The Game That Wasn’t There

[VentilatorOfDoom]

The Game That Wasn’t There

<p>Joel Haddock is not happy with modern role-playing games made in the West. So he decided to <a href="http://kotaku.com/5604223/the-game-that-wasnt-there" target="_blank">write an article </a>about it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I have lamented the fading of turn-based gameplay before, but I have to reiterate how galling I find its absence in Western RPGs. I play RPGs when I want a break from fast-action and twitch-reflex dependent gameplay, not to experience more of it. If I have lovingly crafted a party of characters, not being able to take advantage of their individual abilities to the fullest because I'm too busy trying to give orders to them all in the middle of being fireballed, or because my FPS reflexes aren't up to snuff, is a major disappointment.</p>
<p>Bethesda, at least, made some attempts to remedy this with the VATS system in <em>Fallout 3</em>, which was an improvement over <em>Morrowind</em>'s pure-FPS combat. BioWare, on the other hand, incurs much of my ire for their copy-paste combat system they use in every one of their games.  Yes, you can pause and issue orders, but the speed with which unexpected things happen means you can often lose a combat in one or two seconds without having a chance to try and salvage the situation.  Controlling one character means you are either sitting in front of the enemies, clicking attack over and over again; waiting for the cooldown on your special moves to keep spamming them out; or sitting in the back waiting for the cooldown on your ranged attacks so you can do the same. Meanwhile, your AI-controlled party members might be doing what you told them to do through their limited scripting system, or they may be running into a wall while being peppered with arrows/lasers/fireballs. <em>Dragon Age</em> gives you the ability to program your compatriots to a degree, but even that is limited by the player's choices in investing points into unlocking the ability to lead them; this is absurd.  Much like it was ridiculous for <em>FFXII</em> to force players to buy Gambits in a system that required them for party members to be useful, it is ridiculous that a player isn't automatically given the option to program their party to their own liking.</p>
<p>When a player has both the time to think strategically as well as the tools to do so, combat can become a far more interesting affair.  In <em>Wizardry</em>, the player can evaluate each round of combat, deciding which attacks will be most useful, which spells most beneficial, and exactly when to bust out specific items. To those designers that say turn-based combats are boring and repetitive, well, try this: have fewer battles, but make the ones that remain more unique.  Of course fighting the same battle twenty times is boring in a turn-based system. It's also boring in real-time, too.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/99057-the-game-that-wasnt-there.html">GB</a></p>

 

[Scroo]

At least there are a few people in the industry left with a sane mind.

Too bad the big players will give a huge dump on his opinion, as he is just another nerd like us.
14-year old hyperactive kids calling themselves "roleplayers" are ruling the gaming world now.
It'll never be the same again, all the things we loved in RPGs have fallen into oblivion ( )

 

[Volourn]

Yeah, because real 'role-playing' is all about turn based combat, and multi headed dick monsters. Fuck, another lame article, how can't tell the difference between REAL role-playing and FAKE role-playing.

 

[JarlFrank]

Tell us all about REAL role-playing, Volly, please.
Are gay elf/lesbian insecure human chick sex scenes considered to be real roleplaying? Yes/No

No, RPGs are not about turnbased combat, but it would sure be refreshing to see TB combat used in that genre once or twice again. All we get nowadays is RTWP (which is usually a really half-arsed "compromise" between real time and turn based, with all attacks having ridiculous cooldowns etc) or action combat.

 

[Phelot]

Yeah, but he's complaining about modern games because he can't follow them or something. Like any of these games are that hard.

Basically he likes TB because he's slow. He hints that TB is more tactical and requires better judgement, but still focuses on real time being "too hard."

 

[Lyric Suite]

Tactical gameplay of the order found in TB systems IS too hard to pull off in RT. That is why RT is inherently less tactical/strategic in the first place.

 

[King Crispy]

Agreed. The main problem I have with non-turn-based combat systems is when you're dealing with combat situations that would require turn-based in order to maintain the difficulty balance. Alpha Protocol, for example, can tend to throw too many enemies at you and expect you to somehow Matrix-bullet-time your way through them; that game currently sits unplayed and unfinished.

I too, like the author, do miss the more contemplative and cerebral nature of true TB, though. I fear its demise may have been made permanent thanks to our multi-core and multi-GPU gaming platforms, as well as general gaming society's fast food-like, instant gratification culture.

 

[JarlFrank]

I'd also like to have RTWP that is truly RT with an added pause function. More like Total War or other strategy games with that feature than the pseudo-turnbased with cooldowns.

Either do proper RT, or do proper TB, and don't try to make some shitty mix ffs.

 

[AnalogKid]

The guy's first point is most important to me. I play RPGs when I'd like to think, not act. If I'm in the mood to shoot some shit, I'll play an action game and generally I'll be skipping any cutscenes or dialog. So what's the point of trying to build a huge exposition-heavy game around action gameplay? WTF?

I loved BG's RTwP better than any since then because you could set automatic pause-points, like when a character has finished casting his spell, or when you take damage, or a bunch of other things. You really could make it essentially TB, at least as far as your ability to think about how to react in combat as it develops.

DA, on the other hand, was crap. I never programmed my companions because they never did what I programmed. They wouldn't even throw healing spells according to their definitions! So it was: choose actions for everyone, <spacebar>, wait for cooldown, <spacebar>, choose same actions for everyone with new targets beacuse the AI was too fucking stupid to pick reasonable targets, <spacebar>, wait for cooldown, <spacebar>, ... uninstall.

Some people say ME2 is somehow "better" because they went all the way and just made it a full-on shooter with story. I agree that 1/2way shit doesn't generally work, but things like the Gothics and even M&B/Warband have action combat where your stats and character building actually MATTER, so at least I feel like it's not JUST my twitches that win the game. Some thinking is still rewarded.

Bottom line: RPGs are thinking nerds' games, and the mass-market is only interested in _appearing_ smart, not actually spending the time and effort to think through a tough tactical game.

 

[King Crispy]

Solid post but I don't share the fondness for BG's RTwP.

It worked, yes, but it certainly was not without its own flaws. I still found myself having to rely too much on twitch skills (ready to instantly pounce on the spacebar) during particularly tense battles, namely mage wars. I seem to recall more than one of its autopause options not working properly, or being basically useless, as well.

BG wouldn't have been the same game without RTwP, but I don't think that system of combat necessarily enhanced it. It was simply part-and-parcel of the whole package. Definitely took a while to get used to.

 

[AnalogKid]

To be clear, I wasn't saying BG's RTwP combat was the shiznit. I'm just saying I liked it more than other attempts since then because the auto-pausing options let me make it more like TB than anything since. I don't know how well it addressed the interests of RT players, because I never played that way. I would certainly have been more happy if it was just purely TB.

 

[King Crispy]

I remember wondering what the purpose was of putting in so many autopause options in the first place. "Why didn't they just go full turnbased?"

But, once I grew accustomed to it, I didn't hate it.

Look what it paved the way towards, though. Ugh!

 

[AnalogKid]

Heh, that's funny because it sounds like we went through similar evolutions. I started out thinking "this'll be cool that I can let combat keep running and it'll be quicker and more fluid". But it sucked. Hard. Especially when coupled with low-level AD&D rules, which are ultra lethal and need very particular tactics. So I started riding the spacebar constantly, and it was tedious. Then I realized that almost every time I hit spacebar, there was an auto-pause option for that event. That's when I started enjoying the game.

You're right about everything that's come after, but can BG be blamed for the hybrid crap state-of-the-art today? Was it really the first? Or most popular or whatever? Hmmm...

 

[Drakron]

BG wouldn't have been the same game without RTwP, but I don't think that system of combat necessarily enhanced it. It was simply part-and-parcel of the whole package. Definitely took a while to get used to.

BG had a advantage were the only characters that required significant hands-on were spellcasters as the rest would just attempt to hit the target until it died and proceed to the next target, repeat until all the red circles were gone.

So the only thing you had to keep a look was health bars, there were no mana bars and the like so your spellcasters required even less of babysitting ... select spell, select target and you were done.

DA combat is too much of a hassle with health bar, mana bar, cooldown ... they simply thrown in the mechanics of a MMO but forgot something, in a MMO you are only looking at YOUR bars and so its easy to manage, not SIX characters.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Which used to be a perfectly valid option for non-casters in a crpg (wizardry, ultima, bard's tale - as well as, of course, BG) back when you had a decent 6 to 8 person party. That meant that it didn't matter whether a few members of the party were just meat shields or melee damage dealers that were boring as shit in combat - you were controlling the group combat, not the individual (as in mmorpgs, or current-day solo crpgs or party-of-3 crpgs), so it only mattered that the GROUP had interesting combat options. One way of doing that is to provide a few dull meatshields (make them only semi-effective at blocking the enemy approach - attack of opportunity, or even just BG-style run-around-hitting-while-your-caster-walks-backwards, over 'aggro' any day) and give the squishies tons of options.

 

[Volourn]

"DA combat is too much of a hassle with health bar, mana bar, cooldown ... they simply thrown in the mechanics of a MMO but forgot something, in a MMO you are only looking at YOUR bars and so its easy to manage, not SIX characters."

So, in essence, DA is too complex and hardcore for you? you prefer the simplicty of one noteness that comes with BG? FFS

The Codex prefers the REAL dumbed down shit for simpletons. BIO smartens up their gamneplay and people whine that it is too fuckin' hard, and complex for them.


HAHAHAHA!!!

 

[GarfunkeL]

Volly is a true patriot :honourblade:

 

[AnalogKid]

DA combat is too much of a hassle...

So, in essence, DA is too complex and hardcore for you?... BIO smartens up their gamneplay and people whine that it is too fuckin' hard, and complex for them.

I realize it's not worth arguing with Volly, but this leads to a good point:

Hassle != complexity.

This is exactly the same mistake BioSimpletons made when looking at ME. The retarded thought pattern that goes like "if RPG's are annoying garage sale inventory and spreadsheet games, then ..." assumes that people don't like complexity, so hey, let's remove it! But it's not the _complexity_ that people don't like, it's the _hassle_.

In general, older games were more complex AND more of a pain in the ass to play. Nobody LOVES F1's inventory, but they LOVE that they can pickpocket someone to actualy _plant_ a bomb in their inventory! If only game designers could understand that "streamlining" shouldn't mean "cut out all features and options", but should instead mean "improve all features so they're deep and interactive, but not a pain in the ass if you don't care to use them".

 

[Drakron]

DA failings in combat go beyond a badly designed system, it also about the area level scaling and the enemies.

The combat system is not complex, its ANNOYING as why the hell so many active abilities with cooldown instead of being made passive?

After a while combat is just BORING, ANNOYING BORING as none of the options are particular interesting to the point I have to go there and select them EVERY FUCKING TIME!

The fact they ditched for DA2E ssys a lot ... not that is a good move as ME2 is barely a RPG (I would not even call it that) but ME1 at least have interesting choices, some even with some tactical degree.

ME2 combat SUCKS but AT LEAST does not bores me the crap out of me.

And yes Fallout (1 and 2) had good combat because it was well done, the inventory system was a nightmare to use but that is a UI issue, DA does not have much of UI issues.

 

[Volourn]

"In general, older games were more complex AND more of a pain in the ass to play."

How the fuck is BG, FO, or the Gb games more complex than DA? FFS

They aren't so stop with the bullshitz.

 

[Xor]

Let me turn that around for you Volourn. What was complex about DA?

 

[Volourn]

That's not turnaround; that's avoiding the question.

My question was what makes those older games more 'complex' than DA not they are 'not complex'.

Dumbass.

It's like saying x is better than y means y sucks which is NOT the case.

Toolbag.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Actually, what is the complexity in DA-mechanics? AFAIK, the only complexity is that it's not transparent - in a true MMORPG-way they hide the math from the player. It makes sense in a MMO, to keep the illusion going loner (or maybe not, I dunno) but in a SP-game it only leads to confused players who might not know how the machinery under the hood actually works... thinking that it is more complex than it actually is

I strongly have the impression that DA:O was only complex on the surface, as you had some stats and plenty of skills/spells but that the more you played with it, the more you came to realize that it's only a illusion. Plus the fact that your choices don't really matter, gameplay-wise, as you can steamroll through the stu[id combat anyway.

 

[Serious_Business]

Volo is a true ragin' bro. No one rages better than him, all said and done.

 

[Drakron]

... - in a true MMORPG-way they hide the math from the player. It makes sense in a MMO, to keep the illusion going loner (or maybe not, I dunno)...

You are very wrong.

The math is shown in full glory because MMO(RPG)s are rollplaying and not roleplaying, without proper feebback to know how good is your character is with particular gear and attacks people would not play it as what matters for them is how effective character builds are, by hiding it they would alienate the hardcore players (rollplayers) that are the ones that will keep playing and so keep the game alive.

Also they push towards groups, dungeons (instanced or not) tend to have too many powerful enemies so going in alone is akin to suicide (I played Lineage II on a private server and I managed to beat one early dungeon god knows how but the other that I need so I could advance in class was too damn hard to try on my own) so there is a definite intent for players to team up in order to progress into the game.