POLL: Your Game Preferences

Remove all ads!

The balance - realism (in the 2 instances it was used) was for either of the following:

Realism is that magic is more powerful than sword. If you play a mage, you will become far more powerful than you would playing a simple warrior. The game doesn't have to suffer from this, as your relative strength can be adjusted to fit the storyline.

Compare with AvP2 (Aliens vs. Predator 2). People just whined about how predators are overpowered in multiplayer, an in effect, predator's "hitpoits", if you will, were lowered to one fourth of their original, and their weapons became less effective. Realism, in this instance, suggests that predators are supposed to be powerful hunters with superior physical and technological might compared to humans OR aliens. Realism suggests that the point of the game is that humans are against uneven odds. Only, balance was asked for, and balance destroyed what was "realistic" and immersive. Now every alien can kick a predator's ass just as well as a common marine with a pistol (compare this to what happened in the movies).

The second point was not of the relation of power between different characters/classes/weapons, as much as it was of realistical damage, as said in the description. I never play any game with anything over normal difficulty no matter how good I get at the game, if I know that the game is cheating. It depends on how the cheat is done, of course, but in case of the normal "enemies get twice the amount of hitpoints", "enemies hit for twice the amount of damage" or "enemies are immune to this and this effect and they spawn infinitely", no way for me. Master of Orion had good cheats. They admitted openly that the computer would cheat by having twice the amount of resources / starting planets or whatever than you. But in the actual game the cheat was apparent in no other way than that the computer was better able to match my speed in the game. Otherwise, I always prefer the most realistical approach possible, given the type of the game in question. If I shoot someone in the head, they must die and die instantly. The challenge must be done by making either more enemies, or enemies with better skills. Never so that you must hit the guy in the head 10 times with your broadsword before he gets a scratch.

As far as your lust for change goes, I wholeheartedly agree. Baldur's Gate is a memory game, wholly and thoroughly. The outcome of almost every single battle is decided by how well you got prepared for it. What you do once the battle has begun hasn't got much impact on the result, unless you acted like a total idiot on the other time and a pro on the second. I would like this changed in any future product as well. So that dealing with situations coming by surprise is more emphasized. In BG2 it requiers an ample amount of self-restraint to not load and re-equip / prepare for the situation anew before going into it again fully rested and with the right spells.

 

I totally agree with you Foradashtar, for the most part. When it comes to magic though I think it can be balanced without rubbing the realism. Like with casting times so that a mage needs to haev someone covering his ass when he casts that world destroying spell.
I also hate it when the computer cheat. I love Civ and all of its sequels but I dont think it is any fun to play on the higher difficulties just because the AI cheat, it isnt better, it cheats. I may still defeat it but I just dont think it is fun when I cant really gauge its strenght due to all the free resources it gets. Then I prefer to play on the mid difficulty and perhaps win too easily than to have to be annoyed at the computer popping up wonders it couldnt possible have had time to build legit.
Make the AI smarter as you raise the difficulty! Do not make it cheat!

 

Scaling: of course.

Which doesn't mean lame HP/thac0 increase for enemies from early in the game. More powerful enemies or if gobles are to be powerful, let them be level 10 or something. I don't suppose that 20 gobles on level 10 is really realistic but it's still better than a few gobles kicking the very ass of a level 20 adventurer. Weak enemies should be left too, so that the player could feel his rise in power.

Uberpowerful late in game: yes, quite so.

But I would rather they made it possible to develop the character nicely and it be the player's responsibility to choose options. 'Power for all' is lame.

Freedom vs (good) scripts: hard to say

Generally freedom, but it gets boring in most of games. Linearity even if well-scripted might still turn out to be the same each time playing. Perhaps something close to how the problem was solved in Might and Magic series (MM8 excluded and condemned to oblivion).

Realistic damage vs opposite: realism

Realism even before game balance. It doesn't serve the betterment of gameplay when enemies' throws are being augmented, monsters are generated by scripts and coming from the direction from which you came before. On greater levels heroes themselves might be unrealistic a bit - we aren't supposed to know level 10 people in RL, and level 20 is some kind of Robin Hood, Roland, Richard Lionheart, Arthur's knight etc, isn't it? At that point it's above standard human possibilities and is more of a legend than truth. Which is quite realistic in a way (reflects the way we view such heroes as our beloved charname is becoming).

Balance before Realism?: hmmm...

True realism doesn't necessitate any balance adjustments. However, in worlds created by game designers it's not a bad thing to tamper with switches a bit so that level 3 fighter doesn't kill a level 3 mage in one second and level 30 mage doesn't kill level 30 fighter in one second. If the game relies on some ready system like (A)D&D or Warhammer (oh, may it come! ), then realism all the way, no adjustments to parameters. However, some class-specific features can't really be implemented - like Bonded Mounts for example or various kit-dependent reaction adjustments and action/kit-based ones. Therefore it's understandable that some power should be taken from other classes for game balance - which, in my opinion, should be limited to not granting some powers rather than lessening the already present.

Random items?: all the way, but not all items

Romances?: yea, at least in game

Mature content (blood, sex, profanity in general)?: yes please

And give me the following perks: Swearmaster, Sailorblush, Dwarven Mercenary Vocabulary Enhancement Pack, Enfant Terrible, Regular B***h Booze Beacon, Beer Immunity, Caffeine Rush, Adrenaline Rush, Flirtmaster, Dandy, Cavallier.

Light-hearted atmosphere vs. Serious one?: needs explanation:

Deadly serious problems, with some distance, light-hearted approach or jokes from time to time. Bitter humour, black humour, English humour all the way, sometimes a subtle joke. However, let it be realistic: humans don't keep stiff and blue all the time en route to saving the world.

New innovative systems vs. Use the good old ones? (D&D rules vs something new): both

It truly depends. I like both options. Ready systems like D&D need to influence game development from the very beginning. If the system is only an addition to the whole plot, game concepts etc, then a new one would be better. Best ones: Fallout system, Might and Magic system.

Turnbased vs. Realtime?: depends

If turn-based is the only way not to make it Diablo, then let it be turn-based. If real-time is the only way not to make it Worms (with all respect to one of my favourite games), let it be
real-time. I like M&M choice system.

What is the most important thing in a game's contents?

Dialogue and exploring ex aequo. If I'm to choose only one, then it's dialogue for it's what sucks the most most of the time in most of games.