8th May 2004, 6:50 PM
Quote:Um, Neverwinter Nights is not a terrible D&D game "by all accounts". Yeesh, a HUGE number of people really love the game. The expression "by all accounts" DOES require ALL accounts to actually be that way for you to be able to say it you know, not just a large number. PA also seemed to love it, and their opinions are ones I usually agree with. My friends and I also enjoyed it. Yes though, the single player campaign included with it IS pretty aweful. It's pretty much this big stereotyped story with the main flaw of too many US RPGs. That flaw, if you ask me, is emphasizing everything WAY too much, like the narrator is literely trying to BASH the supposed deepness emotion and history into your skull with a hammer. The other expansions are nice enough, though honestly when I say it's great, I'm talking about the custom campaigns. You may not play them much, but disregarding a feature as unimportant just because you didn't like it isn't exactly nice. Honestly, it's about the biggest part of it. That's where all the fun comes from. So, if you don't care for custom maps, I suppose that's one thing, but honestly, don't disregard the game as bad for EVERYONE based on something you alone don't like, but is obviuosly VERY popular.
If the story were really typical for a good American RPG, would so many people have complained (who play PC RPGs)? No, I don't think so... the key word there being 'good'... :) By 'all accounts' I meant most all the reviews I had read. And I meant the single player campaign, not the multiplayer. And as I said I wasn't including the expansions (reviews of a game generally don't, after all... :)). And that includes a healthy dose of my own dislike for the game for not having parties... :)
Anyway, the point is that it is NOT regarded as one of the best D&D RPGs. Oh, it's not a bad game, but it is lacking in several ways (poor single player campaign and the graphics (repetitive, I've heard the complaint as...) are the biggest ones...)
Quote:The diff between other players and the "henchmen" is that you can actually strategize with the other humans and they are actually able to think. It's a much fuller experience that way, and it really feels like you are on an adventure with a party, even if you don't control them. I do however believe in the future they should add at least the ABILITY to control multiple characters, fully, at once. Wouldn't be long before fully controllable extra characters are added to custom campaigns.
That new PC Bioware RPG they just announced better have parties...
Quote:Just to make it clear, I said from the start a little randomness thrown in for spice is fine. I just don't like it to be dominating. You seem to be really aggressive about this issue. Really, I'm only saying I don't like it when randomness replaces skill, as in the early parts of D&D games.
Now, I know you don't think that's the case, and that's fine. I'm not saying you are wrong. I am however saying that that's how I see it, and all things considered, I think that should be enough. Just let it be.
Oh, just say 'oh fine your statement's fine even though I think it's totally wrong'? Umm...
Quote:Regarding FF8, no the actual damage formula itself isn't actually explained, but all you need to do is see what damage you are doing, how much a few stat gains affect it, and then from there you instantly have all you need to draw upon to figure it out yourself. They don't spell it out sure, but it's hardly hidden. There IS randomness to it, but it's very minor, essentially to spice it up a bit. A standard attack at a certain level that averages 100 won't also be doing 200 and 10, it'll always be in the area of 90-110 or so I'd say. Likewise, a critical, while slightly varied, will always be roughly double what a normal attack is. To analyze the formula for a critical hit, in any of these games, all you need to do is remember what the attack value of a normal hit is and do the math.
And over the time of a combat I don't see how this is appreciably different from D&D. Battles are long. That 2 balances with a 12 to average 7, same as if it was a 6 and a 8! So it's a bigger range. So?
And as I said D&D tells you all those formulas. And shows damage numbers so if you want to see how much damage you can be doing you could likewise figure it out. Except they give you more of the pieces (though the formula is likely more complex). :)
Quote:You mention that having characters that develop exactly the same is boring, and yes, I see exactly what you mean. In a game like FF1, where the stats are exactly LOCKED into place, it IS in fact boring to play with the same party over and over. There are other things sure, but the stats are always going to be about the same. However, my point is really that, rather than resorting to a random element for THAT particular issue, they give YOU control of stat development to solve the issue in a lot of games. Having the control taken away from me, you see, bores me.
Fine. But that could easily be extended (and almost sounds like you mean it to be extended...) to 'and D&D takes that control away'. Which is totally wrong, given how much customizability you get over your characters... yes, most of it is on character creation (another HUGE difference... how PC titles almost always let you customize a character to your choosing (though in BG you only create the main character and get NPCs to join your party as the rest of the characters...) and a console game makes you use the specific one given...). But there are many variables as you progress. More than most any console title, certainly. The stats themselves? Remember, you choose proficiencies and theif abilities directly... and the rest of the stuff is based heavily on your choices in the beginning (the main stats)...
Quote:Allow me to give you an example of a way to get the stats varied without resorting to randomness. In Final Fantasy 2, there are no levels at all, not in the traditional sense really. No experience points to be found. Rather, everything you do has a direct and almost immediate effect on your stats in near-real time. If you attack, then after the battle, strength increases. If you use magic, then intelligence or wisdom increases. If you use a bow, your archery ability increases. If you TAKE damage, your defense or HP increases. If you dodge an attack, your evasion rate increases (there's another bit of randomness for you, thrown in at just enough of a level to make it fun without removing too much control from the player). Essentially, every single game you characters can be VASTLY different in their stats. However, very little randomness and in the end, it was you (and in part, the attacks of the enemies) that determined your character's abilities. There are penalties mind you. You raise your strength a lot, and your wisdom and intelligence start going down. The drops aren't as big as the raises mind you, so overall you will always be getting stronger, but you'll really need to decide how you want to develop your characters. You can thus custom form your character to be anything from a powerful black mage, a great white mage, a legendary swordsman, or even a jack of all trades as a red mage, though that type of character won't be as good at any of it's individual abilities as a specialist.
'Use ability X and ability X'es value increases'? I'm familiar with that one, it's used in Quest for Glory... you have no levels, but have a lot of stats and as you do things those values increase (provided you have any points in them; something you have 0 in will never increase). That means lots of throwing rocks at a tree if you want to get good at throwing. :D
Dungeon Siege has an element of that too... though it's very simple and makes the game so, so simple -- you'll improve in whatever spell or weapon you're using, and it'll level up that ability. In lieu of choosing abilities to be more proficient in level-up. So it just works as a way of simplifying the RPG aspects of a simple game (can you guess that that game bored me? :) ).
It's an okay system, but one that was more used in older stuff like QFG... it has issues. Like how to get good at things sometimes it makes you do something over and over... not too much fun...
Quote:Another example is this. I think I've said it before actually. In FF6 and in FF8, the summoned monsters are well, equipable (as crystals, well, it is Final Fantasy, crystals are kinda needed). A large amount have stat bonuses. The maximum limit is, for most of the stats, the number you can get for equipping the best possible stat boost to that character at their starting level and keeping it there until level 99 (or 100 in the case of FF8). This means you can't max out EVERYTHING in one game. That means you have to choose which stats matter most and emphasize them. THAT means that every game will result in different stats.
Yes, choice as you progress is definitely good in an RPG. Any good RPG has such things.
Quote:I guess all I'm saying is we expect different things from our games, SOME different things anyway. You see, when I say I don't like how at the start, the control is kinda taken away from me and given to the dice, you say you don't even see the control being taken away. At the same time, when you say you like to be able to take your time in a game and MM doesn't allow that, I myself am of the opinion that it gives you plenty of time to do stuff and I always found I had plenty of freedom to explore so long as I dedicated my exploring to one area at a time.
I don't see it as being taken away and don't see how you could see it as returning later... that doesn't make sense, as I said several times before... your logic that 'now that I succeed most of the time it's more based on my stats but when I succeeded less it was based on luck' is just strange. Oh, I do kind of get your opinion that you dislike how when you're at a mid level you'll sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (though I most definitely would never consider that as a bad thing)
My conclusion? I'm sorry that you didn't play more good boardgames like HeroQuest, Dragon Strike, or wargame/strategy titles like RISK or Axis & Allies when you were younger. Great games. (and you can probably guess how they relate to this issue...) I got used to dice deciding combats many years ago... sure, it's random, but why is that a bad thing? As I've said, it's influenced randomness, not totally random stuff. And it adds interest to the game. Again, it'd make these games a lot harder, and, in the overall perspective, less strategic, I think, if they got rid of the random element. LESS strategic by getting rid of randomness? Yes, because those random elements add many things to the games that would be pretty hard to have in otherwise, and allow much more interesting battles that can be done in a much simpler fashion.
Like, Axis & Allies. World War II grand strategy boardgame. My two Infantries invade an island. One defends it. Infantry gets two dice on defence (or is it three?) and one on attack... so the defender actually has a fair chance of winning despite the disadvantage. Now, I'm sure you could come up with some system of hitpoints and set attack numbers, but it'd make it more like Chess -- 'move piece here and win with 3 men, or lose if I have 2' every time. Needless to say that'd lead to a boring game after you play it a few times! Oh, sure, it'd still have strategy for sure (in anticipating your opponents' moves), and I think Chess is certainly one of the great games, but the random element adds more than it detracts. And I'd make a similar case for D&D.