I'm in the WoW Beta Test!

[OB1]

Exactly. This is an RPG, not a platformer. It doesn't need that kind of control precision... walking is just a means to an end, not the end itsself like it is in platformers. And one goal of a good RPG is reducing tedium. I really like the auto-go-to-chest feature and definitely use it fairly frequently. And no, OB1, I don't see it as a feature that reduces my immersion. See, I'm using a 'control mechanism' (keyboard/mouse in this case). I'm not actually that person. So immersion controls-wise can only go so far. And I really don't find it hard at all to be immersed in the game while clicking on a chest to go to the chest... I don't see how that is a harm to immersion or gameplay in any way, shape, or form. It's just a little feature that makes the game more enjoyable... that's all. Really.

You're barely even controlling the character and when you do that and it turns into The Sims where you just tell it what to do.

Guess I'll just have to repeat to OB1 how I don't agree at all... though this is a bit more detail. I still don't agree at all though. It is a good topic though...

A good comparison would be the adventure game genre. Grim Fandango used a gamepad as a control scheme. That alone means direct control... but that could mean little or much depending on the interface. Grim decided to do a unobtrusive interface. Nothing on screen except the character. The (new for that game) 'head turns towards objects you can interact with' design instead of lighting up objects or having you click on them. And the inventory that has you flipping between things in your coat. Was it more immersive? In a slight way, sure. It was. BUT... it wasn't massive. I wasn't suddenly thinking of how much more I identify with the character or something. Yeah, it's a fantastic game and probably my favorite adventure game. But the control scheme is just one of many reasons for that. And one of the least, for sure. That design worked for that game but I would not want all adventure games to be like that. Traditional mouse controls are good too.

Yes, controlling a character with a mouse is less personal and maybe less immersive. But as I said (or implied) it's more about what the game is trying to do, what the interface has to do, and, most importantly, WHAT IS FUN. A PC RPG is a complex game. You have to deal with lots of options, abilities, a complex interface, lots of menus... KotOR is a simplified PC RPG, certainly, but even in that form it's got a lot of complexity. That pretty much requires a complex interface. That means no minimilist stuff like Grim Fandango... and you know what? Onscreen displays or menus aren't very immersive. And you need them. And even more so in the top-down titles, where you must have an even more complex interface because you can't have the attack commands hovering above your target like they do in a 3d title... you need a row of buttons for those.

The point being that this is an RPG. That means that I want to be able to control my character and my party. I want formation commands. I want lists of spells on a onscreen menu instead of having to flip through them one at a time. I want 'unrealistic' elements like being able to assign movement orders while paused, in addition to attack orders. Why? Because they make the game more fun! Realism is all well and good, but realism at the cost of enjoyment is bad. And make no mistake, if PC RPGs went the way you suggest they'd be worse. Simplicity for simplicity's sake is not necessarially a good thing. When complexity makes the game better, make the game more complex. And I would DEFINITELY say that more complex interfaces and command systems make PC RPGs better games. Immersion? Fine, so I'm not directly telling my people to walk forward. And I'm looking at 2d art from a top view instead of a 3d representation of what they see. You know what? I forget that. When I play BG I don't consider the control scheme to be a block to my immersion any more than I do the graphics. Fine, 3d might allow for more immersion in some senses. But in plenty of others it's no better. I like the look of top-down RPGs. I think Baldur's Gate is a beautiful game. Do you think that you ARE the character? Maybe not, but you don't in 3d titles either for the most part. But really my point is that I am not particularly more immersed in, say, KotOR than I am in BGII. The graphical and control differences are there, but that doesn't definitely decide it for one title or the other... each has advantages and disadvantages immersion-wise on these fronts, after all. But if I really had to choose I'd pick BGII over KotOR as the more immersive game. Maybe it's partially the fact that I have four times more gameplay time in BGII, but at this point I'd pick it over KotOR as more immersive every time. No question.

And from the gameplay front (the overall gameplay front), BGII crushes KotOR. I greatly prefer its interface and control scheme, no question, and its gameplay is better as well on most all categories... not to say KotOR is bad, it's not, and not to say that KotOR isn't better than BGII in ANY way (as I said, KotOR has better other-party-member character development, as one example of where it bests BGII), but overall BGII definitely wins.


In short, it's called an 'imagination', OB1. Use it when you play BG.

How you ended that retarded explanation with "it's called an imagination" is beyond me. So basically what you're saying is that you need an imagination to like shitty controls that barely even let you the player directly control your character.

I'd say that makes about as much sense as any of your posts, Brian. You rarely, if ever, make a lick of sense. I don't know what it is, perhaps in that strange world you live in everything you see is distorted to fit your odd perspective.

The simple fact of the matter is that point and click controls in games where you control a single person (and yes having people in your party while you only control one person's direct movement counts) is lazy and poor control design. It works in strategy games because the character you are playing is actually yourself, and the direct control is your own self. When you use the same philosophy in a game like KOTOR what you're doing is reducing the player/character interaction to Sims-like levels, and you are no longer the character.

If you like it that's fine. If you like to eat fecal matter that is also fine. But don't try telling me that it tastes good.