PDA

View Full Version : RPGs -> Interactive Fiction?



CypressDahlia
06-22-2011, 12:35 AM
Does it ever seem like RPGs are moving in this direction? I noticed that a lot of RPGs these days are being rated more on the grounds of interactive fiction, given merits solely for immersion, how many choices you get, etc, etc. This was alarmingly apparent when I read Game Informer's review of the Witcher 2.

Now, GI tends to be a hardass when it comes to reviews. But they gave the Witcher 2 a 9.25/10. If you just look at the score, you think "wow, this game must be amazing" but when you read the review, over 60% of it is complaining about how much the gameplay sucks. o_O It was described as "merely adequate", at best.

The first 40% lauds the immersion factor, talking solely about how many choices you get. The remaining 60% talks about how much PLAYING the game actually sucks. IMO, I don't care how many options I get if these options aren't actually enjoyable to play out. So what is this? How does a game with such overwhelming negatives (esp. in the gameplay department, you know, what games are made of) get a near-perfect score?

Are RPGs becoming mere Interactive Fiction?

jubeh
06-22-2011, 01:00 AM
I wouldnt agree that the witcher is like that at all but sorta?

I mean no matter how you slice it the best rpgs are about choices, and when you streamline those choices enough I guess they become interactive fiction.

When I was emulating final fantasy X's combat system in gm it occurred to me that it was almost entirely menus. Like there are things you can do to hide it but for the most part you just choose something on a menu which maybe opens up more menus. Dialog choices are a menu, and so is inventory and other rpg staples.

I dont want to go into what makes an rpg an rpg because that's futile, but I will say as long as the choices are interesting and fun I don't think it matters.

CypressDahlia
06-22-2011, 01:14 AM
Agreed. But that's why I think gameplay and choices should be evaluated on the same level, not as two separate parts of a whole. What fun are choices if it's not fun to DO them, you know?

Outcast
06-22-2011, 02:01 AM
Agreed.

jubeh
06-22-2011, 02:01 AM
Alright then good talk.

CypressDahlia
06-22-2011, 02:08 AM
Would you say a good battle system makes or breaks an RPG?

I love RPGs with in-depth and strategic battle systems (FFX, Vagrant Story, various Tactics games, Valkyrie Profile). It's almost like a self-contained puzzle game within a game. Gets you thinking. Whereas I noticed a lot of RPGs get billed for "good battle systems", but the actual battles involve little strategy or thinking. You just get a lot of stats to choose from.

jubeh
06-22-2011, 02:25 AM
Okay so interestingly enough I started playing dwarf fortress's adventure mode and the combat is so good that when I went back to IVAN I couldn't even play it anymore.

Here are things that -I- need from combat. They may or not be necessary for everyone to have fun. Just throwing out that little disclaimer.

-This one is obvious, but meaningful choices. Now this doesn't exactly have to be part of battle. Choosing whether to fight or not is a meaningful choice if the stakes are high enough. If you're walking death then it's not. P simple right.
-Buttload of options. Even at the beginning of final fantasy X where you could only attack and do nothing else, the game gave you interesting options. In dwarf fortress, if you can't penetrate a dude's armor you can gouge his eyes out or bite his throat. Earlier today I grabbed a dude's axe and punched him in the chest until his lungs were so bruised he couldn't breathe.
-I like limb damage and limb removal. I wish more games did this but I understand why it's not a possibility. Fun fact if you lose both your arms in dwarf fortress and survive its possible to just level up your biting skill and bite dudes to death from then on.
-If I die/lose it should be my fault and not the random number generator's. I understand that randomly dumb stuff is going to happen and that has its own charms, but I dont want to be crit'd by a level 1 rabbit when I was clearly stronger. One of my guys in dwarf fortress died because I chose to sleep in the wilderness. He was ambushed by elves and one shot him in the foot. They slaughtered him as he tried to limp away. I should have known better. An example of DOING IT WRONG is ambushes in final fantasy X. In some areas its possible to lose to a single ambush. For example, the lizards that turn you into stone can stone your entire party before you get to move. You can't do shit about ambushes until later on when you can get the no ambush skill. So dumb.

But to answer your question no I don't think good combat is a necessity in an rpg.

I'm actually exploring alternatives to combat in games.

Lucy
06-22-2011, 09:39 AM
RPG stands for Role Playing Game. You can slap the title on nearly anything and it won't necessarily be wrong, since in most games you do in fact play a role. I think the genre needs to be split up a bit.

That said, there are a bunch of things that can be core in an RPG; exploration, combat, storyline, choice, customization, etc. . If a game tries to do everything, shit gets complicated and it probably doesn't go well.
Choice and customization, for example, oppose storyline, as the more paths there are to take, the more script needs to be written, and the more script you have the more difficult it is to have all of it be engaging. A story is also made less engaging if a player can avoid the parts they don't want to happen or accidentally miss parts (FF7, for example, allows you to miss some of the most emotional parts of the game, three optional cutscenes which tell you of Cloud and Zack's exploits together in the past, leading up to Zack's death. I personally appreciated the storyline a hell of a lot more after I found these, as Cloud suddenly felt like much more of a character than a stock protagonist).
In the same way, storyline and game play oppose each other, as the escapist nature of videogames means gameplay near-always necessitates some suspension of disbelief (it was necessary in FF7 that your characters could take the ultimate power of a God to the freakin' face, because there's no way to avoid attacks manually. Fine. Aeris gets stabbed in a cutscene once and she's dead, with the game completely ignoring the fact that she's in a party where everyone near her has magic spells that mend bodies and potions that magically resuscitate individuals. The suspension of disbelief had to be swapped about all over the place and it felt quite tacky to many people).

The point I'm trying to make is that games need to choose their core principles and stick to them. Interactive fiction needs to be well written fiction and games about fighting need to have good fights.
Oblivion disappointed me because the combat was so terrible. Exploring was great but when you ran into a wolf or whatever it just felt like such an effort to swing your floaty little broadsword at a very unreactive and lazily animated creature until it flopped into half-arsed ragdoll physics. The game either needed better combat or less combat.
Yume Nikki has no combat system, despite the fact it has enemies and the program it was made in has a combat system by default, but the game says screw that, we're too busy exploring these creepy and surreal dream worlds. It also has no dialogue whatsoever, and only the tiniest smidgeon of story (the ending, just a little depressing reward for finding all the macguffins). It does exploring really well, and only exploring, but it feels great because exploration is so focal. It hit its own personal nail on the head.
However, if I played through Might and Magic or whatever and never got to fight anything I would be so bored it is unreal.

TL;DR: there's no magic formula for such a wide genre. Games need to be individual entities and be made to accomplish their goals.


I'm actually exploring alternatives to combat in games.
For this I love you.

CypressDahlia
06-22-2011, 02:55 PM
I don't think there will ever be an //alternative// to combat in games because combat is generally what makes games difficult. Either that or puzzles. That's where the core challenge lies. And, in RPGs, if you're going on an epic quest you expect some kind of resistance, so I unno'. But it would be interesting to see a game pull it off.

But I think DF is not a fair comparison as far as "options" because the options in that game are meant to be purposefully absurd in most cases. In other words, any game with a grasp on realism //probably// wouldn't allow most of the stuff that happens in DF to happen. So DF doesn't really worry about limitations as far as suspending disbelief is concerned.

That said, DF is probably the most option-intensive game available aside from straight SIM games and roguelikes.

LVUER
06-22-2011, 10:08 PM
Speaking of suspension of disbelief in FF. Anyone remember...
Galuf death scene in FFV? He's dying and his granddaughter, Krile, a competent magician throws everything she knows (and in quick succession that I can't stop laughing); Cure3, Revive, Phoenix Down, etc, etc (can't remember all). Those magics and items is enough to revive several KO'ed parties and yet it couldn't save an old man...

CypressDahlia
06-23-2011, 12:10 AM
Yeah, that's just something no game has addressed, aside from the ones with permadeath. It's impossible to make revival items believable.

LVUER
06-23-2011, 12:25 AM
Crono Trigger? ^_^

ClockHand
06-23-2011, 12:32 AM
Well thats why most games use the therm KO and not dead now.

The main deal of RPG is the therm, because it just mean rol player game. Which mean the player must be a active participant of the story and the events, and most games do this. I think the therm is retarded, its to wide and open, and most games of these days are RPG. When you play Bioshock, thats a RPG, you are doing the rol of the main character who is trapped in Rapture.

Then the only real attribute of RPG is the game mechanic, because when we talk of RPG we think in a strategic combat system, while we think as a rol game to one like Zelda Ocarine of Time which have a more active combat system.

There are things that everyone gave to the RPG therm:
-Customization and Upgrades.
-Item Classification.
-Stats and Skills.
-Level and curve of Level.

Yeah many other games have those, but those are the elements that belong the most to this therm. More than story and making desitions, the rpg is more about a rol board game in a computer.

Delphinus
06-23-2011, 02:37 PM
Yeah, an RPG is more like a hack-and-slash campaign or a dungeon crawl, while an interactive fiction is more like a fully-fledged RP.

Fenn
06-23-2011, 04:27 PM
Well thats why most games use the therm KO and not dead now.

The main deal of RPG is the therm, because it just mean rol player game. Which mean the player must be a active participant of the story and the events, and most games do this. I think the therm is retarded, its to wide and open, and most games of these days are RPG. When you play Bioshock, thats a RPG, you are doing the rol of the main character who is trapped in Rapture.

Then the only real attribute of RPG is the game mechanic, because when we talk of RPG we think in a strategic combat system, while we think as a rol game to one like Zelda Ocarine of Time which have a more active combat system.

There are things that everyone gave to the RPG therm:
-Customization and Upgrades.
-Item Classification.
-Stats and Skills.
-Level and curve of Level.

Yeah many other games have those, but those are the elements that belong the most to this therm. More than story and making desitions, the rpg is more about a rol board game in a computer.

Wow I'm agreeing with Clock? Never thought this would happen. :)

one question: by therm do you mean theme? I understood the rest.

CypressDahlia
06-24-2011, 12:01 AM
He means thermostat.

ClockHand
06-24-2011, 12:54 AM
I mean Term

Fenn
06-24-2011, 05:41 PM
I mean Term

Gotcha.

jubeh
06-25-2011, 12:17 AM
Yeah, that's just something no game has addressed, aside from the ones with permadeath. It's impossible to make revival items believable.

I love rpgs with permadeath. I've been wondering of a way to work in a really cool narrative into a roguelike without it being lame because you have to repeat it over and over.

BOF: Dragon Quarter was interesting because on your second and following playthroughs you unlocked new cutscenes or just different points of views for cutscenes you had already seen.

Really I hate the idea of healing items in general. Like how does it heal you? Does your body just start to stitch itself back together? If so why not just carry around an iv and have it flow into you always.

LVUER
06-25-2011, 04:49 AM
Suspension of disbelief.

Perhaps it's not RPG, but try Resident Evil. It's amazing that it's often stressed that one bite from zombie and it's all over. But in the game, you've been bitten, hacked, slashed, kissed, tounged, and everything to the point you're limping and almost died... and yet you're still fine.

Fenn
06-25-2011, 10:20 AM
I love rpgs with permadeath. I've been wondering of a way to work in a really cool narrative into a roguelike without it being lame because you have to repeat it over and over.

BOF: Dragon Quarter was interesting because on your second and following playthroughs you unlocked new cutscenes or just different points of views for cutscenes you had already seen.

Really I hate the idea of healing items in general. Like how does it heal you? Does your body just start to stitch itself back together? If so why not just carry around an iv and have it flow into you always.

The problem is "health" is such a vague term. Does it represent blood lost? Stamina/fatigue? Will to continue? A combination?

Delphinus
06-25-2011, 12:09 PM
It's a simplification. If you had to deal with exact body damage to your RPG character, would it be fun? No. Health points are a way to simplify all the medicine and injury dynamics into a compact score. The more complex you make health, the less time there is to focus on hacking and slashing - which is ultimately what these games are about.

jubeh
06-25-2011, 01:08 PM
It's a simplification. If you had to deal with exact body damage to your RPG character, would it be fun?

Yes. Are you being for real right now.

ClockHand
06-25-2011, 02:05 PM
The deal is that you don't want to die from the first slash, and less when every monster become stronger and stronger. Health bar exist because of that, because in some part of the game you are going to fight a giant monster, you are going to do no damage but he is going to kill you almost at the first strike, thats why there is a health bar that most of the time increase with your level or there are potions.

There are rpg with more complex or specific health system, ex. Deus Ex where you see the part of the body that were damaged, or some resident evil games where you see your heart beats. The deal is that in those cases potions still exist, with the name of medic kit or herbs.

I don't know if there is a comfortable way to change the problem of the potions, one option is to make the enemies weaker or the other is changing the term of health bar to something else, like in Amnesia is named Mind Sanity. Other way is giving a explanation on how the potions work, so it become a element that is part of the world and not just a game item.

With the subject of Potions and Health Bar, what do you guys think about the decisions made by Blizzard for Diablo III, where there are going to be potions, but with a delay (so it wouldn't be spameable) and the monster dropping red orbs to heal you. This decision was made because according to the director designer, the bosses were to easy in Diablo II, so this will make the game harder (yeah, the bosses could kill you with one hit... lol). Also another interesting turn they are making is that the attribute points are going to be automatic, this mean you are not going to be able to spend them as you want.

CypressDahlia
06-25-2011, 02:35 PM
hmm, it really depends. System Shock 2's items healed at fixed rates over time, but in the heat of battle between you and gun-wielding opponents whose attacks were nigh instantaneous, it was a pain.

Delphinus
06-25-2011, 03:43 PM
Yes. Are you being for real right now.

"You have a broken rib, threatening to rupture your appendix. If you move you will lose blood more rapidly than at the moment. The ogre stands over you with a club in one hand, snorts, and turns you into a bloody pulp. GAME OVER"

jubeh
06-25-2011, 03:46 PM
Um that sounds almost exactly like dwarf fortress's adventure mode is this dude being serious.

Delphinus
06-25-2011, 04:09 PM
last time I checked one hit killed for minor mistake is not fun

CypressDahlia
06-25-2011, 04:13 PM
IMO, that's where you separate story-telling and gameplay. By that, I mean how much of the game you're actually letting the player control. For example, in an action-RPG, the player would be able to actively avoid such a situation but in games where events are scripted into the engine (like roguelikes), it's less avoidable and more frustrating.

In other words: a game shouldn't just TELL you you died. It should be more like: "Oh, I did this wrong and therefore I died."

Fenn
06-25-2011, 07:16 PM
Maybe the way to fix "one-shot kill" with more realistic health is to have less static damage from attacks. Why don't the heroes in fantasy movies die in one hit? Most of the hits are weak nicks or quick taps, because the enemy doesn't want to leave themself too vulnerable. In RPGs every attack is done in full force; you land a hit, you land the WHOLE hit.

ClockHand
06-25-2011, 07:26 PM
Where did you took that rpg have static damage? rpg is actually the opposite to static damage, fps have static damage but no rpg, this is because rpg is based on attributes and stats, which make the damage and the game none static.

In Diablo you do between minimal, maximum and failed damage (also blocked with shield). In FF serie you also do damage between a range of it (you rarely do all the damage, only when you reach the total damage you can do). In contra-position with a fps where the hand gun does always X damage, and some times depending on where are you shotted.

Arashi500
06-25-2011, 08:24 PM
It's not unheard of for RPGs to use static damage, and I know that some do, and not all FPS use static damage (Borderlands) but those are the standard. I think a basic body part health system could be pretty awesome. You know divided between L/R arms L/R legs torso and head each having their own "health" sort of like Fallout 3/NV only with more dire repurcussions to having broken limbs and such.

ClockHand
06-25-2011, 09:09 PM
It's not unheard of for RPGs to use static damage, and I know that some do, and not all FPS use static damage (Borderlands) but those are the standard. I think a basic body part health system could be pretty awesome. You know divided between L/R arms L/R legs torso and head each having their own "health" sort of like Fallout 3/NV only with more dire repurcussions to having broken limbs and such.

Play Deus Ex.

You have that kind of health system. If you lose all your health in your legs you en crawling on the floor.

CypressDahlia
06-25-2011, 10:00 PM
I don't know how I feel about that. I like the realism aspect of it, but it's not like you know when you're being shot in the leg specifically. it's not like the screen goes "WATCH OUT, that bullet is aimed at your leg!", and it's not like you can move JUST your leg out of the way, unlike in real life. So it's kind of a weird compromise of realism in a way.

In a lot of RPGs, I let characters take hits to make battles more efficient, so that's unappealing to me.

ClockHand
06-25-2011, 11:10 PM
Funny things of rpg and mmorpg:

-Learning skills without training: I know training is boring in real life, and in a game is very close to farming, but I found very weird how easy is to have a skill or spell.
I want a game (mostly in the field of mmorpg) where I don't gain skill when I level up, but I have to gain the skill training, doing quests, learning from a npc who is going to be my master. I want the experience of the apprentice who learn to reach his own selfish (or not selfish) goals.

-Health and Stats: I'm a normal human, but I have the strength of a dragon (and even more), the speed of something-that-run-fast, and the vitality of a Giant. I'm only at level 70, I'm a Godlike character who can't be killed by a sword, thats why there is so powerful swords in the game and over powerful monsters.
I want a rpg or mmorpg where I don't gain more stats when I level up, or when I do, I win very little stats, almost imperceptible, so my character must live and die under his armor, sword and skills, not his stats.

-I don't need Food, Water or Medicine, I'm a farming machine!!!: Well I'm a human, but a human without any other need than kill monsters, that is my food, water, medicine and piss/shit. I never rest, I never sleep, I don't need it, I'm almost not human.
I want a rpg that makes food, water and medicine important, not just a little buff to level up, but something more. You can do this creating a fatigue system for the characters, so resting, eating a drinking is important to keep going.

-From the Kingdom of Adarun to the ruines of Distia we all speak English: So yeah, gave me a world with a bigvariaty of language and cultures.

CypressDahlia
06-26-2011, 12:00 AM
A lot of games have skills where you can learn it immediately, but it's extremely ineffective. The Tales games, for example. Even though you learn a skill (like, you can imitate it) immediately, it doesn't do much damage until you level it up, which involves doing it over and over again until you get it right. I think that's kind of what you want.

I dunno how I feel about the second one. Huge emphasis on armors and weapons = lots of grinding, which is the downfall of many MMOs and even console RPGs. I mean, RPGs in general are in fantasy settings where there are giant monsters constantly running around that need to be killed...so I don't mind so much that people are ultra-strong because it suits the world. but yeah, it doesn't make much sense in general.

The third one has been done by many roguelikes. Roguelikes in general are extremely stressful and unfun because of how anal they are, so I dunno how I feel about that. I mean, trying not to starve and stay rested is hard enough in real life...but doing real-life things in a world where I also have to fight dragons and werewolves would be a pain.

And the last one is just about accessibility. Since everything has to be translated to English anyway, might aswell make it English.

jubeh
06-26-2011, 12:15 AM
You guys are coming up with a lot of alternatives to realistic combat but think about the game outside of combat.

In an rpg when you approach an enemy it begs few questions. Like how do I position myself, or what skills do I use, or what have you.

Rarely does a game ask you if the fight is really worth it. If settling some petty quarrel is worth possibly throwing your life away.

Now obviously in a game about gearing and certain types of combat this wouldn't work but think about all the times you got into a random battle and just didn't feel like fighting. Why do we throw fights at the player without ever giving them the choice?

Also building on clock's point about characters becoming "as strong as dragons," why not just unlock options as your character grows. I mean that's how skill work in real life. As I get better at guitar more options are open to me and those options lead to more options. And I don't just mean more spells that do different types of damage or something. I mean really meaningful options that will make the game slightly easier and give you more interesting decisions to make.

ClockHand
06-26-2011, 12:16 AM
The one of starmina and needs. I though the same, it would be unfun, but also its totally depend on how much effort you put on it. If I force every player to eat something every 10 minutes of game, its going to be stupid. But I think at giving 74 hours or more, makes total sense (because are also 74 hours in game).

I know its about accessibility. But if I'm on X kingdom I born there, I found it normal that things are in English, but if I travel to other location, I want to be unable to understand other and also be discriminated (lol).

jubeh
06-26-2011, 12:33 AM
Stamina can be fun if used as a timer basically. Some of my most dramatic deaths in Shiren were due to starvation.

Also as far as languages go in most tabletop rpgs aren't there several languages anyway? Perhaps it could by like final fantasy X where you could slowly learn a language and understand it after a while. I mean it could be more engaging then finding hidden objects but you get the idea.

LVUER
06-26-2011, 12:45 AM
When you are talking about video games, there are lots of unrealistic things, it's normal. Besides, an extremely realistic game isn't that fun anyway. (besides, most of the time technical limitation is a big issue).

A: Hey, a meteor coming down to Earth, someone gotta stop it.
B: Yeah yeah... let the government do it, I have exams to worry about.

Here's another strange and funny thing in RPG (though not only in RPG):
A: You brought enough items?
B: Don't worry, I bring 99 potion, 99 tonics, 99 revives, 99 elixirs, 99 hero potion, 99 protein drink, and several other bunches of 99 bottle of energy drinks. All is packaged neatly in my small backpack (who is he, Doraemon??? o_O).
A: How about the equipment?
B: Don't worry about that also, I have bastard swords, rapiers, damascus shield, spears, adventure cloth and boots, and a pile of other equipments for ALL of us (which is a party of 8 people). Again, all is packaged neatly on my small backpack.
A: The money?
B: I bring 99.999.999 worth of gold coins, all in hard cold cash ^_^

Arashi500
06-26-2011, 08:26 AM
Clock, Everquest II had an interesting language system like that, and it definately added to the game. You were forced to go on language quests if you wanted to be able to interact with NPCs in some areas.

wolfman
06-26-2011, 04:37 PM
The one of starmina and needs. I though the same, it would be unfun, but also its totally depend on how much effort you put on it. If I force every player to eat something every 10 minutes of game, its going to be stupid. But I think at giving 74 hours or more, makes total sense (because are also 74 hours in game).

I know its about accessibility. But if I'm on X kingdom I born there, I found it normal that things are in English, but if I travel to other location, I want to be unable to understand other and also be discriminated (lol).

fallout new vegas was a lot more fun imo with hardcore mode on, if you went long enough without sleeping/eating/drinking you would start losing endurance, strength, your aim would get worse in stages until eventually you could die, there were also quite a few mods for oblivion that made you have to eat and drink and sleep, it actually made fast traveling a lot more dangerous because if you traveled too far you could end up the other end as weak as a kitten
and the cool thing is they are optional and can be turned on and off whenever

CypressDahlia
06-26-2011, 10:48 PM
Hmm. It's a cool ideal, really, but it would affect how time is scaled in the game...which is the big question: would you prefer to have 1:1 scale time or sped-up time in-game? I prefer sped-up as 1:1 is tedious. Like walking around in Morrowind...

jubeh
06-26-2011, 10:51 PM
I think that could be remedied by limiting back tracking and making the environment worth exploring. If you have to walk through the same bullshit forest to get to some town you've been to 90 times then yeah travelling is going to be horrible. I just don't see a feasible way of doing that without it being really linear.

I guess what I want is an aragorn simulator haha. A game where surviving in the woods and fighting with your brain is more important than gear or power leveling.

CypressDahlia
06-26-2011, 11:47 PM
There are a couple of games like that. Survival sims. but I mean, you can only do so much in survival sims.

jubeh
06-26-2011, 11:54 PM
I guess I wasn't clear. Survival sims are cool but it would also need


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGUNvIFTQw

Im asking a lot I know, but dwarf fortress comes really close.

CypressDahlia
06-27-2011, 12:09 AM
Except Dwarf Fortress leaves out handfuls of obvious choices for really obscure ones that border on nonsense. IMO, it's like a satire on roguelikes.

jubeh
06-27-2011, 12:11 AM
What options do you find missing

CypressDahlia
06-28-2011, 10:52 PM
The inability to store a life-sustaining substance called water is one big peeve I had w/ DF. I mean, when I think of buckets and barrels...storing water is like the FIRST thing that comes to mind. And when I can't afford to brew/cannot make a convenient well, I don't want my dwarves running out into the wilderness to drink from streams and such.

Barrel + water = better Dwarf Fortress.

I haven't played the game in a while, so I have to refresh my memory as far as what other peeves I had. I had quite a handful, surprisingly. Like...they really make you go out of your way to micromanage but some options that you WANT to micromanage aren't micro-manageable.

jubeh
06-28-2011, 11:29 PM
Well I was referring to adventure mode when I said df was close to what I wanted.

CypressDahlia
07-01-2011, 08:18 AM
Ah, okay. I don't play Adventurer (well, Ive tried but didn't feel compelled to continue), so I can't judge. Esp. for the newest version. But DF as a whole is a shining example of gameplay that sucks being likable for some reason. Like, the interface is extremely clunky, they have like 5 different sets of controls for extremely similar menus which could be cut down to like 2 and getting stuff done is just a pain. Mouse can be used like 2% of the time, but for the most trivial things.

But regardless, I still can't stop playing. Maybe it's like an appeal to my inner megalomaniac wanting to see my efforts turn into wealth...