264 réponses à ce sujet

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Six years ago, to be precise, since Mass Effect 2 had been on the shelves. That game marks the starting of the current bland games' cycle. I frankly don't care too much if DA:I made money or not, it's still a flavorless game with a lot of money put into it, and what will happen with ME:A is even little concerning for me (since I I bought the first and won't buy the second one). However I'm very sad that a company that used to do good rpgs, that gave new life to the c-rpg genre, is now its former self's wraith. If you accept people (in general) to change for the worse, then you won't mind if I start calling certain games "Artist's crap".
Like this one
 

 
Then we will remember the good old days when in 2010 a lot of these cans came out...

Quantity over quality seems to be BW's slogan I'm afraid.

[Cyonan]

I maintain that vanilla BG is better than BGEE. the EE took several of the "improvements" that were implemented in BG2 and added them to BG, and I don't think they serve BG well.

 

I own both BG and BGEE. I just played EE because I already have it downloaded on Steam right now, but I have the entire D&D collection on GOG which includes the original BG and BG2.

 

I maintain that all of my criticisms apply to both versions of the game.

 

Baldur's Gate came with excellent documentation. You just had to read it.

I expect BGEE includes the documentation as digital content somewhere. There's dozens of pages of tables and charts to explain how the rules work.

This is actually the standard of documentation I expect today, and every game disappoints me.

 

BG had horrible in-game documentation, which is what I expect out of a game. There was no technological hurdles preventing this from occurring in 1998. Many developers just didn't think it was needed, but it's fair criticism of how they did things back then.

 

Actually looking at the manual provided by GOG(which I assume is the same as the original), there's a decent amount of the documentation about the rules where it simply says it "uses the AD&D2 rules".

 

At least BioWare is consistent. The pathing in the DA games remains pretty awful.

 

I don't care about consistent if the AI pathing is bad.

 

I expect to have to control my party, but I don't expect to have to babysit them and show my Fighter how to walk around my two casters because they can't figure it out on their own.

 

This is partly the EE problem again. BG didn't have Sorcerers (or Barbarians), so arcane casters were significantly less flexible in how they could be deployed. This helped a lot.

I also remember that BG2 broke how specialist mages worked. I don't know how BGEE handles them.

The point you raise, though, about combat, is an interesting one. I've long preferred low-level gameplay in CRPGs, and one of the reasons I like BG so much is that it only has low-level gameplay. Even with TotSC installed, the level cap is around 8 (9 for Thieves).

I also have to applaud AD&D's exponential XP curve. It allows characters to fall behind the rest of the party (so no nonsensical XP sharing with unused characters), but still catch up within one level.

 

The setup can be done with any caster that can spam CC combined with any couple of weapon users who can become immune to that CC. Unless you want to claim that such a setup is impossible in base BG(which it isn't), then it is not "partly the EE problem".

 

I also had a Mage who was perfectly capable of doing the same thing when my Sorcerer ran out of spells for the day. Hell, he was able to spam web more so than the Sorcerer was because Mages get more spells per day on account of having to pre-select which spells they are. I don't need much flexibility when I know I'm just going to spam Web all day long.

 

It's a problem that exists within D&D itself. Magic is simply broken, which makes any fight involving a caster revolve almost entirely around magic because of how broken it is. While it becomes a greater issue at higher levels, it's still an issue at Baldur's Gate levels.

 

I generally prefer the lower to mid levels. A level 1 character can be taken out by a single nat 20 for the enemy, which removes even character skill from surviving that level.

[Sanunes]

 

What's wrong with experimentation? Yes, not every game's perfect but it not only pushes BioWare to continue for a better game but keeps the development fresh for them.

 

Yes, some features were flawed but by listening to us and their own experience with what we want, they learn how to tweak features so that they come off better. Taking the example of exploration with the Mako, i bet the percentage of players complaining this time around with the MEA Mako will be smaller.

 

 

The problem isn't experimentation, but how people react to BioWare trying something new.  Each time BioWare tries something new it is like they decided to do something horrible to you intentionally and then it becomes EA fault because "Old BioWare wouldn't do such a thing" instead of talking about how it was based on our requests or complaints.

 

Going back to the Mako.  People complained and BioWare removed it, but instead of saying constructive it became insults and complaints aimed at BioWare and EA when they were trying to accommodate what we requested by saying the Mako was a horrible experience. I am pretty sure there will be plenty of complaints about the return of the Mako such as ones complaining about how badly they implemented the open world, they copied other games, or that they only added because EA forced them to do it because it would sell more copies.

Modifié par Sanunes, 19 mai 2016 - 09:54 .

[SKAR]

Six years ago, to be precise, since Mass Effect 2 had been on the shelves. That game marks the starting of the current bland games' cycle. I frankly don't care too much if DA:I made money or not, it's still a flavorless game with a lot of money put into it, and what will happen with ME:A is even little concerning for me (since I I bought the first and won't buy the second one). However I'm very sad that a company that used to do good rpgs, that gave new life to the c-rpg genre, is now its former self's wraith. If you accept people (in general) to change for the worse, then you won't mind if I start calling certain games "Artist's crap".
Like this one



Then we will remember the good old days when in 2010 a lot of these cans came out...

I would love a mass Effect 2 feel for Andromeda. But that's just me.

[Jedi Comedian]

This made my day.

[GaroTD]

Oh come on, they evolved, why would they need to step back to what they were X years ago.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That is fine, but my response was don't project how good that modded content is onto BioWare because they are not the ones that made that content. Having or not having mods in a game is fine, but I don't judge how good a game is because of the content I download for it.

I will judge an unmoddable game, though, for lacking features it was never intended to have, if I think modders could have added them.

[In Exile]

A lot of rose-tinted view points in this thread. Personally, I'll take any post-EA Bioware game over the likes of Baldur's Gate 1 and Neverwinter Nights, which accounts for a pretty significant chunk of their legacy.

Bioware's integrity isn't all that important to me - good games are what I want.

The other chunk is KotOR 1, Jade Empire, ME1. The fantasy Bioware people talk about didn't exist. This is a company that always chased big money. They had more passion projects (again, Jade Empire) and that hurt the company. Plus keeping DAO in development hell for more than half a decade.

Bioware was so pure they were owned by a venture capital fund, i.e., those with the general reputation of "pure evil" (despite the fact that they allow shaky and experimental companies like Bioware to exist).

[In Exile]

BW's integrity was founded on making art - games-recreational products, before it had started selling itself to the highest bidder and had got scavenged of everything in the name of money ("The love of money is the root of all evil"). DA:O is the former society's product that still retains some good will in making a good product for the sake of art and to "earn bread", make profits, after that the scavenging has got through into the inner core, hacking all the branches that have been considered dead or improductive, and pruning those who have been promising to make profits despite of general quality and effort.
What you have got in your hands, after that management disaster, is under your eyes: ME2, DA2, DA:I (someway in lesser ways), ME3 (especially), and probably the upcoming ME:A.

Now I'm not telling that the current BW can't make good games, but until they live under their boss' pernicious philosophy, they won't do anything worthy of being bought with "blind faith".

Bioware was so dedicated to making art after BG2 they created NWN - an MP platform they could nickle and dime people through by selling them overpriced DLC (sorry, premium modules) with an actual campaign so awful is was basically slapped together at the last minute so they could pretend they weren't just selling an MP toolkit for the price of a game.

[Il Divo]

Then perhaps I should say they are remembered fondly.   

 

And I think I can say without hyperbole, that BG took what worked in BG1 and made it better.  Much of what you say about BG1 was largely ironed out in BG2.  

 

 

While true, it's not difficult to take bad game content of that low quality and make it better. I've made no claims about BG2 in this thread, because this is about BG1's quality. If BG2 has better companion content, that has no relevance to BG1. 

 

Sure.  But this isn't 1998. Beamdog just released an expansion to BG called "Siege of Dragonspear"  So while it's not Bioware, it most certainly does have a "BG1-style cast" in that the BG1 cast is in fact there.   

 

 

As you said: it's not Bioware. 

 

 Look at Pillars of Eternity.  A game which BG was specifically mentioned as being an inspiration for it.  Games like BG are still being released today.  But they build upon it rather than merely copying.

 

Or, if you want to get closer to home, look at DAO.  The "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate.  Popular enough to launch a franchise of its own.

 

 

And note that this is another unfair comparison. Sure, games "like" BG which don't have any of its bad elements are being released today - but that's not relevant. PoE and Origins, to my knowledge, did not restrict themselves to cartoon caricatures where dialogue was minimal to non-existent, outside of characters repeating catch-phrases ad infinitum. That is what is meant by "BG1-style" companions.

 

Could Bioware get away with releasing the BG1 style characters (described above) and would Mass Effect fans applaud (or criticize) them for it? Unless your answer here is yes, that's pretty huge indictment of its quality. 

 

 

Good for its time means exactly that:  good for its time.  There's no reason it can't be further developed, polished, and improved upon as technology advances.  Just compare BG1 with BG2.

 

 

Which also means bad for today. Good for its time means 1998 - 18 years ago. When we talk about the great writing in Planescape: Torment, we don't say it was "good for it's time". We say "It's good". Your caveat is a pretty clear indicator of its lack of quality in today's terms. 

 

 

Sadly, though, in recent years Bioware prefers to abandon what works in exchange for the new and shiny rather than continue to improve.

 

 

Short of interactive narrative and companions to talk to, it's not exactly easy to find any consistent trend to Bioware titles that extends beyond a like-dislike factor, given the range of stories, settings, and gameplay they've decided to experiment with. 

[In Exile]

PST is a great example of a game being heralded as high concept. Or Mask of the Betrayer - that plot doesn't get less phenomenal with time.

And to flip it around, KotOR1. That isn't a game that tries to be high minded, dark or anything of the sort - it just tried to capture the magic of the OT star wars. And it did! The only product until TFA to do it, and even JJ Abrams copied some of the visual style.

[Seraphim24]

Bioware was so dedicated to making art after BG2 they created NWN - an MP platform they could nickle and dime people through by selling them overpriced DLC (sorry, premium modules) with an actual campaign so awful is was basically slapped together at the last minute so they could pretend they weren't just selling an MP toolkit for the price of a game.

 

Aribeth disapproves (-15)

 

Anyway if you ask me it's the other way around, NWN was amazing with tons of replay value whereas JE was dork city plastic-Asian-fantasy-ride.

 

Agree on KOTOR though, that thing is swell. 

[In Exile]

Aribeth disapproves (-15)

Anyway if you ask me it's the other way around, NWN was amazing with tons of replay value whereas JE was dork city plastic-Asian-fantasy-ride.

The OC was garbage - there's nothing to replay. Hell, you barely get stuff to play. Bioware put out that content today - much less if they designed the whole game from the ground up to be MP based! - you'd have riots.

HoTU is great, though. Loved it. And some of the modules gave me great gaming moments. NWN was an awesome creative tool. But the game Bioware put out was beyond ****.

[Monk]

The problem isn't experimentation, but how people react to BioWare trying something new.  Each time BioWare tries something new it is like they decided to do something horrible to you intentionally and then it becomes EA fault because "Old BioWare wouldn't do such a thing" instead of talking about how it was based on our requests or complaints.

 

Going back to the Mako.  People complained and BioWare removed it, but instead of saying constructive it became insults and complaints aimed at BioWare and EA when they were trying to accommodate what we requested by saying the Mako was a horrible experience. I am pretty sure there will be plenty of complaints about the return of the Mako such as ones complaining about how badly they implemented the open world, they copied other games, or that they only added because EA forced them to do it because it would sell more copies.

 

Considering ME2-3 are still playable, i would suggest believing in the moderators and other BioWare personnel who have to distill our brain spasms. They probably filter out the less sensible posts when considering our "critiques".

 

About the Mako example, i think we'll need to wait for the demo. I imagine there's going to be spitballing from all corners when it's released but it'll be the quality of our own posts which will determine how serious the comments are taken.

[Il Divo]

PST is a great example of a game being heralded as high concept. Or Mask of the Betrayer - that plot doesn't get less phenomenal with time.

And to flip it around, KotOR1. That isn't a game that tries to be high minded, dark or anything of the sort - it just tried to capture the magic of the OT star wars. And it did! The only product until TFA to do it, and even JJ Abrams copied some of the visual style.

 

I always love using PS:T because I think it throws the entire argument for a loop. It's a game that was made in a similar time period as Baldur's Gate and has some of the same draw-backs, but certain parts of it are so out-standing that the game as a whole holds up even today. 

 

If somebody tells me they really love Bioware's stories/characters, I have no problem with telling them to play Planescape: Torment - because those are the focal points of the game. I don't have to tell them the writing was good for 1999, I just say it's some of the best writing ever released in gaming. I don't feel comfortable doing that with Baldur's Gate - unless someone tells me they really love DnD 2.0 (or top down open world), there just isn't enough of a main plot/character interaction for them to engage in (again assuming their interest is strictly in story/characters). 

[In Exile]

I always love using PS:T because I think it throws the entire argument for a loop. It's a game that was made in a similar time period as Baldur's Gate and has some of the same draw-backs, but certain parts of it are so out-standing that the game as a whole holds up even today.

If somebody tells me they really love Bioware's stories/characters, I have no problem with telling them to play Planescape: Torment - because those are the focal points of the game. I don't have to tell them the writing was "good for 1999", I just say it's some of the best writing ever released in gaming. I don't feel comfortable doing that with Baldur's Gate - unless someone tells me they really love DnD 2.0 (or top down open world), there just isn't enough of a main plot/character interaction for them to engage in (again assuming their interest is in story/characters).

And it basically had ass gameplay and was a total flop. Plus, it has a fixed protagonist. And multiple fixed backgrounds. But an incredibly rich way of role playing it. It's a game that so captured the imagination of everyone at Obsidian they basically make a spiritual successor to it every time they do an RPG (KotOR 2, MoTB and POE).

BG is awful in so many ways. But I kind of like the old D&D stuff now. I blame order of the stick.

[Seraphim24]

See I never had any doubt that BG1 was more interesting and enjoyable than PST, I felt different for thinking that way and it's still true now, but it also explains why I've never had any trouble with Bioware's ascendance vis-a-vis all those other games... it's simply because they made the best games. 

 

I even named a few characters are PST characters and all that but to date I only played it like once or twice and then never again.... every time I try and play it again Morte gets going and I'm like... *hmmmmph*

[Sylvius the Mad]

BG had horrible in-game documentation, which is what I expect out of a game. There was no technological hurdles preventing this from occurring in 1998. Many developers just didn't think it was needed, but it's fair criticism of how they did things back then.

It wasn't typical of the period.

And frankly, I'd rather have my documentation outside the game so I can read it in advance, or when I'm not playing.

Actually looking at the manual provided by GOG(which I assume is the same as the original), there's a decent amount of the documentation about the rules where it simply says it "uses the AD&D2 rules".

I would expect an explanation of how To Hit rolls work, and how Saving Throws work. I know the manual contained tables showing level progressions for each class, and damage calculations for weapons and spells. And detailed tables showing the benefits or costs of high or low attribute scores.

The BG manual was actually slightly inaccurate, as it described things like the Magical Attack Adjustment (a bonus for high Wisdom scores) in the manual (in a table lifted directly from the 2nd edition AD&D PHB), but that wasn't actually modelled in the game; high Wisdom offered no benefits against magical attacks.

So if the manual you have doesn't show that, it's incomplete.

I don't care about consistent if the AI pathing is bad.

It was a joke. BioWare is consistently bad at pathing (perhaps best illustrated by the Firewine Ruins in BG, and the final battle in DA2:Legacy).

I expect to have to control my party, but I don't expect to have to babysit them and show my Fighter how to walk around my two casters because they can't figure it out on their own.

It's actually quite funny how BG's pathing worked. The characters would choose a route at the moment you gave the move instruction, and that worked fine as long as nothing moved. But if you gave orders to more than one character at a time, that guaranteed something would move (the other character), thus breaking the pathing system.

As long as you gave orders such that the characters' paths didn't intersect, you were fine. The 6 abreast party formation helped a lot with this (though not underground - underground I tended to give move orders individually).

The setup can be done with any caster that can spam CC combined with any couple of weapon users who can become immune to that CC. Unless you want to claim that such a setup is impossible in base BG(which it isn't), then it is not "partly the EE problem".

I also had a Mage who was perfectly capable of doing the same thing when my Sorcerer ran out of spells for the day. Hell, he was able to spam web more so than the Sorcerer was because Mages get more spells per day on account of having to pre-select which spells they are. I don't need much flexibility when I know I'm just going to spam Web all day long.

I have to ask: If the tactic isn't fun, why use it?

I also don't remember that many Rings of Freedom in BG.

It's a problem that exists within D&D itself. Magic is simply broken, which makes any fight involving a caster revolve almost entirely around magic because of how broken it is. While it becomes a greater issue at higher levels, it's still an issue at Baldur's Gate levels.

That's not a problem. That's the lore. Magic isn't broken, just overpowered.

That's why survivability for low-level mages is so poor. There just aren't that many mages who live to see level 5.

I generally prefer the lower to mid levels. A level 1 character can be taken out by a single nat 20 for the enemy, which removes even character skill from surviving that level.

Or you could just not let them hit you.

That was always my goal. I didn't consider a combat encounter truly successful unless my characters didn't take damage.

I still play like that, which is why I hate the MMO concept of tanking.

[Cyonan]

It wasn't typical of the period.

And frankly, I'd rather have my documentation outside the game so I can read it in advance, or when I'm not playing.

 

That doesn't mean it's not fair game to be criticized.

 

Ideally you would have the documentation both in and out of the game.

 

I would expect an explanation of how To Hit rolls work, and how Saving Throws work. I know the manual contained tables showing level progressions for each class, and damage calculations for weapons and spells. And detailed tables showing the benefits or costs of high or low attribute scores.

The BG manual was actually slightly inaccurate, as it described things like the Magical Attack Adjustment (a bonus for high Wisdom scores) in the manual (in a table lifted directly from the 2nd edition AD&D PHB), but that wasn't actually modelled in the game; high Wisdom offered no benefits against magical attacks.

So if the manual you have doesn't show that, it's incomplete.

 

I can find the tables for level progressions and everything. They do also explain THAC0(although I still think it's just stupid from a design standpoint) and saving throws. Though some other areas don't mention much.

 

The fact that it's inaccurate also doesn't help, but there really should be a codex in-game for this kind of thing on top of the manual.

 

I have to ask: If the tactic isn't fun, why use it?

I also don't remember that many Rings of Freedom in BG.

 

I only had one Ring of Freedom. I was also using Spider's Bane which has the same effect. It wasn't really required that my entire party had them equipped, as I only needed to web spam the enemy before they got close. My ranged characters could stand outside the radius most of the time.

 

I also didn't use it most of the time, but when the enemy has a caster the entire fight now revolves around CC. Either using it, preventing it, or being affected by it.

 

That's not a problem. That's the lore. Magic isn't broken, just overpowered.

That's why survivability for low-level mages is so poor. There just aren't that many mages who live to see level 5.

 

Magic is broken in D&D in general and by extension, broken in Baldur's Gate. It's so stupidly powerful to the point where entire fights revolve around casters.

 

Lore in a game should never be set up in such a way that makes one character be that overpowered without some significant drawback to it. I don't believe the drawbacks to mages in AD&D2 are enough to counter-balance how absurdly OP they are.

 

Or you could just not let them hit you.

That was always my goal. I didn't consider a combat encounter truly successful unless my characters didn't take damage.

I still play like that, which is why I hate the MMO concept of tanking.

 

Sure, I'll just go ahead avoid a natural 20 =P

 

I specifically said nat 20 because it's something that is entirely out of your control and can rather easily kill a level 1 character in D&D. This isn't even just limited to casters.

 

I always found it strange in D&D/Pathfinder that my plate armour can somehow stop repeated blows from a war hammer or other blunt weapon. Those weapons were specifically designed to counter heavy armour.

[Furisco]

Sometimes I wonder what kind of games would have we got if BW was bought by Bethesda or was an independent studio like CDPR. 

I really don't understand all the praise that Bethesda gets.

[Cyonan]

I really don't understand all the praise that Bethesda gets.

 

They're good at making a foundation that modders build on.

 

The actual lore and game world itself is pretty good too. They just don't always fill it with great content.

[Furisco]

They're good at making a foundation that modders build on.

 

The actual lore and game world itself is pretty good too. They just don't always fill it with great content.

And sometimes they launch a broken game that the community fixes for free.

[RoboticWater]

I really don't understand all the praise that Bethesda gets.

From a publishing perspective, totally. Bethesda (and Zenimax) aren't ingenious patrons that fund cool IP and create consistently iconic universes. I'll give them Dishonored and Wolfenstien (even though that was an existing IP), but they're no Devolver Digital.

 

As for the games, I've said something like this before: taken separately, nearly every element in a Bethesda game sucks: the combat's weak, the AI's dumb, the enemies aren't varied, the leveling's not very deep, etc., but Bethesda games don't work because they're individual elements work. Simply fighting a bear in Skyrim is a languid affair: you chip away at the thing's excessive health bar with repetitive clicking motions while maybe occasionally throwing a spell or two and avoiding its attacks with a few back steps. The fun comes from accidentally stumbling into that bear after running away from an OP Stormcloak patrol and subsequently hiding in a cave that turns out to hold a ancient relic. Bethesda games work because all these lame elements smash together to form these fun experiences. Of course, when all that smashing isn't happening, you still have a 3D sandbox to futz around in.

 

My main problem with Bethesda games is that they're practically a de facto monopoly. We suffer through Bethesda's terrible engine, lackluster design, and horrible narratives because no one else does what they do. Apparently no one wants (or can) to compete in that market. Sure, we have devs copying open world elements left and right and trying to "add their own spin," (losing parts of themselves in the process) but no one does the "3D do whatever you want" style RPG that Bethesda does.

 

Imagine a big publisher scraping together a bunch of talent to create a "Bethesda killer" RPG set in a unique setting (like steampunk or sci-fi) with a slightly smaller scope, tighter mechanics, and an engine that isn't made of elmer's glue and wet noodles. Hell, I'd buy the game if it was a just Skyrim clone not set in a generic fantasy setting. Incidentally though, the Bethesda RPG is precisely the kind of game that requires a developer funded by a big publisher. You don't get Morrowind, Skyrim, or Fallout without big piles of cash.

[AlanC9]

Bioware was so dedicated to making art after BG2 they created NWN - an MP platform they could nickle and dime people through by selling them overpriced DLC (sorry, premium modules) with an actual campaign so awful is was basically slapped together at the last minute so they could pretend they weren't just selling an MP toolkit for the price of a game.

Well, there's some evidence that Bio originally had a bigger plan for an OC. There's a leaked outline still kicking around which is interesting. It seems to have been killed fairly early since it would require some gameplay mechanics that never existed.

[In Exile]

Well, there's some evidence that Bio originally had a bigger plan for an OC. There's a leaked outline still kicking around which is interesting. It seems to have been killed fairly early since it would require some gameplay mechanics that never existed.

 

Wasn't it still a MP questline, though? I vaguely recall seeing something along those lines.

 

 

From a publishing perspective, totally. Bethesda (and Zenimax) aren't ingenious patrons that fund cool IP and create consistently iconic universes. I'll give them Dishonored and Wolfenstien (even though that was an existing IP), but they're no Devolver Digital.

 

As for the games, I've said something like this before: taken separately, nearly every element in a Bethesda game sucks: the combat's weak, the AI's dumb, the enemies aren't varied, the leveling's not very deep, etc., but Bethesda games don't work because they're individual elements work. Simply fighting a bear in Skyrim is a languid affair: you chip away at the thing's excessive health bar with repetitive clicking motions while maybe occasionally throwing a spell or two and avoiding its attacks with a few back steps. The fun comes from accidentally stumbling into that bear after running away from an OP Stormcloak patrol and subsequently hiding in a cave that turns out to hold a ancient relic. Bethesda games work because all these lame elements smash together to form these fun experiences. Of course, when all that smashing isn't happening, you still have a 3D sandbox to futz around in.

 

My main problem with Bethesda games is that they're practically a de facto monopoly. We suffer through Bethesda's terrible engine, lackluster design, and horrible narratives because no one else does what they do. Apparently no one wants (or can) to compete in that market. Sure, we have devs copying open world elements left and right and trying to "add their own spin," (losing parts of themselves in the process) but no one does the "3D do whatever you want" style RPG that Bethesda does.

 

Imagine a big publisher scraping together a bunch of talent to create a "Bethesda killer" RPG set in a unique setting (like steampunk or sci-fi) with a slightly smaller scope, tighter mechanics, and an engine that isn't made of elmer's glue and wet noodles. Hell, I'd buy the game if it was a just Skyrim clone not set in a generic fantasy setting. Incidentally though, the Bethesda RPG is precisely the kind of game that requires a developer funded by a big publisher. You don't get Morrowind, Skyrim, or Fallout without big piles of cash.

 

Alternatively, you're like me and this just isn't fun - because the world doesn't actually react to these random events. It all happens in a vacuum.