Talking Tactics with Jeff Vogel

[Elwro]

At least in the 2nd and 3rd Avernum there were battles with more than a dozen enemies, but they were few and far between.

 

[mondblut]

Random encounters of 20+ goblins, nephilim and other minor enemies are typical for late-game Exiles and early Avernums. Exiles in particular, since the player's party was larger as well (6). Typical empire patrol in lategame Avernum 2 is like 8-12 footmen, 4-6 archers, 1-2 clerics, 1-2 wizards, 1-2 dervishes and/or officers. And that's a run of the mill random encounter.

And when dungeons are involved, it all depends on dungeon layout, your own actions and a bit of unluck. See, his encounter design is a typical "room full of monsters doing nothing until you show up"... except that they don't always do nothing, and you could easily trigger one group of enemies while fighting another one. So, yes, having to fight against every enemy throughout the whole dungeon without ever stopping combat (or getting a bunch of arrows in your face whenever you do) happens all too often.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Poor chap is probably half mad.

As long as he continues to make decent games, he can say whatever he likes. I am not really listening anyway.

 

[Jedi_Learner]

First we get excuses about the graphics, how he cannot compete with the latest games. Now we get excuses about the crap combat. What excuses will he think of next?

 

[Andhaira]

The combat , dialogue and story in his game is currently superior to eschalon's combat (though eschalon is the better game overall)

 

[Wyrmlord]

Also, what's with the games he plays?

Rock Band? Guitar Hero?

Atleast he has enough taste to play the fine fine GTA4.

 

[Castanova]

Just about all his answers bothered me from a subjective standpoint but his comments about his next titles were at odds with his recent blog posts about the financial side of his business. He says that he can't compare to AAA titles in terms of graphics and he doesn't feel like there's any reason to try. And yet, in this interview, with RPG Codex no less, he only really trumpets better graphics as the selling point for his future releases. Huh?

I haven't tried any of his games and I'm planning on giving Geneforge 5 a whirl. As usual, it's important to separate the man from the product.

 

[Thrasher]

Yeah, I see a lot of contradictions in what he has said, what he says he likes, what he has done, and what he says he plans to do.

Ignoring all that (I mean who of us can say that we live our lives completely consistently? Wouldn't that be boring?), I agree with most of his insights, except that RPGs are about quantity.

Hell, his stories and dialogs aren't quantity, they are quality, in my eyes.

The combat is a bit bland, although A5 had some additional tactical flavor with all the battle skills. But at least it is turned-based!

 

[elander_]

"I agree with most of his insights, except that RPGs are about quantity."

He was talking about combat in his crpgs. Talking about crpgs whose purpose is not to make the player use good tactics to win but to optimize his character build and equipment. Jeff wants to make Diablo kind of games.

 

[Thrasher]

Well some the more challenging builds require more tactics - weaker classes like pure druids and bards in NWN for example, which I like.

So yeah, I disagree with him on that.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Sorry to repeat myself from another thread, but it seems more appropriate here: i didn't know it was a newer quote I was responding too.

Oh, so that explains why his games are so unplayably awful (to be fair I've only played the avernum ones), despite having so many of the elements that I would normally enjoy.

I can't imagine anything more boring than purposely untactical RPG combat. Without tactics, what exactly is the point of the hundreds of battles you're going to fight? You won't have to think to win those battles, and you won't have to use twitch action gameplay either, so your input will be minimal. It's essentially just a really bad movie with hundreds of scenes of a little pixel man killing little pixel goblins, followed by some mediocre fiction.

His point about needing lots of units to have tactics in a game shows that he has no idea what hes talking about. The less units you have, the less room for mistakes there should be in a highly tactical environment, as one mistake could reduce your force by 25%. If you've ever played competitive multiplayer turn based tactics (like say PoxNora), you'll have little doubt that tactical play in a turn based environment is highly, highly possible with only a few units per side, although of course you need a well designed core combat system, which his games arguably lack.

 

[Thrasher]

Avernum 5 added a bunch of new combat abilities. And there were some PC movement/placement tactics. So I don't completely agree with it being monotonous.

But then again I played a very mixed party - lizard warrior, fellinoid archer/priest, pure human priest, pure human mage. So there was lots to mix up there. If you build a boring party, then I'd say it was your fault.

 

[Davaris]

The combat , dialogue and story in his game is currently superior to eschalon's combat (though eschalon is the better game overall)

So what is left that makes it better?

As for Jeff I get where he's coming from. He's not into to combat so much and thinks other things in RPGs are more important. So why all the rage? Was it the chess comments?

 

[Claw]

He's not into to combat so much and thinks other things in RPGs are more important.

That explains why he likes Fallout 3 so much. Shitty combat, but great story and strong dialogue AMIRITE?

 

[Wyrmlord]

I really don't what Jeff Vogel wants from a RPG.

 

[Shannow]

He's not into to combat so much and thinks other things in RPGs are more important.

That explains why he likes Fallout 3 so much. Shitty combat, but great story and strong dialogue AMIRITE?

Nah, that's why is games have hardly any combat and depend on non-combat skills (like dialogue) even more that games like PS:T.


...just kidding:

U R RITE!

 

[Davaris]

He's not into to combat so much and thinks other things in RPGs are more important.

That explains why he likes Fallout 3 so much. Shitty combat, but great story and strong dialogue AMIRITE?

I was shocked by his Fallout 3 comments. The world is going mad!

I really don't what Jeff Vogel wants from a RPG.

I think he likes CRPGs that make a profit.

 

[Andhaira]

@Davaris: Eschalons overall package makes it better than Vogels work. The game is old school yet a breath of fresh air. I can't wait for book II.

 

[Thrasher]

It seems too shallow to entertain me.

 

[Morbus]

For someone who makes some pretty good RPGs, he's got pretty poor taste in games.

Agreed. Like, wtf?!

I have no formation (as in degree or something) in game design, and even I can see many ways of making deep and tactical situations with two against two, even two against one, or the other way around.

Like, wtf?!

 

[Agent5]

I can't say that I ever agree with everything Jeff Vogel says, as fond as I may be of his games, and this interview is hardly an exception. When first I read it I had my own handful of kneejerk reactions to his claims, most obviously to the primary subject of this topic, but I think he does have a fair bit of ground to stand on in this. After all he is, in fairness, basically describing Diablo, perhaps with a bit more of a story then they tend to have. Even if I didn't particularly like that series.

Whatever the case, we're all being a bit vague about what we mean by "tactical elements". That's an incredibly broad spectrum.

 

[Fenril]

Since the man seems to talking shit, it would be interesting to mention examples of say party based rpgs with OHSODEEPANDCHALLENGINGANDTACTICAL combat systems.

Starting with the codexer crowd favorite ones.

I really cant think of any....wiz8 maybe? Come on how much variety and depth is there really to it? A spell here and there, mode adjustments.... character creation affects your success in combat alot more than your combat choices and strategy in the actual game. A combat heavy game at that.

Jagged Alliance 2? all in all, maybe. The combat and strategy elements went well together and there were viable different approaches to take. its one of those rare games you can play for the combat sake's alone and be reasonably satisfied.
How much of an RPG is JA2 though? Perhaps it deserves the tag but werethe RPG elements what made the combat interesting?

Arcanum combat? BG2 combat? fallout 1 and 2 combat? PS:T combat? Ultima7 combat...shite, some more fun than others, others more reliant in exploiting the poor balance than others, but from a depth and challenge perspective as compared to say chess...I think in these glorious titles there is not enough depth for checkers.

Not that combat design in most Vogel game's didnt suck, it did, badly. His battle disciplines feature in the latest avernum was turn in the right direction but needed polish.

What im trying to say is maybe beyond ideals regarding what for example a good turn based combat system would be, sure as hell there arent good examples to refer to and say "LOOK, THIS IS HOW ITS DONE RIGHT"...thats my personal impression. Not a single one. That has the the RPG label at least.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Arcanum combat? BG2 combat? fallout 1 and 2 combat? PS:T combat? Ultima7 combat...shite, some more fun than others, others more reliant in exploiting the poor balance than others, but from a depth and challenge perspective as compared to say chess...I think in these glorious titles there is not enough depth for checkers.

Not that combat design in most Vogel game's didnt suck, it did, badly. His battle disciplines feature in the latest avernum was turn in the right direction but needed polish.

What im trying to say is maybe beyond ideals regarding what for example a good turn based combat system would be, sure as hell there arent good examples to refer to and say "LOOK, THIS IS HOW ITS DONE RIGHT"...thats my personal impression. Not a single one. That has the the RPG label at least.

um

Any turn based tactical rpg, of which there are hundreds.

The RPGs you listed are not tactical RPGs, they're story/dialog/exploration focused RPGs

And while their combat is not very good, they also have much more to offer than spiderweb games in the above categories.

If you don't know what a tactical rpg is then hit google, we don't need to give examples because there are literally hundreds of games doing tactical combat with rpg sized parties better than vogel, from TOEE, to Dark Sun, to Fire Emblem, to Tactics Ogre and so very many more.

It's an extremely easy to leave lots of room for tactics in an RPG. You have a group of 4-8 guys who are facing more powerful and more numerous foes. They have to use tactics to overcome them. duh

It really must take a lot of effort to come up with a combat system, character system and encounter design as bad as Vogel's.

 

[Fenril]

So what you are saying basicly is UNLESS the "rpg" is a Final Fantasy Tactics clone or something like JA2 for example it is perfectly reasonable to expect craptastic combat...because thats the way things are. Sure.

And of course in a "tactical rpg" its perfectly reasonable to expect deep,interesting and challenging combat AS WELL as a lack of deep interaction with the environment and characters, lack of dialogue trees, lack of C&C, lack of exploration, lack of deep character development beyond stats and so on...

Sure. Then again where does that leave us then?

Is JA2 a good RPG? is FFT a good RPG? Or are they squad based strategy games with some stats for character development and mostly linear story sequences laid down on top in different doses?

 

[PorkaMorka]

So what you are saying basicly is UNLESS the "rpg" is a Final Fantasy Tactics clone or something like JA2 for example it is perfectly reasonable to expect craptastic combat...because thats the way things are. Sure.

No. I am only saying that your examples are not well chosen. Fallout and Arcanum do not even offer a fully controllable squad. And their focus is clearly on story, dialog and exploration over combat. P:ST offers a fully controllable squad, but is still not really a combat focused RPG.

But I will be the first to call the combat in Fallout, P:ST and Arcanum flawed and irritating at times. I'm not a huge fan of these RPGs actually. All I'm saying is that for these RPGs, at least combat is not the primary focus and at least the other elements solidly make up for the crappy combat. Spiderweb games cannot come close to Arcanum, Fallout or PST in these areas.

What I am saying is that if you make a combat heavy rpg, with a party, where during the battles you move little men around on a little map (as opposed to JRPG battles or blob with arms battles or action battles), then you should include solid tactical combat. That doesn't necessarily equate to JA2 level crunchiness nor does it necessarily equate to Thracia 776 level difficulty. But if you're going to make the player slog through 20+ hours of battles, you should probably make those battles engaging ones where the players have to make decisions and think a bit, otherwise they'll be really boring.

In this sense, the Gold Box games are tactical rpgs. So are the Dark Sun games. So is TOEE and so is BG 2 and IWD. So, incidentally are the Spiderweb games, although they're pretty poor quality ones. Almost by default, an RPG with a small squad facing off in turn based or real time with pause battles where they move around on a map and fight stronger and or more numerous opponents is going to involve tactical combat, all the developer has to do is make it engaging, not tedious.

And of course in a "tactical rpg" its perfectly reasonable to expect deep,interesting and challenging combat AS WELL as a lack of deep interaction with the environment and characters, lack of dialogue trees, lack of C&C, lack of exploration, lack of deep character development beyond stats and so on...

I disagree. Look at Betrayal at Krondor for solid, better than Spiderweb tactical combat, plus exploration + character development.

Or just look at BG2.

Perhaps in the tactical rpgs which are more like war games with RPG elements, your points are true. But tactical combat is present in a wide variety of squad based rpgs and you can find ones that have all the elements you mention. Their tactical combat might not be as hard core as Brigade E5, but there is no reason it can't be engaging.

Is JA2 a good RPG? is FFT a good RPG? Or are they squad based strategy games with some stats for character development and mostly linear story sequences laid down on top in different doses?

Avoiding the semantic debate, I see your point. But engaging tactical combat is not only found in these more tactics focused games. Games like BG2 or Dark Sun which are clearly not tactical games, but party based rpgs manage to have solid tactical combat which is engaging and fun, if not particularly hard core.

My question in return is: there any reason why, besides lack of effort, that the Spiderweb games should have sub 1988 Pool of Radiance quality combat, in the year 2009, when they are combat heavy rpgs?

Especially when we've seen that Indie RPGs can have very solid combat, even when made by only one person, even when that person can't work full time on them like Vogel does.