Because giving people the OPTION to respec = hand holding and not challenging? I'm sorry, are you forced to respec? no? That's what i thought.The answers in this thread is why games nowadays hold the player's hands to an excessive degree. And why we get crap like Diablo 3.
People love unchallenging content tourism. It bores the shit out of me.
Again, some people value their time like myself. I don't want to be forced to google cookie cutter builds. I want to experiment and play around with builds and forcing me to make the right decision in every single skill point because i have no way of changing that choice is absolute shit design. It's bullshit and you know it.
You don't HAVE to respec, if you want to play that way you can. It's like the fast travel argument. You don't have to fast travel but it's there for people who don't want to spend what limited free time they have on running around a open dead world.
It used to not even be a point in RPGs to try out every single skills. The point was forming a unique character. Why even have a spec tree when you can change that stuff instantly (some measly ingame costs doesn't make it better either).I will not sink another 30+ hours into a game just to start over with a different spec build. I value my time too much.
As I said: gamers want boring, fucking content tourism nowadays.
I already answered that in my other posts. I am not buying and playing games so I have to constantly fight my urge to use options provided by the game. "Nope, I won't use that weapon because it breaks the game" ... that's not how it works. Of course, I will use it. I want the game to force me to not being able to respec.Because giving people the OPTION to respec = hand holding and not challenging? I'm sorry, are you forced to respec? no? That's what i thought.
I mean, take Sacred 2 as an example. The in-game tooltips are useless for telling you what skills do, there are a ton of variables for skills and abilities and armor, and in the console versions one of the skills is actually broken and does nothing.
It's entirely possible in that game (and easy) to create a character that will be functionally useless in higher difficulties.
You must feel so cool on that high tower of gaming excellence.It used to not even be a point in RPGs to try out every single skills. The point was forming a unique character. Why even have a spec tree when you can change that stuff instantly (some measly ingame costs doesn't make it better either).
As I said: gamers want boring, fucking content tourism nowadays.
Unlike you I find wasting my time boring.
Still, it's completely up to the developers and they should be free to exclude anything that doesn't fit their vision.
Not so at all. That's on the designer. A lot of games where you have "choice" it's pretty moot in general unless you are talking MMO level of respec. But for things like Skyrim, Final Fantasy, and stuff like that, I don't see the problem. I went Magic now I want to shoot a bow, how does that "eliminate risk" ... all it does is let me continue with the character I have without having to go through the shit I already went through and enjoy the game for longer.Risk and reward are inherent aspects of good game design.
Unfortunetly, today's games almost completely eliminate the risk. It's just boring content tourism now.
With MMO's it's a bit different. With WoW, having the ability to switch back and forth between Tank and DPS was great when stuff was added for easier switches (outfits, saved specs, etc ...). As an MT and PVPer I was constantly dumping money on spec switches ... it was dumb because I had to use mods to save my gear choices and each time I spec'd I had to do it from scratch. There's no reason I should be "stuck as a tank" when there are so many other activities to do in the game. I don't expect to become a Mage with a respec but there's no "risk" involved when I spec'd PVP/DPS instead of tank. I wasn't making the game any less "risky".
I think the whole "risk vs reward" is also overplayed in gaming. The game is the reward, not just the ending, not 100% stats, but playing the game and enjoying it. Respec adds value to games, it doesn't take it away. If my change from a fire-balling wielding lunatic to Legolas is going to break your game ... it's on you.
First bolded: Maybe, who gives a fuck what people want to do with their time? don't use it.It used to not even be a point in RPGs to try out every single skills. The point was forming a unique character. Why even have a spec tree when you can change that stuff instantly (some measly ingame costs doesn't make it better either).
As I said: gamers want boring, fucking content tourism nowadays.
I already answered that in my other posts. I am not buying and playing games so I have to constantly fight my urge to use options provided by the game. "Nope, I won't use that weapon because it breaks the game" ... that's not how it works. Of course, I will use it. I want the game to force me to not being able to respec.
Second bolded: So YOU don't have self control so EVERY game should be designed around that aspect of YOUR personality? Sure, brah. Sorry, but you're going to lose this battle.
No, I feel shitty because modern RPG design just sucks for the most part. And it's because of people like you and others in this thread. Nothing has consequences anymore, games are too easy, they lack challenge and therefore are not motivating anymore. I value my time as well which is why I am not willing to invest it into boring content tourism.Originally Posted by Lord-Audie
You must feel so cool on that high tower of gaming excellence.
Unlike you I find wasting my time boring.
Again, that's not how it works. I don't want to think about artificially limiting myself all the time while playing a game.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
Second bolded: So YOU don't have self control so EVERY game should be designed around that aspect of YOUR personality? Sure, brah. Sorry, but you're going to lose this battle.
A very well thought out post that I agree with completely.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
Not so at all. That's on the designer. A lot of games where you have "choice" it's pretty moot in general unless you are talking MMO level of respec. But for things like Skyrim, Final Fantasy, and stuff like that, I don't see the problem. I went Magic now I want to shoot a bow, how does that "eliminate risk" ... all it does is let me continue with the character I have without having to go through the shit I already went through and enjoy the game for longer.
With MMO's it's a bit different. With WoW, having the ability to switch back and forth between Tank and DPS was great when stuff was added for easier switches (outfits, saved specs, etc ...). As an MT and PVPer I was constantly dumping money on spec switches ... it was dumb because I had to use mods to save my gear choices and each time I spec'd I had to do it from scratch. There's no reason I should be "stuck as a tank" when there are so many other activities to do in the game. I don't expect to become a Mage with a respec but there's no "risk" involved when I spec'd PVP/DPS instead of tank. I wasn't making the game any less "risky".
I think the whole "risk vs reward" is also overplayed in gaming. The game is the reward, not just the ending, not 100% stats, but playing the game and enjoying it. Respec adds value to games, it doesn't take it away. If my change from a fire-balling wielding lunatic to Legolas is going to break your game ... it's on you.
First bolded: Maybe, who gives a fuck what people want to do with their time? don't use it.
Second bolded: So YOU don't have self control so EVERY game should be designed around that aspect of YOUR personality? Sure, brah. Sorry, but you're going to lose this battle.
If faced with a game where I can't respec and my choices matter, I'm probably just going to look up cookie-cutter builds rather than risk making the wrong choices.
I think these two sentences (even the joke!) really sum up why we're having this discussion. It all comes back to design and (I think) some games perhaps biting off more than they can chew. When you build a game around the player having a diverse ability set, you HAVE to design the gameplay around providing means for all builds to finish the game with their selected skill sets.Originally Posted by Rodney McKay
I can understand not wanting a developer to be be lazy and using respecing as a crutch, but I think it's just as lazy to build a game where a character can pump all their points into a useless skill that won't let the player beat the game.
I think the key thing for developers to remember is just to make good games and avoid making bad ones. It's that easy!
Someone mentioned swimming in Deux Ex and I laughed because it has indeed been totally worthless in my game so far. There was one section that let you pick up a powerup if you could actually swim that far without drowning. That's if you didn't have a rebreather or two on you. Totally worthless. Anyone who maxed that out is probably missing out on some much more useful skill (I haven't finished the game yet, so maybe I'm dead wrong). This isn't so much the fault of the player for choosing an ability in a game they've heard encourages creative solutions to an extreme. It's the fault of the level designers for failing to account for a major skill set as a viable solution.
Conversely, it's not the developers' fault if some players' expectations aren't in line with the way the game was designed. You could also argue that cheat codes "add value" by allowing players of any skill level to complete the game, but I don't think it follows that all games need to have them readily accessible because choice is king and design be damned.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
Not so at all. That's on the designer. A lot of games where you have "choice" it's pretty moot in general unless you are talking MMO level of respec. But for things like Skyrim, Final Fantasy, and stuff like that, I don't see the problem. I went Magic now I want to shoot a bow, how does that "eliminate risk" ... all it does is let me continue with the character I have without having to go through the shit I already went through and enjoy the game for longer.
I think the whole "risk vs reward" is also overplayed in gaming. The game is the reward, not just the ending, not 100% stats, but playing the game and enjoying it. Respec adds value to games, it doesn't take it away. If my change from a fire-balling wielding lunatic to Legolas is going to break your game ... it's on you.
"Risk and reward" affects the minute to minute gameplay, not just the ending. I'm just not motivated to play when I know that decisions are not meaningful.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
I think the whole "risk vs reward" is also overplayed in gaming. The game is the reward, not just the ending, not 100% stats, but playing the game and enjoying it. Respec adds value to games, it doesn't take it away. If my change from a fire-balling wielding lunatic to Legolas is going to break your game ... it's on you.
In my opinion, the best games make are the game they want to be, and allow the player to enjoy it at their own pace and leisure. Options are always a good thing.Conversely, it's not the developers' fault if some players' expectations aren't in line with the way the game was designed. You could also argue that cheat codes "add value" by allowing players of any skill level to complete the game, but I don't think it follows that all games need to have them readily accessible because choice is king and design be damned.
But it can also be good because you can experience everything the class has to offer on one playthrough and with 6 classes you can play, once per class is good enough.
I just don't have the time that I used to. Wanting to experience a lightning sorc, ice sorc, and fire sorc in Diablo 2 meant playing the class for a LONG time 3 separate times. I just don't have that kind of time to devote.
Also for some games having zero respecs means you have to start over if you make a mistake and gimp your character. Like Diablo 2.
They even realized it was stupid and added a limited amount of respecs to their game.
So it's kind of a matter of taste. If you want to play the same game forever, then forced no-respec option is fine because you love the game enough to play it through multiple times with the same class. But there are far too many games to play for me to sit on one game playing the same class over and over because I screwed up a spec or I wanted to try a different spec.
I kind of agree with this. There needs to be some consistency with your character. That is why I like respeccing in a game where you pick a class and that defines your character going forward, but not in a more open ended advancement system like Dark Souls.I don't like respec-ing. It cheapens the experience for me. Your character is a sword master and then suddenly he becomes an expert Mage and can't handle a sword anymore? That doesn't make sense. There are games where it's not a big deal for me (borderlands for example) since everything already feel so artificial, but in other games like Dark Souls of The Witcher it's a big no-no for me (although, you can respec in the last chapter of TW2, I just chose not to do it).
I don't have a problem with my Mage going from being good at Ice spells to being good at Fire spells for small investment of time or money. It is way stranger to go through the whole game as a sword and board guy and then flipping a switch to start throwing fireballs around and wearing cloth armor.
This is especially important because in a lot of games starting at out as some class, most typically magic dudes, is tougher but leads to some really awesome abilities by the end game. Someone shouldn't be able to "easy mode" their way through the game as a warrior and then get to drop meteors on the final boss. You've got to earn that magic.
That describes virtually every game ever made, though. The player is free to do as they please within the boundaries that the game sets for them.In my opinion, the best games make are the game they want to be, and allow the player to enjoy it at their own pace and leisure. Options are always a good thing.
I'm speaking more about the functional aspects of games. Variable difficulty, whether bringing up the option menu stops gameplay, saving properties, etc.How do you define that, though? Nearly all games give the player some choices to make, so is there an arbitrary list of things that count as "real" player freedom?
As to your edit: expand those boundaries when it comes to functional aspects of the game.
So because you are tempted to use a particular system, it shouldn't exist? I don't know, that doesn't make much sense to me.When I play a game, I don't want to fight the urge to use some of its options just to make it better. It's the same with quicksaves that have completely destroyed challenge and tension in FPS games.
I would be fine with it if they gave me a harder difficulty setting where I can make the decision one and before I start the game.
I also don't think the comparison to quicksaving is very apt. Quicksaving by design is meant to make the game less frustrating and easier. Respecs on the other hand are simply there to allow the player to vary his/her play style. Whether or not that makes the game "better" is frankly up to the player.
You would have a point if the game in question forces you to have certain specs or play a certain way in order to advance. However, all the games that I played that allowed respecs also allowed you to play and enjoy the content with any kind of build. I never felt like I had to respec, nor did any game tell me to. The option was simply there to allow experimentation and could have been completely ignored if you wanted.Because if you put in that option, it lessens the importance to balance it all properly.
How does respeccing in the witcher 2 cheapen the experience? The specializations are just, signs, sword and potions passive bonuses. They don't TRULY change the way geralt plays, you're still going to use your swords above all else it's just that with one you use signs more and with the other you use potions more, but that's beside the point because it doesn't matter what spec you go in the witcher 2, you'll still be able to complete the game fine.I don't like respec-ing. It cheapens the experience for me. Your character is a sword master and then suddenly he becomes an expert Mage and can't handle a sword anymore? That doesn't make sense. There are games where it's not a big deal for me (borderlands for example) since everything already feel so artificial, but in other games like Dark Souls of The Witcher it's a big no-no for me (although, you can respec in the last chapter of TW2, I just chose not to do it).
Now say you're a first timer with dark souls, and you don't want to research a game, so you neglect vit and endurance because you really wanna wield that moon light greatsword you picked up.
However you've been putting your points mainly into strength and dex the majority of the time because you didn't think you'd care to use anything int based ever. Well now you've got to farm 26 (increasingly expensive) levels to use a weapon. Well now you can equip it, great! It's your reward for farming your way to get there, the downside? You don't like how it feels, and now you barely have enough end to roll quickly while holding this new weapon. So what happens now? You're stuck with an amalgamation of a character that's unsalvagable. Hell your spec probably looks something like 20vit 18 end, 25 str, 22 dex and 26 int with not enough attuement to even use one spell, nor a decently upgraded catalyst to match your character.
Sure you can still finish the game hell I've done it with a no level up run while playing a warrior, but that's unreasonable to expect from a new player. Is it really cheapening the experience if you can go back and say "OH NO I SCREWED UP BETTER GO GATHER MORE SOULS AND CORRECT THIS MISTAKE!"
This isn't even content tourism, this is just solid design choices. You want to fix a mistake you made? That's fine but you're going to have to pay heavily for it!
I'm not sure if they've instituted it in that particular game now, because I lost interest after nothing but shit drops and two time-consuming builds not working out as well as I'd hoped. But if they have I'd reconsider revisiting it.
It isn't like he's saying everyone who takes longer than an hour to beat Super Metroid because they aren't using glitches is doing it wrong. He's talking about things the game itself is designed around. Respeccing in most games is on the same exact level as crap like Vitachambers in Bioshock. "Oh, you failed. Here, pick up where you left off with no consequences whatsoever." There's barely any GAME in that! Yes, you can turn those off, and the game becomes much, much better for it, but it isn't a matter of self control the same way not using cheats or save-scumming is self control. The expectation exists within the gameplay that you know about respeccing and are free to do so.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
Second bolded: So YOU don't have self control so EVERY game should be designed around that aspect of YOUR personality? Sure, brah. Sorry, but you're going to lose this battle.
I can imagine a game where you confront a variety of situations with the expectation that your character will be respecced to deal with it. That is just strategic and might be a lot of fun. In execution, however, most games just have it there as a escape clause to let you finish the game as easily as possible.
This is exactly why I ultimately hated Skyrim. I loved walking around in the beautiful world, but when it came to interacting with it... Nothing I did had any effect. All quest lines remained open to me. Back in Morrowind (yeah, I'm one of those guys) if you progressed far enough in the fighters guild you COULDN'T join the thieves guild. Making choices had consequences. Opening one door closed another. Literally everything outside of the parallel stories in the main plot was completely open to every character of every build. How ridiculous is it that my magic-deficient warrior is the grand master of the mages guild? Respeccing in Skyrim isn't necessary because EVERY stat and skill can be maxed (at least to the point where it no longer matters -- if it ever did), but imagine how much more trivial it would be if you could. One second you're a burly fighter, the next a sagely and thin mage. Bonkers.No, I feel shitty because modern RPG design just sucks for the most part. And it's because of people like you and others in this thread. Nothing has consequences anymore, games are too easy, they lack challenge and therefore are not motivating anymore. I value my time as well which is why I am not willing to invest it into boring content tourism.
Nope, this is not about requiring certain skills. It's about whether a certain skill is too weak or too strong. When re-spec-ing is an option in the game, the game designer could theoretically just say "eh, whatever ... they can choose a different skill if I fuck up here."Originally Posted by Off-Kilter
You would have a point if the game in question forces you to have certain specs or play a certain way in order to advance. However, all the games that I played that allowed respecs also allowed you to play and enjoy the content with any kind of build. I never felt like I had to respec, nor did any game tell me to. The option was simply there to allow experimentation and could have been completely ignored if you wanted.
You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.No it isn't. Having to look up a build online before you can start playing is bad game design.
Ex. I don't want to have to abandon a character just because the game throws lightning immune enemies my way when i'm using a casting class with only lightning spells.
There are a few games i'd let get away with it like D&D type games.
Wrong on both accounts, if you design a game properly then the proper use of respeccing should be to encourage learning the game by playing the game! A good implementation of a specialization system should have consequences for making a bad decision but also give you the means to rectify, obviously at a cost.Also, re-spec-ing encourages lazy design.
Which is a good thing.
You really expect some one to understand every mechanic of diablo 2 after opening the talent tree once?
I didn't even understand how everything really worked till half way through Hell, and by then my only option was to start over which made me angry. Do you know why you see so many hammerdins? Because it's the most documented build online and it's the easiest to not screw up therefore everyone does it!
Exactly.I just want to toss out the notion that a reason D2 was so popular was because you initially couldn't respec and had to build new characters for certain builds.
And it's also part of why Dark Souls is popular among enthusiasts nowadays. Many of its fans might not even realize that this sense of your actions having real consequences and meaning is part of why they like the game so much. But it totally is.
Quoting myself:Originally Posted by Not Spaceghost
You really expect some one to understand every mechanic of diablo 2 after opening the talent tree once?
I didn't even understand how everything really worked till half way through Hell, and by then my only option was to start over which made me angry. Do you know why you see so many hammerdins? Because it's the most documented build online and it's the easiest to not screw up therefore everyone does it!
You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
Looking up builds/decks/strategies is an inescapable consequence of any game that has a competitive environment and gives the player a lot of freedom. Unless the game is meticulously balanced in a way that makes all possible options perfectly equal, some options are going to have a competitive balance over others and it's only natural for people to share, discuss, and theorycraft about it.No it isn't. Having to look up a build online before you can start playing is bad game design.
I mean, even non-customizable games give players freedom of choice as to which strategies and tactics they use, so taking out the possibility of cookie cutter character builds just leads to people doing the same thing with a different kind of "build."
Yay because developers are usually terrible at making tooltips and I don't know what exactly something is going to do until my character has it.
These two points reflect my feelings fairly well, I spend far too much time looking at guides to make sure I don't waste points. A decent explanation of what each upgrade does would make things so much easier, I don't have the time to plough through dozens of hours in a game with a build that turns out to be useless in the final act.Originally Posted by Rodney McKay
Games where I can't respec I usually end up looking for guides online to make sure I don't dump points into the wrong areas, like "Swimming" in Deus Ex (can't remember if you can respec in that game).
Also, these topics always reinforce the idea that someone on the internet will complaining/be upset about any and everything.
This only works if the game actually gives you the information to make an informed right or wrong decision when building your character. So you need to be able to try out the ability or thing you're picking or get an accurate enough description of it that you can use your existing knowledge of the game to know if it'll be good or not. But that almost never happens.You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
In a game like Diablo 2 or PoE, you can't just "live with it". The game is hard enough that if you fucked up you will be unable to complete content or play with other people without being a drag on them. That is why it's necessary to look up builds before you can even start playing.You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
Why insist on this particular definition of "RPG," though? In my Guild Wars 1 example, the developers were overtly inspired by the way players build and use decks in trading card games, and chose to use a similar system for skill and abilities. A lot of people really enjoyed that approach and were kind of miffed when Guild Wars 2 wound up being a little more constrained.You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
Not saying that all games need to do what Guild Wars did, but it's silly to insist that there's only one right way of designing mechanics for a particular genre. The medium is flexible and tastes vary a lot.
I'd be sufficient if no skill was completely useless and you can complete the game with any combination.This only works if the game actually gives you the information to make an informed right or wrong decision when building your character. So you need to be able to try out the ability or thing you're picking or get an accurate enough description of it that you can use your existing knowledge of the game to know if it'll be good or not. But that almost never happens.
Again: it shouldn't be about min/max-ing or about making the perfect build.
Where are you getting these arbitrary ideas about what an RPG should and shouldn't be?Nope, this is not about requiring certain skills. It's about whether a certain skill is too weak or too strong. When re-spec-ing is an option in the game, the game designer could theoretically just say "eh, whatever ... they can choose a different skill if I fuck up here."
You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
Then how would you even know that you need to respec? If you aren't looking online or min/max speccing you are just playing the game at your leisure. How would you even know certain aspects without testing or reading online?Nope, this is not about requiring certain skills. It's about whether a certain skill is too weak or too strong. When re-spec-ing is an option in the game, the game designer could theoretically just say "eh, whatever ... they can choose a different skill if I fuck up here."
You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
I don't get where you're coming from. I see above somebody mentioned how Skyrim made it ridiculous near the end. I agree, and I still had a blast with that game. Even in GTA V I was slightly annoyed that certain 'powers' were on my 'other character'. While in the story it made sense once beating the game who gives a shit what I do with my character in a SP game?
What are your examples of where spec'ing ruined it for you? Where the option was there and it ruined the gameplay experience. With Skyrim, that's just game choice, you could still go through as a Mage the entire game and not join the Thieves Guild. But for those that WANT to do it all, why stop them?
With WoW the ability to change specs was awesome. It opened up multiple paths of enjoyment for every single character that played. In fact almost any game where I devote a lot of time to the character, I like the ability to change things up and come at the game I'm enjoying from a different perspective.
EDIT:
I'm confused, you say this:
But then you say this:You shouldn't look it up either. Playing an RPG should NOT be about making the optimal build. It should be about having to live with your right and wrong decisions.
If you can complete the game with any combination, where is the "living with your right and wrong decision"?I'd be sufficient if no skill was completely useless and you can complete the game with any combination.
Again: it shouldn't be about min/max-ing or about making the perfect build.
Yes and no. You need to make sure you're using a well-optimized build if your goal is to "pilot" it for maximum competitive performance, but that's not strictly necessary (in most cases) if you're just talking about playing and enjoying the game. Also, there will always be some innovative players who develop new ideas that change the metagame.In a game like Diablo 2 or PoE, you can't just "live with it". The game is hard enough that if you fucked up you will be unable to complete content or play with other people without being a drag on them. That is why it's necessary to look up builds before you can even start playing.
That being said, it also depends on the game.
| Thread Tools | |