An opinion you're probably all alone with?

[Zevox]

How is that any different than Morrowind though? Why is it that people can accept selecting an enemy and letting RNG determine if you hit in Diablo clones, RTSs, tactics games, isometric RPGs, JRPGs, and even other first person RPGs, but Morrowind players can't?

Speaking as someone who doesn't like any Bethesda games and has no horse in that race, I'd expect it has to do with the fact that the other games you refer to (besides Diablo, which I can't speak to since I haven't played) are turn-based, not real-time. In turn-based games of course you'll have a miss chance, it's the only way to model the potential to miss a target, or for a foe to dodge a blow, in such a system. In real-time games though the expectation is that since you're in direct control of the attacks through the timing of your button presses, the game will mechanically reflect that. I know personally I'd be very off-put by a game that includes a random miss chance despite otherwise functioning like an action game.

[NichG]

Also don't conflate 'here is a mechanic I think could be better' with 'I hate this game / this is a bad game'. People can love Morrowind and think its great and also identify things that they think after having had 20 years of subsequent gaming experience could be done better.

[Battleship789]

Speaking as someone who doesn't like any Bethesda games and has no horse in that race, I'd expect it has to do with the fact that the other games you refer to (besides Diablo, which I can't speak to since I haven't played) are turn-based, not real-time. In turn-based games of course you'll have a miss chance, it's the only way to model the potential to miss a target, or for a foe to dodge a blow, in such a system. In real-time games though the expectation is that since you're in direct control of the attacks through the timing of your button presses, the game will mechanically reflect that. I know personally I'd be very off-put by a game that includes a random miss chance despite otherwise functioning like an action game.

On the Diablo 2 side of things, you make enough attacks throughout a playthrough that it isn't particularly notable when individual ones miss and I think the community at large is fine with attacks missing (with how old the game is, those who wouldn't be fine with missing have likely moved on by this point.) That said, I don't think removing the hit calculations entirely would impact the game much (see the spoiler below for some discussion, but the overall jist is that any build that interacts with the to hit mechanic is somewhere between mediocre and awful before significant investment into endgame gear, at which point the to hit mechanic is basically irrelevant.) Diablo 3 removed hit rates entirely from the game (outside of some player-side skills that give dodge chances) and, at least in my opinion, the game doesn't suffer for it.

Spoiler: Diablo 2 Aside

Show

There is a push to improve hit rates for pre-endgame characters (level 75ish and lower with non-endgame gear), as the leveling experience is miserable for characters who need to interact with the hit rate formula (especially melee characters, as missing an attack can lead to being stunlocked by enemies.) The formula is level dependent and heavily punishes melee play outside of endgame builds as monsters are typically higher level than a character who is progressing through the game in a normal fashion (this especially true for bosses, where a typical character might have a 50% or more chance to miss even with level-appropriate tricked out gear.) This skews the leveling (and even endgame) meta overwhelmingly to spellcasting builds or physical characters that bypass the hit calculation entirely. There are endgame-viable physical melee builds that do interact with the accuracy mechanic of the game but they require very expensive gear to get reliable hit rates and only come online when the game is basically over. (Typically, these characters are only created after another character has completed the game, found much of the gear required, and is able to trade items for a leveling service from another player.)

[Keltest]

The biggest problem with the hit rate in d2 IMO is that the displayed accuracy is almost certainly wrong. It will display an 80+ percent chance to hit a target only for the next 6 swings in a row to whiff harmlessly past.

[Seppl]

The biggest problem with the hit rate in d2 IMO is that the displayed accuracy is almost certainly wrong. It will display an 80+ percent chance to hit a target only for the next 6 swings in a row to whiff harmlessly past.

That is a well known issue due to lag in multiplayer games, where you are shown to be hitting a monster but you are not actually in range. In theory, the displayed chance should be accurate.

[Keltest]

That is a well known issue due to lag in multiplayer games, where you are shown to be hitting a monster but you are not actually in range. In theory, the displayed chance should be accurate.

Nah, I've seen it in single player as well, to a lesser degree.

[GloatingSwine]

In Diablo 2 it's also because the accuracy displayed isn't accounting for individual monster defense stats and level, so it can vary against different targets.

But yes, there can be positioning jank where the game simultaneously decides that you're in range enough to play the attack animation but not in range enough to actually hit.

[veti]

In Diablo 2 it's also because the accuracy displayed isn't accounting for individual monster defense stats and level, so it can vary against different targets.

But yes, there can be positioning jank where the game simultaneously decides that you're in range enough to play the attack animation but not in range enough to actually hit.

To be fair, you or the target could move in the interval between triggering the animation and the attack connecting.

On the subject of accuracy, am I the only one who thinks VATS in Fallout games is a waste of ammo? I can nearly always get a better hit rate without it, the only exception being on fast-moving targets that are very close up.

[MCerberus]

On the subject of accuracy, am I the only one who thinks VATS in Fallout games is a waste of ammo? I can nearly always get a better hit rate without it, the only exception being on fast-moving targets that are very close up.

I'm actually not convinced that VATS isn't a cleverly-disguised usability option.
But yah, a lot of the time you need to spec into VATS to make it worth-while, like crit builds in FO4

[Batcathat]

On the subject of accuracy, am I the only one who thinks VATS in Fallout games is a waste of ammo? I can nearly always get a better hit rate without it, the only exception being on fast-moving targets that are very close up.

I suspect VATS in the newer Fallout games (at least 3 and New Vegas, I haven't played 4) might be an attempt to include both sides of the player skill / character skill divide, since you have the option either aiming entirely on your own (even if character skill helps) or using VATS, where you literally don't even have to face the right direction on your own and depend entirely on character skill.

[factotum]

VATS is improved in Fallout 4, I think, but yes, it's easier to hit things at long range if you just treat it as an FPS. However, if you've got a hungry ghoul unexpectedly charging at you from 10 feet away that extra time to pick and choose your target can be a godsend, plus there are some benefits for certain builds--for instance, if you pick the right perks, a melee VATS build can basically teleport to the target and punch their head off without taking any damage at all!

[Vinyadan]

On the subject of accuracy, am I the only one who thinks VATS in Fallout games is a waste of ammo? I can nearly always get a better hit rate without it, the only exception being on fast-moving targets that are very close up.

It certainly was in New Vegas, as it didn't account for movement in its percentages, not great for a game with slow, visible javelins.

[GloatingSwine]

To be fair, you or the target could move in the interval between triggering the animation and the attack connecting.

On the subject of accuracy, am I the only one who thinks VATS in Fallout games is a waste of ammo? I can nearly always get a better hit rate without it, the only exception being on fast-moving targets that are very close up.

Depends which Fallout.

In Fallout 3 it's basically godmode. You only take 10% damage whilst in VATS and have a bonus +15% chance to critically hit. You do take 4x durability damage to your weapon, but most are easy to repair. (Also if you want to use explosives at point blank range, VATS is your ticket to do so due to the 10% incoming damage)

In New Vegas it's less powerful. You still get a bit of damage reduction, but still take 75%, enemies are slowed less, and you get no bonus to crit nor do you take extra durability damage. It does allow you to use the special unarmed moves though, and to knock the wings off of Cazadors which means they are easier to hit.

In 4 VATS is the only way to do critical hits at all, which means that if you don't want to use it the entire Luck stat is basically worthless (unless mods).

[chainer1216]

Devil May Cry 2 was fine.

[Rynjin]

Devil May Cry 2 was fine.

This is the first true blasphemy I've seen in this thread. Genuinely one of the worst games I've ever played, and it almost killed the franchise for good before it ever really got started.

[Lord Torath]

The Morrowind %hit chance/hit box discussion brought this to mind:

Anyone here play Homeworld? In that game (and the expansion) your strike craft (scouts, interceptors, bombers) could dodge incoming fire. You could z-burst your scouts to give them a sudden boost, or have your bombers make an abrupt turn, and any incoming fire that might have been on-track to hit them will miss. Each gun had a projectile speed, and larger guns generally had slower muzzle velocities, which made them easier to dodge. Ships each had an accuracy rating (more accurately each weapon on a ship had an accuracy rating), but that only determined if the ship would fire, not if it would hit. There was a very fun trade-off between capital ships and strike craft. You brought things like Multi-gun Corvettes, Drone Frigates, and Missile Destroyers to fend off the strike craft.

Homeworld 2 changed that to a flat percent chance to hit. Suddenly strike craft died in droves. Didn't matter how fast you were, or how you timed your maneuvers, the capital ships had a set chance to hit each time they fired. Strike Craft completely lost their appeal. As did the whole game.

I've never gone back to Homeworld 2. I was playing Homeworld as recently as 3 years ago until my Windows-7 laptop's CD-ROM drive failed. If I could get them running on Windows 10, I'd be still be playing Homeworld and Cataclysm. Someone released Homeworld: Remastered - Homeworld using the Homeworld 2 engine. It looks fantastic, but again, that built-in hit chance just killed it. Not even the original storyline and beautiful graphics could make up for the fact that the gameplay was blah.

I really, really hope Homeworld 3 uses the original Homeworld model, and not Homeworld 2's.

[Velaryon]

Streets of Rage 3 is much, much better than Streets of Rage 2. It's basically an upgrade in every single way.

[Zevox]

Devil May Cry 2 was fine.

This is the first true blasphemy I've seen in this thread. Genuinely one of the worst games I've ever played, and it almost killed the franchise for good before it ever really got started.

Yeah, you might be able to find someone else who shares that opinion, but at the very least it puts you in a in a truly tiny minority. DMC2 is a big enough black mark on the franchise that I doubt even most of the series' most hardcore fans would defend it over the reboot. (Granted, the reboot is legitimately a much better game than DMC2, whatever else can be said about it, but there are people whose opinion of the reboot is much worse than the "fairly good game, but it's just not DMC" that it deserves.)

[Rynjin]

Yeah, you might be able to find someone else who shares that opinion, but at the very least it puts you in a in a truly tiny minority. DMC2 is a big enough black mark on the franchise that I doubt even most of the series' most hardcore fans would defend it over the reboot. (Granted, the reboot is legitimately a much better game than DMC2, whatever else can be said about it, but there are people whose opinion of the reboot is much worse than the "fairly good game, but it's just not DMC" that it deserves.)

DmC has significantly better gameplay, which at least gives someone a reason to play it. Plot-wise I think DmC is worse, if only because DMC2 has such a paper thin plot that it was easily COMPLETELY ignored for all subsequent entries without it ever being officially retconned out of canon.

[Rockphed]

The Morrowind %hit chance/hit box discussion brought this to mind:

Anyone here play Homeworld? In that game (and the expansion) your strike craft (scouts, interceptors, bombers) could dodge incoming fire. You could z-burst your scouts to give them a sudden boost, or have your bombers make an abrupt turn, and any incoming fire that might have been on-track to hit them will miss. Each gun had a projectile speed, and larger guns generally had slower muzzle velocities, which made them easier to dodge. Ships each had an accuracy rating (more accurately each weapon on a ship had an accuracy rating), but that only determined if the ship would fire, not if it would hit. There was a very fun trade-off between capital ships and strike craft. You brought things like Multi-gun Corvettes, Drone Frigates, and Missile Destroyers to fend off the strike craft.

Homeworld 2 changed that to a flat percent chance to hit. Suddenly strike craft died in droves. Didn't matter how fast you were, or how you timed your maneuvers, the capital ships had a set chance to hit each time they fired. Strike Craft completely lost their appeal. As did the whole game.

I've never gone back to Homeworld 2. I was playing Homeworld as recently as 3 years ago until my Windows-7 laptop's CD-ROM drive failed. If I could get them running on Windows 10, I'd be still be playing Homeworld and Cataclysm. Someone released Homeworld: Remastered - Homeworld using the Homeworld 2 engine. It looks fantastic, but again, that built-in hit chance just killed it. Not even the original storyline and beautiful graphics could make up for the fact that the gameplay was blah.

I really, really hope Homeworld 3 uses the original Homeworld model, and not Homeworld 2's.

When I bought the homeworld remastered it included the original homeworld.

I agree that H2 was pretty bad. In homeworld I finished the campaign with a destroyer I had gotten in like mission 6. In H2 I lost pretty much all my ships every mission. I lost most of my ships in cataclysm, but it is a survival horror space rts so I expect to have bad days.

[Zevox]

DmC has significantly better gameplay, which at least gives someone a reason to play it. Plot-wise I think DmC is worse, if only because DMC2 has such a paper thin plot that it was easily COMPLETELY ignored for all subsequent entries without it ever being officially retconned out of canon.

Oh, I'm with you on all of that. But that's basically what I mean: while DmC has at least something to recommend it, not matter how much it really doesn't fit with what fans want out of the series, DMC2 really doesn't. So even the failed reboot so many people hated is less of a black mark on the series than DMC2.

[Ignimortis]

Devil May Cry 2 was fine.

Wow. We might have a thread winner here.

The three things I appreciate DMC 2 for are:
1) Dante's visual design. Best costume in the series even now.
2) Music was still good.
3) It motivated Itsuno to make DMC 3 as good as it could be to distance from the multiple car crash that was DMC 2 gameplay-wise.

[Rynjin]

Oh, I'm with you on all of that. But that's basically what I mean: while DmC has at least something to recommend it, not matter how much it really doesn't fit with what fans want out of the series, DMC2 really doesn't. So even the failed reboot so many people hated is less of a black mark on the series than DMC2.

Yeah, I was more trying to elaborate on your point(s) and agree. I probably could have made that clearer lol.

[Seppl]

Regarding dodging in the original Homeworld: Dodging had the strange side-effect that upgraded strike craft were actually worse than their basic counterpart. The upgrades increased firepower and durability at a slight cost of speed and maneuverability. But speed and maneuverability were of such importance, due to dodging, that this significantly lessened the total damage output of strike craft during their lifespan. It made me feel that there were design flaws in the game because the developers did not account for this. Maybe they only ever tested their own game by flying strike craft straight into the enemy instead of choosing the much more powerful evasive stance? I did not like the game because of this (actually, there were other, more important reasons, too). I should be excited for new upgrades and not perceive them as a drawback. Same for the capital ships in the game: They could never touch evasive strike craft due to dodging. Spamming your most maneuverable strike craft (which happens to be the very first combat ship you can build) was just a dominant strategy that outperformed all the "cooler" late-game options that the player should have been excited about.

[Rockphed]

Regarding dodging in the original Homeworld: Dodging had the strange side-effect that upgraded strike craft were actually worse than their basic counterpart. The upgrades increased firepower and durability at a slight cost of speed and maneuverability. But speed and maneuverability were of such importance, due to dodging, that this significantly lessened the total damage output of strike craft during their lifespan. It made me feel that there were design flaws in the game because the developers did not account for this. Maybe they only ever tested their own game by flying strike craft straight into the enemy instead of choosing the much more powerful evasive stance? I did not like the game because of this (actually, there were other, more important reasons, too). I should be excited for new upgrades and not perceive them as a drawback. Same for the capital ships in the game: They could never touch evasive strike craft due to dodging. Spamming your most maneuverable strike craft (which happens to be the very first combat ship you can build) was just a dominant strategy that outperformed all the "cooler" late-game options that the player should have been excited about.

I never tested it extensively, but scouts against capital ships is a poor test case. My memory is that interceptors could eat scouts for breakfast, no matter if the scouts were set to evasive. And heavy or multigun corvettes were even better at eating scouts. Also, total damage over the life of the unit is a poor metric for usefulness of a unit since some units self heal and killing the other guy before it destroys your important units (resource collectors and/or motherships) is useful.

[Seppl]

I never tested it extensively, but scouts against capital ships is a poor test case. My memory is that interceptors could eat scouts for breakfast, no matter if the scouts were set to evasive. And heavy or multigun corvettes were even better at eating scouts. Also, total damage over the life of the unit is a poor metric for usefulness of a unit since some units self heal and killing the other guy before it destroys your important units (resource collectors and/or motherships) is useful.

It has been too long so I do not remember which unit had what name. But the point is that spamming that basic evasive unit was the best strategy to destroy the important units and there was no cost efficient way to prevent that before that happened. The mothership's big weapons that were supposed to defend it from such cheap rushes were just useless against evasive threats.

But overall, that is like my number three complaint about some game I played more than 20 years ago, thus I did not put too much research into high-level counterplays or later balance patches that I might not know about.

[Velaryon]

Eh, DMC2 is definitely one of the weaker games in the franchise, but the degree to which it's bad is overblown.

[Rynjin]

Eh, DMC2 is definitely one of the weaker games in the franchise, but the degree to which it's bad is overblown.

It's a game with no redeeming qualities, which is in some ways worse than a true disaster like Big Rigs. Dante acts entirely out of character, the plot is mostly fluff, all of the bosses are boring and forgettable, and the gameplay in general is stiffer and less skill-based than the first game.

That last part is what makes it particular egregious. Being a step back from the game that came before is an unforgivable sin in a game. You already had a good game. How abjectly ****ing incompetent do you have to be to not at least have the exact same mechanics if you can't do better?

[Vinyadan]

Concerning Morrowind, to-hit rolls, Diablo, and isometric perspective...





The funny thing is, it's actually playable, although I haven't tried.

Edit: there's also a similar mod for Oblivion. https://www.nexusmods.com/oblivion/m...ab=description

[MontCestMoi]

Mass Effect 2 and 3 are garbage games with a few moderately well written NPCs. The start of Mass Effect 2 is an abrupt, confusing bit of nonsense where the player is killed and brought back for no purpose narratively. The shift to simplified game systems and ammo limited cover shooting is an appeal to the lowest common denominator. There isn't even the illusion of choice within the framework of the story, and it ends with the most absurd boss fight in both concept and execution. Giant terminator made from slurried humans? Sure. Why not?