Support NeoGAF

[SRG01]

I think he totally misses the point about randomization. It definitely should be part of the gaming experience as it adds challenge and non-linearity to the gaming experience.

The reloading example is a bad example; the real problem is the over-use of save points and that any mistake can have a do-over.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

If a game lets you create a party that cannot succeed after a certain point or does not let you know that it cannot succeed until that part of the game is reached, that's terrible fucking design.

 

[saunderez]

I understand the accuracy issue when the character you're playing is supposed to be a sharpshooter. But for a game like Fallout NV where you don't remember who you are or what happened to you it kinda makes sense you're not the best shot in the world starting out. It gives you a sense of progression. That said, Obsidian's track record is disgusting. If they know what makes a great RPG, they sure don't put it into practice.

 

[Snuggles]

Did you just spoil Alpha Protocol for me? For real yo?

Nah, it's just a nickname, and it doesn't always play out that way with her.

Also: play Alpha Protocol.

 

[Castor Krieg]

Yup it's my #1 most hated thing in any wrpg, old or new. It sucks not being able to hit anything until you max out accuracy or something like that, and then not ever missing because it's maxed out.

Why? The reason AP is superior RPG to ME2 is because stats matter - your stealth abilities, your accuracy with AR matter more the more points you put in each skill. In ME2 you can really steamroll with any weapon, all extra powers are really just cosmetic changes.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Why? The reason AP is superior RPG to ME2 is because stats matter - your stealth abilities, your accuracy with AR matter more the more points you put in each skill. In ME2 you can really steamroll with any weapon, all extra powers are really just cosmetic changes.

The reason ME2 is a superior RPG to AP is because ME2 isn't a bad game.

If what matters is your character stats, then why bother having real time aiming? Why not just select a target and have your character's skills and the luck of the dice control what happens? If you want to ape the look and feel of a TPS but still shoehorn in oldschool dicerolls under the hood, you're doing it wrong. The disconnect between what you do and what happens feels terrible, and only a tiny minority thinks it's good (read: you). The reason it's bad should be quite obvious - RPG mechanics to govern combat exist because originally the technology to facilitate skill based aiming did not exist (pen and paper rpgs + early cRPGs). If you wanted to shoot somebody, you had to have a system to work it out. But now you have included player skill based mechanics (the aiming in third person), yet still want to include dice rolls, for no fucking reason.

Now, you say 'lol character progression', but who cares? You're not making your character awesome, you're just putting stats in so your character doesn't suck donkey dick. You're investing hard earned experience so that your guy is on par with what most games let you do to start out with, and when you get your shooting high enough you feel like you're hacking because it starts giving you ridiculous autoaim and recoil control (ME1). Instead, the game should simply have TPS mechanics if you want to include TPS gameplay (ME2). If you want RPG elements, character progression and so on, that's fine, those things are good, but don't do it with relation to shooting. Do it with relation to other things, and it's not like there's a shortage.

Please see Deus Ex: Human Revolution for an example of this done right without losing depth in other areas of your RPG mechanics.

 

[Blue Ninja]

This is from Mass Effect 1, right? I played the game for 15 minutes and returned it because of the disconnect between on screen action and what happened under the hood to decide the actual effects of gunfire. Awful, and the point is spot on.

You'd like ME2 a lot better then. As did I.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

This right here is the crowining achievement in dismissive, exclusionistic, horseshittingest vested-interest soapboxing of this generation. Take a bow, J.E., take a bow.

If there is one thing I want made clear about this generation and my counter-screeds, is that pitchmen like this (and that's what keynoters that talk like this are: pitchmen) are talking up the very features of the very games they have a vested interest in and worse, downplaying or strawmanning older, tested alternative ways of doing things without the verified loss of sales or public support of the players who play games with those mechanics.

There is room for other ways unless it is proven by a way failing in the market repeatedly (and even then, they are reduced drasticly in number like shmups or go into hiatus like point&click adventures).

Dogma dogma DOGMA.

It's even odder, #1 looks even more like spin in light of that kind of balancing of action movements and RPG stats being around since at LEAST 1994.

 

[Mr_Appleby]

on this topic, one thing that needs to go is random dice rolls for stats when creating a character. what's the point of that? min-maxers will just keep re-rolling till they get some uberstats, newbies will get gimped by not knowing they needed to roll an INT of 15 or greater so that 8 hours into the game their warrior can become a paladin.

just let us distribute a few points at the beginning or something. easy.

 

[trw]

I understand the accuracy issue when the character you're playing is supposed to be a sharpshooter. But for a game like Fallout NV where you don't remember who you are or what happened to you it kinda makes sense you're not the best shot in the world starting out. It gives you a sense of progression. That said, Obsidian's track record is disgusting. If they know what makes a great RPG, they sure don't put it into practice.

You mean the track-record of mask of the betrayer, alpha protocol. new vegas... three of the best if not the best three rpgs the latest six years?

 

[Derrick01]

Why? The reason AP is superior RPG to ME2 is because stats matter - your stealth abilities, your accuracy with AR matter more the more points you put in each skill. In ME2 you can really steamroll with any weapon, all extra powers are really just cosmetic changes.

Well like he said, no human enjoys missing because a computer was bored and decided to troll them. Stats can and should matter, but not accuracy. Never accuracy, leave that one up to the player. If you go the stealth route in AP you're going to be playing one of the easiest games ever because the abilities and stats for those abilities are broken. You can run up right in front of someone and they won't see you for almost a minute, and that only has like a 20 second cooldown.

And I would say AP is better because of the story and the branching dialog, not because they make me miss when I shoot.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

On one hand, you've got games like Diablo that feature what would usually be considered staples of the RPG genre in terms of combat, equipment and the like, but don't usually focus on the player's role in the game's narrative.
On the other, you have Mass Effect 2, which tries to make the player's decisions and role in the storyline a selling point, but sloughs off more traditional RPG elements in the areas of combat and character customization.

So the question becomes about which approaches to gameplay and story you consider vital parts of the RPG genre, and which you don't. Most people have their own mental list of what makes a "true RPG," and those lists vary wildly.

You could agree with the latter as your definition of what determines an RPG and still think ME2 is a bad RPG. Just sayin'.

 

[semiconscious]

If what matters is your character stats, then why bother having real time aiming? Why not just select a target and have your character's skills and the luck of the dice control what happens? If you want to ape the look and feel of a TPS but still shoehorn in oldschool dicerolls under the hood, you're doing it wrong. The disconnect between what you do and what happens feels terrible, and only a tiny minority thinks it's good (read: you). The reason it's bad should be quite obvious - RPG mechanics to govern combat exist because originally the technology to facilitate skill based aiming did not exist (pen and paper rpgs + early cRPGs). If you wanted to shoot somebody, you had to have a system to work it out. But now you have included player skill based mechanics (the aiming in third person), yet still want to include dice rolls, for no fucking reason...

excellent point. it's an awkward combination of 2 elements which serves neither well. & why i'd say either straight-forward skill-based nechanics, or the totally stat-based gunplay of a game like resonance of fate, where you're under no illusions & you know what's what, are both more effective & satisfying approaches...

there's a reason no one's come up with an rpg-platformer ...

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If you wanted to shoot somebody, you had to have a system to work it out. But now you have included player skill based mechanics (the aiming in third person), yet still want to include dice rolls, for no fucking reason.

You are wrong but it doesn't really matter since for most people what makes a difference is how a game lives up to their preconceptions.

Randomness is used to simulate complex systems. Because so many natural phenomena are normally distributed then randomness can simulate them pretty convincingly. The chance to miss a target when shooting is one thing that can be simulated randomly. Although if you just want to play a superhuman marksman with a perfect railgun that can one shot kill everything then complexity like that is irrelevant.

 

[Riposte]

Well, "hit points" are already an abstract mechanic which is suppose to represent near misses and shallow wounds. So it isn't too absurd to get rid of the huge inaccuracies in RPG-inspired shooting games. That said, I don't agree that all humans dislike it as long as the system allows you get around randomness through tactical play.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Yeah, there are two levels of sim. If you hit based on the circumstances and how much damage is done if a hit is registered. In a tactical shooter it makes more sense to get rid of the hit points than the chance to not hit although how much randomness is factored into the chance to hit depends on the sim.

If you look at something like Frozen Synapse then if you hit then the enemy is basically taken out. The accuracy simulation is also done in such a way that even though it appears complex enough to appear random it is predictable. But that is a special case.

 

[DiscoJer]

Well like he said, no human enjoys missing because a computer was bored and decided to troll them. Stats can and should matter, but not accuracy. Never accuracy, leave that one up to the player.

I dunno. When you shoot in real life, you never expect to miss when you aim at something. But you often do (unless you are a competition shooter or something).

I like shooting soda cans with my revolver as a hobby. Sometimes I can put all six shots in one from 25 ft, sometimes I'll only get two, most the time I'll get three or four.

Granted, with a scope and rifle, it's a lot harder to miss. But still there is a chance.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Randomness is used to simulate complex systems. Because so many natural phenomena are normally distributed then randomness can simulate them pretty convincingly. The chance to miss a target when shooting is one thing that can be simulated randomly. Although if you just want to play a superhuman marksman with a perfect railgun that can one shot kill everything then complexity like that is irrelevant.

Except if it was actually simulated (and don't pretend like it can't be), the act of aiming would be more difficult. Scope wobble, ballistic trajectories on bullets, imperfectly aligned ironsights, drastically reduced sensitivity when aiming down sights and so forth would all be present. You wouldn't be able to line up targets with superhuman precision then be forced to wait 9 seconds while the cone on your gun slowly reduces, despite the fact that your character is clearly aiming right at the guy's head.

In Alpha protocol, the act of aiming is very easy, but aiming properly doesn't mean crap regarding whether or not you're going to be able to hit your target, which is annoying. No amount of player skill can overcome it, making it frustrating. Note that people generally don't complain that there is conefire when not aiming, which is itself a randomized distribution of bullets.

Now, expectations are of course important. If it looks like a cover shooter, controls like a cover shooter and you're in cover, shooting people, then the fact that it plays like a dog turd compared to others in the genre does matter. The game doesn't suddenly, miraculously become "fun" because you say "lol its rpg not shooter". If the gunplay in other (extremely popular) games is better, then it's better, regardless of any reasons for why you have chosen to deliberately make the shooting in your game less fun.

 

[V_Arnold]

Wow, some awesome points in there. I will incorporate some of this in my projects.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I said yesterday that removing the dice rolls wouldn't have saved the game and what I mean is that the game wasn't strong enough in some of those other areas you mentioned to compensate. The randomness is a shortcut for simulating accuracy. It didn't really feel great in Alpha Protocol. But I think that different sorts of games should have different solutions and a game with a specialised character should change depending on how good the character is with it's specialised skills.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I said yesterday that removing the dice rolls wouldn't have saved the game and what I mean is that the game wasn't strong enough in some of those other areas you mentioned to compensate. The randomness is a shortcut for simulating accuracy. It didn't really feel great in Alpha Protocol. But I think that different sorts of games should have different solutions and a game with a specialised character should change depending on how good the character is in it's specialised skills.

Yes, while I am against this design decision in general AP itself is a bad example of it's implementation, and has many other problems as well. ME1 is fondly remembered despite having the same design decision, because other areas partially compensate and arguably it wasn't as bad to begin with.

 

[ecosse_011172]

If you decide on an RPG after 15 mins you're a fucking clown.

 

[Cyrix]

This is why guns in RPGs are a sticky wicket. A sword or frying pan you can roll for. But how do you do calculations for something that is supposed to shoot 100 rounds a minute?

With the computer your playing the game on?
it's really not difficult.

The problem with "dice roll" accuracy has more to do with the disconnect of direct control over aiming your weapon having no real impact on the result of firing the weapon.

 

[Confidence Man]

Now, expectations are of course important. If it looks like a cover shooter, controls like a cover shooter and you're in cover, shooting people, then the fact that it plays like a dog turd compared to others in the genre does matter. The game doesn't suddenly, miraculously become "fun" because you say "lol its rpg not shooter". If the gunplay in other (extremely popular) games is better, then it's better, regardless of any reasons for why you have chosen to deliberately make the shooting in your game less fun.

If the expectation is that it's a RPG, regardless of how it's presented, then it's not difficult to accept less fun shooting, because worrying about making a fun shooter is tantamount to deliberately making the role playing less fun.

Of course if you're selling the game as a shooter it's a little different, but AP didn't really do that.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

I like his ideas learned over the years.

Obsidian is getting better. I think their next in house project will use what they've learned to make a great game around their outstanding storytelling.

 

[bengraven]

I like this line:

Some games expect the player to manage too many options at once, and often developers argue that this is "dumbing down" the game to reduce them. However, he said, "This isn't about whether an RPG gamer can play twitch gameplay, it's about if a player is asked to manage a lot of stuff you shouldn't ask them to."

Thank you brotha.

Two Worlds II, Risen and Ultima rpg fans

 

[robin2]

I don't agree to what he says. Certain points seem ok-ish, others... I don't know, but it feels like he's aiming to make a toy more than a game. The possibility of failing (even badly) is a fundamental thing that distinguish a game from a toy. I think.

 

[Wallach]

I hope he actually means what he says here.

 

[Sir Garbageman]

If a game lets you create a party that cannot succeed after a certain point or does not let you know that it cannot succeed until that part of the game is reached, that's terrible fucking design.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with a "hardcore" game with insane amount of stats as long as they're properly explained.

 

[djtiesto]

excellent point. it's an awkward combination of 2 elements which serves neither well. & why i'd say either straight-forward skill-based nechanics, or the totally stat-based gunplay of a game like resonance of fate, where you're under no illusions & you know what's what, are both more effective & satisfying approaches...

there's a reason no one's come up with an rpg-platformer ...

Yeah they have, in fact it's by the same team as the aforemented Resonance of Fate