Combat Forced?

[Mr_Cyberpunk]

It's about being a super-agent uncovering a global conspiracy, it's not about smooth-talking your way into top secret military installations. We'll leave that kind of gameplay to proper adventure games.

As I said, the flaws of the Action genre But my comments were out of total respect, I think Deus ex and TNM succeed at what they set out to do, they just aren't like traditional RPGs though where you could take a supporting role or possibly even avoid having involvement with even the story its trying to tell. But its cool, rarely games actually succeed at pulling it off- Fallout 1 is just lucky it was ripping of GURPS- else it wouldn't have been anywhere near as awesome.

TNM alone was a monster of a task, I'm still impressed you guys pulled it off given the limitations you had.

[Jonas]

As I said, the flaws of the Action genre

I really don't mean to offend you (this time), but I think you're being a poor designer right now. You're kinda saying that games have to do everything to be flawless, but I strongly disagree with that. I would much rather make or play a strong focused game than a game that tries to be everything and fails. If you make a game where the player can fight or talk his or her way through the entire thing, you're forced to make both of those play styles equally fun and challenging (because the players will almost always pick the path of least resistance, and if that path isn't fun, you've fucked up), and I've yet to encounter a game that did that - in the Fallout games, talking your way out of trouble was more often than not a "shortcut" around content that felt like you were skipping the combat, and conversely Torment's dialogue solutions were very rewarding, but its combat was balls.

The action genre is not flawed for its games not letting you talk your way past every fight, just like the science fiction genre is not flawed for not having cowboys, Indians, and six-shooters (not counting Firefly, obviously). Demanding that action games support completely peaceful playthroughs lest they're flawed is like demanding that puzzle games let you blow up every puzzle (though admittedly I would appreciate the average puzzle game more if it did!).

But my comments were out of total respect, I think Deus ex and TNM succeed at what they set out to do, they just aren't like traditional RPGs though where you could take a supporting role or possibly even avoid having involvement with even the story its trying to tell. But its cool, rarely games actually succeed at pulling it off- Fallout 1 is just lucky it was ripping of GURPS- else it wouldn't have been anywhere near as awesome.

Yeah Fallout is an exception, but as I mentioned above, I don't think its talkative solutions measured up to the combat in terms of fun. Fallout had a splendidly engaging turn-based combat system, in fact the only turn-based combat system I've ever really enjoyed in a computer game; it's challenging and rewarding both mentally and aesthetically (especially if you have the Bloody Mess perk, eh? ), whereas talking your way out of combat is usually just a matter of investing loads of skill points in the right skills, clicking the more or less obvious dialogue node when it comes up, and getting lucky on a behind-the-scenes dice roll. The only real satisfaction you get from that is the feeling that you've found a short cut, and the challenge is pretty much nil.

I think for a game to have really rewarding non-combat, it'd have to have proper adventure-game puzzles with some investigation elements. Ironically TNM's setting and plot would've supported that brilliantly since the player is cast as an independent investigator, there's just the issue of it not being a type of gameplay of particular interest to anybody on the team, as far as I know. True adventure gameplay was outside the scope of Deus Ex - a scope which was already stretching the limits of reason, in my opinion - and TNM was pretty closely modelled on Deus Ex for obvious reasons

TNM alone was a monster of a task, I'm still impressed you guys pulled it off given the limitations you had.

Thanks, I know you don't mean any disrespect, I'm just disagreeing with your approach to game theory in this case

[Odysseus]

Hmm... wasn't there a game more or less like Deus Ex that implemented a "smooth talker" path? Didn't it have something to do with vampires? . Sadly, you still had to fight like four forced boss fights.

[Made in China]

Hmm... wasn't there a game more or less like Deus Ex that implemented a "smooth talker" path? Didn't it have something to do with vampires? . Sadly, you still had to fight like four forced boss fights.

You still had to utilize sneaking and\or fighting. The Elzabethian Dane level, Grout's mansion level, post-Tzimisce-sewer levels, the Glaze club, Mandarin's labratory level and the two last levels (or one, depending on what you choose) come to mind.
So, no. Although you may avoid a large portion of the fights (with the cost of giving up on most of the side quest), there's still quite a lot of fighting, sneaking and killing in there.
Overall, I think that smooth talking your way through a game make for a pretty dull experience, unless it's a pure adventure game - and that genre is, unfortuanlly, quite dead.

[Jaedar]

I like it when you can smooth talk, but it shouldn't be ; you have 3 charisma and therefore you can skip this fight. It should be more like; you have 3 charisma, therefore you gain the ability to try and skip the fight. (no invisible die rolls though, that sucks.)

[Odysseus]

Hmm... wasn't there a game more or less like Deus Ex that implemented a "smooth talker" path? Didn't it have something to do with vampires? . Sadly, you still had to fight like four forced boss fights.

You still had to utilize sneaking and\or fighting. The Elzabethian Dane level, Grout's mansion level, post-Tzimisce-sewer levels, the Glaze club, Mandarin's labratory level and the two last levels (or one, depending on what you choose) come to mind.
So, no. Although you may avoid a large portion of the fights (with the cost of giving up on most of the side quest), there's still quite a lot of fighting, sneaking and killing in there.
Overall, I think that smooth talking your way through a game make for a pretty dull experience, unless it's a pure adventure game - and that genre is, unfortuanlly, quite dead.

Yeah, IIRC this was one of the main complaints from the hardcore RPG fanbase, that the game would let you use diplomacy on a lot of cases, then suddenly force you to sneak or fight on forced scripted events, but it was a start.

I'd say that diplomacy can be very good, just look at Planescape: Torment (It has forced fights, but they're only four and none of them are necessarily lethal)

Adventure games are dead? But there's a new Monkey Island coming out! (There's also the very active indie scene...)

Speaking of adventure games... the Quest for Glory series is a fine example of how to make multiple solutions in a game equally fun.

[Made in China]

Well, compared to the old days, there really isn't much.
And I didn't hear about the new Monkey Island game, but then again - my current computer is shit and I don't really catch up, because I'm assuming that anything new just wouldn't run on it.

So maybe it is still alive, but I don't know. In the 90's the best games were the point and click game - such as Day of the Tentacle, The Neverhood and Grim Fandango. Now there's one Monkey Island game and the rest is indie games, which I frankly never played nor heard of until now, and they might be just as good - but I still don't think it can really be compared to the time before the market was flooded with casual-gamers\fighting-games-addicts\console-shooters-1337-p14y3r5.

Had to edit this message twice already, so sorry if it doesn't make much sense. DAMN YOU INSOMNIA!

[Hassat Hunter]

Trestkon: "Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!"
Guard: "Ha, I am not fooled by that. The monkeys were cut out of IW."
Trestkon: "Darn!"

You still had to utilize sneaking and\or fighting. The Elzabethian Dane level, Grout's mansion level, post-Tzimisce-sewer levels, the Glaze club, Mandarin's labratory level and the two last levels (or one, depending on what you choose) come to mind.
So, no. Although you may avoid a large portion of the fights (with the cost of giving up on most of the side quest), there's still quite a lot of fighting, sneaking and killing in there.
Overall, I think that smooth talking your way through a game make for a pretty dull experience, unless it's a pure adventure game - and that genre is, unfortuanlly, quite dead.

No sneaking or fighting needed AT ALL in the Elizabeth Dane and grout's mansion, if you had the proper skills to persuade (and for the Dane, computering). The mansion's catacombs are a different story obviously. And death to the fucking endless sewers! Bloody horrible.

Also, adventure games dead? Never heard of Monkey Island, A Vampyre's Tale, Ankh, Jack Keane, Syberia (3), Sam & Max (and the other Telltale games, however I didn't like the others as much. Haven't tried MI yet though, heard it's as good). Ever heard of this country called Germany, many adventure gamers and developers there!

Also in the "good old days" it was just Sierra and LA. They were the best of course, but still only just 2 companies...

[Jaedar]

No sneaking or fighting needed AT ALL in the Elizabeth Dane and grout's mansion, if you had the proper skills to persuade (and for the Dane, computering).

Err, I do beleive you are wrong my good sir. You needed some stealth for the dane, because otherwise the guards would hear you through the walls. And there were plenty of enemies in grouts place that were hostile(although admittedly, many more that were not)

[Hassat Hunter]

The first guard can be persuaded, then it's a hostileless run to a computer and a hostileless run back. Where's the sneaking or fighting?

Grout's mention, first level: Wheter or not you had to fight ANYONE was totally up to the player. Actually to be truth, there were 2 different maps of said level (just browse the maps, you'll see). The everyone is hostile, and the everyone is friendly, where you could participate in trying to get one of the family up the social ladder, and could procede to the catacombs without fighting a single person.
Second level (catacombs) and lower were combatareas, though, true.

[Jaedar]

You don't mean grouts, you mean giovanni, and yeah, those zombies are just boring as hell.
And on the boat you had to pass at least one guard rather close, which meant you had to have sneak active or he would notice you, you didn't need it trained or anything though.

[Made in China]

Also, adventure games dead? Never heard of Monkey Island, A Vampyre's Tale, Ankh, Jack Keane, Syberia (3), Sam & Max (and the other Telltale games, however I didn't like the others as much. Haven't tried MI yet though, heard it's as good). Ever heard of this country called Germany, many adventure gamers and developers there!

Alright, point taken. I'm just not in the adventure games' 'scene' anymore - but I should point out that most of the point and click games I saw as great were also very humorous, and about half of the games you gave don't seem high on humor (again, may be wrong, need to buy them), which is the thing that spiced up the whole genre.

And on another note - Sam & Max is back? I thought LucasArts nuked it long ago, when they favored milking the Star Wars franchise instead. I wonder if I can find it in a local store...

[Mr_Cyberpunk]

Ok Jonas its all cool. I think the reason why I've been saying this is because my thinking of anti-combat gameplay is very different from yours mainly because I've come from an Adventure Game background, so I'm used to not having combat centric roles. There's plenty of adventure games that don't ever rely on combat, and some that actually do like Monkey Island and Indiana Jones.

What I'm not trying to say is make a game that's good at everything, rather make a game that when combat isn't a feasible option the gameplay doesn't die completely and the game becomes boring.

Not saying remove combat entirely but rather when the fun gun-play of the game suddenly goes away, there's no Idling until the next series of gun play comes along- rather you're always actively doing something (and no this doesn't mean Side-Quests.. this means your socializing, problem solving, preparing, investigating, managing, planning and possibly even relaxing by doing something non-combat related such as playing a mini-game.)

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is perhaps games should be focusing less on the power of being able to kill people and rather relying on the power of being able to solve problems without violence.

I do like games like X3 that give you the option of fighting and everything.. but make non-combat shit loads more rewarding.. the reason why is because that game is hard and to loose your ship after it costing millions of credits is a massive punishment to the player.. so at first Non-Combat roles seem the logical way to build yourself up in the world.. then you can go mad with power and kill everyone .. (but the game doesn't make it easy..) X3 is by far one of the hardest games I've ever played because of how complex its economy is and because of how intense and indepth the combat system is- its like they got a perfect balance of combat and non-combat roles meaning the game caters to multiple play styles-- and surprisingly its not boring either.

Though X3 is almost identical to EVE Online- so the whole social aspect of EVE Online probably makes it a better game . EVE does kick ass actually- the only reason I don't play is because its too time consuming and addictive.

[Jonas]

Not saying remove combat entirely but rather when the fun gun-play of the game suddenly goes away, there's no Idling until the next series of gun play comes along- rather you're always actively doing something (and no this doesn't mean Side-Quests.. this means your socializing, problem solving, preparing, investigating, managing, planning and possibly even relaxing by doing something non-combat related such as playing a mini-game.)

Right, but I first of all, I think this is one of the major strengths of TNM and DX: that they have loads of stuff to do outside of the combat missions. Secondly, the goal of most action games is to make sure the fun gun-play never goes away, not to make sure something interesting happens if it does.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is perhaps games should be focusing less on the power of being able to kill people and rather relying on the power of being able to solve problems without violence.

Sure, I wouldn't mind seeing more non-action games, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more frequent and more interesting down-time in action games, but I got the impression that you want all action games or at least all RPGs (including action-RPGs) to be completable without any combat or stealth. Was I misunderstanding you or have you just changed your mind?

Though X3 is almost identical to EVE Online- so the whole social aspect of EVE Online probably makes it a better game . EVE does kick ass actually- the only reason I don't play is because its too time consuming and addictive.

Yeah EVE is really interesting, but one thing you hear a lot (and which seems entirely true to me, though I haven't verified it yet) is that EVE is way more fun to read about than it is to play

[Mr_Cyberpunk]

but I got the impression that you want all action games or at least all RPGs (including action-RPGs) to be completable without any combat or stealth. Was I misunderstanding you or have you just changed your mind?

Not really, its more just that I feel like I'm not literally ROLE PLAYING in a game if the game is telling me how to play itself what my frustration with Action-RPGs is that they tend to throw the whole "immersion" word around a lot.. yet the completely fail at allowing the player to actually come up with a role.. Its like a communists idea of what an RPG should be "EVERYONE GETS SAME GUN! SAME STATS! EVERYONE IS COMBAT!! K GO..." At least that's how I felt Fallout 3 was. A good RPG should at least let the player look at their position in the world and see how they can actually be of some use to that world- not a lot of games do that I feel.. But X3 and EVE do it brilliantly- though they're not RPGs.. I feel it could be epic to see it done with an RPG.

Arma2 is pretty good at it being an FPS, the game purposely gives you too many side quests to do in order to trick the player into following the wrong lead- its a ballsy move that I feel pays off.. its just the damn dialogue can't be skipped GOD DAMN IT! . Its a problem when you're hunting down a dangerous terrorist while some idiot wants you to find his friend, that is probably dead by now since he's in enemy territory. Though the game also misleads you because it could be that his friend actually knows where the terrorists are- the game also gives you a choice in the role you play throughout a mission- especially in Multiplayer, because you can essentially facilitate any role in the team you want. Its not your generic old fashioned "GO TO X KILL X COME BACK AND GET REWARD" rather its more like you're given too many quests to do within a time limit (usually its about 4 real world hours for the mission I'm on right now in SP.) Later on though you get control of an entire army meaning you can do multiple objectives at the same time- whilst also focusing on non-combat roles like constructing a base.

I feel that its Multiplayer where the game truly shines though as all of the quests you have can be co-ordinated way better and there's a lot less that can go wrong.. But the game is buggy so it crashes a lot. Sadly though no one has yet to make a Hi-Command mod for Multiplayer.. it would be epic to just have a freeform war with other players . Arma 2 makes excellent use of its open world- even though it does have fast travel, the logistical issues you're faced with can be life and death- the massive world becomes essential to the gameplay.

Unlike a lot of RPGs I've seen.

Yeah EVE is really interesting, but one thing you hear a lot (and which seems entirely true to me, though I haven't verified it yet) is that EVE is way more fun to read about than it is to play

Early on its hell fun because you're just a small soletrader ... later on though it becomes a second job because you get committed to the game and are apart of a massive corporation filled with employees who will fuck you up if you miss an important meeting.