What Blizzard Teaches Us About Games

[fuindordm]

I kind of miss the days when those types of games were still being developed. ADOM was probably the best, although it did lose a little too much of the randomness that made many of these games great in the first place.

All three are still being developed. Angband has dozens of variants, and modern versions of NetHack are under the name Slash'em. The creator of ADOM is working on a new version as we speak. And they're all free!

Diablo was inspired by this genre of games, with very similar play and themes. The only major differences are the addition of graphics and real-time play as opposed to turn-based play.

So if you like the *game* enough to pass on the graphics, all three will provide a rewarding experience. They're not to everyone's taste, I admit.

Ben

 

[Imp]

Yeah, roguelikes are good games. What makes them hard is that if you die, you start over, and you can't ordinarily go back to a previous save (though there are ways around this of course). And also unlike D2 there's a wide variety (in Nethack, a wide wide wide wide variety) of things that can kill you if you're overconfident.

(Recently tried ADOM, can't seem to get past 10th level)

 

[Jhaelen]

Try Angband,

http://rephial.org/

ADOM,

http://www.adom.de/index.html

or NetHack

http://www.nethack.org/

They're *much* harder to win than Diablo, believe me.

Well, it depends on what you consider 'winning' Diablo means. Beating Diablo/Baal? Beating Diablo/Baal on Hell difficulty? Beating them in Hardcore mode? Beating them once with every character class? Reaching Level 99? Beating everyone and their little sister in PVP?

I think, 'winning' Diablo2 is just about as easy as 'winning' D&D. It's really an open-ended game, which is the real reason for it's continuing success. It's got just the right amount of random elements to stay interesting forever.


Regarding Starcraft: It's the only real-time computer strategy game that I've ever really liked. Warcraft 3 didn't even come close. Unfortunately, I totally suck at the game when I'm playing PVP because I am so slow. So I'd definitely like to see more automated functions in the game.
I think it shouldn't really be difficult to implement an 'easy' mode for casual play as an alternative to the normal 'tournament' mode.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not sure if you actually meant it this way, but, I've seen enough of this point of view that it really flies up my left nostril. The presumption that if people play the game differently than you do means that the other people aren't playing right ("we were roleplaying"="If you had the 15 minute day problem you weren't roleplaying"). Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Even if you never had the issue, can you honestly say that the issue didn't exist? That you worked around the issue does not negate its existence. There were loads of people complaining about the 15 minute adventuring day (or going nova, or a number of other similar concerns) on these forums. Are you honestly trying to say that none of them were roleplaying?

The 15-minute adventuring day is perfectly good role-playing. It may not be as much fun, it may not be heroic, but it's not bad role-playing and it's not metagaming. In a world with D&D-style Vancian magic, where the basic "laws of magic" (casters have a limit on how many spells they can prepare, and must stop and rest before they can prepare new ones) are well known to the characters, the 15-minute adventuring day is an eminently logical strategy for people engaged in such dangerous pursuits as adventuring.

Remember--if your character dies at a level where you don't have access to resurrection magic, or in a TPK, you get to make a new character, but your character dies for good. And your character doesn't know there's a DM ensuring the party only has to defeat level-appropriate challenges. Given the risks--given that one prepared spell can easily make the difference between life and death--is your character really so reckless as to not seize the opportunity to "recharge" whenever possible? Only the most gung-ho, battle-crazed maniacs would push on past the casters' comfort zone if they had the option to stop and rest.

My experience has been that most players default to the 15-minute adventuring day out of simple prudence. If an adventuring party is placed under time pressure, it will step up its efforts, but only as far as it has to; if it can get the job done with 30-minute adventuring days, it will do that. The characters are simply following the incentives given them by the laws of their reality.

A pre-industrial army can often move much faster than its supply train. It doesn't do so, however, because the risks of outpacing your supplies far outweigh the potential benefits except in a severe time crunch. Why would adventurers take the risk of outpacing their caster support?

 

[Elphilm]

modern versions of NetHack are under the name Slash'em.

I'd say that Slash'em is more like the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink version of Nethack. After all, the name is an acronym for "Super Lotsa Added Stuff Hack - Extended Magic".

I'm still waiting for a new version of Nethack - it's been four years since version 3.4.3!

 

[Pale Jackal]

The problem is this. Right now, all of the new Real Time Strategy games have features like MBS and auto-mine. So if Blizzard doesn't put this in, they risk alienating the game critics as well as turning off potential customers for making the game "too hard". On the other hand, part of what made Starcraft so good was people never could have time to do everything. It was impossible to master. Watching someone do some brilliant move with their army units is all the more awe-inspiring if you realize they're splitting their time between watching their units and doing stuff in their base. In a demo (of an alpha version of Starcraft 2) many months ago, pro players thought there wasn't enough to do in the game with MBS and auto-mine.

I'm sure they had auto-mine etc. with Warcraft 3, so I doubt they're going to take a step backward.

One of the great things about Warcraft 3 was that its interface was so above and beyond Starcraft's (having to click on individual units to use their powers, as opposed to tabbing through a group of units is murderous in PVP or otherwise), even though the latter might be the better game.

I think Blizzard would be making a huge mistake... (not to mention I'd prefer my RTSes to have more strategy, than more click-festing...)

Uh, anyhow, back to your 4E thread.

 

[Derren]

The 15-minute adventuring day is perfectly good role-playing. It may not be as much fun, it may not be heroic, but it's not bad role-playing and it's not metagaming. In a world with D&D-style Vancian magic, where the basic "laws of magic" (casters have a limit on how many spells they can prepare, and must stop and rest before they can prepare new ones) are well known to the characters, the 15-minute adventuring day is an eminently logical strategy for people engaged in such dangerous pursuits as adventuring.

Thats a common problem that in D&D the most reasonable strategy is also the most "uncool" to use 4E terminology.
4E seems to want to encourage "cool stunts" by making it harder to fail and/or making failing less dangerous. Some people might now start to do "cools stunts" but some people might still do 15 minutes workdays because they are still the more sensible things (if possible) as long as you have daily powers and some people won't do any "cool stunts" because they want their characters to behave like normal, thinking humns and not ADHS superheroes who do unreasonable things just for looks.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'm not sure if you actually meant it this way, but, I've seen enough of this point of view that it really flies up my left nostril. The presumption that if people play the game differently than you do means that the other people aren't playing right ("we were roleplaying"="If you had the 15 minute day problem you weren't roleplaying"). Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Not to mention that if I were a person with daily renewable magical resources who constantly put my life on the line for the pig farmers and lazy nobles of the world, I would stop to regain those powers as often as necessary to shift the odds more in my favor. The 15 minute workday is roleplaying in that it simulates realistic responses to given situations.

Edit:... or... you know... what Dausuul said. /sigh.

Thaumaturge.

 

[hong]

Thats a common problem that in D&D the most reasonable strategy is also the most "uncool" to use 4E terminology.
4E seems to want to encourage "cool stunts" by making it harder to fail and/or making failing less dangerous. Some people might now start to do "cools stunts" but some people might still do 15 minutes workdays because they are still the more sensible things (if possible) as long as you have daily powers and some people won't do any "cool stunts" because they want their characters to behave like normal, thinking humns and not ADHS superheroes who do unreasonable things just for looks.

Well, you know, there's never been anything stopping you being uncool for its own sake.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm not sure if you actually meant it this way, but, I've seen enough of this point of view that it really flies up my left nostril. The presumption that if people play the game differently than you do means that the other people aren't playing right ("we were roleplaying"="If you had the 15 minute day problem you weren't roleplaying"). Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Even if you never had the issue, can you honestly say that the issue didn't exist? That you worked around the issue does not negate its existence. There were loads of people complaining about the 15 minute adventuring day (or going nova, or a number of other similar concerns) on these forums. Are you honestly trying to say that none of them were roleplaying?

Or that, you know, roleplaying has anything to do with these problems at all? Or that there is something inherently superior about whatever it is he means by "roleplaying" compared to a more "beer & pretzels" style? Or that pretending a problem doesn't exist "because my character wouldn't want to stop going even though we're out of resources" is anything to be proud of?

And there's the rub isn't it? A "good DM" won't let you get away with it. So, even though the rules are bad, it can be fixed with a "good DM", so, we should never change the rules?

*macarena music*
"Heeeeey Oberoni!"