Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Development => Programming => Topic started by: guest509 on September 28, 2013, 02:34:57 AM
-
I'd like to see a mix up of game flow in Rogulikes, nothing drastic.
So this is how they usually go:
-Explore level for power ups (grind xp, find items, etc...)
-Find Stairs - Dive or risk further exploring.
-Meet Monster/Trap - Expend resources to defeat, or flee. With the better games having ways to be smart and use fewer resources to defeat even the toughest baddies.
This is all very fun. Explore. Grow. Slay. Flee. Die. Repeat. :-)
Open world RL's are way different than this but I'm not as familiar with them so I cannot comment.
I would like to toss out an alternate game flow taken from RC PRO AM and Ido's 7DRL Fuel. I may have talked about this before. Each level consists of getting through it alive but also collecting shiny along the way. You expend your shiny in between levels to buff your character. It makes a game more arcade feeling and less simulation but I think this can be cool.
Another more arcade-like approach would be to go the Megaman route, to have 5-6 short dungeons that can be selected from a main menu. Choose your dungeon, dive. Beat enough dungeons and the final boss dungeon is accessed.
There seem to be quite a few open world type roguelikes bucking the linear trend, mixing up the game flow. I like the RC PRO AM and Megaman methods just as much, and they can be easily combined. Power up between dungeon dives.
-
I'm so sick of dungeons.
Every RL in the last while has followed that same formula of "explore this samey floor, then go down to the next samey floor where the same thing happens"
I believe this happens because of the lack of narrative confidence of RL developers.
Please, let's see some variety. Let's see some story. Let's see some games where you don't just fiddle with the unidentified potions... but you actually fiddle with the goals, the overworld, the story, the win conditions, everything.
-
Yeah, narrative gamers are not well served by Roguelikes.
The one I can think of that had a very cohesive theme bordering on narrative was Binding of Issac. I only mention it because it was talked about so much, the theme that is. The story. I hated it but not the implementation, just the negativity of it all.
There was no procedural narrative, but rather a procedural path between plot points. Plot points being narrative advancing bosses. Sorta.
I know I know it was weak, but if you want to satisfy the narrative junkies then I think that's a good way to do it. Before each zone give some plot text, or cut scene for the pros, and resolve that plot when defeating a mini boss. All of it driving a greater arc all the way to the end boss.
Example:
President Lex Luthor has outlawed Super Heroes, but you happen to know he's a super villian! Defeat his crime bosses and go after him! Save the day!
Choose your crime boss to fight, like Cat Woman, The Penquin, etc...they each have a procedurally generated and thematic level and their abilities are variable. Maybe Cat Woman can disappear this time, climb walls the next, have claws, call on cat minions, etc...so it's different each time, so you cannot design a 'perfect' super hero to win the game.
After you defeat each miniboss you'll get a plot advancing text. For example, "You've defeated Cat Woman, but General Zod has noticed your activities and has attacked your hide out..." Then you fight Zod.
The next miniboss you fight, maybe it just says, "Millennium City thanks you <Player Name>." Reputation + 10. Or, "Local reporter Lois Lang really wants an interview, you're famous!" Rep + 10.
The general concept is that the levels are not bound to the narrative, but between each section of the game you can advance the plot toward the end goal, whatever that goal is.
You'll never make an RPG style plot, that's really not what Roguelikes are all about, but surely you can do something highly thematic with plot points that do not drive the gameplay so much as add flavor.
I'm sure there are lots of examples I'm just tired.
-
I'm so sick of dungeons.
Every RL in the last while has followed that same formula of "explore this samey floor, then go down to the next samey floor where the same thing happens"
I believe this happens because of the lack of narrative confidence of RL developers.
Please, let's see some variety. Let's see some story. Let's see some games where you don't just fiddle with the unidentified potions... but you actually fiddle with the goals, the overworld, the story, the win conditions, everything.
Whether it's Rogue/Nethack's "go down and bring the Amulet back to the surface" or Larn's "do what you must to reach this set goal in time", the genre has always been story-light. If anything, the story's almost always been something you read through before starting the game, and that's it. To me, the purity that comes from focusing on gameplay has always been one of the strengths of the genre. I like gleaning the lore of the world through item and monster descriptions, and knowing WHAT I'm after (and sometimes WHY), but no more than that. I don't think a genre where you're likely to die within a short time and then have to start all over again is suited at all for storytelling. With so many people out there telling their trashy garbage stories through gaming, I appreciate roguelikes for just sticking to telling me the solid premise.
RE: Jo's opening post though...
In-between level power-buying: It's "fun" (depending on the players purchase options), but it could skew the dive/explore balance heavily towards explore, for fear of missing out on power-purchasing if you choose to dive. I like Forays into Norrendrin's system where you have to choose between exploring for altars (mini-level-ups) or preserving your precious health and items by diving.
Megaman style: Eh. The 7DRL Dream Tyrant did this, I wasn't too charmed. Being taken back to a safe place and healed after killing a boss feels like a bit of a cop-out.
Personally I like RLs where you can't level up in the traditional sense and instead have to rely on the dungeon to give you power (FiN's altars) or on your own wit entirely (Slimy Lichmummy/Smart Kobolds). Certainly not the Angband style of extreme level/resource grinding and strong risk evaluation over a very prolonged period of time.
-
Personally I like RLs where you can't level up in the traditional sense and instead have to rely on the dungeon to give you power (FiN's altars) or on your own wit entirely (Slimy Lichmummy/Smart Kobolds). Certainly not the Angband style of extreme level/resource grinding and strong risk evaluation over a very prolonged period of time.
If you play Angband like the Borg, then that's your problem.
Human players have been power-diving for years now, and newbies learning that strategy are having a lot more success than in the old days.
-
Re: Story in Rougelikes. It's not so much the mechanics of Roguelikes that make it an unfriendly genre for storytelling, it's permadeath. The story just isn't going to be immersive if you go through the same opening a hundred times before you ever get to act two. Unless you extend the idea behind Rogue Legacy, and have each story evolve from hero to hero. Or build a PGC plot engine (that people are willing to pay attention to, rather than just clicking past).
Really, story doesn't feel like story in permadeath games; it feels like the setting, because it stays the same over a thousand different characters.
Re: Alternative Ideas. How about something like Smash TV? You choose your path through the level, but no backtracking and no leaving a room until it's clear (or a timer has elapsed, or whatever). Give the player (limited) information about each room; how dangerous it is, how loot-ridden. That way their decision of which room to go to is meaningful. Significantly scale rewards so that it's very tempting for players to attempt the most difficult route they think they can handle.
Variant: Side scrolling beat-em-up. Think Final Fight, the TMNT arcade game, Streets of Rage, Golden Axe. Levels are very limited on the y axis, but have a huge x axis. The screen scrolls to the right, and does not scroll back. Add some branching paths (which of course the player cannot go back to and change his mind). Similar idea with some additional, interesting mechanics: http://www.squidi.net/three/entry.php?id=23 (http://www.squidi.net/three/entry.php?id=23). For any one who's never stumbled upon Squidi.net, it's worth checking out.
-
wrt story, I've always thought story to be bad in perma-death games, but maybe you could have a perma-consequence game without death at all: you can't die but each level has a pass/fail objective and it gets incorporated into the story (scripted or procedurally).
Or you'd have to go full on procedural story, which I don't think anyone has done well so far (but that's no reason not to try).
-
(I'm going off on a tangent here, just to warn all of y'all right at the outset ;))
Procedural storytelling FTW, I say! To achieve that, I think we'll have to reconsider how exactly we tend to define a "story", though. The RL genre already has something going for it in your typical "a day in the life"-posts, where a player will fill in the blanks to make a pseudo-coherent story out of what happens to a certain character. For instance, if you double cross the assassin prince, only to be put down by an assassin on the very next level you enter, that can be viewed as some twisted sense of irony on the part of the RNG. (Pardon this uninspired example, but I trust you catch my drift). It may be immersion is especially strong in RLs because of permadeath, and they're certainly games where the unexpected can happen around any corner.
Building on this, I think it would be possible to implement some kind of procedural narrative. On the other hand, it seems close to impossible (at least for now) to make random narratives that are presented as coherent prose or (god forbid) cinematic scenes. You probably need the player to fill in the gaps and make sense of the fragments of story that arise. Part of the solution might lay in thinking that drama needn't necessarily be expressed in dialogue – it can also be gleamed from the actions of various personae. Consider a story like the one told in Kurosowa's film Yojimbo (remade, I think, as A Fistful of Dollars, but correct me if I'm wrong), where the rogue protagonist goes back and forth between two rivalling bands of robbers, sabotaging their projects and turning them against each other. A similar narrative would be quite possible within the frames of a RL, given conventions like unimodality, "monsters are similar to the player" (having more or less the same options and anatomy), "many ways to solve a given problem", etc. Your typical computer game can hardly aspire to copy the strengths of any other creative medium (any more than a novel can substitute a rock album), but I'm choosing this example because the story in itself doesn't rely too heavily on dialogue, for instance. A game system where NPCs have reputations and disperse rumors could be built to allow stories in the vicinity of Yojimbo, without too much fixed quests, dialogue trees, etc. I'm not saying it would be easy. Stuff like procedural quests should probably be presented in a very schematic way to the player ("N wants you to blow up M's house."). Even if that leaves us a bit lacking in the flavor text department (as if anyone plays for the flavor text :P), it draws on other strengths, proper to the medium, such as the element of choice: You might do as N says to gain a reward, or promptly kill N in hopes of gaining the favor of M, or (as in Yojimbo) scheme to have them do their own dirty work and see what comes of that, or something completely different. After all, let's all just go fishing.
On a side note, I really think procedurally generated settings have been overlooked in the past, and I do believe more work on that front might (more or less unintentionally, even, quite in the spirit of the whole PGC cult) bring about innovations in the field of random story generation in games.
Hm. I've been hoping to make a longer, more coherent text of some of this -- maybe tying it up with Deleuze's and Guattari's idea of rhizomes (more or less: the notion of thought structures (in our case, games) consisting of a multitude of elements that are extremely reactive to one other, and can be combined in endless or unexpected ways)) -- for some edition of XLambda's RL magazine revival, which sadly seems to have petered out (http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=3361.msg31433#msg31433). Ah well, maybe some day I'll manage to hack together an article to post somewhere.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Example:
<snip>
Choose your crime boss to fight, like Cat Woman, The Penquin [sic], etc...they each have a procedurally generated and thematic level and their abilities are variable. Maybe Cat Woman can disappear this time, climb walls the next, have claws, call on cat minions, etc...so it's different each time, so you cannot design a 'perfect' super hero to win the game.
This I love (and I've been meaning to put a post to cheer your Superhero RL on, just in case you wondered). You know, Joe Hewitt of Gearhead fame wrote a nice piece on random storytelling for a Superhero RL he wanted to write (assuming it's abandoned). The PCG wiki links to it (http://pcg.wikidot.com/articles), but that link seems to be dead. It's been ages since I read it, but I'm guessing it's similar or identical to this post (http://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.games.roguelike.development/68ZkIdVR1Ws).
As always,
Minotauros
-
Re: RC ProAm idea in the OP. For a human-oriented setting, you could have food only be purchasable in town; it is never found on the dungeon floor. If you combine that with a limited inventory, or a max food carryable, it would help instil that sense of urgency.
Or how about, you can only carry X healing potions, and they can only be acquired in town. Combat is designed to wear down the PC over time. Careful/clever play will result in using up your potions less frequently, but most dungeons are much, much longer than the PC is expected to be able to delve (or infinite).
Loot get much better the deeper your are, and you cannot return to a dungeon once you have escaped. You delve Y dungeons before the main dungeon, which is of a set length. If you have not been successful enough in the preliminary dungeons, the final dungeon will be extremely difficult. (IIRC early Mega Man games did this; once you started the Dr. Wiley dungeon you couldn't go back to find energy tanks you missed)
-
Re: Procedural storytelling - here`s a Gamasutra article that might be of interest (I`m a complete layman so excuse if it`s off-topic)
"Can one procedural system feed into another, and thereby create a game? Michael Cook describes a technique (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MichaelCook/20130928/201224/The_Saturday_Paper__Turn_Left_At_Next_Plot_Twist.php) that's being developed to take the output of a story system and build worlds with it."
For me personally, there isn`t really any need for elaborate plots in RLs - the stories are written in gameplay itself, every character tells one. Some basic plot outline is sufficient (get that amulet), plus occasional hint/event/location somewhere along the dungeons - that`ll do me. But I also wouldn`t like it to be totally abstract, with no plot whatsoever - that`d be a bit bland I suppose.
-
I would like to toss out an alternate game flow taken from RC PRO AM and Ido's 7DRL Fuel. I may have talked about this before. Each level consists of getting through it alive but also collecting shiny along the way. You expend your shiny in between levels to buff your character. It makes a game more arcade feeling and less simulation but I think this can be cool.
That's how Mage Guild works, and it's a great system.
In-between level power-buying: It's "fun" (depending on the players purchase options), but it could skew the dive/explore balance heavily towards explore, for fear of missing out on power-purchasing if you choose to dive. I like Forays into Norrendrin's system where you have to choose between exploring for altars (mini-level-ups) or preserving your precious health and items by diving.
You could also get around the "must explore everything" problem by letting the player know how many level up items are on a given floor. Or you could put a limit on how many shinies on a given floor are useful. Maybe the game spawns five of them, but you can only level up three times per floor, so after the third one there's no obligation to check every last tile. There are a lot of possible solutions.
-
Well Arcade games solve the problem by having enemies continue to spawn or like Gauntlet you have a running life meter. Or like Rogue you have a food clock.
Many games have anti-lingering mechanics. It's not a huge design problem to solve but definitely one to think about.
I think my favorite is the evil Otto of Berzerk, he comes out if you take too long and he'll kill you. The ghost in Spelunky is basically the same concept. Cardinal Quest starts spawning zero XP monsters to wear you down.
-
The white whale in Bubble Bobble.
-
Well, arcade designers had one thing in mind with this design - to get rid of you, so the next chummer can stuff some more coins into the slot. Fair play, but I`d say it has no place in "normal" games. I don`t understand why "lingering" is a bad thing...also dread timers in games...brrr :(
Sure, extensive xp/gold farming could be deadly for RL`s balance (it doesn`t bother me in RPGs and I think grinding should be allowed if I fancy doing so) - but it`s easily countered with aforementioned starving mechanic or indeed, just make monsters scarce or yield minimal XP.
-
I generally agree with akeley re: forcing the player not to linger. In my old RL Squirm, I solved the problem quite simply by not having monsters and other stuff respawn in levels, and abandoning experience points, instead letting the player level up whenever he entered a new stair (unless there was a monster chasing him). So you could choose to explore a level (but might lose more resources than you gain) or to dive, leaving behind potential treasures and dangers alike. Of course, every game should get the pacing that fits it, and a dreadful adversary that comes into play after a certain amount of time can be quite effective, and scary even. I remember the crab in "Gribbly's Day Out" for C64 – that was one horrifying son of a crustacean.
Regarding various RL-likes … Spelunky keeps on shining bright, and I'm sure the same kind of procedure could be applied to other game genres. I'd love to see for instance a well done sidescroller (whether jump'n'run, shooter, beat'emup, or something else) with RL elements. Or (speaking of C64 games) maybe something akin to Pitall II (http://atariage.com/2600/archives/strategy_Pitfall2_Commodore64.html), with an explorable map that goes left/right and up/down – I guess that would play kind of like Spelunky, actually.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Well, arcade designers had one thing in mind with this design - to get rid of you, so the next chummer can stuff some more coins into the slot.
That's a little unfair. Obviously arcade game designers have a financial incentive to kill their players off as quickly as possible, but there are still arcade developers who have designed their games to be mastered and beaten, and those games are some of the best in the medium.
Resource management systems are a great way to add to a game's depth. Anti-lingering mechanics make time itself a precious resource. Suddenly every decision carries more weight. Will you fight that enemy, or run past them? Will you take the dangerous, aggressive approach, or a slower, safer method?
How about this one: do I walk into this hazard-free room and collect the treasure inside? Normally that wouldn't be a question, but anti-lingering mechanics mean you even have to think about situations like that.
They have a huge amount of potential for increasing depth, tension, and excitement. They might not work in every game, but they certainly have value. Don't write them off.
-
From what I remember, most (if not all) arcade games could be mastered. "Beaten" is a bit different because some were quite short stage-wise and would just loop endlessly getting more difficult...so in theory you could go on forever until fainting or kill screen occurred. But this has nowt to do with the hurryup! mechanic and I wasn`t implying that. In fact, the reason I said "fair play" to it is because (apart form the $ angle) it was also necessary to get rid of those annoying-as-hell players who`d delay finishing a stage just to piss off all the other kids waiting for their turn. The timer on your hi-score table initials input had similar purpose.
As for this particular mechanic`s implementation in non-arcade games, well, I personally hate it - but that`s just me, and like with most of my posts it has a big flashing (though invisible) "IMO" hovering there. There`s just something about timers in games that sets my brain in "panic!" mode and I don`t really enjoy the experience. Similar as to why I avoid non-pausable RTS games, though some look very interesting. Just can`t do it - but if that`s anyone else`s cup of tea, all the best.
But if we consider a well-implemented a-l mechanic like the starvation angle, then I`m all up for it. Problem is, if it`s as brilliant and multi-faceted as in Linley`s DC (only RL I can say I have some sort of in-depth experience with) who can say if it was really meant as an anti-linger mechanic, and not "just" another game mechanic? (though maybe getting a bit meta here :)
-
While it's possible the hunger mechanic was included by Liney because of genre expectations, I'd like to think it's an important mechanic driving you downward and onward.
I know in the original Rogue it sure does play a central role.
I think a more interesting question is if it's needed or not. I know some people will want to explore every nook and cranny, while others want to power dive. A game that allows both strategies would be interesting.
EDIT: How about this. The game releases a new higher level enemy not by level, but by number of turns. So if you spend your time dinking around level 1 for forever, eventually a dragon will show up. Like this:
100 Turns - Release rank 2 baddy.
500 Turns - Release rank 3 baddy...
1000 Turns - Rank 4 released, etc...
So if you want to spend your time getting all the loots in one level and fighting monsters, you can, but maybe you want to dive and see if you can find even better loots. A fairly 'level' leveling system, or even just something arcade-like with power ups only, would probably be needed for something like that.
-
While it's possible the hunger mechanic was included by Liney because of genre expectations, I'd like to think it's an important mechanic driving you downward and onward.
I know in the original Rogue it sure does play a central role.
I think a more interesting question is if it's needed or not. I know some people will want to explore every nook and cranny, while others want to power dive. A game that allows both strategies is interesting.
Fixed that for you ;)
-
EDIT: How about this. The game releases a new higher level enemy not by level, but by number of turns. So if you spend your time dinking around level 1 for forever, eventually a dragon will show up. Like this:
Interesting. Would work good for open space games. Would need to think of a way for the player to power dive though.
-
I don't usually enjoy hunger mechanics, because they often just wind up being an adventuring tax. If food is something you can buy in town, then it's "did you enter the dungeon with a sufficiently large handicap on your inventory size?" (ADOM, Shiren) If it's something you only find in the dungeon, it becomes "were you lucky enough not to lose because of the vagaries of the loot generator?" (Brogue) Either way, there's no reward for interacting with the hunger mechanic, just preventing a penalty.
The idea of spawning monsters when a clock runs down is a lot more attractive, or just a straight fuel meter (which refills at scripted points; ie every level, or every x levels).
-
Terraria has an interesting flow. It's one big open world where sometimes the bosses will show up when the player does certain things. The player is basically in control of when to summon the plot advancing encounters.
In a straight dive RL you can summon the boss after a certain number of turns have passed, ignoring the level really. So you can spend more turns on a level if you think it's worth it, but you hope you're right or when the boss shows you will be under powered. So the decisions is to waste time powering up on the lower levels and risk being underpowered, or dive for the more powerful gear but risk being overwhelmed by mundane monsters because you didn't spend the time powering up earlier.
IDEAS ARE FUN!
-
The ghost in Spelunky is basically the same concept.
I consider Spelunky's ghost to be a failure, because even though it's invincible and kills in one hit, it's really slow and easy to avoid. In most stages you can create situations where the ghost can be avoided indefinitely if you want to take your time and collect everything. And not only does it fail to limit the time you can spend in a stage, it also makes playing for a high score unnecessarily tedious, because slowly leading the ghost around every level yields more points than quickly collecting everything and moving on.
With that said, I do think that timer systems that spawn hazards or superpowered enemies are inherently more interesting than hard time limits and hunger systems.
A good time limiting system exists to make every other decision more interesting. Monsters like the Bubble Bobble ghost are cool because not only do they fill that same role, they also function as interesting encounters in their own right. If your time limit has less remaining time than you'd need to reach the exit, you sigh and restart. Your adventure goes out with a whimper. Getting hunted down and killed by the cyberlich at least makes for an exciting conclusion. Plus, it adds just a little bit of uncertainty with one more chance to show your skills so that you try your best until the very end.
Terraria has an interesting flow.
Terraria has serious problems if you're trying to play it as anything other than a "build stuff and get loot" game. If you're trying to avoid death, like, if you're playing in hardcore mode or whatever, then the most practical choice is always to hold off on summoning boss enemies until you're strong enough that they can't realistically win against you. A well-designed game should should always ensure that the "right" decisions aren't the most boring ones, and Terraria pretty much fails at that. If time was somehow made a more valuable resource, all of these systems could be made to work pretty well.
If you aren't playing on hardcore mode and don't care about dying, then it doesn't really matter what you do. Summon a boss 10x stronger than you are and kill it through attrition if you want.
-
Terraria has major issues, yes. It's NOT a hardcore mode game at all, like Diablo III. Permadeath does not work, it's a loot quest and pinata monster game. Dope drip. Time is rewarded, not skillz.
-
EDIT: How about this. The game releases a new higher level enemy not by level, but by number of turns. So if you spend your time dinking around level 1 for forever, eventually a dragon will show up. Like this:
100 Turns - Release rank 2 baddy.
500 Turns - Release rank 3 baddy...
1000 Turns - Rank 4 released, etc...
I can see how that idea has definite advantages. And it would add a sense of tension and urgency. But I think the bigger question here is this: If the PC wants to hang around level 1 for a thousand turns scumming/grinding, isn't the bigger problem that they aren't being given anything more interesting or rewarding to do for that time? I'm a proponent of the idea that if you want the player not to do something, you can give them a better alternative, rather than punishing them for it. And I realize "punishment" is probably too strong of a word to use to describe your idea, but you get the idea.
Also, in response to the ideas about story and procedural generation: When I think of "story", I tend to conceptualize it differently than most of you guys. "Story" to mean would mean the chance to learn more about the history/cosmology of the game world through books or NPC conversation, stuff that would be completely skip-able for a given play though. That might better be called "background", but I think it is still a legitimate way to set the tone of the game and convey information to the player.
-
If the PC wants to hang around level 1 for a thousand turns scumming/grinding, isn't the bigger problem that they aren't being given anything more interesting or rewarding to do for that time?
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think it's fine for game designers to use rewards and punishments to indirectly force players to do things that are fun and avoid things that aren't fun. I'm not saying game designers should use every power at their disposal to eliminate the player's freedom or anything. I just mean that if there's some tedious but beneficial activity, like farming herbs for hours, your game will ultimately be better if you take that option away by spawning the cyberlich or whatever.
I'm a proponent of the idea that if you want the player not to do something, you can give them a better alternative, rather than punishing them for it. And I realize "punishment" is probably too strong of a word to use to describe your idea, but you get the idea.
Imo the use of negative emotions in game design is really underrated. Not just in "story" games or "art" games, but "game" games. Tension and fear and those sorts of things aren't inherently pleasant, but they can enhance a game's overall experience by orders of magnitude.
Roguelike players should have an easy time understanding this. Permadeath is frustrating. It's discouraging. But the looming threat of death and the memory of your countless defeats makes your victory infinitely more satisfying.
One of the worst things about mainstream gaming is that developers desperately want to prevent players from feeling any negative emotions, and in doing so, they miss out on valuable opportunities.
-
I'm a proponent of the idea that if you want the player not to do something, you can give them a better alternative, rather than punishing them for it. And I realize "punishment" is probably too strong of a word to use to describe your idea, but you get the idea.
Words of wisdom!
Imo the use of negative emotions in game design is really underrated. Not just in "story" games or "art" games, but "game" games. Tension and fear and those sorts of things aren't inherently pleasant, but they can enhance a game's overall experience by orders of magnitude.
And this. However, I don't know if I love the idea of using negative emotions to force the player's hand. Granted that emotions like fear can enhance the experience of a game (to which I whole-heartedly agree), conveying these emotions shouldn't be used as "punishment" for playing in the wrong way, but rather an integral part of the game, no? I'd much rather spawn the cyberlich at random intervals no matter what the player is doing, as long as I can make that spawn an interesting challenge or a gripping game experience.
To avoid stuff like grinding, I much prefer trying to make a system that doesn't really reward that kind of play. Taking herbs as an example, maybe they stop spawning after a short amount of time, or only respawn after some meaningful "story time" has passed. For instance, the game could measure time in missions undertaken rather than turns passed. So once you've harvested your garden, you have to go on another adventure before it's harvest season again. For another example, jelly farming gets uninteresting as a grinding technique if the jellies don't carry treasure, and if killing them doesn't award xp (either after a certain threshold, or altogether), etc.
In an open ended game, as many RLs tend to be, I don't like putting arbitrary constraints on the player, but the game should also not reward boring play. If there's the possibility of building houses to some end, for instance, it should be pretty straightforward to build one and get the in-game advantage of storage space, or whatever. However, if some players like to spend hours building elaborate architectures, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so, as long as this long-winded process doesn't give an unreasonable advantage.
As always,
Minotauros
-
To avoid stuff like grinding, I much prefer trying to make a system that doesn't really reward that kind of play. Taking herbs as an example, maybe they stop spawning after a short amount of time, or only respawn after some meaningful "story time" has passed.
I agree, but these measures are already being put in place in most modern titles. This is why I said in the other thread that the whole issue is being "demonised" - as in, a little bit overblown. AAA games suffer from lots of maladies but plenty of their designers aren`t entirely stupid, they just have to juggle multiple angles - like pressure from biz suits and consideration for various gaming trends- to better or worse effect.
These measures can be also employed in RLs that use exploitable systems, as we said earlier. Just limit the monster spawns, the XP amount, whatever. I don`t like the cyberlich idea because it`s instantly recognizable as dev`s finger prodding me to get a move on, and that sucks, breaking my roleplaying drive. Not only that, it limits the explorer in me, and this is the style I like to employ most, even if it`s only roaming some empty halls or it`ll make me starve if not careful. It sort of shrinks the playing area. But, if there was a logical reason for that spawn and it was well developed , that`s another story.
I agree that mainstream games became terrified of anything remotely "negative", which is why the difficulty - meaning dying and puzzles in general - are being neutered left, right and center. Leading to a paradox that was the great hoo-ha about Demon`s Souls - honestly, it took me some time to realize what it`s all about. So, yeah, it`s a difficult game...and? Oh, okay, it is AD 2009.
But as AM says, it`s probably a different angle than using it as a punishment for players actions. And in most RLs tension is omnipresent since one wrong move can mean curtains, so I`m not sure we need additional, more artificial, stress inducers.
-
I agree, but these measures are already being put in place in most modern titles. This is why I said in the other thread that the whole issue is being "demonised" - as in, a little bit overblown. AAA games suffer from lots of maladies but plenty of their designers aren`t entirely stupid, they just have to juggle multiple angles - like pressure from biz suits and consideration for various gaming trends- to better or worse effect.
That makes sense, and it's certainly a privilege in some ways to belong to a genre that needn't consider much more than what is deemed appropriate by the developer(s). Maybe I should be less concerned with "streamlined" interfaces and the rest of that crap. Admittedly, I don't much follow the commercial scene. I mostly just play RLs and follow some discussion of what's going on in the indie scene in general. Sadly, most non-RL games I think look interesting, are either Windows only (Papers, please), or outclass my graphics card (Limbo) or screen resolution (Crypt Worlds). Meh :P
As always,
Minotauros
-
But as AM says, it`s probably a different angle than using it as a punishment for players actions. And in most RLs tension is omnipresent since one wrong move can mean curtains, so I`m not sure we need additional, more artificial, stress inducers.
I actually feel the same way. I enjoy being able to explore the world and build a character rather than scurrying around, trying to avoid the threat of imminent death that is constantly looming over me. But I think the real problem here is that different players respond better to different difficulties. Most people who play rogue-likes are much, much better at them than I am, so what seems like a game with a fun risk to reward ratio to me would probably be quite boring to most people.
-
And this. However, I don't know if I love the idea of using negative emotions to force the player's hand.
Well, in that example, it's not the negative emotions that force the player's hand so much as the genuine threat of danger and death. The negative emotions just make it more fun. Not only does it stop herb farming from being the optimal way to play, it also makes it exciting when you do decide to farm. And now that herb farming is risky, the designer can jack up the rewards and make the decision more interesting. If you're never sure whether the next herb will be the one to trigger the bad thing happening, then it suddenly becomes a tense games of pushing your luck. You can't be bored if you're scared!
My post was less clear than I should have been. I don't advocate the use of punishment and/or negative emotions to force a seemingly open system into a linear, on-rails experience. What I meant is that part of being a good game designer is selectively limiting and removing your players' options. That's an unpopular belief among certain circles (understandable in this age of corridor shooters), but it's the truth.
When you've got a problem, it's best to address it directly instead of covering it up with something else. If you don't want players to engage in an activity, it's better to be direct and discourage that one thing instead of discouraging it indirectly by setting up rewards for other activities instead.
-
These:
To avoid stuff like grinding, I much prefer trying to make a system that doesn't really reward that kind of play.
are much better words of wisdom than these:
I'm a proponent of the idea that if you want the player not to do something, you can give them a better alternative, rather than punishing them for it. And I realize "punishment" is probably too strong of a word to use to describe your idea, but you get the idea.
because while some players - like akeley - will ignore perverse incentives in the name of their own fun and freedom, many will see the possibility of grinding to win and fall for that trap, boring themselves instead of playing the game. And why would anyone set such traps for their players?
Of course, that only goes for games that aren't geared towards grinding. There's not much point in worrying about grinding in Diablo 2, as the player's behaviour for the most part is indistinguishable from normal play.
-
because while some players - like akeley - will ignore perverse incentives in the name of their own fun and freedom, many will see the possibility of grinding to win and fall for that trap, boring themselves instead of playing the game. And why would anyone set such traps for their players?
I admit that you probably need some system of diminishing returns to discourage grinding somewhat, but, ultimately, if players want to spend their time grinding instead of building their character using more entertaining means that are available to them, isn't that their loss? I mean, this doesn't sound like a problem with game design any more, it sounds like a problem with the way that people are choosing to play the game.
I feel like games are always going to require the participation of the player to be good, in some sense. If the player spends a long time grinding, they kind of know that they are going to reduce the difficulty of the game. That's why they are doing it. So, I would say if the game is less fun or too easy because of that, it's the player's own fault.
-
You know, I've been thinking more about this. I think that when I have heard the term "grinding" in the past with regards to console RPGs, it has usually been used in a way that reflected negatively on the player, rather than on the game developer. In those types of games, it is generally accepted that if you spend enough time building your character, pretty much any challenge can become trivial.
So, what you usually hear is something like this: one person says "X level/boss/whatever was too easy", and then another person says "Well, did you grind a lot?" if "yes" is the response, then whoever originally complained the game was easy is generally dismissed as being unreasonable.
I think it's interesting that in these console RPG's, as opposed to roguelikes, there is that expectation that the player shouldn't try to grind and then complain about difficulty. I know it seems like a cop out to say that any game can be broken if the player tries hard enough, but, well, that's usually true. Perhaps a better way of putting it might be that if you make a game which absolutely cannot be exploited by anyone, you are going to make it less fun for a lot of players who are genuinely trying to enjoy it and play it as it was intended.
-
Like half of the appeal of roguelikes is that you can play 100% serious, min/max, take every advantage you can get, show no mercy, and still get a good challenge.
It's rare to see that in single player games, and basically doesn't exist at all in non-RL RPGs.
-
Like half of the appeal of roguelikes is that you can play 100% serious, min/max, take every advantage you can get, show no mercy, and still get a good challenge.
It's rare to see that in single player games, and basically doesn't exist at all in non-RL RPGs.
So, my question is this: Do you still consider that sort of min/maxing to be "playing" a game? If your only concern is victory at any cost, hasn't your entire experience become something far less organic (and fun) than game play?
I realize this will be a highly controversial statement, but maybe you should reconsider the way you approach the games that you play. If you are min/maxing, are you really role playing at all? I mean, isn't the whole point to become so engrossed in being someone else in a way that elevates you above your mundane life?
By that argument, is there any way that a game could ever be too hard? It sounds like the idea here is that you should create a game that is impossible to exploit in any way, no matter how much of a slog it was.
It's relatively easy to make games that make a player feel trapped and restricted. All you have to do is take away their options. It's a subtractive approach to design. And that can be useful for streamlining, but I don't think it is so much a useful tool for generating a sense of awe.
I think that what's hard, what's the holy grail, even, is to create games that make the player feel so free they become lost in the experience. And, ironically, I think that rogue like games are excellent for providing this sort of liberating experience despite the demands that they make on a player. Aspects of roguelikes that seem like they would be limiting, like perma-death, ultimately accentuate and add immediacy to the gameplay experience rather than just constraining players, similar to the way that our own mortality makes our real life experiences more vivid.
-
I admit that you probably need some system of diminishing returns to discourage grinding somewhat, but, ultimately, if players want to spend their time grinding instead of building their character using more entertaining means that are available to them, isn't that their loss? I mean, this doesn't sound like a problem with game design any more, it sounds like a problem with the way that people are choosing to play the game.
If people bore themselves with grinding it's their loss and also the game designer's because people getting bored before they go through your game is the failure state for game design. Also, people are not gonna be self-critical forming opinions about your game, so you'll get feedback to the tune of "I stopped playing it, because it was boring and mindless.", which is about as unpleasant as "... it was too buggy", way more than "... it was too hard" and either way you want to hear "... I beat it." or better yet "... I've done everything and the game doesn't have anything more to offer".
I feel like games are always going to require the participation of the player to be good, in some sense. If the player spends a long time grinding, they kind of know that they are going to reduce the difficulty of the game. That's why they are doing it. So, I would say if the game is less fun or too easy because of that, it's the player's own fault.
How will the player know a priori that grinding is a bug instead of a feature? Well, they might read a review or a in-depth guide to the game, but a) a lot of people don't (and rightfully, a game should stand on its own) b) there aren't many guides how to enjoy a game the most. So, for all those people who have to make a decision based on what they see in the game, how do they come to a decision that the game is more fun without grinding? After all, if the grinding is there, it might as well be there for a purpose and without doing it the game will become frustratingly difficult at some point. How do you communicate the fact that it is not, in fact, the case? Flash the player with an attention-catching "DON'T GRIND!" message every minute or so?
You know, I've been thinking more about this. I think that when I have heard the term "grinding" in the past with regards to console RPGs, it has usually been used in a way that reflected negatively on the player, rather than on the game developer. In those types of games, it is generally accepted that if you spend enough time building your character, pretty much any challenge can become trivial.
So, what you usually hear is something like this: one person says "X level/boss/whatever was too easy", and then another person says "Well, did you grind a lot?" if "yes" is the response, then whoever originally complained the game was easy is generally dismissed as being unreasonable.
Well, that's just a wrong approach. It's like complaining about savescummers in a game that lets you load last save after losing - completely misguided.
I think it's interesting that in these console RPG's, as opposed to roguelikes, there is that expectation that the player shouldn't try to grind and then complain about difficulty. I know it seems like a cop out to say that any game can be broken if the player tries hard enough, but, well, that's usually true. Perhaps a better way of putting it might be that if you make a game which absolutely cannot be exploited by anyone, you are going to make it less fun for a lot of players who are genuinely trying to enjoy it and play it as it was intended.
How so? Why would one have to follow the other? It's not necessarily true. Of course, you can make mistakes and abolish grinding in a way that hurts the enjoyment of people who naturally do not grind, but it's the same situation as the onee in which you make a mistake and put profitable grinding into a game and hurt the enjoyment of people who are prone to grinding-to-win. However, nothing whatsover prevents a non-exploitable game to be not fun for people who naturally do not grind. If you do it well, they just wouldn't notice after all.
Like half of the appeal of roguelikes is that you can play 100% serious, min/max, take every advantage you can get, show no mercy, and still get a good challenge.
It's rare to see that in single player games, and basically doesn't exist at all in non-RL RPGs.
So, my question is this: Do you still consider that sort of min/maxing to be "playing" a game? If your only concern is victory at any cost, hasn't your entire experience become something far less organic (and fun) than game play?
Well, of course it's still playing the game. Does anyone ever accuse competitive chess players of not really playing chess if they don't roleplay their king and queen's marital problems?
I realize this will be a highly controversial statement, but maybe you should reconsider the way you approach the games that you play. If you are min/maxing, are you really role playing at all? I mean, isn't the whole point to become so engrossed in being someone else in a way that elevates you above your mundane life?
Roleplaying and minmaxing aren't exclusive. You can very well do both at once. In fact, one could argue that if you're not minmaxing and grinding, you're not roleplaying well, because that's what a rational person in a world like the game's would do. A statement as controversial and wrong as the quoted, but with obvious ridiculousness added on top.
By that argument, is there any way that a game could ever be too hard? It sounds like the idea here is that you should create a game that is impossible to exploit in any way, no matter how much of a slog it was.
It's relatively easy to make games that make a player feel trapped and restricted. All you have to do is take away their options. It's a subtractive approach to design. And that can be useful for streamlining, but I don't think it is so much a useful
tool for generating a sense of awe.
I think that what's hard, what's the holy grail, even, is to create games that make the player feel so free they become lost in the experience. And, ironically, I think that rogue like games are excellent for providing this sort of liberating experience despite the demands that they make on a player. Aspects of roguelikes that seem like they would be limiting, like perma-death, ultimately accentuate and add immediacy to the gameplay experience rather than just constraining players, similar to the way that our own mortality makes our real life experiences more vivid.
Here you're mostly arguing with Vanguard re: limiting options, but I'd like to put a reminder here that it's not an either/or situation.
-
If people bore themselves with grinding it's their loss and also the game designer's because people getting bored before they go through your game is the failure state for game design. Also, people are not gonna be self-critical forming opinions about your game, so you'll get feedback to the tune of "I stopped playing it, because it was boring and mindless.", which is about as unpleasant as "... it was too buggy", way more than "... it was too hard" and either way you want to hear "... I beat it." or better yet "... I've done everything and the game doesn't have anything more to offer".
I'm not suggesting there should be no attempts made to limit grinding at all. In fact, I said that I thought there should be limitations in the post you just quoted when you made this statement. I don't think these limitations should be taken so far that they have a negative impact on players who are not grinding at all. And I think that there should be positive incentives not to grind, also. There should be more interesting alternatives that are as beneficial as this modified form of grinding.
Honestly, I'm not sure I get the mindset that you are arguing for here. I still don't understand why someone would choose the less fun way to achieve the same result. I guess I know there are people who enjoy exploiting games because they can, but I guess I didn't realize that most people who play roguelikes take that approach.
I really don't think I'll ever be able to make or even imagine a game geared towards those sorts of people. I just don't think like them at all. What attracts me to roguelikes (at least some of them) is the realism that they provide, not the difficulty per se. And I guess I'm pretty much the only person who feels that way.
How will the player know a priori that grinding is a bug instead of a feature? Well, they might read a review or a in-depth guide to the game, but a) a lot of people don't (and rightfully, a game should stand on its own) b) there aren't many guides how to enjoy a game the most. So, for all those people who have to make a decision based on what they see in the game, how do they come to a decision that the game is more fun without grinding? After all, if the grinding is there, it might as well be there for a purpose and without doing it the game will become frustratingly difficult at some point. How do you communicate the fact that it is not, in fact, the case? Flash the player with an attention-catching "DON'T GRIND!" message every minute or so?
I find it very hard to believe that players will not realize they are grinding as they are doing it. I certainly have never repeated a trivial activity over and over again to make my character stronger without knowing I was grinding. If you have so little faith in the insight of the player that you don't think they will know they are engaging in activities like that, I would think that you would want to reconsider the presentation of a lot of other core gameplay concepts, as well.
Well, that's just a wrong approach. It's like complaining about savescummers in a game that lets you load last save after losing - completely misguided.
So I think we agree here?
However, nothing whatsover prevents a non-exploitable game to be not fun for people who naturally do not grind. If you do it well, they just wouldn't notice after all.
I guess I do agree with that in theory. I mean, I am optimistic that it is possible to make games that are fun to people with a wide variety of play styles. I guess you are right that most people who play roguelike games do see trying to break them as the main attraction. I just can't understand that mindset, though, like I said.
Maybe a better question would be this: what percentage of people do you think should be able to "break" the game. I'm talking about just using their own resourcefulness, not though online guides, etc. Because I think that realistically, the smaller that percentage gets, the more players who are not trying to exploit the game are going to feel limited.
Do you have an example of a roguelike that is equally fun for players who do and don't min max?
Well, of course it's still playing the game. Does anyone ever accuse competitive chess players of not really playing chess if they don't roleplay their king and queen's marital problems?
Chess, of course, is not a roleplaying game. I think we both realize that.
Roleplaying and minmaxing aren't exclusive. You can very well do both at once. In fact, one could argue that if you're not minmaxing and grinding, you're not roleplaying well, because that's what a rational person in a world like the game's would do. A statement as controversial and wrong as the quoted, but with obvious ridiculousness added on top.
Wait, are you saying that you don't really think true roleplaying involves min-maxing, or that you do? I'm confused.
Here you're mostly arguing with Vanguard re: limiting options, but I'd like to put a reminder here that it's not an either/or situation.
Maybe. I'm still not sure about that.
-
So, my question is this: Do you still consider that sort of min/maxing to be "playing" a game?
Yes. Character building decisions are part of the game, and min maxing is nothing more than making good character building decisions, so really min maxing is just playing a game and being good at it.
If your only concern is victory at any cost, hasn't your entire experience become something far less organic (and fun) than game play?
No way, victory at all costs owns. Do you think people who play, say, tennis or chess ruin their own fun by seeking out viable opponents and playing seriously? Would it be better if they sought much weaker opponents and made up the difference by deliberately playing badly? The former is cool imo, and the latter is really lame. There's no reason why video games should be different.
I don't know what "less organic" means, unless it's doing what you feel like without really thinking about it too much. Or maybe doing what my level 5 elf wizard would "realistically" do in a roleplaying sense. I don't care about either of those things.
I realize this will be a highly controversial statement, but maybe you should reconsider the way you approach the games that you play. If you are min/maxing, are you really role playing at all? I mean, isn't the whole point to become so engrossed in being someone else in a way that elevates you above your mundane life?
This statement might be controversial here, but it's the norm in most of the modern gaming world. The roguelike community is the only reliable source of RPGs that emphasize strong mechanics rather than focusing on things like narrative or worldbuilding.
Anyway, if I wanted to be elevated above my mundane life, the last thing I'd choose are the laughably bad stories people put in their video games.
I don't even know how you'd seriously play a role in a video game in the first place. 99% of the time you're committing mass murder for little to no reason. Do you have limit yourself to roleplaying sociopath characters with no empathy or what? Do you come up with an excuse for why all of your hundreds of murders were justified? Even a villainous protagonist shouldn't be as cavalier about murder as video game characters are, or else they become cartoonish stereotypes that can't possibly be taken seriously.
By that argument, is there any way that a game could ever be too hard? It sounds like the idea here is that you should create a game that is impossible to exploit in any way, no matter how much of a slog it was.
Well in that case the biggest problem is that the game is a slog. Exploits, severe balance problems, etc. can certainly make bad games more palatable, but that doesn't mean you should throw them in just in case you accidentally make an unfun slog.
There's no such thing as a difficulty level that inherently is too high or too low. There's value in creating games where only the best players in the world stand a chance and there are legitimate reasons to build a game anyone can beat on their first try. No matter what you choose, someone won't like your decision, that doesn't mean your choice was wrong.
It's relatively easy to make games that make a player feel trapped and restricted. All you have to do is take away their options. It's a subtractive approach to design. And that can be useful for streamlining, but I don't think it is so much a useful tool for generating a sense of awe.
I think that what's hard, what's the holy grail, even, is to create games that make the player feel so free they become lost in the experience. And, ironically, I think that rogue like games are excellent for providing this sort of liberating experience despite the demands that they make on a player. Aspects of roguelikes that seem like they would be limiting, like perma-death, ultimately accentuate and add immediacy to the gameplay experience rather than just constraining players, similar to the way that our own mortality makes our real life experiences more vivid.
Accomplishing your goals isn't interesting if you always have tools that make them trivial. You need limitations to make things interesting, to force you to take risks and discover non-obvious solutions. Permadeath is really great for this because it fundamentally changes how you play, and it does so without taking any choices out of your hands. You still can bum rush that giant monster. But you won't. Not unless you're desperate. Or if the reward is promising enough. High stakes make for an interesting encounter. In a game where you can respawn or load your last save or whatever, that won't be the case. You might as well go fight the giant, what's the worst that can happen, you lose two minutes of your time?
The point here is that the negative emotion of fear and the potential punishment are only limiting and weakening the player, but they are also making the game for more interesting. Permadeath is inherently limiting compared with manual saves and respawning. Not only that, it relies on other player-limitations to function. If the player had options that would enable them to easily destroy the giant, or obtain what they wanted without confronting it, the decision would go back to being uninteresting.
Sure, designers can go overboard, restrict too many options, and ruin their game. Any tool can be misused, that doesn't make it worthless. It just means you have to use it intelligently.
-
Yes. Character building decisions are part of the game, and min maxing is nothing more than making good character building decisions, so really min maxing is just playing a game and being good at it.
But doesn't min-maxing involve a pretty in depth knowledge of game mechanics? Mechanics that a first time player or the PC himself would have no access to? I mean, would the PC really know that herb farming was as useful as it ends up being? Maybe you could argue that they would, I don't know. I had to read about them on the internet before I even realized that herbs were worth fooling with.
I think that for the most part, I find the idea of an herbalist character boring and incongruent with the personalities of the PC's that I play (I don't see a paladin as having much interest in gardening, basically). So, wouldn't that form of out of character min-maxing be in conflict with role-playing? Heck, what if the best min-max approach is to play a race/class that you don't even really like? That sure seems like it would interfere with roleplaying.
Although, you are saying nobody plays roguelikes for the purpose of role playing anyway. Which, I guess is fine, although it is more than a little bit disappointing to hear.
No way, victory at all costs owns. Do you think people who play, say, tennis or chess ruin their own fun by seeking out viable opponents and playing seriously? Would it be better if they sought much weaker opponents and made up the difference by deliberately playing badly? The former is cool imo, and the latter is really lame. There's no reason why video games should be different.
But roguelikes aren't a competitive sport. If there was a real opponent, what you are saying would make sense to me. In fact, this discussion just reminded me of the fact that ADOM players rarely mention high scores at all, even though there is a scoring system in the game. It seems like scores would be more emphasized if power gaming was really the ultimate goal, at least for them.
I guess to most people, maybe the developer themselves is the opponent, and the game is about outsmarting them? Again, that's just alien to me. I look at the developer as having the role of a storyteller, rather than a competitor. I do get that these games should be hard, and that the threat of death should be real, but, I dunno, it seems like something important is being lost here.
I don't know what "less organic" means, unless it's doing what you feel like without really thinking about it too much. Or maybe doing what my level 5 elf wizard would "realistically" do in a roleplaying sense. I don't care about either of those things.
"Less organic" means playing mechanically (as opposed to organically). Playing like a machine. It's how I view min-maxing, basically. Although I realize the term could be viewed as more than a little pejorative when put that way, so I'm sorry. Like I said before, and example would be choosing a race/class/gameplay approach that you didn't really like from a roleplaying perspective so that you could exploit the game.
Maybe it comes down to this: for every player there might be an exploratory phase and an exploitative phase to gameplay. When you first start playing a game, the world is new and interesting, and just being in it and exploring is entertaining enough. During this phase you are playing the game "in character" more or less.
Later, after you have beaten the game, you go back and try to break it just to test the boundaries that the designers have created for you and get more insight into the mechanics. And maybe min-max players just don't spend long in that first phase (or never go through it at all).
This statement might be controversial here, but it's the norm in most of the modern gaming world. The roguelike community is the only reliable source of RPGs that emphasize strong mechanics rather than focusing on things like narrative or worldbuilding.
So, now I would say to you that those things aren't mutually exclusive. I think there are interesting and non-intrusive ways to add story to roguelike games (and we could talk about them if you like).
I don't even know how you'd seriously play a role in a video game in the first place. 99% of the time you're committing mass murder for little to no reason. Do you have limit yourself to roleplaying sociopath characters with no empathy or what? Do you come up with an excuse for why all of your hundreds of murders were justified? Even a villainous protagonist shouldn't be as cavalier about murder as video game characters are, or else they become cartoonish stereotypes that can't possibly be taken seriously.
I agree that the stories for roguelike games could be improved a lot, but I also feel like what you are saying is an oversimplification and unfair. I think a lot of these stories boil down to archetypes, and stories about archetypes are often going to seem "cartoony" as you say. Think about the mythological source material for a lot of the stock characters and classes in these games. Myths, in general, are not known for their well developed, multi-dimensional characters.
And, I think you could make that argument about the plots of a lot of fantasy media. I feel like what you are saying is "bad plots are bad". Roguelike plots do need to be better, it's true, but the act of participating in a story, even a mediocre one, combined with grave consequences for your character if you make a bad decision, can still be really engrossing, I think.
There's no such thing as a difficulty level that inherently is too high or too low. There's value in creating games where only the best players in the world stand a chance and there are legitimate reasons to build a game anyone can beat on their first try. No matter what you choose, someone won't like your decision, that doesn't mean your choice was wrong.
But I feel like that avoids directly addressing the issue of quantifying difficulty by being vague. Lets look at it this way: How many deaths per hour should an “average” player suffer when playing an ideal roguelike game. Another way of looking at this would be: what is the mean cumulative playtime until death and stardard deviation from that mean. Assume a roguelike that takes 20 hours to complete, on average.
Another question related to that (that maybe I asked in this thread?) is: what percentage of players do you think should be able to exploit the game to the point that it becomes trivial? This assumes they are not using the internet to search for exploits, just that they come up with it on their own. Essentially, I just want you to set a threshold here.
Accomplishing your goals isn't interesting if you always have tools that make them trivial. You need limitations to make things interesting, to force you to take risks and discover non-obvious solutions. Permadeath is really great for this because it fundamentally changes how you play, and it does so without taking any choices out of your hands. You still can bum rush that giant monster. But you won't. Not unless you're desperate. Or if the reward is promising enough. High stakes make for an interesting encounter. In a game where you can respawn or load your last save or whatever, that won't be the case. You might as well go fight the giant, what's the worst that can happen, you lose two minutes of your time?
I don’t want to make accomplishments trivial. I realize that permadeath is a vital component of the gameplay experience for roguelikes. What part of my posts makes it seem like I want to trivialize the player’s accomplishments?
Speaking of which, we really need to have a discussion on cost/risk versus benefit as it applies to roguelike game mechanics. I think it would be very interesting.
The point here is that the negative emotion of fear and the potential punishment are only limiting and weakening the player, but they are also making the game for more interesting. Permadeath is inherently limiting compared with manual saves and respawning. Not only that, it relies on other player-limitations to function. If the player had options that would enable them to easily destroy the giant, or obtain what they wanted without confronting it, the decision would go back to being uninteresting.
I don’t understand. Are you saying that you think I want to remove permadeath from roguelikes? I’m not making that argument here.
-
Honestly, I'm not sure I get the mindset that you are arguing for here. I still don't understand why someone would choose the less fun way to achieve the same result. I guess I know there are people who enjoy exploiting games because they can, but I guess I didn't realize that most people who play roguelikes take that approach.
I really don't think I'll ever be able to make or even imagine a game geared towards those sorts of people. I just don't think like them at all. What attracts me to roguelikes (at least some of them) is the realism that they provide, not the difficulty per se. And I guess I'm pretty much the only person who feels that way.
No, you aren't the only person who feels that way - you might be even in the majority, though not necessarily of roguelike players - the crux of the issue is in the fact that different people do things differently, even against their best interest (e.g. I bet there totally are people who insist on roleplaying in chess to the detriment of their winning ability, just as there are people who insist on grinding to get more powerful in games that do not require so - they might even be doing that grudgingly, sort of like an addict).
How will the player know a priori that grinding is a bug instead of a feature? Well, they might read a review or a in-depth guide to the game, but a) a lot of people don't (and rightfully, a game should stand on its own) b) there aren't many guides how to enjoy a game the most. So, for all those people who have to make a decision based on what they see in the game, how do they come to a decision that the game is more fun without grinding? After all, if the grinding is there, it might as well be there for a purpose and without doing it the game will become frustratingly difficult at some point. How do you communicate the fact that it is not, in fact, the case? Flash the player with an attention-catching "DON'T GRIND!" message every minute or so?
I find it very hard to believe that players will not realize they are grinding as they are doing it. I certainly have never repeated a trivial activity over and over again to make my character stronger without knowing I was grinding. If you have so little faith in the insight of the player that you don't think they will know they are engaging in activities like that, I would think that you would want to reconsider the presentation of a lot of other core gameplay concepts, as well.
Oh, they might realise, but they might think it's a necessary part of the game or assume that the alternative is worse. In roguelikes especially (at least the long ones) it's pretty sound reasoning - "hey, I've got a pretty good character going, in fact the best I've ever had and I've discovered this opportunity for grinding, I better use it and increase the chance of me finally winning this game".
Well, that's just a wrong approach. It's like complaining about savescummers in a game that lets you load last save after losing - completely misguided.
So I think we agree here?
Let me rephrase that:
If a game lets you load a last save after losing and there's someone saying "well, game's short and rather easy, though I had some frustratingly frequent loading in a few places" being dismissive towards them because of their "savescumming" is wrong and unfounded.
On the other hand, if the game has permadeath and someone is bypassing it to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds.
Same goes for grinding in jRPGs. What's in the game is in the game.
However, nothing whatsover prevents a non-exploitable game to be not fun for people who naturally do not grind. If you do it well, they just wouldn't notice after all.
I guess I do agree with that in theory. I mean, I am optimistic that it is possible to make games that are fun to people with a wide variety of play styles. I guess you are right that most people who play roguelike games do see trying to break them as the main attraction. I just can't understand that mindset, though, like I said.
Not necessarily break them - roguelikes often are hard enough to make you just want to win.
Maybe a better question would be this: what percentage of people do you think should be able to "break" the game. I'm talking about just using their own resourcefulness, not though online guides, etc. Because I think that realistically, the smaller that percentage gets, the more players who are not trying to exploit the game are going to feel limited.
Do you have an example of a roguelike that is equally fun for players who do and don't min max?
Well, judging by changelogs the new ADOM versions are less and less breakable without really cutting anything outright. Meanwhile, while DCSS is subject to a lot of subtractive design, the releases always contain enough new stuff to at least balance out the cuts. I think it's a fair exchange that should be satisfying enough to all (of course, there are exceptions in execution and acceptable amounts of dissatisfaction that has nothing to do with the gamist/immersionist divide).
Roleplaying and minmaxing aren't exclusive. You can very well do both at once. In fact, one could argue that if you're not minmaxing and grinding, you're not roleplaying well, because that's what a rational person in a world like the game's would do. A statement as controversial and wrong as the quoted, but with obvious ridiculousness added on top.
Wait, are you saying that you don't really think true roleplaying involves min-maxing, or that you do? I'm confused.
What I'm saying is that true roleplaying is orthogonal (or at least should be in a perfectly-designed game) to min-maxing and therefore both positions that "real roleplayers don't min-max" and "real roleplayers should min-max" are as wrong as they are controversial. I added that the latter one is also more obviously ridiculous, but it's only true here - I've seen places where the opposite is the dominant sentiment.
But roguelikes aren't a competitive sport. If there was a real opponent, what you are saying would make sense to me. In fact, this discussion just reminded me of the fact that ADOM players rarely mention high scores at all, even though there is a scoring system in the game. It seems like scores would be more emphasized if power gaming was really the ultimate goal, at least for them.
I guess to most people, maybe the developer themselves is the opponent, and the game is about outsmarting them? Again, that's just alien to me. I look at the developer as having the role of a storyteller, rather than a competitor. I do get that these games should be hard, and that the threat of death should be real, but, I dunno, it seems like something important is being lost here.
Hey, scores in ADOM were totally something people aimed for and talked about - it's just it was something you could care about once you could beat the game and perhaps reliably so, a pretty high bar to clear. Also, the scoring algorithm wasn't perfect and really high scores could be achieved by some specialised forms of grinding, exploits or really skilled play with a lot of luck - and of course you mix methods. That made scores less worthwhile of attention than they could've been (well, I guess that they might become what they weren't in future versions).
-
Oh, they might realise, but they might think it's a necessary part of the game or assume that the alternative is worse. In roguelikes especially (at least the long ones) it's pretty sound reasoning - "hey, I've got a pretty good character going, in fact the best I've ever had and I've discovered this opportunity for grinding, I better use it and increase the chance of me finally winning this game".
I just don't know if the average player is that dense. Even I'm not that dense, and I'm objectively very bad at these types of games.
If you have those kinds of concerns about grinding, it seems like you would be equally worried that any other opportunity for character development might be misinterpreted as being mandatory. If a magic system is in the game, would the player assume that he had to learn magic in order to succeed, and that melee classes were nonviable? I certainly didn't assume that herbs were vital to winning the game the first time I ran across them in ADOM.
To provide a counterexample to what you are saying, ADOM includes the opportunity to grind and does just fine. And even though grinding is definitely there, I'm not aware of any part of the game where it is more beneficial to grind for any significant period of time than it is to advance your character by just completing sidequests.
So, do you feel like ADOM players usually perceive grinding as being mandatory as they are learning the game, just because it is possible? Maybe they do, I'm just asking. Do you think all opportunities to grind should be removed from ADOM? If so, how would you implement that change?
Even if players did initially think grinding was necessary, I'm just not sure how long they would maintain that misconception. For a few play throughs, maybe? I mean, these are games that people play hundreds of times. I'm not sure it's really that big of a deal whether someone temporarily has the sort of misconception that we are talking about.
You can also tell from the way ADOM is paced (due to the corruption clock) that you aren't really supposed to hang around one place too long without advancing towards your goal. So, I think that would help prevent most players who understood the corruption system from think that grinding was mandatory.
The bottom line is, I just don't see how, in of ADOM, grinding significantly diminishes the gameplay experience for anyone. Are you saying that you think it does?
On the other hand, if the game has permadeath and someone is bypassing it to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds.
Okay, that really sounds like we are agreeing. Are you sure we aren't? Is what you are saying:
"On the other hand, if the game has [A feature] and someone is bypassing it to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds."
Because if that is true, then I would insert the feature I am talking about and say this:
"On the other hand, if the game has [methods of character advancement that do not involve grinding] and someone is bypassing [them] to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds."
I'm not trying to put words in you mouth. Maybe that's not what you were saying at all. But it really does seem like that is what you were saying, at least.
Again, let me just point out that exchanges where players are admonished for over leveling really are relatively common on JRPG message boards. I think this is a pretty widely held position by people who take those types of games seriously. People do understand that if players grind until a game is easy it is their fault that it is too easy.
You, personally, may feel differently, but the point is that a lot of players do seem to agree with what I'm saying. And remember, these are JRPGs. They are supposed to be far less "hardcore" than roguelikes. If people who play those sorts of games get it, wouldn't most roguelike players get it too?
Well, judging by changelogs the new ADOM versions are less and less breakable without really cutting anything outright. Meanwhile, while DCSS is subject to a lot of subtractive design, the releases always contain enough new stuff to at least balance out the cuts. I think it's a fair exchange that should be satisfying enough to all (of course, there are exceptions in execution and acceptable amounts of dissatisfaction that has nothing to do with the gamist/immersionist divide).
I agree with that. I guess it is possible to make games that are essentially unbreakable but still fun to relatively casual players. But! There is still the issue of grinding to resolve.
What I'm saying is that true roleplaying is orthogonal (or at least should be in a perfectly-designed game) to min-maxing and therefore both positions that "real roleplayers don't min-max" and "real roleplayers should min-max" are as wrong as they are controversial. I added that the latter one is also more obviously ridiculous, but it's only true here - I've seen places where the opposite is the dominant sentiment.
Then I think I feel the opposite way: that in an ideal game, pure roleplaying does result in the best outcomes for the player, and is a form of min-maxing itself.
-
I just don't know if the average player is that dense. Even I'm not that dense, and I'm objectively very bad at these types of games.
Calling it "denseness" is just insulting.
If you have those kinds of concerns about grinding, it seems like you would be equally worried that any other opportunity for character development might be misinterpreted as being mandatory. If a magic system is in the game, would the player assume that he had to learn magic in order to succeed, and that melee classes were nonviable? I certainly didn't assume that herbs were vital to winning the game the first time I ran across them in ADOM.
Well, of course, if a game lets you learn magic at no cost save time and risk-free effort, you'll learn magic unless you're the kind of player that values playing to a concept purely more than making sure you'll win (this is weakened somewhat in risk-free games like a lot of mainstream titles, because you can put it off until you encounter problems).
To provide a counterexample to what you are saying, ADOM includes the opportunity to grind and does just fine. And even though grinding is definitely there, I'm not aware of any part of the game where it is more beneficial to grind for any significant period of time than it is to advance your character by just completing sidequests.
So, do you feel like ADOM players usually perceive grinding as being mandatory as they are learning the game, just because it is possible? Maybe they do, I'm just asking. Do you think all opportunities to grind should be removed from ADOM? If so, how would you implement that change?
Even if players did initially think grinding was necessary, I'm just not sure how long they would maintain that misconception. For a few play throughs, maybe? I mean, these are games that people play hundreds of times. I'm not sure it's really that big of a deal whether someone temporarily has the sort of misconception that we are talking about.
You can also tell from the way ADOM is paced (due to the corruption clock) that you aren't really supposed to hang around one place too long without advancing towards your goal. So, I think that would help prevent most players who understood the corruption system from think that grinding was mandatory.
The bottom line is, I just don't see how, in of ADOM, grinding significantly diminishes the gameplay experience for anyone. Are you saying that you think it does?
Why yes, yes it does. You can't tell how, because you're not prone to grinding. However, I have extensive personal experience with the topic at hand, having grinded in every way possible in ADOM (in fact, I quite possibly pioneered one way of grinding) and for nearly every goal I could set for myself there was a way to make it easier by grinding. Herb farming by itself was so insanely profitable that it remained a mainstay since the early days of "I can't win ADOM" to the days of being a successful speedrunner. Perceived necessity of Infinite Dungeon stairscumming to take a crack at spellcaster speedruns was one of the few reasons I've quit ADOM. Another one was "going through early dungeons when they are not longer challenging to have more shots at some good loot is boring but efficient use of time", so in a way also grinding-related. Ultra-endings requiring random drops, which could only be obtained by grinding if not provided by luck earlier were annoying, to say the least.
Yet, I have completed a few grind-free playthroughs and the one I remember the fondest was such. A coincidence? I think not.
If ADOM didn't have profitable grinding, I could've skipped straight to the better, grind-free playthroughs instead of relying on grinding crutches (I don't think it would've delayed my 1st victory too much further and frustrated me away from ADOM before it - many times I won quite overprepared). I also played it somewhat competitively at times and my experience was diminished, because some of the records were set using grindy tactics and I've had to either give up my ambition or suffer through the grind to compete.
Hopefully we'll see if it can get better without getting worse for others - ADOM 1.2.0 changelog and todo list looked very promising the last time I've looked and might be much closer to what I wish ADOM always was.
On the other hand, if the game has permadeath and someone is bypassing it to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds.
Okay, that really sounds like we are agreeing. Are you sure we aren't? Is what you are saying:
"On the other hand, if the game has [A feature] and someone is bypassing it to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds."
Because if that is true, then I would insert the feature I am talking about and say this:
"On the other hand, if the game has [methods of character advancement that do not involve grinding] and someone is bypassing [them] to make their experience worse, then pointing out they are being unreasonable has solid grounds."
I'm not trying to put words in you mouth. Maybe that's not what you were saying at all. But it really does seem like that is what you were saying, at least.
Well, your generalisation of my statement is a misguided extrapolation, as you could insert [grinding] as feature and declare that people who bypass it are unreasonable and then it would seem that all the playerbase is unreasonable and where's any worth in that analysis?
I meant that it has some merit to say that savescummers who bypass a game's permadeath via means outside the game (like copying savefiles) and then complain about the game being easy are unreasonable. However, if the game lets you load a save after dying, then dismissing the opinion of people who made use of that feature is not reasonable.
Again, let me just point out that exchanges where players are admonished for over leveling really are relatively common on JRPG message boards. I think this is a pretty widely held position by people who take those types of games seriously. People do understand that if players grind until a game is easy it is their fault that it is too easy.
You, personally, may feel differently, but the point is that a lot of players do seem to agree with what I'm saying. And remember, these are JRPGs. They are supposed to be far less "hardcore" than roguelikes. If people who play those sorts of games get it, wouldn't most roguelike players get it too?
Well, a lot of Aztecs agreed that without a regular bloody sacrifice the sun won't rise. Yet, the sun still rises even though there are no more bloody sacrifices for that purpose (or even Aztecs, for that matter).
Bullying people pointing out that a game's too easy into not grinding is a significantly worse solution to the problem of the game being too easy with grinding than asking for a better game.
Well, judging by changelogs the new ADOM versions are less and less breakable without really cutting anything outright. Meanwhile, while DCSS is subject to a lot of subtractive design, the releases always contain enough new stuff to at least balance out the cuts. I think it's a fair exchange that should be satisfying enough to all (of course, there are exceptions in execution and acceptable amounts of dissatisfaction that has nothing to do with the gamist/immersionist divide).
I agree with that. I guess it is possible to make games that are essentially unbreakable but still fun to relatively casual players. But! There is still the issue of grinding to resolve.
I can't think of any way you could grind anything in DCSS anymore. I bet that even if something's still there, it won't last.
As far as I can tell ADOM will do away with all profitable ways of grinding by the end of the current development cycle too.
What I'm saying is that true roleplaying is orthogonal (or at least should be in a perfectly-designed game) to min-maxing and therefore both positions that "real roleplayers don't min-max" and "real roleplayers should min-max" are as wrong as they are controversial. I added that the latter one is also more obviously ridiculous, but it's only true here - I've seen places where the opposite is the dominant sentiment.
Then I think I feel the opposite way: that in an ideal game, pure roleplaying does result in the best outcomes for the player, and is a form of min-maxing itself.
Well, maybe the sentiments aren't that opposite and the relationship between minmaxing and roleplaying is more complex. What about "In a not-so-good (cRPG) game roleplaying and minmaxing conflict, in a good game they don't interfere with each other and in a great game they are one and the same"? Sounds good?
-
This thread is getting more and more surreal, but... oh well, :-X
Let me just say that the term "jRPGs" is about as meaningless these days as "grinding" itself (actually, there are similarities to what has become of the term "roguelike" itself)
I know that it`s all well-meant - we have to rescue those poor, lost souls - but in fact using these terms as ignorantly as above can also be considered insulting, or perhaps, "just" condescending.
-
This thread is getting more and more surreal, but... oh well, :-X
Let me just say that the term "jRPGs" is about as meaningless these days as "grinding" itself (actually, there are similarities to what has become of the term "roguelike" itself)
Huh? Grinding is quite well defined and you were perfectly willing to discuss it earlier in the thread and now the term is meaningless?
-
No, it`s not at all "well defined". Rather, everybody is using their own version to defend/attack various angles. That`s regarding this thread...and there`s a similar trend in the outside gaming world, where it`s mostly used as a convenient weapon to bash assorted games/companies/genres without much regard for reality. Along the way it has acquired mostly negative connotation, though in ideal world it would be just a term. In fact, if you look at the first post of this thread there`s Jo using it, in what seems to me a "normal" way.
But even if we stick to one of the negative definitions - it still fails, because it`s usually taken out of context and applied to personal vision of what constitutes some sort of a Golden Rule when it comes to RL/RPG systems. And it double fails when you`re trying to tie it to the other "meaningless" term - the much maligned jRPGs. And what are those? Surely RPGs made in Japan...right?...no, wait...lol ;) And it becomes totally abstract when it`s implied that a genre encompassing as many various styles and subsets as the, ahem, "jRPG" can be measured with one yardstick, namely itsagrindfest.
Reason I said it`s getting surreal in here, was upon reading snippets like Vanguard`s "99% of the time you're committing mass murder for little to no reason" regarding roleplaying, or your own comparison of jRPG fans to Aztec sun worshippers. Sorry, couldn`t find a better term for these than "surreal".
I`m perfectly willing to discuss anything, it`s just there`s usually a moment in such discussion - I call it The Tumbleweed - when assorted parties start going around in circles and repeating themselves. Consensus is (very) seldom reached between two disagreeers, at best you can sort of part-in-peace. Which is what I thought happened earlier. I couldn`t resist another remark, because I`m of course flawed, as those various battle systems out there. Go on, shoot me (better yet, cast Silence) :P
-
No, it`s not at all "well defined". Rather, everybody is using their own version to defend/attack various angles. That`s regarding this thread...and there`s a similar trend in the outside gaming world, where it`s mostly used as a convenient weapon to bash assorted games/companies/genres without much regard for reality. Along the way it has acquired mostly negative connotation, though in ideal world it would be just a term. In fact, if you look at the first post of this thread there`s Jo using it, in what seems to me a "normal" way.
Perhaps there is some truth that frequent misappropriation of the term poisons the discussion, though the point that grinding shouldn't have a negative connotation is arguable - for someone believing that grinding has no place in any game, it's impossible to not attach a negative connotation!
But even if we stick to one of the negative definitions - it still fails, because it`s usually taken out of context and applied to personal vision of what constitutes some sort of a Golden Rule when it comes to RL/RPG systems. And it double fails when you`re trying to tie it to the other "meaningless" term - the much maligned jRPGs. And what are those? Surely RPGs made in Japan...right?...no, wait...lol ;) And it becomes totally abstract when it`s implied that a genre encompassing as many various styles and subsets as the, ahem, "jRPG" can be measured with one yardstick, namely itsagrindfest.
Reason I said it`s getting surreal in here, was upon reading snippets like Vanguard`s "99% of the time you're committing mass murder for little to no reason" regarding roleplaying, or your own comparison of jRPG fans to Aztec sun worshippers. Sorry, couldn`t find a better term for these than "surreal".
Well, my knowledge of jRPGs is very shallow and I am aware of grindfest jRPGs only by hearsay, so in answering Gr3yling's statement I had to take them at face value. I've also had no reason not to, as my counterpoint is salient even if the specifics of Gr3yling's argument have been completely made up (surely, a community of jRPG fans admonishing other players for grinding too much would be even more unreasonable if they were talking about a game that doesn't allow grinding?).
I`m perfectly willing to discuss anything, it`s just there`s usually a moment in such discussion - I call it The Tumbleweed - when assorted parties start going around in circles and repeating themselves. Consensus is (very) seldom reached between two disagreeers, at best you can sort of part-in-peace. Which is what I thought happened earlier. I couldn`t resist another remark, because I`m of course flawed, as those various battle systems out there. Go on, shoot me (better yet, cast Silence) :P
Never! Consensus isn't the (whole) point of a discussion. Having my ideas challenged always helps me reexamine them and reaffirm the good ones or reject-and-reassess the less solid ones.
-
Never! Consensus isn't the (whole) point of a discussion. Having my ideas challenged always helps me reexamine them and reaffirm the good ones or reject-and-reassess the less solid ones.
Hah, fair enough mate, wish more people were aware of that ;) I`ll try to rejoin this argument again when I find a bit of time - got some real life grinding loomin`over next few days...
-
Calling it "denseness" is just insulting.
zasvid, it sounds like you are taking what I said too seriously. I was essentially saying: I don't see how any player could be worse at the game than I am. I was making fun of my own abilities, not belittling other people.
I certainly don't think that you or anyone else who grinds is less intelligent than me, okay? I promise I didn't think you would have taken it that way or I wouldn't have said it. I'm sorry.
I am quite happy to see this is a message board that thinks it is in bad taste to say mean things about other people, though.
Well, of course, if a game lets you learn magic at no cost save time and risk-free effort, you'll learn magic unless you're the kind of player that values playing to a concept purely more than making sure you'll win (this is weakened somewhat in risk-free games like a lot of mainstream titles, because you can put it off until you encounter problems).
I don't know zasvid, I just don't see it. I mean, I hear what you are saying, I just have a hard time believing most people think that way. Do players other than you really feel like they absolutely have to use features just because they are there?
Why yes, yes it does. You can't tell how, because you're not prone to grinding. However, I have extensive personal experience with the topic at hand, having grinded in every way possible in ADOM (in fact, I quite possibly pioneered one way of grinding) and for nearly every goal I could set for myself there was a way to make it easier by grinding. Herb farming by itself was so insanely profitable that it remained a mainstay since the early days of "I can't win ADOM" to the days of being a successful speedrunner. Perceived necessity of Infinite Dungeon stairscumming to take a crack at spellcaster speedruns was one of the few reasons I've quit ADOM. Another one was "going through early dungeons when they are not longer challenging to have more shots at some good loot is boring but efficient use of time", so in a way also grinding-related. Ultra-endings requiring random drops, which could only be obtained by grinding if not provided by luck earlier were annoying, to say the least.
I think some of these complaints relate to older versions of ADOM? Can we please keep this discussion limited to the most recent version of ADOM? The one that has adjusted balance to make exploitation more difficult and grinding less necessary? For instance, I think herb farming is a lot less exploitable now.
Also, I have never even come close to completing an ultra ending. So you may be 100 percent right about these concerns as they relate to that situation. I've never done a speed run either. I really was not thinking of either of those situations in any of my previous posts, I'm just imagining a run-of-the-mill playthrough. So I'd like to hear what you think about that case in particular.
Yet, I have completed a few grind-free playthroughs and the one I remember the fondest was such. A coincidence? I think not.
If ADOM didn't have profitable grinding, I could've skipped straight to the better, grind-free playthroughs instead of relying on grinding crutches (I don't think it would've delayed my 1st victory too much further and frustrated me away from ADOM before it - many times I won quite overprepared). I also played it somewhat competitively at times and my experience was diminished, because some of the records were set using grindy tactics and I've had to either give up my ambition or suffer through the grind to compete.
Hopefully we'll see if it can get better without getting worse for others - ADOM 1.2.0 changelog and todo list looked very promising the last time I've looked and might be much closer to what I wish ADOM always was.
Again, I've been thinking of the newest version of ADOM this whole time, so when I as if you think you have to grind in ADOM, that's the one I'm talking about, and I'm assuming a normal playthrough. I can't really comment on situations other than that.
I think your last quote illustrates what the problem with this argument is for me. The urge to min-max that you are describing sounds almost like a compulsion. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, and I'm not trying to be mean, but it really does. You sound like you absolutely can't stop yourself from playing that way even though you had more fun when you didn't min-max.
This is an honest question: have you ever considered that maybe the problem really is the way that you play, rather than the game itself?
Well, your generalisation of my statement is a misguided extrapolation, as you could insert [grinding] as feature and declare that people who bypass it are unreasonable and then it would seem that all the playerbase is unreasonable and where's any worth in that analysis?
Well, we could technically insert anything in that statement, although I would tend to think that mechanics which allow a player to bypass a tedious activity are a much better contender for a "feature" than the tedious activity itself.
Well, a lot of Aztecs agreed that without a regular bloody sacrifice the sun won't rise. Yet, the sun still rises even though there are no more bloody sacrifices for that purpose (or even Aztecs, for that matter).
Bullying people pointing out that a game's too easy into not grinding is a significantly worse solution to the problem of the game being too easy with grinding than asking for a better game.
zasvid, I realize that people on the internet, and on message boards in particular can be terrible to each other, and I guess maybe the situation I described could be seen as a form of bullying...And, I don't even know what to say next. Mostly I'm just very impressed that you think people should treat each other so well, even on the internet. No joke, that is pretty cool.
I can't think of any way you could grind anything in DCSS anymore. I bet that even if something's still there, it won't last.
As far as I can tell ADOM will do away with all profitable ways of grinding by the end of the current development cycle too.
Then I guess we ultimately do have pretty similar standards, however we debate the details. I think the current ADOM is a great game, for instance, and wouldn't change very much about it at all.
Well, maybe the sentiments aren't that opposite and the relationship between minmaxing and roleplaying is more complex. What about "In a not-so-good (cRPG) game roleplaying and minmaxing conflict, in a good game they don't interfere with each other and in a great game they are one and the same"? Sounds good?
Yes, that sounds very good.
-
I know that it`s all well-meant - we have to rescue those poor, lost souls - but in fact using these terms as ignorantly as above can also be considered insulting, or perhaps, "just" condescending.
Akeley, I don't think I'm cooler or better than people who play the types of games that I called JRPG's, if that is what you are thinking. What did I say that was condescending? I'm not being obtuse, I just don't understand.
EDIT: I think maybe I do see better what you were saying now. I really do use the term to mean "rpgs made in Japan". I was thinking of the Final Fantasy VI message board on gamefaqs specifically when I used the term.
-
Calling it "denseness" is just insulting.
zasvid, it sounds like you are taking what I said too seriously. I was essentially saying: I don't see how any player could be worse at the game than I am. I was making fun of my own abilities, not belittling other people.
I certainly don't think that you or anyone else who grinds is less intelligent than me, okay? I promise I didn't think you would have taken it that way or I wouldn't have said it. I'm sorry.
I am quite happy to see this is a message board that thinks it is in bad taste to say mean things about other people, though.
OK, I see how I could've interpreted you differently than you intended. Still, civility prevails! A rare thing on the Internet (meanwhile, misinterpreting humour seems to be a pretty common phenomenon. I blame body language - or lack thereof in a text-based medium).
Well, of course, if a game lets you learn magic at no cost save time and risk-free effort, you'll learn magic unless you're the kind of player that values playing to a concept purely more than making sure you'll win (this is weakened somewhat in risk-free games like a lot of mainstream titles, because you can put it off until you encounter problems).
I don't know zasvid, I just don't see it. I mean, I hear what you are saying, I just have a hard time believing most people think that way. Do players other than you really feel like they absolutely have to use features just because they are there?
I don't always feel that way about features, but I'm pretty sure that a significant number of people who do exists. It isn't necessarily a majority, but it's not something that could be ignored. Not sure where find data that would confirm or disprove this hypothesis.
Why yes, yes it does. You can't tell how, because you're not prone to grinding. However, I have extensive personal experience with the topic at hand, having grinded in every way possible in ADOM (in fact, I quite possibly pioneered one way of grinding) and for nearly every goal I could set for myself there was a way to make it easier by grinding. Herb farming by itself was so insanely profitable that it remained a mainstay since the early days of "I can't win ADOM" to the days of being a successful speedrunner. Perceived necessity of Infinite Dungeon stairscumming to take a crack at spellcaster speedruns was one of the few reasons I've quit ADOM. Another one was "going through early dungeons when they are not longer challenging to have more shots at some good loot is boring but efficient use of time", so in a way also grinding-related. Ultra-endings requiring random drops, which could only be obtained by grinding if not provided by luck earlier were annoying, to say the least.
I think some of these complaints relate to older versions of ADOM? Can we please keep this discussion limited to the most recent version of ADOM? The one that has adjusted balance to make exploitation more difficult and grinding less necessary? For instance, I think herb farming is a lot less exploitable now.
Also, I have never even come close to completing an ultra ending. So you may be 100 percent right about these concerns as they relate to that situation. I've never done a speed run either. I really was not thinking of either of those situations in any of my previous posts, I'm just imagining a run-of-the-mill playthrough. So I'd like to hear what you think about that case in particular.
Yet, I have completed a few grind-free playthroughs and the one I remember the fondest was such. A coincidence? I think not.
If ADOM didn't have profitable grinding, I could've skipped straight to the better, grind-free playthroughs instead of relying on grinding crutches (I don't think it would've delayed my 1st victory too much further and frustrated me away from ADOM before it - many times I won quite overprepared). I also played it somewhat competitively at times and my experience was diminished, because some of the records were set using grindy tactics and I've had to either give up my ambition or suffer through the grind to compete.
Hopefully we'll see if it can get better without getting worse for others - ADOM 1.2.0 changelog and todo list looked very promising the last time I've looked and might be much closer to what I wish ADOM always was.
Again, I've been thinking of the newest version of ADOM this whole time, so when I as if you think you have to grind in ADOM, that's the one I'm talking about, and I'm assuming a normal playthrough. I can't really comment on situations other than that.
Neither can I, as I've only played a few minutes of the recent ADOM versions (on account of my ADOM burnout having happened in 2011). I imagine it's better nowadays.
I think your last quote illustrates what the problem with this argument is for me. The urge to min-max that you are describing sounds almost like a compulsion. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, and I'm not trying to be mean, but it really does. You sound like you absolutely can't stop yourself from playing that way even though you had more fun when you didn't min-max.
This is an honest question: have you ever considered that maybe the problem really is the way that you play, rather than the game itself?
I have until I've educated myself on game design and the way game mechanics model player behaviour and then I was all like "Damn right, it's not my fault that I play to win, as it's one of the main goals (if not *the* main goal) of games. It's not my fault either that playing to win leads me to discover the crappy aspects of a game".
Now I wish I maintained a proper bibliography of that stuff to put some citations in here.
Well, your generalisation of my statement is a misguided extrapolation, as you could insert [grinding] as feature and declare that people who bypass it are unreasonable and then it would seem that all the playerbase is unreasonable and where's any worth in that analysis?
Well, we could technically insert anything in that statement, although I would tend to think that mechanics which allow a player to bypass a tedious activity are a much better contender for a "feature" than the tedious activity itself.
I dunno, there many examples of tedious activities that were put quite intentionally into games (in ADOM alone there is the Infinite Dungeon, herbs, the casino etc.). They aren't necessarily intentionally tedious, but most definitely a feature.
zasvid, I realize that people on the internet, and on message boards in particular can be terrible to each other, and I guess maybe the situation I described could be seen as a form of bullying...And, I don't even know what to say next. Mostly I'm just very impressed that you think people should treat each other so well, even on the internet. No joke, that is pretty cool.
Thanks.
-
I`m perfectly willing to discuss anything, it`s just there`s usually a moment in such discussion - I call it The Tumbleweed - when assorted parties start going around in circles and repeating themselves. Consensus is (very) seldom reached between two disagreeers, at best you can sort of part-in-peace. Which is what I thought happened earlier. I couldn`t resist another remark, because I`m of course flawed, as those various battle systems out there. Go on, shoot me (better yet, cast Silence) :P
Consensus may not be reached between the disagreers, but hearing their arguments can be interesting or informative to others, especially considering the topic's about game design on a game design forum.
-
zasvid, how about this: if you can recommend me some of the books on game design that you are talking about, I am open to checking them out.
Also, you might be interested to know that a new version of ADOM just came out today. A lot of things have been improved since 2011. You know that there was a whole kickstarter campaign, right? I don't know if you have bought into the prerelease program or not, but I think it is actually worth it to do so if you haven't.
You might find that some of the issues you mentioned have been resolved in this version. Or maybe not, I don't really play on your level, so it's hard for me to say what you would think of it. But at least think about checking it out.
-
But doesn't min-maxing involve a pretty in depth knowledge of game mechanics? Mechanics that a first time player or the PC himself would have no access to?
Yes, and that's fine. I'm not asdfjkl the level 22 dwarf warrior and he isn't me. Some games are essentially impossible if you don't use information your character "shouldn't" have access to, and that's ok.
I think that for the most part, I find the idea of an herbalist character boring and incongruent with the personalities of the PC's that I play (I don't see a paladin as having much interest in gardening, basically). So, wouldn't that form of out of character min-maxing be in conflict with role-playing? Heck, what if the best min-max approach is to play a race/class that you don't even really like? That sure seems like it would interfere with roleplaying.
1) My roguelike characters don't have personalities, they're automatons that exist only to do my bidding and achieve my goals. I'm not saying that I'd never play a game with my character's intentions in mind, but roguelikes are generally a bad choice for that, for a number of reasons. So are most RPGs, but games like, say, King of Dragon Pass or X-Com become even better if you take the things that happen seriously both in a mechanical sense and a narrative sense. It helps that those are both games where playing your role "correctly" doesn't involve crippling your effectiveness, imo.
2) What's wrong with a paladin gardener? Knights need hobbies too, and gardening is as good as any. Paladins are still human beings, you know? They're individuals with their own preferences. That sort of thing is a big part of why I can't even begin to take video game and fantasy stories seriously. No one tries anything new, no one has any standards, and no one thinks about why they're doing what they're doing. Race and profession are used as stand-ins for real personalities. My elf wizard is mysterious and likes nature because he is a wizard and an elf, my archer kills people all the time for no reason because she is chaotic evil, and so forth.
I guess to most people, maybe the developer themselves is the opponent, and the game is about outsmarting them? Again, that's just alien to me. I look at the developer as having the role of a storyteller, rather than a competitor. I do get that these games should be hard, and that the threat of death should be real, but, I dunno, it seems like something important is being lost here.
Whether the "real" opponent is the game designer, the AI, or the game isn't important (for this argument, though the question is in other contexts).
I don't want the game to be hard so it's fair to my opponent (whoever that is). I want the game to be hard so that it's fair to me. I will probably have a lot more fun with a game where I fail fifty times before I finally succeed and a lot less fun with a game where I succeed on my first try. Tactical challenges are fun. Learning how to manipulate a game's rules in my favor is cool.
Why is it bad to use everything at my disposal to defeat Andor Drakon, but okay to do the same against the White King? What difference does it make if my opponent is a human with equal resources or a computer with asymmetrical resources?
I agree that the stories for roguelike games could be improved a lot, but I also feel like what you are saying is an oversimplification and unfair. I think a lot of these stories boil down to archetypes, and stories about archetypes are often going to seem "cartoony" as you say. Think about the mythological source material for a lot of the stock characters and classes in these games. Myths, in general, are not known for their well developed, multi-dimensional characters.
And, I think you could make that argument about the plots of a lot of fantasy media. I feel like what you are saying is "bad plots are bad". Roguelike plots do need to be better, it's true, but the act of participating in a story, even a mediocre one, combined with grave consequences for your character if you make a bad decision, can still be really engrossing, I think.
Well yeah, maybe I'd take video game and fantasy stories more seriously if they weren't a complete wasteland, but that's not changing anytime soon. Even in a hypothetical world where video games stories were consistently great, I'd still defend mechanics-focused games.
Like, I'm not saying narrativist and simulationist games shouldn't exist, but they aren't the superiors of or successors to "gamist" games.
But I feel like that avoids directly addressing the issue of quantifying difficulty by being vague. Lets look at it this way: How many deaths per hour should an “average” player suffer when playing an ideal roguelike game. Another way of looking at this would be: what is the mean cumulative playtime until death and stardard deviation from that mean. Assume a roguelike that takes 20 hours to complete, on average.
There's no such thing as a singular ideal roguelike and there isn't one right answer to this question.
Another question related to that (that maybe I asked in this thread?) is: what percentage of players do you think should be able to exploit the game to the point that it becomes trivial? This assumes they are not using the internet to search for exploits, just that they come up with it on their own. Essentially, I just want you to set a threshold here.
Assuming that we're talking about games built to challenge their players? Zero percent. Difficulty-trivializing exploits shouldn't exist in games like that. In something like Morrowind where the difficulty doesn't matter, go ahead and throw in crazy exploits. But in roguelikes, shoot em ups, fighting games, TBS, etc. they're serious problems and need to be dealt with.
I'll read and maybe write responses to the rest of the thread later.
E:
Despite all of that, you are correct that many roguelike elements (permanent consequences esp. permadeath, high replayability, high levels of variance between monsters, items, and areas) would make for much better roleplaying games.
-
zasvid, how about this: if you can recommend me some of the books on game design that you are talking about, I am open to checking them out.
Well, "A Theory of Fun in Game Design" by Raph Koster is always a worthwhile read, though I don't remember how much of it was relevant to the topic. Other than that I don't recall what would be really good to recommend. However, for some time I wanted to organise my thoughts about game design in the form of articles (starting with my IRDC '13 presentation) and this is a good topic to put in the queue. I'll do proper research then and hopefully find relevant sources again. Don't hold your breath, though, I'll get around to that some time next year probably ;)
-
Those giant multiquote posts are too inconvenient to read and I'm not going to make any more of them.
Well, maybe the sentiments aren't that opposite and the relationship between minmaxing and roleplaying is more complex. What about "In a not-so-good (cRPG) game roleplaying and minmaxing conflict, in a good game they don't interfere with each other and in a great game they are one and the same"? Sounds good?
That's a little too simplistic. A cRPG could be great based on its strength in either competitive play or roleplaying alone, and a cRPG where both are brought into perfect unison could still be bad. If you can bring the two together, great, but sometimes doing that means making bigger sacrifices than it's worth.
You probably already know this and I'm just being unnecessarily pedantic here.
I think your last quote illustrates what the problem with this argument is for me. The urge to min-max that you are describing sounds almost like a compulsion. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, and I'm not trying to be mean, but it really does. You sound like you absolutely can't stop yourself from playing that way even though you had more fun when you didn't min-max.
This is an honest question: have you ever considered that maybe the problem really is the way that you play, rather than the game itself?
It's all ADOM's fault. Everything about it encourages that kind of play.
It's got permadeath, so you need to take things seriously. If a choice makes you more likely to survive, you're pressured into choosing that over the alternative. The early game is a meatgrinder. But it doesn't have to be - you can spend a few hours in the infinite dungeon, getting risk-free experience and items. Look at the requirements behind the ultra endings. They expect you to farm for items and abuse every resource you have.
So yeah, when every aspect of ADOM does tells you to do everything in your power to win, no matter what, zasvid and others shouldn't be blamed for doing just that.
-
Well, "A Theory of Fun in Game Design" by Raph Koster is always a worthwhile read, though I don't remember how much of it was relevant to the topic. Other than that I don't recall what would be really good to recommend. However, for some time I wanted to organise my thoughts about game design in the form of articles (starting with my IRDC '13 presentation) and this is a good topic to put in the queue. I'll do proper research then and hopefully find relevant sources again. Don't hold your breath, though, I'll get around to that some time next year probably ;)
If I can find a used copy of that book, I'll get it. Is the IRDC '13 presentation a powerpoint file? I'd be willing to check that out too it if you sent it to me.
-
Yes, and that's fine. I'm not asdfjkl the level 22 dwarf warrior and he isn't me. Some games are essentially impossible if you don't use information your character "shouldn't" have access to, and that's ok.
See, I keep thinking that most roguelike players are looking for basically the same thing in a roguelike game as they are in Dungeons and Dragons, and I thought that was way Dungeons and Dragons is played (although I don't know for sure since I've never played it). In D&D, don't you play "in character" for the most part, or at least attempt to?
Also, I am aware that there are varying degrees of pretending to be your character. I don't think you have to literally pretend you are the character you play in ADOM any more than you do in D&D, but I do assume that most people who play D&D wouldn't try to do the equivalent of herb farming. But, maybe they would, like I said, I've never played it.
Also, I realize that the bottom line here is that most other people who play these games do not think the same way I do.
There is one other thing, though. Aren't most roguelikes technically meant to be played with the player and the PC having access to the fairly similar pools of information? I mean, don't developers want players to discover the game on their own rather than learning strategies from the internet? I know the player carries the tricks they learn on their own between PC's, but if you don't use the internet, isn't what the player knows going to be at least pretty similar to what the PC does?
Well yeah, maybe I'd take video game and fantasy stories more seriously if they weren't a complete wasteland, but that's not changing anytime soon. Even in a hypothetical world where video games stories were consistently great, I'd still defend mechanics-focused games.
Like, I'm not saying narrativist and simulationist games shouldn't exist, but they aren't the superiors of or successors to "gamist" games.
Wait, who says roguelike stories aren't going to get more interesting any time soon? Isn't that what we are here for? To learn how to make games that are more fun/interesting?
Also, I honestly don't think that the kind of games I like or would want to make (which I guess you would classify as being narrativist/simulationist than most roguelikes) are better than any other kind. I, personally, just think those ideas are cool.
It's interesting that you mention the issue of succession. I feel like ADOM does have more simulation/narrative aspects than the games that came before it, and it is very popular. I'm not saying it is better than a game like nethack (although it is my personal favorite), but I do wonder if those aspects don't have a lot to do with its popularity. And I do think that a game that took those aspects even farther, one that was to ADOM what ADOM was to nethack, for example, would be very cool.
I'd like to say more, but I'm out of time.
-
1) My roguelike characters don't have personalities, they're automatons that exist only to do my bidding and achieve my goals. I'm not saying that I'd never play a game with my character's intentions in mind, but roguelikes are generally a bad choice for that, for a number of reasons. So are most RPGs, but games like, say, King of Dragon Pass or X-Com become even better if you take the things that happen seriously both in a mechanical sense and a narrative sense. It helps that those are both games where playing your role "correctly" doesn't involve crippling your effectiveness, imo.
2) What's wrong with a paladin gardener? Knights need hobbies too, and gardening is as good as any. Paladins are still human beings, you know? They're individuals with their own preferences. That sort of thing is a big part of why I can't even begin to take video game and fantasy stories seriously. No one tries anything new, no one has any standards, and no one thinks about why they're doing what they're doing. Race and profession are used as stand-ins for real personalities. My elf wizard is mysterious and likes nature because he is a wizard and an elf, my archer kills people all the time for no reason because she is chaotic evil, and so forth.
But the two things you said seem sort of contradictory. First you are saying that you don't want the PC to have a personality at all, and then you are saying you want them to be more individualized and less one dimensional. I'm not sure, but it even sounds like you want characters to have reasonably detailed backgrounds.
I guess you could argue that these things aren't mutually exclusive, it just seems weird that you care what the PC's motivations are if you view him strictly as an automaton.
Part of the issue here is that the name of a character's class has to give you some idea of what their capabilities. But I can see what you are saying, a little bit of variety wouldn't hurt. Being a paladin could determine most of your abilities, and then a few of them could be "electives" so to speak. I guess you could argue that a better way of doing things would be to start with a blank slate character and develop them from there, so that even more individualization could occur.
There's no such thing as a singular ideal roguelike and there isn't one right answer to this question.
I know that Vanguard, I just thought it would be an interesting thing to talk about. Like, what do people really mean when they talk about difficulty? Is it possible to quantify that concept, and so on. I guess that is a topic for another discussion, though.
Assuming that we're talking about games built to challenge their players? Zero percent. Difficulty-trivializing exploits shouldn't exist in games like that. In something like Morrowind where the difficulty doesn't matter, go ahead and throw in crazy exploits. But in roguelikes, shoot em ups, fighting games, TBS, etc. they're serious problems and need to be dealt with.
At the time that I wrote that my point was that the higher you set the bar for unexploitability, the less fun the game was going to be for players who weren't trying to exploit it. But I think that recent editions of several games we have mentioned have proven me wrong there.
-
A game can be good without any story or characterization. I think Go is the best game ever made, and it's about white and black rocks on a board. Quality game mechanics and content can stand on their own. They don't need validation from a story.
That doesn't mean stories are bad and have no value, even in the context of video games. Stuff like X-Com and Dwarf Fortress where you get a unique story every time is really cool. Uncovering the secrets of Morrowind's history is just as interesting as learning its mechanics. Even something as simple as controlling a character you like can be fun.
But just like game mechanics, not all stories are equal. Why bother investing yourself in characters or events when the author showed little effort or poor ability? Why should anyone care about another generic fantasy setting when there isn't a single original idea in the entire thing?
If you're going to do something, do it right. A bad, intrusive story is worse than no story at all.
On the topic of roguelikes, specifically - they're poorly suited for traditional storytelling. They tend to be very mechanic-focused, and it's common for players to have seen some parts of the game hundreds of times while having never seen others at all. Even if someone did write a legitimately good story in a roguelike, it'd suffer from the genre's limitations.
By the way, have you ever played Incursion? It's incomplete and will probably never be finished, but it's an interesting attempt at making a roleplaying-focused roguelike based on D&D. I was impressed with it, and I think you will be too.
-
Well, maybe the sentiments aren't that opposite and the relationship between minmaxing and roleplaying is more complex. What about "In a not-so-good (cRPG) game roleplaying and minmaxing conflict, in a good game they don't interfere with each other and in a great game they are one and the same"? Sounds good?
The best way to achieve this is to include as little traditional, linear narrative in your game as possible. In games divided between gameplay segments and cutscenes, the two never quite match up. On the other hand, in strategy games the story matches up with your actions perfectly, because the story is your actions. I've been using Chess and Go as examples of "pure" mechanical games, but really even in those a narrative arises from each player's decisions. Ideally you'll want to set your game in a "victory at all costs" scenario. If the player character doesn't have that mindset, but the player controlling them does, their actions will stop making sense.
-
Well, maybe the sentiments aren't that opposite and the relationship between minmaxing and roleplaying is more complex. What about "In a not-so-good (cRPG) game roleplaying and minmaxing conflict, in a good game they don't interfere with each other and in a great game they are one and the same"? Sounds good?
The best way to achieve this is to include as little traditional, linear narrative in your game as possible. In games divided between gameplay segments and cutscenes, the two never quite match up. On the other hand, in strategy games the story matches up with your actions perfectly, because the story is your actions. I've been using Chess and Go as examples of "pure" mechanical games, but really even in those a narrative arises from each player's decisions. Ideally you'll want to set your game in a "victory at all costs" scenario. If the player character doesn't have that mindset, but the player controlling them does, their actions will stop making sense.
I think the problem is that traditional, linear narrative matches poorly with traditional game structure.
-
That doesn't mean stories are bad and have no value, even in the context of video games. Stuff like X-Com and Dwarf Fortress where you get a unique story every time is really cool. Uncovering the secrets of Morrowind's history is just as interesting as learning its mechanics. Even something as simple as controlling a character you like can be fun.
Actually, Morrowind is exactly what I was thinking of. I think it would be very cool to have books and other sources of lore scattered throughout the world. They wouldn't be intrusive or contain information required to beat the game, they would just be there for flavor.
And, who knows, maybe they could contain hints about what was required for the "Ultra Ending" or whatever other secrets were present in the game.
Really, what was so cool to me about Morrowind was its world and the legend of the Nerevarrine, not the PC themself. I wouldn't want to add the anything like cutscenes to my ideal roguelike, but think you could reproduce that feeling of a really intriguing world.
-
I've been using Chess and Go as examples of "pure" mechanical games, but really even in those a narrative arises from each player's decisions.
But that's such a limited narrative it's hardly even worth mentioning, isn't it? I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you are saying here.
A game can be good without any story or characterization. I think Go is the best game ever made, and it's about white and black rocks on a board. Quality game mechanics and content can stand on their own. They don't need validation from a story.
Right, and I would never say that a game needed a story, complex or otherwise, to be fun or interesting. But I think that the fact we are all posting here so enthusiastically about roleplaying games rather than chess or go does have something to do with their story. I mean, I think there is an inherent tendency to identify with the PC, at least to some extent, that is not present in the non-anthropomorphic pieces used to play board games. And I think that identification makes us start to see the PC's experiences as being like a story that we star in, at least in some way.
I guess the point is that I don't think that just because a player's actions influence the outcome of a game, there is intrinsically a story (of any meaningful type) that can be told about the series of events that occur in that game.
Or, if there is a "story" that can be told about the game of go, it is a story about the players rather than the PC's. Is that the kind of story that you were talking about? One about two people matching wits, and how their thought processes manifest in the playing space?
-
Or, if there is a "story" that can be told about the game of go, it is a story about the players rather than the PC's. Is that the kind of story that you were talking about? One about two people matching wits, and how their thought processes manifest in the playing space?
Both. Go can easily be seen as the story of two cultures competing for the same area of land until one overwhelms the other. Chess is already presented as a conflict between two armies. The details will be unique, but every round will fit this basic structure. In addition to that, there's a story about the mechanical conflict between the players and what each of them did over the course of the game.
The same elements exist in single player games. The first one is the story about how SFADGH the dwarf knight set out to defeat the dark lord and got eaten by a bear. The second is the story of how your cat jumped on your keyboard, ruining your near-ascension.
-
Oh, by the way, I was very impressed by incursion, Vanguard. I've only read the manual so far, but the ideas that I have seen seem really cool. I'm having some trouble downloading it, but I'm sure I will figure it out by this weekend.
Thanks for recommending it.
-
A game can be good without any story or characterization. I think Go is the best game ever made, and it's about white and black rocks on a board. Quality game mechanics and content can stand on their own. They don't need validation from a story....
Boy I'm with you Van. I love me some story in books and movies, love it. I love to gossip and hear other people's stories. I love to write stories.
But I don't need them in my games. I like rule based games. Arcade, Strategy, RL, Boardgames, etc...let the players create the story in their minds.
Some people are narrative gamers though. They are under served by the RL genre, but I'm cool with that. The most story one of these games needs is the standard plot elements.
I am reading about the LOCK structure of analyzing and building plot.
Lead: Lead character, who is he. In an RL you can introduce this in the title, like Rogue did.
Objective: Give him a quest. Amulet you say? Well I'll go get it! Ghosts and Goblins has a good way of doing this, with a quick intro of a devil taking your damsel, and then you putting your armor on.
Conflict: Boss fights, hunger. You can write about your game and it sounds like a story if there are conflicts.
Knockout: This is the climax, the final big battle.
Those are the basic elements of a plot. When people talk about story in games though they are wanting to be drug around some predestined path and read a bunch stuff...that's just not what a good RL does in my opinion.
And as soon as someone proves me wrong I'm going to be ecstatic!
EDIT: Looks like DF and URR are on the way to doing this. I've yet to fathom the depths of DF...
-
Those are the basic elements of a plot. When people talk about story in games though they are wanting to be drug around some predestined path and read a bunch stuff...that's just not what a good RL does in my opinion.
I agree that being drug along a predestined path and being forced to read stuff is a bad idea, but that's not really what I'm suggesting. I don't know if you read Vanguards or my earlier posts about Morrowind, but I like the way it integrated story and I think that a roguelike could successfully do similar things.
The idea is that it the player could read more about the game world and its history in books that they found, or maybe by selecting particular dialogue options. None of this information would be mandatory, it would just be there to make things seem more real. And it would be easily avoidable if the player didn't want to mess with these sorts of tangents. I also like the idea of character creation stories, like in ADOM's character creation system.
What do you think about those ideas?
-
I guess they sound great if you are trying to serve those players interested in narrative.
I'm just not, not in games, that's all. I'd be one of those that skips everything immediately.
One of my biggest disappointments in games is when you cannot skip all the cut scenes, and even when you can skip them they completely stop the game and take you out of play. Sucks bad, and it's done to placate those that want to be drug through a story. It's horrible. Like those scenes are some sort of 'reward' for playing to that point or something. Gah! Also most games with narrative will have in game sequences as well that seem like playing but really aren't. I hate those too.
What you are talking about is just hiding the lore text files in the game itself. That sounds cool, but it's hardly on my top 10 things I'd spend my time on when coding something, as it's mere filler. Having nothing to do with the game play.
Games like Morrowind are an entirely different animal. They are not achievement type designs, where you get further and better each time by mastering the game. RL's, strategy games and arcade games are examples of these types of game. Morrowind and most other RPGs are time based designs, where you get further merely by spending time in game. You spend time and learn more, get more cool abilities, learn cool stuff, it's more laid back. Both are fun in their own way, and they share various elements.
In RPG's I'd say that lore and walls of text are pretty much part of the genre expectation. Conversation trees and other types of things as well. Roguelikes might include these but I neither expect nor desire it. It gets brought up a lot as a weakness of the genre, as something the games are missing. I agree it's a weakness but I don't see it as missing anything.
But I'm pretty fringe when it comes to my attitudes on narrative nonsense ruining my game experience. I like to PLAY games not EXPERIENCE games. I have a vast collection of books for experiencing things and they are WAY better written because they are not beholden to gameplay, and in the games I like the actual playing is not beholden to the clumsy lore and narrative inserted to placate the narrative types.
I recommend the Silmarilion for lore junkies, probably spelled that wrong.
But again, those are very specific attitudes that I have and are NOT shared by the wider gaming community. It's my personal quirk.
-
I'm also not advocating for the non-inclusion of said elements. What I am saying is that I usually won't play a game like that.
-
Jo:
Great post, A+
I really hate how games with atrophied mechanics and an emphasis on their sub-Hollywood stories are seen as inherently greater than games with strong mechanics and little to no story like DoDonPachi, Crawl, and Doom. Those games are all superb and could never be replicated in any other medium, yet for some reason most gamers would rather replace them with pretentious action movies.
Morrowind is great, but it's not what I want from most games. Besides, the huge majority of game writers could never produce work on Morrowind's level. Michael Kirkbride is worlds ahead of the norm in game writing, and even as good as he is, he can't compete with real world mythology.
-
But again, those are very specific attitudes that I have and are NOT shared by the wider gaming community. It's my personal quirk.
Based on the people I have talked to, I would say that most people in the (roguelike) gaming community feel the same way that you do, actually.
And in some ways I understand that response, and in some ways I don't. I hear what you are saying, but it seems like there is a deep, almost visceral dislike of the kind of ideas that I mentioned in roguelike game players. I feel like if the elements I mentioned are skippable (even ADOM's story based character creation is entirely optional), people still react to them in a way that is very negative. And it seems like if such elements are not mandatory, the response should be neutral or better.
Lets look at a specific example: do you think that ADOM has "too much narrative" going on? It does have the type of character creation stories that I mentioned, it has a limited source of in game lore (fortune cookies), and it has very limited dialogue choices. Do you wish those things had not been implemented?
Basically, if you don't like games with (optional) narrative, that's fine, but I've been hearing that for a while and hearing it again doesn't help me very much. I realize you don't want to add more story elements to roguelikes, but if it had to be there, how would you do it?
You also mention (somewhat dismissively?) how adding more narrative in the ways I have mentioned amounts to just "hiding" text files in the game. I don't find that to be a very constructive criticism, honestly. Would you rather the player have to go online to look up this information?
Incidentally, I haven't read the Silmarillion, but it seems pretty intimidating.
even as good as he is, he can't compete with real world mythology.
Really? I tried reading a book on mythology recently, and I just couldn't get into it. My personal opinion is that modern fantasy conventions, even in roguelikes, are more interesting than the stories I read. By the way, I do realize that a lot of these conventions are derived from myths.
Anyway, maybe someone else can help me appreciate mythology better. I'm certainly open to learning more about it.
What mythological stories are you thinking of when you say modern day fantasy writers can't compete with mythology?
-
What mythological stories are you thinking of when you say modern day fantasy writers can't compete with mythology?
Pretty much anything. Greek and Norse mythology seem to be the most popular, and they're winners for sure, but you can find cool stuff anywhere. It's all so wildly original while modern fantasy is the same exact thing again and again.
One of the cool things about myths is that people really believed them. They're not stories about a made up fake world. They're about the world we live in, seen in the crazy way the human mind perceives reality. They're based on real things people experienced and believed.
The gods aren't just wizards and superheroes who rule the universe. That's stupid. That's what modern fantasy writers do. The old gods are ineffable forces of nature. They aren't superpowered forces living outside of our world. They are our world. They're part of everything we see and experience. They're the reason why living things die and why lightning strikes. We have earthquakes because Loki is struggling against his chains deep beneath the earth.
But at the same time, the gods are also individuals with their own personalities and desires, and their actions can have a huge effect on people's lives. The Trojan War happened because Eris played a prank that went too far. The dew you see in the grass every morning is really Aurora's tears, because Achilles killed her son. Humanity is dominant over other animals because Prometheus gave them fire, and as punishment Zeus had him chained up where an eagle would come and eat his liver every day.
Video game gods have one thing they're obsessed with and they only care about that. Mythological gods were more understandable. They're more human. They get emotional and behave irrationally just like people do. Arachne was a mortal who was better at weaving than Athena, the goddess of weaving. In a video game Arachne would be Athena's favorite follower, with max piety and a ton of bonus powers. But instead Athena cursed her to become a spider as punishment for her hubris. And that's why we have spiders now.
-
By the way, have you ever played Incursion? It's incomplete and will probably never be finished, but it's an interesting attempt at making a roleplaying-focused roguelike based on D&D. I was impressed with it, and I think you will be too.
Oh, by the way, I was very impressed by incursion, Vanguard. I've only read the manual so far, but the ideas that I have seen seem really cool. I'm having some trouble downloading it, but I'm sure I will figure it out by this weekend.
Thanks for recommending it.
Gry3ling, you know there is a new attempt at making a D&D based roguelike? :) As one of the aims is making the game clear and easy to pick up, any feedback is most welcome!
-
Okay, some more musings on...
(oh Lawd. It grew :) But "only" two mousewheel scrolls down so that`s okay, right guys? Guys...?)
Grinding in non-roguelikes
I will use Final Fantasy 12 as a little example here. It is a game that I`d rank as good/pretty good - so not a personal favourite but a solid representative (I`m also not a die hard FF fanboy, in fact I used to strongly dislike it in my pre-Japanase days). For those unfamiliar with the series, it`s a jRPG of the "epic" kind, where setting & protagonists, and sometimes battle-systems vary from title to title but some design elements remain the same.
My usual game flow would go like this: watch a cutscene leading to a location, usually big town/village that will serve as a hub with shops and quest givers. I`d then explore for a bit, marvel at the architecture, see what items/spells are available in shops, talk to some characters, acquire quests. Pretty standard for any RPG, be it "w" or "j" variety. Then it`s time to set off into the wilderness/dungeon.
Combat happens in real time, but it`s pausable with total control over your actions, plus customizable to the extent which nearly makes it a TB system (which is always my preferred one). You can also "program" your two companions by means of a very in-depth Gambit system - sadly it`s never 100% reliable so I don`t use it, instead controlling them manually too.
And so I start exploring the area - and inevitably - battling monsters. Normally, and I assume in the eyes of gameists out there, you`d only do it on your way to some specific "target" - be it a quest location, maybe map exit or some such. But...I don`t. I take a detour...go around that hill twice...chase some monster into other direction...hell, you know what, these wolves yield some medals so I`m gonna backtrack to the entry and back again and BANG!CRASH!WALLOP! - crikey! it`s the inevitable arrival of the Grind Police, wipin` my HHDs, stompin` on me disks and strapping me into a Clockwork O-like contraption, where I have to play Rogue for next 6 weeks.
Okay, so this was a lame dramatisation. But the point that I was - very unclearly, sure - trying to make is that grinding is only a chore when it is. As in, taken completely out of context, used by OCD players, or employed in a bad videogame. But FF 12 isn`t one. While (some of) the plot and (some of) the characters aren`t that good (my subjective opinion) other things are. Gfx and environs are stunning. Sfx pretty decent. Plenty of irrelevant-but-fun activities. Engine and overall design extremely smooth and pleasant to use. Battling? Quite brilliant - expanding here, it`s seldom (think bosses and mid level baddies) a "real" challenge, tougher monsters need their weaknesses decoded in rock/paper fashion and then dispatched, but it`s never the less fun. All these elements combine <- very important - and so I don`t mind wandering around an area for some extra time, battling, sightseeing, just enjoying the ambience really. Eventually I will get bored - find most of the chests, see the views, monsters will get too easy - and then it`s time to move onto the next area.
In the process, I quite probably battled lots of monstas thus grinding my stats above some, perhaps necessary-to-progress, level. Hell, I might have even done it on purpose, thinking it won`t hurt to be even stronger and show these critters who`s boss. Wooo! Bad Henry! But...really?
Compared to other, more strategic systems out there - not even those in RLs, that`s below- it is of course sort of "inferior", at least for someone like me who grew up on true TB strategy (my other net nick is lasersquad). But, it works and has addictive, compelling elements. Which is why millions play it. And if some of us want to expand this addictive "grinding" elements, because we enjoy the entire game itself, why not? J-folk know this, and so there indeed are grinding mechanisms built in some jRPGs, but rather cleverly, and never as a necessity to progress. For example Blue Dragon on 360 is one game in which I actually went the whole 9 and really, really went overboard with grinding. After you finish the main plot and meet certain conditions, you get to battle super-monstas, untouchable without maxing out certain skills. For this there are two areas in the game with special critters who yield huge XP bonuses. Fast forwarding the whole process. I can feel some of you tremble with derision at this concept ;P but honestly, it`s fun. I didn`t do it because of some evil spell emanated from the game box and possessed me or because it was only my 2nd videogame ever. Nope, I did it because I liked the entire game a lot and it was fun playing it.
FF 12 is just an example. About earlier point that "jRPGs are grindfests", well, there`s gazillion-and-one systems these games use. Their commercial devs are insanely more inventive than their Western counterparts (plus consumers much more receptive) and if you actually explore the genre with an open mind, you`d see for yourself. I know this because I was also J-allergic back in the day (die hard wRPG nut) who thought it`s all bawwing whimsy with "cute" characters. Oh boy...was I wrong. Funnily enough, it was a decline of turn based Western RPGs that convinced me to dip a toe, and I never regretted it. So, there`s plenty of choice for those who like simple but addictive grinding, but also those who prefer their strategy logical and hard-as-nails (Press Turn system from Megaten games shining the brightest - basically a mini-chess in Phantasie`s row vs row convention) and also wild mixtures of both.
But, it`s not the entire point yet ...Unfortunately - for those allergic to so called "walls of text" (funny, back in the day there were plenty of these in things called "books' ;) there`s more:
Grinding in roguelikes
Yes, I`m just a newcomer to this strange new world of RLs. So, perhaps my knowledge of the genre is limited. But I learn fast, and some of the concepts are also shared throughout other ones, hence more opinionated drivel (ahem ;)
This is why I didn`t separate this and the above non-RL rant into two. Reason being, it`s rather obvious we`re talking two different beasts here. I largely agree that RL rely on other principles than majority of overground games. Perhaps even "better" principles, gameplay wise (and generalising-wise). Long story - but been thinking about it a lot recently and if someone hypothetically put me in a "desert island, RL or non-RL for the rest of your days" situation I`d go with RL. I think. It will of course seem a laughable no-brainer to most of the grognards here, but please remember my background.
Back on point, I don`t think grinding mechanisms/systems - deliberate ones as described in my above FF example - should have place in the RL world. But I think small doses and experiments should be allowed, as long as they don`t break the game too. Also, there`s so many RL`s coming out that if one or two tried that, what`s the harm? Variety is the sp ...ugh, I hate this quote. Angband seems to be black sheep disliked for that reason (correct me if I`m wrong, only played it a little bit).
Conversely, the main problem with the "overground" games is that majority stick to the "easier" formula. It`s not a bad thing in itself, but the more complex and difficult systems have been eroded because of the almighty $$$, at least mostly in the West. In my ideal world there would be place for more relaxing, non-hardcore games - perhaps even more dominant, since more people go for this style - but also very substantial sector of RL-mechanics-infused AAA titles. Well, one can dream. But it doesn`t mean I `m gonna condemn all the "easy" games out of hand - nope, some are very good and sometimes I just don`t want to play a "hard", taxing game. I want me bubblegum. Also, I`m only using the "easy" term as a mental shortcut - some titles have strategy and tactics on-par with the RL ones - it`s just they`re more "local". As in, a battle in an old SSI Goldbox title could be as taxing mentally as any strategizing in Crawl, but because of the design nature - it`s a sprawling RPG epic that requires saving to maintain its various subsystems - it`s just an element, not the whole thing. But losing this battle is no less disappointing than dying in an RL.
I could go on, but it`d be just another brick in the text wall, and, shock horror, there`s still the...
Narrative/Story
I will agree with one point: I also think that majority (entirety?) of videogame writing is substandard when compared to other media. I grew up in a world where books were only media available and was lucky to consume the likes of Le Guin and Gene Wolfe very early and after this it`s hard to be kind to other, ahem, attempts. And yeah, we live in an era dominated in ruthless publishing deals - authors plan their books in volumes ahead, to maximize profits, also will latch onto anything that seems to be popular, like witches or vampires...brr, terrible hacks. This is manufacture, not a creative process. But I wouldn`t go as far as comparing it to mythology - sorry Vanguard, it seems like apples and grapes to me. Mythology was a religious thing and for these people it was reality, not a fantasy. It`s easy to extol its virtues from contemporary viewpoint, but it`s a bit unfair.
Thinking of it now, seems there was only one game ever that I`d mark as narratively equal to my book/film heroes - Thief: The Dark Project (taking on board all the genre`s limitations of course).
But - "substandard" doesn`t mean "all bad". In fact there`s plenty of examples that are solid enough for me considered "okay". As in a potboiler perhaps, or a Hollywood flick. Sometimes - similarly to above argument about "easy" game systems - I just like some lower-brow entertainment. For example I`m playing 1st Uncharted at the moment, and it`s nothing but an Eighties adventure movie, perhaps sub-Indy with main character being a bit of a w****r, but hell, who cares. The game is beautiful, cover-based shooting surprisingly solid and the plot maybe ridiculous - but hey! did I mention it`s an Eighties adventure movie?
First Mass Effect was pretty good plot wise, kinda sub-Alistair Reynolds, which is good enough for me in a videogame, since it`s a medium in which plot is only one of the elements. And so on...didn`t like the DX:HR mechanics but what I saw of the writing was quite all right, same goes for, dunno, new GTA (one interesting thing is that it`s a masterclass in blending cutscenes/conversations with the gameplay itself, thus validating the "story" much more).
But okay, these are more actioney games...meanwhile in wRPGs, where narratives should be more daring, the tedium rules supreme, yes. We`re trapped in the endless cycle of dwarves in forests and Elvish Mines (or...something) while sword/staff wielders save princesses from dragons. Few games breaks this mold, sadly. jRPGs have their own tropes but they quite often go in wild & wonderful directions - like Mother, Contact, or SMT: Digital Devil Saga.
Ultimately though I`m a strange one - I don`t care much for stories in games, but I still require at least an outline. Even if it`s just one sentence ;) The rest I can fill myself...
-
Pretty much anything. Greek and Norse mythology seem to be the most popular, and they're winners for sure, but you can find cool stuff anywhere. It's all so wildly original while modern fantasy is the same exact thing again and again.
One of the cool things about myths is that people really believed them. They're not stories about a made up fake world. They're about the world we live in, seen in the crazy way the human mind perceives reality. They're based on real things people experienced and believed.
How about this, what is a book on mythology that you would recommend? The last I attempted to read was Bulfinch's Mythology, which was apparently written in the mid 19th century, so maybe that why it seemed a bit dry. Like I said, I am open to learning more about mythology.
Incidentally, another book on mythology that I recently read was Occidental Mythology by joseph Campbell. I liked it more, but I still feel like it was kind of hard to relate to. So, something written in a fairly plain style by someone who shares the enthusiasm of Vanguard would be nice.
Zirael, if you tell me what this D&D based game you are talking about is, I will check it out.
EDIT: BTW, I just wanted to say that I did read your two mousewheel post, Akeley. I am still digesting it, though.
-
Zirael, if you tell me what this D&D based game you are talking about is, I will check it out.
Sure. Check out Veins of the Earth :) (silly me for forgetting to include the name)
-
Back on point, I don`t think grinding mechanisms/systems - deliberate ones as described in my above FF example - should have place in the RL world. But I think small doses and experiments should be allowed, as long as they don`t break the game too. Also, there`s so many RL`s coming out that if one or two tried that, what`s the harm? Variety is the sp ...ugh, I hate this quote. Angband seems to be black sheep disliked for that reason (correct me if I`m wrong, only played it a little bit).
Angband takes a lot of flak for this, mostly from people who don't know how to play it. From a quick look at the mechanics and the numbers (100 non-persistent dungeon levels providing infinite enemies and treasure, 50 character levels, maximising stats requires dozens of stat potions), it looks like grinding is most reliable solution to the game. Look up the things you need in order to be "safe" at level N on the (outdated) newbie guide, and scum level N-1 until you have those things.
That would work fine, except that the longer you spend on a given level, the more likely you are to find an out-of-depth monster you can't handle, get lazy, or get overconfident, and die. Grinding might be an obvious strategy to people who have played other (non-permadeath) games where grinding is effective, but in Angband it's not a great strategy for a human with a finite attention span.
Taking a closer look at the game's mechanics (treasure quality improves very quickly with depth, monster/stair/item detection magic is cheap or free, multiple down stairs spawn per level) suggests an alternative strategy - dive quickly to bypass the shallow, low-reward levels, using detection magic to nullify the high risk that accompanies deeper levels. The resulting high rewards make it faster to find the items required for survival, and killing deep monsters early at a low character level makes levelling a lot faster.
There are no barriers to progress before level 99, and the equipment to overcome Sauron and Morgoth doesn't take long to show up on the bottom floors.
The result is a game with very little connection to its reputation. The development team has been careful when rebalancing to keep both playstyles viable, since there are people who enjoy fully exploring levels. Diving also lends itself to an alternative way of scoring games - turn count.
-
And in some ways I understand that response, and in some ways I don't. I hear what you are saying, but it seems like there is a deep, almost visceral dislike of the kind of ideas that I mentioned in roguelike game players. I feel like if the elements I mentioned are skippable (even ADOM's story based character creation is entirely optional), people still react to them in a way that is very negative. And it seems like if such elements are not mandatory, the response should be neutral or better.
Because nothing is really totally ignorable or skippable, and most roguelikes tend toward rule based designs over story games, so it's annoying to be taken out of the essential game to skip some unnecessary bit of lore or whatever.
Lets look at a specific example: do you think that ADOM has "too much narrative" going on? It does have the type of character creation stories that I mentioned, it has a limited source of in game lore (fortune cookies), and it has very limited dialogue choices. Do you wish those things had not been implemented?
I never got into ADOM enough to have an opinion. I hear ToME is similar.
Basically, if you don't like games with (optional) narrative, that's fine, but I've been hearing that for a while and hearing it again doesn't help me very much. I realize you don't want to add more story elements to roguelikes, but if it had to be there, how would you do it?
If I just really needed to have lore and flavor text integrated into a traditional roguelike design, there could be tablets to find and what not. Something truly ignorable, something easy to see on the ground I could just walk past. I'd be okay with quick quotes during loading screens as well.
You also mention (somewhat dismissively?) how adding more narrative in the ways I have mentioned amounts to just "hiding" text files in the game. I don't find that to be a very constructive criticism, honestly. Would you rather the player have to go online to look up this information?
Actually that sounds like a cool idea. Have the story be written as a story, and the game be written as a rule based game. Very cool. You could link to the story in the start screen.
Incidentally, I haven't read the Silmarillion, but it seems pretty intimidating.
It is.
Also I have to admit that I did not write my previous post with an eye toward helping drum up ideas on how to do this. Even though I don't enjoy this part of gaming I can still see how it has been done well in some instances. I will think on this while I go about my day and see if I can drum up any ideas beyond ignorable flavor tablets laying on the ground, loading quotes and just writing a story and linking it on your game's opening screen.
BTW there's a great character too use for tablets, it's this little pentagon thing. It's a control character, but it is common in ascii sheets.
-
A little tweak to the power diving concept that I think would be interesting is to build some narrative around it. In general outline on lvl X, you gain special knowledge that on lvl X + Y there is a challenge and a reward that may be of interest to you. Perhaps this just provides foreknowledge and direction to your usual power dive, perhaps it requires special action to reach (e.g. with a forking dungeon), perhaps it pushes you out of your depth, either way, you now have a specific goal rather than the more generic "find item from laundry list of requirements". If procedurally generated, you might not be interested in taking on every quest that comes by, but of course the game can just throw enough of them at you such that you'll run across some that are of interest. In the case of an Angband-like, just the information might be all that's needed, such as the location of a particular group of monsters or vault.
-
@Gr3yling
I thought about it while walking, I could see a game with lots of lore embedded bring pretty fun and integrated.
You could have the overall quest be to find all the Tablets of Judea or some such. You find them in various places, kill or get past bosses to get them, etc...Your level builder could place a tablet on a level and then place monsters appropriate for the defense. So a stealth character could work to sneak and steal, a brawler could bust on in and a wizard could use distraction, etc...
The tablets could have the lore written on them if you tap the 'read' command or click read tablet or whatever.
The key for me here is that it is all ignorable not skippable, I don't have to actively 'skip' anything, I actually have to press something to see the lore, not press something to skip the lore.
I really like the above idea, actually.
-
@Gr3yling
I thought about it while walking, I could see a game with lots of lore embedded bring pretty fun and integrated.
You could have the overall quest be to find all the Tablets of Judea or some such. You find them in various places, kill or get past bosses to get them, etc...Your level builder could place a tablet on a level and then place monsters appropriate for the defense. So a stealth character could work to sneak and steal, a brawler could bust on in and a wizard could use distraction, etc...
The tablets could have the lore written on them if you tap the 'read' command or click read tablet or whatever.
The key for me here is that it is all ignorable not skippable, I don't have to actively 'skip' anything, I actually have to press something to see the lore, not press something to skip the lore.
I really like the above idea, actually.
That's a cool idea. Thank you for taking the time to give this line of thinking a chance.
I've actually thought about a roguelike game where the premise was to find and unite pieces of an incomplete religious document that was integral to the way that people saw the world. As they were found, the creator god who was originally seen as being benevolent would seem progressively...Less so.
At any rate, I completely agree with you, this sort of content should genuinely be skip-able. As you pointed out, you should have to go out of your way to get to the "wall of text" so to speak, not have it forced on you.
-
This leads me back to another (admittedly off topic) question that I have about seeding dungeon levels with enemies and items.
There are two basic relationships that I see as potentially existing between these two categories of entities. Enemies and items could be generated independently of each other, so that you might find very powerful items completely unguarded, or you might find very powerful enemies that were not protecting any reward. Or, you could set it up so that whenever an enemy of above average difficulty was spawned, an appropriately rare item was generated. Or vice versa. Which do you think would be better?
I guess the basic question here is this: if the player takes an appropriately large risk, should the existence of a reward be deterministic, or probability based?
By the way, I realize you are advocating the former with your Tablets of Judea system, but I am asking whether you think that sort of system should be applied more generally.
Again, I do appreciate your input.
EDIT: Oh, Zirael, I did look at Veins of the Earth. It's very cool, and I'm going to keep following it. Thanks for showing it to me.
-
Well I could see designs using both being pretty cool. Plenty of great games do not have treasure guards all the time, or any of the time really.
Doing such a thing would be a great way to add wild cards to your design, to keep each play through fresh. So have the base be the 'shuffle' but then throw in the wild cards to keep it fresh.
We were talking in another thread about throwing in 'events' or 'random rare events' in your game, so that every game is actually different not just randomized. The difference between solitaire and, say, dominion or poker. Solitaire is shuffled, randomized, but it's the same experience each time. Dominion and poker change from game to game.
I really like the term 'wild cards' for this concept. Unless there's another term of art...throwing your player curve balls, frequently, is a strength of procedural generation.
-
Gr3yling: I feel you with regards to stories/lore in RLs. There are games like Crawl and Brogue, objectively speaking very good games (and I've spent my fair share of time Crawl-ing), but the lack of story turns me off slightly. On the other hand, I keep coming back to ADOM and immensely enjoy the feeling of an actual world/story going on, even if the prose and plot would be just laughable in any other medium (Khelevaster's monologue epitomizes this). Incidentally, you really should try Caves of Qud. Heavily inspired by ADOM, except the setting is actually quite original, and the prose isn't half bad. For kicks, hack down the zealot in starting village Joppa and read his book of religious doctrines (sells at a decent price, too). TOME also does lore in the form of paper scraps lying about and such, although I never got the same kick out of that as I did from ADOM and CoQ.
Re: reading real world mythology, akeley mentioned it's not really comparable to novels, for instance. While that's a valid point, there were a bunch of works that were written precisely as art, and I'd be hard pressed to mention a literary work that outclasses Ovid's Metamorphoses, for instance. I suspect you'd find Ovid or Homer a bit stale (although they class among my personal favorites, like evvah biatches). Still, you might give Gilgamesh a try – short, sweet, and very ancient – or, for a different beast, and if you enjoy a faerie tale style, The Thousand and One Nights, although that's not mythology per se. Campbell et al., that's all pretty theoretical, right? There are also a ton of books that simply retell the myths. Many are aimed at kids and young adults, but can be quite entertaining, nonetheless.
I'd like to discuss more how to put story in a RL. I'll be brief for now. I think a RL story/setting should ideally have randomized parts. Doing that right has proved damned difficult, even though it *should* not be too hard, in theory ;) Also, I'd like to (see more people) experiment with bundling the story in with actual gameplay. The ecology of a certain animal can be described through a quest/area where you get to see the animal in question eat, nest, and reproduce. NPCs could theoretically be choreographed, for example to fly into fits of rage if certain conditions are met, throwing stuff around and shouting nasty words. Or if the evil overlord employs slave labor in the mines, don't just use that info as a backdrop. Allow for situations like a slave revolt, that the player may influence. That's one part "show, don't tell" and one part unimodality being the order of the day for RLs.
I'll just leave it at that for now. Very interesting discussion, though.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Yeah, some sort of story is something I am also thinking about for my roguelike.
The mechanics have to be ironed out, however, before I attempt something as nerve-wracking as attempting to randomly generate some plot...
-
Well, "A Theory of Fun in Game Design" by Raph Koster is always a worthwhile read
I don't have this book, but I know that the author's site (http://www.raphkoster.com/) has some good stuff.
How about this, what is a book on mythology that you would recommend? The last I attempted to read was Bulfinch's Mythology, which was apparently written in the mid 19th century, so maybe that why it seemed a bit dry.
I have that book, and I thought it was fine. I just skip the parts where they talk about how the myths affected literature. Better Myths (http://bettermyths.com/) is the most not-dry source I know of, but that might be going too far in the other direction.
Minotaur sounds pretty educated on the subject, maybe get some recommendations from him?
-
Minotaur sounds pretty educated on the subject, maybe get some recommendations from him?
Minotaur has some stories to tell, all right. http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=29
-
Early Gunnerkrigg's art looks so weird.
-
Well, AgingMinotaur touched on a lot of topics I find interesting, so this is a long post.
On the other hand, I keep coming back to ADOM and immensely enjoy the feeling of an actual world/story going on, even if the prose and plot would be just laughable in any other medium (Khelevaster's monologue epitomizes this).
I really like ADOM’s plot. For instance, I feel like the whole idea of "corruption" in ADOM is brilliant. Corruption/chaos/entropy is such an interesting and multifaceted entity in that game. It is framed as having some characteristics of an infectious agent or contaminating substance, some characteristics of ionizing radiation, and some characteristics some sort of cosmic force that wants to enslave the world (sort of like the way “sin” is sometimes referred to by Paul in The Book of Romans).
Obviously, the process of becoming corrupted also involves the idea of giving up your humanity in exchange for great power. You can do what amounts to making a pact with the devil to temporarily become very strong through corruptions, but you know they will be the PC’s downfall, because ultimately the only outcome of embracing corruption is to become a writhing mass of primordial chaos.
I think a similar idea was implemented in another game over a decade ago (the name of which I forgot), except in that one both order and chaos were deadly if taken to extremes. Acchieving a state of “pure, crystalline order” as they put it, would ultimately kill the PC. I guess that makes sense, because in a zero entropy state, wouldn’t a person have to be in some sort of crystalline form?
I’d really like to see a game that was built around balancing order and chaos, instead of just avoiding chaos. And I’d also like to see a distinction made between good and evil and order and chaos. A person (or diety) can be very disorganized, or even crazy, and still be kind and just. On the other hand, someone can become obsessed with rigidly following a set or rules or belief system to the point that they become a dangerous zealot who values those rules more than actual morality.
Incidentally, you really should try Caves of Qud. Heavily inspired by ADOM, except the setting is actually quite original, and the prose isn't half bad. For kicks, hack down the zealot in starting village Joppa and read his book of religious doctrines (sells at a decent price, too). TOME also does lore in the form of paper scraps lying about and such, although I never got the same kick out of that as I did from ADOM and CoQ.
I will check it out. Your last post does illustrate a very important point related to in game lore. It sounds like what makes the zealot's book so interesting is that, far from being a mandatory plot element, or even an unobtrusive optional element, it is actually hidden.
In this situation, learning more about the plot is an act of discovery, of uncovering secrets about the world. You wouldn’t just give these sorts of tidbits to the player any more than you would give them a powerful artifact at no cost or risk to them.
I think it would be interesting to have a game where these secrets contradicted the conventional way the game world was perceived by most NPCs and reported to the player. What seemed like the “normal ending” might be revealed to be an absolutely terrible outcome, once the player did a substantial amount of this plot related digging in subsequent play-throughs.
This would be sort of an “everything you think you know is wrong” approach. Essentially, when the player made what appeared to be the right choices, they would naively be helping evil forces that seemed superficially good.
Re: reading real world mythology, akeley mentioned it's not really comparable to novels, for instance. While that's a valid point, there were a bunch of works that were written precisely as art, and I'd be hard pressed to mention a literary work that outclasses Ovid's Metamorphoses, for instance. I suspect you'd find Ovid or Homer a bit stale (although they class among my personal favorites, like evvah biatches). Still, you might give Gilgamesh a try – short, sweet, and very ancient – or, for a different beast, and if you enjoy a faerie tale style, The Thousand and One Nights, although that's not mythology per se. Campbell et al., that's all pretty theoretical, right? There are also a ton of books that simply retell the myths. Many are aimed at kids and young adults, but can be quite entertaining, nonetheless.
I’ve read a decent amount about the Gilgamesh epic in the books that I mentioned. I don’t know, I just couldn’t get into it very much. I can’t help but think that the reason those types of myths are considered great is because so many later stories were inspired by them and built on them, rather than them being great stories themselves.
I think a RL story/setting should ideally have randomized parts. Doing that right has proved damned difficult, even though it *should* not be too hard, in theory ;)
When it comes to a randomized story system, what about just randomizing the certain "intentions" of certain prominent NPC's? NPC's would always have the same alignment, like chaotic or lawful, but whether they were good and honest or evil and dishonest would be the random part (remember, I want to separate how chaotic a character is from how moral they are). The probability might be weighted so that a character was usually “who they were supposed to be” but without it being a certainty.
Since you could never assume an NPC was honest, speech skills that could detect dishonesty would be important. Also, if the PC was desperate, they might rationally decide to take a chance and trust a normally dishonest character. This would make sense, because it is possible that character had been marked and honest that play-through.
The idea of lying to the player in various ways is an interesting one to me in general, actually.
-
Bonus design points if each piece of the 'lore' book you need to find gives a new ability related to what is actually in the lore...
"You've found a piece of the Book of Fabula, chapter 2: Hell's Rising..."
"You've learned the fireball ability."
Also if the boss or guardian of the piece of the book is procedurally generated, but has the power of that chapter would be neat.
"You've encountered Uttel-Bash, a wraith with the ability to summon bats..."
And the piece of book he protects has a story about a great bat-like demon lord, precursor to all modern day vampire bats (which are a monster in the game). Also that piece lets you summon bats, just like the wraith did.
Just some ideas that link lore and mechanics. Lore can add depth to a world, helping you imagine what you are doing, but it can also integrate with the mechanics I think.
Spit balling really. Maybe I should play more Adom.
-
Very nice, Jo.
See, I told you guys, story in roguelikes does have potential.
EDIT: And a wise man might be able to tell you where that dragon that was terrorizing the town had a missing scale, making him vulnerable to weapons that otherwise would not hurt him.
Information should be powerful.
-
Linking lore and mechanics and info sound like great ideas!
-
I’ve read a decent amount about the Gilgamesh epic in the books that I mentioned. I don’t know, I just couldn’t get into it very much. I can’t help but think that the reason those types of myths are considered great is because so many later stories were inspired by them and built on them, rather than them being great stories themselves.
Nah, that isn't it.
While I won't say that every single myth is a masterpiece, among them are some of the best stories ever written, and nothing can compete with them for imagination.
Just because they're good doesn't mean you have to like them. Everyone has bad media they like and good media they don't like.
-
I think a RL story/setting should ideally have randomized parts. Doing that right has proved damned difficult, even though it *should* not be too hard, in theory ;) Also, I'd like to (see more people) experiment with bundling the story in with actual gameplay.
This should be the Golden Rule for stories in RLs (also love the examples that followed). It`s basically why I play roguelikes; for things that I miss in mainstream games. There, the idea of lore communicated through assorted logs/books/scrolls have been used since forever, and yet it`s seldom meaningfully utilised. Sure, some classics like System Shock/Deus Ex use it to great effect, building atmosphere but also tying some gameplay in - important info or codes/passwords. And yet, especially recently, this mechanic has become an empty filler, where there are tons of lengthy tomes to be read, unfortunately they are totally irrelevant to the gameplay - if you skip these, you won`t miss a thing. I suppose lots of people do enjoy them if they really like the game...but as we said earlier, writing in games is usually lacking, therefore I have a very little interest in such devices. But if there was some meaningful interaction on offer, then it`s a different story (pun not intended).
I`m also a big fan of Subdued Storytelling(TM) in games, a thing probably rooted in my 8 bit origins. Quite often a few lines of text was all you had to go on back then (also a great reward in certain situations). But it worked beautifully - since imagination was taking over, a sentence or two could set the mood or hint at things, and the rest was filled by yourself. It`s sort of like film narratives work, due to time constraints. My favourite these days is "You hear a shout!" in Crawl - few words, yet loaded with meaning and possibilities. Who`s shouting? At who? What are they saying? (well, that` one`s easy ;) Boy, am I in trouble now... This is a kind of thing I`d prefer to see in RLs - superb mechanics, with plots hinted at, but mostly augmented by players imagination. It just fits the overall medium somehow better (for me).
Re: mythologies - I agree with Vanguard, these sure are some of the best stories ever (maybe not "the" best though, there still are contemporary fantasy writers worth their salt). Perhaps the problem arises when trying to approach the original texts - admittedly, I was obsessed with Greek myths as a kid, but never really read Homer et al - just "novelisations" by contemporary authors, which were much more palatable (though by no means crippled). Thinking of it now, perhaps it`s time to have a stab at the sources...
Also, 1001 Nights is a marvel - perhaps even my favourite in the myth world. Djinns, robotic creatures, Sindbad, haunted cities and so on and on - a real treasure trove. All soaked in heavy MidEastern vibes from a civilization rather different from ours. They`re also totally ruthless and cruel, ain`t no fairytales for sure - the Western versions have been often toned down, so it`s important to find a good translation.
Two recommendations: Gene Wolfe`s "Soldier of the Mist" - story of an amnesiac Roman soldier who travels half-real, half-mythological Greece during the Persian Wars. Words fail me to describe its genius - it`s a multi-layered writing of a highest order, that works both as an excellent adventure but also so much more.
And also "Anamnesis, of Renascents and Monsters", the game from our Announcements thread: http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=2805.0 (http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=2805.0) Just tried it yesterday and it`s very exciting, a strange beast to describe (a text based strategy with RL elements sounds rather silly) - but definitely worth having a look when discussing randomized storylines.
-
I`m also a big fan of Subdued Storytelling(TM) in games, a thing probably rooted in my 8 bit origins. Quite often a few lines of text was all you had to go on back then (also a great reward in certain situations). But it worked beautifully - since imagination was taking over, a sentence or two could set the mood or hint at things, and the rest was filled by yourself. It`s sort of like film narratives work, due to time constraints. My favourite these days is "You hear a shout!" in Crawl - few words, yet loaded with meaning and possibilities. Who`s shouting? At who? What are they saying? (well, that` one`s easy ;) Boy, am I in trouble now... This is a kind of thing I`d prefer to see in RLs - superb mechanics, with plots hinted at, but mostly augmented by players imagination. It just fits the overall medium somehow better (for me).
EDIT: There was supposed to actually be text here. I really love the subdued storytelling idea also. it's one of the reasons that I enjoy ADOM so much. Thomas Biskup can say a lot with a few words.
Two recommendations: Gene Wolfe`s "Soldier of the Mist" - story of an amnesiac Roman soldier who travels half-real, half-mythological Greece during the Persian Wars. Words fail me to describe its genius - it`s a multi-layered writing of a highest order, that works both as an excellent adventure but also so much more.
Okay, I will try to check the books you mentioned out. The next thing I'm going to read is the book that zasvid recommended on game design, but I will look into what you mentioned after that.
And also "Anamnesis, of Renascents and Monsters", the game from our Announcements thread: http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=2805.0 (http://forums.roguetemple.com/index.php?topic=2805.0) Just tried it yesterday and it`s very exciting, a strange beast to describe (a text based strategy with RL elements sounds rather silly) - but definitely worth having a look when discussing randomized storylines.
[/quote]
I'll look into this one too.
-
This should be the Golden Rule for stories in RLs (also love the examples that followed). It`s basically why I play roguelikes; for things that I miss in mainstream games. There, the idea of lore communicated through assorted logs/books/scrolls have been used since forever, and yet it`s seldom meaningfully utilised. Sure, some classics like System Shock/Deus Ex use it to great effect, building atmosphere but also tying some gameplay in - important info or codes/passwords.
I've played Deus Ex lots of times and I agree that the logs idea is done beautifully. You might want to add Baldur's Gate to the list, too - at least the first part of the saga had some of the lore communicated via books/letters.
-
When it comes to a randomized story system, what about just randomizing the certain "intentions" of certain prominent NPC's? NPC's would always have the same alignment, like chaotic or lawful, but whether they were good and honest or evil and dishonest would be the random part (remember, I want to separate how chaotic a character is from how moral they are). The probability might be weighted so that a character was usually “who they were supposed to be” but without it being a certainty.
Since you could never assume an NPC was honest, speech skills that could detect dishonesty would be important. Also, if the PC was desperate, they might rationally decide to take a chance and trust a normally dishonest character. This would make sense, because it is possible that character had been marked and honest that play-through.
The idea of lying to the player in various ways is an interesting one to me in general, actually.
I've always loved the idea of games that lie to the player, and I think your idea of a Roguelike where the characters are somewhat fixed but their intentions vary is awesome.
If you designed the game around it, you could almost end up with a sort of whodunnit-esque scenario. It would be like a Roguelike mixed with Clue. You never know who the villain's gonna be each time you play it.
I think the main problem with this is how you stop permadeath from ruining the fun (assuming you've got permadeath). You're not invested in the plot of your character, you're invested in the gameplay of your character, so when you die and your character's gameplay dies with it you're okay. But imagine if you've spent hours unravelling the mystery of who the true villain behind the story is, and then, when you know you're getting close to uncovering it, you mess up in combat and get killed? That would be frustrating, because a gameplay mistake made you lose your story progress too.
Of course, this is a much bigger deal if the whodunnit mystery is a deep plot you get involved in, and not just a giant puzzle in disguise as a story, and having an intriguing procedural plot is incredibly ambitious, but even if it's just a puzzle in disguise, losing your progress on solving a puzzle because of a mistake not related to the puzzle would be frustrating. It would make sense to lose your progress if you messed up and killed someone who's not actually the villain, but it would suck to lose your progress on something unrelated to combat if you die in combat.
Another possibility is you could make it a normal Roguelike most of the time, and have plot twists be a rare sort of Easter-egg-ish element. Most of the time, you've got a generic preface where the king tells you to kill the evil wizard, and you delve into the dungeon to kill him. Maybe you get info throughout the dungeon about his evilness - scraps of paper describing his evil deeds, or he shows up for some mustache twirling, or whatever. But maybe one time, instead, you find scraps of paper hinting that the wizard's just a scapegoat for all the horrible things the king has done with his tyrant-like rule. The Wizard shows up and urges you to join him, but it's not the usual villain mustache twirling trying to turn you to his evil agenda. He really means it when he tells you the king's horrible and he wants your help. And you can accept, and then you turn around, leave the dungeon, and go kill the king instead.
This could still run into issues that would have to be addressed. One issue is, how rare do you make the event? If it's too common, then it loses it's specialness. If it's too rare, not enough people get to experience it. It also has issues with permadeath. What if, after dozens of regular playthroughs, you finally get the plot twist playthrough, and then you die? You just missed your rare chance to experience the special version because you happened to have a bad game that time. That would suck.
So I think one of the questions that arises is, how do you combine procedural plot generation with permadeath? It's one thing to lose your character from a gameplay standpoint, it's another thing to never get a narrative resolved. You can try softening the permadeath so that you can lose a character without losing the narrative, but then you also lose a certain amount of the point of a procedural plot in the first place - that you can keep creating different characters and get a different plot every time.
-
If you designed the game around it, you could almost end up with a sort of whodunnit-esque scenario. It would be like a Roguelike mixed with Clue. You never know who the villain's gonna be each time you play it.
That's a fun idea.
I think you're worrying too much about permadeath interfering with the narrative. The story will either be mostly static, in which case you can see the ending in a later playthrough and infer how it would have gone, or else it will be mostly generated, meaning it will almost certainly not be very compelling.
-
I've always loved the idea of games that lie to the player, and I think your idea of a Roguelike where the characters are somewhat fixed but their intentions vary is awesome.
Thank you.
Of course, this is a much bigger deal if the whodunnit mystery is a deep plot you get involved in, and not just a giant puzzle in disguise as a story, and having an intriguing procedural plot is incredibly ambitious, but even if it's just a puzzle in disguise, losing your progress on solving a puzzle because of a mistake not related to the puzzle would be frustrating. It would make sense to lose your progress if you messed up and killed someone who's not actually the villain, but it would suck to lose your progress on something unrelated to combat if you die in combat.
Honestly, I think it would be a good problem to have if the player was so invested in the procedurally generated story they regretted it ending prematurely. But, it's true, those are things that need to be addressed.
One idea is to have a world that persists between PC's until you decide to "reboot" it, sort of like DDA. So you could still have a new story every time if you wanted to, but you could also have one that varied if you didn't like the one you got.
Here's something else related to what we are talking about. It’s the opposite of my previous idea in a lot of ways, but I like it too. In ADOM, there is one situation where the PC's decisions actually determine what reality is generated, and it's quite fascinating. I'm talking about the first quest in the game.
As you may know, for that quest, you can either help rescue the village carpenter, or put an evil druid out of commission. The catch is, the dungeon for both quests is generated in the same location. And if you take one quest, the other will never have existed. If you choose to help the carpenter, there never was a druid or his dungeon. If you choose to help the druid, there never was a carpenter or his dungeon. It's really a shame that there is only this one example of such a mechanic in the game, because it's really interesting.
So, the point is, the player could participate in actually writing the story, in deciding who was good and who was evil. For instance, say in ADOM, when the PC meets Hotzenplotz, the crime lord, for the first time, Hotzenplotzs might ask this of the PC: “Do you believe I am who they say I am?
If the player answers “no” Hotzenplotz will be generated as good ("you are wise to believe the world is not as simple as those fools would have you believe"), and the sheriff as evil. A similar exchange could occur with the sheriff, where he asks something like: “You’re not one of those who believes that all power corrupts, are you?” If you answer yes, the sheriff is evil, and Hotzenplotz is good.
After you answered one of them this way, the morality of both would be decided, and the other would not ask you their version of the question.
Helping a good Hotzenplotz would be a good, chaotic act. Helping an evil one would be an evil, chaotic act. Helping a good sheriff would be a good, lawful act. Helping an evil one would be an evil, lawful act.
In this way you would always have a quest that gave you the opportunity to tailor your character as you wished.
-
Of course, this is a much bigger deal if the whodunnit mystery is a deep plot you get involved in, and not just a giant puzzle in disguise as a story, and having an intriguing procedural plot is incredibly ambitious, but even if it's just a puzzle in disguise, losing your progress on solving a puzzle because of a mistake not related to the puzzle would be frustrating. It would make sense to lose your progress if you messed up and killed someone who's not actually the villain, but it would suck to lose your progress on something unrelated to combat if you die in combat.
Honestly, I think it would be a good problem to have if the player was so invested in the procedurally generated story they regretted it ending prematurely. But, it's true, those are things that need to be addressed.
One idea is to have a world that persists between PC's until you decide to "reboot" it, sort of like DDA. So you could still have a new story every time if you wanted to, but you could also have one that varied if you didn't like the one you got.
Based on how flexible your system is, you could also try to work with a world that's consistent between characters, but where the story evolves over a certain number of games, so you do get to see how the plot finally unfolds, even if your heroes are invariably killed by rats. The success of a certain character would be measured in how much impact he/she has on the game world. Between each character, the procedural world/plot would advance a certain number of steps. So if one character is taking part in plots surrounding the crown prince, your next character might enter a world where the prince has already been coronated, or conversely one where some other faction has managed to assassinate or exile him.
Here's something else related to what we are talking about. It’s the opposite of my previous idea in a lot of ways, but I like it too. In ADOM, there is one situation where the PC's decisions actually determine what reality is generated, and it's quite fascinating.
[...]
So, the point is, the player could participate in actually writing the story, in deciding who was good and who was evil.
That's a pretty neat idea, to include many junctures in the world, where the player gets to choose between two or more options for how the game world should look. Just to make a note of it, that would probably fit best with a world that's more or less fixed – on the one hand, because it would be a monstrous task to implement this AND a world with lots of random content, but more importantly because such a system relies on the player learning (over the course of many playthroughs) the consequences of the different choices. Still, that wouldn't be so much of a problem, since the player's own choices would constitute a system of procedural world generation in themselves. If you have a dozen junctures with two options, that already leaves us with 4096 different worlds. Ideally, the different "nodes" should have the potential to affect each other. Say, if you've one NPC that's been generated good and has become your ally, that NPC could show up to offer help when at a later stage you're confronted with an enemy who is generated evil. Similarly, if the player has two neighboring cities generated with opposite alignments, there could erupt an armed conflict between them, whilst coaligned settlements might effectuate trade and other forms of cooperation.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Based on how flexible your system is, you could also try to work with a world that's consistent between characters, but where the story evolves over a certain number of games, so you do get to see how the plot finally unfolds, even if your heroes are invariably killed by rats. The success of a certain character would be measured in how much impact he/she has on the game world. Between each character, the procedural world/plot would advance a certain number of steps. So if one character is taking part in plots surrounding the crown prince, your next character might enter a world where the prince has already been coronated, or conversely one where some other faction has managed to assassinate or exile him.
I like this idea. Persistent world, new characters. You'd have to figure out how to get the right balance between the freshness of creating a new character and starting from scratch in most roguelikes so that things still feel "new" with new characters, but it's still a cool idea. In a way, player Ghosts in DCSS are like a tiny version of this idea - they give the sense that you're exploring the same dungeon all your failed characters died in - but it would be interesting to make something that worked like this on a much larger scale.
Isn't this a little bit of the idea of Rogue Legacy? I haven't played it, but I know the concept is that every character is supposed to be the descendant of the last character.
Here's something else related to what we are talking about. It’s the opposite of my previous idea in a lot of ways, but I like it too. In ADOM, there is one situation where the PC's decisions actually determine what reality is generated, and it's quite fascinating.
[...]
So, the point is, the player could participate in actually writing the story, in deciding who was good and who was evil.
That's a neat idea. Lots of RPGs let you influence the plot with the decisions you make, but it's always your actions changing the course of events. I don't think I've ever seen games where your actions affect reality itself. I like the idea of the game figuring out what you're expectations are and then deliberately conforming to or denying them.
-
Still, that wouldn't be so much of a problem, since the player's own choices would constitute a system of procedural world generation in themselves. If you have a dozen junctures with two options, that already leaves us with 4096 different worlds. Ideally, the different "nodes" should have the potential to affect each other. Say, if you've one NPC that's been generated good and has become your ally, that NPC could show up to offer help when at a later stage you're confronted with an enemy who is generated evil. Similarly, if the player has two neighboring cities generated with opposite alignments, there could erupt an armed conflict between them, whilst coaligned settlements might effectuate trade and other forms of cooperation.
So, why are non-static plots considered to be such a bear to implement? Why don't we see more (any?) games with this sort of nodal plot structure? Why does the overworld have the exact same locations every time you play ADOM?
-
Because you need huge abstractions in the game engine for something like that, and extremely good NPC AI, too. You can find some clues on how to do it in the interviews with Tarn Adams. It's just difficult stuff. And only a handful of players would appreciate it. Most are ok with brownian motion AI like in Adom :).
-
And only a handful of players would appreciate it. Most are ok with brownian motion AI like in Adom :).
This is quite interesting notion, and goes along with my old theory that we, as gamers, are often responsible for stagnation in videogaming genres/trends because of acceptance of some standards that are "okay".
-
This is quite interesting notion, and goes along with my old theory that we, as gamers, are often responsible for stagnation in videogaming genres/trends because of acceptance of some standards that are "okay".
It's really strange that gamers are hostile to the idea of games becoming better than they currently are. For some reason it's "entitled" to prefer great things over good things.
-
This is quite interesting notion, and goes along with my old theory that we, as gamers, are often responsible for stagnation in videogaming genres/trends because of acceptance of some standards that are "okay".
It's really strange that gamers are hostile to the idea of games becoming better than they currently are. For some reason it's "entitled" to prefer great things over good things.
Is it really that strange? There are a lot of people who value traditional way of doing things over change, even if that change is for the better. It's not just limited to game design.
-
Because you need huge abstractions in the game engine for something like that, and extremely good NPC AI, too. You can find some clues on how to do it in the interviews with Tarn Adams. It's just difficult stuff. And only a handful of players would appreciate it. Most are ok with brownian motion AI like in Adom :).
I think I gave you the wrong impression before. I was just talking more about randomizing locations than randomizing the plot. Take ADOM, for example I was just saying that sometimes there could be a "goblin village" instead of the dwarf town. Would that be really hard to implement?
I guess what I'm really thinking of is a randomly generated overworld like in DDA. Why don't more games that have overworlds use that approach?
-
It's a good question. There are many aspects of the old formulas that could be fiddled with.
Surely there are procedural overworlds though, right? I can't think of any actually. Which is odd. There might be a design reason, I'm not sure it's just that we are slaves to conformity. Players do not direct this genre as much as other genres, developers are more free to be experimental here.
It's one of the reasons I like to design roguelikes, even though I don't play them as much anymore.
-
This is quite interesting notion, and goes along with my old theory that we, as gamers, are often responsible for stagnation in videogaming genres/trends because of acceptance of some standards that are "okay".
Many gamers expect every game to play the same as the previous one. This causes them to have certain habits and expectations. It's interesting to watch such a person play your roguelike. You can both learn a lot :)
I guess what I'm really thinking of is a randomly generated overworld like in DDA. Why don't more games that have overworlds use that approach?
I don't know, in my case I found it easier to write a generator than to fill the world manually. In the case of ADOM there are some additional constraints because of the extended plot. There it's important that certain locations are blocked off by the mountains, etc. That makes it harder to procedurally generate.
-
It's really strange that gamers are hostile to the idea of games becoming better than they currently are. For some reason it's "entitled" to prefer great things over good things.
"Entitlement" has become one of these internet sabres that people love to rattle at a wildly broad spectrum of topics (other is the infamous "strawman", but this at least sometimes does make sense). It makes me cringe, any time I encounter it.
Perhaps it`s the age thing, dunno. Roguelike world aside, I happened to start in the 8 bit era and see simple concepts evolve into mindboggling possibilities later on. During the late Eigthies and onto the late Nineties we had the likes of Microprose, Looking Glass Studios, Shiny, DMA Design and others rewritting the rules, inventing, experimenting and innovating with every other release. They were only limited by hardware, and so I thought, boy they`re gonna really go for the jugular with the next gen. Only, it all fizzled out, mainly due to biz suits taking over and stifling any creativity and risk taking, but also, yes, the gamers complacency and meek acceptance. And maybe the "new audiences" joining in, kids who don`t care much for what games could be as long as they have enough bubblegum and (eye)candy.
Anyway :/
I think Alphaman has a procedural overworld. It actually has a quest structure to, but it works differently than in ADOM (you get quests from the tape devices randomly scattered around), so maybe that`s why it can have randomized world map. I suppose it would be bit weird if Terinyo in ADOM or Joppa in Qud were in different places every time you played. They`re kinda anchored in the games` reality. I think it`s a trade-off of sorts - then you can have randomized dungeons and zoomed in bits of wilderness to keep it RL.
-
I think I gave you the wrong impression before. I was just talking more about randomizing locations than randomizing the plot. Take ADOM, for example I was just saying that sometimes there could be a "goblin village" instead of the dwarf town. Would that be really hard to implement?
It really would be. Even if there was just one alternate version of each location, that means the developer is making twice as much content. That means doing more than twice as much work, because they need to both produce that extra content and ensure that every possible combination fits together.
It's a cool idea and I'd love to see someone take a shot at it, but making a one set of content to fill a game is already hard enough.
I guess what I'm really thinking of is a randomly generated overworld like in DDA. Why don't more games that have overworlds use that approach?
The Dwarf Fortress/Cataclysm method of world generation is nice, but it imposes limitations on what you can do. A lot of ADOM's appeal comes from its static elements. Saving Khelevaster, finding the Trident of the Red Rooster, the carpenter/druid quests you mentioned earlier, the cat lord, the banshee, and a ton of other things wouldn't work as well or at all in a Cataclysm-like world. Randomized procedural content isn't better than static content, it's just a different tool that gets different results.
Oh, and that reminds me, you should check out Ragnarok (http://www.roguetemple.com/reviews/ragnarok/) if you haven't yet. It takes place in a partially static, partially randomized world full of side quests and hidden content. It has an ADOM-like feel and I think you'd like it. You'll need DOSBox to get it running.
Anyway :/
Good post.
-
Perhaps it`s the age thing, dunno. Roguelike world aside, I happened to start in the 8 bit era and see simple concepts evolve into mindboggling possibilities later on.
What are the mind boggling possibilities you are thinking about here, Akeley? Are you saying that evolution did actually happen? Because in the next part of your post it seems like you are saying it was about to, but never did, due to the desire of game companies to play it safe.
During the late Eigthies and onto the late Nineties we had the likes of Microprose, Looking Glass Studios, Shiny, DMA Design and others rewritting the rules, inventing, experimenting and innovating with every other release. They were only limited by hardware, and so I thought, boy they`re gonna really go for the jugular with the next gen. Only, it all fizzled out, mainly due to biz suits taking over and stifling any creativity and risk taking,
I think it’s hard to say whether the creativity of video games is in decline, as a result of biz suits or otherwise. For one thing, the video games, as a medium, are extremely diverse. There are definitely some contemporary games that lack creativity, (just like there always have been and always will be), but I definitely think there are also a lot of contemporary games that are very creative.
Even if there is less creativity now than 10 years ago, I think that would be understandable in a lot of ways. It is much easier to come up with creative ideas early in the life of a medium than after that medium has been worked with for an extended period of time. If nothing else, the more ideas have already been implemented, the harder it is to come up with one that has never been used before.
I also think that business suits taking over game development companies may be hard to avoid, because making games with up to date graphics on next generation systems is necessarily an extremely expensive business venture. How much money and personnel do you think it took to for microprose to develop and publish the first X-COM versus the most recent X-COM games?
It's easy to say that developers should "be more creative" and make something other than the next COD, but there is real risk involved for these companies. And if a company fails to deliver a popular product, the consequences may not just be that the game is panned, but that they will have to close their doors. So an enormous amount of money and even people's jobs are on the line.
Therefore, it’s not hard to understand why developers consistently make “safe” games, and if I was in charge of a game development company and had to deal with the enormous responsibilities that entails, I would probably do the same thing. And so would most other people.
As far as the whole entitlement thing, I don’t think that wanting better, more creative games is a form of entitlement in itself. I think entitlement is when people demand those things but disregard the very real limitations placed on people who make games. As always, we should try to come up with ways to overcome the limitations of this medium, not ignore them.
And I’m certainly not calling anyone here entitled, let me be clear about that.
but also, yes, the gamers complacency and meek acceptance. And maybe the "new audiences" joining in, kids who don`t care much for what games could be as long as they have enough bubblegum and (eye)candy.
I don’t understand what you mean by “meek acceptance”. Are you saying you think people buy large numbers of mainstream games even though they don’t really think they are fun? Or that they should buy “creative” games whether they are enjoyable or not to encourage creativity?
I think Alphaman has a procedural overworld. It actually has a quest structure to, but it works differently than in ADOM (you get quests from the tape devices randomly scattered around), so maybe that`s why it can have randomized world map. I suppose it would be bit weird if Terinyo in ADOM or Joppa in Qud were in different places every time you played. They`re kinda anchored in the games` reality. I think it`s a trade-off of sorts - then you can have randomized dungeons and zoomed in bits of wilderness to keep it RL.
Well, that isn’t quite what I was thinking of. Terinyo would be the same every playthough, and rather than a completely randomly generated overworld, there would be “sockets” on the world map with constant coordinates where one of several possible locations might be generated every playthrough.
Vanguard, what makes generating towns so difficult? It doesn’t seem like it would take long to lay out buildings and place vanilla townsfolk. You would also have to write some unique dialog for important NPC’s, and implement quests. What else am I leaving out?
And what you said brings up another interesting question, Vanguard. Is it better to have a game the length of ADOM with static locations, or a shorter game with more variety? Basically, I am talking about a game with the same number of locations as ADOM, but more sockets than locations (perhaps two times as many) so that there would be a significant difference in the locations you saw each play though.
I would almost tend to say I would take the shorter game. ADOM is plenty long enough for me as it is.
-
I also think that business suits taking over game development companies may be hard to avoid, because making games with up to date graphics on next generation systems is necessarily an extremely expensive business venture. How much money and personnel do you think it took to for microprose to develop and publish the first X-COM versus the most recent X-COM games?
If you think about it, this is really stupid. Better technology is putting more limitations on what we can do? Everything developers did in the 90s could be done today, more easily and at a lower cost. They just don't, because modern technology has become a shackle. I think a big reason for why roguelikes are still diverse and interesting is that RL developers don't feel bound by that particular limitation.
Why is it that modern graphics are mandatory and interesting mechanics are optional?
Vanguard, what makes generating towns so difficult? It doesn’t seem like it would take long to lay out buildings and place vanilla townsfolk. You would also have to write some unique dialog for important NPC’s, and implement quests. What else am I leaving out?
That wouldn't be a huge amount of extra work, but what's the point? The town would only change superficially. Everything important would be the same. That version of ADOM doesn't sound any better than the one we have now.
As for your other question, I wouldn't go so far as to say one approach is better than the other, but I prefer shorter, more dense games.
-
If you think about it, this is really stupid.
OH NO, IF ONLY I HAD THOUGHT!!!
I keep meaning to start doing that, one of these days. Oh well, I guess it’s too late now, I’ll just continue stumbling down this path of ignorance.
Better technology is putting more limitations on what we can do? Everything developers did in the 90s could be done today, more easily and at a lower cost.
Don’t people still make games that closely resemble those in the time period you are nostalgic for? Indie games, I mean?
I don’t understand, do you want people to stop making the kind of games that you don’t like in addition to making kind you do? As long as great indie games are being made, who cares if major game companies are making more mainstream ones? Isn’t it like, okay, that different types of games which cater to the tastes of different people are made?
They just don't, because modern technology has become a shackle. I think a big reason for why roguelikes are still diverse and interesting is that RL developers don't feel bound by that particular limitation.
Here you complain technology is a shackle, but, again, as you mention in the very next sentence, great roguelikes are being developed all the time. Technology doesn’t seem to be a shackle to them, I mean.
Why is it that modern graphics are mandatory and interesting mechanics are optional?
Well, if we are talking about games made by small groups of individuals on low budgets, cutting edge graphics aren’t mandatory and interesting mechanics certainly are.
If we are talking here about games produced by huge companies like Square Enix, graphics are important for all the reasons I previously mentioned. Video games are a business. Businesses exist to make money. Video games that used graphics from the 90’s would, for the most part, not sell, and the companies that made them would fold.
I realize there are some very popular games with a minimal reliance on graphics (like candy crush), but a 16 bit Call of Duty probably would not sell as well as whatever other next gen version they just released. For instance, I know that there have been some retro final fantasy titles released, like Final Fantasy Dimensions, but I seriously doubt that the income they have brought in is anywhere close to, say, FFXIII (I could be wrong, I'm too lazy to check, but you're welcome to if you'd like).
Also, just because games are pretty doesn’t mean they can’t be innovative, interesting, and have solid mechanics.
Just to be clear, you may really live the design philosophy that you are espousing. I’m not saying that you don’t. I completely believe you if you say that you are dedicated to making games whose merit is not based on flashy graphics.
But it’s easy for you, as an individual on the sidelines, who doesn't run a major game development company, to say that games should focus more on innovation. It is much harder for a large preexisting company to implement that strategy.
How about this: you’ve just been named the CEO of Square Enix. How would you implement your plans to make profitable games using technology from the mid 90’s?
That wouldn't be a huge amount of extra work, but what's the point? The town would only change superficially. Everything important would be the same.
Well, couldn’t you make the same argument about random dungeon levels? The same dungeon isn’t going to be profoundly different between play throughs, but some novelty does make the gameplay experience more pleasurable. Often “superficial changes” are all that is needed to make a game seem new and fun.
In fact, there are many, many games, as well as elements within the same games, that are just minor variations on each other. But we find them to be a lot of fun regardless.
-
I don’t understand, do you want people to stop making the kind of games that you don’t like in addition to making kind you do? As long as great indie games are being made, who cares if major game companies are making more mainstream ones? Isn’t it like, okay, that different types of games which cater to the tastes of different people are made?
I want people to make good games. Most developers make of bad games and then disguise how bad they are with good graphics and a low difficulty. Video games are defined by their interactivity, but modern games are less interactive than they were ten to twenty years ago. They're more linear and have less depth. That shouldn't be the case. It isn't even about my personal preferences. If the market were dominated by high quality games that don't happen to appeal to me personally, I'd probably make peace with it. Instead what we're getting are a bunch of sub-Hollywood movies combined with generic FPS combat. I just want gamers to apply critical thinking to the media they consume, and ask for something better when they realize how insipid games have become.
This isn't nostalgia talking. A lot of my favorite games are older titles that I've only discovered recently. I played X-Com for the first time about two years ago. I briefly played Doom as a kid, but I've only gained an appreciation for it in the past year. The first time I DoDonPachi was 9 months ago. I consider all of these to be among the best games ever made.
Here you complain technology is a shackle, but, again, as you mention in the very next sentence, great roguelikes are being developed all the time. Technology doesn’t seem to be a shackle to them, I mean.
This is exactly my point. Technology is only a shackle if you allow it to become one. It isn't an unavoidable reality of modern game design. It's just something that happened because because audiences are more easily impressed by spectacle than substance, and because game development studios are run by risk-averse businessmen instead of passionate aficionados.
How about this: you’ve just been named the CEO of Square Enix. How would you implement your plans to make profitable games using technology from the mid 90’s?
I wouldn't use technology from the 90s. I'd use modern technology to make graphics that are beneath the standards of my competitors but still well ahead of what we were able to achieve last generation, at a lower cost than what last generation's graphics cost. I'd direct the company's focus towards medium budget titles with realistic sales expectations.
I hear that the recent Deus Ex and Tomb Raider titles were considered disappointments despite selling millions of copies each. That business model is suicide. Square Enix is not going to sell as much as Call of Duty and shouldn't expect to.
Well, couldn’t you make the same argument about random dungeon levels? The same dungeon isn’t going to be profoundly different between play throughs, but some novelty does make the gameplay experience more pleasurable. Often “superficial changes” are all that is needed to make a game seem new and fun.
No. If your random dungeon generator creates only superficially distinct environments, you have failed. Putting the player in unique situations in every playthrough is absolutely vital for making the roguelike formula work. I can go into why that is if you want, but this post is already long enough.
-
game development studios are run by risk-averse businessmen instead of passionate aficionados.
So what's stopping all these aficionados from running their own studios and releasing big titles with interesting mechanics?
-
Money?
Some probably do. It doesn't guarantee a good game or anything, but it certainly helps.
-
What are the mind boggling possibilities you are thinking about here, Akeley? Are you saying that evolution did actually happen? Because in the next part of your post it seems like you are saying it was about to, but never did, due to the desire of game companies to play it safe.
No, it doesn`t work like that - evolution is a continuous process and I didn`t mean that "it didn`t happen". It fizzled out, slowed down, stopped even - in the Noughties. You mention XCom - let`s take this as an example. It started in the early Eighties with Mr Gollop releasing Rebelstar on ZX Spectrum - groundbreaking tactical marvel, but one-map only. Later on it advanced to a sequel and then Laser Squad was released - true work of genius, with the same idea, only now we had 5 missions, destructible environs and level of detail that let you plant a timed grenade in a piece of furniture. And 6 years after this, he went for the - literal - word domination with XCom. Title that does not need introductions.
And then? There was follow up in the works, called The Dreamland Chronicles. Imagine UFO in full 3D, with Havok-fueled physics and environ destruction. Only that it was 2001, TB strategy was on the wane, corporate shenanigans ensued and the game ended up in my dreamland.
This is just one example, there are countless others.
How much money and personnel do you think it took to for microprose to develop and publish the first X-COM versus the most recent X-COM games?
Sorry mate, this is where I have to be a bit brutal and say that this - and subsequent "businesses exist to make money" - kinda quotes are exactly what terrifies me regarding modern gamers` perception of the whole situation. This is when PR people pop the champagne corks and rack another one on the mirror - they don`t even need to do their stuff anymore, gamers do it for them.
Every now and then we hear about how hard done by these big corps are and oh-how-much everything costs. Funny that nobody remembers about it when GTA racks in a cool billion on the opening day. Long story short - sure, AAA games cost more money but they also bring in incredible profits. And it`s not only the biggest hits - Vanguard mentions the TR/Deus Ex report from Square, I read that some time ago and instantly the phrase "Hollywood accounting" flashed in my mind`s eye. There`s no way I`ll lever believe that games which sold several mil copies each didn`t make profit. And if they really didn`t - which ain`t true, but okay, let`s assume so for the moment - then your biz model is s**t and you should go back to the drawing board and maybe stop spending most of the moolah on PR (dat mirror) and dividends.
Stories of this kind are ten-a-penny, only not widely reported. Read about Kingdoms Of Almaur snafu for example.
And the other angle regarding this "so expensive!" line of defence is the fact that game development evolved too, surprise surprise. It`s no longer whiz kids of Carmack`s caliber, who are single handedly conjuring some coding marvels that take years to R&D. This is the middleware era - you just go and buy stuff, be it a whole engine or some assorted bits and pieces. Sure it costs money - but what doesn`t?
Add to this more obvious stuff - that it`s easier to make a sequel because you sort of know what`s up, plus halleluiah! - you can reuse all these old assets (newest COD just got caught red-handed) and I really don`t have much sympathy for those poor billionaires. And the best thing is we didn`t even touch on the real evil - selling digi games at the same price as boxed ones (after countless years of explaining how those bad brick/mortar shops are responsible for pricey games), milking franchises dead through extensive DLC and the newest kid on the block - microtransactions (shudder).
Sure, there`s a risk involved. As in any walk of life. And it was the same back in the day - there were big budgets, projects that flopped and went down in flames or went totally over budget and nearly destroyed the parent companies (read about Strike Commander story, quite fascinating). So? It`s business, right? And oh, the poor dev`s families that will go starving are always wheeled out on this occasion - but somehow in our day and age, wher whole countries get toppled thanks to some elites manipulating, I also have little time for this trope (maybe because they`ll most likely find a job elsewhere).
i could go on on other subjects - how alleged "indie revolution" also leaves me a bit cold (maybe when it matures in a few years, not at the moment, sorry) and ha nothing to do with the nostalgia - totally to the contrary. "Nostalgia" is another of these dreary sticks used when somebody happens to say older games were superior. But I`m very tired and yeah, this ramble post is another one that is already long enough.
-
I have more to say, but for right now I'll just touch on these two topics.
I wouldn't use technology from the 90s. I'd use modern technology to make graphics that are beneath the standards of my competitors but still well ahead of what we were able to achieve last generation, at a lower cost than what last generation's graphics cost. I'd direct the company's focus towards medium budget titles with realistic sales expectations.
I hear that the recent Deus Ex and Tomb Raider titles were considered disappointments despite selling millions of copies each. That business model is suicide. Square Enix is not going to sell as much as Call of Duty and shouldn't expect to.
Honestly, that does sound like a good idea. I can't argue much with what you are saying.
No. If your random dungeon generator creates only superficially distinct environments, you have failed. Putting the player in unique situations in every playthrough is absolutely vital for making the roguelike formula work. I can go into why that is if you want, but this post is already long enough.
Vanguard, I feel like you set really, really high standards for games. Even in a game as great as ADOM, most random dungeons are pretty hard to tell apart. If you randomly teleported my PC to a procedurally generated dungeon without telling me which one it was, I would almost always have a really hard time identifying the location.
I’m not sure I even understand exactly what you are wanting here. Do you want there to be significant differences between the incarnations of a particular dungeon between playthroughs, or are you more worried about distinguishing different dungeons in the same playthrough? What kind of differences are you looking for, and how would you implement them?
-
Video games are defined by their interactivity, but modern games are less interactive than they were ten to twenty years ago. They're more linear and have less depth.
Both you and Akeley seem to believe that games have gotten lousier with time, and I can tell you feel very strongly about what you are saying. I’m not really even arguing that what you say isn’t true, instead, my argument is that it is hard to know one way or another. It’s just so difficult to quantify things like “linearity” and “interactivity.”
Yes, there are a lot of contemporary games that are linear and not very interactive. But there always have been. I strongly suspect that some people were making these same arguments 10 or 15 years ago…And maybe they were right. Maybe you are right, now. But how can we sift through the enormous number of games in existence and somehow quantify whether they are more creative and open ended 20 years ago than now?
And what’s the fun in doing that anyway? You could be enjoying them rather than looking for their flaws. Don’t get me wrong, I think deconstructing any medium is a worthwhile pursuit. But it seems like you guys are too preoccupied with the bad in recent games to see (and therefore learn from) the good in them.
I just want gamers to apply critical thinking to the media they consume, and ask for something better when they realize how insipid games have become.
It seems almost like you think you know what’s best for other people. If other people enjoy what they are playing, who cares how “insipid” it is? I still don’t feel like you have answered my previous question: As long as great games that you enjoy are still being made, why do you care what games other people are playing?
It’s okay if people sometimes (or even almost always) play games just for mindless fun, or to escape from reality for a short time. Sometimes games are just, well, games. They don’t always have to be some sort of higher art form.
Playing Mario doesn’t exactly require “critical thinking” for instance. In fact, it’s pure mindless, escapist, insipid fun. But it’s great anyway.
This isn't nostalgia talking. A lot of my favorite games are older titles that I've only discovered recently. I played X-Com for the first time about two years ago. I briefly played Doom as a kid, but I've only gained an appreciation for it in the past year. The first time I DoDonPachi was 9 months ago. I consider all of these to be among the best games ever made.
And maybe they are some of the best games ever made. But maybe some contemporary games are too. People, rightfully, disagree about that. Again, I don’t think this is something that anyone can objectively prove. And I think that’s actually perfectly OK.
This is just one example, there are countless others.
Akelely, there are also countless examples of great games that did get made. I’m not sure that really proves anything.
Sorry mate, this is where I have to be a bit brutal and say that this - and subsequent "businesses exist to make money" - kinda quotes are exactly what terrifies me regarding modern gamers` perception of the whole situation. This is when PR people pop the champagne corks and rack another one on the mirror - they don`t even need to do their stuff anymore, gamers do it for them.
Maybe you are right, about this and the rest of what you said afterwards. And maybe the type of business model that Vanguard suggested would be successful. I just worry that it’s a lot more complicated than that.
Honestly I don’t empathize much with the “business suits”, but I do empathize with the programmer who’s been working over-overtime for god knows how long to put out the next COD game, and then has to listen to every individual on the internet say that it is trash.
Even making objectively terrible games is incredibly difficult, so it’s hard for me to understand all the hate that contemporary games get. I mean people *made* them. I just can’t look at something someone made and say “Well, this is linear, uncreative, and boring. You just stuck pretty graphics on a lousy game.”
The funny thing is that even those pretty graphics took an enormous amount of effort to produce. Some illustrator had to work really hard to draw something that satisfied vague criteria. His most creative and artistic ideas were rejected, but he finally produced a something that satisfied his supervisors. Then some animator had to work extremely hard to make detailed character models, smoothly animate them, make sure they interacted correctly with other objects in the game world, and so on. And then whoever was in charge probably decided to cut that part of the game and they had to start all over.
I don't know, it just seems kind of mean.
-
It seems almost like you think you know what’s best for other people. If other people enjoy what they are playing, who cares how “insipid” it is?
Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom. It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.” Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need." (http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/tag/functionalism-today/)
:)
I think in gaming today, as in any given media at any given time, there's a lot of trash being produced, as well as some truly innovative work – in and out of the mainstream. I mean, for every 80s or 90s classic we remember as part of the computer game canon, there are countless forgettable/forgotten games. We probably shouldn't underplay the importance of that context of mediocrity. Great achievers may be standing on the shoulders of giants, but I think it's just as important that they're standing on the shoulders of dwarfs.
Similarly, the best games made today (in commercial and indie scenes) will be remembered as the bad games fade into obscurity.
Even making objectively terrible games is incredibly difficult, so it’s hard for me to understand all the hate that contemporary games get. I mean people *made* them. I just can’t look at something someone made and say “Well, this is linear, uncreative, and boring. You just stuck pretty graphics on a lousy game.” [...] I don't know, it just seems kind of mean.
I agree with lots of your post, Greyling, but here you're being a bit soft on game creators, I think. Sure, they put a lot of effort, made compromises, worked their hineys off to make as good a game as they can. But if the result is just bad, it's the critic's job to say so, with little regard for courtesy. I'm not defending whining masses of players who have nothing to say except "s0xx", but reviewers et al who work to further the medium by discussing the actual flaws and merits of different games. If you can't bear to get negative reviews, you really shouldn't be in a creative job. Moreover, akeley was making a point how executives tend to evoke the image of the struggling artists/content creators when actually furthering their own interests, thus using the creators as a human shield of sorts. And that certainly is a valid point.
As always,
Minotauros
-
i could go on on other subjects - how alleged "indie revolution" also leaves me a bit cold (maybe when it matures in a few years, not at the moment, sorry) and ha nothing to do with the nostalgia - totally to the contrary.
Yeah, the indie movement is just as focused on style over substance as mainstream games. It just expresses it in different ways. There are some good indie games, but Spelunky is the only one I know of that can compete with the classics.
The nostalgia argument is really irritating. It's such a lazy way of addressing a person's claims.
Vanguard, I feel like you set really, really high standards for games. Even in a game as great as ADOM, most random dungeons are pretty hard to tell apart. If you randomly teleported my PC to a procedurally generated dungeon without telling me which one it was, I would almost always have a really hard time identifying the location.
I’m not sure I even understand exactly what you are wanting here. Do you want there to be significant differences between the incarnations of a particular dungeon between playthroughs, or are you more worried about distinguishing different dungeons in the same playthrough? What kind of differences are you looking for, and how would you implement them?
Roguelikes are designed for replayability. A player can be expected to go through the same dungeons hundreds of times before they win. Since RLs don't require any technical skill, the only way they can stay interesting on the 100th playthrough is if they offer unique choices every time.
The decisions the player makes in a roguelike can be divided into two categories: short-term tactical decisions made to get through any given encounter, and long-term strategic decisions that guide the player over the course of the entire game. Whether to fight or escape from a dangerous enemy, when to use your healing potions, and which spell to use are all tactical decisions. Strategic choices include class, race, build, which quests to participate in, when to explore which area, how to overcome the player character's flaws, and what equipment to use. There's some overlap, but this is good enough for our purposes.
Now, a bad dungeon generator allows the player to consistently rely on the same tactics. A good dungeon generator will present the player with unique tactical situations. An even better one will offer unique tactical and strategic choices.
The dungeon's features should not only change, but change in meaningful ways between playthroughs. If a room's shape changes, it should change in ways that affect the player's tactical options. Different enemy types should call for different tactics, and the dungeon generator should combine groups of enemy types to give the player unique situations. If each area has a unique visual identity or a "personality" of some kind, that's good too, but it's less important.
ADOM's generator is really good. Its enemies are both diverse and threatening. A small change in context can alter the outcome of an encounter in meaningful ways. ADOM is also less liberal with escape options than most RLs. Teleportation isn't as easy to come by as it in Angband, so it's more important to pay attention to your surroundings.
On the strategic side, you've got herb gardens, altars, dungeon shops, artifacts, and plenty of other things that can potentially affect the rest of your playthrough. If you find the right weapon to deal with steel golems, you might make an early trip to Darkforge, for example. A good stomafilia patch might lead you to invest in herbalism rather than food preservation. An amulet of life saving could lead to an ultra ending. These kinds of things give ADOM variety even after hundreds of playthroughs.
-
Roguelikes are designed for replayability. A player can be expected to go through the same dungeons hundreds of times before they win. Since RLs don't require any technical skill, the only way they can stay interesting on the 100th playthrough is if they offer unique choices every time.
Vanguard, how did I even start arguing with you about randomly generated towns/dungeons? I remember now that wasn't even what I was talking about. I was talking about having a pool of static locations, a fraction of which would be selected and placed when the game world was being generated at the beginning of a play through. The locations themselves would not be randomly generated at all.
I assume that you do not like that idea either, though.
-
Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom. It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.” Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need." (http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/tag/functionalism-today/)
Minotauros, I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to understand that quote (or the language in that link). Any chance you could explain what it means?
I agree with lots of your post, Greyling, but here you're being a bit soft on game creators, I think. Sure, they put a lot of effort, made compromises, worked their hineys off to make as good a game as they can. But if the result is just bad, it's the critic's job to say so, with little regard for courtesy. I'm not defending whining masses of players who have nothing to say except "s0xx", but reviewers et al who work to further the medium by discussing the actual flaws and merits of different games. If you can't bear to get negative reviews, you really shouldn't be in a creative job. Moreover, akeley was making a point how executives tend to evoke the image of the struggling artists/content creators when actually furthering their own interests, thus using the creators as a human shield of sorts. And that certainly is a valid point.
As always,
Minotauros
As someone who would like to one day make a game, negativity towards people who make games really scares me. I feel like Vanguard is just waiting to tell me that whatever I produce is terrible, because it doesn't meet her/his extremely high standards. It's very intimidating. And I know there are a zillion other people who feel the same way as her/him.
I do think it's important for reviewers to discuss the merits of games. And I do definitely want candid feedback from everyone regarding the ideas I put them forth on this forum. And I want it from everyone, Including Vanguard. In fact, I highly value her/his opinion, because I know her/his views are so different from mine.
But, Vanguard, because you seem to have such a tendency to dislike games, it’s hard to know how to take what you say. I honestly don’t know if I can put forth any ideas that you would embrace which weren’t the same as the ideas you already have. I mean, at a certain point, I don’t know if you are critical of my ideas because they need improvement, or because they’re not *your* ideas.
Also, why did the idea that you were “nostaligic” about some of the games you mentioned upset you? I’m nostalgic about a lot of games. I don’t think that’s something to be ashamed of. Maybe it’s not the reason that you like any of the games you like, and I’m sorry I ever used that word, but I just don’t see how it can be construed to have a pejorative meaning.
I think that “good” games engrain themselves into our brains during our developmental stages in a way that shapes how we see the medium. And I think that’s really cool. I would be honored to make a games that people were “nostalgic” about, whether they were critically acclaimed at the time of release or not (like earthbound).
Is the point that you want to be so coldly objective about assessing games that you are immune from “nostaligia”? Why? That sure doesn’t sound like much fun.
Also, it really scares me how easy it is for us, as human beings, to clump people we dislike into easy to hate groups, like “business suits”. I really, really, really think life is more complicated than that.
I urge you guys to remember that everyone is just a person trying to survive in this world. It’s so easy to judge other people, either by their career, or by the quality of the games they make, but ultimately, I just don’t think that’s the point of human interaction.
-
Humm, that made me think of this: "Even in the false needs of a human being there lives a bit of freedom. It is expressed in what economic theory once called the “use value” as opposed to the “exchange value.” Hence there are those to whom legitimate architecture [or, as it were, good games] appears as an enemy; it withholds from them that which they, by their very nature, want and even need." (http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/tag/functionalism-today/)
Minotauros, I'm sorry, but I'm not smart enough to understand that quote (or the language in that link). Any chance you could explain what it means?
The article is about functionalism in architecture and does rely a lot on its academic context. For instance, it bears noting that the author was extremely critical to capitalism and consumerist culture. The quote could be paraphrased to mean something like this: Even though we can objectively judge a cultural artifact as kitsch or trash, that doesn't mean it has no intrinsic value. If we were to imagine a perfect world, there would be no place in it for human imperfection. So even if bad art/entertainment/lifestyles can rightfully be considered harmful to the media, and in some cases even an affront to all that makes humanity noble, we still in some way need that cultural trash to remain human in the first place. If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.
That's a not very elegant paraphrase of what I believe to be a pretty deep thought. I hope I helped to elucidate it a bit without turning it into kitsch in its own right :P
Regarding the rest of your post, I do see where you're coming from, and I definitely agree that life's too short to spend energy crapping on other people's efforts or to wallow in one's own prejudices (much nicer put by you, I might add).
Incidentally, I think the same is true when you're on the receiving end of the crap: There's no use taking the haters too much to heart. In creative endeavors, I think you just have to jump into it. You absolutely have to trust your own instincts and take other people's comments as just that: perspectives that differ from your own, and which may hopefully help you develop a more complete vision of what you're working with. In the end, though, you're probably the one who will understand your own project better than anyone else. Everyone will experience getting some bad ideas or implementations shot down, in which cases it's often best to just move on to the next. It's also to be expected that some people dislike what you're doing just because they don't "get" where you're coming from – not much to be done about that – and the overall reception will likely be rather lukewarm. Not everyone can get carried around on a golden chair, and is that even a goal in itself? The vast majority of those who derive any experience (positive or negative) from your creation will just be silent. Their experiences still count, though. In the end, it's just something you have to live with, I think. For my own part, I try to take needlessly negative comments with a grain of salt, while hopefully remaining receptive to what's being said.
It's a shame that the Roguelike Incubator is sleeping. That could have been the perfect place to give and get constructive criticism.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Thanks Minotauros. I appreciate the kind words. I'll keep in mind what you said.
-
Vanguard, how did I even start arguing with you about randomly generated towns/dungeons? I remember now that wasn't even what I was talking about. I was talking about having a pool of static locations, a fraction of which would be selected and placed when the game world was being generated at the beginning of a play through. The locations themselves would not be randomly generated at all.
I assume that you do not like that idea either, though.
I already said I thought it sounded cool, but also that it would be a lot of work.
I think I gave you the wrong impression before. I was just talking more about randomizing locations than randomizing the plot. Take ADOM, for example I was just saying that sometimes there could be a "goblin village" instead of the dwarf town. Would that be really hard to implement?
It really would be. Even if there was just one alternate version of each location, that means the developer is making twice as much content. That means doing more than twice as much work, because they need to both produce that extra content and ensure that every possible combination fits together.
It's a cool idea and I'd love to see someone take a shot at it, but making a one set of content to fill a game is already hard enough.
-
Even though we can objectively judge a cultural artifact as kitsch or trash, that doesn't mean it has no intrinsic value. If we were to imagine a perfect world, there would be no place in it for human imperfection. So even if bad art/entertainment/lifestyles can rightfully be considered harmful to the media, and in some cases even an affront to all that makes humanity noble, we still in some way need that cultural trash to remain human in the first place. If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.
[...]
I definitely agree that life's too short to spend energy crapping on other people's efforts or to wallow in one's own prejudices (much nicer put by you, I might add).
I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.
This couldn`t be further from the truth. My original remark was aiming to express my endless surprise on how all the potential from the early days got smothered in recent years - we`re talking long-time, decade spanning trends, not some local occurrences. These processes are real and do happen in the gaming world, and as someone who`s been closely watching the subject - nearly 5 decades of it - I do have a strong opinion, yes (one other of my hobbies is bias-fighting therefore I automatically try`n remove all the obvious obstacles like the dreaded "nostalgia" factor)
It`s not even about lack of "innovation" - I consider this concept quite nebulous, and don`t require some earth shattering new concepts to constantly appear - but the thing is, in the last decade we`re actually seeing the reversal taking place. They call it "streamlining", I call it "dumbing down", speaking bluntly. It should be obvious for anybody following major genres/franchises - would you really put Dragon`s Age next to Baldur`s Gate (and I don`t even consider BG a be-all-end-all of the RPG world, like most folk). Mass Effect is my favourite example - the original was no Starflight, for sure, but it was a truly open-world game with plenty of real "gaming" things to do - the sequel surgically removed the best bits leaving just cutscenes, across-the-room quests and combat that plays itself out (even on hardest setting).
I (want to?) love AAA titles. If you look at my other posts on this site I think there`s enough evidence of this, even though I`m more than aware it might sound daft in the RL underground. I`m playing GTA V at the moment - a technical masterpiece, with engine finally tweaked to near perfection, where driving, shooting, hell, even walking - is pure pleasure. And the world is beyond beautiful. But...it`s also empty. Past the main quest line, it`s just meaningless rubbish - so you can go to a strip joint or cinema, sit down and smoke a bong - completely pointless activities that only set off cutscenes...or play simplified game of tennis. Why? What for? Why on earth not fill this gorgeous world with real gameplay...you know, like 2 iterations down, namely GTA: San Andreas? Well, maybe because it`s easier to spend gazillion on promoting the game and then rely on multiplayer for longevity (fueled by microtransactions of course). It`s atrophy at it`s worst.
Take look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_04PLBdhqZ4 Dude might look like a janitor from Activision HQ but look him up - it was in his living room the little thing known as GDC started (there`s also Sid Meier in the room). Then tell me you can imagine any of the gaming world`s current bigwigs delivering such spiel, and I`ll take it all back :P
-
Gawd you guys write a lot...this is why I don't play RPGs. :P
-
It`s not even about lack of "innovation" - I consider this concept quite nebulous, and don`t require some earth shattering new concepts to constantly appear - but the thing is, in the last decade we`re actually seeing the reversal taking place. They call it "streamlining", I call it "dumbing down", speaking bluntly. It should be obvious for anybody following major genres/franchises - would you really put Dragon`s Age next to Baldur`s Gate (and I don`t even consider BG a be-all-end-all of the RPG world, like most folk). Mass Effect is my favourite example - the original was no Starflight, for sure, but it was a truly open-world game with plenty of real "gaming" things to do - the sequel surgically removed the best bits leaving just cutscenes, across-the-room quests and combat that plays itself out (even on hardest setting).
These are quite disagreeable examples. Bioware is doing plenty of amazing game design innovation in their games, though perhaps in areas you don't appreciate, but it's there (Dragon Age's or Mass Effect 2's plot structure? Brilliant for a storytelling game!). In other areas there's progress that's not so amazing, but still pretty good (like single party inventory or ending the game on TPK, not just main character's death) and makes the games better than their predecessor. Then, there are also areas where the games are worse (unchallenging, sloggy fights), but I chalk them up not to "dumbing down", but to the fact that they never displayed particularly strong design chops in them (it was in Baldur's Gate 2 that they noticeably regressed in that direction for the first time) - the evidence points to them doing it as well as they did in Baldur's Gate a bit by accident. However, it's not like they're incapable of doing good gaming bits, as evidenced by Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer (even though by their own admission they were surprised how good it turned out).
-
If "the world demands deception", as the saying goes, we should probably stop and consider why it is deception is in so high demand.
I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.
Hahaha. I was really just making a side remark, with no intention of vilifying a critical mindset. As I also pointed out, a content creator of any kind needs to develop a thick skin precisely because harsh criticism is need in all media. As far as AAA games go, I wouldn't have a clue, as I've played RLs almost exclusively for the last 15-20 years. Television series and the Internet keeps me more than spiritually sterile enough, thank you very much, without having to add mainstream computer games into the mix ;)
As always,
Minotauros
-
I haven't been able to read the whole of this thread and others due to sheer volume of text, but from what I've skimmed it looks like some of the disagreements I've seen stem from a lack of understanding of what computers can feasibly do, and what humans can feasibly program computers to do (and how this relates to differences between computer and tabletop RPGs). Would a quick exposition of those issues be useful?
-
I`m sorry guys, but it seems that you managed to completely turn the initial argument over its head. Made "us" look like some kinda sneering monsters who just sit on the sidelines and wait to devour poor game devs and their gentle creations, while also nodding sagely "coz back in my day, son, it was all glitter`n gold, I tell you (cough cough)" with nostalgic fog enveloping the whole scene.
Sorry Akeley. I don't think of you that way, okay? And I realize that you have made some valid points.
How about this: what advice would you give someone who wants to one day make a roguelike? What is the best way you think that the sort of design pitfalls you have been talking about can be avoided?
I haven't been able to read the whole of this thread and others due to sheer volume of text, but from what I've skimmed it looks like some of the disagreements I've seen stem from a lack of understanding of what computers can feasibly do, and what humans can feasibly program computers to do (and how this relates to differences between computer and tabletop RPGs). Would a quick exposition of those issues be useful?
Yes could you please tell us? That sounds like it would be helpful.
-
Bioware is doing plenty of amazing game design innovation in their games
Pffft ;) Yep, we won`t be agreeing on this one. While I did enjoy some of their games, these were never about "innovation" but mostly about prettifying and streamlining (not always bad qualities, well, not up till recent days at least, when it all went too far). They`re sort of Apple of RPG world in that respect.
In fact, original BG was a nail in the coffin for the turn-based games, it was so popular that everybody just up and forgot about them. But the game itself, while fun at parts, had comedy combat - it was at worst a godawful mess or, at best, easily exploitable by couple of kindergarten-grade "tactics". The reason was the switch to neither-fish-nor-fowl "pause" system - real-time was the new Messiah back then and everybody jumped on the bandwagon - BG itself was actually meant to be a real time strategy at its first draft.
And combat is the most important thing in any RPG, there`s no way around it. Apart from few things like charming NPCs, most of RPG systems revolve around it. IN ME2 this was dumbed down to the extent that when I abandoned chasing the uber-simplistic "upgrades" somewhere before even mid-game, I still won the game with dying maybe twice - and that was due to wonky camera. And I was playing on second-hardest difficulty. Pathetic. Then add the removal of planetary exploration - hell, there was no need to even explore any planets at all - and its curtains.
As for the plot - which I do actually appreciate - what "innovations" were there? It was just very well written, that`s all. And even that collapsed in the sequel - they had opportunity to make things interesting by giving you the option to go against the Shadow Broker, but as per usual, we ended up with illusion of choice, since it was all linear. And all other "choices" royally black and white too, plus rather meaningless - since they didn`t affect anything apart from the "paragon" bar. One character might die? Yeah but why would I care, since they`re all the same - in terms of gameplay affecting perks and abilities? Sorry, forgot that these don`t matter either because combat ^^
And so on. This is closer to Walking Dead (Dragon`s Lair?) model where you watch an interactive film and sometime press buttons - but these don`t pretend to be anything else and don`t employ smokescreen, empty mechanics to do so.
I read some things about Dragon Age 3 and they sound promising - but tbh at this point of time I`m so fed up with Bioware games I`m not sure I`m gonna bother. The inclusion of nauseating, credit card demanding NPC in your camp in original DA was the last straw I think.
I was really just making a side remark, with no intention of vilifying a critical mindset.
Fair play, I`m as prone to misreading as the next poster. Even though we operate in my favourite, turn-based medium - for that`s what forums are, after all ;)
Sorry Akeley. I don't think of you that way, okay? And I realize that you have made some valid points.
How about this: what advice would you give someone who wants to one day make a roguelike? What is the best way you think that the sort of design pitfalls you have been talking about can be avoided?
No worries sir, I don`t take these arguments personally, though it might sound so - it`s just a "dramatization". As for your question, well my ramblings were mostly related to the RPG world, and one of the reasons I seek comfort in the RL dungeons. And these are different thanks to the fundamental design differences. I can`t really dispense advice since I`m still just watching and learning the whole thing, making my mind up as I go along - folks here are much more qualified to comment on pitfalls of RL design than me.
One thing I might say thou, based on your earlier comment about worrying that some people might dislike your game, hah, so what, just publish and be damned! There always will be some nitpicking wags (like me perhaps) who won`t like this or that, for perhaps valid or invalid reason. Don`t matter - as AM says, evolve a thicker skin, learn from mistakes, but don`t let critics put you off the creative process.
Gawd you guys write a lot...
Damn, and this from a budding writer? What hope is there for the ol`timers brought up on reading... Well, stick that ^^ in your fountain pen and...and...well, okay, nevermind ;)
-
Bioware is doing plenty of amazing game design innovation in their games
Pffft ;) Yep, we won`t be agreeing on this one. While I did enjoy some of their games, these were never about "innovation" but mostly about prettifying and streamlining (not always bad qualities, well, not up till recent days at least, when it all went too far). They`re sort of Apple of RPG world in that respect.
Well, either you didn't really look at it with a critical eye or you scope game design awfully narrow.
In fact, original BG was a nail in the coffin for the turn-based games, it was so popular that everybody just up and forgot about them. But the game itself, while fun at parts, had comedy combat - it was at worst a godawful mess or, at best, easily exploitable by couple of kindergarten-grade "tactics". The reason was the switch to neither-fish-nor-fowl "pause" system - real-time was the new Messiah back then and everybody jumped on the bandwagon - BG itself was actually meant to be a real time strategy at its first draft.
Really? The pause system hid the turn-based game behind a facade of real time, but if you turned on all the "pause when X" options what you got was just a turn based system with animations and concurrency. If I were to point at the source of BG's "comedy combat", I'd blame AD&D and Bioware's general inability to make a compelling combat system, as evidenced by their every game everafter except for ME3 Multiplayer.
And combat is the most important thing in any RPG, there`s no way around it. Apart from few things like charming NPCs, most of RPG systems revolve around it. IN ME2 this was dumbed down to the extent that when I abandoned chasing the uber-simplistic "upgrades" somewhere before even mid-game, I still won the game with dying maybe twice - and that was due to wonky camera. And I was playing on second-hardest difficulty. Pathetic. Then add the removal of planetary exploration - hell, there was no need to even explore any planets at all - and its curtains.
Yeah, no. Combat is the most important thing in action or tactical games. RPGs are theoretically about roleplaying, even though the rest of the videogaming world missed the point and slaps those three letters whenever their games give you adding up numbers. However, Bioware didn't forget and that's where they excellently innovate since 1998. For example, Dragon Age 2 had this system that you could answer in a conciliatory/sarcastic/angry tone and depending on which you used the most, your characters default responses were colored by the tone and some NPCs reacted to your personality differently. Maybe it doesn't sound revolutionary, but damn, it makes a world of difference when it comes to feeling in the character*.
*YMMV.
As for the plot - which I do actually appreciate - what "innovations" were there? It was just very well written, that`s all. And even that collapsed in the sequel - they had opportunity to make things interesting by giving you the option to go against the Shadow Broker, but as per usual, we ended up with illusion of choice, since it was all linear. And all other "choices" royally black and white too, plus rather meaningless - since they didn`t affect anything apart from the "paragon" bar. One character might die? Yeah but why would I care, since they`re all the same - in terms of gameplay affecting perks and abilities? Sorry, forgot that these don`t matter either because combat ^^
Well, clearly, if you see other characters as tools to use in beating the combat sections of the game, you won't care. However, they are not only that (and arguably not at all that, I've never noticed any contribution to my success in the fights from my companions). After all, you* care about your favourite characters in your favourite tv series, movies or books. Same here, Bioware makes very care-aboutable characters and you get to decide what happens to them. Pretty good material for choices and the choices aren't even trivial... most of the time. Though I guess if you gave up before ME3 then there weren't that many outcomes you actually got to see.
*general you, YMMV.
However, that's not where plotting innovation comes in. The best example is Mass Effect 2. Gathering teammates, improving their morale and sidequesting, all at your only somewhat limited leisure, while being on hidden missioun count clock that triggers the final countdown, where you have to go for the final showdown or basically lose score (however, score you're made to care about more in the form of characters whose lives are at stake). Then, depending on what you did and what you skipped, the final suicide mission and its outcomes can vary in a pretty complex way (well, you always win, but how you win is the point). All in all, it makes a game (where you make decisions and they matter) out of going through the story, which is a rare if not unique marriage of freedom and structured story.
Now, the execution is subpar - it's not nearly aggressive enough, so if you want, you can have a perfect success. It doesn't change the fact that the underlying idea is brilliant and would be worth borrowing even for a tactical/strategical roguelike.
-
Yeah, no. Combat is the most important thing in action or tactical games. RPGs are theoretically about roleplaying, even though the rest of the videogaming world missed the point and slaps those three letters whenever their games give you adding up numbers.
There are only a handful of video games in the world that respond to roleplaying. It's best to accept that, in the context of video games, RPG means "game where your numbers go up.
Like, most games don't really pay close attention to what you do or give you any choices. Bioware games don't really pay attention to what you do either. They give you choices, ignore whatever you decided, and do what they were going to do in the first place. That isn't a big improvement.
If you want a role playing game about actual roleplaying, you're better off playing a tabletop game with your friends.
-
Like, most games don't really pay close attention to what you do or give you any choices. Bioware games don't really pay attention to what you do either. They give you choices, ignore whatever you decided, and do what they were going to do in the first place. That isn't a big improvement.
It's less true these days than when they started and not by an insignificant margin.
Yeah, no. Combat is the most important thing in action or tactical games. RPGs are theoretically about roleplaying, even though the rest of the videogaming world missed the point and slaps those three letters whenever their games give you adding up numbers.
There are only a handful of video games in the world that respond to roleplaying. It's best to accept that, in the context of video games, RPG means "game where your numbers go up.
If you want a role playing game about actual roleplaying, you're better off playing a tabletop game with your friends.
Sure, but we'll never have a cRPG about real roleplaying if no one strives to get there. Bioware does and that's game design innovation in my book, even if akeley dismisses it because it's not in the area of tactical combat. That's the whole point.
-
Sure, but we'll never have a cRPG about real roleplaying if no one strives to get there. Bioware does and that's game design innovation in my book, even if akeley dismisses it because it's not in the area of tactical combat. That's the whole point.
Ok but they're still way behind Deus Ex and Star Control 2, games that came out in 2000 and 1992 respectively. You shouldn't settle for less with Bioware.
-
The pause system hid the turn-based game behind a facade of real time, but if you turned on all the "pause when X" options what you got was just a turn based system with animations and concurrency.
If only. What you "got" was a convoluted hybrid with a terrible flow and neither rhyme nor reason. In theory it could work - there are games with workable pause system - only it didn`t, unless you enjoy pressing Space hundred times a minute to skip mundane pauses, and then you`d miss some important action anyway. In the end it didn`t really matter that much because you`d be too busy trying to limit chaos caused by terrible pathfinding. Add to this lack of a grid and collision detection between actors, which eliminates any sort of insight into whats going on and renders area spells tactically useless (this by the way was even more farcical in in DA, where often you could marvel at your character bizarrely half-melted with the dog and some monster in the same space, all covered in flames)
Yeah, no. Combat is the most important thing in action or tactical games. RPGs are theoretically about roleplaying even though the rest of the videogaming world missed the point and slaps those three letters whenever their games give you adding up numbers. However, Bioware didn't forget and that's where they excellently innovate since 1998.
If by "playing" from these RPG letters you consider watching cutscenes and participating in black-and-white dialogues that have no impact on real gameplay - while spending large chunk of the game either running down corridors and/or partaking in pretend-combat - then sure, Bioware are quite good at it*. But it`s your overuse of the world "innovation" - combined with that "since 1998" - that sort of gives the game away (pun not intended). While I still maintain that combat is the most important thing in role-playing games - and yes, that`s what the characters you play roles of do the most after all - it`s possible to mix it all together million times better than the good Doctors ever did (before they jetted off to their private islands). That`s what was going on well before 1998 - Krondor, Goldbox, Ultimas, Darklands, Fallouts run circles around any Bioware game. There was plenty of role playing, story telling, and yes, excellently tactical combat - participating in which made me care about my companions infinitely more than some basic "choices" in a dialogue tree (there`s nothing wrong with this mechanic pers se, but not when it`s the only one in your RPG. As been said above, I`d rather play a tabletop session, choose-your-adventure book or a Telltale "game"). Dismissing this with "number adding" trope is rather a desperate measure.
Aforementioned Deus Ex produced one of the most exhilarating moments in gaming for me - when you learned about your brother being a "traitor" and had to make a decision on the fly (sorry if this is factually incorrect, played it over a decade ago). But you made that story-changing decision by means of gameplay - I went guns blazing and ran away - but the game didn`t break down, it carried on with my choice registered in an amazing real time fashion. This was the true innovation. And something we haven`t really seen since.
*I only really mean their post-ME games here, previous were not perfect but at least there was some gaming to be had, KOTOR being the highlight.
Clearly, you`re a big fan of their "work", something I respect and understand, though completely disagree as for the merits. Obviously there`s no way we`re going to see eye to eye on this, plus I find this particular chapter of gaming history immensely depressing - hence, this is my last post on the Bioware angle.
-
Sure, but we'll never have a cRPG about real roleplaying if no one strives to get there. Bioware does and that's game design innovation in my book, even if akeley dismisses it because it's not in the area of tactical combat. That's the whole point.
Ok but they're still way behind Deus Ex and Star Control 2, games that came out in 2000 and 1992 respectively. You shouldn't settle for less with Bioware.
Yeah, sure, they're way behind Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Fallout and probably the Witcher for a modern example. I'm not sure what your point is here. That innovation doesn't count if it's in a game that's behind the times in other areas? That it's not worth playing games that are subpar to other games in some areas?
If only. What you "got" was a convoluted hybrid with a terrible flow and neither rhyme nor reason. In theory it could work - there are games with workable pause system - only it didn`t, unless you enjoy pressing Space hundred times a minute to skip mundane pauses, and then you`d miss some important action anyway. In the end it didn`t really matter that much because you`d be too busy trying to limit chaos caused by terrible pathfinding. Add to this lack of a grid and collision detection between actors, which eliminates any sort of insight into whats going on and renders area spells tactically useless (this by the way was even more farcical in in DA, where often you could marvel at your character bizarrely half-melted with the dog and some monster in the same space, all covered in flames)
Well, OK, these are points that I didn't consider much and I see how they would spoil the experience for tactical turn-loving people.
If by "playing" from these RPG letters you consider watching cutscenes and participating in black-and-white dialogues that have no impact on real gameplay - while spending large chunk of the game either running down corridors and/or partaking in pretend-combat - then sure, Bioware are quite good at it*. But it`s your overuse of the world "innovation" - combined with that "since 1998" - that sort of gives the game away (pun not intended).
While I still maintain that combat is the most important thing in role-playing games - and yes, that`s what the characters you play roles of do the most after all - it`s possible to mix it all together million times better than the good Doctors ever did (before they jetted off to their private islands). That`s what was going on well before 1998 - Krondor, Goldbox, Ultimas, Darklands, Fallouts run circles around any Bioware game. There was plenty of role playing, story telling, and yes, excellently tactical combat - participating in which made me care about my companions infinitely more than some basic "choices" in a dialogue tree (there`s nothing wrong with this mechanic pers se, but not when it`s the only one in your RPG. As been said above, I`d rather play a tabletop session, choose-your-adventure book or a Telltale "game"). Dismissing this with "number adding" trope is rather a desperate measure.
Well, sure, I agree with nearly everything (except your excluding of Bioware's dialogue wheels and related mechanics from "real gameplay"; also, black-and-white dialogues are something Bioware finally done away with in their latest games), but I thought the topic of this digression was "had Bioware done some good, innovative stuff int the cRPG genre?", not "is Bioware the holy grailkeeper of computer roleplaying?".
Clearly, you`re a big fan of their "work", something I respect and understand, though completely disagree as for the merits. Obviously there`s no way we`re going to see eye to eye on this, plus I find this particular chapter of gaming history immensely depressing - hence, this is my last post on the Bioware angle.
Well, sure we won't see eye to eye if you're looking into an actual, real strawman's eye. I think it's the first time I ever bring out that old internet chestnut. However, since most of your counterpoints didn't seem to have anything to do with what I've tried to express, after a lot of pondering "wtf?" I have determined that it is the only answer to what happened here.
-
Yeah, sure, they're way behind Deus Ex, Planescape: Torment, Fallout and probably the Witcher for a modern example. I'm not sure what your point is here. That innovation doesn't count if it's in a game that's behind the times in other areas? That it's not worth playing games that are subpar to other games in some areas?
Most of Bioware's "innovations" have been done before. They aren't pushing roleplaying games forward. They make watered down versions of things we've already seen and they somehow get showered with praise for doing this.
-
Most of Bioware's "innovations" have been done before. They aren't pushing roleplaying games forward. They make watered down versions of things we've already seen and they somehow get showered with praise for doing this.
I wish this wasn't such a divisive subject. There really is a lot to be learned from analyzing games that other people have made, but I feel like so much of this discussion is about what is wrong with games rather than what could be done to make them better.
Can we discuss some of the specific ways that you guys think contemporary games could be improved? What are some specific things that you would change about the more recent Mass Effect or Dragon Age games?
Also, what are some specific aspects of older games that you guys really liked? I know Akeley got into this a little bit with Deus Ex, but maybe we could expand on that and discuss other games too.
-
I wish this wasn't such a divisive subject. There really is a lot to be learned from analyzing games that other people have made, but I feel like so much of this discussion is about what is wrong with games rather than what could be done to make them better.
It's all the same thing. Learning what doesn't work is just as important as learning what does work.
Also, what are some specific aspects of older games that you guys really liked? I know Akeley got into this a little bit with Deus Ex, but maybe we could expand on that and discuss other games too.
I think the coolest thing about Deus Ex is that most of your choices don't happen during conversations. The game just watches how you play and then responds. You don't get all of your options spelled out for you. You just look at a situation and decide how you want to deal with it. More often than not the game will be ready for your choices, even non-obvious ones. It's a good system that rewards cleverness and avoids dissonance between your character's words and actions.