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.

Jeff Vogel on RPG difficulty

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Silellak said:
Yes, your arguments make me cry and I hate Dragon Age now :(
I don't expect you to stop playing the game. I expect you to come up with a reasonable argument for why you think the game mechanics are good other than "they are well implemented". You know, without circular logic.

I said level-scaling was bad because it encourages metagame thinking of the bad kind, because it completely destroys the sense and purpose of character progression, because it isn't natural and disencourages backtracking, and leads to lazy encounter design of the "just toss a bunch of dumbfucks with lots of hitpoints together and some traps" kind (which are boring, repetitive, artificially long/"difficult").

I said combat was bad because of obvious cookie-cutter, boring abilities (what happened to contingency spells? Where are my Chaos, my Charm, my Dimension Door, my Invisibility, and my skeleton summoning spells? Where is my large list of buffs?), instant damage spells, too much stunning crap, instant potion effects, enemies spawning behind you, and well, auto-regeneration and auto-resurrection (which I won't get into because it's been discussed to death).

Silellak said:
It has nothing to do simply being entertained by your endless crusade against a game you don't even like. I'm pretty sure you've spent more hours of your life dedicated towards the game than I have, and I like the fucking thing.
Well, liking it is one thing, but saying it's good is another. I won't let you get away with saying that without a proper justification, particularly in this forum whose purpose is or rather was to expose both bad and good game design and not just hype and base opinion.

Monocause said:
And why shouldn't he defend it if he likes it and feels the features you consistently criticise are either well executed or aren't a big enough problem to take out the fun factor from the game? Did you expect him to bash auto-regen, level scaling and other stuff on some sort of a principle? Did you expect other DA supporters to do so as well? Finally, which part of his reputation did he allegedly lose? If you wish to respond, do so in one of the DA threads, I'll find it.
Because he doesn't define what "well executed" or "fun factor" is. He said auto-regen works, but not why. He said level-scaling worked, because it was "well implemented", but not why.

He accuses people of not explaining their arguments, but I haven't heard a single one from him. In fact, he has only showed to be incapable of understanding the meaning of irony, and constantly pulled strawmen when presented with evidence about bad writing (even after citing literary critics).

He happens to like Dragon Age, yes, that much is obvious, but he doesn't explain soundly why he thinks it's good. He went on about it having good choices with meaningful consequences, presenting the Arl of Eamon questline as evidence, when in fact the outcome is the same whether you save Connor or not, or use her mother as sacrifice. What's worse is that you'll still forcibly get the Ashes of Andraste even if you're corrupting them with dragon blood (your character will take them even if your corrupt them first). Even after all this the Arl will still support you.

So no, I don't think he has principles at all since all those things he onced used to criticize and he has now made a 180-degree spin.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Hamster said:
Silellak said:
It has nothing to do simply being entertained by your endless crusade against a game you don't even like

So, now you completely criticise a game if you don't like it - even though you have already posted that a gazilion times in the 30 or so threads devoted specifically to that game so that every single person on the Codex knows your viewpoint already - in one of those 30 or so threads that are to do with that game. You cannot, however, continue to spam your view which you've already spammed all over the threads to which it is relevant, and half the ones to which it isn't, in one thread where people have specifically asked to just have a thread where the discussion is not derailed by discussion of another game that already has 30 or so simultaneous discussions going on about it. Thats just really really sensible, man and I wish that someone would explain to me how to just put my views in my sig so I wouldn't have to look like a douche by repeating them in every forum on the Codex.

Fixed
 

Silellak

Cipher
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,198
Location
Tucson, AZ
Hamster said:
Silellak said:
It has nothing to do simply being entertained by your endless crusade against a game you don't even like

So, now you cannot criticise a game if you don't like it. Thats just brilliant, man.
Man, debates are so much easier if you just make up what you wish the other person had said, rather than respond to their actual words or points.

Wish I'd thought of that.

1eyedking said:
I am going to finish the game, and then resume my discussion of it, since apparently many on the Codex follow the philosophy of "If I don't like the game, it's perfectly okay to post spoilers about it without warning in an impressions thread." So, I'll get back to you - you know, assuming you'll let me get away with that. I only hope, in the meantime, VD can regain his reputation.

Internet forum discussions: serious business.
 

Hamster

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
5,934
Location
Moscow
Codex 2012 Grab the Codex by the pussy Codex USB, 2014
Silellak said:
Man, debates are so much easier if you just make up what you wish the other person had said, rather than respond to their actual words or points.

Respond to their actual words or points, you say?

So, go on, respond. Here's actual words and points:

But even if they do, it's only because encounter design is so awesome that enemies use their abilities to their full-extent (meaning they constantly spam crap that insta-stuns and interrupts you), have a believable amount of hit-points, don't spawn out of nowhere behind you, don't level-scale at all, and don't resort to downright cheap, artificial gimmicks, right?


I don't see how i am preventing you from responding.
 

Silellak

Cipher
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,198
Location
Tucson, AZ
Hamster said:
Silellak said:
Man, debates are so much easier if you just make up what you wish the other person had said, rather than respond to their actual words or points.

Respond to their actual words or points, you say?

So, go on, respond. Here's actual words and points:

But even if they do, it's only because encounter design is so awesome that enemies use their abilities to their full-extent (meaning they constantly spam crap that insta-stuns and interrupts you), have a believable amount of hit-points, don't spawn out of nowhere behind you, don't level-scale at all, and don't resort to downright cheap, artificial gimmicks, right?


I don't see how i am preventing you from responding.
As I said, I'll discuss Dragon Age in more detail once I've finished the game and had time to reflect on it. For now, I'll leave it at "1eyedking tends to exaggerate the bad and ignore the good". For reference, see our discussion in the original Dragon Age impressions thread regarding the level-scaling of items. I would link to it, but that thread is full of spoilers now, and so I'd rather not dig through it at the moment.

And my point was that you somehow interpreted "I find it funny that 1eyedking puts so much time and effort towards discussing a game he doesn't like, to the point of posting in almost every active Codex thread vaguely related to Dragon Age and creating multiple animated gifs to demonstrate his repetitive points" as "People aren't allowed to criticize games they don't like!" He seems almost personally offended that people - especially VD - dare to call Dragon Age a good game, and I find that behavior amusing.
 

Tails

Arbiter
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
1,674
This guy is funny. As I heard, Jeff Vogel said once that he almost get out of indie business, because his X game sold poorly...
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
I guess Vogel can have his way.

Anybody smart enough to build a proper character will know there is a difficulty slider.

Just make sure that the default difficulty is labelled as Easy and the higher difficulty is labelled as Normal.

If I don't enjoy the Normal difficulty, even when it was supposed to be the Easy difficulty, I just don't consider playing the game any further, because as far as I know, the Normal was how the game was meant to be played.
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Wyrmlord said:
If I don't enjoy the Normal difficulty, even when it was supposed to be the Easy difficulty, I just don't consider playing the game any further, because as far as I know, the Normal was how the game was meant to be played.
 

Silellak

Cipher
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
3,198
Location
Tucson, AZ
Wyrmlord said:
Just make sure that the default difficulty is labelled as Easy and the higher difficulty is labelled as Normal.

Seems reasonable. I prefer when games don't even have a default difficulty - you have to select one when beginning a game - and the new game/difficulty selection screen has a detailed description of how each difficulty level changes gameplay.
 

Dionysus

Scholar
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
345
Azrael the cat said:
From a business model perspective, he's missing something massive. At his level of the industry, it's completely irrelevant whether most people, or even most rpg fans, like their games to be easy or hard. He needs to know whether the people who want to play HIS games like them easy or hard.
I can't believe that so many people here are completely missing his point. This isn't a question about whether the game should be easy or hard. It's a question about whether the default level of difficulty should be easy or hard.

In general, people that want a more challenging game will be those that are willing to put more time into the game. They are more likely to be the people that will go to an options menu to tweak the settings to their preference. Sure, some joke accounts on messageboards like this one might suggest that adjusting a difficulty slider is a big issue, but most people that put a lot of time into games are accustomed to customizing settings or even utilizing mods to get the experience that they want. Casual players and neophytes are more likely to want an easier game and less likely to bother with tweaks if they get frustrated.

There's really no cost for making the default difficulty easy.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,503
Castanova said:
yes, because suspension of disbelief is the cornerstore of any RPG. :roll:

Would you list 10 RPGs where suspension of disbelief wasn't important?
 

Monocause

Arcane
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
3,656
Wyrmlord said:
If I don't enjoy the Normal difficulty, even when it was supposed to be the Easy difficulty, I just don't consider playing the game any further, because as far as I know, the Normal was how the game was meant to be played.

Great logic. So the developers put in other difficulty levels but what they mean is, in fact: "this is not how the game is meant to be played! Choose the natural, normal option!"

There is no such thing as "The game is meant to be played on the normal difficulty because it's named, duh, normal". The whole concept of implementing difficulty levels is that some people are more apt/have more time/have other preferences and as such will enjoy the game more when picking the more difficult option. You can see this especially in SW games where most of his hardcore fans start each game on hard, some even like to pick torment from the get-go. The rest starts on average and even drop it sometimes to easy if they get frustrated. *This* is how it's meant to be played.

Normal doesn't mean 'natural, the good way, the way we've planned'. It means 'this is a difficulty level for what we consider the average Joe and Jane''.
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Silellak said:
Seems reasonable. I prefer when games don't even have a default difficulty - you have to select one when beginning a game - and the new game/difficulty selection screen has a detailed description of how each difficulty level changes gameplay.
And this as well.

Monocause said:
There is no such thing as "The game is meant to be played on the normal difficulty because it's named, duh, normal". The whole concept of implementing difficulty levels is that some people are more apt/have more time/have other preferences and as such will enjoy the game more when picking the more difficult option. You can see this especially in SW games where most of his hardcore fans start each game on hard, some even like to pick torment from the get-go. The rest starts on average and even drop it sometimes to easy if they get frustrated. *This* is how it's meant to be played.

Normal doesn't mean 'natural, the good way, the way we've planned'. It means 'this is a difficulty level for what we consider the average Joe and Jane''.
The thing about picking "Hard" first is that usually the game isn't well balanced in it, and some big design blunder can take away from all the fun. It's not inaccurate to say "Hard" = Reloadathon in most games.

Say that for example Hard difficulty adds +100% damage to all creatures; your characters all have ~50 HP at a given point in the game, and they meet an already difficult monster that attacks slowly on normal doing ~25 damage on average, after all buffs/debuffs have been applied. The encounter makes you rely on memorizing several healing spells beforehand, or taking a couple of extra potions with you. If you were to play that same encounter on Hard, the game difficulty would become insane (not just "Hard") since your enemy would kill you in a single hit, meaning that you would have to rely on constantly reloading until you get lucky enough that the monsters misses all of his hits before you deal enough damage to kill him. Yeah, "hard" indeed.

Unless different difficulties are hand-tailored, there's not much point in adding them unless you've gone through each single encounter and correctly tested them (so as to be difficult not because of purely artificial means such as extra damage, resistance, or hit points, but because of their byproduct creating a condition that can be solved only if the the player thinks and further applies his intelligence and in-game knowledge, rather than rely on grinding of various kinds).
 

Elzair

Cipher
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,254
I find it funny that Bioware RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age are looked down upon by hardcore Codexers while rpgs like Planescape: Torment, Fallout, and Arcanum are praised. Face it, BG and Dragon Age are FAR harder than anything Black Isle or Troika ever made (save perhaps for Icewind Dale and ToEE).
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
That is probably because the focus of the games was elsewhere (multiple solution paths). Try going against the Khans with a thief in Fallout and you'll see you plain aren't meant for combat and are supposed to sneak Tandi out.

As for the others, well, Arcanum combat was fucked up, and combat in Torment was practically nonexistent. I guess both Icewind Dales and ToEE more than counterbalance that.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
3,520
I don't have a problem with normal being the new easy, as long as the difficulty levels are extended beyond hard. DA was fine with this, shame the combat system itself was so shitty that you have to restrict yourself from using cheese spells.

Elzair said:
I find it funny that Bioware RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age are looked down upon by hardcore Codexers while rpgs like Planescape: Torment, Fallout, and Arcanum are praised. Face it, BG and Dragon Age are FAR harder than anything Black Isle or Troika ever made (save perhaps for Icewind Dale and ToEE).

How to win 95% of BG:
Cast Web.
Spam missile attacks.
If you die, reload and spend a minute buffing yourself into invincibility.

How to win 95% of DA:
Cast Force Field on the strongest enemy.
Cast Cone of Cold on the weaker enemies.
Wait around while your invincible (thanks to infinite potion stacks) group automatically cleans up the rest of the enemies.

Dez gaems r hard.
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Overweight Manatee said:
(thanks to infinite potion stacks)
Don't forget you can make your party members automatically drink them whenever their health drops below 50% (or 75%, 25%, 10%). And they said Dungeon Siege was a screensaver...
 

Monocause

Arcane
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
3,656
1eyedking said:
Say that for example Hard difficulty adds +100% damage to all creatures; your characters all have ~50 HP at a given point in the game, and they meet an already difficult monster that attacks slowly on normal doing ~25 damage on average, after all buffs/debuffs have been applied. The encounter makes you rely on memorizing several healing spells beforehand, or taking a couple of extra potions with you. If you were to play that same encounter on Hard, the game difficulty would become insane (not just "Hard") since your enemy would kill you in a single hit, meaning that you would have to rely on constantly reloading until you get lucky enough that the monsters misses all of his hits before you deal enough damage to kill him. Yeah, "hard" indeed.

Unless different difficulties are hand-tailored, there's not much point in adding them unless you've gone through each single encounter and correctly tested them (so as to be difficult not because of purely artificial means such as extra damage, resistance, or hit points, but because of their byproduct creating a condition that can be solved only if the the player thinks and further applies his intelligence and in-game knowledge, rather than rely on grinding of various kinds).

And you base whole of this on what, exactly? You say that there's no point to it following an example you made up yourself. I'd like to hear some real examples - and please post many of them since there's a lot of RPGs that have a meaningful and decently implemented difficulty level system.

Yes, if your scenario would be applied, 'hard' could get unplayable. Fortunately developers know what beta-testers are for. Jeff's beta-testers are requested to message away any balancing issues. Result? SW games are completely winnable on all the difficulty levels without a reload-fest. Actually, I can't think of a game that's unwinnable because you picked a too hard difficulty. Even the heart of fury mode in IWD/IWD2 allowed you to play without constant reloading as soon as you gained a couple of levels.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
Ultimately difficulty is not something that can easily be added in to baby's first RPG.

It goes to the core of the game mechanics, the economy, the plot and the game's scenarios.

How easy is it to resurrect your dead units? Is there permadeath?

How often can you save?

How easy is it to favor one of your units so that his power level grows to a point where the enemy can't touch him, allowing you to tank/bait with him and mess with the AI?

How smart is the AI? Can it be baited? Does it heal? Does it prioritize killing one player unit over spreading around damage? Does it understand resistances? Do enemy units work together? Can it use spells? Can it counter spells?

How much does the economy favor the player? Are you struggling to acquire basic gear on par with what the enemies use or is loot and gold thrown at you?

How much are the scenarios stacked against you? Do they give enemies terrain advantages? Do they have objectives which are difficult to fulfill? Do they have proper scripting to make supposedly intelligent enemies seem intelligent?

Are the encounters designed to be challenging? If you're fighting 20 guys it makes a big difference if they're all melee in a narrow corridor, or if they're a combination of melee, ranged and casters in a big room.

Even the plot is related to difficulty, do you have to rescue certain NPCs that might be killed, break out of jail or run from an overwhelming army? ETC ETC

Regardless of the statistics of enemies, there is a very big difference between a hard game and an easy game, and it will not be profitable to have a difficulty mode that turns KOTOR2 into Star Trail.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
Yes, "normal" DOES imply "the way it's meant to be played". That's why it should be called something less misleading, like "average" or something.
 

Monocause

Arcane
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
3,656
mondblut said:
Yes, "normal" DOES imply "the way it's meant to be played". That's why it should be called something less misleading, like "average" or something.

It does imply that in other contexts, true. In games, however, it is easily noticeable that it is used interchangeably with 'average'. It's just obvious, come on.

EDIT: If you want an in-depth answer, here you go: when choosing a game difficulty we are presented with a couple of choices that fit on the difficulty scale which may be represented as such:

EASY-------------X--------------HARD

"Easy" and "Hard" are two extremes here. The point in the middle is called either 'average' or 'normal', but it means exactly the same regardless of the word we use - it is something that is between "easy" and "hard". It is 'average' difficulty or 'normal' difficulty - normal as in "not straying towards any of the extremes"

It is *not* a 'normality scale'. It's a difficulty scale. If it was a normality scale then, dunno:

FUCKED UP TO THE LEFT--------------NORMAL------------FUCKED UP TO THE RIGHT.
 

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