235 réponses à ce sujet

[Rusty Sandusky]

MerinTB wrote...
I come from a different generation of gamers, where you often had games without manuals

Isn't that this generation of games as well?

[Fast Jimmy]

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
I come from a different generation of gamers, where you often had games without manuals

Isn't that this generation of games as well?

This is true enough. 

I'd say older games were MORE likely to put a manual in. Some games like Ultima 4 had stuff in the manual that you wouldn't be able to beat the game without knowing... old school DRM.

Nowadays, you're lucky to get a two page insert that even tells you how to turn the game on.  

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I used to learn to play games the hard way without manuals. If I fail at them too much I may use the manuals (or tutorials). Like in Paradox Plaza games.

[Eternal Phoenix]

In Exile wrote...
Except that you have to understand what the completely non-intuitive and garbage statistics actually mean your first time through, since you're locked into them from the start. And how the feat packages work for weapons. And what spells aren't complete garbage (well, all of them, since you only get to). And then appreciate things like how scrolls work, which is a very counter-intuitive way of actually creating magic. 

It's self-explanatory though.

Strength = stronger damage.
Dexterity = better use of ranged weapons and ability to dodge better.
Intelligence = more powerful spells and ability to cast them (as any class that can use spells)
Constitution = better health.
Wisdom = the intelligence statistic for priests. It's required for them to cast their divine spells.
Charisma = how other NPC's perceive you.

The default statistics for classes and the class roll feature should also reveal the statistics that are most important for a class. There is also a description of statistics telling you who they're most important for.

Scrolls are also self-explanatory. The fireball scroll casts a fireball. The sleep scroll casts sleep and they have descriptions too.

In Exile wrote...
And how do you think you learn what a good party set up is?

By setting up a party and then going out into the wilds to fight. It's common sense too. Quick-save/load works wonders here when testing out tactics against enemy encounters.

• If I'm playing as a sorcerer then I'd make sure I'd have some warriors in my party to defend him.
• If I've got a team of melee-orientated classes then I'd have a priest to heal their inevitable wounds.

It's like an RTS. Yet no one bashes them when a newbie gets killed for sending cavalry charging into spear-man. This is self-explanatory just as it's self-explanatory that an entire team of LV 1 wizards are going to gang banged by a group of warriors. Strategy is required. Wizards have no armor and their melee attacks are useless. Obviously they need melee defense when they're casting their spells (which a newbie would see requires a casting time and therefore they should work out themselves that they need to be defended while casting a spell).

In Exile wrote...
Dark Souls - being a single person action game - is intuitive but difficult. 

So is Baldur's Gate as I explained above. It also contains descriptions and its not the game's fault if someone avoids reading them. It's a hardcore game and it was clearly designed as such (permanent companion death and the fact that companions could be turned to stone which would require you to find a scroll to turn them back to flesh spoke volumes on this).

And yes, I played Baldur's Gate without any online guide or prior reading. I went straight into it and I thought it played fine. This was only a few years back when I had never played it before.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 novembre 2013 - 03:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Strength = stronger damage.
Dexterity = better use of ranged weapons and ability to dodge better.
Intelligence = more powerful spells and ability to cast them (as any class that can use spells)
Constitution = better health.
Wisdom = the intelligence statistic for priests. It's required for them to cast their divine spells.
Charisma = how other NPC's perceive you.

To be fair, DA2 had Cunning, not dexterity, as the prime driver of being aboe to dodge. So assuming these stats are intuitive for all games may not be logical.

Also... Constitution is a silly stat name. If you have never player a video game or a PnP, most people only know a Constitution as a government document. When was the last time you heard someone say "wow, that marathon runner must really have a strong constitution!" This isn't the freaking 1870's. Use a common word, like Endurance. Otherwise, you're telling your player to pull out a dictionary to understand your "intuitive" system.

[Beerfish]

BG was tough to figure out simply because it was a DnD game that was obligated to use that rule set. It was a trade off, you are getting a certain boost to the game because it is DnD but you are making it tougher on players that have never played DnD and are coming in cold re the rules.

to this day BG1 is still one of the best games I've ever played regarding pacing and player progression. It was actually a really big deal when you gained a level, it was actually a really big deal when you found your 1st decent magic weapon.

In todays games you level up ever hour or so and after a point are tossing powerful items into the dust bin because you have so much loot. The DA games at least did a good job in this regard as far as what you were able to afford but you still found gobs of high level stuff.

[metatheurgist]

Fun thread. I have to agree that back in the day, the people that bought BG were probably DnD fans, so there wouldn't have been a huge need to explain the rules. Back then gamers were mostly computer nerds into RPGs and stats and maths so they probably would've had an easier time working stuff out rather than the casuals today. And THAC0 sucked, it was unnecessarily convoluted. Mark me down as another fan of the 3.0 changes.

And the casual attitude of I don't want to read/learn rules/think about options is the reason why we got 4th edition. Even though some people like that sort of thing and think there's nothing wrong with it.

[Joy Divison]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also... Constitution is a silly stat name. If you have never player a video game or a PnP, most people only know a Constitution as a government document. When was the last time you heard someone say "wow, that marathon runner must really have a strong constitution!" This isn't the freaking 1870's. Use a common word, like Endurance. Otherwise, you're telling your player to pull out a dictionary to understand your "intuitive" system.

Actually the word constitution defines exactly what the D&D ability is supposed to represent.  Back in the day, players had to roll dice for resist/recover from disease, a bodily check to survive ploymorph/raise dead attempts, and other things predicated on overall fitness/health that had more to do than enurance or stamina.  Also, I'd like to think gamers are smart enough to know constitution is  more than just a government document.  Even if they don't know, I'd like to think gamers are inquisitive folks who would welcome the opportunity to learn something new.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 29 novembre 2013 - 04:08 .

[In Exile]

simfamSP wrote...
Meh. I just learnt by testing.

The I knew +3 was better than +1, or that a lower armour class meant I died less. If I got stuck, I'd go online and ask. No need to know the ins and outs of 2.0 to play BG2 

But that's terrible design. A game shouldn't be a homework assignment. 

Isichar wrote...

Boy, if the reviewer thought this game was bad I cant imagine how hard of a time he would have with games like The Witcher 2, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, and Resident Evil 2 which would just continually keep killing you at the start if you did not know what you were doing.

Probably not a lot, because the difficulty in those games is pretty intuitive. In TW2 it's pretty clear what you have to do to learn to get good at the combat. Just like Dark Souls. Learning all of the arcane rules of D&D is nowhere near the same level of intuitve difficult. 

[In Exile]

Elton John is dead wrote...
It's self-explanatory though.

Strength = stronger damage.
Dexterity = better use of ranged weapons and ability to dodge better.
Intelligence = more powerful spells and ability to cast them (as any class that can use spells)
Constitution = better health.
Wisdom = the intelligence statistic for priests. It's required for them to cast their divine spells.
Charisma = how other NPC's perceive you.

The default statistics for classes and the class roll feature should also reveal the statistics that are most important for a class. There is also a description of statistics telling you who they're most important for.

That's not self-explanatory at all. Becuase an RPG is numeric. What is the difference betweeen 14 strength and 15 strength. +1. +1 to... what, exactly? And what does +1 mean vs. +2? What's the actual power curve? There's no intuition for that. 

What about dexterity? Why would it relate to dodging better? Even if I understood that it meant dodge better, are the actual dodging mechanics such that it makes more sense to invest my next point into dodge rather than damage because of the way the hit tables work out? Who knows! 

Let's move on to intelligence. Does it mean I say more intelligent things? No, appparently not. Does it mean I can influence people? No. Does it mean more in-game knowledge. Not really. I guess I'm stuck to spells. So intelligence is a dump stat for all of my fighters.. but why I would I know that created a brain-dead thug is actually a positive?

I could keep going, but that's the point.

Scrolls are also self-explanatory. The fireball scroll casts a fireball. The sleep scroll casts sleep and they have descriptions too.

Except that knowing that mages won't be able to cast spells and have to rely on buying and hoarding scrolls isn't intuiitve at all. "Magic" does not evoke ideas of being a book hoarder. 

By setting up a party and then going out into the wilds to fight. It's common sense too. Quick-save/load works wonders here when testing out tactics against enemy encounters.

• If I'm playing as a sorcerer then I'd make sure I'd have some warriors in my party to defend him.
• If I've got a team of melee-orientated classes then I'd have a priest to heal their inevitable wounds. 

It's like an RTS.  

It's nothing like an RTS because an RTS uses very basic concepts that we are familiar with IRL. People have a passing knowledge of warfare and what they need to learn in a proper RTS is how to micromanage large troops and get a hand of techniques and tactics like rushing etc. 

An RPG is all about learning how completely arbitrary numbers - that are counterintuive to boot- actually work. So there's trial and error, but its' entirely divorced from any idea you might have of how to get started on your project.

If I'm reducing to opening excell and doing what amounts to actual empirical research then your game has terrible mechanics and should be scrapped.  

Yet no one bashes them when a newbie gets killed for sending cavalry charging into spear-man. This is self-explanatory just as it's self-explanatory that an entire team of LV 1 wizards are going to gang banged by a group of warriors.

It's in no way self-explanatory that a class whose description amounts to "summing the raw powers of the universe" would be killed by people with pointy metal rods. It's entirely an abritrary convention of D&D that mages have to be weak at low levels and don't have the spells or damage output to outclass fighters. 

But the fact that mages are balance to be garbage at low levels isn't intuitive at all. 

Strategy is required. Wizards have no armor and their melee attacks are useless. Obviously they need melee defense when they're casting their spells (which a newbie would see requires a casting time and therefore they should work out themselves that they need to be defended while casting a spell).

How is any of this intuitive? How does someone's day to day experience tell them anything about this? 

So is Baldur's Gate as I explained above. It also contains descriptions and its not the game's fault if someone avoids reading them. It's a hardcore game and it was clearly designed as such (permanent companion death and the fact that companions could be turned to stone which would require you to find a scroll to turn them back to flesh spoke volumes on this).  

No, it isn't intuitive. And it certainly isn't "hardcore". It has some annoying features like permnent death but that's frankly just annoying and a quickload gets around all this supposed "hardcoreness". 

And yes, I played Baldur's Gate without any online guide or prior reading. I went straight into it and I thought it played fine. This was only a few years back when I had never played it before. 

Good for you. You're an ubermensch like you always thought. It's still a poorly designed and counter-intuitive system. 

[Sigma Tauri]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also... Constitution is a silly stat name. If you have never player a video game or a PnP, most people only know a Constitution as a government document. When was the last time you heard someone say "wow, that marathon runner must really have a strong constitution!" This isn't the freaking 1870's. Use a common word, like Endurance. Otherwise, you're telling your player to pull out a dictionary to understand your "intuitive" system.

You're pulling out the manual to understand all those stats anyway. There's nothing intuitive about them. For me, the most boggling statistic is charisma. Even if you don't understand the context of constitution by itself, addng points into it also augments your hit points. That's one of the quicker learning in the game.

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
It's self-explanatory though.

Strength = stronger damage.
Dexterity = better use of ranged weapons and ability to dodge better.
Intelligence = more powerful spells and ability to cast them (as any class that can use spells)
Constitution = better health.
Wisdom = the intelligence statistic for priests. It's required for them to cast their divine spells.
Charisma = how other NPC's perceive you.

The default statistics for classes and the class roll feature should also reveal the statistics that are most important for a class. There is also a description of statistics telling you who they're most important for.

That's not self-explanatory at all. Becuase an RPG is numeric. What is the difference betweeen 14 strength and 15 strength. +1. +1 to... what, exactly? And what does +1 mean vs. +2? What's the actual power curve? There's no intuition for that. 

What about dexterity? Why would it relate to dodging better? Even if I understood that it meant dodge better, are the actual dodging mechanics such that it makes more sense to invest my next point into dodge rather than damage because of the way the hit tables work out? Who knows! 

Let's move on to intelligence. Does it mean I say more intelligent things? No, appparently not. Does it mean I can influence people? No. Does it mean more in-game knowledge. Not really. I guess I'm stuck to spells. So intelligence is a dump stat for all of my fighters.. but why I would I know that created a brain-dead thug is actually a positive?

I could keep going, but that's the point.

Exactly. Some vague qualitative description about how the different attributes works isn't an effective substitute for the quantitative. Constitution for example doesn't tell you that any class other than Fighters/Paladins/Rangers (I believe) won't see any additional bonus health above a score of 15.

Same thing with the spell casting stats. Telling the players vaguely that druids rely on Wisdom to cast spells means crap if you don't also tell them the actual values necessary are 10 + 1/spell level, as per how 3.5 might function.

[bussinrounds]

addiction21 wrote...

Anyway everyone knows ToEE is the only real D&D game.

Youngsters need to recognize

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Box

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Sun:_Shattered_Lands

EntropicAngel wrote...

Are you really trying to argue that the RPG genre is designed be difficult to understand?

  Quite the contrary.  You must of missed my other post underneath the one you quoted.  If I could understand and play these games when I was kid in the mid 80s, it couldn't of been that difficult.   Just takes a bit of patience.  Something these younger generations seems to be lacking.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 29 novembre 2013 - 05:05 .

[addiction21]

bussinrounds wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Anyway everyone knows ToEE is the only real D&D game.

Youngsters need to recognize

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Box

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Sun:_Shattered_Lands

I was making a joke, I'm not a youngster. and played pretty much every one of those games when they were new.

[Pedrak]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So the OP doesn't reek of elitism, and it doesn't try to tear people who don't enjoy these types of games down? And if you want a game that will take a long time to beat, you can always play F3 or NV.

Oh wait, those are also streamlined games that are made for noobs.

I have no problems with someone not liking Baldur's Gate, or disliking its mechanics (THAC0, etc.), even though I disagree.

What I do find a ridiculous, unacceptable criticism is something like "there are too many companions, I don't know how I should build my party", or "there is too much loot, how am I suppose to know what to keep?". I'm sorry, but finding out those things are part of the gaming experience. If anyone is angry that the game doesn't outright tell him "Put X, Y and Z in your party", then he is either a lazy or an incompetent gamer.

Modifié par Pedrak, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:16 .

[Il Divo]

Pedrak wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So the OP doesn't reek of elitism, and it doesn't try to tear people who don't enjoy these types of games down? And if you want a game that will take a long time to beat, you can always play F3 or NV.

Oh wait, those are also streamlined games that are made for noobs.

I have no problems with someone not liking Baldur's Gate, or disliking its mechanics (THAC0, etc.), even though I disagree.

What I do find a ridiculous, unacceptable criticism is something like "there are too many companions, I don't know how I should build my party", or "there is too much loot, how am I suppose to know what to keep?". I'm sorry, but finding out those things are part of the gaming experience. If anyone is angry that the game doesn't outright tell him "Put X, Y and Z in your party", then he is either a lazy or an incompetent gamer.

Eh, the companion point I actually agree on, though my issues are from a narrative perspective rather than gameplay. 25 companions who rarely speak and have practically no dedicated conversations will always lose out to 10 or less companions, each with a character arc.

[Pedrak]

Il Divo wrote...
25 companions who rarely speak and have practically no dedicated conversations will always lose out to 10 or less companions, each with a character arc.

That is a legitimate point, but very different from what that particular reviewer was complaining about

Modifié par Pedrak, 29 novembre 2013 - 07:40 .

[bussinrounds]

It's not like these games are that hard where you have to make these optimal parties or something. You can play around with many different combinations, ect.. It's kinda the point.

[Pedrak]

The Mad Hanar wrote...Well, I can understand that, but if your first experience with a game (and this is just how I see it based on what I've read here) is you losing half of your squad because you didn't understand how the game worked, then you would be a little disheartened. All I really gathered from the review is that this game has a big learning curve, and that the reviewer didn't have the patience for it. I can see where he was coming from. It took me a long time to figure out how to make an optimal squad in DA:O, for example. That game is considered pretty simple by this forum's standards, too. I'd have a hell of a time with this game.

I believe the game's difficulty has been exaggerated in this thread, just as in the reviews I quoted. I take seagloom's point that the Baldur's Gate series was less accessible  than other more modern games, and yeah, it didn't take me 6 hours or so to die for the first time like in DA2, but, honestly, it's nowhere as incomprehensible and cryptical as it has been described, as you will find out if you decide to try it . 

It's a game that doesn't hold your hand and allows you to make mistakes (ex. venturing in an area where enemies are way out of your league; companions can die; more micro-management of your inventory and weapons is needed for different encounters), but that's it. It's not just BS boring difficulty ("LOL, let's throw hordes of enemies at the player!"); it's rewarding. Especially in BG2, encounters are nicely varied with a great variety of creatures and require different tactics; mage duels are spectacular and akin to a flashy game of chess. It allows the player to be more creative.

Still, you don't need any esoteric knowledge to realize that the guy with 20 dexterity would make a good archer, or that a balanced party and companions with different skills can work better (making an optimal squad, as you noted, it's another matter). And I say this not as some kind of "macho" gamer who does speed runs and can finish Dark Souls with his hands tied behind his back. It just requires some dedication.

[Cyonan]

Pedrak wrote...

I believe the game's difficulty has been exaggerated in this thread, just as in the reviews I quoted. I take seagloom's point that the Baldur's Gate series was less accessible  than other more modern games, and yeah, it didn't take me 6 hours or so to die for the first time like in DA2, but, honestly, it's nowhere as incomprehensible and cryptical as it has been described, as you will find out if you decide to try it . 

It's a game that doesn't hold your hand and allows you to make mistakes (ex. venturing in an area where enemies are way out of your league; companions can die; more micro-management of your inventory and weapons is needed for different encounters), but that's it. It's not just BS boring difficulty ("LOL, let's throw hordes of enemies at the player!"); it's rewarding. Especially in BG2, encounters are nicely varied with a great variety of creatures and require different tactics; mage duels are spectacular and akin to a flashy game of chess. It allows the player to be more creative.

Still, you don't need any esoteric knowledge to realize that the guy with 20 dexterity would make a good archer, or that a balanced party and companions with different skills can work better (making an optimal squad, as you noted, it's another matter). And I say this not as some kind of "macho" gamer who does speed runs and can finish Dark Souls with his hands tied behind his back. It just requires some dedication.

I actually did try it, or rather I tried the Enhanced Edition.

First off, in a game that is so heavily based on numbers I'm kind of surprised that they don't list the exact numerical bonuses for stats. It would have let me know that Constituion was not terribly useful for my Sorcerer after 16 points.

Then there are some D&D terms being used. I'm not a D&D player although I have some vague knowledge of it, so I'm aware of things like saving throws or what 1D6 is supposed to be. THAC0 is apparently something that was ditched and I had no idea what it meant until I Googled it yesterday.

Those are all things that it wouldn't have killed the game to clarify what they are for people who don't know D&D. It's not holding anybody's hand really, it's just giving me basic information so that I might be more capable of making an informed choice.

That's the thing I'm finding out with Baldur's Gate. It feels like it's trying so hard not to hold my hand that it's just refusing to talk to me at all and keeping basic gameplay mechanics hidden from me until I go on Google and find somebody else willing to do the job for the game.

I mean, I'm still having fun with the game overall but it ultimately ends up feeling like I should have Google open on my other monitor just to be capable of understanding basic mechanics in the game at some points.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Strength = stronger damage.
Dexterity = better use of ranged weapons and ability to dodge better.
Intelligence = more powerful spells and ability to cast them (as any class that can use spells)
Constitution = better health.
Wisdom = the intelligence statistic for priests. It's required for them to cast their divine spells.
Charisma = how other NPC's perceive you.

To be fair, DA2 had Cunning, not dexterity, as the prime driver of being aboe to dodge. So assuming these stats are intuitive for all games may not be logical.

Also... Constitution is a silly stat name. If you have never player a video game or a PnP, most people only know a Constitution as a government document. When was the last time you heard someone say "wow, that marathon runner must really have a strong constitution!" This isn't the freaking 1870's. Use a common word, like Endurance. Otherwise, you're telling your player to pull out a dictionary to understand your "intuitive" system.

Dragon Age: Origins and DA2 actually did have dexterity. Cunning was another statistic. So there's nothing illogical to assume that the stats are intuitive for all games as I've yet to play one where dexterity doesn't mean what it does in the majority of them.

Also as for constitution: again, it's a term used in nearly every other RPG and endurance is used for stamina not for health. Dark Souls has both constitution and endurance. The reason no one says "wow, that marathon runner must really have a strong constitution!" is because it's not referring to stamina.

[In Exile]

Pedrak wrote...
I believe the game's difficulty has been exaggerated in this thread, just as in the reviews I quoted. I take seagloom's point that the Baldur's Gate series was less accessible  than other more modern games, and yeah, it didn't take me 6 hours or so to die for the first time like in DA2, but, honestly, it's nowhere as incomprehensible and cryptical as it has been described, as you will find out if you decide to try it.

I did play it. Both it and BG2, in fact. My unyielding hatred for the mess that is D&D flows directly from the ridiculous number of counter-intuitive hoops that I had to jump through to understand the game. I learned how to play it - and play it really well - out of the sheer frustration that this nonsensical mess of arbitrary and sometimes inconsistent rules had to be learnable. 

But it's like rote learning. It's not satisfying to understand because the payoff isn't in some kind of intellectually creative way - it's like learning how to properly pronounce Latin today so that you can have an in-depth conversation about shoes with the only two people alive who can still speak the language. 

The learning of it isn't fun becuase it's such a mish-mash of arbitrary rules, and mastering it and then playing it isn't fun because the game is almost built exclusively on exploits and quickloading. The key to crushing BG2 on the ascension mod is to know the encounters ahead of time so well that the only explanation in-world for how your party could actually win the encounter is their being able to predict and see the future. 

It's not just BS boring difficulty ("LOL, let's throw hordes of enemies at the player!"); it's rewarding. Especially in BG2, encounters are nicely varied with a great variety of creatures and require different tactics; mage duels are spectacular and akin to a flashy game of chess. It allows the player to be more creative.

BG2 - and BG - are the absolute epitome of BS boring difficulty. It's about memorizing encounters and uselessly large numbers of spells so that you can then play a super complicated game of rock-paper-scissors that you're going to win because you know in advance what someone has to play and you can perfectly design your counter to match it. 

Still, you don't need any esoteric knowledge to realize that the guy with 20 dexterity would make a good archer, or that a balanced party and companions with different skills can work better (making an optimal squad, as you noted, it's another matter).

Actually, an all-caster party is far more broken at higher levels than any semblance of a balanced party. Because of the way D&D splits caster roles you might want something like Cleric/Mage combos, but once mages start getting useful spells warriors aren't even useful as meatshields. 

Modifié par In Exile, 29 novembre 2013 - 11:09 .