are such a complicated "science" that only a select view can play them well. Sport management games are often way more complicated then rpgs and still have a huge following.

People who play sports games go in already knowing the rules.

 

[aleph]

Eventually DR/health demands having high strength if you go melee.

This is only relevant very late in the game when you have enough excess skill points to push strength a bit.

As I said, there's no real benefit to having high beauty, it's purely cosmetic. Additionally, while a good player can complete a role playing game with a bad build, a bad player will find it impossible.

Well, higher initial reactions form npcs. In some few cases that might be helpful. Not much, but what would you expect should high beauty do anyway?

People who play sports games go in already knowing the rules.

I said sport management games. Games where you have to run a soccer/football/ice hockey/whatever team. just because one watches such games for hours every day doesn't mean he has much of an idea how to effectively manage a sports team. And to be honest, as longs as rpgs don't do strange stuff most people have a rough idea how things work.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Roguey]

Well, higher initial reactions form npcs. In some few cases that might be helpful. Not much, but what would you expect should high beauty do anyway?

If high beauty meant that humanoid enemies don't attack you unless you attack them first because they're too enamored, it'd be a stat worth considering, but alas, it doesn't do that.

I said sport management games. Games where you have to run a soccer/football/ice hockey/whatever team. just because one watches such games for hours every day doesn't mean he has much of an idea how to effectively manage a sports team. And to be honest, as longs as rpgs don't do strange stuff most people have a rough idea how things work.

You go in knowing what the content's going to be like though. And there you go again with "most people." Most people are the examples described in http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-to-the-new-thread.75947/page-88#post-2281253 http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/is-bethesda-inclined.96429/page-2#post-3687924 and http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...vellone-arcanum-lp.80476/page-22#post-2591482

 

[aleph]

If high beauty meant that humanoid enemies don't attack you unless you attack them first because they're too enamored, it'd be a stat worth considering, but alas, it doesn't do that.

Does that matter? Sure, a character who focuses solely on Beauty and disregards everything else has a hard time. But that is not what the Supermodel background does. Your character can still be proficient in other things than being beautiful.

You go in knowing what the content's going to be like though. And there you go again with "most people." Most people are the examples described in http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-to-the-new-thread.75947/page-88#post-2281253 http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/is-bethesda-inclined.96429/page-2#post-3687924 and http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...vellone-arcanum-lp.80476/page-22#post-2591482

These are a few selected examples. There is no reason to suspect this behavior is indicative of normal people. You (and probably Sawyer, since these are all examples selected by him) make the mistake of trying to generalize the behavior of a large group by looking at a few examples of extreme behavior.

 

[Telengard]

These are a few selected examples. There is no reason to suspect this behavior is indicative of normal people. You (and probably Sawyer, since these are all examples selected by him) make the mistake of trying to generalize the behavior of a large group by looking at a few examples of extreme behavior.

These are a few select anecdotes from large-scale data-gathering projects. Those are indeed descriptions of the typical RPG gamer.

To sum up it all up, very few people actually learn and adapt spontaneously. The whole thing about skill improvement by use that so many RPGers get excited about, that's actually shit. Getting better through pure practice is not how people work, in general. Rather, it's teach first, then practice, then implement. If there's no teaching first, most people when encountering a difficulty will do the same thing over and over, even though that thing doesn't work, or works only .1% of the time when there are far better ways, and will keep doing so until they get frustrated. At the point of frustration, reactions do vary, but most just give up.

At this point, there's thirty years of player tracking data. Plus, all this online shit means companies can track even more people and data, and they don't even have to pay you for it anymore. Why, you now often pay them to take your data.

So, yeah, they now know exactly how meat-headed RPG players are as a group.

 

[Darth Roxor]

ah the thread split meme

 

[Cazzeris]

PoE has better grafics than Arcanum at least. It's totally impossible to avoid dry heaving and wondering where are the artists that worked on Fallout when you launch Arcanum.

The character portraits, the items' icons and some of the environmental art looked really inspired. The absence of Trammel Ray Isaac in the development team (which was already smaller than Fallout's), the rushed release, the implementation of real time combat and the world's continuity probably helped to make the game's graphics feel so rough most of the time though.

 

[JarlFrank]

Arcanum looks fine.

 

[aleph]

These are a few select anecdotes from large-scale data-gathering projects. Those are indeed descriptions of the typical RPG gamer.

No, the anecdotes Roguey refers to are Josh Sawyers personal observations.

So, yeah, they now know exactly how meat-headed RPG players are as a group.

And they still successfully sell games like Dark Souls, Original Sin, Wasteland 2. All games with intricate (maybe somewhat broken) system which require some effort to get behind.[/quote]

 

[Roguey]

Personal observations from large-scale data gathering projects.

And they still successfully sell games like Dark Souls, Original Sin, Wasteland 2.

a) action combat
b) check out these chieves, the majority of the people who play it just fuck around in the first act http://steamcommunity.com/stats/230230/achievements
c) been out for over a year and Pillars of Eternity's already outsold it despite being released six months after it

 

[aleph]

Personal observations from large-scale data gathering projects.
a) action combat

plus a complex character system which has tremendous impact on the gameplay.

b) check out these chieves, the majority of the people who play it just fuck around in the first act http://steamcommunity.com/stats/230230/achievements

Your point?

c) been out for over a year and Pillars of Eternity's already outsold it despite being released six months after it

Still successful enough to merit a revised goty edition and console ports.

 

[Roguey]

plus a complex character system which has tremendous impact on the gameplay.

Nah.

Your point?

Most people who have played it didn't bother mastering the system.

Still successful enough to merit a revised goty edition and console ports.

And the least well-received of the big Kickstarter RPGs. Google autocomplete gives me "Wasteland 2 is hard/is toaster repair worth it/is bad."

 

[aleph]

Nah.

Wrong. How your stats are distributed has a direct impact on the damage you do with specific weapons, how hard it is to stagger you, your amount of stamina, how much equipment weight you can have and still dodge fast, if and how well you can use magic/miracles and so on. Depending on that, the game plays quite differently. If this is not a tremendous impact on gameplay, I don't know what is.

Most people who have played it didn't bother mastering the system.

You can't draw that conclusion. A valid conclusion from that data is that many people couldn't be bothered to finish the game. But the reason remains open. One might as well say that people rather spend time in the early game where the systems of Original Sin really shine instead of the latter parts which are not as fun. "Mastering a game's systems" and finishing a game are two different things.

And the least well-received of the big Kickstarter RPGs. Google autocomplete gives me "Wasteland 2 is hard/is toaster repair worth it/is bad."

So what, is that supposed to mean anything? Google autocomplete for POE gives me "Pillars of Eternity is hard/amazing/overrated." Should I now claim POE received a mixed reception based on google auotcomplete alone?

 

[Beastro]

I'm all for RPGs where you can fuck up your builds not because it's something good but because the alternative "everybody's a winner" crap is worse.

Fallout combat wasn't great but it was fun, POEs was neither.

Fucking up builds encourages you to experiment and play around with the game, the game is an adventure on it's own. You get rid of that and it trims so much from the novelty of learning to play, then master a game. I'd rather have the pitfalls because they come with those "Aha!" moments when you realize you're onto something and make a great character.

 

[Roguey]

Wrong. How your stats are distributed has a direct impact on the damage you do with specific weapons, how hard it is to stagger you, your amount of stamina, how much equipment weight you can have and still dodge fast, if and how well you can use magic/miracles and so on. Depending on that, the game plays quite differently. If this is not a tremendous impact on gameplay, I don't know what is.

I've seen people say they've completed it without engaging with the character system at all.

One might as well say that people rather spend time in the early game where the systems of Original Sin really shine instead of the latter parts which are not as fun.

Most people have never even bothered to leave Cyseal or even follow its main quest. Only about 25% made it to the final boss of the area, 32% made it to zombie jake, and only half discovered who the murderer was. A little more than half found the two pyramids. How would they know about the quality of those areas if they haven't seen them?

Google autocomplete for POE gives me "Pillars of Eternity is hard/amazing/overrated." Should I now claim POE received a mixed reception based on google auotcomplete alone?

Overrated means "isn't as good as they say it is" which is fair. It's definitely polarizing.

Fallout combat wasn't great but it was fun, POEs was neither.

Fallout combat is only interesting because of the animations, sound effects, and text descriptions. Remove those, and you get Arcanum. Nothing to do with systems.

 

[vivec]

None of the mentioned mechanics are "perfect". Not even close. The people discussing here however fail to understand the real issue, which is that a computer game is not a PnP. A computer game is as good as the quest design and clever use of the mechanics. I can imagine a really good game based on DnD or even SPECIAL. These mechanics have it in them to support FUN. So these mechanics are pretty OKAY for a computer game. But, people saying PoE mechanics is better than Fallout need their heads examined. I don't get all the praise it receives.

The counterpoint is having a deep, tactical game with great combat. This admittedly has only been achieved by XCOM or Jagged Alliance 2. One needs only to implement these in an RPG to make an almost perfect game.

 

[Lady_Error]

Your attributes-as-skills idea is a non-starter with Josh.

So Sawyer is the messiah again? I think I'm not up-to-date on Roguey lore.

 

[Delterius]

"Wasteland 2 is hard/is toaster repair worth it/is bad."

Hard games are bad.