More often it just leads to shunning people who chose the wrong spec. If the conditional utility is desirable in a group setting your group will want you to take it. If your utility comes at the cost of something more valuable (say super lackluster dps on fights with tight timers) then you will simply not be taken. Homogenization occurs because sadly, its the fairest option.In multiplayer games like MMOs in can lead to homogenization.
It makes for more interesting gameplay if a player can choose conditional utility over the most well-rounded build. Plus those players can then fill a special role in a guild or be in demand for groups.
I'm for it. If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple as that. Best of both worlds. Bayonetta has an automatic mode. I don't get it. I don't get why anyone would want to play it like that, but hey it's there and like respecing, I'm not forced to use it so I get the experience I want and people who want to use it get the experience they want.
People aren't machines. If the option is there, players knows its there, there will be a lot of players who will use it, especially when it comes to parts that are frustrating or hard.Can you explain how it ruins the game in more detail? I don't quite see it at all. If you don't want to use a respec option, just ignore it, and play the game as though it weren't there.
For example, why would a difficulty slider change Demon's Souls or Dark Souls? and if it wouldn't, why was it not put in the games?
The answer to the second question is it would have changed the game fundamentally because no longer is the only way to get to the end through mastery. It presents a challenge to the player with only one way through. And micro transactions, quicksaves, respeccing, cheat dlc, difficulty sliders etc would ruin that.
You might not like those kind of games, but to blithely say those things do matter to game design is being willfully obtuse.
Last edited by Untalkative_Bunny; 12-03-2013 at 08:33 PM.
Seriously, I'd be a huge difference for me. I just don't want to have to think about it while playing.The difficulty level thing isn't a bad suggestion, but I don't see how it's much different from just opting not to use respecing. You're just making the decision at the outset of the game as opposed to not making the decision while playing.
Yay.
If a game has a leveling system with skill points and/or stats points to distribute, then I'd like to be able to respec my character somehow.
I love how WoW let's you set 2 specs and then, for a cost, you can reset them anytime and, with the new talents implementation, makes it possible to have situational set-ups.
I also like how Diablo 3 does it, so that you can experiment and find the set of skills that suits you without having to redo a character n number of times.
If a game has a leveling system with skill points and/or stats points to distribute, then I'd like to be able to respec my character somehow.
I love how WoW let's you set 2 specs and then, for a cost, you can reset them anytime and, with the new talents implementation, makes it possible to have situational set-ups.
I also like how Diablo 3 does it, so that you can experiment and find the set of skills that suits you without having to redo a character n number of times.
What bores the shit out of me, on the other hand. are arrogant, I'm-better-than-you kids (at least mentally), who think they're superior because they can consume a video game "better". You're so much better because you "love a challenge" - except you don't even understand that games are products sold for money.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.
Yes, I think this is our concern as naysayers. It can certainly work in some applications, but most seem like a tacked on easy mode to cover the gaps in the design.Their point is that is affects the whole design of the game from the ground up, and inherently leads to a focus on consequence-free game design. I'm not sure I fully agree (or I don't believe it's the biggest thing that leads to that kind of design), but I can see why someone could think that.
Yeah, I went a bit off topic there, sorry.Originally Posted by flyinpiranha
Yeah, I think it's more of a Skyrim issue, then the actual idea of respec. For example if you went to another Guild another leader would take over the one you left, not just have ultra-leader everywhere. Basically Skyrim is North Korea and You're The Kim Jong-unborne. BUT, with some tweaks to the questing system they could have fixed that.
Last edited by MadSexual; 12-03-2013 at 08:32 PM.
But.... Bethesda RPGs don't have respec (barring a chance right at the end of the first area of the game)?Ruined? Diablo 3 and Bethesda RPGs (in the "my actions don't have consequences"-sense, also because of the enemies leveling with you).
The game's I consider motivating? The Souls and Witcher games, for example (back then obviously cRPGs from Bioware and Black Isle; and I loved Diablo 1).
Again: I conceded that mmo's probably need to have a re-spec option.
The human mind is weak and I don't want to constantly fight the urge. Just as I would use quicksaves even though I know it ruins the game.
I'll bring this up again because no one gave me an answer: what about adding a difficulty that doesn't allow re-spec-ing? That'd be alright with me if I only have to make that decision once and don't have to think about it for the rest of the game.
Absolutely yay. Having to remake a character simply because you put a skill/stat/whatever into a bad/wrong spot is archaic design. No reason for it. I loved Diablo 2 back when I was a kid and had all the time in the world to make tons of characters... but no way I would want that design now. Games need to have interesting choices to make, like deciding between different abilities, but you shouldn't be locked into one forever.
Bethesda RPG's are a whole different problem if you ask me. By the end of skyrim, I was proficient with nearly every weapon / spell class / and most armor classes. Basically I was everything at once. That kind of kills any sense of the game being an RPG.But.... Bethesda RPGs don't have respec (barring a chance right at the end of the first area of the game)?
If you ask me, having a better skill up system and maybe a real class system would have definitely benefited that experience in the long run.
I get that bethesda RPG's are about using stuff to become proficient with them, and that makes sense but by the end of the game it kinda loses itself due to that fact.
It has happened in every single game of theirs that has been released since morrowind.
Yes but at some cost
Respec-ing ruined Diablo. I vote no. Building characters and going through loot upgrades is more fun than pushing buttons especially because once you get to the end your build is good enough that there's no reason to change.
I'm going with 'nay' for this one. I don't know why but I usually try respeccing when the opportunity presents itself and then quit playing shortly after. Examples of this are Kingdoms of Amalur and Dragon's Dogma.
I don't know if it makes any sense but it just sort of ruins the character I'm playing for me. If I've been leveling by doing archery for a bunch of levels and suddenly through a few clicks turn into a leveled up mage I feel like there's no connection between the actions I take and the results.
I have to add that I sort of enjoy playing messed up characters. Playing a bad race/class combo in EverQuest for example added quite a bit of charm to my main char (until equipment stats made all that pointless at least).
I don't know if it makes any sense but it just sort of ruins the character I'm playing for me. If I've been leveling by doing archery for a bunch of levels and suddenly through a few clicks turn into a leveled up mage I feel like there's no connection between the actions I take and the results.
I have to add that I sort of enjoy playing messed up characters. Playing a bad race/class combo in EverQuest for example added quite a bit of charm to my main char (until equipment stats made all that pointless at least).
Yay. One of the biggest drawbacks of Torchlight II is that I can't respec my characters. Maybe there's a mod for it, I dunno. But it sucks that I made some shitty skill choices when I was new to the game and I can't do anything about it now.
There's a mod that adds Respec potions. By the devs themselves no less, if memory serves.Yay. One of the biggest drawbacks of Torchlight II is that I can't respec my characters. Maybe there's a mod for it, I dunno. But it sucks that I made some shitty skill choices when I was new to the game and I can't do anything about it now.
Okay, thought experiment: Go play Etrian Odyssey. Create one party, stick with that party throughout, and never rest or retire (respec or recreate) your characters.Nope, I want consequences and I want my decisions to be meaningful.
Also, re-spec-ing encourages lazy design.
Also, do no research in advance.
Good luck!
In short: There's nothing wrong with a design built around expecting the player to experiment
You have a lot of faith in the designers. Sometimes things simply Aren't As Good As They Sound, and you're not going to know that using just the information in-game.Which is a good thing.Diablo II - it can fuck you over extremely if you don't spec right
There's no 'challenge' in working to a recommended spec from the internet. There's also no challenge in "Heh, you specced into axes, AND THERE'S NO DECENT AXES FOR FIFTEEN LEVELS!". There's no challenge in coming to a locked door then a moat, and being screwed because you specced into swimming before picking locks.People love unchallenging content tourism. It bores the shit out of me.
Last edited by mclem; Yesterday at 12:12 PM.
There is challenge in having to live with your good and bad decisions.There's no 'challenge' in working to a recommended spec from the internet. There's also no challenge in "Heh, you specced into axes, AND THERE'S NO DECENT AXES FOR FIFTEEN LEVELS!". There's no challenge in coming to a locked door then a moat, and being screwed because you specced into swimming before picking locks.
Three things:
- games of course need to explain their skill trees sufficiently
- all skills need to be viable to a certain degree (you should be able to complete the game with any skill combination .. even though some may make it harder)
- I haven't played EO, so I can't comment on that game. If a game is built from ground up around respeccing, then I won't argue that respeccing shouldn't be in the game
Are the Axes you get after fifteen levels above-average, or have some other perk, compared to other weapons? If the game provides sufficient ways to get around your lacking main weaponry I don't see a problem with having to make a short-term sacrifice for a long-term gain. Of course if it's just an average weapon type that gives far less options than others then that's a problem.There's also no challenge in "Heh, you specced into axes, AND THERE'S NO DECENT AXES FOR FIFTEEN LEVELS!".
As long as the option to backtrack to it is there I don't see a problem with this, if anything it increases the mystery and makes it stand out as a place to check out when you do have lockpicking skills. Plus the game in question might have things like consumables that bypass locks without needing lockpicking skills, or something to let you stay underwater longer without needing swimming skills (but rare and/or expensive enough that it requires a sacrifice).There's no challenge in coming to a locked door then a moat, and being screwed because you specced into swimming before picking locks.
One of my all time greatest speccing games is Dungeon defenders, and I've played a good 500 hours of it. If I couldn't resoec that...I'd cry. I can and its one of the most fundamental aspects of gameplay
Please stop calling me masochistic.Originally Posted by Lord-Audie
I understand the other point of view... you "need" to "pay" for your bad decisions. Then don't re-spec and start a new character and waste your time. Keep your masochistic tendencies from my games bro.
Also, I'm not in favor of it simply because the player needs to be "punished". Being able to respec can affect an rpg's balance big time because it can allow for you to hard counter far more situations. My friend basically did just that for bosses and whatnot in Diablo 3.
Also Diablo 3 was actually really shit at giving the player genuine options and part of that is Blizzard not allowing the player to commit to much of anything.
Edit!!!
This isn't an example of why not allowing full respecs never works it's an example of how fucking bad the games you must be playing are. Mass Effect does stuff like that and that's why I loathe that game.There's no 'challenge' in working to a recommended spec from the internet. There's also no challenge in "Heh, you specced into axes, AND THERE'S NO DECENT AXES FOR FIFTEEN LEVELS!". There's no challenge in coming to a locked door then a moat, and being screwed because you specced into swimming before picking locks.
Last edited by Comfort Jones; Yesterday at 12:52 PM.
Definitely Yay. Part of the reason I'm so turned off to TL2 and PoE.
Some people talk up no-respec like it makes you more attached to your character or something, but I feel it's so artificial.
Some people talk up no-respec like it makes you more attached to your character or something, but I feel it's so artificial.
Yes. But they frequently don't. To - and this is crucial - the extent that I don't fully trust any game to be completely accurate in its descriptions and clear about the nuances about it. I'll return to it someday, but I got put off Demon's Souls significantly when I levelled up... and started dealing less damage to enemies.Three things:
- games of course need to explain their skill trees sufficiently
Combinatorial explosions make that very, very difficult. And it's worth bearing in mind that this isn't a one-way thing, either. How do you reconcile the occasions when there's an obscure skill synergy that happens to make the game ridiculously easy?- all skills need to be viable to a certain degree (you should be able to complete the game with any skill combination .. even though some may make it harder)
Besides which, at what spec should the game be balanced for? There's three different 'increase the parties' defense' spells in EO. One is *far* more powerful than the other two due to a bug, but the game does somewhat give the impression that it's balanced around that spell.
In short: Balance is really, really hard.
In the case of EO, the notion is not so much that you're a *character* as you are running a *guild*, you can create several characters and swap them in and out of the party as you go. On top of that, a character can be retired (Start again from L1 with some stat bonusses compared to a fresh L1), or rested (Respec at the cost of a few levels)- I haven't played EO, so I can't comment on that game. If a game is built from ground up around respeccing, then I won't argue that respeccing shouldn't be in the game
In a sense, this idea's actually extremely traditional - Might and Magic and (I think) Bard's Tale have similar systems of subbing characters in and out situationally, and EO fully takes advantage of it (There's some quests which require certain classes to be present, and EO2 has some passages that are only navigable in parties with a certain member present).
In short, experimentation is key to the game, and there's an expectation that in the postgame content, you pretty much *need* a few specific characters specced in a few specific ways to win - but part of the joy of the postgame is treating that as a puzzle to be solved.
Unfortunately, it's not a very good puzzle, since it's partly-dependent on a subtle feature of a given skill (where putting five points into the skill is better than putting ten points into it), but the intent is good, and I gather it's handled better in the later games!
In short: EO was absolutely balanced around the expectation that the player would respec, adapt, reform their party. So... is there not a reasonable argument that many other games that permit respeccing are also balanced around that expectation?
Last edited by mclem; Yesterday at 12:54 PM.
I don't like it.
As long as there's an unlock tree that allows you to change direction somewhat, I like choices being permanent. Until the end game at least.
But I don't like it if you have to be an archer from level 1 to get the bow of destiny, for instance. You should be able to attain anything still, within a few levels into the game. Either by an optional spec reset, or a taster period before being asked to commit.
As long as there's an unlock tree that allows you to change direction somewhat, I like choices being permanent. Until the end game at least.
But I don't like it if you have to be an archer from level 1 to get the bow of destiny, for instance. You should be able to attain anything still, within a few levels into the game. Either by an optional spec reset, or a taster period before being asked to commit.
I'm all for it, I guess. I really liked being able to switch on the fly in Diablo 3.
I can see why it would affect the level design profoundly, though. So it's not something that should be done lightly. It's key to the whole game, and if done right would mean an entirely different game arises.
I can see why it would affect the level design profoundly, though. So it's not something that should be done lightly. It's key to the whole game, and if done right would mean an entirely different game arises.
If a game have specing, I'm probably not playing it. But if I do, I research and get a chart so I know exactly what to pick from start to finish.
I like games where if I want to be a Sorcerer I get ALL sorcerer skills, not a select few depending on where you put points.
I like games where if I want to be a Sorcerer I get ALL sorcerer skills, not a select few depending on where you put points.
I personally don't mind having the option available, so long as it's limited by cost.
Granted, it really all comes down to game design. Games that actually encourage you to respec, because they have created challenges that benefit particular focuses, can be fun in their own right.
I do firmly sit in the boat that it is fun to 'own' your choices and to accept the strengths and weaknesses of your character in these kinds of games. You realize what missed opportunities you've created, as well as find unique moments where your particular build or skill-set shine.
Granted, it really all comes down to game design. Games that actually encourage you to respec, because they have created challenges that benefit particular focuses, can be fun in their own right.
I do firmly sit in the boat that it is fun to 'own' your choices and to accept the strengths and weaknesses of your character in these kinds of games. You realize what missed opportunities you've created, as well as find unique moments where your particular build or skill-set shine.
I'm not a fan of not being able to respec, I would love to get rid of that silly looking ram on my ship in AC4...
A big fat yay from me... it's murder when you get stats/abilities wrong and you have to start over from the beginning.
Sounds less like a respec vs no respec debate and more of a "one more reason AC4 isn't as good as Ubisoft would have the world believe" kind of point, man.I'm not a fan of not being able to respec, I would love to get rid of that silly looking ram on my ship in AC4...
I'll say right now games like Diablo 2 and Path of Exile would be sorta dumb if you could fully respec. You can already influence quite a lot with different gear and stuff, if you could just completely undo all choices they would have no way to do certain things. Say you're doing a hardcore mode run, well you need to be able to plan and evaluate risks and rewards because certain bosses or enemies might give an overly specialized build trouble. Oh wait nvm lol I can just specialize for any situation I need to.
It is bad when a game completely murders you for making a few small mistakes. Path of Exile doesn't really hide any information, you can plan out pretty much the entire build from level 1 with out a guide. I did it, and the only ARPG I played before that was Diablo 3 which didn't let you commit like PoE demands you do.
I think respecing goes a long way, in games where certain powers are not useful in a game. I really don't think players should be completely held at fault for their choices without real game world testing of each power/skill/ability selected.
I feel that in general a lot of gamers are way caught up with having to build a character optimally. It's not the end of the world if you have a couple of poorly places skill points. And if it's possible to make it impossible to continue playing due to 'bad placements' in certain skills or you get minimal to no advantage from levelling some skills compared to others, then I feel that's simply bad game design/balance.
That being said, I don't mind limited and/or behind a (ingame) paywall respeccing. I just don't like the idea of being able to completely switch out your skillset to best suit each situation. I prefer the idea of having to play with/around the weaknesses of one's build. Maybe make whether you can respec freely a selectable option at the start of a playthrough? Idunno
That being said, I don't mind limited and/or behind a (ingame) paywall respeccing. I just don't like the idea of being able to completely switch out your skillset to best suit each situation. I prefer the idea of having to play with/around the weaknesses of one's build. Maybe make whether you can respec freely a selectable option at the start of a playthrough? Idunno
Depends on the game. Mostly yay.
Lack of proper respecs is the reason I haven't played PoE beyond the first couple hours. I'd probably like it, but having to make a new character every time I wanted to try a new build or correct a mistake sounded too harsh for a game that boasts having a huge skill tree. I didn't want to get to that point just to frustrate myself, or have to check guides beforehand.
I have no idea why people like to be punished that way. It doesn't adds longevity to the game, just limits experimentation and wastes your time. Plus makes character attachment non-existent since they're all disposable.
I have no idea why people like to be punished that way. It doesn't adds longevity to the game, just limits experimentation and wastes your time. Plus makes character attachment non-existent since they're all disposable.
That is probably because you equipped a different weapon that doesn't scale with the stat you've upgraded. And it can always be rectified. Just get another weapon. In the Souls games, you can make pretty much any weapon a viable option and complete the game with it.I'll return to it someday, but I got put off Demon's Souls significantly when I levelled up... and started dealing less damage to enemies.
I don't even think that every weapon and every skill should be balanced so they are exactly even. Make some of them weaker, others stronger. That's totally okay as long as you can still complete the game (even though it might be harder for some builds). In fact, I think there should be nuances to the balancing, it makes the game more interesting.In short: Balance is really, really hard.
Sounds to me like it would be sufficient if the player was limited to swapping party members, as in the old rpgs you mentioned.In short: EO was absolutely balanced around the expectation that the player would respec, adapt, reform their party. So... is there not a reasonable argument that many other games that permit respeccing are also balanced around that expectation?
Last edited by Bedlam; Yesterday at 01:44 PM.
Its always seemed like cheating somehow to me.
You don't have to.Originally Posted by Infinite Ammo
A big fat yay from me... it's murder when you get stats/abilities wrong and you have to start over from the beginning.
.Originally Posted by icy_eagle
I feel that in general a lot of gamers are way caught up with having to build a character optimally. It's not the end of the world if you have a couple of poorly places skill points. And if it's possible to make it impossible to continue playing due to 'bad placements' in certain skills or you get minimal to no advantage from levelling some skills compared to others, then I feel that's simply bad game design/balance.
No.Originally Posted by Weilthain
you just used the net to find out the best builds anyway.
Last edited by Bedlam; Yesterday at 02:10 PM.
respec is fine.
you just used the net to find out the best builds anyway.
you just used the net to find out the best builds anyway.
I'm definitely for respecing. If I am locked into a tree like Path of Exile, I end up just looking up what the optimal path is so I don't screw it up rather than experimenting and playing on my own.
You could just play on your own without guides and accept that an optimal character build isn't necessary.I'm definitely for respecing. If I am locked into a tree like Path of Exile, I end up just looking up what the optimal path is so I don't screw it up rather than experimenting and playing on my own.
You guys keep talking like this is a binary issue when it absolutely isn't. Some games benefit from it, some don't. Games like the Souls series shouldn't and luckily don't offer respecs. In my opinion the Diablo series shouldn't either because it affects the other aspects of the game negatively (Diablo 3).
Actually, no, it's - I believe - because the tendency happened to shift at the point I made the change. The problem was inadequate feedback to inform me of that. I felt unable to make educated decisions, and that leads to the frustration of analysis paralysis.That is probably because you equipped a different weapon that doesn't scale with the stat you've upgraded. And it can always be rectified. Just get another weapon. In the Souls games, you can make pretty much any weapon a viable option and complete the game with it.
Which means the game has to - necessarily - be balanced around the assumption that the player has selected the weakest possible combination. That'll in turn have a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of the strongest combo.I don't even think that every weapon and every skill should be balanced so they are exactly even. Make some of them weaker, others stronger. That's totally okay as long as you can still complete the game (even though it might be harder for some builds). In fact, I think there should be nuances to the balancing, it makes the game more interesting.
All you're doing there is necessitating a catch-up grind for little direct benefit. Which is - effectively - what the game does anyway when you respec, although with a respec it's a grind of a few levels, whereas with what you're describing, it's a grind from scratch. Why is a grind from scratch better?Sounds to me like it would be sufficient if the player was limited to swapping party members, as in the old rpgs you mentioned.
Last edited by mclem; Yesterday at 05:06 PM.
better yet, it should be impossible to make a useless character.
Yea, but make it painful enough in terms of resource/money costs that you won't be switching your build like you switch your socks.
Should pencils have erasers? Yay or nay?
| Thread Tools | |