Jeff Vogel on RPG difficulty

[Clockwork Knight]

None of this "the way the game was meant to be played" bs. Unless it's a fan mod, every difficulty included in the game is one of the ways the game was meant to be played (unless the devs put other difficulties in by magic and don't bother testing). There is no true way to play a game (this is a very weird claim in a forum that claims to like open ended games).

easy = non skilled players that don't want a challenge or average skilled players that simply want to steamroll the game for the fun of it.

normal = average skilled player will want this. Won't require massive knowledge of the mechanics, and probably won't make him cry. He still needs to pay attention.

hard and above = confident first timers or players that already went through the game in normal, and want more challenge.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Another hint that he isn't thinking of that is his discussion of Ninja Gaiden. Thing is NG is quite clearly aiming at a niche - and they know that they've got that niche as their bitches. They can take loans using that niche as capital. They can bank on that niche buying their next game, and the next 3 after that, even if each one drops massively in the quality of graphics, tech, and heck comes with an automated device that violates them anally while pouring sugar into their gastank...because they know that there's hardly any other developers making games for that market. That DOESN'T mean that they can't also get the mainstream market, or gamers who want easy versions of their games. They can get that just fine - just do it under a different name with a different title.

I dont understand the double standard between RPGs and other genres. The 2D Ninja Gaidens were near impossible but the last two weren't that tough. There was one boss in the first one that required close to 10 mulligans but I have seen worse. If you compare the mainstream multi platform RPGs do other genres the RPGs are much easier. They are easier than platformers, shooters, whatever sports too. Who doesnt expect to die a bunch of times playing a Mario game? I dont know how you could possibly think that we have anything close to too many deaths in RPGs. I can live with the games that are trying to challenge you to beat the game without dying. Those can be easy and there is a such a thing as too hard. Then there is this huge chasm between what we have now and what my pragmatic 'fly on the wall mind' would call too hard.

95% combat in ME. Aim in enemies general direction and keep firing.

Maybe 80%. You had to take cover in a lot of battles. Matter of fact my best tactic in that game was to run in take a bunch of fire then run while my allies followed them and shot them in the back.

 

[DreadMessiah]

Bullshit.

 

[mondblut]

It does imply that in other contexts, true.

In any. Gaming context is no different, for a common user anyway.

In games, however, it is easily noticeable that it is used interchangeably with 'average'. It's just obvious, come on.

That's all true, but semantics are semantics, that's why "average" is a better term. If anything, even "average"/middle scale position already inherited that "meant to be played at" feel from using to be "normal". As in, picking anything to the left/top of it is admitting to being a pussy, picking up anything to the right/bottom is having no life. The power of a word. :shrug:

 

[bhlaab]

None of this "the way the game was meant to be played" bs. Unless it's a fan mod, every difficulty included in the game is one of the ways the game was meant to be played (unless the devs put other difficulties in by magic and don't bother testing). There is no true way to play a game (this is a very weird claim in a forum that claims to like open ended games).

easy = non skilled players that don't want a challenge or average skilled players that simply want to steamroll the game for the fun of it.

normal = average skilled player will want this. Won't require massive knowledge of the mechanics, and probably won't make him cry. He still needs to pay attention.

hard and above = confident first timers or players that already went through the game in normal, and want more challenge.

Ehhhhhhhh not all the time. Actually it's very rare that skill level affects anything besides making the game cheat more.

 

[Castanova]

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

Suspension of disbelief is a term related to story-telling. So, the answer is any RPG where storytelling is not critical to the game. I.e., any RPG not called PST. Even BioWare, who try to focus on the story, typically fail to suspend disbelief with their silly characters and thinly drawn situations.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Suspension of disbelief is a term related to story-telling. So, the answer is any RPG where storytelling is not critical to the game. I.e., any RPG not called PST.

Actually, suspension of disbelief is a term related to immersion. So, the answer is, every fucking game ever made except for abstract shit like Tetris.

I am eagerly await for Codex to go apeshit about "teh immershun" now, kindly pointing out to me it's just another buzzword for new shit consolefags.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You can get immersed in Tetris. In fact, unless you're anally concentrated on the screen at higher levels, you lose.

 

[Castanova]

Thank you, Clockwork. EV, immersion is not the same as self-relative realism. Try again but this time actually think about what you're saying.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

Thank you, Clockwork. EV, immersion is not the same as self-relative realism. Try again but this time actually think about what you're saying.

For some people 'death and relload' is a cheat that kills whatever pen and paper or LARP grove they might enjoy in a scripted vid game RPG. I can kinda understand that mentality. Its the only thing I really liked about Fire Emblem or Fable.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

You can get immersed in Tetris. In fact, unless you're anally concentrated on the screen at higher levels, you lose.

Concentration on the gameplay is not being immersed in the game world.

You two should really think about what you're saying.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The thing is, you're thinking of this immersion

I'm talking about this one

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Really?

 

[Castanova]

How the hell can you be immersed in a game world without "concentrating on the gameplay?" I'm guessing it has something to do with pretending in your mind that you're really a knight, really riding a horse, and really killing things?

Immersion is not the same as buying into the alternate gameworld from an intellectual sense. In case you haven't noticed from the years of market speak, immersion is about keeping the player's head in the game while they're playing.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

How the hell can you be immersed in a game world without "concentrating on the gameplay?"

I can be concentrating on the gameplay and not be immersed in the game world.

When I play FPS online I'm concentrated, but only the offline version will make me move my whole body to the left to "dodge" an incoming rocket.

 

[Dionysus]

Immersion is not the same as buying into the alternate gameworld from an intellectual sense. In case you haven't noticed from the years of market speak, immersion is about keeping the player's head in the game while they're playing.

Well, that's the reasonable use of the word, but EV's retarded definition is actually becoming somewhat popular. You can hear it in discussions of FP viewpoints, for example.

 

[Raghar]

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

Suspension of disbelief is a term related to story-telling. So, the answer is any RPG where storytelling is not critical to the game. I.e., any RPG not called PST. Even BioWare, who try to focus on the story, typically fail to suspend disbelief with their silly characters and thinly drawn situations.

Story is important in RPG, either implicit or as a strong narrative. A RPG without story, or/and consistent game world, would be much more closer a hack and slash game, than a properly done interactive art.

In fact majority of properly done Vampire RPGs should have strong narrative. I don't recall a RPG game that could be without suspension of disbelief. How could you have any feelings for your character?

Well Bioware is unable to deliver a consistent dynamic world, but it's theirs fault not a limitation of the RPG genre.

 

[bonch]

I can almost hear the heads of hardcore gamers imploding with impotent nerdrage. But seriously. If you have a problem with this, I think you're getting a lot of your fun from making other people have less fun.

No, I'm getting my fun from the challenge of the game. If the game is easy, I just feel like I'm going through the motions for no reason.

 

[Coyote]

How the hell can you be a square without being a rectangle?

I can be a rectangle and not be a square.

 

[kris]

difficult rating goes hand in hand with gameplay. If the gameplay is fun, then the game can be more difficult and may even be more fun if it is difficult. People never had problems dying repeatedly in super mario or many other classic, but still quite mainstream games. For the simple reason that the gameplay was fun and beating it should be a challenge.

The problem comes when the gameplay in question is boring. If your RPG have really boring tedious combat, then none will forgive you for making it difficult. In that case you will say "fuck! do I have to go through this again". That is the question a developer should ask themself. "Would a player want to repeat this part of the game to achieve their objective?"

 

[Emotional Vampire]

I dont understand the double standard between RPGs and other genres. The 2D Ninja Gaidens were near impossible but the last two weren't that tough. There was one boss in the first one that required close to 10 mulligans but I have seen worse. If you compare the mainstream multi platform RPGs do other genres the RPGs are much easier. They are easier than platformers, shooters, whatever sports too. Who doesnt expect to die a bunch of times playing a Mario game? I dont know how you could possibly think that we have anything close to too many deaths in RPGs.

It comes from the fact that RPGs are half skill and half pure fucking luck you slack-jawed junkslut.

When you get killed in Ninja Gaiden, or Mario, or Modern Warfare 3 you get killed because you suck. You either press the wrong buttons, or you press them at the wrong times. You would live if you blocked, used weaker but faster attack, jumped, saw the mushroom, shoot the guy with the RPG first, or hide your stupid ass and not try to be a cool guy. Either way, the fault is 100% on your side.

When you get killed in an RPG, it's not. If you have 50% chance to hit a monster, you have a 50% chance to hit a monster. You might hit him ten times in a row, or you could critical fucking miss and impale yourself on your own dick. So with your 50% hit chance, monster's 25% hit chance, your damage being 1-4 and monster's damage being 2-19 you get a shitload of possible outcomes ranging from flawless victory to death in first turn, all of them completely unrelated to how good of a player you are.

Being "good" in an RPG is just using as many mechanic elements to your advantage as you can: blessing yourself, using a ranged weapon, taking high ground which adds +6 to your dex, grinding till you outlevel enemies 2:1, whatever. But no matter what you do, all you're doing is simply altering a virtual die roll. You're merely decreasing your chance of failure. When it comes to results, everything still depends on a script generating pseudo-random numbers.

That's why I always laugh at people praising "hard" RPGs like Wizardry(A ninja did a sneak attack crit and killed my healer instantly! And half of my group was already poisoned so I got wiped out! AWESOME!) or SMT(I had to try this boss fight seventeen times, but finally, after completely remaking my party setup and grinding for few hours for some elemental equips and potions, I did it with only the main hero left standing with 17HP! AWESOME!). Essentially, these "Hard" games are no different from level-scalling bullshit, these are also designed to "keep you on your toes, always"... hm, did I discover another Codex hypocrisy?

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

*Begins breathing heavily*

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

That's why I always laugh at people praising "hard" RPGs like Wizardry(A ninja did a sneak attack crit and killed my healer instantly! And half of my group was already poisoned so I got wiped out! AWESOME!) or SMT(I had to try this boss fight seventeen times, but finally, after completely remaking my party setup and grinding for few hours for some elemental equips and potions, I did it with only the main hero left standing with 17HP! AWESOME!). Essentially, these "Hard" games are no different from level-scalling bullshit, these are also designed to "keep you on your toes, always"... hm, did I discover another Codex hypocrisy?

Never liked Wizardry. At all. Only from 6 onwards actually, and the kind of thing you are talking about rarely happens in that one, unless you 'suck' and don't know how to play of course.

The games I talk about need skill, not luck, to win. Think Wasteland. Think The Magic Candle. Think Pool of Radiance. And so on. It isn't a question of luck, but skill that wins the battles for you. I understand the games you are talking about, but I never really liked them except when there were no other alternatives (1985/86) except for Ultima 3 and 4.

Actually, there is more luck involved in BG1, BG2, or Fallout than Pool of Radiance. Isn't that ironic? In one, there are no insta deaths, in the other 3, there certainly are, and they are based on luck. How about that? Two of Emo Vamps 'oldschool (snigger)' favourites! Not that I don't like them either.

BG example: "Beholder/Basalisk turns you to stone/disintegrates you!"

Fallout: "Supermutant fires minigun and critically hits you in the balls for 299 damage!"

So, now that you know this isn't the case, no more strawman argument for you. At least directed towards me.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

sup Blackadder

*Begins breathing heavily*

Did you... stand up?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Theres also plenty of action games that aren't based on skill but simply memorizing enemy positions/weapons. Theres no real skill involved in playing simon says. No amount of skill will save you from the sniper that walked out of the inaccessible building above and behind you after you walked past point A and headshots you. You just have to die so you can get him next time using your meta knowledge.

Most RPGs require meta knowledge too, but they also involve creative thinking. Theres only one thing to do to the sniper that magically spawns behind you; turn around and shoot him as soon as he spawns. And you've probably only got one or two guns that can accurately hit him. In an RPG, you've generally got many options for increasing your chances of survival. You can silence enemy mages, focus fire them, use anti magic defenses, or position your characters so their area of effect skills hurt their allies too. You can compensate for a low hp party by having extra healing magic and good evasion/armor. You can make a heavily range/mobility oriented party, or a melee/endurance oriented party, or balance both. Choices like that are interesting and it takes skill to make the most of what resources are available to you.

I don't think I've played a single RPG where grinding was actually necessary. I run away from half the fights I encounter in games where it's possible just because they number of fights you go through just getting from start to finish of a dungeon (Let alone finding every last bit of loot scattered around) is overkill compared to the xp you need to progress to the next area with enemies that give better xp/loot. Knowledge and use of game mechanics can provide the same kind of overwhelming advantage high skill in an action game does. Making the default difficulty such that you can repeat one simple strategy over and over through the entire game is incredibly boring, like an action game where you only use one attack or weapon the entire game.