14 réponses à ce sujet

[mickey111]

I know that some people complained about how absurdly weak certain magic was for it's level in Baldurs Gate, and how some of th lower level magic was able to do the same things high levels could do, and how some levels just didn't have a very appealing group of choices.

 

Is it okay for developers to knowingly give you the option of gimping players who are not doing the math, or even paying any attention to the kinds of people they're up against and locations that they'll be going? Personally, I'm okay with developers periodically testing us to see if we're paying attention and are using our common sense.

[Cyonan]

Most games should try for balance. How tightly balanced you need to go depends on what kind of game you're trying for. Highly competitive PvP games like Starcraft 2 would need more balance than Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

I would argue that nothing should really be too weak when used correctly. I don't expect to be able to do nothing but spam Winter's Grasp all day long but I also shouldn't feel like I wasted a point because I took it(Not that I think WG is bad, that's just the first ability I thought of). You generally should try to avoid having an ability that feels like a complete waste of time regardless of your build, or abilities/builds that drastically drop the difficulty because of how absurdly powerful they are(Arcane Warrior in Origins, for example).

 

Specifically for Baldur's Gate, the game is just downright bad at giving you information and expects you to know the AD&D2 ruleset. If you want the player to have to make their own informed decisions, then make sure all that information can be obtained in-game.

[dimvision]

Balance is important even on a singleplayer game. Me personally if I find a game too easy cause of overpowered characters/abilities/Item I get bored too quickly sometimes I even don't have the urge to finish the game, that's a potential lost customer on the next sequel/DLC. Well some would argue just don't use that said character/ability/Item in which I would disagree, cause not using that said character/ability/Item feels like I'm not getting everything that said game has to offer (skipping game content to put it simple).

[errantknight]

Mages at low levels are most useful in the spirit tree. In a game with limited potions and no other healing apart from regen and even more limited grenades, defense is your best friend. Dispel and barriers, ftw. Actually, that's always true, not just at low levels.

[Eelectrica]

Yes balance is important to a degree, but I understand that some people would be happy with a narrative mode as well.
On the hand some like a good challenge where each combat is a real challenge and get a buzz out of overcoming that.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

If there's a cool option that would make the game almost impossible, I'm going to feel cheated. Just saying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No. Everything should make sense within the setting, but that's all that matters building underpowered characters should absolutely be possible.

[Kage]

I dont think balance is so important in a single player RPG.

It is somewhat important, meaning that your expectations are not crushed, for example getting a super final ultra high level spell, and being totally worthless. That would be painful.

 

However, having broken builds (like KE) or having builds that are really sub par (like DAO's archer), is not really a problem.

In a RPG, what is important is that you are given the freedom to build the character you would like to role play.

 

Look at Skyrim. It is an awesome RPG, but the combat is just so broken and inbalanced. Healing magic in that game is absurd. It gets a moment (very very very soon in game, I am not talking super lategame) where you can just stand there healing all the damage you are receiving.

Or, you can start roleplaying and leveling some skills, and end up being totally hindered since enemies scale and your levels are in lockpicking, barter, and whatever non-combat skills.

 

I think DAO was really imbalanced. DA2 and DAI I find very balanced, they have really tried to have a balance game even if its single player.

Still, this is not as balanced as a PvP game would be, of course.

[Rynjin]

Relative to the game, yes. Between classes? Not as important, but still worthwhile.

 

Single player it's more important to make sure no options are wildly underpowered (comparable to the game, not necessarily other options) than overpowered, but you need to pay some attention to that too. I Win Buttons are just as un-fun as I Suck choices, if not more so.

 

And no, "You can just not take that option" does not justify an option being bad. Ivory Tower Game Design: Not even once. If you learned your design philosophy from Monte Cook you need to go stand in the corner and think about your life choices.

 

In short, it's most important to make sure of two things: Each option is VIABLE (meaning it can be used to good effect throughout the game), and within a certain range of overpowered (If it makes you very powerful, but the game can still challenge you, that's good. If you start walking all over everything with it, that's bad).

[ManleySteele]

The game mode I want finely balanced is the Normal difficulty.  IMO Normal difficulty should be as carefully designed toward your core customer as it's possible to make it.  I want interesting, balanced armor, weapons, perks, etc. in normal mode. I want them to make a difference in gameplay without getting out of hand.  I also feel that every player, whether they prefer Warrior, Rogue or Magician should be able to compete with the enemies. Most games are far too easy to over-armor or over-weapon in normal difficulty. Almost every game is too easy on normal at higher levels.

[S Seraff]

I know that some people complained about how absurdly weak certain magic was for it's level in Baldurs Gate, and how some of th lower level magic was able to do the same things high levels could do, and how some levels just didn't have a very appealing group of choices.

 

Is it okay for developers to knowingly give you the option of gimping players who are not doing the math, or even paying any attention to the kinds of people they're up against and locations that they'll be going? Personally, I'm okay with developers periodically testing us to see if we're paying attention and are using our common sense.

the quest for balance has always irritated me.  power among characters varies, and it makes for interesting dynamics. i have always been much more interested in being able to make my character according to the concept i imagine. i hate being kept from that

[Sylvius the Mad]

Relative to the game, yes. Between classes? Not as important, but still worthwhile.

Single player it's more important to make sure no options are wildly underpowered (comparable to the game, not necessarily other options) than overpowered, but you need to pay some attention to that too. I Win Buttons are just as un-fun as I Suck choices, if not more so.

And no, "You can just not take that option" does not justify an option being bad. Ivory Tower Game Design: Not even once. If you learned your design philosophy from Monte Cook you need to go stand in the corner and think about your life choices.

In short, it's most important to make sure of two things: Each option is VIABLE (meaning it can be used to good effect throughout the game), and within a certain range of overpowered (If it makes you very powerful, but the game can still challenge you, that's good. If you start walking all over everything with it, that's bad).

I completely disagree.

But I will acknowledge being a fan of Monte Cook style game design.

[Rynjin]

Not even Monte Cook is a fan of Monte Cook style game design any more. That should tell you something.

 

IIRC one of his stated design goals for his new RPGs was "Don't do that thing that partially fucked up 3rd Ed" (and by extension, Pathfinder, which causes me daily frustration).

 

He seems to have stuck to it with Numenera. Granted, I'm not a big fan of Numenera, but it definitely doesn't make the SAME mistakes.

[Cyonan]

I dont think balance is so important in a single player RPG.

It is somewhat important, meaning that your expectations are not crushed, for example getting a super final ultra high level spell, and being totally worthless. That would be painful.

 

However, having broken builds (like KE) or having builds that are really sub par (like DAO's archer), is not really a problem.

In a RPG, what is important is that you are given the freedom to build the character you would like to role play.

 

Look at Skyrim. It is an awesome RPG, but the combat is just so broken and inbalanced. Healing magic in that game is absurd. It gets a moment (very very very soon in game, I am not talking super lategame) where you can just stand there healing all the damage you are receiving.

Or, you can start roleplaying and leveling some skills, and end up being totally hindered since enemies scale and your levels are in lockpicking, barter, and whatever non-combat skills.

 

I think DAO was really imbalanced. DA2 and DAI I find very balanced, they have really tried to have a balance game even if its single player.

Still, this is not as balanced as a PvP game would be, of course.

 

The problem for me is that overpowered setups can take the fun out of combat, and even in a game like Inquisition a lot of what you're gonna be doing is combat. It's important that it's enjoyable, but once I took into Knight Enchanter I really only needed to spam 1 button to win.

 

Skyrim ultimately ended up having the same problem when I played it. Stealth was so hilariously broken that I could 1 shot elder dragons without even needing the Smithing/Alchemy/Enchanting exploit. It became boring when nothing presented a challenge even on the higher difficulties. Thankfully with Skyrim I have the option of mods to help rebalance the game.

 

I could simply "not use these builds" as often gets suggested to me, but then that breaks the freedom to build the character how I want to role play. I like playing thieves and mage knight types in RPGs.

[Raice]

Is class balance important in Single Player games?  Good question.

 

Remember back in DA:O when you rolled a 2H Warrior?  Remember how as soon as you got Morrigan in your crew, you suddenly realized that there was actually something more you could be doing in combat other than watching your Auto-Attack do all the work?  Remember how much of a God-send is was to finally get Wynn who could heal like crazy?  Remember how after about halfway through the game, you realized you actually didn't really play AS your character (2H Warrior) during combat anymore because it was more important to control your mages?  Remember how on your second playthrough, you played a Mage, because you already knew that that was where the good stuff was?  Remember during that playthrough you realized that with Arcane Warrior, you didn't need anyone else to even be in the group with you?  Remember thinking immediately at how ridiculous it is that your Arcane Warrior was a better Warrior than the Warrior you made in your first playthrough?

 

Is class balance important to Single Player games?  Good question.