Spiderweb Software Interview
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 491
7. Fallout 3 isn't exactly what we had in mind in regards to tactical combat. We were thinking more along the lines of Temple of Elemental Evil, the Gold Box engine games, Realms of Arkania series, Jagged Alliance, and Silent Storm/Hammer & Sickle. Granted, the last examples blur the lines on being an RPG a bit, but it's hard to see (from our admittedly biased angle) why tactical choices can't be part of what the genre is about given that two of the genre's key elements (oodles of combat and character development) lend themselves to detailed tactical gameplay. Why do you think RPGs are not where we should be going for this? And what is the genre about? (yes, we just had to slip in a "what is an RPG" question)
The only Realms of Arkania game I ever played is Shadows Over Riva. I walked outside town, got attacked, spend a half hour fighting one excruciatingly slow combat, got wiped out, and uninstalled the game. To have (detailed tactical gameplay,) you need details. And that takes time. Which distracts from story, makes it slower to build your character and get cool lewt, and drags the game out excruciatingly. If you want that sort of gameplay, write a game that showcases it (see Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel).
As for the Gold Box games, I played those. A lot. I loved them, but detailed tactical combat was not what they had. My main memory of those was chain-casting web spells on my enemies and waiting for them to suffocate.
As for Temple of Elemental Evil, I didn't play it. It might have had (detailed tactical gameplay.) However, if its Metacritic score is to be trusted, it might not, in fact, have been very good.
Look, in a turn-based RPG, with a small number of dudes fighting a small number of dudes, there isn't much in the way of tactics that is possible. The math isn't there! I think you're wanting something closer to chess. Sure, chess is complex, but that's sixteen pieces on sixteen. For a single-player RPG, the fun is in the story (on a high level) and the stat building and lewt finding (on a low level). The combat is a means to an end. So make it fast and lively, end it, and get on to the next fast, lively combat. I do put in fights with odd tactics, generally weird or boss encounters. It's nice variety. But combat is still the means to an end.
If you really want tactics in an RPG, play chess and give your pieces cute names. Like, (I declare, forsooth, that Queen Zzelma, my 18th level Rogue-Paladin, doth move 4 spaces diagonally in defiance of the Darkbeetle Empire. Hark, she hath slain a Knight, and is thuseth Level 19. Huzzah.) Chess is about quality. RPGs are about quantity.
The whole structure and pace of RPGs is based on having many small fights, occasionally interrupted by a big one. Everything people like about the genre comes, in some way, from that. And small quick fights can't have strategic depth. Because they are, after all, small and quick. Prospective designers ignore this at their peril.
...
15. Tell us about the motivation behind your games. How do you start? Is it "Okay, now I should do another Geneforge sequel" or do you look at a sequel as an opportunity to bring new elements in or trying things differently this time around?
It really does start with the story. With Geneforge, I had an overarching storyline, and I told that. Same with Avernum. With each game, I try to put in incremental improvements in the graphics and game system, but I really look at these games as writing novels. It's just, I use pixels instead of paper.
That is why I am so unapologetic about not remaking my game systems all the time. They are just the medium. I care about the message. I try to make changes for a little extra variety or depth, but that's not where my passion is.
