Am I the only one who hates this in game design?

[Vitruviansquid]

It entirely drives me up the wall when a strategy game doesn't reveal the numbers by which it calculates results. It's perfectly fine when the numbers are a bit obtuse (Civ 4's combat actually works in rounds somehow and units actually have hp?) but they have to be there somewhere. I recently started playing Rome 2: Total War again, and the game has a huge number of stats on units and some almost hidden ones (armor piercing!) but nowhere is it revealed how those numbers work, and it appears to be some kind of trade secret because I can't even find this online. And here I have to decide whether the Suebi Bloodsworn are worth buying over Suebi Club Levy when they seem to have the same kinds of stats just to slightly degrees, and the Bloodsworn are twice as expensive.

Anything drive you completely nuts in an otherwise solidly designed game?

[shadow_archmagi]

Skyrim has the most hateful relationship with giving the player information that I've ever seen in a game.

It displays a number for Armor Value. It doesn't tell you what this number means. (It's converted into a percentage of damage blocked per hit, so it *could* just say you have 52% armor, but it prefers to say you have 307 armor.) It also doesn't mention that every kind of armor gives a bonus based on placement (So an 80 armor breastplate will ACTUALLY provide 160 armor, while an 80 armor helmet might only provide 100.) It also doesn't mention the armor cap, so that values of over 800 are pointless.

I really hate when RPG ability descriptions aren't very helpful. Ideally, you'd mention things like AoE blast radius, casting time, mana cost, etc. so that the player can get a good sense of whether the new thing will fit in with their current playstyle. More often, you get

"Would you like to learn fireball? Fireball unleashes massive amounts of fire for large damage."

THANKS GAME

THAT'LL BE REALLY HELPFUL IF I EVER ENCOUNTER AN ENEMY WITH EXACTLY LARGE HP

[factotum]

Skyrim itself may not tell you that about armour, but clearly it's possible to find it out, because you've just said it in this thread! I think VitruvianSquid may be complaining more about situations where the information just isn't available anywhere, which he's right, *is* really somewhat annoying. I think that's what I liked about the old Heroes of Might and Magic games--how the attack and defence stats of the creatures affected damage done was quoted in the manual, it wasn't any sort of secret.

[NineThePuma]

It also doesn't mention that every kind of armor gives a bonus based on placement (So an 80 armor breastplate will ACTUALLY provide 160 armor, while an 80 armor helmet might only provide 100.) It also doesn't mention the armor cap, so that values of over 800 are pointless.

False! Armor values up to 667 matter, anything above that is over the cap. In addition, armor has an "invisible" factor that adds 25 armor rating for every piece of armor you have, so it caps at 567 listed armor rating. (Lower with a shield and armor buffs like the lord stone or spells)

{{scrubbed}}

[Domochevsky]

False! Armor values up to 667 matter, anything above that is over the cap. In addition, armor has an "invisible" factor that adds 25 armor rating for every piece of armor you have, so it caps at 567 listed armor rating. (Lower with a shield and armor buffs like the lord stone or spells)
{{scrubbed}}

It's also a pretty good indicator of how needlessly convoluted this is, innit. >_>
(And, worse, how impossible it is to gleam this information ingame. I never had any idea what the armor value in Skyrim did, beyond "bigger is better", but even that seems to be false after a certain point.)

[Vitruviansquid]

I played Skyrim.

I thought armor was just armor. :\

edit: The more I think about what has just been revealed to me about Skyrim's armor system, the more it enrages me. The only possible excuse I could come up with for such an a convoluted armor system is that some demand of realism makes it necessary for simulation. But there is nothing about Skyrim that makes this realism necessary or desirable.

[Cikomyr]

I don't know..

I mean.. for strategy games, sure. 100% right. I still hate Blizzard for hiding the whole "Explosive Damage do 50% to small targets, 75% to medium ones, while Concussive damage do 25% to large targets, 50% to medium ones" without even showing who is doing concussive, explosive or normal damage.


But for more.. immersive rpgs? It's just a way to encourage gaming the game. I mean, don't take me wrong: it's fun to know the actual impacts of your stuff. But there's nothing wrong with just.. well, knowing that a sword is a sword, if you get my meaning.

[Cikomyr]

I played Skyrim.

I thought armor was just armor. :\

edit: The more I think about what has just been revealed to me about Skyrim's armor system, the more it enrages me. The only possible excuse I could come up with for such an a convoluted armor system is that some demand of realism makes it necessary for simulation. But there is nothing about Skyrim that makes this realism necessary or desirable.

Capping the actual armor is something that enrages me, to be fair.

Nothing wrong with some convoluted armor system meant to reflect reality. but CAPPING THE FREAKIN' THING WITHOUT BEING TOLD?! What if I play a uber-protection-obsessed heavily armored freak?!

[shadow_archmagi]

Skyrim itself may not tell you that about armour, but clearly it's possible to find it out, because you've just said it in this thread! I think VitruvianSquid may be complaining more about situations where the information just isn't available anywhere, which he's right, *is* really somewhat annoying. I think that's what I liked about the old Heroes of Might and Magic games--how the attack and defence stats of the creatures affected damage done was quoted in the manual, it wasn't any sort of secret.

I only know because I saw it online; I'm pretty sure that the information was extracted from the game via either direct code-harvests or rigorous scientific testing. It is not information one would accidentally stumble upon while playing.

False! Armor values up to 667 matter, anything above that is over the cap. In addition, armor has an "invisible" factor that adds 25 armor rating for every piece of armor you have, so it caps at 567 listed armor rating. (Lower with a shield and armor buffs like the lord stone or spells)

While it is true that this is not displayed, ranting about how it is not displayed and providing false information that is easily checkable just makes you look like you're complaining to complain.

{{scrubbed}}

[Grinner]

Does the game have a sandbox or open play mode? If so, it may be possible to reverse engineer the effects of these values with the help of a memory editor. That's entertaining, right?

[NineThePuma]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Hiro Protagonest]

{{Scrubbed}}

I...



That statement makes no sense to me.

[Vitruviansquid]

I don't know why you came to this thread, NineThePuma, but I came to complain about stuff.

If you are the type who believes in authorial intent, I even made this thread to complain about stuff. There. I said it.

[Cikomyr]

{{Scrubbed}}

The guy was mistaken. Everybody is entitled to being mistaken dude. He apologized.

And uninstalled or not, he still paid good money for a game he feels cheaten him.

[NineThePuma]

Yes, but if he's uninstalled the game a long time ago, there should obviously be some other more recent game for him to complain about. Like, Iunno, Seventh Edition 40k, the crappy gameplay that is fallout, etc. It'd be like me complaining about NES era super mario bros not letting you go to the left. It's irrelevant to my personal experience at this time.

[Cikomyr]

Yes, but if he's uninstalled the game a long time ago, there should obviously be some other more recent game for him to complain about. Like, Iunno, Seventh Edition 40k, the crappy gameplay that is fallout, etc. It'd be like me complaining about NES era super mario bros not letting you go to the left. It's irrelevant to my personal experience at this time.

o_0

Dude, what's your problem?

[NineThePuma]

Dismissive and sarcastic tones in the context of being called out on providing false information.

[Coidzor]

Yes, but if he's uninstalled the game a long time ago, there should obviously be some other more recent game for him to complain about. Like, Iunno, Seventh Edition 40k, the crappy gameplay that is fallout, etc. It'd be like me complaining about NES era super mario bros not letting you go to the left. It's irrelevant to my personal experience at this time.

Yeah, you don't have to give the most recent example if another example sticks out to you more due to having created a more relevant/easily accessed memory.

[boj0]

Pokémon is terrible about this, tons of information on how stats work (EVs and IVs) had to be data mined; it doesn't help that the games barely touch on the fact these numbers even exist, let alone the purpose of them.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I don't think there's anything wrong with hiding information from the player. To some extent, information the player is aware of can create a sort of artificial reaction to the environment, and make the game feel less spontaneous and fun because of it.

That said, I'm always a little annoyed once I've gotten into a game for the fun of it, decide I do want to know about the underlying mechanics a little, and find out that there's no way to actually find out what I want to know, even with 100% secrets unlocked.

Nowadays, we have the Internet to give us a lot of information, but now and then I find a game that doesn't have a gamefaq entry, there's no wiki, and the game has convoluted or hidden mechanics that seem to defy explanation.

I think the best practice would be to provide some in-game way for the player to discover the hidden mechanics on their own when it's clear the basic players have been satisfied with an immersion run through. Like maybe those collection side-quests or other 100% completion optional end-game content explains the system, for those who would be interested in that kind of thing. (More hardcore players)

But I understand that's the point of strategy guides these days.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I don't always need that much info for a game, but is is annoying when you're not getting proper feedback from the game. I don't need to know exactly how much damage I did, but I want to know that I hit really hard or not that hard. That helps me figure out how to be effective.

(Case in point: Bastion doesn't hand out numbers to you, but it uses a lot of cues to show you how heavily you're hitting. Cleverly-adjusted HP values often mean that using a higher-damage weapon will take down an enemy in fewer hits, which is something you can notice and measure.)

[KillianHawkeye]

Here's one: One of the games I'm currently playing on my Xbox is "Sid Meyer's Civilization: Revolution", which if you don't know is pretty much a more basic and more limited version of the Civilization games available on PC.

One of the things that is highly obfuscated is the manner that combat works between units. Every unit has an attack and a defense score, and you can combine three of the same unit into an "army" that has numbers three times as high. But what the game doesn't tell you is that there is some kind of randomization factor that allows weaker units to defeat stronger ones (sometimes ones that are even 3 times as strong!), and also that there is something more complex going on during combats involving who goes first and how many actual people or vehicles are in each unit because I've observed that getting in the first hit and having greater numbers on the field end up being pretty big advantages. And absolutely none of it is touched on in the in-game tutorials or civilopedia.

[Knaight]

I'm not fond of opaque systems in strategy games, or of needlessly convoluted ones in general (Skyrim's armor seems to fit in here). Worse than both is stats where you don't even know what they go to, because there's either an acronym which isn't defined anywhere, some really vague stat, or some really obtuse named stat that also isn't defined. Then there are numbers presented involving actual physical measurements, where the units just never seem to show up.

[Rodin]

Luck stats. Just...luck stats.

Yes, let's put a stat in the game with NO outright stated purpose, and then allow you to put points into said stat. Am I screwing myself with low Luck? Am I wasting points by putting loads of points into Luck Who knows!?

[SiuiS]

{{Scrubbed}}

He is not providing inaccurate information. The information provided was "armor has a hidden restriction system that makes it much less functional than advertised" and the specifics of the example demonstrate this effectively without being playable.

Yes, but if he's uninstalled the game a long time ago, there should obviously be some other more recent game for him to complain about. Like, Iunno, Seventh Edition 40k, the crappy gameplay that is fallout, etc. It'd be like me complaining about NES era super mario bros not letting you go to the left. It's irrelevant to my personal experience at this time.

Your personal experience is not relevant to the thread enough to dictate other people's positions. NES Mario is very relevant to me, for example; what makes you more important than me? To OP we are both Internet strangers. We all have things we got hung up on, good and bad. This is the same as saying I cannot wax poetic over Lufia 1 and 2 because they're SNES and not relevant systems.

Personally, I dislike the original super Mario 2, since the first* level opens with a huge pit that's almost impossible to jump without having the correct pixel placement. But i also dislike that they have us a dumbed down game instead.



* note: not actual 100% first stage.

[Domochevsky]

Luck stats. Just...luck stats.

Yes, let's put a stat in the game with NO outright stated purpose, and then allow you to put points into said stat. Am I screwing myself with low Luck? Am I wasting points by putting loads of points into Luck Who knows!?

Such a favorite of mine.

[Grif]

Such a favorite of mine.

I still don't quite know how Luck works in Fire Emblem. Seriously.

[Knaight]

Luck stats. Just...luck stats.

Yes, let's put a stat in the game with NO outright stated purpose, and then allow you to put points into said stat. Am I screwing myself with low Luck? Am I wasting points by putting loads of points into Luck Who knows!?

The best part is, outside of the handful of games which actually tell you what Luck does (e.g. Fire Emblem) it's also irritatingly vague. At least you can reasonably guess what Strength does, even if the game doesn't tell you. Luck? No such luck.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I still don't quite know how Luck works in Fire Emblem. Seriously.

I got the impression Luck modified your chances of scoring critical hits, and dodging critical hits. I think there were other modifiers as well for both, though. And I'm unsure.

I just remember the high-luck characters tended to also be the big crit rate characters.

[factotum]

But what the game doesn't tell you is that there is some kind of randomization factor that allows weaker units to defeat stronger ones (sometimes ones that are even 3 times as strong!)

Regardless of how the stats work, *that* sort of thing can die in a fire, IMHO. If I attack an enemy with overwhelming force, and there aren't obvious environmental factors affecting the outcome (e.g. they're entrenched behind walls), then the effort I spent gathering that force should be rewarded. I shouldn't end up with my army dying to a load of scrubs due to some random dice roll!