Xard

but you can still like his vice-president in your mind...

Low standards? No, awesome standards. Have to say I'm bit more inclined towards Meshugger's point...

Ahh, it is the same central philosophies you hear MCA and other OE folk spout out nowadays. You know, "choices and consequences bla bla bla choices and consequences bla bla interesting writing bla choices and consequences". The main difference is that Vince as kind of freelance guy makes these looong analyzes and arguments for his view. I'd guess you could summarize it as putting C&C as N. 1 Governing factor in RPG designing Wait a second. Isn't Dweller supposed to be cool and edgy? How can he be that if he is essentially an independent OE? It's cheap to just say "read the interviews", but you get the idea only that way really indepth. Vince's campaigning for TB combat and other such "outdated" stuff have been great and hilarious read. I'm not FAN of him (it would be kinda silly as he hasn't shipped anything!) but AoD is one of top games in my waiting for list. Other thing that sets him apart from others is how he challenges many basic truths aka presumptions about RPG designing. Just see parts about "monsters don't listen to diplomacy. Ergo -> combat encounters" and "non-combat gameplay is just maxing your speech skillz and clickin through dialogue" myths and how he marvelously debunks them. I think even OE could learn from things like that. Of course grain of salt is always needed. anyway, here's direct Avellone quotes from one of his latest interviews: and Of course he shamelessly buffs C&C in all AP interviews and previews. heh Same with many Obz devs in interviews you can find from Iron Tower Forums Heck, I'd go and say Iron Tower Forums has best collection of RPG related interviews ever. Just see that indepth Sawyer interview about gameplay mechanics for example

Ahh, it is the same central philosophies you hear MCA and other OE folk spout out nowadays. You know, "choices and consequences bla bla bla choices and consequences bla bla interesting writing bla choices and consequences". The main difference is that Vince as kind of freelance guy makes these looong analyzes and arguments for his view. I'd guess you could summarize it as putting C&C as N. 1 Governing factor in RPG designing hmm, a few posts back you were claiming this guy's definitions were objective truth. now you're simply saying that you agree with his overall take on things. let's wait a few more posts, so you can shift positions again... Read more carefully, I never claimed to be objective. It should be pretty clear by now that I do not believe in objectivity. Heck, even science is epistemological and not ontological. Check out my last post on the previous page. That's closest I can come up with calling something objective. Play some FPS's Let me see... Half Life, Half Life 2, Half Life 2 Episode One, Half Life 2 Episode Two, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Doom 3, Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil, Crysis, Sniper Elite, Clive Barker's Jericho, Far Cry, etc... I did not know those were not first-person-shooters. Clearly you see how vastly inferior Bloodlines combat then is.

If I have to painfully specific I mean his takes on choices and consequences, roleplaying, importance of skills and character deviation through them etc I think Vince's liking for non-linearity etc. is part of his overall design philosophy, not what are requirements for good roleplaying in CRPG. edit: You are standing in front of a fortress and dying to get inside because that's where all the cool kids are. There is a gate, but it's guarded. You need a pass to enter. Your options are: I'd add to that you can roleplay in combat too (not drink any potions etc. because your character has potionphobia or something ) but really, what's to whine about in that? That is of course on ideological level, free of constraints of resources and development. You CAN'T throw that much options to player all the time in CRPG like you can in pnp, but the basic philosophy is sound

Age of Decadence

ask WoD lol edit: this is to say as part of Iron Tower forums he must know many good links to interviews and stuff

sure we did. is 'cause they is simply opinions. start from pov that Cannism is Only or Right way to do something is... wacky. again, we is talking 'bout game development, not religious dogma, so notion o' canon is misplaced. HA! Good Fun! Ahh, but so is everything, at least in my nonreligious worldview. I'm relativist. Not to push armchair philosophising here (there's enough in PS:T tangent) but that's reason why I pretty much follow Plato's definition of ("objective") truth as "truth is well argued true belief" (free translation by me) And what VD does is arguing for his true beliefs and I find core of those arguments to be very well found on. I have no reason to dismiss or criticise them down to nothing. There's stuff I disagree with - the utter moral greyness in instances where it doesn't fit and is only "original" revising such as his take on SW Ep III - but his core arguments what constitutes roleplaying are very easy to agree on. Just because those are just opinions doesn't mean there isn't seed of (subjective/objective) truth in them. Anyway, that's enough for this. I don't want to be part in creating THIRD separate tangent in such short while here in OE

Yeah, it's too dogmatic from certain pov. However I very much agree on those central dogmas and you didn't explain why those dogmas are false

Play some FPS's well there is your problem. might as well ask a Haredi Rabbi for fashion advice. HA! Good Fun! What's wrong with his ideas of what constitute good RPG mechanism and roleplaying in CRPG's? They're absolutely spot on. Only thing I disagree on is that I don't think only games who meet all those criteriors are RPG's. I view such games as ideal RPG's

Why the **** isn't this news post then?

and here i thought RPG meant 'Role Playing Game'. it's true that the first RPGs were mostly tactical combat rules for minatures. but so what? they've moved on since then. the fallacy that because X originated from Y, therefore X=Y should be pretty obvious. I'm well aware of the vast paradox that roleplaying games don't have to have roleplaying in them in order to be roleplaying games You do remember the thread (or more like phase in loong thread) that started from Patrick Millis (derp, memory falters) asking what is RPG? If however one takes revisionist approach vast majority of classic RPG's CEASE TO BE RPG's C&C is late comer into CRPG's And basis of RPG's never got changed, I don't merely mean very first miniature wargames. CRPG is best described as sort of an umbrella term with only those few basic elements linking them all together from Bio RPG's to dungeon romps to slashfests to Troika games not even to start the whole debate what consists roleplaying. Technically good rule is that you can CHOOSE what role you can play. But that is something you're able to do just well with only first part of C&C edit: I personally "follow" VD's mantras (yet that's all they are, mantras) on what consists proper and even awesome roleplaying, but his terms are way too limited to consist origin of RPG's and at least 75 % of recognized CRPG's in it

I'm going to kill you. I'm actually looking forward to AP/Aliens most for the story/writing/characters/C&C/etc, since that's what Obs does. However, that does not mean in any way that substandard combat mechanics are acceptable. Frankly, if a developer knows that one aspect of their game (especially one that'll probably take most of the usual player's time in that game) is subpar, it should be changed fundamentally. If you can't do shooters, don't do shooter RPGs. If you're aiming for a specific type of gameplay, you better deliver. it's not like I'm trying to get between you two and your relationship I'd too be more looking forward to those aspects but because we really don't know much about those ('cept C&C) and awesome quality is pretty much guaranteed - so I must have something else to hope having vast improvements and that is basic gameplay.

That's exactly why people accept piss-poor RPG's. Everyone concentrates on mechanics instead of content. The rest of your post is too meandering for me to attempt to answer it, please state your points more concisely. Yeah, that's what I get when writing post after getting barely any sleep or rest in last night and having busy day. Anyway, that's not reason why people accept "piss-poor RPG's". After all people accepted games such as Arcanum and PS:T in addition to JE's and ME's as good or even excellent RPG's That's what RPG means, RPG means tactical combat simulator with experience gaining and character building. For all I agree with Vince's philosophy it is not universal or fundamental truth despite what he may think Just read this again: this is honestly one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a while and reason why I wrote this post (because you keep repeating this) Imagine that this place would be Codex or Iron Tower forums or whatever. You go there to praise Kotors rather simple combat because it allows most casual and newb players to assimilate game mechanics and that they are "sufficiently tactical" to make game fun for most people and not "too hard and complex" so it harms the game. They'd laugh and ridicule you to no end, lambasting you as typical retarted modern gamer who is too stupid to read through ****ing brick for a manual that comes with "da real rpg's" and lern teh system. There's ridiculous amount of hypocrisy and prejudice in "hardcore" RPG community. (I'm generalizing of coure) They view your typical action game as kind of retarted "button smashing" ADHD kiddie style game without any depth in combat. Funny thing is many "mere" action games require more skill and dedication, fast decision making capability + sense of tactics than your average RPG. Hypothesis : Player who has never bothered to learn how x equipments stack with Improved Dickery Sling spell etc. and thus fail in complex combat and goes to fora whine about too hard complex combat and gets ridiculed... And "real" RPG players scoff and humiliate him and his stupidity with righteousness. Guess what, they have just as much right to call "lern2play" card as your average gamer listening whining of RPG player about how he can't do this "stupid reflexe based ****". If JE is defendable by dumbing it down so that "RPG players" (lol) can "win" the game then those same people don't have any right to criticise e.g Oblivion's combat mechanics. If these "RPG players" can't learn to play the system properly why the **** should developers care? AND And I agree with Nick; getting combat and other game mechanics right are the biggest reasons why I anticipate AP and Aliens RPG, not story or writing (as we don't know anything about Aliens and not much about AP either ) or "choices and consequences" or whatnot. Alpha Protocol might be first RPG in long, long while that has awesome game mechanics and way it achieves it is by going Deus Ex. There's something very telling about it. Besides, by going with meaning of word RPG gameplay mechanics overrides anything else because it is ****ing game. I've also been playing old great platformers on PS1 and I can't help but admire the way developers for such titles have been forced to perfect their mechanics ever more. The brilliance in gameplay of fundamentally simple 3D platformers is vast. Yet CRPG's seem to nearly never ever get such basic things right. I'm really sick of all this RPG Apologists crap. "Well it's RPG!" "RPG isn't about gameplay, it is about writing and characters!" How one can criticize cutscene heavyness and basic gameplay of JRPG's with straight face and yet defend RPG gameplay mechanics in games like Arcanum or JE or [add random title here] is just... weird ------------------------------------------------------ Each time you now attack Kotor's, NWN2's or whatever game's combat mechanisms I can just use same hypocritical fallacy as you do

[quote name='H

WoD: RPG's are nothing more than tactical combat simulators with experience gaining and character building. That's how they started and that's their ultimate definitive meaning as far as etymology goes. lolwut "So it's not a button masher, and I disagree that those were poorly implemented. May be it's true if you compare it to NG, but that's supposed to be a pinnacle of action games, so the comparison is a bit unfair." They're poorly implemented compared to any decent action game. Heck, I've been replaying old ps1 titles lately and them > JE JE is really sad attempt if one compares it with masterpieces like God of War or Ninja Gaiden, but it is nearly just as sad when you compare it against any good action game. Heck, Metal Gear Solids of Splinter Cells > JE and they're not action games foremost. this is honestly one of the stupidest arguments I've heard in a while and reason why I wrote this post (because you keep repeating this) Imagine that this place would be Codex or Iron Tower forums or whatever. You go there to praise Kotors rather simple combat because it allows most casual and newb players to assimilate game mechanics and that they are "sufficiently tactical" to make game fun for most people and not "too hard and complex" so it harms the game. They'd laugh and ridicule you to no end, lambasting you as typical retarted modern gamer who is too stupid to read through ****ing brick for a manual that comes with "da real rpg's" and lern teh system. There's ridiculous amount of hypocrisy and prejudice in "hardcore" RPG community. (I'm generalizing of coure) They view your typical action game as kind of retarted "button smashing" ADHD kiddie style game without any depth in combat. Funny thing is many "mere" action games require more skill and dedication, fast decision making capability + sense of tactics than your average RPG. Hypothesis : Player who has never bothered to learn how x equipments stack with Improved Dickery Sling spell etc. and thus fail in complex combat and goes to fora whine about too hard complex combat and gets ridiculed... And "real" RPG players scoff and humiliate him and his stupidity with righteousness. Guess what, they have just as much right to call "lern2play" card as your average gamer listening whining of RPG player about how he can't do this "stupid reflexe based ****". If JE is defendable by dumbing it down so that "RPG players" (lol) can "win" the game then those same people don't have any right to criticise e.g Oblivion's combat mechanics. If these "RPG players" can't learn to play the system properly why the **** should developers care? Then play action games, RPG's are about picking a specific path. And I did have to vary my tactics during different encounters, so I don't see that complaint as valid. I did too, but not because there was any reason to. Game was just way too easy, stupid and repetitive if I didn't try to do something like "kill them with Matrix style" or "flame first enemy to death and hit second with stick and punch thirds teeth in while dancing polka and bunnyhopping" to increase challenge artificially. And even then it was easy. Bio TRIED to get some variety in game by making ghosts immune to fists and demons immune to magic, but as differences between combat methods were minimal it felt mostly just cosmetic. "ME has some more interesting (and very difficult) battles up front, but then it does degenerate as you say. It's still a decent shooter IMO, but doesn't compare to the best out there." ME's combat system is notch to right direction "If the battles are a little different depending on your skills, you wouldn't even notice most likely. That is in fact the idea, but because of game balancing issues, that never makes that much of a difference. You really need to provide different paths for different skill sets, but that's not what designers like Bioware and Obsidian do. Hopefully that will change with AP." another lolwut. And what exactly you mean with "different paths"? And how is it related to how crummy combat in RPG's tend to be? Totally disagree. If I want great combat, I'll play an action game. RPG's main focus should be on things other than combat, although having good combat certainly helps. The fact that most players and even designers can't see the horrible design flaws in Mass Effect is really making me despair of whether a good mainstream RPG will ever be made again. I havent' played ME but your hatred for it seems to be utterly irrational. I've read about many tough choices in it and a lot other good stuff too - I won't be surprised when I finally get my hands on it it'll be best Bio game since BG2. And what are ME's horrible design flaws? Is the game brilliant? I doubt it. Is it good? Most certainly And I agree with Nick; getting combat and other game mechanics right are the biggest reasons why I anticipate AP and Aliens RPG, not story or writing (as we don't know anything about Aliens and not much about AP either ) or "choices and consequences" or whatnot. Alpha Protocol might be first RPG in long, long while that has awesome game mechanics and way it achieves it is by going Deus Ex. There's something very telling about it. Besides, by going with meaning of word RPG gameplay mechanics overrides anything else because it is ****ing game. I've also been playing old great platformers on PS1 and I can't help but admire the way developers for such titles have been forced to perfect their mechanics ever more. The brilliance in gameplay of fundamentally simple 3D platformers is vast. Yet CRPG's seem to nearly never ever get such basic things right. I'm really sick of all this RPG Apologists crap. "Well it's RPG!" "RPG isn't about gameplay, it is about writing and characters!" How one can criticize cutscene heavyness and basic gameplay of JRPG's with straight face and yet defend RPG gameplay mechanics in games like Arcanum or JE or [add random title here] is just... weird edit: WTF is wrong with my writing. edit2: spelling and structure wise worst post in a while. Egad edit3: reason why I use " and quote tags both is because of stupid quote limitations

Epic material Anyway, I could've been awesome in germany if I hadn't arsed through all the years when I learned it, buuut.... ahh **** it, I'm not translating that

well, wasn't that what you said? edit: oh My beautiful formulations, all in vain :'(

this reminds me, whose clever idea it was to put in radial menus in ToEE!? Blergh Out of NWN1, ToEE and PS:T only latter one had passable radial menus, basically because there was only one of them

when did romance = sex? edit: so after marriage: romance = pr0n = sex sex = romance = pr0n pr0n = romance = sex sex = pr0n = romance A*B*C = C*B*A maths lol

well that's kinda gay solution: stop ignoring her, it'll work ...in theory

aww man that's nasty Guess what's even nastier? When it goes in reverse order from kissy kiss to friendly...hug why women love friend zoneing?

you've played lots of action games then I presume

just when it was about to get epic ahh who am I kiddin, better this way so, uhh, is there possibility we might get MoW in some deluxe version of SoZ? Pretty please?

so using philosophical terms makes something 'deeper', huh? that's like how putting fins on something makes it more aerodynamic, right? or racing stripes on a car makes it go faster? No, of course not. And that's point you and I both agree on!!! It doesn't make anything deeper. It is merely facade to make something seem more "deeper" than it really is. It is all just facade. What I mean is that facade must be build on something, and that something is nigh-universally utter crap philosophy. But eh, some sort of embryonic philosophy still. If there is nothing to build facade on then it isn't anything at all basically. It is just line of symbols. COGNITIO PLATO DESCARTES BRAINZ IDENTITY THEORY ONTOLOGY isn't anymore philosophical or pseudo-philosophical than ACASCASV AVC;AVA;