17th September 2004, 4:27 PM
Quote:You control the main character and the other members follow your character. I already explained that.
And when I first criticized KotOR I explained in good length exactly how that would be an utter and complete disaster with a party of six.
Quote:Ah but if CoMI had better controls it would be an even better game.
Nope. Its controls were perfect for the game. The coin was an innovative way to present a traditional adventure interface and it allowed for a empty screen... like Grim, except for when you click to bring the coin up or open your inventory. It's so hard to choose between the LA adventures, but I would say that Curse is my favorite Monkey Island game... fantastic title. And no, a direct control scheme would NOT have improved it. It may not have made it worse, but it wouldn't have improved it. Like Grim Fandango and EFMI, it would have been, in my view, simply there. Not a factor that affected my view of the game beyond a 'hey that's cool you have no graphical interface at all' with Grim Fandango.
Quote:The Baldur's Gate games completely disinterest me, and why is that? Well first we have to look at why I play these games to begin with. It's certainly not for the stories which I could do much better with a book and it's not really for the combat which isn't all that. I like playing RPGs to become a part of a world, to inhabit a certain character and go on adventures. I cannot feel like I'm in that world if I'm seeing it from a bird's eye view, now can I? Then it's just like I'm a bird magically controlling a bunch of characters. If I'm not feeling like I'm in the game then there is no point to it. If I want to use my imagination to make the game not suck then why the fuck am I playing a game at all?? I could just run around the woods pretending the same damn stuff but with even more freedom and immersion. If the gameplay and/or story is good enough, however, then the perspective doesn't matter.
You do know that most of the console RPG genre is top-down as well, right? I know I've mentioned this before, but it's not like PC RPGs are the only ones that use a lot of top-down... console titles do too. That is, top-down or isometric. Isometric is by far the more common... BG is isometric, not topdown, of course.
As for the rest of this all I can really do is say that for me i feel completely differently about these games. I've loved Baldur's Gate since the first time I played it and still love the Infinity engine games. BGII and PT are in my top 10 games of all time list. Why? So many reasons... I love the graphics. The background map art is frequently stunning. I love how the gameplay is role-playing with a heavy dose of strategy. I love the combat. Easily the best combat system in any RPG out there. The stories are also great... far better than most videogames for the most part. If you're comparing a videogame story to a book you're highly praising the videogame... indeed, the highest praise I can think to give Planescape: Torment is that it's like playing a well written and unique fantasy novel. Baldur's Gate is my favorite RPG series of all time for sure. Well, as long as you leave out the stupid console Diablo clones...
There, actually, is more proof of my point that whether controls are direct or indirect (mouse click location) has very little impact on how immersive the game is. Diablo II is a far more immersive game than Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance... it's not close in any regard. It's all about game quality overall, not that one factor. It's a pretty minor factor.
Quote:Exactly, you cannot even comprehend the idea of proper controls. Which is why I'm trying to educate you, even though I know deep down inside (well... really not that deep down) that you will not or cannot try to understand me.
All you're educating me on is that we disagree. Not that you are more right. And you won't do that I suspect because... yes... this is a matter of OPINION! Unlike how you say it is NOT hard facts! (not so) sorry to have to break it to you, but it isn't a set and fast fact that isometric games are bad or that games with mouse-based control schemes are inherently less immersive... it's in a large part how you see it. But I doubt you'll admit that.
Quote:Honestly, I've never ACTUALLY "forgetten it was only a game", or LITERALLY "thought I WAS the character". I mean, those are just expressions and all, and I know no one actually feels that, but you know, thought I'd say that.
Me neither, which was a definite (if not directly stated I guess) point of mine.
Quote:Adventure games, the PC kind... Ah yes, there's an example of where a point and click interface is BETTER than a direct control scheme. Grim Fandango (and yes, even Monkey Island 4, for all it's failings), were fun games, but I had to fault the control scheme. Really, the whole direct control thing just didn't add anything to the game for me, and more often than not, it actually made things frustrating (alligning my character "just so" so it FINALLY looks at the thing I want for example, rather than moving my cursor to the object I want to manipulate and clicking on it). Strategy games are another where indirect control is FAR superior, in all senses, than any direct control. In fact, I've yet to see a single strategy game that HAS direct control of any sort.
Gamepads are extremely highly recommended for those two games... I imagine that they'd be not much fun at all if you had to use keyboard. Too many keys. But as I said, I thought it was okay. It isn't hugely better than a normal inventory but it was unique... remember, Grim Fandango was the first game with that now-ubiquous 'look at object you can interact with' thing. It worked well in that game's context... I didn't find it hugely frusterating. It did make GF a bit longer and more challenging, but it was just part of the game... but it's really tied to overall game quality more than anything else. The control scheme wasn't the problem with EFMI, but it just didn't work as well in that game... not sure why. As I said the mediocre quality of the game was certainly part of it. So while I didn't hate the controls in those two games, I didn't love them either... I have no problem with traditionally designed adventure games (fully mouse controlled), certainly.
Oh yeah, and no strategy game has a direct control scheme because it'd be horriffic. Ever played Lords of Magic? It has a mouse on but with some interface twists to make it centric on the heroes that are just cruel, IMO... namely, you can only build units in buildings when your hero is relatively near the building most of the time. It's a bit more complex than that, but it's just such an awful system that it's no wonder no other strategy game came close. Or how about the original version of Warcraft III with the close camera (third-person viewpoint) and stuff? They realized that strategy games work far better overhead.
(long paragraphs about Zelda)
Zelda. You are absolutely right, Zelda wouldn't be the same if you could click across the screen and watch Link go there. Because Zelda is not an RPG, it's an action-adventure-RPG. Action means action elements. As in it has substantial challenges that DO involve interacting with your environment in ways like jumping puzzles, etc. Very different kind of game and for that game direct movement definitely works best. But for a true RPG? I see little reason. Which is why so many of them on the PC don't have direct movement. Zelda really is not a reasonable comparison. As you say, it's a vastly different style of game...
Quote:(Incidentally, Fire Emblem doesn't let you directly control your characters at all, but hey, I still feel pretty immersed.)
OB1 will explain this away with his quote that strategy games are different somehow... that the overhead view is more like what your character would actually be seeing. It works to a point, but only so far... Now, with wargames he would be right. Wargames are after all an extention of a wargame played on a table with metal armies. Or of a real war represented in the general's tent with flags on a map. Strategy games are really an offshoot of wargames, but they are sufficiently changed that I don't know if it's still appropriate to say that the overhead viewpoint is actually what the commander would theoretically be seeing... I suspect not, for most strategy titles, while yes for wargames. A Advance Wars or Fire Emblem fall somewhere in the middle on this ground... Advance Wars a TBS/Wargame, and Fire Emblem a Fantasy TBS/Wargame. :)
Quote:However, I see many times when the indirect control DOES kinda cheapen things. For example, there are times when you can click on an area within your sight when you have no idea how to get there, and your character just automatically navigates the correct path. This however does not discredit the whole method, just the execution in this instance. If the pathing AI was set up so that it couldn't automatically path through areas you hadn't explored yet, or where no path has been discovered by you the player, this would be fixed, and we could all get on with our lives.
Note that in the games I am specifically discussing, such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout, Diablo, etc, you can't tell your people to go to an area you haven't explored yet. That is frequently an issue in strategy games, but RPGs usually do not allow such things by one method (only allowing movement to the area directly around you) or another (not allowing movement into the black mask). But not a system where you can move into a unrevealed area and have your people act like they know where they are going. Not in RPGs.
That strategy often works great in RTSes though... Starcraft in particular... :)
Quote:In that vein, a PC RPG, for example, does not need to control like Zelda to be good. Being able to directly control your character is helpful, helpful enough that just about all the ones I've played do allow that (standard wasd walking), but it doesn't affect gameplay or even immersion. I didn't feel like I was "cheating" or "being cheap" or "being led by the hand" in any fasion just because I told the character to walk to the door and open it by itself rather than actually directly navigating my character and pressing the action button. Such direct control is not where the gameplay lies. It would even work in Final Fantasy VI. Telling Terra to walk over there by herself woudln't hurt it in any way really, because there's no "live action" style gameplay in that game, with only a few somewhat fun diversions (following the light in the tunnel, but even that was a memory game, not a "keep up with Dante" game, so clicking wouldn't cheapen it in any way, unless of course you were allowed to use a follow command on the light thing ). Really, the gameplay lies in the choices you make, so the control scheme's main role is in making it as easy to realize your decisions as possible. I wouldn't want to have to suddenly hit X at just the right moment as the "fight" option swings back and forth past a "reticule" of some sort just to be able to attack in every battle, because that's not the sort of game this is! Save something like that for a small mini-game. Instead, just let me pick the attack command, and then from there I'll pick the various spells or stances or special abilities I want to use.
I would say that I think that console RPGs would be well advised to take a note from the PC titles and put in an indirect control scheme. I thought about that once this debate started and absolutely agree... it would make the games more fun and simpler and would have no negative side effects in terms of interactivity, immersion, or anything else. I certainly am arguing that the side effects in games where that is the only method are essentially negligable, so of course I'd extend it into other categories of games that work similarly... so I absolutely agree with this.
This part really sums it up, I think.
Quote:the gameplay lies in the choices you make
(and, as is implied, not in your character's direct actions).
It's not about Super Mario jumping or Zelda action. It's about strategic combat (and you could -- and probably should -- take that to mean that true RPGs and strategy games are closely related... they are, of course...), story, and making decisions.
OB1, it's not about "liking bad controls". It's about liking what works best for the game! I have no idea why you think that indirect control of characters is bad and harmful to games, but I do not agree beyond the minimal level I mentioned about Grim Fandango (as in I note 'hey it's kind of cool that there is no interface and I directly do everything' and then proceed with the adventure, quickly forgetting about the interface as I would with any game once I've used it for a while). I wonder if you'll ever accept that.
Save criticisms of games not having enough direct control for things that deserve it like the 3d Sonic adventures. :D