Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Recommended Posts

TERRARIA: That 1.3 update! Wooooooo!

Indeed.

They might have overdone expert mode though. It's pretty much impossible on your own without having gear from another map.

I actually thought they overdid it with hardmode in the original Terraria. The enemy difficulty never bothered me, but the unstoppable spread of corruption is waaaaay too aggressive. Especially considering that it spreads underground and jumps small gaps. It really pissed me off the first time I defeated the Wall Of Flesh and triggered Hard Mode, because I HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, for one thing, and it was irreversible, and it meant that the corruption was going to spread across the entire map and take over the the village/castle I had worked so hard on, and there was nothing I could do to stop it except not play the map.

Thankfully, I discovered Tedit later on, which allowed you to super duper cheat with the editing of maps, and with that I could just turn hard mode off and erase all the corruption with the swipe of a hand. So I created a 100% corruptionless world on that map, then started a second map that I planned to use for hard mode. That way I could take a more utilitarian approach to my building and not care as much if it got swallowed by corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zero Punctuation: Hatfall.

WHY CAN'T I STOP PLAYING THIS

Paper Mario (64): Replaying this classic beauty for the bazillionth time. Nintendo really needs to make another Mario RPG. And none of the Super Paper Mario hybrid rigamarole. I mean SMRPG/PaperMario. I never got to play TTYD on Gamecube, so I just grabbed that off of amazon as well. Can't wait!
The first time I played TTYD, there was a background joke that had me in absolute stitches within the first 5 minutes. I cannot recommend the game highly enough.

The humor in the original Paper Mario was generally pretty good, too.

Now that I think about it, the Paper Mario games were Nintendo IP, but they were actually credited as made by Intelligent Systems (of Fire Emblem fame).

So SMRPG was great because Nintendo was buddying with Square (before the squeenix merger). Paper Marios were great because Nintendo was buddying with Intelligent Systems.

WHO IS A GREAT RPG STUDIO THAT WILL MAKE A MARIO RPG FOR NINTENDO NEXT?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually thought they overdid it with hardmode in the original Terraria. The enemy difficulty never bothered me, but the unstoppable spread of corruption is waaaaay too aggressive. Especially considering that it spreads underground and jumps small gaps. It really pissed me off the first time I defeated the Wall Of Flesh and triggered Hard Mode, because I HAD NO IDEA THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, for one thing, and it was irreversible, and it meant that the corruption was going to spread across the entire map and take over the the village/castle I had worked so hard on, and there was nothing I could do to stop it except not play the map.

Understandable. The corruption & hollow spread in hard mode is annoying. It's usually where I just stop playing.

Yep, that's where I stopped playing in original Terraria. I"m sure it's much more manageable if you have eight friends to play with or whatever, but some of us are grown ups and are on schedules and everything. And not being able to do something without friends is annoying when you've been playing solo that whole time. What is this, a facebook game?

There are apparently things you can do ahead of time to prepare for it. Like if you build your base of operations on a floating island that is at least 8 squares away from any other square, I think technically the corruption can't reach it and your base will remain safe from corruption/hallow. It's still completely susceptible to goblin and ufo attacks and everything though.

What I don't like about it is that there isn't any warning that Hard Mode is going to automatically trigger after a certain event, or an explanation of what that entails. It's like, you beat the WOF, and then suddenly there are new hard as nails enemies and there is corruption/hollow everywhere and it just completely effs you up the A and you had absolutely no way to anticipate it. It's like a big middle finger to all of your work and progress.

I would like there to be an arc in Terraria where things are easy, and then they get hard, and then at the end there is completely victory over the corruption/hollow. The way they built it, though, is that you explore and make progress, and then after a certain point, they just turn it up higher and higher and higher until you're boned. Not a fan of that philosophy myself. Or at least it's not a good match or should be more of an option.

That's the worst I can say about Terraria, though. I just wish it wasn't such a big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the worst I can say about Terraria, though. I just wish it wasn't such a big one.

Activating hard mode like you activate the new metals would be fine I guess. So when you

destroy the first demon altar

.

They can activate it however they want, so long as

1) It is something the player has to more or less deliberately set out to do as opposed to something they just happen to do.

2) The player needs to know the significance of the consequences of what they are about to do.

Like maybe if it were something you only knew how to do if an NPC told you the steps, and then the same NPC warned you that, hey, you REALLY shouldn't do that unless you're sure you're cool having your ecological nuts in a vice. The automatic WOF trigger on it just feels like too much of an ambush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lego Jurassic World.

On the WiiU, this game is FULL of bugs. I have twice had to quit out of a level and re-enter it because it glitched and became unfinishable - once when one of the characters ended up in a completely black room and was unusable, and once when a switch I was supposed to rebuild COULDN'T be rebuilt. None of these issues were present in the PC version and I hate that they're here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WiiU version of Superheroes has major bugs as well. I bought it for my mom and she has said that she has been frozen, fallen through the world numerous times and the game sort of decides once in a while, not to respond to button prompts. It doesn't sound like Tt is very good at WiiU ports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daikatana.

I hate it. I hate it so very much.

I think the thing I hate most is the lack of a quick-save feature, closely followed by EVERYTHING ELSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's known as the worst game of it's time, at a time when games publishing actually had a quality control barrier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very well-earned reputation, I'll say that.

What staggers me is that Romero was a level designer back at id. So why are the levels in this game so s**t?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In between huge binges of Terraria, I've started playing Paper Mario: TTYD. I always loved the original, so I've been wanting to give this one a roll for a long time.

So far I mostly like it. It's pretty similar to old Paper Mario, which is exactly what I wanted, honestly. Here are the changes I like and don't like so far:

LIKE:

--Teammates have their own HP now (but still share Mario's FP)

--There are badges specifically for teammates now

--Teammates can use items by default (in the original, this required a special badge)

--The paper mechanics in addition to the teammate mechanics (e.g. paper airplane, turning sideways, etc)

DISLIKE:

--The beginning of the game is tremendously more chatty than the original. Lots of unskippable yacking. The beginning in general feels very slow and dull compared to the original, which left you more in control and was more dramatic and humorous. Fortunately TTYD does take off around the hooktail dungeon.

--While I like the AESTHETIC of the battles being in front of an audience, I still don't like having to keep the audience happy so that they don't throw food at me, or the pieces of the "set" that sometimes fall and hurt you. Maybe I'll warm up to it, but so far it seems to add complications to battles without making them feel deeper or more interesting.

--No spin dash??? No dash at all??? What is this blasphemy????

--Probably my biggest dislike is how they reworked the timed hits system. In the original, you would have to hit the button in the moment right BEFORE you hit the enemy (or right before the enemy hit you). In TTYD they reworked the system so you have to hit the button at the exact moment of contact. It's often unclear where the exact point of contact is, though, and the sound/visual feedback for a successful hit is not as good as the N64 (imo). The fact that teammates have their own HP now also means that enemies will frequently target them (whereas this was rare on the N64 where teammates typically only got hit by an AoE---an enemy actually aiming specifically for your teammate was very rare), which means if an enemy is attacking you by, say, throwing something at you, it is EXTREMELY unclear whether the thrown object is flying at Mario or the teammate, making the dodge command pure guesswork. Overall, I don't like how they changed the timed hits and prefer the way they did it on the N64, but perhaps I'll warm up to the new style with time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing more Splatoon. I didn't make it to Marshmallow King in the Splatfest, and I'm very upset about it.

First splatfest i was 1 game away from King, and thenit ended

Current: nortpole 52% southpole 48% popularity

Win: north 48% south 52%

South won by 12 points :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just played the Stasis beta. It was SO GOOD. I'm not gonna make it til the end of the month when the full game releases. I can't wait that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just played the Stasis beta. It was SO GOOD. I'm not gonna make it til the end of the month when the full game releases. I can't wait that long.
That's EXCELLENT news. I really am looking forward to this one, glad to hear it won't disappoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--Probably my biggest dislike is how they reworked the timed hits system. In the original, you would have to hit the button in the moment right BEFORE you hit the enemy (or right before the enemy hit you)

I really really despise timed hits in games. I like to relax when playing turn based RPG, timing hits isnt relaxing.

Haven't played TTYD in years, last I remember was fighitng Rawk hawk. Legend of The Seven Stars has been in my Wii VC untouched :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--Probably my biggest dislike is how they reworked the timed hits system. In the original, you would have to hit the button in the moment right BEFORE you hit the enemy (or right before the enemy hit you)

I really really despise timed hits in games.

I remember us utterly and vehemently disagreeing on this in some past discussion a long time ago. ;-)

I enjoy them, assuming the "tells" for hitting on time are good. The tells in TTYD seem a bit more dodgy in places than the N64 predecessor, but I've only just started chapter 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Invisible Inc

This game is amazing!

I was super interested when I heard it was a tactical stealth game, but then I read the words "randomly generated" and "roguelike" and my mouse cursor floated gently away from the purchase button.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of my favorite bits of humor from Paper Mario TTYD so far:

Bowser: (re: princess being kidnapped by x-nauts) "Who would do something like that? Besides me."

Bowser: "Under NO circumstances is ANYONE allowed to kidnap her without MY say–so!!! I will NOT stand for this! I'm going to Rogueport, NOW! I've got to kidnap her back!"

lol @ i have to kidnap her back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The levels are actually really intelligently laid out, there's no random derp to it that I can tell.

And how roguelikey it is is really dependent on your settings. I'm playing on beginner for my first play-through and Iron Man mode is turned off. So maybe give it another look, because I find it deeply satisfying to play.

I'm not saying no to it, but those descriptions gave me significant pause. Lots of games riding out the roguelike-grudgef***k design bandwagon, while not truly roguelikes, have roguelike elements to their own varying degrees, and my appreciation of them likewise varies greatly.

So for now I remain hesitant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
invisible inc is basically xcom with a lower budget and stealth theme. it's okay but not mindblowing. 7 out of 10.

That gives me even more pause. Not a huge x-com fan. And I could not possibly utterly and vehemently disagree with Julian Gollop's philosophy on the value of random numbers in game design more. If invisible Inc has even the slightest whiff of similar philosophy, I probably will not buy it.

Honestly, I frankly backed Massive Chalice before the nitty gritty of the design details was revealed. I was a little disappointed that Brad went for the X-Com angle so hard, which means I probably won't play or suspect I won't enjoy the game much, but still happy to have supported DF either way.

It's just the absolute wrong design philosophy for me. We are not compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
invisible inc is basically xcom with a lower budget and stealth theme. it's okay but not mindblowing. 7 out of 10.

That gives me even more pause. Not a huge x-com fan. And I could not possibly utterly and vehemently disagree with Julian Gollop's philosophy on the value of random numbers in game design more. If invisible Inc has even the slightest whiff of similar philosophy, I probably will not buy it.

Honestly, I frankly backed Massive Chalice before the nitty gritty of the design details was revealed. I was a little disappointed that Brad went for the X-Com angle so hard, which means I probably won't play or suspect I won't enjoy the game much, but still happy to have supported DF either way.

It's just the absolute wrong design philosophy for me. We are not compatible.

Something we agree upon!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
invisible inc is basically xcom with a lower budget and stealth theme. it's okay but not mindblowing. 7 out of 10.

That gives me even more pause. Not a huge x-com fan. And I could not possibly utterly and vehemently disagree with Julian Gollop's philosophy on the value of random numbers in game design more. If invisible Inc has even the slightest whiff of similar philosophy, I probably will not buy it.

Honestly, I frankly backed Massive Chalice before the nitty gritty of the design details was revealed. I was a little disappointed that Brad went for the X-Com angle so hard, which means I probably won't play or suspect I won't enjoy the game much, but still happy to have supported DF either way.

It's just the absolute wrong design philosophy for me. We are not compatible.

Something we agree upon!!

Oh thank god there are more. Now there are two of us! Strength in numbers! Strength in two!

Well, there is also Keith Burgun: http://keithburgun.net/randomness-and-game-design/

The way a lot of these roguelike/XCOM-like games use random numbers is maybe cool in a hearkening-back-to-the-old-days sort of way, but at the same time it is an ancient relic. We have come so far. We can do so much better than that. I understand people clinging to it the way a person might cling affectionately to their old commodore 64, but huge strides in technology and simulation have been made since then. I am not interested in games with slot machines at the heart of their design. Not interested at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually growing tired of the perma-death aspect that the roguelike has proliferated recently. I want to play in these big interesting spaces for more than just the early game (I almost always die in the early game), I'd like to see just one of them to the end.

Perma-death in itself does not necessarily bother me, except that it almost always comes in two flavors:

1) Enforced. You can't turn it off. It's not so much a problem in games that only have it as an *option*. But I also really hate it when games include it as an option but make it very clear to you that, just so you know, perma-death (usually "iron man") is the *best* way to play, and unless you are playing with perma-death, you are playing in pu**y mode.

2) Perma-death tied to excessive output randomness / slot machine mechanics. If I'm going to die permanently, I'd prefer if it were a direct result of my moment-to-moment decisions/actions or the cumulative result of a long string of my direct decisions/actions. Anyone who says, "But when you open a monster closet in a roguelike or when you miss three times in a row and die in XCOM, that IS a result of your moment to moment decisions!" should read the Keith Burgun link I posted earlier. (Spoiler: No, it isn't.)

But you never see a game like Super Mario with permadeath anymore (even arcades had continues). These days it's almost always the roguelike fetishists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like games like xcom and invisible inc. don't love them, but i like them. when you're playing a game like chess there is an element of randomness, and it's called your opponent's brain. in a single player game the rng just fills in for those dumb mistakes or lucky intuitions that an actual person might have. strategy is still required. i was able to play xcom on "classic ironman" difficulty with only a couple losses. you just have to play in a more defensive way. if you have one of your soldiers attack, then it's luck. if you have one attack while 3 more are set up in overwatch positions, then you have stacked the odds in your favor. you might suffer losses but it's not a "slot machine" because you are almost guaranteed an overall win if you play with solid tactics. now with a game like ftl, it's a lot more possible that one bad encounter can completely destroy you. that's the kind of randomness i like less. so i think it's important to make distinctions between games like xcom and games like ftl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you're playing a game like chess there is an element of randomness, and it's called your opponent's brain. in a single player game the rng just fills in for those dumb mistakes or lucky intuitions that an actual person might have. strategy is still required.....you just have to play in a more defensive way. if you have one of your soldiers attack, then it's luck. if you have one attack while 3 more are set up in overwatch positions, then you have stacked the odds in your favor. you might suffer losses but it's not a "slot machine" because you are almost guaranteed an overall win if you play with solid tactics.

Just gonna quote Burgun's reply to that argument:

“If there’s randomness, then it’s all about risk management.”

A favorite of poker players. The idea behind this argument is that having random elements adds a “factoring in your odds” element to the game. You have to weigh the odds of outcome A happening against the odds of outcome B against the benefit of outcome A and the benefit of outcome B, and that makes games more interesting. Essentially, it’s combining odds and valuation.

This kind of risk management is not unique to random games. In any game that you haven’t solved, really every move you make is to some degree a risk that you must manage. In chess, there could be two major strategies – strategy A and strategy B. You might figure that A is more likely to work than B, but B has a bigger payoff than A, for instance. Randomness isn’t necessary.

As to the “calculating odds” aspect of this, determining odds is never interesting, especially not when you’re talking about something like counting cards in poker. Calculating odds in a deterministic system might be harder to do, but it would certainly be far more interesting due to all of the variables at play in a good, dynamic strategy game.

When you attack an enemy in X-COM, the result is not a product of your skill at performing some action (as it would be in a shooter or fighter), nor is the result the product of your overall strategy and the cumulative gains you've achieved via your direct decisions up to that point, as it would be in a game like chess. Instead, X-COM channels every outcome through a dice roll or, say, a game of rock, paper, scissors. Sure, you get to choose whether you throw rock, paper, or scissors, but this is still an effectively random situation and it is woefully uninteresting. Here's Burgun's take:

Trying to guess what the opponent will do in [rock paper scissors], for example, is effectively random. In fact, that’s why we use it to decide who has to go take out the trash – we consider it fair, because it’s random. The whole reason people agree to use RPS as the determining factor for who will take out the trash is because they know that there is nothing that they or their opponent can do to increase their chances.

Think about it: imagine if you were playing a game of chess and your plan was to use your queen to take your opponent's pawn. You move your queen to the pawn's square to take it and then STOP: first you must best your opponent in a game of rock, paper, scissors. You throw scissors and your opponent throws rock, so you don't get to take the pawn.

That's not "simulating a real life opponent" or even artificial intelligence. It's adding tiny slot machines that prevent true strategizing. Chess is interesting WITHOUT having to add RNG or RPS to your "attacks". Chess is interesting because you have to develop overall strategies and the decisions you make and the actions you take are cumulative. The problem with using RNG in the way X-COM uses it (and DEFINITELY in the way FTL uses it) is that your strategy cannot be as cumulative because any attempt to have a cumulative, overall strategy is broken by frivolous RNGs that break causal links and keep you focused on the current moment, reacting to whatever effect the RNG is having in the current turn, rather than thinking more broadly. You can't think broadly. The RNG makes it impossible or unwise to do so. Here is Burgun:

[Let's imagine] I attacked your unit, and I rolled the dice. It came up as a “miss”, and then on the next turn you killed that unit.

[Your killing my unit in that scenario] is not linked to the actions I took beforehand. What happened was that I took an action, then something random happened, and then you took an action. The tie has been severed, and [furthermore] we can no longer use my move [i.e. me attacking your unit] as contextual nuance for our current game state.

Chess is a game of "A, thefore B, therefore C." Adding in the RNG or RPS to your actions in chess turns it into a game of things happening that are not causually or contextually linked to each other, which turns it instead into a game of "A, then B, then C" which is not as interesting.

Another argument similar to the "it's all about risk management" argument is that the result of whatever the RNG does to you on the current turn is information that you use to make decisions about the next turn, and therein lies the strategy. But this also does not stand up to scrutiny. Burgun again:

Input randomness, when put up close enough to the player so that he can’t plan around it, is basically output randomness...It’s up so close in your face that you don’t have time to respond to it. You now have a significantly different game state than you did a second ago, and there’s no discernible reason for it....To really drive the point home, imagine a scenario where you have a character who has a “to-hit” dice roll against a tough monster. He swings, and he misses! Well, that’s ok, [that's now information about the game state that I can use] for the next turn,! I decide to attack with that character again, and miss again! At this point, you may already have lost, and it wasn’t because of any decision you made.

If the game is about calcuating odds and risk management, then it's a game of knowing that seven is the best number to bet on a dice roll... BUT YOU COULD BET ON TWELVE IF YOU ARE FEELING BALLSY. That is not strategy to me. Nor is it interesting. Calling it "risk management strategy" does not make it more interesting.

I don't doubt that people love games like X-COM, because people love to gamble. Some people even find it incredibly, intoxicatingly addicting. That's all well and good for those people, but let's call a spade a spade.

I think fondly of that old iOS game I played once called Robotek. It also has big world maps with dots on it for you to conquer, and it also has battles with "risk management", and also calls itself a "strategy/defense game". But it at the very least wears its slot machine on its sleeve by displaying a literal slot machine for you visually, right there on the battle screen:

"But adding in randomness make it 'more like real life' by simulating 'mistakes' and 'luck' on the battlefield, etc"

Burgun would say: Is it a strategy game or a simulator? How you feel about this depends on whether you feel that strategy games have something of value that is unique to them and distinct from simulators. If you take out the RNG, is the strategy game still there? Is it still fun? That would most likely be a problem for X-COM.

Needless to say, I'm with Burgun on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this heat I can't play anything but Picross.

Sounds like a new hit single.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh i'm not going to carefully read that burgun article because the topic makes me sleepy, but i did glance over it.

so with xcom you can examine it at a micro level and say it's all random, yeah. a single action is a pull of the slot machine. but in each turn you have 6 characters who can all perform at least one action (i'm talking about the newer xcom, on classic or lower difficulty). and you have items and abilities that can maximize your odds, even giving you 100% chance to hit a lot of the time. so a turn is not really a pull of a slot machine, it's 6 pulls, each with better than 50/50 odds if you set it up right. that's the distinction i'm trying to make with ftl. xcom gives you the tools to gradually eliminate/mitigate randomness. in ftl you have one ship and if that goes down it's game over, man. in xcom you have dozens of little people and ships and if one goes down you can still win.

the other issue i have is that you can't just use chess as your ideal example when you also talk about single player games. with chess you can practice alone, you can solve puzzle scenarios that you set up for yourself, but at its core it's a multiplayer game. what would be the ideal example for a single player game?

anyway if you want to play semantics i guess xcom could be called a "simulator" with strategy game elements. sure. but from what it sounds like to me burgan's idea of a good strategy game isn't suited to single player games. if there's only "input randomness" then it's more of a puzzle scenario than what we usually think of as a game. it's like being that guy who buys a chess puzzle book, opens it to a random page and just plays by himself. sure, that's fun, that's a valid experience, but not everyone wants that experience all the time so we shouldn't act like it's somehow fundamentally superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so with xcom you can examine it at a micro level and say it's all random, yeah. a single action is a pull of the slot machine. but in each turn you have 6 characters who can all perform at least one action (i'm talking about the newer xcom, on classic or lower difficulty). and you have items and abilities that can maximize your odds, even giving you 100% chance to hit a lot of the time. so a turn is not really a pull of a slot machine, it's 6 pulls, each with better than 50/50 odds if you set it up right. that's the distinction i'm trying to make with ftl. xcom gives you the tools to gradually eliminate/mitigate randomness. in ftl you have one ship and if that goes down it's game over, man. in xcom you have dozens of little people and ships and if one goes down you can still win.

But this is sort of the comparison I was making with the roulette table and chips. If I'm playing roulette, I can put one $100 chip on a single high-risk strategy (specifically black 12), which is the equivalent of playing FTL. Or I could have ten $10 chips that I could divvy up between different strategies, mitigating risk. Maybe I just play them all on color, so I have lower risk, but lower payoff. Maybe I put 8 out of 10 on very safe strategies, but I send the last two on a more ballsy mission, playing them on specific color/numbers. This seems more akin to XCOM to me. All of these 10 chips have different rates "to hit" at their own individual level, and that is the gambling part. All of the "strategy" is similar to the kind of thinking you would use when placing chips around a roulette table. Or so it seems to me.

the other issue i have is that you can't just use chess as your ideal example when you also talk about single player games. with chess you can practice alone, you can solve puzzle scenarios that you set up for yourself, but at its core it's a multiplayer game. what would be the ideal example for a single player game?

Just chess. Like chess in video game form against an AI opponent. The opponent isn't the problematic part.

Don't get me wrong, xcom does have AI as well, and that's 100% fine, but that's not the issue. The "to-hit" RNG is something ADDITIONAL to AI that is completely different.

anyway if you want to play semantics i guess xcom could be called a "simulator" with strategy game elements. sure. but from what it sounds like to me burgan's idea of a good strategy game isn't suited to single player games.

Sure it is. Take something like simple solitaire (and other similar single player card games). It starts with a single input random, and after that it's all single player strategy with no more randoms. However, I might agree with someone who argued that this is more of a puzzle game.

The other possibility, as I stated before, is to have a game like checkers or chess with an AI opponent (part of the AI might involve using RNG in the programming, but that is separate and different from the problematic ways XCOM uses it that I have complained about). Note as well that I'm not complaining about any other tactical or turn-based RPGs like Disgaea or FF Tactics or [insert JRPG here], because none of these consistently abuse the player with "success" rolls the way XCOM does.

Even a game like Liar's Dice against AI opponents might also count. Sure, the dice being rolled are RNGs, and the AI is probably using RNGs under the hood to "decide" on its strategy, but the issue I (and I think Burgun as well) would raise is that RNGs are not inherently bad. It's where you place them and how you use them. In Liar's Dice, the RNG is an input random, like the card shuffle in solitaire. So the player gets an initial shuffle (input random), then they observe the results and have the time, freedom, and space to think about and "deal with" the input random they received. The AI uses RNG under the hood to take an action, which the player observes, and this is another problem that the player will think about and deal with as his turn comes around (just as he would in chess). Meanwhile, XCOM's fetishism for success rolls is more like playing solitaire, where every time you want to lay a card down on one of the stacks, you then have to roll a die to see if you "succeeded" at putting it there, and if you fail the dice roll, you have to take it back off and do something else. That shifts your solitaire strategy from thinking strategically about effective card placement and stack composition (more interesting) to trying to plan around potential screw-overs by the RNG on every single plan you try to execute (boooring).

Perhaps a concise way of phrasing it is this: It's okay to use RNG in AI decisions or to present the player with a randomized problem. It is not okay to use RNG in a place that overturns the player's in-progress solutions. Especially on a constant basis. Especially when this is treated as if the player somehow f***ed up, when they didn't. They just got boned by an RNG in a dumb place.

I mean, if I wanted to select an action and have my character say, "No, I don't want to do that" then I'd play an adventure game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...