Jagged Alliance Don'ts

[UniversalWolf]

I agree 100% that the level of detail in JA2 v1.13 is excessive for a (presumably) plot and character driven RPG...

I disagree entirely. Neglecting the detail gives you a cRPG with dumbed-down combat like Fallout or Arcanum. Sure, Fallout combat is okay, but it's far from special, and it's one of the weaker points of the game. Arcanum combat is mediocre at best, and mars and otherwise great cRPG.

Wasteland 2 is not going to be JA2. You're not going to be battling for territory sector-by-sector against an entire army. It's going to be, I suspect, much closer to Fallout, in which battles with more than 20 combatants are rare. Excessive detail and micromanagement are not going to be a problem precisely because there will be less fighting than in JA2. A failure to include -- at minimum -- a JA2 level of detail will make combat a perfunctory exercise. You will be left with plot and character, without substantive, engrossing combat mechanics. A mistake, because there's no reason Wasteland 2 can't have both. No reason at all. Detailed combat mechanics are necessary for any great RPG. Detailed combat mechanics are what gave birth to RPGs in the first place.

In short, the fact that W2 will be more of a cRPG and less of a combat simulator than JA2 is an argument for more detailed combat mechanics, not less.

There should be a quick-battle mode for those who want it, and it should use an updated version of classic Wasteland combat, which was and still is very fun on it's own. Problem solved.

[Drool]

You will be left with plot and character, without substantive, engrossing combat mechanics.

You say this like it's a bad thing. I don't want a combat simulator. I don't want excessive levels of realism in combat any more than I want to manage my food intake and sleep schedules.

[Independent George]

In short, the fact that W2 will be more of a cRPG and less of a combat simulator than JA2 is an argument for more detailed combat mechanics, not less.

There should be a quick-battle mode for those who want it, and it should use an updated version of classic Wasteland combat, which was and still is very fun on it's own. Problem solved.

But the question is, how much more detailed combat mechanics?

JA2 combat mechanics depended on making visual contact with your opponents at about 25 squares in a much larger arena. Assault rifles had effective ranges of around 35 squares, Sniper rifles could hit targets beyond visual range at 75-80 squares. That works in a tactical strategy game, where recon and careful advancement under overlapping fields of fire were a significant portion of the game. It works less well in an RPG where this would eat up an excruciating amount of time to resolve a single random encounter.

In an RPG, the engagement distance has to be closer, and except for some large-scale set-piece battles, most of the combat should resolve a lot faster. So while I support keeping things like the wound/bleeding/healing models, cover/concealment, suppressed weapons, night combat, and weapon attachments would translate extremely well to an RPG, not all of it can or should.

[_Quinn]

It works less well in an RPG where this would eat up an excruciating amount of time to resolve a single random encounter.

I agree. However -- apparently unlike most -- I think this means you need to concentrate on a fast UI, rather than a simpler or less-deep combat model. In particular:

In an RPG, the engagement distance has to be closer

I really don't like this conclusion. There's no technical reason why, especially in a game with LoS, you can't just place all of the NPCs/monsters on the map when the PCs enter it. Then you don't need to do anything special to let people engage (or avoid) combat as they see fit: stealth, high perception, long-range weapons, etc, all fall out without you having to program anything special for them. It should lead to a very natural feel for different approaches to the game.

[Woolfe]

It works less well in an RPG where this would eat up an excruciating amount of time to resolve a single random encounter.

I agree. However -- apparently unlike most -- I think this means you need to concentrate on a fast UI, rather than a simpler or less-deep combat model. In particular:

Personally I like having both... Fast UI in tactical combat, and a quick combat option.

In an RPG, the engagement distance has to be closer

I really don't like this conclusion. There's no technical reason why, especially in a game with LoS, you can't just place all of the NPCs/monsters on the map when the PCs enter it. Then you don't need to do anything special to let people engage (or avoid) combat as they see fit: stealth, high perception, long-range weapons, etc, all fall out without you having to program anything special for them. It should lead to a very natural feel for different approaches to the game.

Yeah I don't think it is due to it being an RPG as much as it being not a reallife combat simulator. The range is usually reduced for simplicity sake. A lot of older games did it due to technical reasons, but there is a "Fun" element too.

[Canageek]

I don't know about all these other JA games, but I bought JA2: Unfinished Business and I have one plea:

Please don't make Wasteland this hard. I know a lot of you are claiming that modern games are too easy, but man, I couldn't get past the first mission with even half my team alive. That thing made Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance look like a joke, which was the hardest game I'd played to that point (At least if you want to keep every character alive); I don't mind if there is a superhardcore mode for those of you who like replaying a mission 6 times so all your characters survive, but please, please have a mode us mere mortals can beat. It doesn't have to be as easy as Fallout 3 mid-game or Torchlight easy, but beatable? Please? I'd like to be able to play the game I purchased, which I wasn't able to to with JA:UB, even on the easiest mode.

[GSoda]

You will be left with plot and character, without substantive, engrossing combat mechanics.

You say this like it's a bad thing. I don't want a combat simulator. I don't want excessive levels of realism in combat any more than I want to manage my food intake and sleep schedules.

This seriously. Plot and characters should be the absolute focus of a RPG. It's the bread and butter of that genre. Combat is just the filler in between the good stuff.

[axeldeath]

Combat is just the filler

If more than half the time you spend playing the game is filler then there's a problem.

[ffordesoon]

Combat is just the filler

If more than half the time you spend playing the game is filler then there's a problem.

Yeah, I know what's being said, but those words were... ill-chosen.

Also, plot is a necessary evil at best. Story is fine. Plot? Noooooo. It's nearly vestigial in a nonlinear sandbox RPG.

Yes, I know prople use "plot" and "story" interchangeably, but they're vastly different. Plot is the spine around which a story is wrapped. Nobody is going to see The Avengers for the plot (Loki gets cosmic thingy, team is assembled to deal with Loki, Loki loses to team), to use a currently popular example. If plot is the bone in the chicken breast, story is the chicken breast and the bone. If plot is the glue keeping the macaroni on the page, story is the macaroni picture in its entirety. Am I making sense?

Probably not. Oh well.

[axeldeath]

So- bad plot and filler combat.

Aren't we supposed to be talking about making a good game?

[Drool]

Also, plot is a necessary evil at best. Story is fine. Plot? Noooooo. It's nearly vestigial in a nonlinear sandbox RPG.

You're vastly underselling plot here. Without the plot, there is no story, it just meanders. Ever see a movie where it feels more like a series of vignettes where it just feels like it's spinning its wheels and nothing really happens and then the ending credits roll? That's what happens with no plot.

Plot is not a necessary evil in the slightest. It can be minor, it can have a light touch, but it must be there. The plot in Wasteland had a very light touch; you didn't even bump into it until about halfway through the game. But it was there. Plot's not the chicken bones; it's yeast. Nobody pays any attention to yeast when they're eating a piece of bread, but you'll certainly notice it if it's missing.

[Ronin73]

Also, plot is a necessary evil at best. Story is fine. Plot? Noooooo. It's nearly vestigial in a nonlinear sandbox RPG.

Plot is not a necessary evil in the slightest. It can be minor, it can have a light touch, but it must be there. The plot in Wasteland had a very light touch; you didn't even bump into it until about halfway through the game. But it was there. Plot's not the chicken bones; it's yeast. Nobody pays any attention to yeast when they're eating a piece of bread, but you'll certainly notice it if it's missing.

Good analogy. Wish I could come up with stuff like that. Every time I try it always seems to fall flat

[ffordesoon]

@Drool:

Fair point.

If I'm honest, part of this is up to personal taste. I really, really, really don't care for stories that feel plotted. Let me counter with another film analogy: have you ever seen a movie where you can tell the screenwriter is following the three-act structure to the letter? Like, "Aaaaaand here's the end of the second act, when the buddy cops get into an argument and stop trusting each other. Golly, I wonder how long into the both-guys-are-lonely montage it'll take for them to realize they're still friends, at which point one of them will realize the other one is in danger? Oop, right on schedule!" You know? I'd rather see your "series of vignettes" any day.

But yes, as reluctant as I am to give plot any credence, your yeast analogy is probably more apt. Dammit.

[Drool]

Well, certainly. Overplotting is just as bad as not enough plot. Romantic comedies are especially bad at this, which is probably why ones that even slightly break the mold stand out so much and are so memorable (eg: When Harry Met Sally).

The thing is, you can still have a pretty substantial plot while giving the players sufficient freedom. Bard's Tale 3 is a fine example of this. It has a very linear plot, and when you break it down, it really shouldn't work:

1) Go to X and kill Y
2) Go to X and get Y and Z
3) Go to X and get Y and Z
4) Go to X and get Y and Z
5) Go to X and get Y and Z
6) Go to X and get Y and Z
7) Go to X and get Y and Z
8) Go to X and kill Y

It's essentially just a long series of fetch quests. But it works because the gameplay is engaging, the puzzles require actual thought, the combat is challenging (boy is it ever), and the story is just fantastic. Never once are you thinking, "Right then, off to the fourth new world to grab two magic tchotchkes." You're wondering what the new place will look like, what you'll need to do when you're there, what new foes you'll face. How badly you're going to get your ass kicked...

I don't think we're in any real danger of getting crushed by excessive plot. It certainly won't be a mission based system. I'd like a good balance, and I think we'll get that. It probably won't be as heavy as in BT3 (I'd be stunned if there was a quest-giver). It'll probably be like in the original: the plot's there, but you might not even know about it until you're about half-way through the game. But once you do catch up to it, it'll be too important to ignore.

[Ronrocken]

Jagged Alliance Dont's:

- Don't play Jagged Alliance: BiA


Anyways, those problems were not in JA2 as far as I remember. Also, Unfinished business was way too hard for new players.

[UniversalWolf]

You will be left with plot and character, without substantive, engrossing combat mechanics.

You say this like it's a bad thing. I don't want a combat simulator. I don't want excessive levels of realism in combat any more than I want to manage my food intake and sleep schedules.

Substantive, engrossing combat mechanics is not "excessive levels of realism" or "food intake and sleep schedules." Thanks for jumping to the worst possible interpretation of what I said though.

I think some of you would be better off reading books. Books don't have any onerous combat mechanics to hinder your enjoyment of the story.

[Lucius]

I think some of you would be better off reading books. Books don't have any onerous combat mechanics to hinder your enjoyment of the story.

While I enjoy books, they don't offer the ability to create your own story like an openworld sandbox RPG allows.

[ffordesoon]

@UniversalWolf:

Books also aren't interactive.

Honestly, this idea some people have that combat equals gameplay is ludicrous. How many verbs in the Oxford English Dictionary are actions that can only be performed in martial combat? A fair few, I'd expect, but nowhere near all. If there's a verb for it, you can make a game about it.

Look, I can be dismissive too: if you like tactical combat that much, play a strategy game. There are plenty.

[Gizmo]

This place is sort of hardcore game hipster place, where anything that got sequel in past 20 years is horrible mainstream shit and those series were cool before they became popular.

Not true. The Witcher and Dark Souls are, for example, great games.
It's just that most old-school fans generally don't like Bethesda's and EAware products.

But the sequels? Witcher was absurdly great ~but Witcher 2 really screwed it up IMO. They stripped out the other cameras, removed his ability to drink potions at need, and made him unable to peek through a door; instead he must march through like an idiot, sometimes into a crowd of opponents. There are some cool aspects in Witcher 2, but on the whole they ruined the gameplay IMO.

Books also aren't interactive.

Most aren't, but it depends on the book.

Honestly, this idea some people have that combat equals gameplay is ludicrous. How many verbs in the Oxford English Dictionary are actions that can only be performed in martial combat? A fair few, I'd expect, but nowhere near all. If there's a verb for it, you can make a game about it.

Look, I can be dismissive too: if you like tactical combat that much, play a strategy game. There are plenty.

Absolutely combat equals gameplay, it's usually the most game related play in any title. I would play a poor silly game if the combat mechanics were a real draw, and I would abandon even a well written story if the combat was stupid and/or poorly designed.

[ffordesoon]

Witcher 1 was a great game buried in a shitty one. The combat was a snoozefest for most of the game, the story didn't get remotely interesting until Act 2, the voice acting - yes, even the Enhanced Edition voice acting - was generally pretty blah, the cameras all sucked, and it was far too long.

Witcher 2 has shitty doors.

I know which one I prefer.