20th September 2004, 1:17 PM
Quote:Wha... huh? What does this have to do with party size? ... oh, do you mean the 'they get lost' aspect? When you go to leave an area and someone got stuck on a corner a few minuites back? That is a pain, but something that can't be avoided no matter how big your environements... and for some towns having everything be big open areas just wouldn't make sense, you know, so that isn't a real solution.
But anyway that's not the biggest reason. It's one, but not the biggest. Bigger ones include: 1) the totally broken movement system -- with six you MUST have some kind of ability to lay indirect movement orders while paused! Just make it an option you can add to the queue! So easy and it'd be such a MASSIVE help! -- 2) the fact that in KotOR you have to constantly manage everyone (that is, that you can't just tell Warrior #1 to Power Attack enemies until you tell him to stop -- you must tell Warrior #1 to power attack for the next four rounds, upon which time he will go under the control of the AI. Good for when you want to control just the main character, VERY BAD if you want to control the whole party. It adds a huge amount of micro-management as you have to constantly switch around and add queue items where in BG you'd just be managing potions and spellcasters. It's an irritating hassle that I wish they had dealt with better (read: on/off switches for actions instead of 'single action' queue entries).
Those listed things are managable in a three-party system. It can be a bit annoying at times, certainly, but it works decently with the small party. But with a party of six... it'd be disaster. Especially if it was a D&D game where characters have more options and skills to manage and take up a lot of your time even if you aren't ordering every single stupid attack order. Sure, queueing orders allows cool stuff like 'attack enemy one twice then enemy two twice' while in BG you'd have to retarget the person after attacking enemy one twice, and that can be a nice feature for sure, but the system also introduces some problems, as I explained. And those problems would get exponentially more evident in a party twice as large. Same with movement.
So no, it's not just about environments and pathfinding. It's about design decisions in the KotOR system that work decently for three but would never work for six.
No I meant that the environments are simply too small for six people on your side. And then you'd have to have twice the number of baddies. And I never had problems with people being left behind.
Quote:But you only talk about PC RPGs in relation to 'topdown = bad'...
I explained why that is.
Quote:Story. You use STORY as your excuse. You know what? I'd believe you if you didn't also say that Fallout and Baldur's Gate had bad stories... sure BG's wasn't the best and moved slowly, but what was there was pretty good. And as for Fallout, it should be obvious to anyone who played that game that it has a fantastic story. Now the 'story' arguement would work on old, story-thin PC 'RPGs' like a those classic dungeon crawls (think older Wizardry games), but the modern PC RPG? Not on your life! Now, there is a significant differnce from console RPGs of course. PC RPGs usually have character creation. That means that your character is your own, but it also necessitates a different kind of storytelling with less of an individual focus... obviously you dislike that kind of storytelling, but trying to deny that it is one and it is one that is unquestionably equal (if different) from console games' styles of storytelling is just foolish.
I never played enough of Fallout to see how it's story was, but I do not like the way stories are told in PC RPGs. It's all through endless talking with NPCs, reading scrolls, blahbityblah. That's not good storytelling, even if there is a great story scattered around.
Quote:How I wish that you'd act like that is what they were when they are other people's...
[quote]
That sentence was difficult to understand.
[quote]What, exactly, do you mean? All I can think of in games like BG (though BGII and Torment blow it away on everything story related) and Fallout is that the story isn't given to you like it is in console games and you have to make an effort to get it...
Come to think of it, you seem to contradict yourself here. On the one hand you say how much you love non-linear games, but on the other you have attacked PC RPGs for making their stories require more user effort, if my memory is correct... maybe that's a bit off, but I seem to remember saying that it's more interactive (and as we all agree games are an interactive medium and ideally should capitalize on that) to make it so that it's not a given that you know everything. But I don't want to start up that debate again, so instead I'll just ask what you mean... is it about that or something else, like the pacing of how they lay out the story in that game (BG)?
On that subject, Baldur's Gate is one thing. It was their first RPG, and you can tell in many ways. It's got slowdown in that it has a huge number of big empty areas that serve very little purpose... lots of forests with one thing in them at best that you have to explore. That isn't the best game design, admittedly. And in BGII they clamped down on that hard. In BGII there are no irrelevant or mostly empty zones, with little to do. The cities are improved too, with fewer random homes that serve no purpose other than to be robbed and more that are connected to one quest or another. Et cetera. ... or do you mean something else?
If you pay attention to what I've said then you'll see that I am not contradicting myself. Linear games are best-suited for stories (right now), and non-linear games are not. I prefer non-linear RPGs because of their open-ended gameplay and can forgive the fact that the story isn't told well. You can still tell a story in a non-linear game but developers haven't figured out a method of doing it well.
Quote:Since when have you been saying that? That's what I said, but you said that your way was the only sane way!
"sane"? No that's not what I meant. Read the last paragraph below.
Quote:And this is exactly what I mean. "You can believe that if you want but it's stupid" is not exactly the best way to say that you respect other people's opinions... quite the opposite, obviously.Haha, perhaps you are correct. I could be more tactful.
Quote:There are a few cases where bad controls are just that. Generally in badly done games where you have problems like massive slowdown or long response times. Or overly complex interfaces -- though this is more a 'entry curve' issue than a true badness issue, they can certainly seem bad until you get used to them (and by that I mean like hex-based wargames with their extremely nonintuitive layouts full of buttons... that genre has such a high entry curve... or flight sims, with every key on the keyboard doing something...).
But in the terms of this arguement, direct/indirect? There is no issue of 'bad controls' on such a general scale. Only on a game-specific level.
Yes, I'm fully aware of that.
Quote:Hmm... with flight sims that is part of it, I'd admit, but it's also about how the mouse and keyboard are utterly inadaquate for representing a flight system. I remember that one time just for fun I tried to use the mouse in TIE Fighter... oh the pain...
But yes, in a Freelancer because of the controls it did feel a bit less immersive. I'm used to that genre being one way and that game is totally different... it felt less like a flight game and more like a third-person action game -- a Descent title in space, not a space shooter (or sim). Though other factors also definitely work into this to a huge degree. In the case of Freelancer also vital is the degree to which they have simplified things -- it also doesn't feel like a true space sim because it doesn't have much of the depth of one of those games!
And as I said I thought Grim Fandango's scheme was unique and maybe a little bit more immersive (though I'd have probably disagreed if I'd had to use a keyboard for that thing...). But as I said, it just isn't a particularly big factor for me. I don't feel much more that I am the character in BGDA or Gauntlet because of direct control than the (less like) the character in Diablo because of indirect...
And I don't feel much more like my KotOR character than my BG character because of direct movement. The differences lie in other things -- in the slight advantage KotOR being in 3D gives it, in the advantage BG's better artwork gives it, or in the realms of story, which I'd say is possibly the most important aspect of it all as far as immersion (and another one where BG (oh, and by this I mean BGII. I haven't played BGI in years, and honestly don't remember it too well beyond the basics... and besides, I only got halfway through the thing! When I say 'BG' I'm mostly referring to BGII, which I played this year (and am still working on).) wins)... but that is all stuff I have covered before.
Now you're contradicting yourself! The controls in Freelancer are great and do their job very well and very few people complained about them, yet you despise them because they are not immersive and claim that they suck. Ever consider the thought that since others found the controls good then perhaps it's a just a problem with you? Asking yourself that will bring you closer to understanding the points that I am trying to get across to you, even if you think that I'm contradicting myself (I'm not).
Quote:... and nor are you playing the role of each character in any party-based RPG...
Of course you are. In FF you're always controlling just one person at a time.
Quote:But that last part is where we disagree. In the context of how it is a game 'you' are Guybrush and the fact that you click on the screen to command him doesn't change that much... what does is presentation. That is, the more cinematic (and set) they make the chararacter the less a 'you' they are and the more like a movie character they are... while the more you have some kind of say (or the character is generic and not well defined in these categories -- like Quest for Glory, where instead of your character saying things you choose general topics to discuss or things to tell them and the other person responds like you asked a question.. it's probably a legacy of text-entry of questions, yeah, but it also has the result of making the character less defined so that it can become more a 'You'. Having multiple paths (though the choice of characater between fighter, mage, and theif) also goes towards that goal too of course... ) the more it feels like you can identify with them. Well, not exactly... with a cinematic style you might as well. But with a more open one more people will identify with them while with a more set one some will and some won't.
But anyway, we disagree.
I don't think you really understand my opinion on this. I'm not saying that point-and-click controls are always bad, I'm saying that they work for certain types of games and shouldn't be used in certain cases. In something like Monkey Island where you don't have direct control over the character, it could be good if the developers really ran with it. Instead of using that control style to its fullest potential they made it sort of an odd, confused mix of direct and indirect controls. So many PC games are like that. Either let the player control Guybrush directly or make it apparent that you are not fully controlling him but rather guiding him. The game already has some of those ideas, what with the interaction between yourself and the character (which further proves my point about you not controlling Guybrush directly). They could have made the game even more interesting if there was a greater emphasis on that player-Guybrush interaction, or if you just plain became him directly. Going all the way in either direction would have resulted in a better game. I still love MI though.