Cheating is endemic in rpgs. Being forced not to reload puts you on disadvantage

[Saduj]

How is failing a pickpocket attempt and turning a friendly NPC hostile, or not making the attempt at all, just as good an option as succeeding in stealing an important key?

Picking pockets/locks and disarming traps should be deterministic, IMO. If you have invested in the skills to succeed, you should succeed. I agree that it doesn't make sense that someone who spent the skill points should fail a high percentage attempt and have to reload. It is also dumb that someone with a low skill level should be able to do it as it defeats the purpose of investing in the skill. Presumably, if you didn't invest in that skill then you invested in some other skills that will allow you to get the key in another way - combat, diplomacy, bartering, whatever. To "win" you just need to get the key and you should do so by using the means that best fit your character build. Not attempting to pick pockets when your character isn't a pickpocket is not a "loss". If you can only get an important key by stealing that is poor design, which would be the actual problem in that example.

Edit - Also, if you're talking about a key that is not plot critical, I'm fine with certain characters not being able to get it. I don't consider it a "loss" if my character can't do things it was not built to do. Ideally, my build would grant me access to some other item/content that people who invested heavily in thieving skills won't be able to access. But I don't even need that to be completely balanced either.

 

[Sigourn]

FeelTheRads Your post boils down to "I can't take any criticism for my badly designed cRPGs!!".

It's really sad. For someone who complains about push-to-win buttons, you are awfully defensive of the reload button when party members die. Ironically your train of thought is what made Bethesda turn companions essential in Fallout 4: "people are going to reload anyway, so why allow them to fail?".

Congratulations.

EDIT: You've also have appeared to take a few hints from Pete "I insult anyone who doesn't like my games" Hines.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Picking pockets/locks and disarming traps should be deterministic, IMO. If you have invested in the skills to succeed, you should succeed.

So why that but not combat or anything else for that matter? Loot drops? Speech checks? Hell, speech decisions? Should I be able to savescum to give someone the right password when I don't know what it is?

 

[Sigourn]

I know it's a newfag thing to assume it's the game not them, so how about you post that "combat build"?

Let me look up my save from a year ago, if I still had Fallout 2 installed.

It's hard to admit failure, but it is what it is, bro.

It's even harder to call bad game design for what it is.

Dude, no, sorry.

1. In IWD they are characters you create, not companions.
2. If you think reloading on party characters dying is "save-scumming" you are retarded.

I mean, how do you decide which are the companions and which are not? Is "your" character then one you choose to name "Faggot McNewfag" and if that one dies then reloading is not save-scumming? How the fuck does this work?

It's simple. When a character dies, he dies. You shouldn't reload when you see you are beginning to fail: you deal with the consequences. If a Beholder destroys your character, you deal with the consequences as well.

Savescumming gives you an advantage. Based on this, it's easy to know when you are savescumming.

How do YOU want it to work then?

This just goes to show what I meant: by asking how I want it to work, you are admitting it already works through savescumming. So there's really nothing else for me to say regarding this discussion. It was fun, but I could have done without

newfags

push-button-to-win

waah waah waah

newfags?

newfag

But I guess some people must feel superior to other people... based on the type of videogames they play. Man, imagine if I started talking how most of the game this forum loves are overrated as fuck. It's already annoying to have one or two pesky users constantly bringing up something I said one or two years ago, so I'll simply make it easier on myself and not bother.

 

[Sigourn]

The biggest cancer of cRPGs is how everything relies on dumb luck and how often you are expected to savescum. More often than not, you survive dungeons because of savescumming (even when it is light savescumming) than because your party is actually strong enough to tackle a dungeon. It's probably why I've never found classic cRPG RNG combat fun. That, and the fact these games love to throw a shitload of enemies at you, exponentially increasing the odds for RNG to fuck you up.

 

[Saduj]

So why that but not combat or anything else for that matter? Loot drops? Speech checks? Hell, speech decisions? Should I be able to savescum to give someone the right password when I don't know what it is?

Speech checks are another one where I think they should be deterministic because it is a one shot pass/fail and the right failure for a talker character can cause you to not being able to finish the game. Combat is different because combat doesn't usually hinge on any one attack. I like a bit of randomness and think it makes things more interesting. I also enjoy a bit of randomness in loot drops for the same reason people enjoy games of chance.

As for the save scumming a password, go ahead. I'm not going to waste my time doing it. Even if you have critical information like "it is a six letter word", it would take you a very long time to guess correctly. Likely more time than it would take you to just find the password. And you'd be cheating yourself out of game content by doing that because obviously there is content around acquiring the password built into the game.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Your post boils down to "I can't take any criticism for my badly designed cRPGs!!".

You're not making sense and now you just try to hide behind "waah waah bad man on the internet said mean things about me".

It's simple. When a character dies, he dies. You shouldn't reload when you see you are beginning to fail: you deal with the consequences. If a Beholder destroys your character, you deal with the consequences as well.

What the fuck? Do you even give any thought to your posts? So... you want to deal with the consequences, but you cry that the game is too hard if you lose characters. Well, yes, that can be a fucking consequence, the game getting harder. What consequences do you want when losing characters?
Jesus, imbecilic moron.
Even though, again, IWD lets you start the game with just 1 character. And the game only ends when you lose them all. So, in fact, that shows that the game isn't expecting anything from you, besides not losing all your characters. You can play as you want. And deal with your choices.
Oh and the game is in fact easier with fewer characters. So losing characters is actually an advantage. Fucking lolz.

What you're calling the game expecting something from you it's actually you sucking at the game. Waaah waah I lost, the game asked the impossible of me waah waah.

And again I ask you, if your character dies in a single character RPG and you reload, do you consider that save-scumming? If not, how in the fuck is it save-scumming if you reload on party member death in IWD?
And if that's save-scumming, then what isn't?

This just goes to show what I meant: by asking how I want it to work, you are admitting it already works through savescumming. So there's really nothing else for me to say regarding this discussion.

Ah, so you have no fucking idea what you want, just "waah waah gaem not fair cuz i lost".

And again you're not making any sense? What works through save-scumming? You just said it does not work...that it's bad design this assumed forced save-scumming of yours. All I asked is how you want it done instead. How would a game not designed for save-scumming deal with party member death.

I know you feel like the best player in the world when some newfag game auto-loads from the last checkpoint for you, but according to your definition that's also save-scumming. Sorry.

So, what do you want? Do you want iron-man? If you do, then say so.
And btw, people have iron-manned IWD and they didn't cry about how it's designed for save-scumming. Newfag retard.

 

[Sigourn]

You're not making sense and now you just try to hide behind "waah waah bad man on the internet said mean things about me".

I hope you realize the irony of beginning your post with this sentence.

What the fuck? Do you even give any thought to your posts?

I think my posts through. I'm guessing you don't do the same.

So... you want to deal with the consequences, but you cry that the game is too hard if you lose characters.

I'm also guessing you don't even read my posts either. My argument is that in designing games around savescumming, you are not designed a game that cannot be played and enjoyed without savescumming. You are designing a game where the player has to use the save feature to keep a minimum profit.

What you're calling the game expecting something from you it's actually you sucking at the game. Waaah waah I lost, the game asked the impossible of me waah waah

How many reloads does that take you? How much savescumming?

Don't you realize that by talking shit about "push-to-win-button" RPGs you don't realize you do EXACTLY the same thing by dying, reloading, saving at the nearest successful atempt, rinse and repeat? Are you that fucking oblivious, or do you live on a fart cloud?

And again I ask you, if your character dies in a single character RPG and you reload, do you consider that save-scumming?

Reloading =/= savescumming. Saving and reloading to get an advantage is.

And if that's save-scumming, then what isn't?

Playing through a dungeon without saving every time you defeat an enemy. Reloading once you die, and have to begin all over again.

It's such a difficult concept I may have to bring a kindergarten teacher to explain you. I would think that someone with such a long career in cRPGs would understand a concept that even the most obtuse of Skyrim players understand.

All I asked is how you want it done instead. How would a game not designed for save-scumming deal with party member death

You are able to keep going and aren't faced with dozens upon dozens of mobs. You know, make a game with proper encounter design for a change where you have to use your wits as opposed to relying on the almighty Save and Load buttons.

If you think 6 characters against 200 mobs in a dungeon, with everything working with RNG, is the only way to make cRPGs... it must be a really sad existence.

Then again, you are the user parroting "newfag", "push to win" and "waaah waaah" every couple of seconds. I can almost hear you screaming at your monitor.

I know you feel like the best player in the world when some newfag game auto-loads from the last checkpoint for you, but according to your definition that's also save-scumming. Sorry

Can't talk about what I never said or even implied. Sorry.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[FeelTheRads]

My argument is that in designing games around savescumming, you are not designed a game that cannot be played and enjoyed without savescumming. You are designing a game where the player has to use the save feature to keep a minimum profit.

Your "argument" is based on your own definitions of "save-scumming" and on your own definitions of "designed". Do I have to take your word for it that the game is designed for save-scumming or what? Or wait, is the whole game like that?
Because I didn't hear you cry about all the fights, just those that pose some problems for you. So, somehow the fights that you win in IWD are fine, but those that you lose are obviously designed around save-scumming. Durr? At what point does an encounter turn from fair to save-scummy? Do you have any kind of logic to judge that or just belly-feels? Right...

Reloading =/= savescumming. Saving and reloading to get an advantage is.

So... by that logic the thing that happened before reloading was the thing that was supposed to happen and reloading alters the flow of time or... what? In that case, not using the correct option(s) in a game with no RNG and reloading to use the correct one(s) also counts as save-scumming. It gives you an advantage, does it not?

Playing through a dungeon without saving every time you defeat an enemy. Reloading once you die, and have to begin all over again.

Again, I don't know what's stopping you from doing that in IWD.
Ah, right, you don't actually want to deal with the consequences. You say you do, but if it gets too hard then somehow it's because of bad design. Just the fact that a character died and you feel sorry for it doesn't count as a consequence. Having to adapt to it dying is an actual consequence.
So what you want is the game to be designed to deal with them for you, somehow tailored perfectly to a difficulty level that you deem appropriate and not save-scummy.
Except you dress that up in made-up bullshit about how it's totally impossible to play if you lose characters. Seriously, you're talking like you're the only one here who has played this game and we have to take your word for it.

You are able to keep going

Yep, you can do exactly that.
Or you can even create new characters to replace the dead ones. Or revive the dead ones. I don't even. Or what, is that wrong too? Because you made up some kind of rule that once a character is dead it has to stay dead and you have to run with a reduced number of party members? What in the fuck.

and aren't faced with dozens upon dozens of mobs.

So scaling then? Is that what you want? If not then I don't get what the number of monsters has to do with anything. What difference does it make if you replace 100 monsters with 10 monsters that are as strong as those 100? There's no difference it if still "impossible" to continue if you lose party members.

with everything working with RNG

Retarded bullshit lie, just like "waah waah belhifet/horrigan is impossible". A stupid simplification making it sound like the result of everything you do is down to RNG. Just like the retard who started this thread and equates all RNG to 50/50 chances.

is the only way to make cRPGs...

No, it's the way IWD is. It's all about killing hundreds of monsters in dungeons. How does that relate to your made-up bullshit about save-scumming?

Don't you realize that by talking shit about "push-to-win-button" RPGs you don't realize you do EXACTLY the same thing by dying, reloading, saving at the nearest successful atempt, rinse and repeat?

No, it's exactly NOT that. Logically if you have to reload you might want to try a different strategy. You might want to come back later.
Your alternative is being able to just continue no matter what happens (and preferably with no change in how you play) until you fail completely. I'm not sure you realize how retarded that is because it essentially means the game scaling to you.

And, yeah, I'm not sure by what logic should you be able to continue normally if you lose party members in a party game. If you think the game is designed for 6 characters and it's only possible like that (which AGAIN is wrong in every way) then just fucking reload. In that case you don't get a fucking advantage, you're just playing as you're supposed to because a character dying just as if you died in a single character RPG. Retard. Newfag.

Lambchop19 is like a hobo in front of mall that screams 'fuck you' in you way while at the same time pushing hand forward, begging for change.

Also its funny how he calls people newfags and retards after spending 10years in here and doing quotes without link to post or person.

Sorry, I'm not lambchop. Porkchop maybe.

And thanks, I know how to use quotes, I just don't bother with quote/insert quote or with deleting the irrelevant parts. Much faster to just copy/paste the parts I want.

But you didn't tell me how a party that manages to win every fight except one on highest difficulty it's actually not a good party. How somehow a reload invalidates all the fights you won on the highest difficulty. How it actually invalidates everything, because apparently that party was supposed to die there and you broke the laws of the universe? Come on, NEWFAG RETARD, tell me how that works.

 

[Sigourn]

Your "argument" is based on your own definitions of "save-scumming" and on your own definitions of "designed".

Courtesy of TV Tropes:

"Basically, you save the game whenever you get a result you like (or before you face a risk), and restore the saved game whenever you get a result you don't like."

This sounds very much in line with what I'm saying. Save scumming includes both the Save and Load buttons. The TV Tropes definition is very accurate in this regard.

And "designed" is a very relative term because I can't get in the head of the developer and assume what they were trying to achieve. But I'm not ignorant, and I know devs playtest their games. And if they thought everything was working just fine, then they are accomplices, which is just as bad (if not worse, because this means they weren't able to foresee possible issues in their game).

How can you tell when bad design is going on? When the game expects you to save often and reload often. You mentioned check points earlier. Dark Souls, and many, MANY games before it, use checkpoints. But there's not a checkpoint after every enemy or every two enemies (akin to the Save button that lets you save whenever you want and Load whenever you want). By the time you reach the end of a section, you are likely able to pull it off again in two or three tries. You develop consistency.

There's no such consistency in games like Icewind Dale. If you start a dungeon and try to get from beginning to bottom using no saves and no reloads... chances are you will pull it off once every twenty tries (I'm being extremely generous here). Hardly consistent, and definitely not my idea of what a good game should play like. This is why I don't Iron Man Icewind Dale: it's a retarded effort for autistic players. Exactly what is your idea of accomplishment when you are at the absolute mercy of RNG?

You may thus think

if you don't like RNGs then you are a waaah waah newfag baby who doesn't like RPGs

I don't play RPGs because I like RNG. I will never, ever, be in favor of RNG having such a huge impact on games. This is why I like Morrowind (RNG is a matter of getting better, and the game gives you plenty of opportunities to do so), Deus Ex & New Vegas (RNG is minimal), Gothic (RNG doesn't exist), and Dark Souls (like Gothic).

The good aspects of Icewind Dale (having to think a strategy to defeat the Luremaster) had NOTHING to do with RNG (my chances of beating the Luremaster, going from "everything went perfect" to "everything went like shit"). To me, RNG is just a system put in place between me and the game.

You can also think

RPGs are about using your character skills, you fucking newfag

but this is true in Morrowind, Deus Ex, New Vegas, Gothic and Dark Souls. The people who dislike these games, in particular the last three, fail to realize intelligence is just as much a skill as dexterity is. At which point, the argument boils down to

intelligence in RPGs is superior, I don't want to mix with popamoles

at which point I have nothing to tell you, except: you are not better than anyone because of your taste in videogames. And you are certainly not better than anyone just because you spent 10 years, an entire fucking decade, on a forum about a dying genre.

Or you can even create new characters to replace the dead ones. Or revive the dead ones. I don't even. Or what, is that wrong too? Because you made up some kind of rule that once a character is dead it has to stay dead and you have to run with a reduced number of party members? What in the fuck.

Where do these party members come from when I have been teleported to a dungeon in the middle of nowhere?

 

[Zombra]

I use the tools I'm given. In a roguelike game, I go ironman as intended. In a game like Desperados with a quicksave/quickload function, I frequently use the quicksave/quickload function as intended. In a game with typewriter ribbons, I pay attention to budgeting my typewriter ribbons as intended.

In a game with an "anything goes, like whatever man" save structure, whatever man, I just go with the flow. I usually reload when I get a result I don't like, because the design tells me that's the intention. Of course in many cases it's not the intention because the game was designed with no intention, but how am I supposed to know what the economy is like? How am I supposed to guess what "typical playtesters" did? If I let half my party get killed and keep playing, am I in a fail state? If I don't find 100% of the secret treasures, will my gear be gimped later? Since instant gratification is the only gratification I can be sure of in a game with no design, I get it when it's available. Bird in the hand. Of course I often find this makes a game unfulfilling to play and I will make up self-limiting extra rules (also known as LARPing) to challenge myself more.

That's right, I said it. If you don't reload the game whenever you feel like it, you are LARPing.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Lambchop19 is like a hobo in front of mall that screams 'fuck you' in you way while at the same time pushing hand forward, begging for change.

Also its funny how he calls people newfags and retards after spending 10years in here and doing quotes without link to post or person.

wut?

Also, I've been here since 2003 and really don't call people newfags very often. I prefer the old school "n00b".

Joined: Jan 15, 2015

n00b.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[FeelTheRads]

The TV Tropes definition is very accurate in this regard.

Ah, TV tropes, of course. The last word on save-scumming.

"Basically, you save the game whenever you get a result you like (or before you face a risk), and restore the saved game whenever you get a result you don't like."

Basically... basically it's down to individual preference according to this definition. Basically anyone can call anything save-scumming.

Therefore, why the fuck when you lose all your characters and reload is not "getting an advantage" like it is when you reload if just a character dies? What kind of twisted reasoning do you have to use to think one is fair and the other one is not? At least be consistent like the OP: any reload invalidates everything you did.

you are likely able to pull it off again in two or three tries.

What I hear is "save-scumming". What, if your number of repeats is consistent then it's not save-scumming anymore? If you have to redo a bigger part of the game rather than just the problematic one then it's not save-scumming? Oh, right, if it's not you doing the saving or reloading then it's not save-scumming because according to TV-tropes, save-scumming is based on "likes".

In which case I'm not sure how a game can be designed for save-scumming if save-scumming itself is subjective.

If you start a dungeon and try to get from beginning to bottom using no saves and no reloads... chances are you will pull it off once every twenty tries (I'm being extremely generous here)

Yeah, and of course we have to believe your generous assessment, because nobody here played the game. K.

Exactly what is your idea of accomplishment when you are at the absolute mercy of RNG?

Well, once again you keep making up retarded shit to help your case and it's getting very tiresome. Absolute mercy of RNG. Fuck off. You and the OP make it sound like if you have RNG is a game then it just turns that game in a fucking slot machine. See the retarded "games of chance" comparison. Thing is, your skill with the game and how you developed your party is actually the most important thing. You can't beat the game on RNG alone. I'll give you that it can happen to occasionally lose or win a fight just because of a twist of luck though it's actually extremely rare that the are no other mitigating factors.

You have to be some kind of deranged moron to think that occasional occurrence invalidates everything you do in the game and that you're at the mercy of RNG.
Unless maybe you think it's the random damage of the weapons that totally ruins your otherwise perfect strategy?

But here's my "idea of accomplishment": I managed to turn the odds in my favor.

What is YOUR idea of accomplishment if the game is designed to provide you with a "consistent" experience throughout? Wow, congratulations, you learned to press the push-to-win button. Hey, if everything you do in IWD is down to RNG, then your "consistent" games are all about push-to-win buttons. It's just how it is.

You may thus think

I don't know why you had to make up quotes when I actually asked you real questions in my previous post. Unless you can't answer them?
Or did you just want to take some cheap shots? Wow, yeah, I spent a decade on a forum for a dying genre, you hit me right in the belly button.

Where do these party members come from when I have been teleported to a dungeon in the middle of nowhere?

Wut, what? Now it's about realism? Is that why you don't want to reload on party member death? I thought you didn't care about realism? Wow, this is just.. wow. Well, in this case, I have to tell you again: reloading the game at any point is wrong. What, did you use a time-travel spell or what????????

Here's my previous suggestion again: if you consider IWD designed for a 6 character party, then you should consider a party member dying as a failed state and reload. If you want to keep playing then do it and actually deal with the consequences of playing in a sub-optimal state.
It's very simple.
But you want to both play in a sub-optimal state and not be punished for it. Which is because you are a newfag used to newfag games.

example was different. You create a character that is expected to die in 1 out of 100 fights.

Dude, I really don't get what you want. Who the hell creates a character with that kind of expectations? How in the hell could you calculate those odds beforehand?

Hence Ive said that it can be a nice metric of how good your build really is.

And hence I said that's just stupid. Because you indeed said that losing a fight means your build was not good. Here you go:

You went through the game with only single reload on highest diff. Your build must be awesome.
Except its not how it works. You have rigged game in your favor.

So, winning every fight was fine right until the point where you had to reload. Because that somehow rigged the game. You really can't see how that doesn't make any sense? How is that rigging? Do you realize that you're saying that every other fight you win after is not fair because somehow you were supposed to be dead? Therefore I'm guessing iron-man is the only fair way to play a game?

And how is one instance in possible hundreds the defining factor in the quality of the build? Who uses these kind of statistics?

Theoretical calculation based on char sheet and game knowledge sounds easiest.

I don't even. It's absolutely absurd and autistic to calculated this, not only because it assumes knowledge of the game beforehand.

Here's what's actually easiest: you play the game and the less times you have to reload the better your build is. How does that sound for a fair assessment of a build?

 

[Zombra]

im not entirely sure what larping actually is.

There was a big discussion about it a couple years back. Turns out any time you do something for your own enjoyment that the game does not "care" about, you are LARPing according to the Codex. For example if you use a +3 sword because you think it looks cooler than the +4 sword, you are LARPing. Since a game doesn't "care" if you save scum or not (and in fact you are at a huge statistical disadvantage if you don't), bragging about not save scumming makes one a LARPer. Weird but true.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

im not entirely sure what larping actually is.

There was a big discussion about it a couple years back. Turns out any time you do something for your own enjoyment that the game does not "care" about, you are LARPing according to the Codex. For example if you use a +3 sword because you think it looks cooler than the +4 sword, you are LARPing. Since a game doesn't "care" if you save scum or not (and in fact you are at a huge statistical disadvantage if you don't), bragging about not save scumming makes one a LARPer. Weird but true.

In summation, if it's a recommendation here, it's LARPING:
en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

 

[FeelTheRads]

In summation, if it's a recommendation here, it's LARPING:
en.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Roleplaying

Slow down! You don't need to run/jump everywhere. Take a walk in the forests.

If possible download the Actors in Charge mod as it adds more animations to your character.

This thing always cracks me up. Obliblian fans, man.

Weird but true.

Still butthurt people laughed at you playing dress-up in RPGs, huh?

Well, sorry, whether it's LARPing or not to use a weaker sword just because it looks cooler, I don't know. But it clearly is not role-playing. The only way that's role-playing is if you pretend your character is dumb and vain. But in that case I hope you're running with low intelligence as well. Eh? No? Then you might be LARPing indeed.
And yes, pretending your character is something or other makes no sense in a computer game where nobody cares about your biography.

 

[Cael]

I would like to see empirical evidence that games that allow for savescumming is geared towards savescumming. This is because I cannot see any game developer looking at a scenario they designed and then tinkering around in order to make things so difficult that the player has no choice but to savescum. I simply do not think game designers are that OCD.

As for Fallout2, there is no need to savescum unless you want to play a pickpocket. And you only savescum then because Fallout's pickpocket algorithm is broken as it relies on the target's Perception stat far more than your own Pickpocket skill. If you wish to play Fallout2 without pickpocket, there is really no reason for you to savescum. The game is simply not difficult enough to require that. You may fall to a lucky critical and be forced to reload, but that is not savescumming in the slightest. Which part of the game do you feel requires savescumming to succeed?

 

[Sigourn]

Ah, TV tropes, of course. The last word on save-scumming.

Why not start with what you think save-scumming is, retard? It seems I must be the one to ask this question because it appears your inability to understand my posts stems from your own definition of save-scumming, which so far you have not provided.

Basically... basically it's down to individual preference according to this definition. Basically anyone can call anything save-scumming.

It literally isn't, you dipshit. It's down to individual preference whether you like women or men. But if you are a man and like men, you are fucking gay.

Save-scumming is the act of using the Save and Load buttons as crutches to your advantage. Why isn't reloading after you die "save-scumming"? Because you are reloading to be able to keep playing the game. Save-scumming is about getting an unfair advantage; there's nothing unfair about being able to keep playing after you die.

What I hear is "save-scumming". What, if your number of repeats is consistent then it's not save-scumming anymore?

This was an unrelated discussion regarding why people seem to love RNG anymore and arguing it is all about "progression", when in reality that "progression" means jack shit if your character can't consistently surpass the obstacles thrown his way.

Yeah, and of course we have to believe your generous assessment, because nobody here played the game. K.

Feel free to give it a try and I'll gladly shut up: Iron Man Trials of the Luremaster using no save states, no reloading, from beginning to end, with a legitimate party. Preferrably stream it, otherwise I'll have no conclusive proof of how many tries it took you.

The reason I call Icewind Dale's bad videogame design is because the game was clearly around

1. Dungeons consisting of individual set pieces meant to be defeated individually.

As opposed to

1. Dungeons consisting of one big set piece meant to be defeated as a whole.

Now, you can argue my idea of "good game design" is flawed, because users enjoy individual set pieces better. That's fair enough. I think it's bad design to design a game around the ever present RNG that can potentially fuck up your runs.

You and the OP make it sound like if you have RNG is a game then it just turns that game in a fucking slot machine.

Well, RNG does really seem like a fucking slot machine in the games I've played: things can go either extremely well, extremely bad, or anything in between.

Contrast with something like Dark Souls: once you git gud (which I never have) there's no RNG that can fuck you up. Unless we consider the game bugging out and fucking you up "RNG".

 

[Darth Canoli]

git gut or create new char.

As we're at injunctions, here's mine : write like a normal human being, not like a retarded teenager.

I already states that it is the case only if you rely on not having bad streak of misses or hits.
Reloading to try different tactic is different

"I say, you obey"
GFY, i say.

This whole conversation makes me think about dictators and fanatics.

"My way is the only way, you don't play videos games like "I THINK" it's supposed to."
That's somewhat what i read, it's not just annoying, it's also disturbing.

Not that i disagree (nor agree for that matter), still, i have no problem about people reloading every time they miss, i mean, i don't believe for one second a single person in the universe does that but if someone did, that's his problem, as long as he doesn't brag afterward the game is too easy.

Actually, what i find extremely annoying in a game is when i'm denied the right to play as i want to and that can be really different from a game to another, for example, when i find the game interesting and challenging, really balanced or even tough but in a good intelligent way, i play by the rules, if on the other hand, i want to play a game but it's not that interesting and the balance is fucked up, i would cheat the hell out of it to get as far as i can before i'm bored, just for testing and discoveries purposes.

That said, a good duck is a duck well done served with fried potatoes.

 

[Sigourn]

Wut, what? Now it's about realism?

You are using an external feature to shoehorn party members into your party. It's very much about realism in this particular case.

Is that why you don't want to reload on party member death?

I roll with the consequences. When I die for good, I reload. It doesn't make much sense, however, to save when I'm down at 1HP with just one character, now does it? I would be just reloading my failure, time after time.

Here's my previous suggestion again: if you consider IWD designed for a 6 character party

I don't. I do think, however, that you don't make a 6-character party game expecting most players to just use one or two characters.

But you want to both play in a sub-optimal state and not be punished for it.

Dying is not "punishment". Getting beat up and having your ore stolen from you is punishment, which is why I liked Gothic so much: Piranha Bytes understood that getting killed is not punishment; being allowed to keep living with less ore is.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Save-scumming is the act of using the Save and Load buttons as crutches to your advantage.

And I asked you by what logic is reloading if a character dies in game supposedly designed for a fixed number of characters using it to your advantage and not simply "reloading to be able to keep playing the game".

Save-scumming is about getting an unfair advantage; there's nothing unfair about being able to keep playing after you die.

There is nothing unfair about reloading if a character dies because you need to have a full party. There you go.

You just made it up that somehow losing characters should not change anything, and therefore that's why what you call save-scumming is down to your own preference.

things can go either extremely well, extremely bad, or anything in between.

Sounds to me like after all it's evening out. Good results, bad results, mediocre result. Problem?

Except RNG hardly plays the role you make it out.

I think it's bad design to design a game around the ever present RNG that can potentially fuck up your runs.

Contrast with something like Dark Souls: once you git gud (which I never have) there's no RNG that can fuck you up. Unless we consider the game bugging out and fucking you up "RNG".

Different game design. Different game genres. However, as I said before, RNG does not play nearly the big role you think it does and you can in fact git gud in IWD and make RNG essentially irrelevant. That's part of the fun of building characters in RPGs. Turning the odds in your favor. Going from a character that barely hits anything to one that hits most of the time.
Whereas in an action game the fun is in learning how to do the moves and when they're best used. Nothing wrong with, they're just different genres.

But, anyway, if you think the occasional unlucky roll fucks up an otherwise good run then it's your problem and it's a deranged way of looking at things.

You are using an external feature to shoehorn party members into your party. It's very much about realism in this particular case.

lol fuck off retard.
Reloading the game at any point for anything is using an external feature.

You just make rules in your head again about what's fair and what's not and everyone is supposed to accept them as truth.

Thing is creating new characters is actually a feature that WAY WAY more fair than reloading the game.

I don't. I do think, however, that you don't make a 6-character party game expecting most players to just use one or two characters.

Well.. then what? Which is it? You don't think it's designed for 6 characters, but it's also not designed for 1 or 2. Then what.. 3? 4? 5? If it's not designed for 6 then you shouldn't have cried about the game expecting you to reload on character death. Your whole argument on this was retarded from the start.

Piranha Bytes understood that getting killed is not punishment; being allowed to keep living with less ore is.

Ah, so we get to this. Waah waah I don't want to die. Well, not all games can be designed like this. Some are about trying to survive hordes of monsters.

Also lol, you can die in Gothic. Getting beaten up and having things stolen from you is a separate kind of event, it does not define the overall gameplay.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG