Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Company News Taking Care of Business - Iron Tower Studio 2018 Business Diary

Elhoim

Iron Tower Studio
Developer
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
2,878
Location
San Isidro, Argentina
Regarding difficulty, I definitely enjoy advanced tweaking of the variables, especially after a first round with the developers vision. Many times, I strongly disagree with the balance a developer chose. I think that the "normal" settings for Battle Brothers encounters are shit (one day I could expand why but it's not the point). Thankfully they gave me some tools to adjust them. But there are many settings that would greatly make the game much more fun for me: Being able to increase the rate of events, being able to set up the noble houses on the map, tweak the balance between enemy types and enemy numbers... And the same could be said for many RPGs I play.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
That's not what I'm suggesting. The way that autoresolve has worked in other games that I've played is that it imposes a cost that is typically somewhat greater than what a skillful player would bear if he did not use autoresolve. It's just that the cost is much lower than the cost that an incompetent player would bear, such that an incompetent player does not need to take the time to learn the combat system and a combat-averse player does not need to take the time to play through individual combats. (A "quick combat" in which AI controls the player party would not save as much time, but would still save some time.) In that sense, an autoresolve is actually "cheats" less than a difficulty mode reduction does -- the player character comes off weaker, not stronger, relative to the world as a result, while the opposite is true of a difficulty reduction. It's more about letting players pursue combat-oriented paths without bothering to figure out or participate in actual fights. There's certainly something fishy about the idea, but it might still be the right one.

Sorry, I was responding to the earlier discussion.

Isn't autoresolve really a thing for combat-intensive games, though? I suppose in TNW you have a party skilled in various things, so your gameplay won't be entirely hollowed out by autoresolving combat. Ironically it could turn an autoresolver's playthrough into even more of a SP/dialogue based CYOA, which was a point of criticism for the noncombat paths in AOD! It would be one way to ensure that a story-focused player still has a 'challenge' in terms of gathering and spending SPs and making decisions and dealing with failstates, though.
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,716
Location
California
(1) There is a threshold moral question whether a player who refuses to learn combat should be allowed to pursue combat options in the game. I can see good arguments for the no position, but I want to brush this issue aside because I am not equipped to answer it, being myself an unclean bad-at-AOD-combat-and-not-interested-in-getting-better heathen. A heathen has no vote on whether to keep the temple pure.

(2) Using MOO as an example, there are powerful design arguments for permitting a player to pursue a combat-oriented character (civilization) even if he is uninterested in combat tactics. There is a strategic/roleplaying pleasure in playing a combat civilization in MOO that exists aside from the combat tactics. In fact, some MOO-like games do not have tactical combat at all and yet preserve the player's ability to define a combat-oriented civilization.

(3) Talker-exclusive builds in AOD missing out on a key and by reputes wonderful gameplay element (combat). But they lose out on other elements as well. This includes a strategic dimension, namely resource management (and attrition). (The only resources I felt I was managing were SP [and the SP-resource-management was widely viewed as a flaw, not a feature], gold [to a fairly limited degree], and energon cubes [or whatever they were called]; even faction friendliness didn't actually feel like it was being managed.) It also includes huge quantities of the game's content that are gated behind combat. There are probably really interesting plot arcs in the combat domain that I'll never play; shame on me, but I suspect that that's one reason that players might be turned off by the apparent limitations of talker builds.

(4) If autoresolved combat could be done, it would offer combat-averse players the same resource-management and path-variability (i.e., the strategic layer and content) that combat-amenable players have. That may defile the temple and thus be a nonstarter (see point 1), but it seems like a decent option from the standpoint of broadening the game's appeal.
 
Last edited:

rrc2soft

Educated
Patron
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
44
Serpent in the Staglands Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
Mark Brown (Game Makers’ Toolkit) just published a video that might be relevant to the discussion:

 

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
If you have difficulty levels, naming the easy one story mode seems like a good idea to not "humiliate" the unskilled. There's no reason to tell them what the differences are though.
Nerfing enemies is normal of course, easy games like NWN for instance wouldn't be easy if the large number of enemies you face had the same AC, BAB and general equipment quality like your character.
Just don't rub it in the players face how hard the enemy was nerfed. For the record the easy mode in DR is so incredibly easy, you can play it on ironman with a full party , never craft a single healing salve, heal up on rations alone and still end up with >500 rations in the end. You basically don't take damage for most of the game. That should be story-mode enough for anybody I guess.

In the end though, it's kinda pointless to try to cater to those people when it comes to combat difficulty. The system is too complex for those unwilling to learn. It allows you to fail (to build a combat worthy character) in a multitude of ways. It's just the wrong kind of game for people who are unwilling or incapable to just scrap a character, start over and build a better one. Bad players fail because they're bad players and insist on keep being bad, you can't change that.

So, either you introduce crutches, like healing potions usable during combat for example, that allow anyone to succeed, or you forget about those people. In a game like 'Dragon Age on hard' for example, it's literally impossible to die unless you're too dumb to drink healing potions. Or didn't bring any.
And lots of old-school cRPGs had plenty of these crutches, auto-resolve combat is one of them. In DR even a toggle in the settings "make healing salve usable in combat' would have probably enabled a fair share of these people to complete the game on their desired difficulty level.
 

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
9,869
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
I'm saying that offering options to customize the player's experience is not a bad thing. For example, some people didn't want to see the check tags like [persuasion], we gave them an option to disable them. Was it really a big deal? When it comes to skill checks, the top request is to show the numeric values of the checks. If we can make it optional, it would be great. It won't take anything away from people who don't want to see the tags or the values, but make the game more enjoyable for people who want this info displayed.
Personally, I'm fine with being able to extract the scripts and search through them to find the numbers. Wouldn't hurt to just show it in the game though.
 

Jestai

Augur
Patron
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
134
Maybe I'm wrong on many takes here, but Vince asked for our opinion on Dungeon Rats and this is mine :

First of all, I must say that I had a blast playing Dungeon Rats. It had maybe 5 "copy paste/nothing new" fights too many for me. That's pretty much my only complain, gameplay wise. I usually hate crafting, but apart from some QoL interface/inventory/weight hindrances, it was the one game where it felt compelling. Hard was hard and maybe sometimes a little random with RNG, but it was all worth it because using superior tactics often made the difference.
But I already finished AoD. But I have some tactical games under my belt. But I can handle to be challenged. But I can accept to restart the same fight 15 times because I'm playing a greedy build on 2 characters out of 4.


I felt that the devs tried to warn people about the REAL difficulty. However, it was done in a way that lacked meta-knowledge :

You can't blame people to not take you at face value when in every other game "hard PREPARE TO DIE" is in fact "sort of normal". That's just the way it is, whether we like it or not. Most customers don't know and don't care about Vince's take on the genre and will go in blind. Many will expect hard to force them to try a little bit, but not to push back for real.

As it was said in this topic, the way difficulty levels are presented is unfortunate.
The Tough bastard choice needs to be more appealing. Make it sound like "still hard" more than "you're already a pussy". A name isn't enough. Most people don't want to play against gimped opponents.
The Psych choice is actually a trap choice for many people. It mentions that you will die a lot, which is true. But it doesn't say that you might not make it out, for real. That there is a real possibility that you WILL HAVE to restart your game from the start if you're not playing well. This is the real information that needed to be told. This is why some people felt cheated. I'm sure the thought of having to restart would have deterred some people from choosing the Psych option.

Of course, some degenerate would still have taken the hard option and complained about how the game is impossible to finish if you don't have an optimal build blablabla, but probably less so.


Maybe they exist, but I don't know any other recent tactical game where "restart by attrition" is a real thing and where healing is a finite ressource all game long. It needed to be telegraphed way, way more. Maybe I missed the warning, but this needs to be made unmissable. Fucking hammer it.

I learned the hard way that sleeping wasn't an option when I had close to no consommables. I survived it because I already had many points in alch and my greedy builds were starting to pay back, but with a less focused build, that might have been game over. Since I was already many hours in, I'm not sure I would have restarted, which would have been a shame.

Knowing that you have finite healing, the choice to not have a "consequence free" tutorial is baffling to me. Any newcomer who's playing with the right spirit but don't know the system will lose precious ressources here. Which is fine, because killing ants without dying isn't so hard. But it's down the line that wasted rations of the early game can come back and bite you in the ass.


Of course some comments about the game on Steam are stupid and some people will never change. Of course, some kids want a big awesome button and will never like this game. But even though I deeply enjoyed this game, I understand why some people felt cheated and, from my point of view, the devs are always to blame in that case. If a game features some unusual mechanisms like "if you suck, you will have to start from scratch", "you can't heal anywhere so be careful with your consommables" or "hard means EVERYTHING MATTERS or else", you need to unequivocally warn people at the gates, before they chose a difficulty option that they will maybe regret later. This is not a travesty of HaRdCoRe GaMing. People in the RPGCODEX mock popamolers who want awesome buttons, but they sure don't want said popamolers to think they're as good as them, the real deal. It's not a whole lot better... Don't forget that every steam moron playing Dungeon Rats is on the right tracks, whatever the difficulty they chose.

Here are some more ideas form someone who's definitely not a developer : make people chose the difficulty they like after the "tutorial-lite" fights for Barca, when they have a taste of the things to come. Or allow them to change the difficulty on the fly. Or allow people to sleep, at the cost of barring them from the best ending or something. Maybe some or all of these ideas are against what the devs were trying to achieve (or downright stupid!), but you get the idea. What i'm trying to say is I felt that many newcomers had no way to really know what they were getting into and got trapped in a difficulty that wasn't right for them, without a way out except a surprise "RESTART THE GAME YOU FUCKING NEWBIE". Which is kind of a dick move and a shame because of the quality of the game.

Also, I'm sure that the link with AoD hurt sales more than anything. I'm sure many people didn't buy this game because they hadn't played AoD. How many people liked the AoD setting so much that it was a dealbreaker ? Reading the GOG description, I feel that I'm going to miss something if I don't know AoD. Half the description is about how it is like and not like AoD. It's a different game. Sell the setting and the systems THEMSELVES. I had a bigger motivation to play Dungeon Rats, but I waited to have finished AoD to play it. For naught.


To sum up everything I said : this game needed to be either more predictable or more flexible, especially for newcomers. This is not dumbing it down. This is making an interesting game more accessible for everyone regardless of their gaming background.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
But wait, there is more!

Feargus was kind enough to answer my questions, added them to the article:

http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/topic,7530.0.html

Infinitron You may want to update the newspost.

I wonder what your thoughts on this question you posed him are -

Pillars of Eternity sold more than Wasteland 2 and new Torment combined. At the same time Tyranny sold about a quarter of what PoE did, despite being a unique and innovative RPG. What made one game a hit and the other "a largely underappreciated gem", as Paradox put it?
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
What I think is in the question.

Not really. WL2 was made to be like the crpgs we all claim we love. PoE was supposed to be an updated BG. I think PoE being more successful to a traditional crpg just highlights people like story more than gameplay and mechanics. Do you agree? If so, why do kids want to get stories more through games rather than the clearly superior story telling mediums of books and movies/shows? Does the focus of games being on story and not the game seem odd to you?

I know you used to be against games being slightly interactive movies. Has your opinion changed? I enjoyed PoE far more than any of the IE games besides IWD2, because it had far, far superior combat and had actual character development and superior mechanics. But I thought WL2 DC was a far, far superior product and the perfect representation of what an updated crpg should be. It had faults, sure. But it was way closer to being a FO type game than the fake fall outs this new community at the codex love. I think it gives truth to the lies the majority of members of this community claim they want, while cuming in their pants when some final fantasy game comes out.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Not really. WL2 was made to be like the crpgs we all claim we love. PoE was supposed to be an updated BG. I think PoE being more successful to a traditional crpg just highlights people like story more than gameplay and mechanics. Do you agree? If so, why do kids want to get stories more through games rather than the clearly superior story telling mediums of books and movies/shows? Does the focus of games being on story and not the game seem odd to you?
I'd say that people want both and Obsidian offered better story, gameplay/mechanics, and visuals with PoE than inXile with WL2 and newTorment (although newTorment upped the visuals based on my 2-hour playtime).

I know you used to be against games being slightly interactive movies. Has your opinion changed?
Why would it?

I enjoyed PoE far more than any of the IE games besides IWD2, because it had far, far superior combat and had actual character development and superior mechanics. But I thought WL2 DC was a far, far superior product and the perfect representation of what an updated crpg should be.
I liked WL2 (didn't play DC though), it had some truly brilliant moments and memorable fights, but so did PoE with expansion and improved ruleset, which greatly increased my opinion of the game. Overall though, TB combat aside, I fail to see why WL2 is a perfect representation of what RPG should be like and PoE isn't.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
I liked WL2 (didn't play DC though), it had some truly brilliant moments and memorable fights, but so did PoE with expansion and improved ruleset, which greatly increased my opinion of the game. Overall though, TB combat aside, I fail to see why WL2 is a perfect representation of what RPG should be like and PoE isn't.

A perfect update of the crpg genre, not what an rpg should be. It comes down to mechanics and focus. PoE was, to me, BG with better combat and mechanics. WL2 was, to me, another FO but with better combat and mechanics and 4 party creation. If you remove combat and mechanics from the real FOs and the BG games, the focus of either is clearly different. The experience, the narrative, the story you create.

In BG you uncover the story, in FO you create the story. In BG I cleared the content, in FO I played a character. I don't know if that is understandable, but is what I mean by the focus.

I am very happy that RTwP systems, from SitS to PoE, now have interactive combat that at least goes a lot faster with my input. I have nothing against PoE and I enjoyed it a lot. Tyranny was one of the few games I played through back to back. And neither PoE nor Tyranny had retarded spinning cameras as filler nonsense. But, if you took the average person who loved crpgs from the late 80s to mid 90s and asked what the future of the genre looked like - it would look like WL2.

Since most of the community on this site does not like rpgs, the difference between actual rpgs like PoE and WL2 are lost on them. But they are huge. I want more of both types of games, but if I had to choose I would pick the WL2/FO type game over the PoE/BG type game every single time.

And why did you only play TToN for two hours? You are missing out on a truly great game with good mechanics and combat and a quality narrative.
 

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,981
Location
Nedderlent
I meant that it's an honest approach. If we're going to do different difficulty modes, might as well call them Story Mode and Tactical instead of Easy, Normal, and Hard. And if we're offering this easy mode, might as well add an option to turn off checks. I'd say at least 10% of players (based on the feedback) used the console cheats to give them extra SP or used the mod that doubles SP rewards. Should I yell at them for doing it and forbid buying our games in the future?
Hold on. So you are saying that if some players don’t want to play your game with skill checks and combat, you should just remove these core elements of your design approach to please them? Shouldn’t developers have any saying in these decisions? If you allow the players to remove core features off, how is that any different from Triple-A approach to game design? It seems like a cop-out.
I don't think anyone would mind an optional setting that nets ITS more cash.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
WL2 was, to me, another FO but with better combat and mechanics and 4 party creation.
I don't think so. When I played Fallout back in 97 three things stood out the most:

- a perfectly executed setting oozing atmosphere and style (vs BG generic fantasy)
- focus on dialogues (vs BG focus on killing monsters), you explored the world by talking to people
- multiple solutions that allowed you to play the game in different ways (vs killing things in different ways (i.e. classes) in BG)

WL2 doesn't have any of that. The setting is over-the-top, the focus is on combat, and you can't play the game in different ways. PoE is the same way: the setting has potential but is too close to the familiar to stand out the way Fallout's setting did, the focus is on combat, and you can't play the game in different ways. I'd say that PoE with expansion is a better game than WL2 but both games are in the same category.

And why did you only play TToN for two hours? You are missing out on a truly great game with good mechanics and combat and a quality narrative.
Didn't grab me, maybe one day I'll give it another go. So far my main problem with the game is the dialogues, not the world or the overall design.
 

Daedalos

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
5,566
Location
Denmark
You did review WL2 rather favorably, Vince, does that still hold up today in your opinion?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I liked Elex quite a lot but I wouldn't compare it to Fallout either. From the review:

For instance, the main issue I have with it is that the skills are completely disconnected from the stats. The stats don’t determine the starting values of skills (which would have made the stats more useful), don’t give bonuses to skills and don’t play any role in non-combat activities. ... Another issue is that not all stats are created equally....
...
One of the issues I have with the game is random loot. Every time you open a trapped strongbox, a well-locked safe protected by a state-of-the-wasteland-art alarm system or dig out someone’s stash, invisible dice will be rolled, determining which pile of crap to reward you with this time. ... Basically, it’s a good example of a minor decision undermining the character system instead of strengthening it the way everything else does.
...
The combat system is fairly straightforward: attack until you run out of action points... Thus, your choices are limited to positioning and weapons.
...
Design-wise, the true power comes not from skills (they boost your accuracy and critical chance) but from better weapons and having enough hit points to match the ever-increasing damage coming your way.
...
The biggest problem is that the AI is often at odds with itself – enemies act as (suicidal) individuals rather than as a group. It cannot form cohesive strategies, like maintaining positions or targeting individuals, which means that the game needs to rely on increasingly larger numbers – more damage, more hit points, more enemies – instead of smarter strategies.
...
Unfortunately, the skill checks are fairly sporadic and stat checks are extremely rare.
...
Unfortunately, quite often, the quests feel like uncomplicated, post-apocalyptic versions of the TV show Cops. You're instructed to do something – save the AG Center, set up the radio, clean up the prison, save the L'eve Lupe Mines (nobody needed this pun FYI). ... In many cases, these well-worn formulas aren’t used in new or interesting ways, but merely occupy game space, giving you ‘stuff to do’. The contrast with truly exceptional areas couldn’t be starker.
...
Does it mean that you’re going to like it? It depends entirely on your expectations. If you expected a long overdue sequel or a game that allows you to chart your own course, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. If you expected a game like [Fallout / Jagged Alliance / ‘best game evar’], you might be disappointed.
To sum up:

- unbalanced stats, disconnected skills
- simplistic combat system relying on HP bloat and more powerful weapons
- non-existent AI
- rare skill checks
- simplistic filler quests
- useless junk in containers

In other words, a fitting and faithful sequel to Wasteland delivering more of the same. Buy it if you loved Wasteland and want to party like it's 1987. Don't buy it if you expect a game like Fallout or JA2.
 

Saduj

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
2,549
My first playthrough of DR was on easy cause I know VD likes to design hard combat and I wanted to know what to expect before going into it on hard diff.

No shame in admitting it.

I wasn't smart enough to start out that way because I figured "I beat all the fights in AOD so I shouldn't have a problem here". What I didn't realize is that visits to the healer in AOD are cheap and Dungeon Rats is hard because resources are much more limited. I could beat the fights with a healthy party but I kept running out of healing stuff.

Eventually, I bit the bullet and played through on medium difficulty. Knowing what was coming the next time I played on hard was a big help. But what I learned is that the dumbest mistake I was making is taking poison damage in the early game. Once I got past my natural tendency to hoard potions to the point of uselessness, things were not so bad. Went from rage quitting to playing the game several times through.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
I don't recall what the discussion was about, but the first post didn't age well. No-brand Pillars vastly outsold Wasteland 2 and newTorment, which is one of the biggest and most respectable names out there, not to mention Cook and Numenera backup hype:

Pillars - 1,202,413 ± 34,061, players 81% players
Wasteland 2 - 759,818 ± 27,088, players 39%, which is a very low %
TToN - 158,232 ± 12,369, players 74%, got a free weekend deal to boost sales which didn't result in any miracles.

Darkest Dungeon, as no-name as it gets, sold 1,730,190 ± 40,837 with 94%(!!!) players, blowing all 3 out of the water. Banner Saga 2 didn't live up to the original success, selling half as much and with only 46% players.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom