Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

For some reason I enjoyed the disposable shield mechanic tho.

You'd enjoy Severance: Blade of Darkness, then. Smashing through shields and picking up new ones is a big part of that.

Modern CRPGs are very much more about player execution than character development when compared to their ancestors. What if I want to go and check out this difficult area while I'm weak, simply because I'm good enough at the game to survive there anyway? Does this mean I have to level my climbing skill (or just become stronger, etc.)?

Yes, that's what it means. But doesn't that by extension mean that the game has returned back to the old-fashioned character skill-based system, though? No matter how good you are, you can't go there until your character can.

In my opinion, if your character's skills/attributes as such that it would be very difficult for him to accomplish something, then it should be very difficult to the player as well, even if the player is very skilled at the game. Of course, you can never perfectly accomplish that, but that's the sort of design goal I'd have, which is contrary to modern trends.

The problem with that is that then the difficulty curve is inverted. Your character sucks at the beginning, so everything is difficult. As your character becomes better, the game gets easier. Since the player has gotten better himself, the game poses much less challenge and becomes boring. In more linear RPGs the problem is easily solved by pitting you against stronger foes, but in a sandbox game like TES where you can go where you want and do what you want, that isn't really possible. Hence, level scaling.
Frankly I would happily sacrifice some of that freedom in exchange for some semblance of realism. Just have the starting areas less dangerous and the further away you move from stuff like cities, the tougher challenges you face. Remeber good old Gothic? The orcs were a bitch, but it felt so good to finally kick their asses. And it was equally fun going back to the starting area and mopping the floor with the weak enemies that bullied you at level 1.
I think the "go where you want" thing was the driving force behind Oblivion's horrible level scaling system. I consider it an affront to TES lore that they came up with weakling dremoras just so even a level 1 character could go into sodding Oblivion and fight them. That "go anywhere" philosphy wasn't present in Morrowind. A huge area right in the middle of the map was walled off, with big "KEEP YOU" signs posted at the entrance. And just try picking up the gems in front of a Daedric shrine at level 1, see what happens.

[3]

If the game has decent monster AI and you're taking that much effort to properly balance and design the game in the first place, then leveled systems are not necessary to begin with.

They're not necessary. They're never necessary. The class system isn't necessary, nor is Fatigue, or Magicka, or Birthsigns, etc..

The theory behind level scaling is that it allows players some flexibility. Most notably, it stops the late game from stagnating (which was a massive issue in Morrowind).

In my opinion, if your character's skills/attributes as such that it would be very difficult for him to accomplish something, then it should be very difficult to the player as well, even if the player is very skilled at the game.

Yes. I agree. But unless you've accounted for every reasonable situation or simply completely avoided risks, there should always be the possibility of any player being able to complete anything. This is because games are based around solving problems, and if the game's designed so that, for whatever reason, I can't solve a problem through no real fault of my own (there's a level 46 lock, my skill only allows me to even attempt opening ones up to level 45 because I didn't pick it at chargen), there's little point in the obstacle existing in the first place.

The key here is that it doesn't matter what the player can't do, because what the player can't do is irrelevant to the design, and shouldn't be implemented in the first place.

To be fair, apparently different elements will have different secondary effects.

I thought as much, but chances are there aren't going to be any interesting applications for said effects anyway (light-torches/melt-ice puzzle, critical damage chance, DOT on setting vegetation alight if they're brave, etc.).

Yes, that's what it means. But doesn't that by extension mean that the game has returned back to the old-fashioned character skill-based system, though? No matter how good you are, you can't go there until your character can.

Are you sure you haven't misinterpreted my post? I was asking rhetorical questions in opposition to the "old-fashioned character skill-based system".

[Sordid]

Are you sure you haven't misinterpreted my post? I was asking rhetorical questions in opposition to the "old-fashioned character skill-based system".

I see. I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

[G-Flex]

ince the player has gotten better himself, the game poses much less challenge and becomes boring. In more linear RPGs the problem is easily solved by pitting you against stronger foes, but in a sandbox game like TES where you can go where you want and do what you want, that isn't really possible. Hence, level scaling.

I wouldn't say it's impossible. Just develop content that provides an interesting challenge to the player and his character. Of course, that means you need probably better enemy AI, features that work better, systems that aren't as easily to exploit, more interesting higher-level content, and that sort of thing, whereas Bethesda can't even manage to make a spell system (in Morrowind, at least) that doesn't give you two different spells with different costs/difficulty even if they have the exact same effects.

Frankly I would happily sacrifice some of that freedom in exchange for some semblance of realism. Just have the starting areas less dangerous and the further away you move from stuff like cities, the tougher challenges you face.

Yep. I don't even think that would sacrifice "freedom", at least not in a meaningful sense. I don't like "freedom" in a game like TES if it's defined as being able to do anything at any point. I like the kind where I can choose from any available options that make sense to my character and playstyle at a given time. That way, it means more to me when I can venture out and brave the scary tombs/jungles/whatevers, because there's more a sense of wonder and anticipation.

I think the "go where you want" thing was the driving force behind Oblivion's horrible level scaling system. I consider it an affront to TES lore that they came up with weakling dremoras just so even a level 1 character could go into sodding Oblivion and fight them. That "go anywhere" philosphy wasn't present in Morrowind. A huge area right in the middle of the map was walled off, with big "KEEP YOU" signs posted at the entrance. And just try picking up the gems in front of a Daedric shrine at level 1, see what happens.

I've mentioned as much before, but I think this has to do with how, in modern commercial game development, the idea is that content should be available to the player more or less immediately, even where it wouldn't make much sense for the individual game. They don't want to discourage the player from doing what they want to do, even if what they want to do involves jumping the gun like crazy. In other words, the idea is "the player has fun doing the quests and going to Oblivion and fucking things up without having to put much foresight into it or being discouraged because his character isn't good enough yet".

They're not necessary. They're never necessary. The class system isn't necessary, nor is Fatigue, or Magicka, or Birthsigns, etc..

Oh, come on, you know what I mean. I mean that if certain aspects are properly designed, then the leveling system is not needed in order to accomplish the functions it's designed for. In other words, if you design an open-world game correctly, you don't have the problems that level scaling is intended to fix.

Yes. I agree. But unless you've accounted for every reasonable situation or simply completely avoided risks, there should always be the possibility of any player being able to complete anything. This is because games are based around solving problems, and if the game's designed so that, for whatever reason, I can't solve a problem through no real fault of my own (there's a level 46 lock, my skill only allows me to even attempt opening ones up to level 45 because I didn't pick it at chargen), there's little point in the obstacle existing in the first place.

I agree to some extent. Obviously, some things have to be player-driven, and you need to be able to account for player ingenuity. On the other hand, if (using your example) there's a very difficult lock and your character absolutely sucks at picking locks, I do not think it's necessary to allow him to. In your extreme, the lock is meaningless from a player-driven perspective, and in mine (a lock being pickable no matter what your stats), then the stat itself is meaningless and, if you know the system well enough, so is the lock.

The key here is that it doesn't matter what the player can't do, because what the player can't do is irrelevant to the design, and shouldn't be implemented in the first place.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, stuff the player can't do is irrelevant. We're not talking about stuff the player can't do, we're talking about the conditions under which he can do it, and those aren't necessarily a bad thing. Not ever character or player needs to see 100% of the game's content, especially in a large, sprawling, open sort of game like this.

[3]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Yes, stuff the player can't do is irrelevant. We're not talking about stuff the player can't do, we're talking about the conditions under which he can do it, and those aren't necessarily a bad thing.

What I'm essentially saying is instead of making the statement "a character that absolutely sucks at picking locks should not be allowed to pick locks", it should be said that "a character that absolutely sucks at picking locks should not be expected to pick locks".

Not ever character or player needs to see 100% of the game's content, especially in a large, sprawling, open sort of game like this.

I disagree. In the context of TES, all content should be open to all characters based on progression (which'd fit with the current previous class system). I've already proposed a solution to the "everyone eventually becomes perfect at everything" issue in the form of global skill gain slowdown.

[G-Flex]

I disagree. In the context of TES, all content should be open to all characters based on progression (which'd fit with the current previous class system). I've already proposed a solution to the "everyone eventually becomes perfect at everything" issue in the form of global skill gain slowdown.

Sure, in the sense that every character can theoretically become good enough at anything, but you certainly shouldn't expect every character to be able to do that. So, in my opinion, you shouldn't design a game like this around the assumption that every character will want to do everything.

Of course, there are also going to be options that are flat-out mutually exclusive. For instance, joining opposing houses or other factions, or quests that rule each other out, and that kind of thing.

[Sordid]

I've mentioned as much before, but I think this has to do with how, in modern commercial game development, the idea is that content should be available to the player more or less immediately, even where it wouldn't make much sense for the individual game. They don't want to discourage the player from doing what they want to do, even if what they want to do involves jumping the gun like crazy. In other words, the idea is "the player has fun doing the quests and going to Oblivion and fucking things up without having to put much foresight into it or being discouraged because his character isn't good enough yet".

Well there are games that pull off that sort of thing quite well, but they're not RPGs. Just Cause 2 is a prime example, running around fucking shit up is the main source of fun in it. I think Bethsoft tried to have their cake and eat it too, have character progression and meaningful lore and complete freedom. Thinking about it, I'm quite staggered they didn't realize it wouldn't work. Hindsight, huh?

I've already proposed a solution to the "everyone eventually becomes perfect at everything" issue in the form of global skill gain slowdown.

Actually, I've proposed that, thank you very much.

[G-Flex]

Well there are games that pull off that sort of thing quite well, but they're not RPGs. Just Cause 2 is a prime example, running around fucking shit up is the main source of fun in it. I think Bethsoft tried to have their cake and eat it too, have character progression and meaningful lore and complete freedom. Thinking about it, I'm quite staggered they didn't realize it wouldn't work. Hindsight, huh?

To be fair? Commercially, it did work, and commercial success is the reasoning behind that design trend in the first place. Accessibility is a main driving force behind development these days. It would be telling, for instance, to compare the budgets between Morrowind and Oblivion along with their relative sales, but I don't know where to even begin looking up video game budgets and sales figures. But yeah, you have to admit that without that kind of nearly-braindead accessibility, a game like Oblivion is much more of a niche title.

[Sordid]

That's a good point. Still, I'd say the fact that Bethsoft have abandoned that system in favor of something (hopefully) a bit more sensible indicates that even they admit it was a mistake.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, it seems like they're going a more middle-of-the-road approach.

On the other hand, the curmudgeon inside me wouldn't be surprised that the reason they toned down level scaling is because there's less variety in areas (in terms of content or intended to level) to begin with, or some other extenuating circumstance. That's ridiculously speculative and probably wrong, of course.

[GamerKnight]

Those gems in the Daedric shrines were a bitch. But on a lighter note, you know those scroll that let you jump really high? First time I used one I launched myself into Red Mountain's lava pool up top. Unbelievably precise.

[Sordid]

On the other hand, the curmudgeon inside me wouldn't be surprised that the reason they toned down level scaling is because there's less variety in areas (in terms of content or intended to level) to begin with, or some other extenuating circumstance. That's ridiculously speculative and probably wrong, of course.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised either, and I don't think you're wrong. They're promising MOAR of everything, better graphics, more detailed models, higher res textures.... but the thing still has to run on a six years old sucksbox, so they must've cut something to free up the space and processing power for that. A new and more efficient engine would account for some of that improvement, but there's only so much you can do with the same old hardware. Oblivion came out five years ago, that's a huge amount of time in the world of the PC. Back then multi-core processors were new and expensive and Nvidia had just launched their 7 series. In the meantime, four GPU generations have come and gone and the fifth is the latest and greatest thing. We now have computers an order of magnitude more powerful than what we had to run Oblivion (and indeed it was unplayable for me at the time, whereas now it barely registers on my CPU usage-o-meter even with a bunch of graphics-enhancing mods), but Skyrim's going to have to run on the same old hector its daddy was made for. That really, really worries me.

[Vertigon]

But on a lighter note, you know those scroll that let you jump really high? First time I used one I launched myself into Red Mountain's lava pool up top. Unbelievably precise.

Haha, yeah... the first time I used one of those, I was way up in the air when it hit me, I didn't have any sort of slowfall spell or anything. I missed some water by like a foot :I

[Sordid]

But on a lighter note, you know those scroll that let you jump really high? First time I used one I launched myself into Red Mountain's lava pool up top. Unbelievably precise.

Haha, yeah... the first time I used one of those, I was way up in the air when it hit me, I didn't have any sort of slowfall spell or anything. I missed some water by like a foot :I

You can just use another one to boost your acrobatics again for the landing. The problem with the scrolls is that the jump takes longer than the spell duration, so you have to use a second one to land safely. But since you only get three, it's a bit of a waste. Then again, it's not like they're terribly useful anyway, so hey, why not. I usually just kept them around as trophies.
Amusingly, the runes on the scroll translate to:

from the earth to the aether
and back

*snicker*
Yeah, actually reading spell scrolls. That's another thing you can't do in Oblivion.

[PTTG??]

I just realized why he has three... he was planning to jump out and back, so he packed a total of four. I don't know why it didn't occur to him to use a slowfall spell...