Threepwood
Look, Ma! Two Heads!

Morbus said:thismobucks said:Stop making fps rpgs.
FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.
Morbus said:thismobucks said:Stop making fps rpgs.
It's not a broken mechanic but it is a bad mechanic. Honestly most PnP games have poorly designed dice mechanics anyway as you end up with a skill check that is impossible for some characters to fail and for others to succeed. Sawyer nailed the problem with a lot of games which is that the skill increases are too incremental, especially in cRPGs (the Fallout series is a good example).Zumbs said:He does have a point on the notion of rolls, though. Many players will reload and try again if they fail, which suggests a broken mechanic. I actually like the static skill requirement in FONV. If the locks/terminal difficulty had progressed in steps of 5 (instead of 25), and a lockpicking/hacking attempt were an activate, play some animation, followed by a message success or failure, it would have been a lot more enjoyable to me.
Ideally you shouldn't be able to make a character which is unplayable and ideally all possible characters should be equal. Of course this is really difficult to pair with a variety of choices.LinkPain said:What he said is a sorrowful truth, but then the companies (looking at today RPG experiences) went to the other extremes. Create whatever you like, the game is too easy and you will win anyway. That's dumbing down, trying to make player like the game more because he's a "god" in it.
IW at least thought people to think broadly about their gameplay and not rush it mindlessly, but that lesson was painful.
Rarely a medium is found.
The game will be worse for it. It makes build choices less important and the game more frustrating for the player.Lexx said:Well, but the point is, that if it is possible to open a lock by luck, you can do save-scumming and most people will do this. Just because they can.
Exactly. Online games are also the only genre in which true role-playing occurs as well. It's another reason why single-player RPGs shouldn't try to mimic most PnP mechanics, merely use it as a base.Lexx said:Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.
Threepwood said:Morbus said:thismobucks said:Stop making fps rpgs.
FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.
Threepwood said:FPS/RPG's have a monumental market. They will not stop being produced. Atleast I hope not; I find it to be a great marriage of genres.
Lexx said:A defensive game is the answer (I would want).Surf Solar said:But why is this a problem? If
Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.
You can't (or shouldn't) stop a determined cheater/Hex&RAM editor; but a general discouragement is a good thing IMO.
I have played games that hash the save game to discourage tinkering with it, and you can design a game to anticipate [and make moot] any reload spamming.
I would not want all possible characters to be equal ~except in a very broad technical sense; as if they were all some kind of 40 point build; Not with STATS, but with in game "value" and access. I would want a PC that had minimum combat skills traded for a maxed out lock pick skill (for example), to be considered equal (despite the cripplingly low combat ability) due to them being the only PC's with any chance of accessing certain locked areas in the game.UncannyGarlic said:Ideally you shouldn't be able to make a character which is unplayable and ideally all possible characters should be equal.
Gizmojunk said:Lexx said:A defensive game is the answer (I would want).Surf Solar said:But why is this a problem? If
Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.
You can't (or shouldn't) stop a determined cheater/Hex&RAM editor; but a general discouragement is a good thing IMO.
I have played games that hash the save game to discourage tinkering with it, and you can design a game to anticipate [and make moot] any reload spamming.
Yes, this is pretty similar to the "delay consequences from immediate to late ones" I mentionend earlier. I personally don't savescum since it'd just ruin the playflow, but I can understand why people think it's an issue.
That is some kind of sarcasm here right ?UncannyGarlic said:Exactly. Online games are also the only genre in which true role-playing occurs as well. It's another reason why single-player RPGs shouldn't try to mimic most PnP mechanics, merely use it as a base.Lexx said:Only in MMOs, real skill rolls are working, because the player can't reload and has to live with what happens.
mobucks said:lesson # 6:
Stop making fps rpgs.
I like them don't get me wrong, but I think its time.
.Pixote. said:Why can't people make mistakes in games, what's wrong with starting the game afresh - if that game is truly enjoyable then it's not an issue. Working your way around the games flaws is apart of gaming. Who wants a perfect game anyway.![]()
Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.
Lexx said:Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.
Well, this would be the fault of the game designers. Ultimately, every choice you can have in a game should not give you disadvantages.
Why is it about them?Artisticspaz said:lesson # 6:
Working around flaws is one thing, but having to restart a game from the beginning after 15-30 hours? That's different. Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.
I Finished Fallout, but I have several RPG that I have owned for years without completing them to the end. Arx, Bloodlines, ToEE, Arcanum, Menzobaranzan, Stone Prophet, Lands of Lore 2 & 3; Pool of Radiance 2. I play them when I can, and do not need to invest 15 hours a sitting ~(but that's not what you meant...); Still, why retrace your steps? (unless the RPG kind of demands it.Some people don't have the time, either because of work or alot of other games they'd like to get to, to replay the game another 15 or so hours just to get back to where they were.
Maybe. But just because you can chose a "role" does not mean that you are playing it.Flick said:He was referring to what UncannyGarlic said, and Crni Vuk I think he meant more they role play as in they pick a role as warrior or mage and play only that instead of making a character that can do little bit of everything.
It's an extremely low self-esteem among some RPG gamers >_>Gizmojunk said:** Many players seem to take the PC's failure as a reflection on themselves, I've never really understood this point of view; but I have noticed that it seems more common in players posting about first person RPGs.
Lexx said:Not many people want to waste that many hours playing a game only to find out that a choice made in the beginning completely f***ed them over so they have to restart.
Ultimately, every choice you can have in a game should not give you disadvantages.
What difference is there when each choice I take is some handholding into better stuff/better stats/the npc being my friend or simply nothing?
Lexx said:What difference is there when each choice I take is some handholding into better stuff/better stats/the npc being my friend or simply nothing?
Why should I chose the path that gives me disadvantages? To gimp myself? What if I don't want to gimp myself? Giving the player a different reward based on his choice, that's what you should do, not punishing him.
This has absolutely nothing to do with yer fancy "hand holding, fellatio, let me masturbate this for you"-mantra. Just because a player is rewarded in the same amount regardless of what he chooses, it doesn't mean you are handholding him in whatever way.
And your Fallout 1 example is flawed. It's a possible game ending, not a way to continue playing.
The player would only notice that the option he chooses may be a flaw for his later adventure if it is punched in his face in the most obvious way.
But it is? If I can choose from different shades of awesome, the entire point of the "choice" is flawed.
And? It doesn't matter if the game ends that way, it's still a path I can choose to take, an outcome of a previous choice I made.