POLL: Your Game Preferences

Remove all ads!

This is a poll made to give us all an idea of what people like in a game. I've brought in some issues from Lionheart and Greyhawk alike. Many questions may not offer for a very specific answer, but that's the point. So bear with it and choose the one that fits you most, even if it doesn't even nearly hit the mark. Reason I'm making this is that I've found many people in other boards have a taste so different than my own that I have to see what the situation is like here in Sorcerer's Place.

Edit:

Note that the scaling in the beginning means that the enemies and items are actually dependant on your character level. It doesn't mean that you should find neater stuff towards the end, that comes as obvious. Rather, if as a 1:st level player you're in area x beating 1:st level rats and getting "1:st level" items. Then as a 10:th level player when you come back to the same area x, the rats will now be level 5-8 so as not to make things too easy for you. And the items will also be stronger. (this question is partially related to the "random items" question)

[ April 26, 2003, 15:09: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 12 question(s). 55 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Your Game Preferences (55 votes.)

Scaling? (enemies/items get more powerful as you do) (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 76% (42)
* No. - 24% (13)

Do you prefer the player to get uberpowerful in the end or not? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 45% (25)
* No. - 55% (30)

Ultimate freedom vs. Well pre-scripted linearity? (Choose 1)
* Ultimate freedom of choice. - 53% (29)
* Liearity with well-scripted events. - 47% (26)

Realistic damage (few hits per enemy) vs. Opposite (many many hits per enemy)? (Choose 1)
* Realism. - 67% (37)
* Non-realism. - 33% (18)

Balance before Realism? (sword & magic equal, or magic is stronger than sword) (Choose 1)
* Balance at the expense of other. - 58% (32)
* Realism, even if it means some classes are put at a disadvantage. - 42% (23)

Random items? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 75% (41)
* No. - 25% (14)

Romances? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 87% (48)
* No. - 13% (7)

Mature content (blood, sex, profanity in general)? (Choose 1)
* Yes. - 93% (51)
* No. - 7% (4)

Light-hearted atmosphere vs. Serious one? (Choose 1)
* Jokes and light humouristic references are ok. - 62% (34)
* Seriousness is better. - 38% (21)

New innovative systems vs. Use the good old ones? (D&D rules vs something new) (Choose 1)
* Try new things, something cool could be discovered. - 56% (31)
* Stick to the old ones, they work and we know them. - 44% (24)

Turnbased vs. Realtime? (Choose 1)
* Turnbased. - 49% (27)
* Realtime. - 51% (28)

What is the most important thing in a game's contents? (Choose 1)
* Dialogue. - 38% (21)
* Battle. - 11% (6)
* Exploring (game areas, items and game features alike). - 45% (25)
* Graphics & Music, they create the feeling. - 5% (3)

 

There should have been a quasi-realtime option where you use the pause button as in BG.

 

Ah, that's true. But just about every realtime game I've played has that option so I assumed it part of realtime.

 

I think items should get more powerful as you do as you will know where to look as you level but I think there should be a range of levels in each area, so then you encounter some easy and some more difficult.

I think you should get quite powerful but not so as nothing challenges you.

I think there should be a lot of freedom but also a decent storyline that is just loose enough to let there be freedom, however it should still include consequences for taking too long.

Realism would be better, unlike some games because like in IWD, HoF would mean everything would take ages, like the White dragon took 3 hours with a rather low-level party, to admit it
I think it could have been more realistic

Realism again, but it should have some sort of balance

Random items are a must, a previous adventurer or inhabitant may always drop something

Yay for romances, they are entertaining,

Mature content... um, blood and guts and stuff, yes, other stuff, mmm, as long as it isn't too graphic or anything.

fairly serious but knows when to joke

Try something new I'd like to try my ruleset in a proper game one day. Not just the arena fight.

Realtime with pausing

I think it's all important, but Dialogue can determine most things about the game.

 

Screw realism if it gets in the way of the plot (Final Fantasy wasn't extraordinary realistic - especially in combat, but it seemst that most games have well-thought-out plots).

On the other hand, it's nice to have realism in a realistic game (e.g. James Bond, some strategy games, etc).

 

Final Fantasy is a different type of game.

But as I said in the example, I did not mean that realism should be something to act agains magic or imagination. I merely meant that should the hits do realistical damage, spells have realistic effects etc. But granted, it's hard to compare this with Final Fantasy as it belongs to that game to whack a small cactus for 9999999 points of damage and still not killing it.

As for the other realism, balance vs. realism, I'm 100% on the side of realism there. For as long as balance is the primary concern, the games will never develop. It is a simple fact that magic is stronger than sword. Should the player choose to play a mage, then they would see much more than a mere swordsman. I don't understand why in games such as Alien vs. Predator they try to make the 3 classes equal, for everyone knows that Predator is stronger than an Alien and a Human combined. The entire point, the feeling, and the immersiveness of it all gets flushed down the toilet when this known fact is taken away.

That's wrong with multiplaying-games. For all the players can see is the power, which has to be equal with every player. If you would roleplay, it wouldn't make a difference as each class would be equally good in their own way. I for one like to get a rather more unique character while multiplaying who doesn't have the power most other players do. It certainly doesn't take anything away from the enjoyment. At least I would wish that they forgot the stupid balancing from singleplayergames. For there no player would have to watch another being more powerful than they themselves simply for choosing a different class.

I would love to have a game some day where I could be a simple jester or a diplomatic talker with no combative skills whatsoever. And know that I could be no match at all to a true swordsman in battle, who even he would know that he would be no match for an Archmage.

Edit: Take that Archmage away, for as Raistlin proved in Dragonlance, and Elminster did in The Making of a Mage, even a fairly low-level magic-user can easily subdue a being of great physical power, should this being not have protection against magic.

[ April 27, 2003, 12:34: Message edited by: Foradasthar ]

 

Actually, I think that Final Fantasy was only an extreme example. Sure, it's unrealistic to whack a cactus for a million points of damage and still not kill it, but certain other things in computer games can be equally absurd or strange.

 

I wish fighter characters would be able to stand up to spell casters even at high levels one on one.

*Wail of the Banshee? Ha! Saving throw made! Now eat my blade, wizard!*

 

But why? I really don't understand. To say that is the same as saying that you'd wish an experienced martial artist to fare against an assault helicopter or a tank in a battle on open ground. It's asking for something that is ludicrous because it's so impossible. I can understand this in some self-made fantasy world where the laws are yours to make, even if I didn't agree with magic being so weak ever. I could even enjoy such a game if it was well-made. But the fact that game-makers do that sort of thing (and then have the audacity to claim that the game uses some D&D rules or something) is entirely against what makes Forgotten Realms (D&D) and Dragonlance what they are. So, why?

 

Well, Foras, sorry for the off-topic post above.

That aside, I would like to state that it is simply a wish of mine, though I know how ludicrous it sounds.

But wouldn't it be cool if the martial artist could dodge bullets, kick incoming tank shells aside and bring down a helicopter with his bare hands?

Or a warrior simply absorbing the lighting bolts, magic missiles and whatnot until the mage runs out of spells and puts a sword through his gut.

Yes, this post is off topic too, but I felt it was somewhat neccessary. Apologies to all who felt their discussion was interrupted and good day.

 

As the creator of this thread I state that this is not offtopic.

The purpose of this thread was to make a poll where we can see how the opinions of the players here are divided, and to discuss the different questions/issues mentioned in the poll.

I believe that I may have a hunch of what you mean, though. Just a hero who can do all that neat stuff because he's so powerful? That's fine. But in terms of a real fantasy world I'd say that it would get pretty overtaken and boring if every warrior was able to dodge bullets, absorb magic and 80t tanks around like it was nothing.

 

Scales? Yes, but I still would like to meet many low-level instead of only some highlevel.

Überpowerfull? No, it just ruins the gameplay. Like in ToB, level 40? YEK!! In IWD, level 13? Bingo

Freedom or Linear? Freedom, I sill would like to join up with the legion of Chimera in IWDII instead of killing them. I hate the ten-towns for giving me the mission.

Realistic Damage? Yep, loves realistic games. Much more funnier.
/me critically hits unarmored goblin in the head with his sword for 38 damage and the goblin...
...survives?? Just doesn't make sence.

Balance or Realism? Relaism, but I would still like to see my fighter being able to kill a wizard by himslef. Just DON'T make them too unbalanced. But you CAN make items so good that they will balance the game again.

Random Items? Yes.
/me meets Rumpeskumpe the Paladin which carries his holy avenger...
...or not?

Romances? Yes, but only if they are great and not like the ones in Fallout 2.
/me says to noble's daugther:
-Can we have sex, we just met eachother after all?
-Sure thing, says noble's daughter.
Don't think so.

Mature Content? Of course. It would be great if you could sleep with a noble's wife and make him challenge you in a duel where his house is on the bidding.

Humour or Seriousness? Seriuosness, but a joke every now and then wouldn't be bad at all.
/me finally meets with his nemesis and half-brother Sarevok and now Garrick says;
Life... ...is glorious.

D&D or New? D&D. I love D&D and will always stick to that. That is the only bad thing about Fallout 2.

Turnbased or Realtime? Realtime, I just don't want to wait for the enemy to finish his turn before I can move. Of course, it MUST be pauseable.
/me runs against his opponent, screaming and swinging his sword in the sky and done, enemy turn.

Most Important Thing? Exploring, that is one thing that I missed in BG2, ToB, IWD1 and IWD2. They didn't have this, Fallout 2 and BG1 have.

 

Whenever I play a game, if at the end I'm not either the Alpha or the Omega, and have a HUGE kick-ass weapon, I die a little.

 

I voted turnbased as all the IE and BG games are turnbased. You just dont see it most of the time. BG had the best battle system I have seen. I voted turnbased due to the fact that for me BG is turnbased. I am not all that fond of the Arcanum and Fallout style turnbased with action points and stuff. Just too slow.

 

Granted, the action point turn-based games are kind of a bit "old school". Xcom and all those.

They have advantages, but the Infinity is probably the new-era and the way to go, now. With the *ability* to pause; but not the requirement. And the AI scripts make it a lot smoother. Less micromanagement.

 

There are some if's and buts to this poll. there should be humor but not so much that the game losses its appeal. there needs to be some seriousness. And there should be blood and perhaps some profanity. If there are any soldiers or warriors in a game it's a given that they curse.
I think there should be some romance, but hey, i'm female there shouldn't be too much that the storyline is horribly murdered, though.

 

Wow. Over 40 people have voted on this. Good thing, I wasn't expecting this many to say the truth. At least now we have a pretty good picture of where SP peeps stand on things. It was important (well as important as games can be anyway) for me personally to know what people thought about these things, as my own tastes have always seemed to be so far from normal.

 

Hmm... as this is a form of questionnaire and maybe if you know of any gaming companies, maybe you could send this poll as a term of primary information? Just an idea. Might have found you alittle extra cash as well?

 

Well 40 people is next to nothing really. Compare that with for example the thousands of votes that you see in SWG homepage weekly. Any company can arrange a vote that will take in more than tens of thousands of votes easily if they wanted to. The reliability of such votes can be questioned of course, since I think in SP the amount of trolls is less than 1% of the usual amount of trollers in bigger boards. But it's still nice, considering that usually you get around 20 votes before the poll fades away and is forgotten.

 

And when I voted? As I recall, never...
Anyway, reading the replies I got the idea.
Balance, realism, so much to say but nobody see the fact that even in hard difficult you get to beat the game, an example, I've played BG2/ToB, the dificult slider doesn't affect the "thinking" of the enemies, but they become "a-one-hit-and-I-kill-you" no, I don't like that, I prefer inteligence, a better way to use spells etc. Ok, I installed Tactics mod, a beauty, but it seems in some cases to disrespect dome rules but no matter how hard is a battle you always learn how to beat. Right, it will make no sense if you can't defeat them. One thing first, what I would like in a game (BG, Fallout, etc. kind)is a little bit of random on everything. Example, once you finish one of this games, the next times you know what you have to do: dialogue mode: press 1, 3, 5, Enter, 4, end of dialogue. it becomes just a memory game where you do everything by the way you did it last time, catch the idea? You know, example, in the third encounter you will find the sick guy that you have to take to the arpists.
So, I'm sorry but my english doesn't leave me much of vocabulary to explain this in a better way.
Another case, I think the bad guys have loaded dices, why they always make a succesful save throw for everything even if you cast them a grat malison?
And yes, it makes no sense that you hit the fallen paladins with your +4 sword and they manage to survive long enough to kill Jan or any other weak guy you have, also you have -8 armor class and they +1 and you get more damage than they.
Well, I'm sorry if I got out of line but I tried to vote and somehow I can't.