Game News Wasteland 2 Kickstarter Update #35: Follow Up on the Prison Demo

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Smacking a guy with the hilt of your sword isn't an effective technique when trying to deal a powerful blow. You can't get much of a swing. Also, there's a reach issue. Crushing blows are what warhammers and maces (etc) are for.

Plate armor was designed to repel piercing attacks, so stronger and more powerful thrusts would still need to be aimed at joints if you wanted to be sure of success. And if this is the case, why bother going for a stronger thrust at all. A strong thrust with a tapered weapon against chainmail is a different story, I suppose.

Sounds like you don't actually know much about sword fighting in plate armor, since those are probably the two most common techniques in late medieval German swordsmanship for fighting foes in plate.

http://www.arma.lh.pl/zrodla/traktaty/pdf/gladiatoriahalfswordintroduction.pdf

Note that nothing in there says "cheese it, you're fighting a dude in plate armor with a sword, you're fucked."

Usually grapple techniques are combined with sword techniques, it's pretty reckless to fight an armed and armored opponent bare handed.

Uh...yeah. Isn't that exactly what was being discussed?

 

[drae]

Sounds like you don't actually know much about sword fighting in plate armor, since those are probably the two most common techniques in late medieval German swordsmanship for fighting foes in plate.

Using the hilt is an attack they use, yes. More to stun or get an advantage, they then finish the opponent off with either a thrust to one of the weak points (thrusting at the armor itself is ineffective,) or with a grapple move. It is NOT used as an alternative to a heavy, blunt weapon. The objective of using a heavy, blunt weapon is to do serious damage to the body underneath the armour.

Note that nothing in there says "cheese it, you're fighting a dude in plate armor with a sword, you're fucked."

I didn't say you were fucked. What I did say was a) you would spend half your time thrusting at weak points in armor, and the other half grappling your opponent to the ground. Not exactly a fun way to play b) the game would be unbalanced because warriors would be fucked when compared to mages

Uh...yeah. Isn't that exactly what was being discussed?

He was talking about grappling then finishing a dude off with a dagger. If you were grappling armed you'd just finish the dude off with your sword. So I assumed he was talking about grappling unarmed.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Daggers were often used to punch through visors after grappling, even if grappling had started with the longsword.

Anyways, I don't really get the complaint at all. First, haven't RPG rules had certain weapons be useless against certain enemy types since forever? I mean, if you use a rapier and you come up against a skeleton in DnD, that's bad news bears for you, since you literally can't do any damage. I always thought it was good design to make character advancement one of tradeoffs. Obviously, if you make mages better against plate armored guys than sword fighters, then you need to make sword fighters better against somebody else. Since we're talking about simulationist aspects, you can pretty much make the mage good against whatever you feel balances out the classes with real-world skillsets. And it's even better if you can make fighters good at different things based on what they specialized in. Dark Souls did that, giving the game a ton of replayability, since a greatsword plays very differently from a halberd or a axe. All three are completely viable options, but you'll have a more difficult time with different parts of the game in each playthrough, since they're each better at beating certain enemies.

Lastly, why are historically accurate swordfighting techniques unfun to play exactly? I would be stoked to play an RPG that implemented a European martial arts system.

 

[drae]

Anyways, I don't really get the complaint at all.

I'll try and explain my points better. What I'll do is make each of my complaints a response to part of your quote.

Obviously, if you make mages better against plate armored guys than sword fighters, then you need to make sword fighters better against somebody else. Since we're talking about simulationist aspects, you can pretty much make the mage good against whatever you feel balances out the classes with real-world skillsets

Complaint Number 1 - A plausible ruleset screws up the balance of the game. I agree with your point that if mages are better against armoured opponents, than sword fighters need to be better at something else. But is this really plausible (remember we’re trying to create a 'plausible simulation', welcome to the first reason why it would suck.) You can’t just ‘make’ sword wielders better against a different class of opponent when such a scenario is improbable. You also can't apply a plausible ruleset ONLY to the characters with real world skillsets, it should apply to everyone or there's no point. Realistically, mages should easily be able to deal with armoured foe or unarmoured foe alike. Casting a basic fireball which explodes on impact will incinerate a man (this is a plausible scenario) not detract 20 points from their health (this is not plausible.) If a foe is resistant to magic, you apply indirect magic. You crumble the ground beneath their feet, you drop a boulder on them. It would be utterly unbalanced, mages would kick a melee fighters arse in every way.

Games like Baldur’s Gate get around this in many ways. They a) unrealistically nerf magic users and their spells, b) they make armour effectively useless, and c) they use a hit-point system etc etc. All these options wouldn’t be available in a plausible ruleset.

I suppose there are realistic ways to limit mages, like only a few spells a day, but essentially mages are people who can operate outside the laws of physics, so they’re always going to have an advantage. This is why fantasy authors have so much trouble trying to create a gritty magic system.

haven't RPG rules had certain weapons be useless against certain enemy types since forever? I mean, if you use a rapier and you come up against a skeleton in DnD, that's bad news bears for you, since you literally can't do any damage.

Complaint Number 2 - Through NO fault of your own, your character is fucked. Go home and cry to mummy!
DND games are party based, so if a character can’t damage a certain kind of enemy, there’s other characters that can shoulder the load.

In a single character RPG, however, having certain types of characters that can’t do any damage to certain types of opponents is just stupid. It’s realistic, but just stupid. Say, for example, you were playing a game similar to Morrowind and you wanted to play an axe-wielding barbarian. Uh-oh, now you’re totally fucked whenever you meet somebody in plate armour. Using axes may have been viable in Dark Souls, but with a plausible rulesets added 'realism', you've just fucked yourself. Happy days!

Similarly, if you’re playing as an archer, you’d either have to invest a hell of a lot of attributes in strength and use a longbow, or you need to use a crossbow. Normal bows are completely useless against plate and mail. But hold on, plenty of historians argue that longbows and crossbows could only rarely penetrate plate armour (or maybe it depends on a variety of different factors, like how the plate was made and its overall thickness and the type of crossbow.) So once again, play as an archer and you could very well be fucking yourself over.

This is obviously not acceptable. You can’t have a single player RPG which punishes you so severly because of who you want to play as. Realistic, yes. Entertaining, no.

Lastly, why are historically accurate swordfighting techniques unfun to play exactly? I would be stoked to play an RPG that implemented a European martial arts system.

Complaint number 3 - I want to use my sword!

If I want to play as a swordsman, it’s not because I want to spend half the game ‘grappling’. I know grappling was a large part of swordsmanship in the middle ages, but still, I want to use my sword! That’s why I played as a swordsman! Throwing them and 'sticking a dagger through their visor' is incredibly unsatisfying.

I have other complaints but these are the major ones.

 

[crawlkill]

unrealistically nerf magic users and their spells

unrealistically nerf magic
unrealistic
magic
die

 

[GarfunkeL]

Joined:
Aug 9, 2013


and already rehashing decade old arguments.

 

[Gord]

This whole discussion (well, before we went into the realism vs abstraction argument) nicely showcases the primary problem of Kickstarters.
Everyone is a game designer and everyone is expecting his unique vision of his personal dream game to come true.
When expectations unavoidably clash with reality, butthurt ensues.

 

[drae]

Joined:
Aug 9, 2013


and already rehashing decade old arguments.

This is my second account, joined in 2006. People wouldn't need to rehash the old arguments if certain people didn't constantly recycle tired and flawed ideas. Weeelllll, that and I didn't appreciate the dig I received.

Everyone is a game designer and everyone is expecting his unique vision of his personal dream game to come true. When expectations unavoidably clash with reality, butthurt ensues.

You mean the internet is filled with completely unrealistic, dramatic, angry people? Who would have thought.....

 

[Lancehead]

realism vs abstraction argument

I don't think you understand what abstraction is if you think realism and abstraction are at odds. Realism is a product of abstraction of the real.

 

[Lady_Error]

Realism is a product of abstraction of the real.

That's deep, man.

 

[Darkzone]

Lancehead
I have only seen the post that you have made in this thread, but i think some are very good, and i am even very impressed.
But to the last post i have not an objection but a reduction: the abstraction should be sound and useful.
Realism is a product of a useful and sound abstraction of the real.

 

[Cassidy]

After reading that part about a quest based on a very idiotic Internet meme, I really hope this won't end with a plot and world design as retarded as Fallout 3, with isometric and turn-based combat as its only good features.

Didn't risk my money on this bet, but if this ends poorly it would still be very depressing.

 

[crawlkill]

Realism is a product of abstraction of the real.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic

people have entirely different conceptions of what "realism" is, most of which are derived from other fiction they've been exposed to, not from direct personal experience. it's a flawed target. meaningless.

 

[Lancehead]

Lancehead
I have only seen the post that you have made in this thread, but i think some are very good, and i am even very impressed.
But to the last post i have not an objection but a reduction: the abstraction should be sound and useful.
Realism is a product of a useful and sound abstraction of the real.

Of course, one can abstract poorly. For example, simple HP vs. HP + stamina + locational damage. And I don't have to say which one them is considered more realistic.

Realism is a product of abstraction of the real.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic

people have entirely different conceptions of what "realism" is, most of which are derived from other fiction they've been exposed to, not from direct personal experience. it's a flawed target. meaningless.

When a videogame scales a mountain so the player can climb it in a few minutes whereas it would take a few hours in real life, it's a form of abstraction. When a character has a Strength of 5 as a general representation of the character's physical strength, it's another form of abstraction. Abstraction is also when the designer decides the set of activities the player-character will or otherwise can perform in the game, classified as Gameplay.

One can argue that it should take 7 minutes instead of 6 to climb the mountain, or that Strength is a poor representation, or that the pc should be able to bathe, piss and shit in addition to fight, talk and craft, but the process is what is called abstraction and it doesn't make the end result meaningless, only poorly done, well done or something in-between.

 

[HiddenX]

I like this concept of Ernest Adams, out of "Fundamentals of Game Design" (-> Great book btw):

Realism
Chapter 2, "Design Components and Processes," introduces the concept of realism in the context of a discussion about core mechanics. All games, no matter how realistic, require some abstraction and simplification of the real world. Even the multimillion-dollar flight simulators used for training commercial pilots are incapable of turning the cockpit completely upside down. This event is so rare (we hope) in passenger aircraft that it's not worth the extra money it would take to simulate it.

The degree of realism of any aspect of a game appears on a continuum of possibilities from highly representational at one end to highly abstract at the other. Players and game reviewers often talk about realism as a quality of an entire game, but in fact, the level of realism differs in individual components of the game. Many games have highly realistic graphics but unrealistic physics. A good many first-person shooters accurately model the performance characteristics of a variety of weapons—their rate of fire, size of ammunition clips, accuracy, and so on—but allow the player to carry about 10 of them at once with no reduction in speed or mobility. Therefore, realism is not a single dimension of a game world, but a multivariate quality that applies to all parts of the game and everything in it.

NOTE
If you're mathematically inclined, think of realism as a vector over every aspect of the game, with values ranging from 0, entirely abstract, to 1, entirely realistic. However, no value ever equals 1 because nothing about a game is ever entirely realistic—if it were, it would be life, not a game.

The representational/abstract dichotomy is mostly useful as a starting point when you're thinking about what kind of a game you want to create. On the one hand, if you're designing a cartoony action game such as Ratchet & Clank, you know that it's going to be mostly abstract. As you design elements of the game, you'll need to ask yourself how much realism you want to include. Can your avatar be hurt when he falls long distances? Is there a limit to how much he can carry at once? Do Newtonian physics apply to him, or can he change directions in midair?

On the other hand, if you're designing a game that people will expect to be representational—a vehicle or sports simulation, for example—then you have to think about it from the other direction. What aspects of the real world are you going to remove? Most modern fighter aircraft have literally hundreds of controls; that's why only a special group of people can be fighter pilots. To make a fighter simulation accessible to the general public, you'll have to simplify a lot of those controls. Similarly, a fighter jet's engine is so powerful that certain maneuvers can knock the pilot unconscious or even rip the plane apart. Are you going to simulate these limitations accurately, or make the game a little more abstract by not requiring the player to think about them?

Once again: Every design decision you make must serve the entertainment value of the game. In addition, every design decision must serve your goals for the game's overall degree of realism. Some genres demand more realism than others. It's up to you to establish how much realism you want and in what areas. You must also make sure that your decisions about realism don't destroy the game's harmony and balance. During the design process, you must continually monitor your decisions to see if they are meeting your goals.

 

[codexian reject]

Sounds like some classic academic bullshit artist, so lets check this guy out. So, he spent all his game design career at EA, with a single game shipped as designer: Madden Football and he wrote few books about game design.
Game design lecturer, a very prestigious profession... almost like creative writing lecturer

Generally there are two very different things which people confuse and use the term “abstraction” for. One is simplification of the mathematical model of reality, the other is an actual abstraction aka random stuff with no relation to reality whatsoever. In this quote from the book the two are mixed together, as a result I don't really get what point he is trying to make, if any. Ratchet and Clank and flight simulation are not on the opposite sides of abstraction – realism axis, they're entirely different, unrelated things. Flight combat game itself can be made as either, accurate simulation, or some twitch based shooter with basic controls and these two will be on the opposite sides of the same “simulation accuracy axis”.

I am not against simplification and selective removal, or exaggeration of some elements, or values in a model to make it fit better into game requirements, for the sake of subjectively perceived fun, ease of implementation, or whatever. I said “low detail, but 'plausible' simulation”, not “high detail , scientifically accurate simulation”. There is in this quote from the book a word that let me express it better, though. I prefer crpg rules to be representational, not abstract. For example JA2 ruleset is definitely representational enough to be plausible, while D&D is just totally abstract basic arithmetic nonsense with nothing being representational at all ( neither elegant, or balanced for that matter too ).

Representational rules in crpgs have few advantages over abstract ones. They reinforce your immersion and plausibility of the gameworld as a whole, instead of doing the opposite.
Player can apply his knowledge and experience to relatively effectively utilise available options, without having to waste time on studying ruleset thoroughly ( he can still do it, for powergaming purposes if he enjoys that ).
Studying abstract ruleset is required to play the game properly, so abstract rules in an economically viable game are required to be extremely primitive, because of the lowest common denominator, instant gratification, decline audience.
It's easier to design complex representational rules that are not broken. If you threw a lot of abstract equations together, stuff gets unpredictable with a huge chance of becoming easily exploitable, or to even fall apart.
Because of these two reasons, representational rules can get away with much more gameplay depth, without being confusing, or broken.

 

[tuluse]

actual abstraction aka random stuff with no relation to reality whatsoever

 

[Darkzone]

Think about this:
When do you have ever said to yourself or to others that this book or film or story or game of series is too realistic and that is why you don't like it. But how often did you said that you did not like it because it is not realistic or not plausibel or simple unbelievable.

 

[Rake]

Think about this:
When do you have ever said to yourself or to others that this book or film or story or game of series is too realistic and that is why you don't like it. But how often did you said that you did not like it because it is not realistic or not plausibel or simple unbelievable.

realistic isn't the same as plausible on believable though. At least not in the context that is used here.

 

[HiddenX]

Generally there are two very different things which people confuse and use the term “abstraction” for. One is simplification of the mathematical model of reality, the other is an actual abstraction aka random stuff with no relation to reality whatsoever. In this quote from the book the two are mixed together, as a result I don't really get what point he is trying to make, if any.

His points (I marked them before):

a) ... the level of realism differs in individual components of the game.

b) Every design decision you make must serve the entertainment value of the game.
In addition, every design decision must serve your goals for the game's overall degree of realism.
Some genres demand more realism than others.

c) You must also make sure that your decisions about realism don't destroy the game's harmony and balance.


In fact JA 2 is a wonderful example.

Some parts of the game are very close to the real thing: many weapons, with different sorts of ammo.
Some parts are very abstract, for example flying with the helicopter.

Both are right design decisions for this kind of game.

 

[Roguey]

Of course, one can abstract poorly. For example, simple HP vs. HP + stamina + locational damage. And I don't have to say which one them is considered more realistic.

There's nothing wrong with simple HP, it's worked well for a million games.

 

[HiddenX]

Think about this:
When do you have ever said to yourself or to others that this book or film or story or game of series is too realistic and that is why you don't like it. But how often did you said that you did not like it because it is not realistic or not plausibel or simple unbelievable.

There are many old CRPGs out there, that have a limited (realistic) backpack. And you to travel x-times between the dungeons and the adventurer-shop to sell the loot.

Realism: Yes
Better for the Gameplay: Not always

A limited backpack can be fun, if the equipment you carry is a tactical decision (Deus Ex, JA).

If a limited backpack just leads to extra travels it adds nothing to the gameplay.

Imagine the Gothic-games with a limited backpack -> Arggghhh

 

[Darkzone]

Rake
If you would answer honest the first question, then i will take my time and explain why i think that not realistic or not plausibel or simple unbelievable might be the same even in this context.

HiddenX
good example, because i think that a limited backpack always leads to extra travels (because humans are greedy), yet i think that that this was never an issue in the games, quite the opposite it made them interesting.
What would be FO:1 and all its successors without it ? But it would interest me where do you think that was an issue and what game did you not finish because of it.
So to mention that you had to extra travel, and had no other choice, but not because you were greedy (like me).
Sadly i have never played JA and JA 2, but i have only heard good things about it. I am really interested in Incubation, because you have mentioned it.

To the gothic games: i played only 2 and 3. 2 was fantastic but i cant remember why a limited backpack should be an issue, perhaps we have a different play style.
(I hate simply long inventory lists in a game.) My philosophie is to take with me (on a voyage) only the things, that i really need, nothing more.
FO:NV made me even more fun because of it, and naturally the hardcore mode, which was not hardcore enough.

 

[Rake]

Darkzone
I didn't read the last pages of the thread so sorry if i missed something. But when you talked about realism in the game, i understood it as how close the mechanics stick to real world rules.
To answer your question

When do you have ever said to yourself or to others that this book or film or story or game of series is too realistic and that is why you don't like it.

Never

But how often did you said that you did not like it because it is not realistic or not plausibel or simple unbelievable.

Define realistic. Because you can have a book/movie/game (especialy game) that is not realistic at all, but still be plausible and have internal consistency (i went with my above definition of realistic. If you meant something else, feel free to elaborate)
That's why i said not realistic and not plausible are different things.

also, about the backpack thing. It wasn't realistic still in most games. Something realistic would be along the lines of Witcher. 1 armor, 2 -3 weapons, and that's it. The only other things should be food,potions etc.
Ask yourself, would the gameplay be better with such 'realistic" limitations?

 

[tuluse]

verisimilitude verisimilitude verisimilitude