Yes, I've played against Chess programs. Problem with Chess is that I find it incredibly boring and absolutely not worth my time. That said, the ruleset is simple enough that an AI can be incredibly strong.
I despise simplistic rulesets, because they're usually made for games without much of a gameplay horizon.
I mean, what's the gameplay of Chess? You move pieces around and solve mathematic equations related to potential moves of the opponent.
Whoop-de-do
Not really, I don't know the new recent approach based on learning databases (with the handy constraint that only their developers can organize matches against other programs), but for other programs they include a lot of strategical knowledge based on centuries of humans studies.
So no, chess isn't just series of combinations, there's a large strategy aspect, and you clearly know nothing of it to argue it's just combinations.
But wait, since when solve an equation is boring? Ok if math was boring for you, it's never been boring for me, not sure from what comes this difference of perception, but that's perhaps why we have this huge difference on combats.
This sort of arguing remind me those of strategical players that need more random to have fun tactical combats. But you quoted you don't like much random in combats.
Chess is probably the perfect example of difficulty with exactly zero rewards when you're playing against an AI.
There's no progression, no exploration, no immersion and no story.
No story, no exploration, ok.
No immersion, I totally disagree. I can analyze a position, strategies, tactics, compare possibilities, and emerge and realize a long time have passed, it's immersion. That's what is really immersion, not an idea of a "good" real life simulation (that no game is, and it's perhaps better as real life tend be tedious).
No progression is also quite wrong, you wrote it with the meaning of feeling that you are progressing. But there's a long learning curve, with a lot of progression potential. But yes it's rarely along one combat, but along multiple combats. So ok it's a too slow learning curve for you, but there's a wide progression potential.
But anyway chess was an irrelevant example, a bit out of topic.
X-Com is too dependent on random rolls for me to find the challenge properly satisfying. At least, the new ones are. The older ones were better.
Ok XCOM1&2 has too much random for you, I see what you mean, so it was a wrong example. In fact I think it's a bit exaggerated because there's two aspects:
- The design trick used a lot, gambling temptations, but they are no way a mandatory tool.
- Secondly manage random doesn't destroy all tactical/strategical depth.
But ok, I don't fully disagree because I'd like a third XCOM series with less random. So in a way, like you, I'm not much fan of too much random.
For the original x-com, I disliked it. So perhaps my comment is wrong because I didn't played it enough. But I don't see why you find it less random. It throws in the face a lot of low chance chance to hit, and even very random enemy hit chance with devastating effects if it hits. Yes it doesn't tempt with gambling tools, but otherwise it's no less random, and even more.
If I remember well you don't like much play indie games (or it was someone else, then sorry for the confusion) but I'll list a few games (all rather indie) as example instead of XCOM1&2:
- Ultimate Space Commando
- Templar Battleforce
- Super Dungeon Tactics
- The Storm Guard Darkness is Coming
- Steam Marines
- I see a sixth but won't quote a game with developers that have banished me for a total absurd reason, at least not with dev that let admin their forums by simple minded idiots. I try avoid promote stupidity.
So the same question, you played them at highest difficulty and found combats boring? Honestly myself I wouldn't be able to play any at highest difficulty, not without a long experience of the game. Except for The Storm Guard Darkness is Coming and probably Super Dungeon Tactics, I could/have beat them at highest difficulty from the knowledge of one or two plays.
At a point there's a problem if no matter the game you find that the combats aren't enough fun so they require a reward to worth be played. If that's your view on combats, then your opinion on combats hasn't much value.
So it's not a detail to know what games had fun combats not requiring any reward but to play them.
So, I have a very, very good instinct for what designers intend when they create rules and mechanics.
So, in that way - I will pick up most systems in modern CRPGs very quickly, and if I didn't - I'd have to be a little retarded considering how much time and energy I've spent investing in such games
Â…
I enjoy a steep learning curve when it makes sense, and when it's not full of arbitrary rules or "puzzle elements".
I hate playing "guess-the-mind-of-the-designer" - but I love playing really challenging games where the designer had a good understanding of both strategic and tactical challenges.
That's two aspects that could be contradictory. On a part it's like you are looking for systems you already know based on tactics you already know, and on another part, you complain it's too easy because you know everything already.
There's really puzzles combats and I see what you mean, but it's very very limited. There's only very few games where combats are really a puzzle spirit even if with more than one solution, myself I noticed only Desktop Dungeon (if memory serves me well).
Even with with only some combats that are like a puzzle as some in Blackguards 1 (much less in BGD2), they are very rare.
But a tactical design of a combat is also going through rejecting plenty possibilities the player could use in another combat. So in part a good tactical design will involve force find new solutions, and make weak/bad many already known.
I'm not saying I don't see at all what you mean about puzzling and rules. Rules are rules so should not be an element of quality/fun, just how they are used. But despite this sound logic, I admit I have this problem with some games. For me combats are no virtual reality, but at a point, some systems like Banner Saga require an extra effort to enter in it. It's really not appealing me. Which doesn't mean that when I achieve make the effort, at end I don't find the combats fun. For example I had fun with Banner Saga with the tempering that the combats terrains don't vary enough from the tactical diversity perspective. But it's still a problem and it's just coming from rules, not how well they are used.
I suspect there's two aspects:
- One is laziness, learn again another new rules system isn't appealing many players.
- The second aspect is imagination, ok combats are nothing realistic, but at some point the mind achieved link combats abstractions and imagination of reality, and this adds value. But the link was done with some rule systems, and it's more difficult to build those links again with really new systems. It could be because of age, or because too many other systems already symbolize well the idea of real combats, and there's no place for one more new.
Yes, that I would agree with. But, for added complexity to feel interesting - to me - it has to be non-redundant.
I mean, I don't enjoy complexity for the sake of complexity.
To put it another way, I prefer complexity that's presented in an uncomplicated way.
Otherwise, the challenge becomes more about book-keeping and less about the strategy or tactics.
For sure that's a limit for many players, a quality for some. The problem I have a bit with PoE1 series is it's many little mechanisms to know that at end doesn't add much value to combats, more to character building complexity.
But what I quoted wasn't rules but micro tactics that are really different, and the number of choices you need have to do, and their precision:
- The more choice to do and the more can be wrong, the more chance you have to do an error.
- The higher is the required precision, the more chance you have to do an error.
It's not by cumulating rules that you'll increase this complexity, it's not that simple. PoE series is a good example to show that the link between the two is weak.
