Caltrops - Might & Magic X: Legacy





	[quote name="Jerry Whorebach"]Questions in first-in last-out order, like the kind of inventory you have to scroll through. [quote name="Ice Cream Jonsey"]Philosophically, what is your opinion about rules that make terrible stats fun as great ones? So if you have an 18 in strength, sure, combat is fine, but if you have a 4, perhaps the game is making fun of what a weakling a certain character is. This means that "average" stats are really the worst to have. Is this a problem?[/quote] Here's my test to decide if I need to see a number: if the game didn't tell me I had a 16 instead of a 15 in Strength, would I be able to tell the difference just by playing for a little while? If the answer is yes, then I don't need to see the number. If the answer is no, then I <i>really</i> don't need to see the fucking number. The only point I can see to making it visible is so I can do the designer's job for him, by ~IMAGINING~ all the neat effects it could have on gameplay, if he actually bothered to implement any of them. RPGs need exactly as much granularity in character creation as the dungeon master is prepared to support. If you've only got the resources to provide a meaningfully different experience for three types of guys - strong guys, weak guys, and average guys - why not just include "Strong" and "Weak" as selectable qualities, and leave the virtual d6s out of it? Basically, I dislike it when too much of a game exists only in my mind, I guess because I'm kind of a dummy. I'd rather have the program itself acknowledging my decisions on a moment-to-moment (or at least session-to-session) basis. I mean, that's kind of what I'm paying for when I buy a game, isn't it? And how many more interesting thoughts do I have jockeying for position in my tiny little brain than exactly how many bricks my fantasy muscleman could lift, if the game allowed him to pick up bricks, which it doesn't because they're just scenery? [quote name="Ice Cream Jonsey"]Weapon Stats - - Some manual that gives you all the stats of all the weapons in the game. - The ability to see the min and max damage of a weapon when you obtain it. - Never list this info. Enemy Characteristics - - Ultima III, for instance, gave you almost a complete beastiary. How much fun comes from exploring to where you are finding new enemies?[/quote] Here's the thing: I understand that every entity and every object in every game ever is just a big pile of numbers, and gameplay consists of mashing those numbers together like tonka trucks. I understand it, I just don't want to <i>believe</i> it. I want to believe what my eyes and ears are telling me, that there's a tiny little fairy land inside my TV set where samurais do battle with vampires on the streets of the city from Blade Runner. I like it when games provide in-universe descriptions and tell clever little stories about weapons and enemies, because not only does that not suck the life out of them (all life is mystery, understanding is nullification, if the systems in squirrels weren't so inscrutable they'd be as dead to our eyes as a fax machine), <i>it actually imbues them with additional life.</i> If I can encounter a crude 2D sprite and immediately identify it as that terrible dragon I read about in the manual, that is awesome. If he starts charging his breath weapon and my first response is "OH SHIT HE'S DOING THAT THING FROM THE STORY", even better! I think it's great when games can harness my imagination to get me emotionally invested in the gameplay, and pretty despicable when they try to trick me into imagining the gameplay itself (only because it never really works, at least not for long). Obviously it's easier to explain in words and pictures when an item gives you a double-jump than when it adds +1 to damage versus skeletons. This is an intrinsic flaw in games where the items are boring as shit. [quote name="Ice Cream Jonsey"]What's your take on hiring existing characters (Jagged Alliance, Ultima 6, Shadowrun Returns) verus the ability to make your own? The game becomes a bit more "generic" if you're making up all your own characters, but you get more control that way.[/quote] If a game gives me the option, I will <i>always</i> choose to create my own characters. This is because, according to the sticker sheet MadCatz included with my last joystick, I am a CONTROL FREAK, and TOO HOT TO HANDLE, and A PICTURE OF A SKULL. I never once played a Baldur's Gate game with the provided NPCs, for example; I would always just start a multiplayer game and assign all six slots to myself (so lonely). Ultimately, I think both approaches have their place. If, like Baldur's Gate, literally the best part of your game is sculpting a party out of a bunch of bogus, largely inconsequential characteristics and imagining all the amazing adventures they could have in the much better game that exists only in the player's mind, you'd be crazy not to make that the centrepiece of the entire experience. Whereas if your goal is to create a game that's actually fun to play, a more limited number of interesting, balanced options will always trump a sea of mediocrity. Games with excellent party building: Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (pick a tag team of three out of fifty-six, the catch being they're all so sexy you'll want to pick ALL OF THEM) Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers 2013 (choose one of twenty-one premade decks of sixty cards, then customize with an additional twenty deck-specific cards acquired through the campaign)[/quote]