The "I liked the combat better when it sucked" phenomenon

[Volrath]

Fallout combat is the epitome of combat in RPGs, it does not have to be overly complex to be working and fun at same time and most of all, it does not have to be balanced.

You just went full retard. Never go full retard.

 

[Declinator]

Just because there are more possible small moves in JA2 does not mean each are distinct and significant as each move in chess.

If you wanted to say "Chess has more distinct and significant moves per turn than any computer game" then that is what you should have said instead of:

Chess has a lot more possible moves per turn than a computer game.

Now it just seems like you are trying to backtrack which may or may not be true. The truth is though that what you actually said is factually wrong.

When it comes to having more "distinct and significant" moves the conclusion is not as foregone and distinctiveness itself seems somewhat questionable as the line of distinct and not-distinct would have to be drawn somewhere and many possibilities in games like JA2 do indeed only have subtle but meaningful differences.

I would still heavily favor JA2 as the victor.

 

[Johannes]

Whatever, convincing you guys doesn't really matter. Continue believe that chess is the one game in the whole world with the most complexity, created hundreds of years ago, which will never be surpassed. Because to admit anything else might be better would be sacrilege.

Yes, that's exactly what everyone here believes. And rightly so.

 

[TigerKnee]

I guess since every game from Baldur's Gate to Fallout to (insert your favourite RPG here) has had a "Game X is overrated and really a piece of shit" thread, it wouldn't be the Codex if we didn't do this to Chess as well.

 

[Severian Silk]

Does JA: Flashback get flak for this reason? Or is it objectively worse than JA2 when it comes to combat mechanics?

 

[Grunker]

I guess since every game from Baldur's Gate to Fallout to (insert your favourite RPG here) has had a "Game X is overrated and really a piece of shit" thread, it wouldn't be the Codex if we didn't do this to Chess as well.

I actually don't think JA2 has a thread like that... somebody who hates JA2 make one!

 

[RandomAccount]

I would do, but I've never played it... which is probably the same thing in the eyes of said people...

If I did it then it would just be a standard "God I hate RPGs with guns" thread - the standard polar opposite to the "God, I hate RPGs with pure fantasy settings" thread.

 

[Rake]

I guess since every game from Baldur's Gate to Fallout to (insert your favourite RPG here) has had a "Game X is overrated and really a piece of shit" thread, it wouldn't be the Codex if we didn't do this to Chess as well.

I actually don't think JA2 has a thread like that... somebody who hates JA2 make one!

I don't think there will be one.Someone who hates JA2 propably doesn't like it's whole premise. JA2 was very good for what it was. Even if i can't say i liked it very much, i would rate it 10/10 in the sense that it hit all the goals it set for itself.
A thing i can't say about most games, even if i like them infinitely more.

But if you want a thread where i say that JA2 isn't an RPG, i'll make one

Spoiler

with the contition that you will carry the "what is an RPG" discussion while i eat popcorn

 

[FeelTheRads]

Actually we already have one of those retards:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-bought-jagged-alliance-2-and-it-sucks.90386/

Oh no, wait, we have two:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/jagged-alliance-2-is-overrated.89789/

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Well, there are some things I hate about JA, the combat system is top-notch but I have a gripe with other things
-There is a shitload of mercenaries but most will not be seen. Since the beginning you have money to hire top-notch mercs (or at least one) so there is no reason to bother with them on your first playthrough. Which means most of the NPCs (who also consumed a lot of budget because of voice acting and shit) won't be seen by most players. I mean they made you work your way up from using shitty guns despite it making no fucking sesne, why no do this with mercenaries.
-Cities (which most players will see) are populated by a bunch of generics and 2-3 unique NPCs. Makes them feel a bit dull
-I think it may be because I play the game wrong but cities are underused. Instead of being entrenched in ambush-zones or something enemies just run to you after hearing one of them getting shot and will be killed one after another. Often reducing capturing a sector to sniping everyone from one spot
-Most enemies are just people with guns, replaced by people with better guns and better guns etc. Makes fighting them dull (not that the combat is dull by itself, but it's boring to see the same enemy over and over again). I mean sure it's a realistic game so they won't just throw hobgoblins with fireballs at you, but most realistic combat games are bigger in scale. There is artillery, mechanised infantry, heavy machine gunners, grenadiers, choppers medics, tanks (ok there are a few tanks, but only few), jeeps and shit. Here there are just people who will sometime use a grenade or a LAW.
-Managing your mercenaries is a pain in the ass. They will have less stamina if they are tired but won't go to sleep if they are not tired, synchronising them is pointlessly tedious. Can't they just get some pills or shit?
-Also. Not enough unique encounters and quests. Fighting bug queen and Mike was great. Everything in between? Not really.

I like it after seeing another bunch of dudes I often though "I wish I was playing Incubation".

 

[Grunker]

Spoiler

with the contition that you will carry the "what is an RPG" discussion while i eat popcorn

I would rather eat dust.

Actually we already have one of those retards:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-bought-jagged-alliance-2-and-it-sucks.90386/

Oh no, wait, we have two:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/jagged-alliance-2-is-overrated.89789/

I stand corrected, and I feel bad.

 

[Mangoose]

Just because there are more possible small moves in JA2 does not mean each are distinct and significant as each move in chess.

If you wanted to say "Chess has more distinct and significant moves per turn than any computer game" then that is what you should have said instead of:

Chess has a lot more possible moves per turn than a computer game.

Now it just seems like you are trying to backtrack which may or may not be true. The truth is though that what you actually said is factually wrong.

No, it's called you're being an autist.

When it comes to having more "distinct and significant" moves the conclusion is not as foregone and distinctiveness itself seems somewhat questionable as the line of distinct and not-distinct would have to be drawn somewhere and many possibilities in games like JA2 do indeed only have subtle but meaningful differences.

I would still heavily favor JA2 as the victor.

Fucking hell. The whole point is about what AI is easier to program. Not about which one is the "victor." The point is that chess's distinctness of every move - and thus requirement that every move be very very thought out - makes every single turn important to be executed correctly. Yes, JA2 has many meaningful differences, but those differences are on a different layer. JA2 doesn't require you to maximize the use of every single action point you have, it requires you to fulfill some variety of "objectives" (by objectives I mean correct stance, being in cover, etc.) per complete turn. In fact one of the main differences is that chess is much more "tactical" (by a certain definition) in that there are distinct permutations to be calculated. JA2 is instead actually more strategic, in that every turn is not a direct limit/plan to what happens the next turn. In that it's more important to do general things such as maintain cover, move in groups/flank and fire support, use the right range for your weapon, etc. I don't mean just for NPCs - think about how the player enacts a turn. Does every single action point matter or is it more important to do generally the correct action during a turn?

What I'm saying is that JA2 allows the use of specific scripts to help perform AI behavior. This is not something you can do with chess, where you have rely on traditional programming searches (tree searches?) for every move. That's not to say JA2 does not require that to some extent, but that each move does not have to be so precise in order to provide a challenge.

Edit: Perhaps another way to say it is that, in (high level) chess, there is basically one optimal move every turn. In JA2, there is not necessarily an optimal moves/set of moves, which gives leeway to the AI - not that there aren't wrong/bad choices.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I guess since every game from Baldur's Gate to Fallout to (insert your favourite RPG here) has had a "Game X is overrated and really a piece of shit" thread, it wouldn't be the Codex if we didn't do this to Chess as well.

I actually don't think JA2 has a thread like that... somebody who hates JA2 make one!

Done.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Edit: Perhaps another way to say it is that, in (high level) chess, there is basically one optimal move every turn.

Sure about that?

 

[Mangoose]

Edit: Perhaps another way to say it is that, in (high level) chess, there is basically one optimal move every turn.

Sure about that?

Outside of the opening, sometimes positional midgame strategy, yes. Every move counts. You make a suboptimal move, then you have lost a great deal of tempo/initiative to the opponent, especially in the opening, when you are setting up "openings" for your pieces to come out (proper term being "development").

 

[NotAGolfer]

Edit: Perhaps another way to say it is that, in (high level) chess, there is basically one optimal move every turn.

Sure about that?

Outside of the opening, sometimes positional midgame strategy, yes. Every move counts. You make a suboptimal move, then you have lost a great deal of tempo/initiative to the opponent, especially in the opening, when you are setting up "openings" for your pieces to come out (proper term being "development").

Yeah, it is mainly the opening variability and positioning mid game I was thinking of though. I guess grandmasters and computers got this game figured out quite well up to now, but a lot of it is still based on experience and as long as that is still growing there will always be the chance that some genius will find new solutions to age old problems even mid to late game... or at least early late game ^^

 

[Johannes]

All chess positions have obvious optimal moves, except the positions that don't.

 

[Mangoose]

All chess positions have obvious optimal moves, except the positions that don't.

Who said anything about optimal moves being obvious?

Edit: Look, I'm not at all talking about A game being superior than B game or whatever subjective nonsense. I'm just talking about programming. There are very few or often just one optimal choice you make in chess. And in fact, the ambiguity and (strategic?) complexity of a game like JA2 is what allows multiple options to possibly work evenly in one turn. That gives AI programming more leeway in terms of not having to find one very specific step-by-step procedure as instead they can be scripted to try to attain a variety of general tactical objectives. As opposed to chess where you literally can and need to predict specific future turns - as in having a tree in your head of how the opponent will respond and how you will respond, etc. Even I do that, as a very amateur player. Even the positional midgame relies on predicting the exact moves the opponent will respond with, and then trying to figure out your own optimal response from the opponents' possible best moves, rinse and repeat.

Again I'm not saying one game is better than the other. Incidentally, again, it's the lack of ambiguity/fog-of-war/etc that makes chess less forgivable for every specific turn. In a more realistic tactical game, the ambiguity actually is more forgivable - not that you can't make mistakes, but that there are a larger variety of tactical options that you really can't evaluate as optimal or suboptimal.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Chess is shit game, no archers.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

So this thread is Infinitron again attempting to defend P:E's shit combat outside P:E subforum in an insidious way.

RTwP in BG2 is way way way better than what is in P:E beta clusterfuck videos. BG2 still pales in comparison to JA2 or AoD.

As for WoX, haven't finished it yet, but its way better than the annoying celestial armor+ mana potion spam in MMX becasue it is lto m

AoD combat is good, but meh sometimes gets too swingy. Would be p. good in sRPGs the japs like to make though...with each battle having a dozen units on each side.

 

[Grunker]

an apple still pales in comparison to a banana or a bag of potato chips

 

[ERYFKRAD]

an apple still pales in comparison to a banana or a bag of potato chips

Well, yes, apples are halfway between soft crunchy and juicy. MAKE UP YOUR MIND APPLE.

 

[Grunker]

Sometimes when i can't decide if I want soft and sweet or crunchy, I decide on an apple!

 

[SymbolicFrank]

So basically level-scaling how smart it acts with the level being the player's competence?

That would only be the case if you do that for each and every individual battle. I am talking about the whole game, of course.

And if someone chooses the hard difficulty but makes the stupid choices all the time, he/she should be decimated.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

You overestimate the number of "viable" strategies in Starcraft. The game seems extremely complex only because perfect play is physically impossible for a human player, which leads to a ridiculous number of possible situations arising from long strings of sub-optimal play from both players. Just like what happens in Chess, and Go, and fighting games, and Quake duels, and....

The primary obstacle in the way of a Starcraft computer is that programming AI in a gridless game is infinitely more difficult than programming AI on an 8x8 grid. Creating algorithms so that a computer can recognize a strategy that has 10^5 different "variations" in which each unit in the formation has moved one sliver of one pixel to the left or right is fucking hard. In fact it's fucking impossible. You'd have to map out some way for the computer to form and recognize zones of play on the fly then somehow apply these zones to the actual strategy of the game. This is also fucking hard. Not because these concepts are extremely complex, but because computers are dumb and need to parse everything as 1s and 0s.

Same goes for basically every non-grid-based video game ever made. Unless it's a game where programming unbeatable AI is trivial because the genre relies on fundamental player error to work at all (e.g. fighting games or FPS games) the AI usually sucks. And when it doesn't suck, it's programmed to let the player win anyway.

Also, and I'm surprised no one bothered to say this: Chess isn't popular because it's complex. It's popular because it's good.


Outside of a completely open map with no interesting geometry and hitscan weapons placed right next to the spawn points, I think it's basically impossible, for the same reason programming Starcraft bots is a pain in the ass. Teaching a computer to navigate 3d space is hard enough when it's not getting knocked off its trajectory by rockets every five seconds. A skilled player won't let it pick up any weapons. And even if it does manage to pick one up the player can suicide rush until it dies, then resume spawnfragging.

It's much easier than that: just don't model a gridless game like one that has a huge number of tiny grids.

Just use a representation of the time it takes to go from A to B.

And don't try to compute everything centrally, top-down. Use OOP and semi-autonomous actors. See it like an ant colony.