What cRPG has the most ridiculously (unnecessarily) elaborate mechanics?

[HiddenX]

Arcatera: The Dark Brotherhood (Failed Let's Play)

worst game mechanics ever.

 

[octavius]

Nope. AI is what makes characters act and react, make decisions and so on.
Pathfinding is the part of the AI involving making decisions regarding getting from A to B in possibly effective and efficient manner.

Except in the IE games the AI only affects the enemies, and pathfinding mainly affects the player characters if you are playing with manual control. If the straight path from A to B is blocked at the time of being ordered to go from A to B, the character will instead take the alternative route around the globe, but a computer controlled enemy (or player character) re-checks their orders every round.
So in practice there is a difference between AI and Pathfinding in the IE games.
In the IE games the poor pathfinding can be countered by careful babysitting, but nothing can fix the poor AI in most other cRPGs.

IE games failed hard at both fronts - being effectively TB emulators running in RT they obviously didn't benefit from fine timing control, and the AI, including pathfinding was an absolute clusterfuck.

AI and Pathfinding are two different things, at least when it comes to the IE games. AI is how smart the enemy is. In most of my favourite games (Gold Box, Civilization and Age of Wonders games) the AI is the weakest link, but in the IE games it can be really good.

Any system where an enemy between two archers runs back and forth unable to decide which to run at does not have good AI.

You're clutching at straws now.
The AI in the IE games is still better (and more moddable) than the AI of the majority of CRPGs.

 

[octavius]

From what I have read, Knights of Legend fits the bill for this thread. All combat EVERYTHING is super complex with poorly implemented interfaces to further obfuscate and pad gameplay. To add further salt to the wound, the game has a literally arcane magic system COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE GAME

I wouldn't say the combat is super complex, just very slow.
The problem with combat in KoL is the overly large battlefields, slow movement and the most boring encounter design in the history of CRPGs.
And the magic system was not irrelevant.

 

[RK47]

It's not complex. It's just shit.

 

[victim]

I disagree with almost every single poster in this thread.

 

[Lhynn]

I disagree with almost every single poster in this thread.

Until you explain how and why you are just shitposting.

 

[Giauz Ragnacock]

And the magic system was not irrelevant.

The magic system in the game is one of the most oddest I've seen, and some commenters have opined that it is unnecessary to play the game.

 

[Whiran]

From what I have read, Knights of Legend fits the bill for this thread. All combat EVERYTHING is super complex with poorly implemented interfaces to further obfuscate and pad gameplay. To add further salt to the wound, the game has a literally arcane magic system COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE GAME

I remember buying this game as a kid and playing the heck out of it. What a great use for paper route money.

I liked it so much that I wanted the expansion and was super sad that there wasn't one. I really enjoyed the concept of aiming each attack and, yeah, combat was a long thing to go through. I don't remember the story at all I just remember the combat and that I enjoyed the game.

That being written, I think Knights of Legends probably fits the bill for elaborate mechanics but my memory of the game is really fuzzy.

I bet I still have the game box for it in storage somewhere.

 

[victim]

I disagree with almost every single poster in this thread.

Until you explain how and why you are just shitposting.

I think virtually every RPG has many poor implemented, ill conceived ideas that are essentially unsalvageable and should simply be eliminated.

The first time you play a game, the enthusiasm and the engagement that comes with a learning curve may mask these faults that produce littlee but tedium, frustration, and capitulation. But come back a year later and tell me you don't end up putting the game down thinking "damn this is clunky/unnecessary/stupid etc).

For instance -- every crafting systeme ever. You basically need a list that is hundreds or thousands of entries long -- but you may end up caring about only a dozen. This means that the entire system is basically inaccessible AND superfluous. I want to say that it literally can't get more unnecessarily elaborate than that -- but I know that it can.

 

[Lhynn]

I disagree with almost every single poster in this thread.

Until you explain how and why you are just shitposting.

I think virtually every RPG has many poor implemented, ill conceived ideas that are essentially unsalvageable and should simply be eliminated.

The first time you play a game, the enthusiasm and the engagement that comes with a learning curve may mask these faults that produce littlee but tedium, frustration, and capitulation. But come back a year later and tell me you don't end up putting the game down thinking "damn this is clunky/unnecessary/stupid etc).

For instance -- every crafting systeme ever. You basically need a list that is hundreds or thousands of entries long -- but you may end up caring about only a dozen. This means that the entire system is basically inaccessible AND superfluous. I want to say that it literally can't get more unnecessarily elaborate than that -- but I know that it can.

I like unnecesasarily elaborate mechanics, the ones that add depth and complexity, the ones that force me to learn to survive, i like it when they are obvious but obscure, like survival gear featured on realms of arkania. It adds to the game and to the world. All those unnecessary things are what Drew me to the genre in the first place.
You are confusing complex mechanics with shit implementation. BG II crafting system was alright, pretty enjoyable, so is Dark Souls crafting system. Did the game need them to be good?

 

[octavius]

And the magic system was not irrelevant.

The magic system in the game is one of the most oddest I've seen, and some commenters have opined that it is unnecessary to play the game.

Well, I don't agree with those opinions.
Sure, like many other CRPGs you can play without using magic, but personally I found it useful and worth spending some time on. Magic system was rather boring, though, with spells only affecting the health of party members or monsters, and no buffs, area effect or global spells, IIRC.

 

[J1M]

Another argument about RTWP and the best it's proponents can come up with is "the initiative stat is too powerful in some games, so I prefer using manual dexterity to ensure I always go first"?

 

[SCO]

The summoning *ducks*



Realms of Arkania or TOME4 is good complexity, this is just full retard.

 

[DraQ]

AI is what I mean by AI instead of what is commonly referred to as AI.

No.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Will you start sperging going aspie on what is AI (context: video games)?

 

[V_K]

agic system was rather boring, though, with spells only affecting the health of party members or monsters, and no buffs, area effect or global spells, IIRC.

You could actually affect characters' and monsters' attributes too, it just wasn't worth the trouble. Thus 80% of available magic in KoL is irrelevant.

 

[Johannes]

AI is what I mean by AI instead of what is commonly referred to as AI.

No.

Get a clue, when people talk of AI first and foremost they WILL mean the enemy AI. And not how your own guys respond to your orders or act when idle. Yes, that is AI too, but that's something you specify with "unit AI", "idle AI", "pathfinding", and the like, to differentiate that you're not talking about the AI handling enemy actions.

And who the fuck cares about definitions anyway when you could instead talk about the actual issue instead of semantics?

 

[Daemongar]

The summoning *ducks*

Realms of Arkania or TOME4 is good complexity, this is just full retard.

Have you played The Summoning, or are you just watching the video and commenting on the "inventory management" of the guy playing? If you are saying inventory management in the Summoning sucks, that's one thing. However, I wouldn't call the mechanics of TheSummoning elaborate. If you are saying the magic system is unnecessarily elaborate, I would say you are nuts. I really enjoyed the magic system of The Summoning, just wish there were more mana potions, etc.

 

[DraQ]

Get a clue, when people talk of AI first and foremost they WILL mean the enemy AI. And not how your own guys respond to your orders or act when idle. Yes, that is AI too, but that's something you specify with "unit AI", "idle AI", "pathfinding", and the like, to differentiate that you're not talking about the AI handling enemy actions.

What if both AI s use exact same components?
Because I wouldn't expect enemy pathfinding code to be different from friendly pathfinding code, nor the way enemy AI scripts are handled to be different from the one responsible partymembers AI scripts.

And I'm not the one who jumped out with this "pathifnding is not AI" retardation.
Pathfinding is very much AI and can be sole difference between an effective combatant and a gibbering moron.

 

[octavius]

Get a clue, when people talk of AI first and foremost they WILL mean the enemy AI. And not how your own guys respond to your orders or act when idle. Yes, that is AI too, but that's something you specify with "unit AI", "idle AI", "pathfinding", and the like, to differentiate that you're not talking about the AI handling enemy actions.

What if both AI s use exact same components?
Because I wouldn't expect enemy pathfinding code to be different from friendly pathfinding code, nor the way enemy AI scripts are handled to be different from the one responsible partymembers AI scripts.

Of course the AI scripts are not different. But that's not what we were discussing anyway, as I specifically mentioned manual control, not using AI scripts.
As I tried to explain, scripts are continually checked, so the pathfinding is usually not a problem in those cases. The problem is when you use manual control and neglect/forget to babysit the characters, and they behave like morons due to blocking or lack of line of sight at the moment they got their order.

 

[Lujo]

I'd like to bring up the original Fallouts as an example of games which manage to be both needlessly complex and bare bones at the same time. The problem those games have is that every possible interaction with an enemy is a "nuke" by default (which is why aimed shots fail - they're the only way to debuff something and you're still hitting stuff with bullets to do it). It's people shooting guns at each other all the time! Anyone who's ever held a players handbook for, say, 3rd Edition D&D can be astounded by the disparity of options spellcasters have at their disposal compared to those of fighters. In Fallout, everyone's a fighter! Which then makes the item progresion all about the deeps and armor (and arguably range). But there's a ton of guns and ammo in the game, except if you already have whatever does the most deeps, most of what you can find lying around or gain as quest rewards turns out to be nothing more than vendor trash. It's not a very complex game combat wise, but the level of complexity it does have is... needless.


As for other games... IDK, I find most of the D&D based systems have really aged badly and were always needlessly complex or poorly concieved. My experience with Dota really turned my approach to pen and paper D&D around. It condeses the concept of level based combat RPG to an episodic format, it's fully real time, and it's brilliant in design because what would have to be handled by an AI is handled by humans. No pause needed. It does have clearly defined party roles, and 4 or so spells/abilities (some of them passive) and 6 item slots (most of which give passive bonuses), and a wide variety of class packages for a wide variety of different experiences on every "playthrough". Desktop dungeons feels like a single player TB variant of this. After having spent too much of my life playing videogames, I'd say a variant of this is about as complex as combat design in an RPG needs to be to not be needlessly bloated.

If you think about it, to reverse-engineer a decent RPG out of this bare bones condensation, all you really need is to replace lane creep grind with questing, cook up a big enough non-combat perk/reputation/skill character customisation system, and a decent story and world. Everything else will be needlessly complex one way or another. If you make it turn based or phase based, coding an AI for it wouldn't even be too hard. Yeah, it's a bit jRPG-ish but it makes for complexity in the learning curve rather than execution, I think.

 

[DraQ]

Of course the AI scripts are not different. But that's not what we were discussing anyway, as I specifically mentioned manual control, not using AI scripts.
As I tried to explain, scripts are continually checked, so the pathfinding is usually not a problem in those cases. The problem is when you use manual control and neglect/forget to babysit the characters, and they behave like morons due to blocking or lack of line of sight at the moment they got their order.

Sorry, but no part of BG AI is defensible.
Enemies can be drawn around in front of the archers for cheesy kills, small sight radius and disabling AI outside of player's visual range makes for some extremely cheesy exploits resulting from merely trying to fight smart. Scripts are good to have, but they too are pretty bare-bones.
Whether or not pathfinding behaves differently for selected units doesn't change the fact that it's an inexcusable clusterfuck.

 

[No Great Name]

I'd like to bring up the original Fallouts as an example of games which manage to be both needlessly complex and bare bones at the same time. The problem those games have is that every possible interaction with an enemy is a "nuke" by default (which is why aimed shots fail - they're the only way to debuff something and you're still hitting stuff with bullets to do it). It's people shooting guns at each other all the time! Anyone who's ever held a players handbook for, say, 3rd Edition D&D can be astounded by the disparity of options spellcasters have at their disposal compared to those of fighters. In Fallout, everyone's a fighter! Which then makes the item progresion all about the deeps and armor (and arguably range). But there's a ton of guns and ammo in the game, except if you already have whatever does the most deeps, most of what you can find lying around or gain as quest rewards turns out to be nothing more than vendor trash. It's not a very complex game combat wise, but the level of complexity it does have is... needless.

Not everything needs to be D&D. Combat in Fallout is based more on positioning and how you use the items and help you have at your disposal (and a bit of luck) rather than simply having the best gear.

As for other games... IDK, I find most of the D&D based systems have really aged badly and were always needlessly complex or poorly concieved. My experience with Dota really turned my approach to pen and paper D&D around. It condeses the concept of level based combat RPG to an episodic format, it's fully real time, and it's brilliant in design because what would have to be handled by an AI is handled by humans. No pause needed. It does have clearly defined party roles, and 4 or so spells/abilities (some of them passive) and 6 item slots (most of which give passive bonuses), and a wide variety of class packages for a wide variety of different experiences on every "playthrough". Desktop dungeons feels like a single player TB variant of this. After having spent too much of my life playing videogames, I'd say a variant of this is about as complex as combat design in an RPG needs to be to not be needlessly bloated.

I bolded the relevant part. This type of design only works because you're playing against other humans and because not only is every game short compared to an RPG but because every game starts from square one. This would not translate very well at all to a single-player RPG.

If you think about it, to reverse-engineer a decent RPG out of this bare bones condensation, all you really need is to replace lane creep grind with questing, cook up a big enough non-combat perk/reputation/skill character customisation system, and a decent story and world. Everything else will be needlessly complex one way or another. If you make it turn based or phase based, coding an AI for it wouldn't even be too hard. Yeah, it's a bit jRPG-ish but it makes for complexity in the learning curve rather than execution, I think.

You make it sound easier than it actually is.

 

[aleph]

I'd like to bring up the original Fallouts as an example of games which manage to be both needlessly complex and bare bones at the same time. The problem those games have is that every possible interaction with an enemy is a "nuke" by default (which is why aimed shots fail - they're the only way to debuff something and you're still hitting stuff with bullets to do it).

'sup drog?

 

[octavius]

Of course the AI scripts are not different. But that's not what we were discussing anyway, as I specifically mentioned manual control, not using AI scripts.
As I tried to explain, scripts are continually checked, so the pathfinding is usually not a problem in those cases. The problem is when you use manual control and neglect/forget to babysit the characters, and they behave like morons due to blocking or lack of line of sight at the moment they got their order.

Sorry, but no part of BG AI is defensible.
Enemies can be drawn around in front of the archers for cheesy kills, small sight radius and disabling AI outside of player's visual range makes for some extremely cheesy exploits resulting from merely trying to fight smart. Scripts are good to have, but they too are pretty bare-bones.
Whether or not pathfinding behaves differently for selected units doesn't change the fact that it's an inexcusable clusterfuck.

Why not play BG1 with Sword Coast Stratagems installed instead of debating the AI of vanilla unpatched BG1 which was only relevant back in 1998-1999?