Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.games:1676 rec.games.misc:11980 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!linac!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!news From: smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games,rec.games.misc Subject: RPG opinions (was Re: Programmer...) Message-ID: <1990Nov3.234058.23166@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> Date: 3 Nov 90 23:40:58 GMT References: (cross-listed to rec.games.misc) Sender: news@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC) Lines: 136 Originator: smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu This is being cross-listed to rec.games.misc. Let's try to keep this discussion on the *design* of a game, *not* the system which it runs on, OK? Patrick Jost says: >Here are some of my "gripes" with most adventure games, and possible solutions >for what I'd consider better games: >1) Having to go through a tedious process of gaining "experience" before >being able to use certain spells and so on. As an alternative, I'd >recommend immediate access to just about everything, but making part of >the game sorting out what to do with them. For instance, if there are >several "attack" spells, which ones work best on which foes? Sure, you'd >be able to cast anything, but you'd better cast the RIGHT thing. Good observation, but I think magic is just too plentiful in RPG's as it is. There was a good review of the new Lord of the Rings RPG in a recent gaming magazine which pointed this out. In this new RPG magic users are not that powerful, and magic is hard to come by. This keeps the fighters from becoming mere baggage carriers after a certain level since most high level magic users in most games can wipe out half an army with a single spell. The article pointed out that in this new RPG the higher level MU's could be blown away by a mediocre MU from some other average RPG. I agree with you about the dumb idea of gaining levels to be able to do things. To me this is just a way of making the game last longer (which is unfortunately the intention of the programmers). Good grief, some games are long or too long already. Don't get me wrong--I love epic adventures and I almost always never give up on one I've started, but there are too many *bad* ways to make games last longer! (Like the blind mapping in Bard's Tale II.) But back to the original subject... I think I would rather see the player get *excited* when he/she is able to use a magic spell. Therefore I would like part of the game to be searching for magic items or spells AND finding out how to use them once found, as you mention above. Most games just allow you to use a spell once you get to that certain level, and what's so exciting about that? "Ho hum...another spell...guess I'll add it to the other fifty I have that I never use..." How many people out there have played any of the TSR games (Pool, Curse, Krynn, Blades, etc.)? Now be honest; what percentage of the available spells did you even use? How many times did you opt for the easy fireball routine instead of using the magic arrow? Too many spells either become obsolete or are never even used. Take Bard's Tale for instance--talk about tons of spells you never use! There were so MANY of them, and the ones that you did use were used so frequently there was nothing *special* about them, at least anything special to be excited about. And (to lengthen this tirade a little farther) I agree with you about searching for info on a magic item. In Might and Magic II (probably my favorite RPG) all the spells are listed for you right in the book. There's no chance for discovering a new one on your own, except in the sense of trying to find where some are located in the game. But you already know they are there somewhere. I would like to see a game designed where you have to be really sharp to find any magic items and have nothing mentioned in the book about them. You would be forced to learn about the history of the place, or talk to the right people, or maybe even experiment with the object before you learned its secrets. So I guess I'm generally agreeing with you, but stating that magic has become much too commonplace. Let's make it something *special*. >2) Running out of food, torches and so on. I think this reduces many >aspects of gameplay to tedium. Sure, you'd have to have these things >in real life, but I don't see that this adds anything to a game. True. There is a tension in RPG's and adventure games between what is realistic (in terms of correspondence between the gaming world and the real world) and what is practical and fun. We are forever wanting the gaming world to be more realistic, but if in fact something is *boring* we don't include it in the game, even if it would make the gaming world more realistic. There is nothing really too bad about this, after all it is a game and should be fun (yeah, for you die-hard RPG fans that statement nearly makes me cringe too :-). But of course when you're gaming system is not internally coherent, or if you're gaming system includes really dumb ways of doing things because "that's how it's always done" then the system should be revised. More on this below under #4. >3) Having a "quest" be an integral part of a game. Once the "quest" has >been accomplished, the game is more or less over. I'd like to see a game >where you just explore a large world-in fact, you could have the program >create an endless series of "random" worlds (along with different spell >characteristics and so on). I agree. There was some good discussion on this at the last Game Developer's Conference. It seems that the game designers are seeing this shortcoming too, and are now trying to develop a rich gaming world with an environment which would provide a "mood", and *then* drop a character into the middle of it so he/she can experience that world personally by interacting with it. This means either more miniquests or *only* miniquests; i.e., no ultimate objective. I too don't like the idea of being herded down a one way path in order to solve an ultimate goal in the way that the programmer wants it to be solved. This in my opinion is the big drawback about most of Sierra's games; they mostly consist of linear paths, and the only way to solve them is to do things in the "proper" order. Knights of Legend is one of the few games that doesn't have the "ultimate quest" syndrome. Check it out. >4) Lack of originality is chronic! Every game seems to have a few attack >spells, a few heal spells, transport spells and so on. For characters, >you get fighters, wizards and clerics; sometimes you get thieves, ninjas >and the like. Once again, I'd like to see more effort put into creating >a real "world" with characteristics to be learned as the game goes on. I agree! Here's another one for all you gamers out there: What about the whole concept of *hit points*? Now just think about that for a second. "Hit points"? We're so used to thinking in those terms we can't see how absurd this idea is. When you're dealing with computers of course one must reduce everything about a character to bits and bytes, but why be so bloody obvious about it? Or *at least* have the character be *wounded* if he's lost a few "hit points"! Your character could have 100 HP and be down to his very last HP (1 HP) and still be fighting like nothing is wrong. Stupid. >One of the best games I've had was Might and Magic. You've got good taste. :-) >Patrick Jost >jost@coyote.trw.com S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / ,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC