Something was lost when combat moved from tell to show

[Bustamonte]

The AI scripts are shit, but it does show how shitty and slow the combat is that it could use automation.

 

[octavius]

The AI scripts are shit, but it does show how shitty and slow the combat is that it could use automation.

No, the scripts work well enough against thrash mobs. Against all the interesting encounters in BG1 I really don't see the problem with combat being slower than blobber combat. Was the overhead combat in the Gold Box games a problem too?

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Well2, I actually agree, in the sense that faster resolution of combat (lesser animation etc) makes RPG combats return to its essence, as in your tactical choice against the enemies, and older blobbers are excellent example of that.
But I can't agree that old blobber combat is good because of that. The "tense. tactical battle" is only tense because resource management in which you need to slog through endless maze. The whole game basically revolves around "careful grinding" -> "strong enough to [A][A][A][A]" -> go to next floor/maze ->repeat, and in the process of "careful grinding" you ended up fighting a lot of similar groups which get boring fast, not to mention the next floor/maze might have similar encounter groups that require precisely the same strategy overall. I only play two or three blobbers in my life time though so I might be wrong.

In term of traditional TB crpg, I think I would not mind if the game cuts much of movement(just move character icon like you would do in older chess video games) & attack animations (relying on text feedback instead, maybe simple targeting icon over actors/areas targeted by currently active actor) so long the rest of the game holds up.

 

[Bustamonte]

No, the scripts work well enough against thrash mobs. Against all the interesting encounters in BG1 I really don't see the problem with combat being slower than blobber combat. Was the overhead combat in the Gold Box games a problem too?

They make things even more boring. I just complained about how slow and boring the combat can be, now you guys suggest I sit there and watch it without even participating at all

 

[Bustamonte]

Well2, I actually agree, in the sense that faster resolution of combat (lesser animation etc) makes RPG combats return to its essence, as in your tactical choice against the enemies, and older blobbers are excellent example of that.
But I can't agree that old blobber combat is good because of that. The "tense. tactical battle" is only tense because resource management in which you need to slog through endless maze. The whole game basically revolves around "careful grinding" -> "strong enough to [A][A][A][A]" -> go to next floor/maze ->repeat, and in the process of "careful grinding" you ended up fighting a lot of similar groups which get boring fast, not to mention the next floor/maze might have similar encounter groups that require precisely the same strategy overall. I only play two or three blobbers in my life time though so I might be wrong.

In term of traditional TB crpg, I think I would not mind if the game cuts much of movement(just move character icon like you would do in older chess video games) & attack animations (relying on text feedback instead, maybe simple targeting icon over actors/areas targeted by currently active actor) so long the rest of the game holds up.

I'm not saying the combat itself is better really, but I am not sure that is what an RPG is all about anyway.

In bard's tale it feels like a real expedition. You also have to worry about traps and things. If you can get to the higher level area and win a few combats you can level up, but you also are taking a risk. And if you really just hit AAA without thinking then in Bard's tale it won't be long before you die.

That makes things very tense until later on when you get teleport spells and so on (which you get fairly early in rpgs today).

 

[octavius]

No, the scripts work well enough against thrash mobs. Against all the interesting encounters in BG1 I really don't see the problem with combat being slower than blobber combat. Was the overhead combat in the Gold Box games a problem too?

They make things even more boring. I just complained about how slow and boring the combat can be, now you guys suggest I sit there and watch it without even participating at all

Do you even read what you are replying to?

This place has been crawling with retards lately.
Has some other forum closed down?

 

[Klarion]

People love to complain about "grinding" aka actually playing the game, in blobbers.

Yet I went on a blobber tear a while ago and came to a realization. Sure, there is more combat. Way, way more. But mainly it's also much faster combat and more challenging.

Just compare bard's tale to baldur's gate. In baldur's gate I guess you don't fight too many actual enemies. Maybe a dozen or two for each map. But it's sooo fucking slow. And there's really not much worry you will lose. The worst that can happen is you have to press pause and then do some kiting.

There's all kinds of whizbang cool FX and you can choose out whatever cool spells and gear you want, but in essence all of those DnD features are wasted. You're all dressed up to experience some icy hot tactical combat and there isn't any. You basically just run your character away from the enemy until it's dead. Over and over and over. And some of these combats take forever to run down the foe. You can do it all in your sleep, and it really is a very boring grind.

Contrast that to Bard's Tale I and the early Wizardries. A few skeletons and a mage appear. Every time a combat comes up you are very careful unless you have been in that area many times before. One mistake and you could lose a party member easily. This is true for the majority of the game. You have to carefully weigh your options then choose the ones that are enough to take them out, but not wasteful of precious resources like spellpoints.

You choose your options, and the resolution is quite quick. If you choose carefully and have enough power you are fine, otherwise you quickly find yourself in trouble.

In the later wizardries the combat gets slower, though. I noticed that this corresponds to the amount that's shown onscreen as well. There seemed to be an impetus for always having more. More groups of monsters, more animations, more sound effects and so on. The combat itself went from a challenge into a mummer's show where they try to entertain you, and they drag things out a long time. Even some of the earliest fights are so slow, against creatures that use sleep over and over again for example.

There's something simple and pure about these original RPGs. Combat is quick and lethal, and yet much more engaging most of the time.

I smell a shitposter.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Programming scripts to deal with trash mobs is very easy for programmers, but for peons like me it requires spending time on wikis and console codes, and it's just not worth it.

 

[octavius]

Programming scripts to deal with trash mobs is very easy for programmers, but for peons like me it requires spending time on wikis and console codes, and it's just not worth it.

Uh...the base game comes with lots of scripts, for various classes and play styles. No need to program them yourselves. They certainly were effective - and fast - enough first time I played BG1.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Got to reinstall it, I didn't catch it the first time. But it seems to me to be a little counterintuitive.

 

[Galdred]

People love to complain about "grinding" aka actually playing the game, in blobbers.

Yet I went on a blobber tear a while ago and came to a realization. Sure, there is more combat. Way, way more. But mainly it's also much faster combat and more challenging.

Just compare bard's tale to baldur's gate. In baldur's gate I guess you don't fight too many actual enemies. Maybe a dozen or two for each map. But it's sooo fucking slow. And there's really not much worry you will lose. The worst that can happen is you have to press pause and then do some kiting.

There's all kinds of whizbang cool FX and you can choose out whatever cool spells and gear you want, but in essence all of those DnD features are wasted. You're all dressed up to experience some icy hot tactical combat and there isn't any. You basically just run your character away from the enemy until it's dead. Over and over and over. And some of these combats take forever to run down the foe. You can do it all in your sleep, and it really is a very boring grind.

Contrast that to Bard's Tale I and the early Wizardries. A few skeletons and a mage appear. Every time a combat comes up you are very careful unless you have been in that area many times before. One mistake and you could lose a party member easily. This is true for the majority of the game. You have to carefully weigh your options then choose the ones that are enough to take them out, but not wasteful of precious resources like spellpoints.

You choose your options, and the resolution is quite quick. If you choose carefully and have enough power you are fine, otherwise you quickly find yourself in trouble.

In the later wizardries the combat gets slower, though. I noticed that this corresponds to the amount that's shown onscreen as well. There seemed to be an impetus for always having more. More groups of monsters, more animations, more sound effects and so on. The combat itself went from a challenge into a mummer's show where they try to entertain you, and they drag things out a long time. Even some of the earliest fights are so slow, against creatures that use sleep over and over again for example.

There's something simple and pure about these original RPGs. Combat is quick and lethal, and yet much more engaging most of the time.

You talk about two orthogonal issues, and make it sound as if they were related :
1) graphical representation of combat makes it slower
2) BG and many other games have degenerate strategies that suck challenge out of these games, but are slow and boring to implement
and then conclude that everything is decline.

Issue 1) is true, representing combat takes longer, but as anyone who has played PnP can attest, miniatures combat involves more tactical decision than PnP descriptive combat. Lone Wolf or Fighting Fantasy combat are also quick to resolve, but they involve almost zero tactical decisions.
Positioning is one of the most important tactical factor in combat, and it requires graphical representation to make it work (and if you replace it with a text description, like you face one archer at 344°N, 32 meters, one man at arm 173° S, 25m. You are facing 75°E. I doubt it would make it any better than showing it.

Issue 2) is also a problem, and it is true that abstracting combat makes it almost disappear, because it is much harder to have degenerate strategies when there is no tactical decision to make.
Basically, the problem is that some games allow you to use painfully boring optimal strategies that take forever to implement perfectly, but offer little risk when it is done. It is also an issue with King's Bounty for instance. Even X(-)COM to a certain extent, where moving your scouts 1 tile at a time has very little downside.
So removing the tactical layer does remove these strategies indeed, but I don't think it is the best solution.
Another problem that relates to issue 2 is filler combat. Combat whose issue is foregone, but still takes time to complete. Some designers like it because it is supposed to show how powerful you get, or because it allows your mind to rest between stressful sessions, and for this issue, I agree that telling works better than showing. But not having it in the first place may be even better.
Some games allow you to sidestep it (with monsters trying to run away if you overpowered them in Heroes of Might and Magic 3 for instance), but as they usually deprive you of XP, then don't really make it a good idea to do so. Other allow you to autoresolve some fights (mostly strategic games with a tactical layer, like Age of Wonders, but the results are usually unnecessary punishing).
That does come close to telling, and it is indeed better than playing the whole encounter, but tell only combat result should be optional, and the purpose should mostly be to avoid you having to go through combat that has become filler level for your character/party/whatever.

 

[Mustawd]

But it is an example of why slowing down combat is bad. The longer combat is the more filler there must be. BG takes makes it painfully clear because the filler part is so bad,

Most of which is optional and has to be sought out.
There are several things you can do to avoid the "filler combat" or make it quicker in BG1:
1. Don't play the game.

Really the only option IMO. But I'm not suprised at the people defending such worthless combat. I mean kiting, in and of itself, is reason to hate the entirety of combat of BG. It's just too easy to cheese the hell out of it. I mean just read Sensuki's posts (a tear ago) on AI targeting. It's ridiculous.

 

[octavius]

That's why one uses SCS.

 

[Mustawd]

Fair enough. But I think the OP has a point in terms of how blobber combat is considered "grindy" or "filler", but in reality it is filed with tons of tension.

The fact that he used vanilla BG as an example, I think, just ended up triggering people.

 

[octavius]

Using vanilla BG as an example is usually a bad idea, since the game is so moddable. Even vanilla has AI scripts to make those infamous "trash combats" irrelevant for serious discussion.

Blobber combat need not be "filler". It's not in Wizardry 1 and MM2, for example. It is in the Bard's Tale games (to an extreme degree in 2 and 3 since you become all but invincible if never fleeing), and Wizardry 7.
And of course it helps when you can't rest in dungeons to replenish mana; that sure make things more tense (and strategic).
So blobber combat is usually better against "trash mobs" because it quicker, but for more interesting encounters (other parties, liches, dragons) slow overhead combat with more options is more interesting.

I like both systems; some diversity is good. But the evolution has definitely gone more and more towards more "realistic" story driven games/interactive movies, and less puzzles and abstract stuff, which is a shame.

 

[Bustamonte]

Using vanilla BG as an example is usually a bad idea, since the game is so moddable. Even vanilla has AI scripts to make those infamous "trash combats" irrelevant for serious discussion.

Jesus Christ. YOU are the one who used the term trash combat. That is nothing to do with the thread. How many times much I repeat myself.

Blobber combat need not be "filler".

Don't use quotes when you are not quoting someone. No one said it was.

It's not in Wizardry 1 and MM2, for example. It is in the Bard's Tale games (to an extreme degree in 2 and 3 since you become all but invincible if never fleeing), and Wizardry 7.

Now we come to it. It's YOU who think BT is trash combat. You are very wrong.

And of course it helps when you can't rest in dungeons to replenish mana; that sure make things more tense (and strategic).
So blobber combat is usually better against "trash mobs" because it quicker,

Again nothing to do with the thread, nothing claimed by anyone.

but for more interesting encounters (other parties, liches, dragons) slow overhead combat with more options is more interesting.

More options = more entertaining. BG doesn't have more options though.

You just get to watch chit die. Slowly.

There's better games than BG but it illustrates the point well. Slowing down combat doesn't mean the combat is better, it's definitely worse in BG, mods or no mods. And obviously you shouldn't bring mods into a discussion on a game's mechanics anyway since 90% of people never use mods and they change the game. Use common sense for god's sake, if you have any.

 

[Space Insect]

Wait, so you're talking about combat that takes longer and therefore counts as filler? Or am I completely wrong?

Protip: use distinguishable words that don't sound exactly like other things

 

[Bustamonte]

Wait, so you're talking about combat that takes longer and therefore counts as filler? Or am I completely wrong?

Protip: use distinguishable words that don't sound exactly like other things

There's no problem with my English skills, just with the autism of some users. Like I said some other time just search on "filler combat" in my post. It doesn't exist. Not does the word filler either


As for the premise of the thread...reread the first post or simply the title of the thread. It's "something was lost when combat went from tell to show"! Nothing to do with filler combat in any way shape or form except in the mind of some of our more deranged and English-challenged Kodexian Komrades.

 

[octavius]

There's no problem with my English skills, just with the autism of some users.

You are projecting too much.

Like I said some other time just search on "filler combat" in my post. It doesn't exist. Not does the word filler either

So who wrote this, then:

But it is an example of why slowing down combat is bad. The longer combat is the more filler there must be. BG takes makes it painfully clear because the filler part is so bad, but the same thing applies even to later blobbers - the same fight is being drawn out over a much greater time, usually to ill effect.

Fucking troll.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Bustamonte, even if I do agree with you, no need to harass Octavius; with Felipepe, he's one of the most dignified and monocled gentleman on this forum. Just saying...

But I agree, I could never finish BG because of the tedium of dealing with the trash mobs, never knew about the macros, but even then, it would have been a tedium programming them for me. But I can understand that people prefer the possibilities that it created.

On the other side, I did finish BT 1, 2 and 3, even if they were a slog to get through. But then I loved Wasteland and Dragon Wars which had the same combat. Their general design was just better.

 

[octavius]

But I agree, I could never finish BG because of the tedium of dealing with the trash mobs, never knew about the macros, but even then, it would have been a tedium programming them for me.

The only tedium is selecting a script, and click on the AI button to activate and deactivate scripts.

Or you can get one of MPrilla's SuperScripts and it will play the game for you.

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

I don't know. I really think it's a question of design. I did finish BG 2 without a problem, without ever using the AI, and had a blast during all of the ride.
BG felt to me much more like an arcade game (even if it was impressive at the time). I was like: what the hell is my cleric doing, no, no, come back here, cast heal wounds on the tank for god's sake.
I did finish BT 1 or 2 while they were tedious (not so for BT 3, because it had puzzles, except for the horrible nazi dimension).

 

[Lilura]

OP is a fucking idiot who doesn't know BG. The combat is not slow or mostly filler. Also, kiting is inefficient and for newbies only.

 

[Lilura]

BG felt to me much more like an arcade game (even if it was impressive at the time). I was like: what the hell is my cleric doing, no, no, come back here, cast heal wounds on the tank for god's sake.

Wtf did I just read?

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Such were the joys of being acquainted with the Infinity Engine and large maps filled with uninteresting encounters.