I always look forward to your video essays/musings and this one is no exception! I too have been playing a good bit of BG3 of late (one of the millions it seems, well done Larian!). I'm glad you referenced the previous video you did about game saving because the two are inextricably connected. Now, I'm not going to say that I have only 1 save file going in BG3, but I have made a concerted effort not to save scum and it's been incredibly satisfying. I've managed to eek out a victory in situations that I might in years past just reload a save and walk into the fight more prepared. I also think that partially due to the massive success that BG3 is having right now, along with having the tech to be able to better pull it off that we're going to see RNG more and more in the years to come.
Personally, I can't embrace the concept of RNG in competitive games. While it exists to a minimal extent in games like CS:GO, it's almost negligible since every bullet spread can be learned and consistently applied in various scenarios. Regrettably, this frustrating mechanic has been amplified in Valorant, causing many potentially winnable rounds to slip into defeat due to bullets straying from the crosshair despite my efforts to ensure ideal conditions for hitting the target. Competitive gaming should be about pitting skill against skill, not leaving the outcome to chance like a roll of the dice. To be fair I only hate it because I'm exceptionally unlucky and 7 out of 10 times I will lose a luck based scenario even if odds are in my favor. For instance, I played a mmo rpg where I had a 98% chance to collect the item I needed it took me 8 attempts to get. I will forever hate rng due to how unlucky i am.
This reminds me of a book I read once (Epic by Conor Kostick). In a world where social standing and power is determined by performance in a video game most people choose player attributes like strength and grind loot mechanistically, one rebellious frustrated boy decides to do things differently. First, he wastes many lives trying to kill a dragon and then starting over from scratch he gambles by investing his character with beauty and picking a non-traditional character type. He is rewarded with powerful quests suited to his character. The game rewards being played by someone playful and adventurous rather than simply trying to geind their way to the most powerful build that they can.
The thing about RNG is that there can be too much of it, and there can be too little. With too much, you get something like using a weapon you don't have a skill for in Mass Effect 1. With the shot bloom circle the size of your screen, flipping a coin and aiming have similar effects. With too little, you get the situation of Chess or Star Craft, where the "right" strategies have already been all worked out and deviating from them will get you punished more often than not. XCOM might have issues with its randomness - but not because it exists; because it is not consistent. When you end up picking between an attack with a % chance to hit and an attack that is guaranteed to deal at least some damage, the second one has inherent strategic value. For a game with randomness done right (or at least more so than the previous examples), I'd go for Phoenix Point. Your shots still have the random spread, but it is really up to you, the player, to aim them - you can go for a safe bet of a center of mass shot or risk for a head- or armshot, for example. Removing the randomness completely would remove that choice - or value of daring to position your units closer to dangerous enemies. Adding more would lead to frustrating "where the hell are you shooting this is point blank range" misses. With your dislike for saves, I'd say there is the specific genre of Roguelike or -lite games to satisfy that audience. That said, in a game where your 80 hours of progress can be nullified with an unlucky RNG roll, the amount of RNG to be "just right" has to be very finely adjusted... The idea of a "no loss" RNG is interesting. But it's also difficult to create an RNG based system where a loss is always a skill issue and never an RNG issue...
RNG can be fine at times, but depending how it's implemented, it can ruin things as well. I'm fine with BG 1 and 2 RNG, but it was implemented in a way in BG 3 that annoys me. The fact the game visibly shows me a roll for a random hole in the ground that might have an item. I can not only see it, but for each character. It makes it extremely obvious I missed something, whereas in BG 1 and 2, I might just go by something like that never knowing it was there at all. I've gotten extremely annoyed with RNG even in table top games, because I very often seem to get good rolls when it's not necessary, and bad rolls when it's very critical. I even had a character in one session get a roll so bad, the game master would normally kill them off, but it was like 2 minutes into my turn to play at all, he put my character into a bad situation, and then just never got back to deal with it in some way. Honestly, it heavily ruined both RNG in general and games like D&D for me. I've come to hate most RNG stuff, especially board games. Armello is one of the only exceptions, where there are multiple paths to victory. Sometimes you'll end up mega screwed out of all of them, but you can often have decent chance at one of them.
I'm around 100 hours into my first bg3 game and I've savescummed 0 times, The fear of missing out is hard at points, but missing out makes the things that have happened worth so much more. I love dice chances, it's great and randomness is my god, my god will choose my fate and I will roll with the punches, part of the preparation and planning is to reduce the random things, to increase chances of victory, battle royale is all about this and I think that's why I've loved br games previously.
I actually like rolling for skill checks instead of having threshold mechanic, either paragon/renegade one, or based on attitude or just N out of X points. Roll is heavily mitigated by your build, but also, and most importantly, it makes choice meaningful, even if your character good at something, it doesn't allow you to auto-win conversations. Because, think about it, if you're a deceitful person, and you're great at it, a charismatic deceiver of the century, does that guarantee that you will deceive anybody, you can't fail, at all, never? Exactly. The same goes with low-skill rolls, unlike threshold mechanic, roll allows you to do just that, roll. You could be not the wisest, even far from it, but you still can take your chances with the roll and who knows, win on small percent chance of success. Although, I get why players say that they want specific outcomes to happen and rng just isn't fun. But, to each their own. For combat it is a bit different, but still, it is mitigation and it creates interesting strategic situation and makes choices in combat meaningful, although it is more dependent on the player's skill to optimize a build, rather than a players skill to physically play the came (like with CS). Anyway, great topic for a video.
I agree. Randomness, with no meaning, means nothing but frustration
Thanks for watching!
= shiny hunting vs rng manipulation that's also frustrating lol
For me, randomness, if done well, is what makes games truly replayable.
I always look forward to your video essays/musings and this one is no exception! I too have been playing a good bit of BG3 of late (one of the millions it seems, well done Larian!). I'm glad you referenced the previous video you did about game saving because the two are inextricably connected. Now, I'm not going to say that I have only 1 save file going in BG3, but I have made a concerted effort not to save scum and it's been incredibly satisfying. I've managed to eek out a victory in situations that I might in years past just reload a save and walk into the fight more prepared. I also think that partially due to the massive success that BG3 is having right now, along with having the tech to be able to better pull it off that we're going to see RNG more and more in the years to come.
Personally, I can't embrace the concept of RNG in competitive games. While it exists to a minimal extent in games like CS:GO, it's almost negligible since every bullet spread can be learned and consistently applied in various scenarios. Regrettably, this frustrating mechanic has been amplified in Valorant, causing many potentially winnable rounds to slip into defeat due to bullets straying from the crosshair despite my efforts to ensure ideal conditions for hitting the target. Competitive gaming should be about pitting skill against skill, not leaving the outcome to chance like a roll of the dice. To be fair I only hate it because I'm exceptionally unlucky and 7 out of 10 times I will lose a luck based scenario even if odds are in my favor. For instance, I played a mmo rpg where I had a 98% chance to collect the item I needed it took me 8 attempts to get. I will forever hate rng due to how unlucky i am.
That's the thing though... You're not unlucky. True randomness is as fair as it gets, because no one gets an inherent advantage or disadvantage.
Good video, diving into mechanics that aren't often talked about and how they effect players and their experiences. Very interesting, keep it up!
Really appreciate that thanks for watching!
This reminds me of a book I read once (Epic by Conor Kostick). In a world where social standing and power is determined by performance in a video game most people choose player attributes like strength and grind loot mechanistically, one rebellious frustrated boy decides to do things differently. First, he wastes many lives trying to kill a dragon and then starting over from scratch he gambles by investing his character with beauty and picking a non-traditional character type. He is rewarded with powerful quests suited to his character. The game rewards being played by someone playful and adventurous rather than simply trying to geind their way to the most powerful build that they can.
The thing about RNG is that there can be too much of it, and there can be too little.
With too much, you get something like using a weapon you don't have a skill for in Mass Effect 1. With the shot bloom circle the size of your screen, flipping a coin and aiming have similar effects.
With too little, you get the situation of Chess or Star Craft, where the "right" strategies have already been all worked out and deviating from them will get you punished more often than not.
XCOM might have issues with its randomness - but not because it exists; because it is not consistent. When you end up picking between an attack with a % chance to hit and an attack that is guaranteed to deal at least some damage, the second one has inherent strategic value.
For a game with randomness done right (or at least more so than the previous examples), I'd go for Phoenix Point. Your shots still have the random spread, but it is really up to you, the player, to aim them - you can go for a safe bet of a center of mass shot or risk for a head- or armshot, for example.
Removing the randomness completely would remove that choice - or value of daring to position your units closer to dangerous enemies. Adding more would lead to frustrating "where the hell are you shooting this is point blank range" misses.
With your dislike for saves, I'd say there is the specific genre of Roguelike or -lite games to satisfy that audience. That said, in a game where your 80 hours of progress can be nullified with an unlucky RNG roll, the amount of RNG to be "just right" has to be very finely adjusted...
The idea of a "no loss" RNG is interesting. But it's also difficult to create an RNG based system where a loss is always a skill issue and never an RNG issue...
What i like about bg3's rng is that if you make your build correctly you can get bonusses to said skill checks to add to your roll.
Genuinely interesting thoughts on a very complex topic! Thank you for your content, man.
RNG can be fine at times, but depending how it's implemented, it can ruin things as well. I'm fine with BG 1 and 2 RNG, but it was implemented in a way in BG 3 that annoys me. The fact the game visibly shows me a roll for a random hole in the ground that might have an item. I can not only see it, but for each character. It makes it extremely obvious I missed something, whereas in BG 1 and 2, I might just go by something like that never knowing it was there at all.
I've gotten extremely annoyed with RNG even in table top games, because I very often seem to get good rolls when it's not necessary, and bad rolls when it's very critical. I even had a character in one session get a roll so bad, the game master would normally kill them off, but it was like 2 minutes into my turn to play at all, he put my character into a bad situation, and then just never got back to deal with it in some way. Honestly, it heavily ruined both RNG in general and games like D&D for me.
I've come to hate most RNG stuff, especially board games. Armello is one of the only exceptions, where there are multiple paths to victory. Sometimes you'll end up mega screwed out of all of them, but you can often have decent chance at one of them.
getting what you feel you don't deserve with little effort feels good. WOAH
Will you come out with a full Baldur's Gate 3 review? Please do!
yep will do more on baldurs gate starfield and cyberpunk have some ideas cooking will be a bit, thanks for the support!
The Romans and their gladiators used asymetry in their fighting games too
Good shit dude and you made some great points.
I'm around 100 hours into my first bg3 game and I've savescummed 0 times,
The fear of missing out is hard at points, but missing out makes the things that have happened worth so much more.
I love dice chances, it's great and randomness is my god, my god will choose my fate and I will roll with the punches, part of the preparation and planning is to reduce the random things, to increase chances of victory, battle royale is all about this and I think that's why I've loved br games previously.
0:40 most rhythm games ain't got RNG, and many shmups are mad deterministic
ketsui still bodies most games lmao
I actually like rolling for skill checks instead of having threshold mechanic, either paragon/renegade one, or based on attitude or just N out of X points. Roll is heavily mitigated by your build, but also, and most importantly, it makes choice meaningful, even if your character good at something, it doesn't allow you to auto-win conversations. Because, think about it, if you're a deceitful person, and you're great at it, a charismatic deceiver of the century, does that guarantee that you will deceive anybody, you can't fail, at all, never? Exactly. The same goes with low-skill rolls, unlike threshold mechanic, roll allows you to do just that, roll. You could be not the wisest, even far from it, but you still can take your chances with the roll and who knows, win on small percent chance of success. Although, I get why players say that they want specific outcomes to happen and rng just isn't fun. But, to each their own.
For combat it is a bit different, but still, it is mitigation and it creates interesting strategic situation and makes choices in combat meaningful, although it is more dependent on the player's skill to optimize a build, rather than a players skill to physically play the came (like with CS).
Anyway, great topic for a video.
Randomness? Anyway, wanna play some gwent?
Gwent ❤️
Hellllllll yeah
4 views nice.
Legend lol