Off topic: How are games failing you?

[NKIcan]

Before I begin: can we have a prefix Off Topic tag?

The topic says it all. What are PC games and video games in general NOT doing that you wish they would do. How is the video game market not fulfilling your needs?

I ask this for two reasons: Curiosity and Im doing a bit of research as to what strategy game enthusiasts would like to see in video games.

Any type of game failing will be helpful of course, but I would like a focus on RPG's and Strategy Games. Stories not up to snuff? Combat system just isn't doing it for you? Suggestions on how to succeed where current games fail is also helpful, as is specifics as to WHY you find that they fail.

For me:

I think that one thing no video game has ever struck me as successfully doing is making a Character/Unit creation system that is balanced, creates REAL diversity, and fun. Whether it be class or classless, really most character creation systems have maybe 6-10 REAL choices (crappy choices arent really choices people...as no one who has any interest in being competitive would choose them).

As an example, look up almost every MMORPG out there, ever...as well as the Diablo series. Want to be a rogue? better put your points into 1 or 2 stats and pick the same 10 talents/skills if you want to be effective.

Maybe I can sum it up better this way: I want REAL diversity. I want choice! I want to be able to customize a character or choose from more than the same 3 units in a strategy game without being nearly crippled in viability.

/rant off.

Lets hear your opinions :)

[llamabeast]

Well you certainly have a lot of choices in Dom3 at least.

[Tifone]

Interesting point. Well I think Dom3 offers real diversity, expecially with CBM :) (EDIT: llama ninjaed me this :D)

Also there is a world of indie RPGs (like Avernum) to discover. They will not have the best graphics but often their devs put the souls in those so they often offer much more than the usual Oblivion-kind's choice between big armoured guy or slim magic guy (but hey, with shiny graphics ;) )

If I would love to see something in the PC gaming world, would be more team tactical games. While I enjoy many kinds of games, to me the *real* computer gaming is in games like Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm (which had a lot of potential but such poor design choices), and the UFO series (now Sombre will skin me alive :D but at least they offer something this way). Little teams with specialized members, and turns to organize better ("the guy with the shotgun in the front; the sniper on top of the building; ok now the guy with the explosives blow that wall with dynamite and throw a mustard gas grenade in; you with the machinegun keep ready!" etc.).
But unfortunately really there isn't much of games like these :(

[Sombre]

CBM (Conceptual Balance Mod) does a lot to introduce variety through balance. In basegame the early and late games particularly in vanilla dom3 tend to dominated by certain strategies.

For example 90% of the pretenders in the basegame are simply worse than the standout 10% so if you pick them for the sake of variety, it's a handicap. But in CBM I don't think this is true.

[NKIcan]

I agree Dom 3 offers more than the usual diversity, hence why I like the game very much! But even with CBM...your choices are expanded but only by a bit.

Also, your choices are VERY much constricted based on the nation you play. If you pick Mictlan, for example, you are almost forced to play a Bless Strategy if you want to be competitive. Yes you may suprise someone with an Awake SC pick but once the shock wears off you quickly find out why it was a sub-optimal pick.

Again, Dom 3 does diversity the BEST but I still feel there is vast room for improvement. Thanks for the comments so far :)

[Aezeal]

hmmm personally I think Oblivion has better character creation system than most games certainly including Avernum. Fall-out 3 is good too.. but the effect of your choices is somewhat limited pretty soon in the game.
Baldurs gate and neverwinter night.. basicly everything based on DnD certainly has a good character building system.

Personally I'm mostly missing MORE RPG's (I dislike MMORPG where I have to pay everymonth and where I need to invest more time than I have to be competative.. in SP games I'm always the most important person and THA MASTA in the end as it should be. And more good strategy games too though I admit I've not looked very much into them for when I want to play a game I can always do dominions which is just very good.

I'd like to see starcraft 2 though.

back on choices.. I think you shouldn't want for much more options than in dominions.. you have a lot of races.. and between the races you can use a lot of strategies.. sure not each fits each race but that wouldn't be good..

example: if you have an unlimited range of GOOD choices that means that every choice is good.. which means whatever you choose is good.. which means there is basicly no real strategy anymore. (I'm exaggerating of course but it core of it is true.) While most games could use more diversity in the end it's more important that between the best choices for each character there is a good balance than having more choices. (I'm not playing the game but I imagine that going to the highest level in WoW for exmaple, will take quite an effort for most pplz so just having made a decent choice you'll be busy for a while anyway, no need for more choices then.)

[Tifone]

There will always be an "optimal" strategy, in every kind of game you play. Devs are humans, and even through all the balancing, there will always be in every game the most cost-efficient way of spending points, even by a 1%. If you always go for the optimal strategy only, of course you'll have problems finding variety :)
Often a big part of the fun will be finding ways of playing a game which aren't the most efficient or perfect ones, but make you enjoy and still are somewhat competitive. ;)

[Endoperez]

I think that one thing no video game has ever struck me as successfully doing is making a Character/Unit creation system that is balanced, creates REAL diversity, and fun. Whether it be class or classless, really most character creation systems have maybe 6-10 REAL choices (crappy choices arent really choices people...as no one who has any interest in being competitive would choose them).

Roguelikes!

Roguelikes are ALL about learning to survive, and the more ways there are to survive, the more people like to play it. I think most roguelikes have pretty free class system. Here are my two favourites:

ADOM (http://www.adom.de/adom/download.php3): 8 races, several classes. Perhaps 15 or so, varying from barbarian to archer to fighter to monk; from wizard to priest to paladin to elementalist, thief, merchant, farmer, bard etc etc.
It also has a good manual that explains the mechanics. It's worth checking out just for that.


Dungeon Crawl (http://crawl-ref.sourceforge.net/): lots. There are too many to count, but I attached an image.

Crawl is ingenious.
Races are different: different food consumption rates (with unique cases: ghouls eat rotten meat, vampires drink blood), different speeds (spriggans are fast, centaurs run fast, nagas slither slowly), different item slots (human vs minotaur vs naga), some have special abilities (spriggan see invisible, demonspawn mutate, draconians will get more and more powers as they level up) and, most importantly, different skill aptitudes make mountain dwarves and hill dwarves different (melee and casting, or just melee?).

Classes are another layer of skill aptitudes. At first, this seems like it's too little, but it's actually a major choice. Some classes also pre-define the god you worship and starting equipment matters a lot: wizard's first spellbook, good weapon for warrior-types, blood god for a barbarian, etc.

Then you start the game. Skills only increase if you use them and have unused experience. The pool of unused experience increases when you do stuff, mostly kill monsters. To become better at what you do, just keep doing it and it will go up. Learning something new is more difficult. You can learn a low-level spell if you find a book and are lucky and/or high aptitudes, even if you have no skills. Failing to cast a spell will also increase the skill (if you had exp in pool), but can cause magical overload, which makes you glow, which mutates you and isn't good. Similarly, you can go to melee to learn Fighting and to use Axes, but that means you're in melee and you're not good at it.

If you move around in armor, you'll learn Armor skill. If you fight without armor, you'll learn dodging. If you walk around without armor, you'll learn Stealth.
Once you have at least level 1 in a skill, you can turn it "off", so that it will only increase very slowly and as a consequence will leave more experience for your other skills, so your mage won't be good at stealth just because he doesn't wear armor.


In crawl, your skills define you, not race/class. Spellcasting gives more mana and and fighting gives more hp, but you also need spesific skills that concern casting fire spells or fighting with spears. A spell can require more than one magical skill, like Fire and Transmutation for a spell that makes a potion explode, or Necromancy and Transmutation for a spell that turns a corpse into potion of poison.

Transmuters are fun, because they can hurl clouds of steam and poison and confusion everywhere, but hard, because that means their experience is going to be drawn between Spellcasting, Transmutation, Fire and Necromancy they won't have much free experience, and they won't have enough mana to survive without Fighting, Dodging and perhaps some poisoned darts and stealth as well. However, it also means that a transmuter who finds an artifact trident might be able to confuse a group of opponents and then quickly kill several of them before they recover; or a transmuter who finds a Book of Greater Burnination might change gears and focus more on direct damage. Even without such luck, though, the starting Book of Transmutations also lets you change into fast and poisonous Spider form, tougher Ice Beast form, or change your hands into blades that boost your unarmed combat off the scales - but then you'll have to learn Ice or Poison or be good at melee! :D Devilish!

P.S.
Of course, ANYONE could find a Book of Transmutations.

[Tifone]

Of course, Endo, you don't have such an informative and passionate post even for my desire of more tactical team games, yeah? :D

[Agema]

RPGs and strategy games however have always been minority interests to the big beast of action/arcade gaming. When we think of big RPG and strategy games, what has often made them successful is that they have had more and more to do with action gaming. For instance, Starcraft and other RTSs are often not so much about tactics, as just knowing the optimum build queue at the beginning and then clicking your mouse like crazy when the action heats up. At the RPG end it's Diablo, which trades more on its relation to 80s arcade hit Gauntlet than it does on the RPG element from Nethack/Rogue etc.

In major industry terms, with the exception of Bethesda Studios, no-one is making decent RPGs for PC. In terms of strategy, I might have given Creative Associates a nod for Total War, except that as their games get better in graphics and AI, they get worse in design, heart and soul. Possibly the Civ series and related games are still going okay and fairly strategy purist.

Both RPGs and strategy really exist and thrive in the realm of independent publishers and internet retail. There you can really find the sorts of things you are looking for, where teams with more limited means craft what are often unpolished diamonds rather than the polished turds available from major development studios. However, I find it is often much harder to gauge whether the game is actually good, bug-free, and much more, as they attract much less in the way of good critical reviews.

[Sombre]

Of course, Endo, you don't have such an informative and passionate post even for my desire of more tactical team games, yeah? :D

Have you tried Soldiers of Anarchy? It was halfway decent in places and since you like the faintly rubbish UFO: After_____ series that should be good enough for you.

I haven't got tired of JA with the unofficial patch and heavily tweaked settings (to create a constant war with lots of challenge and make acquiring weapons a lot harder and therefore more interesting - having to make do with what you have, even if it's a winchester rifle with glaser ammo).

[capnq]

Starcraft and other RTSs are often not so much about tactics, as just knowing the optimum build queue at the beginning and then clicking your mouse like crazy when the action heats up.This is where the current market fails me the most. The more an interface demands real-time actions, the less I enjoy the game. My reflexes weren't all that good even back when I was a teenager, and now I don't have nearly the stamina that I did then, either. I need to be able to take as much time as I want making decisions, and to save the game and exit as necessary.

[rdonj]

Oh, there are so many ways games fail. Take MMOs. The way they're designed tends to make your character powerful in the very beginning, struggle for 10s of levels, and then in the end become a kind of godly character that destroys everything. And has to keep destroying everything in ridiculous number, because you have to kill literally thousands of enemies to level. The balance of the game continually changes which, though it keeps things from becoming stale, can have drastic effects on the way a class is played and in some cases really screw you over if, say, your spec is nerfed into oblivion and your gear set is made completely invalid. You can probably tell, I play World of Warcraft and am bitter about it. The way you fight in MMOs also bothers me. For the most part, melee combat tends to not be very interesting. It's just not interactive enough. You spam buttons, and there's really not that much thinking or skill involved. There's strategic use of abilities, sure, but there should be more than that.

I haven't really found an MMO I like pvp in yet. It's all bunches of people running around constantly, running through groups of people, frequently in some silly mini game like capture the flag. Where's the sense of realism? I admit to liking a fantasy background, but I prefer my fantasy worlds to involve things like realistic objectives, sound military tactics, collision detection, and archers not being able to hit you with instant-shot attacks with perfect accuracy while jumping and doing 360 degree spins. Abilities that make no sense for non-magical classes to have also bug me.

Large amounts of the game tend to be un-fun. When you're leveling you will run into all sorts of fun with questing, or running instances. In WoW, there's this dungeon where I kid you not, I have died more times after defeating the final boss due to enemies respawning on me on the way out than I have at every other point in the instance combined. Respawn rates are a horrible thing. If you need to kill a bunch of a certain type of enemy, it's usually too slow and you'll be hard-pressed to find enough of them. You have to go through a cave, kill some slightly more powerful boss enemy and get back out, the bosses respawn veeery slowly and you may have to wait several minutes for a chance to kill it... and then some other player may come up and attack it right when it respawns, and then you don't get the credit. Then, when you finally do kill it, you have to leave the giant cave full of enemies you don't have to kill who respawned while you were waiting for the boss. And you have to kill them, just to waste your time. Speaking of bosses, why is it that the only powerful bosses are in instances? Again, may just be a WoW thing, I've been playing it for entirely too long, but a "boss" enemy that you find out in the world at large is usually just one level higher than a normal version of that kind of enemy. When a quest tells me about this fearsome enemy that's butchered many people, and I go to kill it and find out that it's just very slightly stronger than it's minions, that's pretty anticlimactic. Enemies that are supposed to be powerful should be a challenge, not just your average encounter but with a name to go with it. And why, when I kill someone I don't have a quest for, can I not just go and turn in the quest for killing them that I'm going to get eventually instead of having to go kill them again in order to prove I killed them? It doesn't make sense, it breaks all sense of continuity. So does seeing them alive again 5 minutes later, for that matter. Of course, if you instance all bosses like some games do it removes that problem. Thanks some games!

MMOs also tend to be far too item-centric. I don't think your gear should be nearly as important as it usually is. It makes the game too focused on acquiring better items... so that you can acquire better items. When you're playing a game to get better items so that you can get better items, it loses a bit of its appeal. I would like to have games be slightly more creative than that.

I have also yet to see a magic system I really like for an MMO, but lets not go there.

RPGs: Well, RPGs are similar to MMOs in their way, except with more coherent storylines, goals, and endless puzzles :( Puzzles make me sad. Especially jump puzzles. Why oh why do there have to be so many jump puzzles. Combat in RPGs tends to be better than in your average MMO, but they could still use some work. I wonder if anyone here has played Rune. Completely ignoring everything else for the moment, Rune had one of my favorite combat systems for an RPG so far. A reasonable selection of strikes, mostly making sense. Shields that you can actually block with, unlike most games where they just sit there and look pretty. It had some things I didn't like (instant kill attacks in pvp are kind of stupid), but all in all, it mostly worked. Still could have been a lot better though. Of course, I've not really seen magic pulled off right yet in an RPG either. D&D systems have a lot of good ideas, but they're too restrictive. We need a dominions RPG, you could get a pretty decent magic system out of that ;) I still won't be completely happy though until I'm playing in virtual reality, with complete control over every action my character makes.



Strategy games: There are several things modern strategy games do that annoy me. One of the main ones being too much focus on special abilities! In some games, practically every unit has a special ability of some sort. And 90% of the time you're better off manually triggering that ability than letting the computer do it for you. Now, sometimes you can pause a game to do multiple things at once, but this doesn't work in multiplayer and ultimately isn't the best solution. Furthermore, it's too much work. If you want to have a few things with special abilities, well, okay. I can live with that. But you shouldn't spend all your time dealing with special abilities.

I also don't like having to manage resources, production, and combat all at the same time. I can't watch everything at once, and I like to watch the combats and try to organize them. But if you stop paying attention to one thing in favor of another, you're going to suffer for it. You'll run out of resources, or your opponent will pull some trick against your army, or you'll stop producing units... and you can't watch everything all the time. It's just frustrating. And then combine that with special abilities on all your units, oy.

And then there's the fighting itself. There's too much emphasis on pulling silly tricks that take advantage of the mechanics of the game, and using special units with powerful abilities to ruin your opponent without letting him fight back. I want there to be more relevance in maneuvering, terrain, tactics! Like the Total War series (though I think I actually prefer medieval total war to medieval 2. Haven't played the rome or shogun series). If only they didn't rely so much on powerful generals artificially increasing the strength of your armies, it would be perfect.

Anyway this is getting pretty long so I think I'll stop now :)

Edit: AI design tends to hamper strategy games a lot more than most other game types. Probably because they have to do so much more. In some games it more or less works, but in some games it completely fails. Like in supreme commander, where basically your enemy AIs do nothing but send experimental units at you and build tons of defenses.

[Omnirizon]

I've actually read that from the big game company's point of view, developing a game system, as basic as that seems, is more costly than developing state of the art graphics.

they already have the gfx staff, but developing and tuning a game system is a risk. unlike rogues which can innovate because the game is never 'finished', proprietary games must release a more or less finished product. they can't be gambling with experimental game systems. for this reason they just take something off the shelf and roll with it. it's kinda funny how they sell "used the D20 system!", like its a good thing to be using a highly simplified system that can be used with pen&paper. as long as they add lens flare people don't care. or at least they use to not care, gamers today are getting fed up with the same old drivel.

i think DIY and hobbyist games are going to become more popular. dynamic languages like Python facilitate rapid prototyping and allow relatively quick testing. it isn't even infeasible to do quick buildups for testing and then rewrite computationally intensive portions in a faster running language.

[Endoperez]

RPGs:
Puzzles make me sad.

Rune.

Strategy games:
special abilities!

I also don't like having to manage resources, production, and combat all at the same time.

I want there to be more relevance in maneuvering, terrain, tactics!

enemy AIs do nothing but send experimental units at you and build tons of defenses.

What kind of puzzles are bad? I love wordlock-puzzles of Betrayal at Krondor. I still swear I will finish it, one day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzHcdb2P4Ck

I've heard about Rune. Have you heard about Lugaru? It's creator was inspired by the former.


For strategy games: try Spring. It's open-source Total Annihilation. You can download TA units into it, but that's only legal if you own the original TA. It has everything you mentioned, and big explosions. By big, I mean "never let you commander be killed in the center of your base". Also known as "this water-filled hole is so big it stops my counterattack".

[Sombre]

For strategy games: try Spring. It's open-source Total Annihilation. You can download TA units into it, but that's only legal if you own the original TA. It has everything you mentioned, and big explosions. By big, I mean "never let you commander be killed in the center of your base". Also known as "this water-filled hole is so big it stops my counterattack".

Why not just play TA then?

[rdonj]

Heeeey, betrayal at krondor. I have that laying around somewhere. And several of the series relating to the setting. Actually we got the game long after we got the books.

Hmm... well, like I said, jump puzzles tend to annoy me quite a bit, I've always had issues with those. Mostly it's the kind of puzzle that requires you to have some random item or collection of random items to complete, coupled with not having any idea what sort of items you'll need to do it. I also hate a certain kind of puzzle that pops up in final fantasy 7... the "where in the heck do I go now" puzzle. Maybe I just wasn't paying enough attention, but it seems like in that game after a certain point you basically have to just wander around until you stumble upon where you need to be.

I'd not heard about Lugaru. Thanks for the mention... I'll check it out. I don't suppose in Spring they fixed the minor issue of, well, the pathing AI? That was one of the most frustrating things about total annihilation for me, especially since back then I used to like playing on the metal maps, and they tended to have horrible chokepoints.

[Incabulos]

I still enjoy roguelikes and muds over todays offerings.

I like turn based strategy. Very few of those ever come out. Those that do fail me because of the failure to implement a decent multiplayer component.

Although I do play the odd FPS to get out some of the "gamer" in me :) Playing Biochock at the moment and greatly enjoying that.

But for the most part games today fail me because of lack of options, lack of depth and lack of immersion. Maybe that is why I like games like roguelikes, muds etc.. The less graphics there are the more I am sucked into the game by my own imagination. It is rare that a graphically rich game like Bioshock comes along that actually grips me. (but I can only play that late at night as I have two young sons).

Some games I would probably love if instead of RTS they were TBS.

As a fan of play by mail games back in the day, and recently PBEM I know I am a not the target demographic, so it is up to me to find indy devs that enjoy the same kind of things in games that I do.

[Aezeal]

Just for good measure.. most of what endo says about roguelikes is in oblivion too... and nice graphs.. and an editor

PS Why not just play TA then? 10 points for Sombre there..

Some pplz in here have just talked them selves to much into indie, roguelikes etc that the just can't seem to get the fact that mainstream games do have some very nice titles there.

[Incabulos]

Oblivion had some good features, the alchemy/spell making were decent but the design focuse was clearly on the graphics. Though I think I played Daggerfall longer than Oblivion.

Neverwinter Nights had some great stuff too, and Dragon Age holds some promise.

The early games like wizardy etc.. really engaged me. So for me it is mostly a preference of turn based over real time, and most modern RPGS like oblivion are real time. Many of them make me motion sick so that's a non starter right there :D

I like isometric/topdown over first person but that probably comes from starting as a PnP player long ago. So for me it is a matter of presentation. Minimal presentation usually means the focus has been on the gameplay. There are always exceptions.

Opportunity to play plays a great part of it too. When I can play and what I have available to play on.

[Endoperez]

Why not just play TA then?

Perhaps I should!

However, Spring has big explosions, so I might be able to play it in school. It just takes a few people to start the first game, then other people come to look at the explosions, then they try it, and we have a huge war.
That's what happened with Aliens versus Predator, any way. :D Studying for "game development" is fun.

Also, when I tried TA, I didn't know what to do, never built tier 2 construction unit, and gave up when the campaign didn't work right.


How does Oblivion compare to Morrowind? I tried Morrowind, but 1) the world felt empty 2) everything encouraged minmaxing and grinding 3) the character growth was too heavily based on character creation.

I think mods could fix 1 and 2 might have been a flashback to Daggerfall, but 3 is a real failure. In fact, it fits this thread perfectly.



How am I supposed to create a character that works for the whole game, BEFORE I start the game? Dominions circumvents this the same way as some roguelikes: learning to create a character is a big part of the game itself and part of what makes a good player. This doesn't work for plot-based games that try to tell a story.

Worst are the games where you press "roll random stats" until you get high everything. You don't know what's good enough, so you never feel comfortable stopping...
Then comes Morrowind, in which you choose which skills you will have to increase to level up, and how easy it is to increase those skills. If you choose the wrong skills, you level up without getting better at fighting; or you don't level up without grinding; or you don't like how the skills work (stealth, stealing) and have to start over.

Then come games where you have a set of classes to choose from, before you know how they work and with no chance of changing the choice later.

[Tifone]

[...] Spring has big explosions [...] other people come to look at the explosions, then they try it [...]

I may admit this looks pretty funny :D

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=6udIo5SmwWA

[Omnirizon]

Why not just play TA then?

Worst are the games where you press "roll random stats" until you get high everything. You don't know what's good enough, so you never feel comfortable stopping...
Then comes Morrowind, in which you choose which skills you will have to increase to level up, and how easy it is to increase those skills. If you choose the wrong skills, you level up without getting better at fighting; or you don't level up without grinding; or you don't like how the skills work (stealth, stealing) and have to start over.

this is why i hate random stat stuff. yet at the same time hate 'choose your own' because they encourage min-maxing. i think that the randomizers should be given a number of 'points' that they spend the same way a player does. i think the player (or some factor the player can choose) should influence how stats are randomly selected. thus, the 'class' influences stat selection, or the player can assign weights to stats and those will be favored by the randomizer.

this is just how FA stats selecter works.

also, stat usage shouldn't be so unidimensional, that will help alleviate that problem of min-maxing. if a mental stat like 'memory' or 'psyche' influences the ease with which skill is gained, while a stat like strength is a factor in how effective a skill is; then there suddenly become dynamics in how characters should be designed. no longer is a 'strong' character better than a smart one with a melee weapon, because the brainy character may outrun strength in the sort of mid-run by being more skilled. however, if _all_ your character will ever do is swing a sword, then high str at the expense of other stats may pay off because they won't learn to do anything but swing a sword, and poor attributes that factor into skilling up won't be so important. but then you lose out on gaining other skills.

i also hate how strength is considered an absolute measure of 'strength'. this means that giants have huge strengths but typical other stats. all stats have a sort of 'norm' except for strength. that just isn't very aesthetically pleasing (when it comes to how 'beautiful' a system is :D).

rather, strength should represent intrinsic ability to perform acts of strength. the absolute 'how much can i lift' should be an interaction of body size and strength. a smaller character with a higher strength may not actually be as 'strong' as a larger character with a lower strength. however the smaller character may be able better to handle the weight and usage of a weapon that is large relative to their size, while the larger character will have trouble handling a weapon with the same 'weapon to body size' ratio. this allows the size of things relative to body size to be given a constant effect, rather then just the size of a thing having a constant effect. this is more pleasing to real world modeling too.

again, this is how the FA strength stat works

[KissBlade]

There's nothing in Morrowind that says you have to Min Max, if you choose to just play it on it's own, it's very rewarding experience.

[Crandaeolon]

/de-lurk

Some good suggestions here, thanks. Got to check out that 'Crawl.

To the people talking about balance nerfs, item-based gameplay and level grinding... ever tried Guild Wars? As far as action RPGs go, it's pretty lenient on grinding or finding items, and even though skill rebalancing happens once in a while, re-speccing is free. Only the primary profession of the character is set in stone at character creation, otherwise you can freely change the "build" of the character after you've picked up the skills from quests or trainers. (There are 1300+ individual skills that result in literally hundreds of "viable" character builds, and many times that if you accept less viable ones.)

The "higher" forms of GW PvP are very strategic and demanding. There are no char level or gear differences, and lots of communication and coordination is required. However, it does take quite a commitment to build the skills and social networks required to break into PvP. Also, it certainly doesn't represent even remotely realistic fantasy army action - it's just small-teams tactics in a fantasy setting.

-----------------------

I'd like to see a very casual action RPG enter the market, something that could be played with friends a couple hours per week. Focusing on the "action" part would be nice too - complex character systems probably wouldn't fit the bill with my buddies. The multiplayer expansion for Mount & Blade sounds nice, we'll see how that turns out.

[KissBlade]

I've played Guild Wars for a long time but as you said, it's incredibly hard to break into a good group.

[Endoperez]

There's a roguelike that did the "choose from random stats" pretty well. I don't remember it's name, but it was D&D derivative. It gave you a set of 6 stat-blocks at once, which included base stats and few special things. These special things varied from spells to items to extra skills to strange powers. There's so much stuff you can get that you won't get even similar bonuses again, so if you see something that looks like it'd work, you'll take it, and that ring of invisibility or whatever will be your defining characteristic for quite a while. You might be a conanesque barbarian instead of the typical hobbit rogue, but who cares?

Nice to see you reading this thread and talking about Fourth Age, Omnirizon. Now you just hurry up create the perfect Dominions rpg. :D

[analytic_kernel]

Some of the 'bands (Angband family of the roguelikes) provide alternatives for stat selection: rolling (with target values pinned to certain stats) or points assignment.

I'm going to have to try out Dungeon Crawl. I've tried ToME (another 'band) before, but thought it was a hodge-podge of too many different themes hacked together - quite unbalanced and quite exploitable.

In addition to overhead view, single-character RPGs, I also like turn-based ones with a first person POV and entire parties under player control. The old classic, Interplay's Tales of the Unknown: The Bard's Tale, comes readily to mind.

To answer the original poster's question, I would like to see more turn-based RPGs that allowed for switching between first person POV (with beautiful, 3D-rendered dungeon-scapes and opponents) and overhead view (2D map with either sprites or 3D models for units/characters). Such games would ideally allow multiple players to control certain characters in the same party, or for one player to control the entire party. (There was once an attempt to make a 'band like this; I believe that is was called mangband.) Also would be good to be skill-based (much like the concept of Dungeon Crawl) rather than class-based, and simply have classes be predefined (hopefully balanced and useful) bundles of skills.

[NTJedi]

The topic says it all. What are PC games and video games in general NOT doing that you wish they would do. How is the video game market not fulfilling your needs?



These are the biggest flaws I see being done with games:
1) No map editor or very complex map editor (Titans_Quest was a mess)
2) Maximum map size is too small (Devs not using the 64-bit OS)
3) Fixed worlds with limited randomness (Why can't RPGs have everything completely random such as towns, quests, NPCs, main bosses, items found etc., etc.,)
4) No Realistic World (Currently every RPG claims the world is in danger and needs to be saved yet the truth is all the evil bosses are couch potatoes waiting for you to arrive and kill them. I'd like to play an RPG where the forces of evil have a chance of destroying some or most of the world if I choose to do nothing and be lazy.)

[Omnirizon]

There's a roguelike that did the "choose from random stats" pretty well. I don't remember it's name, but it was D&D derivative. It gave you a set of 6 stat-blocks at once, which included base stats and few special things. These special things varied from spells to items to extra skills to strange powers. There's so much stuff you can get that you won't get even similar bonuses again, so if you see something that looks like it'd work, you'll take it, and that ring of invisibility or whatever will be your defining characteristic for quite a while. You might be a conanesque barbarian instead of the typical hobbit rogue, but who cares?

Nice to see you reading this thread and talking about Fourth Age, Omnirizon. Now you just hurry up create the perfect Dominions rpg. :D

Thanks for the encouragement :) with school back in session I don't do much work on it now. If I were to get into tinkering with it I would not get any school work done.

However, I do occasionally take time to scope out random map generators (currently looking at how FreeCiv's works) and hope to have a map generator to use with it finished by the summer.



The topic says it all. What are PC games and video games in general NOT doing that you wish they would do. How is the video game market not fulfilling your needs?



These are the biggest flaws I see being done with games:
1) No map editor or very complex map editor (Titans_Quest was a mess)
2) Maximum map size is too small (Devs not using the 64-bit OS)
3) Fixed worlds with limited randomness (Why can't RPGs have everything completely random such as towns, quests, NPCs, main bosses, items found etc., etc.,)
4) No Realistic World (Currently every RPG claims the world is in danger and needs to be saved yet the truth is all the evil bosses are couch potatoes waiting for you to arrive and kill them. I'd like to play an RPG where the forces of evil have a chance of destroying some or most of the world if I choose to do nothing and be lazy.)

complete randomness is difficult... I think the only game I've seen that does complete randomness well is Dwarf Fortress. I recall even reading that Tarn Adams (the creator) considers the random world generator _THE_ biggest part of Dwarf Fortress. Consequently, its 'bosses' do roam the world and tear stuff up. The world generation and processing of that game is absolutely amazing! Adams is a genius. However, he sucks at designing an interface. :) He should make the program so that user-made interfaces can be wrapped around it.

[Ironhawk]

The thing that really lets me down about RPGs, these days is the move towards single character games. Mostly now you can play only one character instead of a party. While this is good for some games, I really miss the old days where you could construct your party to cover a lot of roles and didnt have to rely on idiotic AI npcs.

The other thing I cant stand in RPGs is Dynamic Leveling!! Good god, whoever thought that up should be killed. Oblivion was the most prominently bad example. Every battle throughout the entire game was resolved in almost exactly the same manner, regardless if you are a lvl-1 rookie fighting a rat or a level-50 insanely powerful hero fighting a demigod. So stupid! Why put all your effort into your character to not get any reward?

[Trumanator]

I think that for me, the greatest dissapointment in the gaming industry so far has been the lack of support many companies give to their previous titles. Company of Heroes is possibly my favorite game of all time, and Relic does a better job than many companies at patching and such, but the latest balance patch has been ongoing for EIGHT MONTHS!!! In the meantime the community is bleeding players and lacking in competitiveness at the top because of the balance issues.

As for RPGs, I haven't played one in a while, but Oblivion is my favorite fantasy one by far. Even if Bethesda doesn't do much in the way of support, the flexible editor means that there will always be user-created content if I get bored.

One RPG I would encourage everyone to try though is Freelancer. It looks pretty decent, has one of the most convincing "living" worlds I have ever seen, and you don't have to worry about character stats or creation.

+1 to Guild Wars shout out, I can stop playing for months without feeling bad ;)

[trentzero]

There's a roguelike that did the "choose from random stats" pretty well. I don't remember it's name, but it was D&D derivative.

I believe you're referring to Incursion? Based on the D20 system? Loved it but I'm still waiting for the next update.

[NKIcan]

On Guild Wars: The concept is good, the execution is very poor. IMHO of course.

The game play just isn't very fun. PvP is nice, but PvE just leaves a lot to be desired.

[analytic_kernel]

The thing that really lets me down about RPGs, these days is the move towards single character games. Mostly now you can play only one character instead of a party. While this is good for some games, I really miss the old days where you could construct your party to cover a lot of roles and didnt have to rely on idiotic AI npcs.

Agreed. Also, party design adds another dimension to the entertainment. Just like one might always wish for another 40 design points when designing a pretender, one often tends to want one more character slot in a party. IMO, trying to find the best complements and synergies between party members, while covering a variety of roles and being limited to the allowed number of slots, is part of the fun of those types of games.

[rdonj]

/de-lurk

Some good suggestions here, thanks. Got to check out that 'Crawl.

To the people talking about balance nerfs, item-based gameplay and level grinding... ever tried Guild Wars? As far as action RPGs go, it's pretty lenient on grinding or finding items, and even though skill rebalancing happens once in a while, re-speccing is free. Only the primary profession of the character is set in stone at character creation, otherwise you can freely change the "build" of the character after you've picked up the skills from quests or trainers. (There are 1300+ individual skills that result in literally hundreds of "viable" character builds, and many times that if you accept less viable ones.)

The "higher" forms of GW PvP are very strategic and demanding. There are no char level or gear differences, and lots of communication and coordination is required. However, it does take quite a commitment to build the skills and social networks required to break into PvP. Also, it certainly doesn't represent even remotely realistic fantasy army action - it's just small-teams tactics in a fantasy setting.

That was a good mention about guild wars, I wasn't really thinking about it when I wrote my massive wall of text post. It does have the benefit of avoiding completely destroying builds for the most part, and the item based level grind. As another poster said however, the gameplay wasn't completely appealing to me. I never got involved in pvp in guild wars though so I missed out on the main point of the game. It did have some good ideas.

[Trumanator]

The nice thing about GW is that you're not required to have a guild to get involved in PvP. You can just find 3 friends and play arena battles. Hell, you can just put together a team on the spot and do reasonably well. Its even better in Factions, more options.
I've mostly done PVE though, I think its pretty fun. :)

[Agema]

The other thing I cant stand in RPGs is Dynamic Leveling!! Good god, whoever thought that up should be killed. Oblivion was the most prominently bad example. Every battle throughout the entire game was resolved in almost exactly the same manner, regardless if you are a lvl-1 rookie fighting a rat or a level-50 insanely powerful hero fighting a demigod. So stupid! Why put all your effort into your character to not get any reward?

Bethesda changed the random encounter spawn for Fallout 3. They split the map into "areas" and each area spawns creatures relevant to the level you first visited, so newbie areas stay with newbie random encounters.

For the most part, however, I'm not sure how "new" it can get. Aren't nearly all games, from 1980s scrolling shooters to FPS to RPG basically all about flinging larger weapons at larger opponents at later points in the game?

[Incabulos]

New gameplay can always be discovered.

Populous (of course Molyneux had several other innovative titles)
Midwinter
Stunt Island
Sim X (city,theme park, zoo etc)

more recently

Crayon physics
Darwinia
Portal

I think there are a plethora of games that don't involve killing the next big thing and most of those are the ones with innovation in them.

Most 'innovation' in the FPS genre is really new gimmicks (bullet time, terrain adjustment etc...)

[Ironhawk]

Bethesda changed the random encounter spawn for Fallout 3. They split the map into "areas" and each area spawns creatures relevant to the level you first visited, so newbie areas stay with newbie random encounters.

Yeah I played fallout and the system there was *slightly* better but still lame. Where is the fun in a game when every battle, from start to finish, requires exactly 3 shots? There is no strategy, no feelings of accomplishment. Just level grinding and new equipment. Its fantastically boring!

As for how the gameplay can be different - of course it can! It doesnt take a genius to think of ideas how. I mean all you have to do is make combat specialized. So you have to use a particular tactic against an enemy rather than the 1-2-3 main attack. Or you have to use a specific weapon. Or have a particular skill to outwit/disarm your enemy. The list goes on, all it takes is a little creativity instead of just plugging another NPC mob into a leveling formula.

[Incabulos]

Bethesda changed the random encounter spawn for Fallout 3. They split the map into "areas" and each area spawns creatures relevant to the level you first visited, so newbie areas stay with newbie random encounters.

Yeah I played fallout and the system there was *slightly* better but still lame. Where is the fun in a game when every battle, from start to finish, requires exactly 3 shots? There is no strategy, no feelings of accomplishment. Just level grinding and new equipment. Its fantastically boring!

As for how the gameplay can be different - of course it can! It doesnt take a genius to think of ideas how. I mean all you have to do is make combat specialized. So you have to use a particular tactic against an enemy rather than the 1-2-3 main attack. Or you have to use a specific weapon. Or have a particular skill to outwit/disarm your enemy. The list goes on, all it takes is a little creativity instead of just plugging another NPC mob into a leveling formula.


Funnily enough fallout has both disarming and particular vulnerabilities. Your standing and skills also reflect what kinds of encounters appear so it does have some nice touches to it.

Although the vulnerabilities could have been implemented better (I think Bioshock does a much better job at the same thing).

[Trumanator]

Yeah, some of the most fun I had in Fallout 3 was shooting the antennae off all those stupid fire ants so they went ballistic on each other. :D

[Ironhawk]

The fire ants was a one-off mission. The grand majority of the game was resolved by the 1-2-3 attack. No finesse or strategy required.

[Incabulos]

well you did state using particular tactics against particular enemies and it has that across multiple enemy types being vulnerable to particular weapons. You can conserve plenty of ammo and kill faster if you use the right weapon against the right mutant/robot/human. It might not have been particularly well implemented but it was in there.


Part of the issue with corporate games today is that too many decision makers are involved, so even something that starts with a groundbreaking vision and great concept will be watered down and homogenized. Usually the scope broadens and the vision is compromised.

[Trumanator]

My main problem with Fallout 3 was that you couldn't go ANYWHERE without a significant danger. I liked Oblivion's "system" because it was possible to get places without a constant battle, but if you wanted to get some loot or whatever it was easy to just go to the nearest ruin/cave/abandoned fort/whatever. That and I felt like there was much more openness in Oblivion, more factions, more incentives to explore.

[NKIcan]

Fallout was also not my genre of choice. An interesting game, but it played much too much like...Oblivion, morrowind, etc but the loot system and skill system wasnt as fun in my opinion. The V.A.T.S was a great idea though, I did like that.

As to innovation in gaming....Agreed with the FPS comments about gimmicky stuff (Oh look you can DEFY GRAVITY! im lookin at you, prey). But I'd also extend that to other game genres as well. They think they can trick us (and maybe they can, the majority of us) by making a formulaic game and throwing in one or two gimmicks and then call it Ground Breaking!

Formula isnt ALWAYS bad. If a system works for what you have in mind, no need to reinvent the wheel. Problem is, most of the formulas today are subpar and they can do much better. They just choose not to because they are risk adverse and want the product out ASAP.

Combat systems in MMORPGs and RPGs in general are the main offenders here.

[Aezeal]

Well being into Fall-out 3 and Oblivion both (and rating them both just below Baldurs Gate) I must say either leveling system has its benefits.

Unlike most I really LIKED that in Oblivion you always had a challange and it was never too much.
Then again I also like feeling like a god and killing critters in Fall-out 3 :D. Unlike Trumanator I must say I found Fall out 3 on the easy side the whole game through. Unless you roamed FAR outside the way the initial quests point you (I'm talking FAR out of the way) and just do stuff you encounter and kill whatever critter you encouter you should be leveling pretty fast and I was/am level 20 half way through the game. By the time I encountered my first death claws and enclave soldiers I could easily beat them. Sure some encounters with large groups of supermutants where though and sure I died from time to time but still pretty easy.
Another complaint I hear often is that in the end of both games you will have most stats maxed and however you started won't matter much. This is true, especially for fall out but I think it's intentional (so much stat books etc etc) and it doesn't bother me.
All in all I like the leveling in both games.

I must say I think both games have a lot of content though and I've not seen more in less graphical games (except BG) as has been said.

V.A.T.S. in Fallout made the game very very very very very easy. I Vats everything in sight and it dies :D

I like the very thought through DnD system more, baldurs gate turn based stuff I liked more too.. but you can hardly expect a comp game developed in a few years max to be equal to a system that has been around much longer.

[JimMorrison]

I thought Prey was an excellent game - especially from the perspective of "if you're going to make an FPS, make it story driven" - as the story was quite engaging.

I had to abandon my game of Oblivion. After painstakingly pushing my Sneak(Stealth?)/Herbalism/Alchemy all to level 10, while my combat skills were all much lower, I suddenly found that I couldn't kill anything, at least not without guzzling nearly irreplaceable potions.

Fallout 3 was far better in that regard I thought, but so much of what made Fallout 1+2 awesome was diluted so badly..... I've nothing against consoles, per se, but I do blame the console for what was "left out" of Fallout 3.....

[Aezeal]

I think fall out 3 was better than the other 2.. the feel of being in a wasteland was much better. What did you miss?

If you pushed your Sneak/Herbalism/Alchemy high and not the rest (combas skills) you didn't play Oblivion very normally. It's even good I think.. if you RP to be a non combattant then you are not a combattant.. and you should remain in the city and fade into obscurity :D.

[llamabeast]

Yeah, it's fine that you don't get any better at combat without practising, but what's really annoying is that you get _much worse_ because everything else in the world has got far tougher.

I also find that very annoying. With Oblivion it's all about the mods I think. There are some very thorough overhauls, like Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul, that pretty much fix most of the major irritations.

I also have to play that I played many, many hours of Oblivion very cheerfully before I really realised what was going on with the levelling, so it didn't bother me.

[Aezeal]

If you play the game normally.. just killing stuff while doing missions and not just maxing all non combat stats which is just unnatural then there is no problem. It might be annoying but that was your choice then. It's the same as playing dominions and herding gold, RP you are a greedy god.. not spending more than half your income on troops etc.. and then complain someone with 2x your army beats you. Something you just shouldn't RP :D

[Trumanator]

Yeah, if you want to RP a non-combatant you really do need to stick to indy games, as there's no way any decent size studio is going to encourage that. The beauty of Oblivion though is that you can completely ignore the main quest and do whatever the heck you want, with no penalty.

[K]

I want an RPG with zero grind.

Even the stars of the genre like Oblivion and Planescape or other DnD versions have people killing rats for power. It's lame.

I'd actually like an arcade-style game like Devil May Cry where someone's "level" is actually a reflection of a mastery of a strong tactics game. One of the reasons I like games like Dominions is that power comes only from skill.

And I never....ever...ever....eeeeeever.... want to kill a hundred orcs until I get a rare drop.

[Trumanator]

Thats one of the reasons I like GW. The level cap is pretty low and easily attainable, so the PvP and later PvE is a lot more "tactical". Its all about timing, having the right build, and coordinating your skills.

[Aezeal]

Well I disagree with it myself, it must be how we play games since others seem to have the same "problems" as you. I just walk around, talk to everyone, do every quest I get, walk there, kill every thing I encounter and then do the next thing.. in all games I usually reach level cap WAY before end of game and I never feel pressure to go grind since it's SP.. I'm THA MASTA anyway. I'm a looter though. I keep everything and stash anything that seems "special" though everyone who has the game can and probably has the same items :D

I think indie games where you can RP a non combatant and still win in a fantasy setting must have have some story I won't believe though :D

[JimMorrison]

If you play the game normally.. just killing stuff while doing missions and not just maxing all non combat stats which is just unnatural then there is no problem. It might be annoying but that was your choice then.

No, I did play the game normally. In all RPGs, I always hit a point where I gain enough confidence to just do some exploring. But I am -always- obsessive about picking up free things, and that very much includes herbs. The Sneak I did for fun, but Herbalism just happened, and there was no compelling reason at the time to not make the potions.

Oblivion was the only game I had ever played that penalized you for developing yourself in non-combat ways. In fact, if you just developed a couple of combat skills exclusively, you would have a FAR easier time in combat, than if you stack on Herb/Alch, for another -20- levels of difficulty. The potions just aren't strong enough to justify utilizing the depth of Alchemy that they provided (maybe if you were not an Herbalist, you buy all of your components? yeah, sounds like great fun).

All it does is force min-maxing, mindless grinding, and rushing the main quest. What is the point of all of that content, if exploring it makes your character unable to function in the world? It's just stupid design is what it is - there is NO justification for making the game harder for someone who develops their character.

[Cadel]

Didn't really read thread that much so this is kinda off-topic, but I was really pleasantly surprised when I DLed Vampire: The Bloodlines- Masquerade. Graphics weren't really too great, but you can tell that they really tried to do as much as possible with what they had. Pretty decent storyline, and the devs make playing a vampire as fun as it should be. Anyways just figured I should mention it because really the only two games I play now are WoW and Dom3, but that game stuck out to me.

Also on a side note, alchemy in Oblivion and just Oblivion in general rocks my socks. I had a level 48 warrior-build with everything maxed cept for my speechcraft which I just used as a filler and I just couldn't ever die, even with minimal potion usage. It's actually what made me stop playing the game as my character just didn't ever die and it got boring. I kinda disagree with the poster above me because I think it's the challenge that developing your charactter brings that made the game so fun. I do have to say that I liked Elder Scrolls better than Oblivion though; there was just so much more diversity and a much better storyline.

Anyways, just my 2 cents

Felt kinda guilty about posting without even touching upon the OP's topic. FOr my ideal game, I'd take different aspects from some of our best games today. I'd take the brilliant city design of Grand Theft Auto 4 and apply it in a fantasy environment, creating a virtual world with the intricacies of GTA, but with the epic scope of the Morrowind Elder Scrolls game. I'd take the poor, but honest attempts at social functions of Fable 2/3 and polish them up so they're actually effective and throw that in there too. I'll have to say Elder Scrolls 3 had an awful combat system and Oblivion truly wasn't that much better even though I love Oblivion. I'd take maybe the easy to use combat interface of WoW and combine it with the intensity of Halo or maybe Call of Duty 4. Bring in the kind of epic storyline that made Mass Effect amazing and throw in a character creation system that isn't the run of the mill "Pick Class here" thing that you see everywhere else. Personally, I'd have your own actions in game determine your "class," but that's something that I'd just like to see, it'll probably never really happen. ANyways, I'm done now- I gotta wake up entirely too early to be posting randomly on these forums

Cadel.

[NKIcan]

Oblivion is best when you heavily MOD it

[Tifone]

@ JimMorrison

That's why we need the comeback of the PCs party! :D Your Herbalist would have stayed in the rear making potions and soups and salads and whatever you can do with herbs, and the Warrior would have brought you to the end of the game smashing heads :p

[JimMorrison]

@ JimMorrison

That's why we need the comeback of the PCs party! :D Your Herbalist would have stayed in the rear making potions and soups and salads and whatever you can do with herbs, and the Warrior would have brought you to the end of the game smashing heads :p

Seriously! He was a damned fine cook, and a decent assassin. Just everything else levelled up to the point that he wet himself if he faced 2 opponents head on - even 1 without surprise got pretty dicey. 8 \

Oddly though, I wooped the arena quest. But, I did kite everything. >.> You kite outdoors, and look, it's another bear! One can kill me, so 2 must be more fun! :D

[llamabeast]

Actually I reckon Alchemy in Oblivion is overpowered. I got to the point where I just had to poison tough baddies with a couple of my good poisons and they were doomed, then I just had to keep out of their way.

That's with Alchemy 75 or so.

Unfortunately I find it impossible to resist Alchemy in Oblivion (you can't just not pick up all that free stuff), and as a result the game sometimes becomes a herb collection game.

[Agema]

Ultimately, games like Oblivion do require you beat things over the head or spellblast them very hard. I don't think they were ever intended as games where you can neglect combat, but as games where you have a large range of skills to supplement combat, or have a valid means of often avoiding combat. Most skills certainly allow you to approach missions in different ways.

This can seem disappointing, but to design a game where your herbalist/alchemist has a valid finish would be extremely hard. RPGs used to be nothing but combat grind: Might and Magic, the early Ultimas, Eye Of The Beholder up to Neverwinter Nights. Ultima 7 I think was the first where you could do more with your world, but it's the likes of Oblivion that are developing it and furthest ahead, and that development is still young.

[Aezeal]

hehe conflicting opinions must mean the truth lies in the middle. I myself had high alchemy and other non comabt stuff too, next to something melee and magic and it didn't bother me.

I agree that especially Oblivion gives more options for the non combat skills. And I agree too that a game where a herbalist can save the world would probably not be very exciting and I wouldn't want it.

[Tifone]

@ Agema - played the Might and Magic VI VII and VIII - the 8 sucked but the previous ones were very good, I remember they had not only combat, but also very interesting stories and subquests. Remember the monoliths? :)

[Agema]

I played M&M 3-9, although I didn't finish VII or VIII because I got bored, and after a lengthy time investment a bug killed my M&M IX game as I couldn't promote a character. I-V are the "old style" ones with turns and discrete squares like Eye Of the Beholder up to about 1994, VI onwards the 3-D ones with continuous movement released after 1996, although that style of RPG was by then obsolete by then. Nevertheless, you're right that the stories kept them viable when all else was miles behind their competitors.

If you liked those, I would heavily recommend Wizardry 8 (released 2002?) which was contemporaneous to the late M&Ms you played and I think rather better in all areas, and going back to the old turn & map square style, Wizardry VII (it came out about 10 years before 8). Also maybe the Realms of Arkania trilogy, which was about mid-90s.

[JimMorrison]

Well it's not just like he was -just- a Sneaky Herbalist. :p It's just that those 3 skills developed far faster than the combat skills, and when they capped, the character felt entirely crippled.

I can't recall working with poisons much though, just making crazy buffing potions and such. They were pretty amazing, but the potions that made my char strong enough to fight anything confidently, required rather exotic and rare materials.

I suppose you could say that Oblivion is ahead of the rest in the realm of "single character diversification", but again, that goes back to the problem of the solo-centric RPG atmosphere that predominates now.

The problem I had with the whole situation, is that in a game that does not auto-adjust the difficulty based on an abstracted sum of your powers, you can do what I did without penalty. Maybe I misread what they were trying to accomplish, but I thought the point was that encounters don't become totally trivial, not that every damned Boar you run into in the countryside is the fight of your life, just like the first one you ever met. I was playing a role, to be sure. It wasn't intended to be the role of the Sneaky Herbalist, that was meant to be my key to efficient progress. Instead, the game left my character behind.

And Aezeal, I agree, the full truth lies somewhere inbetween. Or at least, the perfect world does. I just don't believe there should be the potential to play 50 hours into a game, and create a total dead end without actually losing the game. I mean I could continue playing, but it was aggravating, and looked like a slow path of attrition (the herbs I needed for the potions that I needed to survive, were not easy to find at the rate I had to drink them).

[llamabeast]

You should get one of the big mods, like OOO. They do a half-level-scaling thing. So a rat might scale with you up to level 5, then stop. A bandit might (say) be level 8 up until you're level 8, stick with your levels through to level 12, but never level any higher than that. I think it's a fairly clever compromise.

Oblivion's system is silly in a number of ways though. What some people do is set completely pointless things to be their Major Skills (Mercantile and so on), while building up the useful combat skills as minor skills. Since levelling only depends on the major skills, they can easily get to the end of the game as a level 1, and the monsters all the way through are pretty trivial to beat. Ridiculous!

[Agema]

The other weakness is min-maxing stats from level development, no matter what skills you want. For instance, if you're about to go up a level, spam a spell or skill action to get 10 points, guarantee yourself +5 stat increase.

If people want to min-max or break the system, it's up to them. I'm quite happy for it to exist as it's a 1-player game, and doesn't ruin my gaming experience in multiplayer.

[Omnirizon]

speaking of Ultimas, one of my favorite Ultimas was also the next to most disliked: Ultima 8: Pagan

It tried to actually do something kinda neat and add some Adventury-Actiony elements to Ultima wrapped up in a really cool, dark themed world. It had neat magics and a ton of just fun little things to seek out and do and see. It really made you feel like exploring the world.

It was rejected by the player-base because it was... Hell I don't know why. I think it was too different from the typical Ultima format.

[thejeff]

As one who rejected Ultima 8: I don't think I rejected it because it was too different. I think I just didn't like the changes. That sounds the same but isn't really. It was a long time ago, but from what I remember it played very differently. If I hadn't been fond of the previous Ultimas, I probably wouldn't even have tried it. Not because they changed my precious Ultima, but because it was a different style of game and not one that I liked.
It's a hazard of making a big change in a franchise. Some of those who liked the style of the original won't like the new style and many of those who didn't like the original won't bother trying the new one.

[Tifone]

@ Agema - Tnx, I heard some time ago about Wizardry 8 being good but I forgot about it. I'll give a look around for it :)

[Aezeal]

Jim: sounds like you just needed to take up a weapon and some BASIC potions and then use your good skills (the potions) to increase the weak skills.. cus alchemy certainly could balance out a below average combat skill.

at the same time do some combat magic, throw fires when they are at a distace and fight up close buffed with potions.. your comabt magic and sword skill should rise :D

llama: I think most systems can be abused but really I'd not count it against the game. It's SP so it's not like we will be bothered by others leveling like that. and we (by the gods I hope you are with me on this at least) wouldn't play that way because it makes really no sense at all and wouldn't increase the fun we'd have. I couldn't care less. I do want a new RPG though.

[Aezeal]

PS the witcher is a nice game too. not so much for the choices you have (it's rather limited really) but the world is nice and the combat system decent and the story is good.. well addictive at least.. and you are just a very very very kewl guy. Almost like RP myself.

[llamabeast]

Aezeal: yeah, you're kind of right about the fact that the system being abusable doesn't matter too much in SP. However, although I'm hardly a min-maxer I do like to think about what decisions would be best for my character, and it bothers me that the best decisions are very different to what would be reasonable decisions "in real life".

[capnq]

Strategy games: [...] I also don't like having to manage resources, production, and combat all at the same time. I can't watch everything at once, and I like to watch the combats and try to organize them. But if you stop paying attention to one thing in favor of another, you're going to suffer for it. You'll run out of resources, or your opponent will pull some trick against your army, or you'll stop producing units... and you can't watch everything all the time. It's just frustrating.IMO, "Real-Time Strategy" is an oxymoron. I've tried a couple of "pausable" RTS titles (Star Wars Rebellion, Europa Universalis II), and still found that there was just too much to keep track of. AI opponents aren't handicapped by the need to physically manipulate the interface the way a human player has to, either.

[Aezeal]

Llama, getting a melee weapon skill, magic damage and healing spells is a pretty decent decision for any adventurer :D and it's also one of the better options in Oblivion :D

Rdonj, try the warhammer 40K dawn of war games.. much less focus on base builing (the upcoming part 2 even less I hear) and more on units and taking territory. Also a very nice setting, some rpg feel (for RTS with leveling troops and commanders etc). From the same makers there is that WW II game which is very good too.. taking points on the map for unit caps etc is a good idea and used much more these days.

[llamabeast]

Yeah Aezeal, but I don't like the fact that I'm better off avoiding levelling up, and that I shouldn't choose as Major Skills the things that I want to be best at. It's not good that I have to be careful not to get too good at a particular thing, e.g. levelling lots due to alchemy when I haven't got that good at fighting yet.

It's still a great game in many ways, but the levelling design is startlingly bad to my mind.

[Trumanator]

@ capnq- Yeah, give Company of Heroes a shot, or the DoW games. Compared to the likes of starcraft there is a lot less micro, and it is all focused on action rather than resource gathering or base building.

[Aezeal]

leveling 1-2 skills doesn't matter THAT much llama and your not better of doing that trick you said CUZ IT'S LAME and will certainly not make the game more enjoyable :D
Even with a lil catching up to do you can still clear some ruins and then you will be fine :D.

Well not going to continue this further though since I doubt you'll start oblivion again and I know I'm not :D (played the game, did most dungeons, nearly all quests and the DLC packs, not the real add ons but I can't be bothered by it. once I know the story it's not as fun anymore.. can't play games much more than once really if they are about the story (and most RPG's for me are about the story :D)

[rdonj]

Strategy games: [...] I also don't like having to manage resources, production, and combat all at the same time. I can't watch everything at once, and I like to watch the combats and try to organize them. But if you stop paying attention to one thing in favor of another, you're going to suffer for it. You'll run out of resources, or your opponent will pull some trick against your army, or you'll stop producing units... and you can't watch everything all the time. It's just frustrating.IMO, "Real-Time Strategy" is an oxymoron. I've tried a couple of "pausable" RTS titles (Star Wars Rebellion, Europa Universalis II), and still found that there was just too much to keep track of. AI opponents aren't handicapped by the need to physically manipulate the interface the way a human player has to, either.

Rdonj, try the warhammer 40K dawn of war games.. much less focus on base builing (the upcoming part 2 even less I hear) and more on units and taking territory. Also a very nice setting, some rpg feel (for RTS with leveling troops and commanders etc). From the same makers there is that WW II game which is very good too.. taking points on the map for unit caps etc is a good idea and used much more these days.

I find it somewhat interesting to see those one after the other :). I've got WH 40k, and the soulstorm expansion (never played multiplayer so winter assault wasn't a big deal for me), and I agree, the way they handle resources is a nice break from games like starcraft or age of empires which you can have to micromanage to ridiculous levels. Yet while it is focused a lot on action I found myself pausing frequently to speed myself up. The big thing in that game is upgrades. You have to capture nodes, build on them, later upgrade those buildings. Then there's research later, another upgrade, and then more research. And that's just the upgrades on one of your buildings, most others also have upgrades you have to deal with as well, and may be timing-critical to your strategy.

Then all of your units have upgrades as well, and in the middle of combat it can be hard to be sure which units are reinforcing at the time and which have finished reinforcing and are now dropping again. Then you have all sorts of different commander and unit abilities you have to keep track of. I enjoy the game, but that's a lot of things to watch. So I frequently end up pausing to give myself some time to breathe.


I've been thinking about it a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that basically, one of the biggest problems RTS games have is that the basic AI for units is terrible. In starcraft you had to either babysit your units to make sure they didn't run off and get killed by someone kiting them into ambushes. Or set them to hold position and watch them just stand there and slowly die. In some games (AoE or dawn of war for example) they'll give you a "defensive stance" option, where the units will chase attackers for a while and then return to something like their original positions. This is a step in the right direction, but it's still abusable. And what do you do when you have to run off and deal with some problem with your base, or set workers to a new resource? Well, when you have a large amount of units you'll eventually end up with a large percentage who will just stand there, watching your enemies kill their comrades in arms because they're too far away for the defensive stance's aggression trigger to be reached. And if you set them on attack, well, then they'll just go and do some of those foolish things that you get in starcraft chasing things through enemy bases and getting themselves shot up.

Why is there no way of setting units to stay as a cohesive group and fight as a whole? It would also be great if we could do something like temporarily give control to the AI and say, give it an area we authorize it to operate in if we have to go and deal with some crisis somewhere else.

Edit: I've not played relic's WW2 game though (or at least I assume it's relic's).

[Trumanator]

Personally I've never really played any DoW multiplayer, only CoH (it is Relic). I just wasn't as into the whole sci-fi setting, and after my experience with CoH I can't imagine how anyone could possibly balance out that many factions.

[Aezeal]

Rdonj: you do have to do SOMETHING yourself or it's a movie and not a game :D

I've not played DoW MP.. I just liked it as SP.

[rdonj]

True, but I still would like a more useful AI. Even if they just changed the defensive stance style commands so that it caused your entire formation to respond to being attacked instead of just the parts of it close enough to be triggered that would be a huge improvement in my mind.

[JimMorrison]

Rdonj: you do have to do SOMETHING yourself or it's a movie and not a game :D

This is true, but horrible AI implementation can cripple RTS experience as much as any other.

For example, I had some fun playing Empire Earth once upon a time. 2 things TOTALLY ruined the game for me. The first was that there was no "Attack To" command (like Dune: Battle for Emperor, what were they thinking??), so you either specify a target, or you tell them where to go, and they march along not defending themselves at all. The second thing, was that if you didn't babysit ALL of your forces, they would inevitably run off somewhere and die. The game was a micro-management nightmare, due to the extreme simplicity of your "commanders on the ground".

I think DoW is far better than that, partly due to the significantly smaller maps, and partly due to the reduction in non-combat tasks the player must perform - though it did still have its issues with non-babysat troops behaving idiotically.

I don't think anyone wants them to fight the war on their own, but at least they could intelligently perform a task, such as guarding or patrolling, without needing Daddy to come clarify their orders every 30 seconds.

I measure RTS games on their "Oh God" factor. That is, the number of times per hour that I scroll the map, and exclaim, "OH GOD!", over events that I can't avoid without direct control. Due to most games involving more than one focal point, this reaches a threshold where the game feels unmanageable in realistic terms.

[Aezeal]

Jim... no offence.. but it might just be you :D

[Tifone]

@ Aezeal - no, it's even me :D

One of the RTS I appreciated more was Kohan II. Just decide what your armies are composed of, send them somewhere and just keep an eye on them so they retreat if necessary... then, just enjoy the nice battle :p
Also, you just build the facilities and they collect resources automatically. Bye bye single-paesant babysitting. And tech researches take one click. A dream, really :cool: (And consider the game I was playing before Kohan II was Starcraft, make the proper considerations :eek:)

[Trumanator]

Not to put anyones back up, but I don't really think Dominions attracts a lot of people who are good at multitasking on the fly. One advantage of turn based games is the ability to think everything through and go at your own pace. You try that in an RTS and you will get destroyed. Tunnel vision is your enemy. On the flipside, an RTS is so focused on the here and now that its easy to forget your overall strategy, or to consider strategic choices.

[Ironhawk]

Yeah. Thats why I like to call them RTT (Real Time Tactics) instead of RTS. There really isnt too much strategy in the traditional sense in a game which relies mostly on how fast you can click the mouse.

[Trumanator]

I would challenge that assumption. It depends on the game. Starcraft has like 800 CPM for the good players, but most Relic games are more around 100 or so max.

_realizes shameless plugging_ _realizes he doesn't care_ _wtf_

[sector24]

Company of Heroes is the RTS of this millenium. It's ok to plug it. ;)
In many cases, the reason your RTS units are "stupid" is due to the maximum range of your unit's weapons. For instance, it's very common to put a longer range unit like a Siege Tank out of range of some Marines and hit them, and they'll come running and get slaughtered by your waiting forces. But they were going to die if they stayed where they were. Eventually a game will implement a way for units to "call for help" within some radius, but it really won't make the units smarter. It'll just change the tactics. Concentration is the true resource in RTS games, it's like strategy with an egg timer.

Back to Oblivion, there's a ruinous exploit that makes the game hilariously fun and yet ultimately defeating. If you get to the mage's guild where you can create your items, put the maximum level of Chameleon on every piece of equipment and when you reach 100% you become permanently invisible. If any of you guys built your character poorly, you can use that gear for awhile to train up your other skills without getting slaughtered by bears and bandits.

But yeah, Oblivion's leveling system was ridiculous because to min/max you have to VERY tightly control when you level (after you skill up appropriately so that you can max out your stats) so you want to tag primary skills that you would only use in a controlled fashion. So if you say tagged, Sneak, Athletics, Swords, and some other "sneaky rogue" skills, you would level very quickly, but only get +2 or +3 to your stats when you level, but all the monsters in the game get +3 or +4 so they quickly become more powerful than you. Ironically your character is at his/her most powerful at level 1. I actually beat the entire storyline without leveling up and it was surprisingly easy.

Fallout 3 fixed the leveling issue and I hated sword/shield combat in Oblivion so guns were an obvious upgrade for me. (I was always a bow/spell slinger in Oblivion) I consider Company of Heroes, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 to be exceptional modern games.

So what's missing from games? For me its consistency. Every now and then I can find a really good game, but there's usually only 1 or 2 per year and you have to sift through dozens or hundreds of mediocre titles to find it. I'm happy with the quality and features of top shelf games these days, but of course there are well marketed games that are just embarassingly bad too. It's easy to lose perspective and trash the industry but it's the same with movies and books, only a small percentage of them are really good.

[Aezeal]

hmmm I can find a decent amount of books I like :D, I do't mind rereading books either so that solves the problem too.

I agree fallout 3 is better than Oblivion but I disagree giving all those abuses as examples why it's bad.

[Illuminated One]

Not to put anyones back up, but I don't really think Dominions attracts a lot of people who are good at multitasking on the fly. One advantage of turn based games is the ability to think everything through and go at your own pace. You try that in an RTS and you will get destroyed. Tunnel vision is your enemy. On the flipside, an RTS is so focused on the here and now that its easy to forget your overall strategy, or to consider strategic choices.

I don't think so.
In a good turn based game you can't afford tunnel vision, you have to keep in mind how your action here affects your action there and have a global strategy.
Multitasking in RTS is basically doing a thing extremely fast and then doing other things fast and then switch back to the thing you started from. That really makes the strategy component of the RTS quite secondary especially as most tactics are quite obvious (rockets against tanks, pikes against cavalry).

About most RPGs I dislike that they are so combat focused. Yeah, sometimes there are other ways to solve quests, but the systems behind that are neglected. Dialog is represented by a minor game, stealth sucks, etc. A combatant character will also often have an advantage over a noncombatant be it through xp or loot.

[Trumanator]

^ Well I really meant the ability you have in turn based games to focus exclusively on each thing at a time. You aren't in a rush, so you can make sure its perfect.

[Aezeal]

Well the problem with dialog RPG's is that they would be nearly exactly the same each playthrough which combat can be different. In the end there will always be a limit on how much lines there can be while combat is fluent and changing. Not to mention that it's just not realistic to ab able to talk most monsters you encounter to kill you.

"Hey huge brown bear/ demon that wants to take over the world/ evil witch that wants to kill the king for slights in the past with clearly murderous intent and teeth the size (the witch too) of daggers would you be so kind as to move away"..insert some witty comments, some pleading, some intelligent remarks, talk of understanding, some love songs etc etc some of the other rpg styles of talk you can imaging (including bribing: "you know if I give you this goldpiece will you then stop your almost finish plan to take over the world and destroy it this afternoon?"

doesn't work for me and since my aim in RPG's are usually epic of nature upto and including saving the world the stakes for me and my opponents are very high so a lone talker standing between them and eteral glory won't stop them (or me :D)

[Endoperez]

Fighting is one solution. If you aren't a great fighter, obviously it will be much harder to defeat the big bad in a straight fight. That's why you have to even the odds. As an example, your mission might be to stall while the rest of your party does some sabotage - suddenly talking is a really good option. Who said Charisma is useless?
In addition, the plans of those megalomaniacal final bosses usually have huge holes in them. There are classics (Fallout, Planescape: Torment) in which you can discover why the big bad's plans' won't work, and TELL HIM THAT. Even if it doesn't cause him to kill himself or give up, it could make the final fight much easier, or give you a "you sacrificed yourself, but you saved the world" ending.
Not to mention the possibility of talking the second-in-command to fight for you. Star Wars, anyone?

You could also play the sneaky rogue who discovers the way to defeat the big monster, in-game and in-character. "Hey Bard, see that missing scale in the belly of the dragon? Use the magic arrow!" Why yes, stealth sure came in handy in here! Not to mention another staple, "destroy the One Ring". Or old literary classics such as "we'll cause a prison break and use the confusion to our advantage".

And then there's the whole exploration aspect: the legend about the magical sword that will make you immune to the magic of the Evil Mage, hidden away somewhere far away. Following the long line of sub-quests would give you a sword that will give you a chance you wouldn't normally have. Of course, finding the sword should be difficult and require non-combat skills, (with different quests and rewards available for the combat-focused characters, of course).


It's only worth the developers' effort to make special cases for the important enemies - but they are the only important enemies. As long as killing monsters isn't your only way of gathering experience, it's at least theoretically possible to make non-combat skills useful in the boss fights.

[Tifone]

And that's why the RPGs where you have multiple ways to do things (i.e. Fallout: you can destroy the door if you are strong enough, or pick its lock if you have the skill, or melt it if you have acid, or convince the guard to give you the key if you have Charisma)... are the best ones ;)

[Gregstrom]

The first was that there was no "Attack To" command (like Dune: Battle for Emperor, what were they thinking??)

We were dealing with all sorts of 'interesting' requirements for the UI from EA and Westwood.

[llamabeast]

Were you on the development team Gregstrom?

[Gregstrom]

Indeed. I was one of the designers (for my sins).

[JimMorrison]

Battle for Emperor was sooooo -almost- awesome..... It had the atmosphere (got to love a cherished IP to work with, AND a strong legacy), and for the time, cutting edge visuals for an RTS. As far as I'm concerned, the UI was really the only thing standing in my way of joygasm. :o


Aezeal - that's why there really are 2 broad classes of RPG, "Action Driven", and "Story Driven". Diablo was so successful I think, because it's got a great hack-and-slash-Action-Driven-RPG package, with enough story to keep you a little immersed. Likewise, Fallout ranks as the king of Story Driven RPG, for the simple fact that even as turn based, the action is gritty and exciting, and no aspect of the game is less than mediocre.

Have you ever played Dreamfall: The Longest Journey? It's so Story Driven, I call it an Interactive Novel..... the "action" is almost non-existent, you don't have a character sheet with stats or attributes, the "game" itself is highly stripped down in many ways. But the story, my god the story is intense and riveting. Most games I am upset if there is no replay value, this was one where I felt like I had gotten my full value for one playthrough - and I didn't want to play again anyways, as it had such a cathartic climax. I see some used copies on Amazon for ~$10, I would highly recommend it at this price - IF you can appreciate a well orchestrated story. ;)

[Aezeal]

Ow if you are not one of those bashers of games with any graphics that only like text based games then we are on one line.
I don't consider Diablo an RPG (you can call me a diablo basher). An RPG needs somewhat of a decent story. Story Driven RPG: I like fall out 3 better than fall out 1.. I like planescape torment best for it's story, BG is good too.

[Gregstrom]

Battle for Emperor was sooooo -almost- awesome..... It had the atmosphere (got to love a cherished IP to work with, AND a strong legacy), and for the time, cutting edge visuals for an RTS. As far as I'm concerned, the UI was really the only thing standing in my way of joygasm. :o



There were a whole wad of factors affecting the area. E:B4D wasn't being developed in-house, so EA and Westwood had a lot of say-so over the UI because it had to 'remain true to the C&C series'. The tabs for unit/building construction were (I think) our innovation (I joined after the in-battle UI was finalised), but I got the impression that generally there were a lot of restrictions on ideas we had put forward.

It's understandable that they'd worry about a third party working on their prized (and highly lucrative) IP, but maybe they were over-cautious.

[Trumanator]

And now WW is gone, and EA is doing their usual thing of making decent-good games and refusing to support them. :(

[NKIcan]

Over Cautious I think is the watchword for the day when it comes to Gaming. Its become such a big investment that companies are loathe to try new things.

Its all derivative and formulaic to the extreme.

EA basically owns much of the gaming industry now...buying out companies then totally shutting them down. Its very sad.


Also, Ive heard good things about Dreamfall: The longest Journey. How puzzle intensive is it?

[Tifone]

Lol, wanna laugh? Possibly one of the most... well... "role playing" CRPGs :p I've played is one that is not even an RPG: the game of Blade Runner (by Westwood IIRC). More like an adventure, it's AWESOME game: it had a lot of ways to behave (playing your role ;) ) that made you really feel how you were changing the story - of course there were fixed events or the amazing plot wouldn't have evolved, but you could make lots of choices to get to one of the 10-or-so possible endings... and also some randomization (i.e. several characters could be humans or replicants) for further replayability. Added value for recalling a lot, with the locations, the camera movements and the atmosphere, the outstanding movie.

[JimMorrison]

Westwood was one of the best studios ever. It's frustrating, as they're my only favorite game designers that I have had little luck tracking down, as to what projects they are involved with now. One game in particular that I never hear mentioned, Mars Saga, was revolutionary at the time, with turn based combat where you script your party, and then the combat round plays out in "real time". It did this with AOE/cone effect weapons and semi-realistic explosions - on the Commodore 64.



Also, Ive heard good things about Dreamfall: The longest Journey. How puzzle intensive is it?

Not very, it's nothing like Myst or anything like that, that's for sure. There was one somewhat frustrating sequence involving some pylons spread out in a small maze, with this freaky troll thing that would kill you in one strike. Outwitting the beasty was much more a puzzle than the other part. ;) And there was one very minor puzzle I had to look up a walkthrough for, only to find it involved an aural cue, and I had my sound very very low while playing at night. :re: The story is amazing though, and much of the dialogue is pure genius. Seriously, if you like a good fantasy story, it's hard to go wrong with it. Just, be prepared to feel like crying at the end. :o

[Agema]

Westwood had many great games under their belt, but towards the end the wheels were falling off their wagon. Possibly because...

According to Wikipedia, many of the staff at Westwood were very unhappy with the EA takeover, left, and created Petroglyph Games. So check them up.

[Gregstrom]

That happens with takeovers. When DMA Design were bought up to become Rockstar North, a lot of staff left too.

[Agema]

Agreed. I think many of the big publishers buy studios for the intellectual property, not for the talent of its workers. It suggests their interest is in leveraging the "brand" and being able to knock out cheap, inferior sequels to make money, rather than nurturing talent. It's certainly telling when groups as incredibly successful as Westwood were can find they don't have creative freedom anymore.

[JimMorrison]

Westwood had many great games under their belt, but towards the end the wheels were falling off their wagon. Possibly because...

According to Wikipedia, many of the staff at Westwood were very unhappy with the EA takeover, left, and created Petroglyph Games. So check them up.

That's funny, because they did Empire at War, which had some really cool concepts (and ALMOST sated my desire for a remake of Rebellion), but ultimately got very repetitive, very fast.

Oddly, I met a number of gaming industry people in my time in WoW, including a couple who claimed to be working on that title. According to them, it was an offshoot of Westwood - but they were pretty tight lipped about most things. They also stated that they were not part of the "old guard", and apparently their co-workers (for SOME reason) didn't talk much about the glory days.

Their new project is Mytheon (http://www.mytheongame.com/) which is a free/micropayment MMO. Quite a departure from the old days.....

[Trumanator]

I thought EAW was probably the best Star Wars strategy game so far, but space combat was the only thing worth coming back to.

[JimMorrison]

I thought EAW was probably the best Star Wars strategy game so far, but space combat was the only thing worth coming back to.

Other than the fact that Rebellion, which was published 9 years previous, had fully 3 dimensional space combat, and EAW is purely 2D.

You may scoff at this, but you could set waypoints in full 3 dimensoins in Rebellion, and perform some very stunning tactical maneuvers, taking full advantage (or disadvantage) of weapon facings, mobility, differing weapon types, etc. EAW's space combat is much more of your traditional RTS fare, in comparison - fast action, few tactical options beyond the "special abilities" of the units themselves, and the superficial interaction of differing weapon ranges and whatnot.

All things considered, I found my experience with Rebellion to be far more enjoyable, on nearly every level (besides eye candy, of course).

[Trumanator]

In actuality, now that I think about it I haven't played any other SW RTSes besides Galactic Battlegrounds. I'm guessing the combat in Rebellion was like in Homeworld? Even in that case I still don't think I would have liked it. Too many weird keyboard commands and such. I'm too casual a player.

[JimMorrison]

Honestly, I don't think it's fair to compare the space combat to anything - other than what I imagine space combat would and should be like. ;)

That is, most ships are somewhat slow and cumbersome, but have a freedom of movement that very elegantly offsets the reduced mobility. IIRC in Homeworld, things happened very fast, as most games try to portray them. I think in reality, gravitational forces and inertia would have profound effects on what you could and could not do with a ship in combat, and this comes across well in Rebellion. It's a much more strategic system, where I think frequent use of Pause is not only reasonable, but to be expected.

The shortcomings were of course the limit of 2 factions, the lack of any sort of randomized map, the lack of any customizable characters, and an AI which we poo-pooed at the time, but while bad, was still better than nearly every game I've played of such scope and magnitude.

[rdonj]

I played rebellion a long... long time ago. I never really got into it because I completely failed to understand the resource system, and as a consequence, sucked. I wonder if I could make something of it if I went back and tried it again.

[Agema]

Oddly, I met a number of gaming industry people in my time in WoW, including a couple who claimed to be working on that title. According to them, it was an offshoot of Westwood - but they were pretty tight lipped about most things. They also stated that they were not part of the "old guard", and apparently their co-workers (for SOME reason) didn't talk much about the glory days.


The really top brass at Westwood (and hence the major old guard) got very good positions within EA. I dare say pre-takeover their day-to-day input to titles could be relatively low, but their overall creative direction might have been considerable.

* * *

I was disappointed with Star Wars Rebellion. It was hopeless at reflecting that the Empire was a vast Behemoth and the Rebels a scruffy element skulking around the fringes, although the empire working by repression and the Rebels by hope, freedom and diplomacy was implemented. The battles were well done, but it took so long to get a fleet anywhere I could never manage to actually get a decent engagement where two big battle fleets met in a galaxy-deciding blaze, just a series of hopelessly one-sided skirmishes.

[JimMorrison]

Hmmmm. I remember (it's been yearrrrrrrs) that with the Rebels, I fared best if I gobbled up rim systems as fast as I could with my amazing diplomants, while keeping the Empire running around in circles with Han+Chewie and my other awesome saboteurs running interference within the core. If done right, eventually I was zooming into the core with insane fleets of something like 5 Bulwark Battlecruisers, with support. Though my first strike fleets would tend to consist of just 10-12 Nebulon-B, as they had an excellent combination of firepower and maneuverability, with 2 fighter squadrons apiece, and IIRC could carry some ground forces as well.

As the Empire, it seemed a fairly simple feat to get a couple battlegroups of Star Destroyers up, and bombard the living hell out of any dissenting core systems, hammering them under the iron fist of the Empire with ruthless efficiency. The key here was to get a very strong economy going, because it takes a lot of manpower to bring the rim systems under your thumb, with so much distance between the clusters.

I don't know, I thought that there was a great combination of diplomacy (fighting for influence on each world), subterfuge (few games have had such engaging covert ops components), and gorgeous (for 1998!) space battles. I definitely rank it as one of my favorites of all time, and probably the best game to ever be associated with Lucas Arts (though Ballblazer was SWEET back in the day :p oh yeah, and Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken!).

[Trumanator]

Is Rebellion available as shareware?

[Aezeal]

Tie fighter was a great game associated with lucas arts

[JimMorrison]

Is Rebellion available as shareware?

Everyone seems to agree that it should be Abandonware by now, it's been out of print for a long time, and has no LucasArts support. However, Home of the Underdogs apparently -will not- host LucasArts games, because they are notorious aholes about it. I found one site that hosts LucasArts abandonware titles, but their list stops at 1997, and I found one site that promised it had a "full download" of Rebellion, but it wanted a signup fee.....

Cheapest used copies on Amazon are $38+shipping, and a new copy will run you ~$150. :eek:

[Trumanator]

Jesus Christ :eek: Screw that. I guess I'll just have to look for a torrent or something.

[sector24]

Try the 2nd link. I loved Rebellion, and X-wing vs. TIE Fighter. Ah, the golden age of gaming...

[Strider]

Linking to pirate sites, or even advocating using pirated software, is a swift way to get yourselves banned.

[JimMorrison]

Linking to pirate sites, or even advocating using pirated software, is a swift way to get yourselves banned.

Why is Abandonware considered Pirating, again? That's exactly the sort of attitude that we only really see out of LucaArts. Any sane person says "we published that OVER 10 years ago, and no longer print or sell it, have fun".

So to clarify, I do not advocate PIRATING, but I certainly do advocate people taking the time to enjoy classic games that have long since been ABANDONED by their publishers.

I think the general consensus is that once you no longer have the will or means to profit from your creation, it belongs to the world to which you unleashed it.

But don't get me wrong, I <3 fascists, too. :happy:

[Ballbarian]

Jim,
The link was to a well known pirate site. That is a very, very big no no.


"Cracks" and Copyright Infringement
We do not permit the posting of information that will enable other people to use pirated software or to evade the copyright laws. This includes the sale or trade of illegal merchandise, discussion of file sharing procedures for copyrighted video or audio files, including the discussion of "torrenting" files, discussion of bootleg trading (not including legitimate trading of merchandise) and other items prohibited by law. The posting of complete articles or other written works is also prohibited. You may post a small section of the work and provide a link to a legal copy of the complete version. The posting of any sensitive, secret, or exploitive materials in regard to any person, business, or organization is expressly prohibited. The posting of any illegal behavior, links to illegal behavior, information on how to commit illegal behavior, links to information on how to commit illegal behavior are all prohibited, this includes posting cd keys or serial numbers. Also, do not post ways to cheat in games. All such references will be deleted and a Infraction Points will be issued to the poster and could result in a ban.

[Calchet]

Now, now, thanks to the reasonable copyright laws we have in most countries, abandonware is all well and good and not piracy at all...

As long as the creator has been dead for seventy-five years or somesuch.

In other news, I can't WAIT for the year 2070 to swing around! Think of all the games I could start playing for free!

[Endoperez]

Why is Abandonware considered Pirating, again? That's exactly the sort of attitude that we only really see out of LucaArts. Any sane person says "we published that OVER 10 years ago, and no longer print or sell it, have fun".

I think the general consensus is that once you no longer have the will or means to profit from your creation, it belongs to the world to which you unleashed it.

Abandonware is not legal. No publishing company can allow people to discuss how to illegally acquire games on their discussion forums. It sends the wrong message for 1) people who consider buying their games, 2) people who consider using them to publish games and 3) other publishers.

Also, old computer games are easier to share and harder to get to work than most traditional media, but the same rules and laws are in place. As an example, it's illegal to scan and share 1980s comic books, even if the company that published them isn't selling them any more and the artists/writers have moved on to do other stuff. Rights aren't lost that easily, and they shouldn't be. There are sites, like Good Old Games, that sell old, classic games for cheap, without DRM, and in formats that work on newer operating systems.
http://www.gog.com

All games aren't available, but many good games are. I found out about the site when I saw a guy playing Oddworld: Abe's Odyssee (9.99$).

[Trumanator]

Sorry for instigating this. Its also probably hijacking the thread, so...

I'm getting really really excited about BF Heroes! I hear that it's coming out around March.

[Akela]

I had to abandon my game of Oblivion. After painstakingly pushing my Sneak(Stealth?)/Herbalism/Alchemy all to level 10, while my combat skills were all much lower, I suddenly found that I couldn't kill anything, at least not without guzzling nearly irreplaceable potions.

Yeah, a lot of people run into that. Here's how to avoid it if you want to try again: http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Leveling

[JimMorrison]

I see Sacrifice on GOG for $5.99, now there's another title well worth a few bucks. <3

[Agema]

Abandonware is not legal.

Abandonware can be legal: some authors/publishers release the copyright and make stuff freeware in the belief no-one would pay for old stuff but may as well still be able to play it. It could be argued that software which the copyright owner does not enforce is effectively legal, although "effectively" certainly does not mean "is". Nevertheless, I'd agree it's inappropriate to link to such sites unless it clearly states the software it holds is there legally.

[Aezeal]

considering how the pplz here keep publishing their games long and at full prices I think they'd sooner have the sort of Lucas art point of view :D

[Endoperez]

Abandonware is not legal.
It could be argued that software which the copyright owner does not enforce is effectively legal, although "effectively" certainly does not mean "is".

It could be argued that a copyright crime isn't effectively crime unless you get caught. :rolleyes:

Any way, this isn't the forum for this discussion.

[sector24]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause any trouble. I'll just slink back into the shadows now.

[Tifone]

While we can agree that this might not be the best play to give each other links of torrents ;) I'd give just a personal opinion.

I'm totally for supporting the devs who made a good game (and even better if they support it really well, I'm lookin at ya, guys :D ). And the company that made the game available to you. All of that, really.
But when the devs stop earning profit from the game itself, and possibly when the company itself stops putting it on sale, I start wondering.

We can't deny that games are an artistic experience. The tenth art, I'd say. Still, the art of creating games, and the artistic experience of playing them, is still an underdog. Often the so-called "media", for the pleasure of the masses, use this or that game as scapegoat for a shooting among teenagers or whatever. And while some philosophers and writers are making the artistic value of games more obvious to the masses, there aren't libraries or galleries for games, where everybody can live the artistic experience - nor we can expect them, for a long time. But shouldn't the artistic experiences, sons of the best intellect mankind, be available freely even to who doesn't have the means? Should the sharing of ideas be limited to books and paintings?
I think that pirating a game which is on sale is purely dishonest, because people worked hard on it and live on it, and whole companies depend on those sales. But when those people and companies stop offering the game, and thus stop expecting returns from that, shouldn't the artistic experience be available to those who didn't have the means to buy it?

Sorry for the long rant - random thoughts. :) Comments or death threats are welcome...

[rdonj]

I would highly suggest if someone wants to continue this discussion that a new thread be made, this thread is wandering far off-course and I kind of liked it before it started wandering into legal territory.

[Annette]

Rdojn is right, Please keep your posts on topic. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted intellectual property is illegal, even if you feel the copyright holder should release their property into public domain. Discussion of piracy and the promotion of illegal activity is prohibited on our forums.

[Tifone]

I'm sorry, mine was just a post on some ideals (fortunately, the high intelligence of the players of this game and members of this forum often permits very nice discussions :cool: ) and as I stated I was not advocating piracy at all. :)

Well, back on topic so! :D

[JimMorrison]

Just to make sure this ship sails back onto course -

I can't remember if this was mentioned earlier in the thread (I like to mention it a lot), but if you can handle REALLY old school RPGs, and you loved the feel and world of Fallout, then Wasteland was in fact the predecessor of Fallout, and will always remain one of my favorite games of all time. May be -very- hard to find. Here is an interesting site to get more info, and may help lead you towards legal avenues of enjoying this great old work.

Ranger HQ (http://wasteland.rockdud.net/updates.html)

[Akela]

Wasteland absolutely rocked! I remember loving Fallout so much because it was a new and improved Wasteland. I remember being in college and playing D&D in the living room while my brother's girlfriend sat in the next room playing Wasteland for hours on my 386 with a VGA monitor. A girl playing computer games!? Not such a big deal now but unheard of in 1988. She is the only person that I know personally who has finished the game. By pure (and weird) coincidence my brother told me the other day that he is playing it again. He's married to that girl now, do you think she's giving him hints?

[Aezeal]

hmm don't know that game and since even fall out '2 coulnd't keep me interested with fall out 3 around I don't think I'll even try.

Just finished 3 btw, did about 95% of quests as a good guy. I really love the setting, the sound and the feel of really being in a desert wasteland.

Hate Giant Radscorpions that refuse to die.

[Aezeal]

are there any games from the last 1-2 years you'd advice playing?

[JimMorrison]

If you like FPS, and you seem to, TimeShift is an often overlooked title that I really enjoyed. At first glance it's very "gimicky" in that "oh yay I can stop time" sort of way, but it is really well implemented, and while there are many little puzzles that you have to alter time to complete, you are also left wide open to use your time powers in combat, and you can (sometimes totally accidentally!) create some very incredibly amazing effects.

To be honest, when you talk about "recent games", and not the blockbuster titles like Fallout3, or BioShock, or Crysis..... Most that I've tried, really did not hold my interest for long, either from being totally bland, or from gaping wide design flaws. God I'm glad I get most of mine used..... Sword of the Stars for example, I barely got my $10 worth, I would have been PISSED if I had paid full price for it - but same goes for most games. Even Fallout3 we bought new, but my roomie and I split it, cause I can't shell out $60 for a game (cept Dominions, we had to buy 2 copies to get unique CD keys :p).

[Trumanator]

Portal is pretty good as well, heck the whole Orange Box is pretty good.

[rdonj]

Hmm... I kind of like sword of the stars actually. I had the misfortune of getting it at around the same time as I got dominions though, and I've not played terribly much else of my own volition since I started playing dominions :P There are definitely things I dislike about sword of the stars, but I thought it had some good ideas.

[JimMorrison]

Oh it certainly has some good ideas. In fact there were a number of things that I did like about it. But there are enormous, and I mean "can fly a battlecruiser through them" enormous flaws in the tactical combat. Also, the expansion introduces a race that plays a little like Ermor, and they are completely obnoxious, they make the game non-fun.

I started out kind of liking it. Then I started to not like it much. Then I learned some of the more advanced concepts in the game, and I started to like it a lot more. Then I hit the wall. :p

[rdonj]

I never got born of blood, but I can certainly see them making the game a lot less fun. I'd heard about the issues with the heavy beams, but I never really had much opportunity to test them. I never got past playing easy mode, so I never had to fight enemy dreadnaughts or even many cruisers :P. So I never really got acquainted well acquainted with the bad parts I guess.

[NKIcan]

I love the Sword of the Stars series. I think it does a great job in many different areas. The designing your own ships is fun, and every technology is useful...as well, I enjoy the whole random tech tree as it eliminates the blandness of builds to an extent.

That being said, the game goes on WAY too long after you pretty much know You Won.

The random encounters are also cool :) Puppet Master...whew

[JimMorrison]

I love the Sword of the Stars series. I think it does a great job in many different areas. The designing your own ships is fun, and every technology is useful...as well, I enjoy the whole random tech tree as it eliminates the blandness of builds to an extent.

That being said, the game goes on WAY too long after you pretty much know You Won.

The random encounters are also cool :) Puppet Master...whew

Haha. Well I agree, there were a lot of cool aspects, and I love how even though the tech tree is somewhat small, it isn't burdened by fluff, and it just feels like there's enough content - just slimmed down for a faster paced game. And yes, I liked all the wasp things, and the crazy asteroid battle stations and whatnot. What I didn't like was how hard it was to give meaningful orders in combat half the time, and how unintelligent my ships were about facing and ranging, yet the computer, using the same AI, could cause me terrible attrition with inferior ships. And the expansion race (can't remember their name) just pushed it over the top, with their whole "yay, 1 shot and half your fleet is gone" weaponry.

[rdonj]

There is no fleet, there is only Zuul?

[NKIcan]

I guess it just takes practice, and knowing which orders to use.

Zuul just give you problems early game...but after that they become managable. Heck if you can hold em off they will eventually run out of steam as they auto-overharvest all their planets.

I enjoy the Tarkas the best.

Either way, SotS is another example of a lot of things done right, but annoying enough in the few small things to drive many away.

[JimMorrison]

I really liked The Hive, just because as the game progressed, and more and more AI empires wanted to launch fleets at me from god knows where, I could do the gate dance and block each fleet with minimal attrition for the most part. Then yeah, here comes a Zuul fleet, and *pop* goes my defensive armada.

I felt like I was getting pretty handy at controlling my ships, such as the controls were. But they would still bind up, and IIRC I had huge problems with ships that had weapons of multiple ranges not wanting to close to use all weapons, and if they did, they would try to stack on top of eachother and get stuck while the enemy sailed back to take out my gate ships, and my command ships.

I don't know, as bad as all that was, it was most definitely the Zuul bastards with their imba weapons that drove me away. I have a very high BS threshold, and generally consider it a challenge to make faulty controls, bad pathing, and awkward AI do what I want them to do. :p But when someone can throw a fleet full of garbage at me, and do horrible damage just because one ship can fire the dreaded God Fart Torpedo, it's a sour sour day. You're actually making me want to install and play it again, and disable the Zuul from AI selection. <3

[rdonj]

Space Dolphins forever! I only tried the hivers once or twice briefly, never finished a game with them. I realized recently (yesterday) just how horribly incorrect I was playing them the same way I played the Liir, but with gate ships. The Liir pretty much perfectly fit my natural playstyle tendencies, the Hivers, not so much.

God fart torpedo, huh? The Zuul certainly sound like absolute jerks, leaving them disabled sounds like a good idea to me. I would say play as them to exact retribution, but they also don't completely sound like the most fun to play. I certainly would be terrible with them. I actually am somewhat wanting to play SotS also, and Rebellion! But I only have so many brain cells I can devote to games that require lots of thinking at once and dominions is pretty much maxing me out right now. Maybe when I'm done with most of my multiplayer games, but I'm not so sure that's happening any time soon....

[JimMorrison]

You will never be done with your MP games, people keep starting new ones, the jerks. ;)

I started out with the Liir, I was shocked at how flimsy their ships were. Though, I didn't understand the Command limits, and how they affected combat (that game has such an awful manual, it's what, 15 pages? :p), so their weaker ships had a lot of trouble once they were badly outnumbered.

SoTS Manual, First Draft: "So there's umm, some people, and they fight. There are some game concepts, and you'll pretty much figure them out as you go. Oh yeah, the whole game takes place in space!"

Dev2: Hey Jerry, I think maybe you should put a little more effort into the manual.
Dev1: Hmmmm, well I guess I could fluff it up a bit, do we have any illustrations to throw in?

:re:

[rdonj]

You will never be done with your MP games, people keep starting new ones, the jerks. ;)

I started out with the Liir, I was shocked at how flimsy their ships were. Though, I didn't understand the Command limits, and how they affected combat (that game has such an awful manual, it's what, 15 pages? :p), so their weaker ships had a lot of trouble once they were badly outnumbered.

SoTS Manual, First Draft: "So there's umm, some people, and they fight. There are some game concepts, and you'll pretty much figure them out as you go. Oh yeah, the whole game takes place in space!"

Dev2: Hey Jerry, I think maybe you should put a little more effort into the manual.
Dev1: Hmmmm, well I guess I could fluff it up a bit, do we have any illustrations to throw in?

:re:

Oh I know, they're so inconsiderate. I've already had to pass on several that sounded interesting because I am just too committed. I'm not even playing that many games, just putting too much work into some of the few I have :P

The Liir do have the unfortunate flaw of being ridiculously flimsy. And incredibly, horrifyingly slow in the beginning. Just another reason to make sure your research is years ahead of everone else :D

The manual IS pretty useless. One of those manuals that barely explains the basics of how the game works. The SotS wiki became my manual the day I found it.