Grimrock

I swear, game design is the most Dunning-Krugered field in existence.

minmay wrote:I swear, game design is the most Dunning-Krugered field in existence.

You made me resort to google to see what that means. So perhaps I am one of those people!

For me, this is an enjoyable discussion, of what we get out of LOG (as long as everyone keeps their cool, which is very uncommon in the wide world web, but so far everyone - by that, I mean the three of us so far) - discussing this. Pretty cool to have a civil conversation about a common passion, with different points of view.

Though, based on Isaac's other posts (outside of this thread), he seems like an "Old Time CRPG/RPG" (not to say he's old, like me! ) fan like myself (citing some older games, EotB, RoA, etc) - so that's probably why our POV is probably similarly aligned.

Don't think you are, know you are.

Isaac wrote:

ByFstugan wrote:I wonder why you have more problems with rats not killing frogs (or vice versa) than you have with rats running on two legs and using gunpowder weapons?

That's easy. When dealing with a fantasy setting, one accepts the context of 'reality' in that world as the base line. In LoG's setting, anthromorphic Ratlings exist [simple as that]. We can extrapolate from their attitude, how they might very plausibly shoot at a dangerous toad in their close vicinity; either for self defense, or out of malignant boredom. Basically one can attribute to them the behavior of pirate sailors on shore leave, and it generally fits. Were they passing on the deck of a ship, along the coastline, they might well shoot at any target that catches their eye, but that poses little risk of serious consequence... A rock, a bird, even a toad. The toad could entertain them trying in frustrated vain to chase the ship with injuries. One can easily imagine that Ratling in trouble with its boss, if the toad did actually hop on to the ship and raise havoc though. That would give incentive to not shoot at another one, where there perhaps was none before.

I have no problem whatsoever with anthromorphic ratlings. The question is why it would be so hard for Tawmis to accept that frogs and ratlings don't fight eachother. To me that's just a part of this you just said: "one accepts the context of 'reality' in that world as the base line". That's why I made that example, and I don't see how what you said would explain why the ratlings and frogs really should fight eachother - or else it would be unrealistic. The whole game is - and that's part of the fun.

This all started with my wish to see more monsters in LoG2 since I think many areas felt like 90% killed when I arrived. Sir Tawmis responce to that was:
"I always wondered why so many monsters bunched together (sometimes even teaming up against my party) weren't killing one another for food/space? So the spaced out monsters, I thought felt pretty good."
...And that was the foundation for my question since I felt that argument was a weak excuse for not being able to have more monsters to kill.

So - we had different opinions to if LoG2 has to little monsters to kill (what I think) or if it's just enough and more would be strange (what Sir Tawmis think). I don't think anyone of us have problem with walking rats with guns

Isaac wrote:

ByFstugan wrote:

ByFstugan wrote:I'm not really sure what to make of your talk of "the feeling" of LoG - it's not like it's closed from change, neither from inspiration from other games. If the earlier Dungeon Crawler games wouldn't exist it neither would exist. If the "feeling" was set, then LoG2 would not have a open world solution since LoG1 hadn't.

I think this is a misconception of cause & effect. Changes come well enough, but not all changes are suited to all things. Some changes can be detrimental; even lose a quality for gaining a new one ~and not necessarily be worth the loss. This same suggestion of multiplayer comes up with the Fallout IP a lot. Many requested a multiplayer feature for any new Fallout game, and yet Fallout takes place in a depopulated wasteland of few people, and the game is all about isolation and self sufficiency. Making it a co-op buddy game inherently diminishes its ability to present a solitary experience. Some games are not just meant to be solo, but are best played solo. Someone did make a multiplayer Fallout 2 engine clone, that presented the game world as an MMO. A perfect example of a new feature enabling a new gameplay experience, but ruining the original premise and carefully manipulated mood of the player.

A multiplayer Grimrock [1 or 2] would seem better suited to having a dungeon like that of Demise or DungeonHack, and generally play like an FPP Diablo; rather than "Eye of the Beholder". In EoB , the party are on their own in an undiscovered venue, and solely responsible for any changes that come... They are not one of several parties actively exploring the Waterdeep sewers for the town council. Some settings (and their games) are best played Solo, as per the intent of the design. Games like EoB and LoG are meant to have a UI challenge... It's (for instance) why the spell runes needed to be clicked, or marked rather than use hotkeys. Combat is for the player to handle the PCs actions... While a two player party actually takes away aspect of gameplay from the other player, and ruins the timing. SSI made EoB3, and in wondrous blunder, actually included a UI button for all party members to attack at once; doubtless seen as a time saving improvement ~by someone who didn't understand why it was a deleterious mistake.

You can restart this game and choose different settings when it comes to monsters strenght and save options and use of crystals. You can choose to do it with a whole team of four partymembers or with just one or anything inbetween. It's likelly "best played with a party of four", but that doesn't mean any option is impossible. You don't want the exact same adventure each time - and I really don't get why everyone everytime must want to do it alone and absolutelly never being nable to have an social adventure also. It's not like it's a taboo - not even because of Fallout.

So, in my opinion that's an extremely subjective and narrowthinking objection to have another OPTIONAL feuture in a game - fully in line with an objection to being able to choose how many monsters to have in the adventure due to it being hard to understand why they don't fight eachother if they became to many. I don't care if you claim it's against "the feel of LoG" or "diminishes its ability to present a solitary experience" - what say that's the only working option for LoG? Can't it be so that other people would prefer it different and that you can be able to choose to never start it in the option you don't like?

Sir Tawmis wrote:First, I want to make sure you're not getting upset because I am disagreeing with you. I'm enjoying having a discussion about what LOG is to me compared to what it is for you. There is NO right or wrong answer. We all get something different out of a game, and want something different out of a game.

That said... Isaac answered the other parts of what I was trying to convey way better than I, so I will leave that ... and I will answer this part...

I'm not upset, sorry if you feel so. I just think that some answers were not really relevant as objections to my suggestions - hence I argued for that. If that's seems like I'm mad or something it's wrong. The highest feeling in that direction is a smaller frustration that my suggestions get thrown away with arguments that seem to be far to subjective or even had missed my point - which just make me want to explain myself more clearly.

That's not because of me being unable to handle disagreement - it's because I don't like subjective and shallow arguments like "it's against the feel of LoG" when the real arguments presented are very subjective and not at all is something that proves anything would ruin the "feel of LoG". Hence I wanna defend my suggestions and show why I don't find them impossible, and have hard to see why talking about them in such manner instead of "I'd prefere not to have such ingridients in LoG, but I guess others like you do - if what you suggest would be an optional thing I guess it wouldn't ruin the feel of LoG".

So - the way you argued against my suggestions made me feel like you might having a view of LoG that others may not have opinions about that disagree with yours - because then they ruin "the feel of LoG". I'd prefere if that kind of arguments wasn't used - unless it would be something the developers said is like that and that's final - but I don't think it is in this cases. As long as we can agree that there are no right and wrong answers instead I'd be glad to hear your opinions of things - myself would like to see more optional settings according to the suggestions I made

Sir Tawmis wrote:In regards to farming exploits (in this case, the Herders), I believe - while, yes, it's fun to find those if they're extremely rare (because then it's like an Easter Egg!), they should ultimately be fixed. If the developers are aware, and intended the area to be an Easter Egg (for those that discover it, and seek to level), then it shouldn't be fixed.

So, what I am saying is there should be no need for your proposition of "decreasing XP after X amount of kills" for a specific monster or in a specific area, room, whatever. The XP gained from killing a monster should always remain the same.

Because as your characters increase in levels, I am pretty sure the required amount to gain a level also increases. (For example, you need 100 XP for level 1, 500 XP for level 2, 3000 XP for level 3, 5000 XP for level 4, etc etc).

If the Herders are always providing 100 XP per kill; eventually the amount of herders needed to be killed to level is going to drastically increase as you continue to level. So if someone wants to sit there, and spend their days killing Herders, so be it (again, this is on the assumption that the area was intended to be a "farming" spot for those that find it; and if not, developers, whenever they have the time, should patch the game to fix it).

I understand what you mean when it comes to the XP-gain becomes relatively smaller when you increase your level. But in my opinion if it occurs in a place when the gain is rather good such an easter-egg might give to much payback. If I'm not mistaken you came to a point where each new level took 100k XP, and next also 100k XP, and next - which means in that area every next level took as many mushrooms to kill. After 500k I think it was a jump on 500k again to 1M XP, and after that it was 1M XP for each level - and I was lev 25 on my farmer when stopping, but that seemed to continue with 1M per level (which is not that hard on the farmer). I built my team to many levels above what people end up with after finishing all the game with only 9 hours effective farming. It seems way to easy to me. Even if I'm not sure that the numbers is 100% correct I'm sure of this last conclusion. And I'm rather sure that the XP-gain doens't become relativelly smaller all the time, but have places it's as easy to take the next level as the last was (can one see what XP it takes for each level somewhere?).

As I said, I recall some game that had some kind of formula that made monsters give you less and less XP the higher you leveled yourself (no idea what game it was though). And in my opinion this would make more sense. If you concider the effort you have to make to kill a level 5 monster when yourself is lev 1 (like taking on a Stormbreach wolf from beginning) it would be FAR more demanding. Your gear is BAD, your damage is next to nothing and you die like in one hit and therfor it likelly takes many potions/saves and ALOT of time. But in the end game you can kill them easy with next to no effort at all. That you would gain as much experience with something that takes no effort is just not right. It would be more logical to have a relative XP-system then that you get full XP for any level monster at lowest level, and the higher you became the less you earned, which would make the lower level monsters giving closer and closer to "no worthy effort at all" (not nothing).

This was my other suggestion btw, not the one I think was best - but it's a real relative XP-gain system - the one you suggested isn't due to the XP-level settings in LoG2.

I however suggested an monster ID with less XP-reward per respawn instead since I think the easter egg is far overpowered and shouldn't be unlimited.

Another sollution would be to make the respawn-rate increase all the time so that after a while the situation would be impossible to manage (especially since you can't flee). Or adding to that idea, the monsters spawning would become more and more hard (higher lever or more dangerous types). This would in a way be more fun and challenging - and when I think about it I like it more I think it must escalate to impossible not to slow though (so one can't sit 9 hours like I did).

Well it's possible to drive anything into the extreme. That you got the energy to farm Herders Den for 9 hours straight doesn't say everybody has it; lot's of people don't even farm it at all. It is actually a challenging area when it's played with a party around clvl 6 but grinding there past clvl 12 is boredom supreme. Grinding xp on the top of the tower is way more entertaining. Yet grinding is not really needed because there are so many places to go and if something seems too tough just go elsewhere and come back later. If played without a guide, going back and forth between places a bit and solving all areas and puzzles 100% it's possible to have lvl 15 characters at the end, without any exp bonus things in play - plus a longer and more entertaining gameplay.

ByFstugan wrote: You can restart this game and choose different settings when it comes to monsters strenght and save options and use of crystals. You can choose to do it with a whole team of four partymembers or with just one or anything inbetween. It's likelly "best played with a party of four", but that doesn't mean any option is impossible. You don't want the exact same adventure each time - and I really don't get why everyone everytime must want to do it alone and absolutelly never being nable to have an social adventure also. It's not like it's a taboo - not even because of Fallout.

So, in my opinion that's an extremely subjective and narrowthinking objection to have another OPTIONAL feuture in a game - fully in line with an objection to being able to choose how many monsters to have in the adventure due to it being hard to understand why they don't fight eachother if they became to many.

What is very often misunderstood [by the opposing viewpoint], is that when a person adamantly states 'No' to having multiplayer, they are assumed to hate multiplayer across the board or be anti-social ~rather than (as is most likely the case) to simply object to multiplayer in that specific game, as being contrary to intent, design and the mood of that specific game (or series). Often I was accused of being anti-FPP for decrying FPP in a Fallout title ~despite being an avid FPS fan... but just never in a Fallout game of course. And yet there are people that would sputter and scoff, "But... but...that would be AWESOME, how could you not want the chance to explore in first person, and have it be like you were actually there in the Fallout world!?'; and the answer is that all of the original Fallout games are RPGs about somebody else, born and living in a very different (slightly sureal) setting, with a different mindset, and as player I get to speculate and extrapolate how they might react to a given situation... It's not about personally exploring their world. or what I would personally do if I were in it; and hence the modern Fallout titles totally screw up the traditional series experience... ie. what I would seek out [again] in any named Fallout title.

And there it is: I think that multiplayer would screw up the traditional series experience of Grimrock... ie. what I would seek out [again] in any named Grimrock title.

I don't care if you claim it's against "the feel of LoG" or "diminishes its ability to present a solitary experience" - what say that's the only working option for LoG? Can't it be so that other people would prefer it different and that you can be able to choose to never start it in the option you don't like?

Multi-player is never simply tacked on (by anyone with good sense), it is part of the design at the outset, and would affect the design (and game experience) as a whole, whether the player chose to use the option or not.

Here in lies the crux... A game can be likened to a favorite food; some foods may have an acquired taste that not everyone appreciates. The sad part is that there are a lot of people that view the world such that it is right [and just?] that anything they dislike should be adjusted so that they can like it too ~even if it basically spoils the original qualities that they didn't care for. This happed in spades with the Fallout series ~sadly. This could happen with Grimrock ~or any title were development to stray from core principles into a 'let us attempt to please everyone ~and thus sell more' mindset... That is an exercise in tolerance management; with the intent being to cram in mutually exclusive features in quantity just enough to bait one group while not totally losing the other... and the result is invariably mediocre... akin to food court fare, as opposed to local & traditionally spiced.

The upshot being that there are an uncounted number of flavors in the world, and they needn't all be made acceptable to the mass palate, or subject to mass expectation. Fallout ~for instance can easily be likened to Vegemite, and FO3 ~what Vegemite might taste like were the brand bought by a cheesecake company, and reformulated to include strawberries and creme; with the intent of selling more units to the mass market, at the full and utter expense of destroying the original experience (and reputation) of the product, and in the process losing all semblance of the original flavor ~sought by those that liked the initial offering.

I believe that a multiplayer feature in Grimrock would subtlety alter the atmosphere of the game ~enough to grate on the player, whether solo, or with another party in the dungeon; and that having a multiplayer single party (where one player controls one or more characters in the party), would be a mess, due to unpredictability of characters from either player's perspective... unless they changed the design of the character interaction ~and if they did that, that just furthers the original point by straying farther from the core gameplay to accommodate the new feature.

ByFstugan wrote: I have no problem whatsoever with anthromorphic ratlings. The question is why it would be so hard for Tawmis to accept that frogs and ratlings don't fight eachother. To me that's just a part of this you just said: "one accepts the context of 'reality' in that world as the base line". That's why I made that example, and I don't see how what you said would explain why the ratlings and frogs really should fight eachother - or else it would be unrealistic. The whole game is - and that's part of the fun.
This all started with my wish to see more monsters in LoG2 since I think many areas felt like 90% killed when I arrived. Sir Tawmis responce to that was:
"I always wondered why so many monsters bunched together (sometimes even teaming up against my party) weren't killing one another for food/space? So the spaced out monsters, I thought felt pretty good."
...And that was the foundation for my question since I felt that argument was a weak excuse for not being able to have more monsters to kill.
So - we had different opinions to if LoG2 has to little monsters to kill (what I think) or if it's just enough and more would be strange (what Sir Tawmis think). I don't think anyone of us have problem with walking rats with guns

This is what I meant by "what we take away" from a game; for me - let's think of Legend of Grimrock 1. You have Ratlings and giant frogs, living in the same area. Now, if you think of food source within LOG, in a prison, for which there is supposedly, no escape... where is food coming from? Either cannibalism; or you kill what you find. So, to me, logic states that the Ratlings would be killing the frogs, for meat (or vice versa, frogs would attack Ratlings for meat as a food source, since they're brave enough to attack a party of four prisoners!) And this is where we differ. Where you're looking for a little more "action and hack and slash of monsters", I actually prefer those spaced out areas; because to me, it seems more realistic that you enter monsters that have the area "as their territory." When you enter the Ratling area, you know, most of what you're going to fight is going to be, Ratlings, with the occasional frog in there. When you enter the Herder area, it's mostly just herders. Rarely, are you encountering Herders, Ratlings, and say, Fire Elementals, all within the same area because of a sense of "territory" (or is that TERROR-tory, depending on what you're encountering!) It may seem trivial, or what you call "a weak excuse" - but it's what I enjoy. It adds a sense of "realism" for me. (And, for example - if you read my Legend of Grimrock fan piece - that's something I initially did. I wrote it to explain a background for my characters, then proceeded to "explain" some of the logic of Mount Grimrock (like why the torches burn eternally, unless you pull them out of their holders; why there's giant snails in the dungeons; who the skeletons are, etc etc). Because I enjoy that "little piece of logic" that adds some realism; and the spaced out, "this is my territory" of the monsters, I feel adds to that.

This is why I enjoy Realms of Arkania, perhaps as one of my all time favorite CRPGs, because I could explore a map, and not feel like I was going to be ambushed every five feet. It was spread out, with monsters not so common in certain areas; and when you entered a specific area, you were inclined to encounter only a few specific types of monsters "known to roam that area."

Again, I am not saying you're wrong to want more monsters. I was just explaining why I like the current set up, despite the fact you think it's a "weak excuse."

ByFstugan wrote: So, in my opinion that's an extremely subjective and narrowthinking objection to have another OPTIONAL feuture in a game - fully in line with an objection to being able to choose how many monsters to have in the adventure due to it being hard to understand why they don't fight eachother if they became to many. I don't care if you claim it's against "the feel of LoG" or "diminishes its ability to present a solitary experience" - what say that's the only working option for LoG? Can't it be so that other people would prefer it different and that you can be able to choose to never start it in the option you don't like?

No one _is_ saying that's the "only working option for LOG" - no one is saying that at all. You simply have two people (Isaac and myself), who don't see the need for "multiplayer" in LOG because it takes away what we think is the "feel of the game" (the solidarity of your characters; whether in an impossible prison to escape; or an enchanted island trying to kill you). I think what both Isaac (or at least myself) are saying is that _for us_ this is what LOG represents. We don't speak for the world. But you posted your thoughts on a public forum; you can't be at all surprised that someone might disagree with you, right?

Could LOG have multiplayer in the future if the developers wanted it? Sure, why not!

For me, however, it'd be a bit of a disappointment; because as I've said, for myself; LOG is about your four characters stranded in what should feel like an impossible situation. Adding multiplayer, again (this is for my own take on LOG), takes away from that. When I play LOG (1 or 2), it's really intense. If I had a friend in there, joking with me - it'd rip me right out of the intensity of the game.

ByFstugan wrote: I'm not upset, sorry if you feel so.

No, I didn't think you were upset. I was just making sure you weren't going to get upset, simply because Isaac and I have disagreed with you. It'd be understandable to feel a little frustrated if you're the only one screaming a POV, while others disagree. Just wanted to make sure you were enjoying this (what I think is a) fun discussion of our own takes of what we want and get out of LOG.

ByFstugan wrote: That's not because of me being unable to handle disagreement - it's because I don't like subjective and shallow arguments like "it's against the feel of LoG" when the real arguments presented are very subjective and not at all is something that proves anything would ruin the "feel of LoG".

So, hold on - my "it's against the feel of LOG" is not valid, but you wanting multiplayer "just because it'd be fun" is?

If you're not getting what I mean by "the feel of LOG" (and me explaining the solidarity of the character's situation), then I think my point is also being missed.

ByFstugan wrote: So - the way you argued against my suggestions made me feel like you might having a view of LoG that others may not have opinions about that disagree with yours - because then they ruin "the feel of LoG".

That's not it at all. I am not saying "everyone would think this ruins the feel of LOG" - I was speaking for myself. Because NOWHERE have I said, "My opinion is the voice of everyone - but you, foolish mortal." I am pretty sure, I've repeatedly said, "For me, that would ruin the feel of LOG" or whatever, implying I speak for myself, not an entire community.

Dr.Disaster wrote:Well it's possible to drive anything into the extreme. That you got the energy to farm Herders Den for 9 hours straight doesn't say everybody has it; lot's of people don't even farm it at all. It is actually a challenging area when it's played with a party around clvl 6 but grinding there past clvl 12 is boredom supreme. Grinding xp on the top of the tower is way more entertaining. Yet grinding is not really needed because there are so many places to go and if something seems too tough just go elsewhere and come back later. If played without a guide, going back and forth between places a bit and solving all areas and puzzles 100% it's possible to have lvl 15 characters at the end, without any exp bonus things in play - plus a longer and more entertaining gameplay.

And this is what I was trying to say. If someone wants to sit there and "grind" - so be it. If they can handle killing the same thing over and over. More power to them. I would eventually lose my mind.

Isaac wrote: Here in lies the crux... A game can be likened to a favorite food; some foods may have an acquired taste that not everyone appreciates. The sad part is that there are a lot of people that view the world such that it is right [and just?] that anything they dislike should be adjusted so that they can like it too ~even if it basically spoils the original qualities that they didn't care for. This happed in spades with the Fallout series ~sadly. This could happen with Grimrock ~or any title were development to stray from core principles into a 'let us attempt to please everyone ~and thus sell more' mindset... That is an exercise in tolerance management; with the intent being to cram in mutually exclusive features in quantity just enough to bait one group while not totally losing the other... and the result is invariably mediocre... akin to food court fare, as opposed to local & traditionally spiced.

It's true. People somehow even screw up pizza. And that seemed impossible.