spacekungfuman

Randomnoob - the problem we're having is very simple. You are insisting that the label RPG is what matters, and that it can and should expand and be dynamic. I am saying terms be damned, I want games like those that the label traditionally stood for. If there was a subgenre like "Stat based RPG" that engrosses the type of game I'm talking about, I don't think there would be a problem. Rephrased with these terms, here is what I think our conversation has looked like. I have said that I like stat based rpgs, and want to see games made conform to that, because it is what I like. You have said that you do not care as much for that style of game as others, and that Action RPGs should also be made. In the end, I have said that I like a certain type of game and want to see more of them be made, especially by Obsidian, and you have said that I should want to play another type of game instead or in addition to that, because these other types of games are related to the games I like in some way. I see no dispute here, but you will not even acknowledge that stat based RPGs are a type of game distinct from all other types of RPGs that might have some merit of their own.

You... you do realize that the only reason CRPGs are like that is because P&P RPGs are like that and it's easily replicated, right? They could be like that because of the phases of the moon for all I care. They've always been like that, and its what I think of, look for, and expect when I play a CRPG. There is no profound metaphysical point to argue about here. RPGs were made a certain way when I started playing them. I like that type of game play more than any other type of gameplay. Whatever someone may choose to call an RPG now, if it is not like the games I like to play, I probably won't like it. I am dissapointed that a company I like very much like Obsidian is making a game that I am less likely to enjoy. What exactly is the problem here? For what its worth, I already said earlier that I do like FPS and TPS games, but I don't want to have to endure watered down gameplay from that genre to get to the RPG elements like C&C, dialog, character building etc. If AP has top notch TPS gameplay, then that's ok. But it still won't scratch that RPG itch that a traditional game with stat resolved combat would.

If you love characters' accuracy having nothing to do with your own, why not play a P&P RPG? Why should I have to do that, when CRPGs from rouge and hack on have given me the experience I'm looking for? I'm not asking for some crazy idiosyncratic thing. I'm asking for games of the type I like to continue to be made, instead of twisted into different genres. If it was only the odd game it would be one thing, but its getting harder to find a traditional rpg than an action rpg lately, and that just makes me sad. Its worse coming from Obsidian, since they're one of the few companies keeping the traditional style alive.

If you want stat-based combat and character action, try checking out RTSs and TBSs. Those also have stat-based combat. I do play games in both those genres. But RPGs are my favorite, and when I say that, I'm referring to a specific type of game. Right now, good traditional RPGs are hard to find, and Obsidian is one of the last companies making them. This is why it makes me sad to see them making games that veer away from the classic style I and many others love.

So because I'm not willing to accept your view on how stuff should be, I'm being obtuse? Wow, thanks. I take great pride in being obtuse, then. As for the rest of your post... well. I guess you just want AP to be IE/Aurora-style. Not gonna happen, so there. No, you're being obtuse because you are making a point of ignoring the very simple fact that tradition matters because some people LIKE what is traditional. You keep saying the mechanics are outmoded or obsolete, and that they should not be adhered to just because of tradition. I am saying they should be adhered to because RPG fans like RPGs that use them. You almost could not be an RPG fan without liking them, because 99% of all PC RPGs ever made use them. If you could just acknowledge this simple point and *gasp* act as if it isn't wrong for RPG fans to want games similar to the games they've liked in the past, then you'd come across as being more reasonable. Of course, that requires you to abandon your argumentative stance, so you won't do it.

Umm. . . These mechanics go back much further than IE, and existed in most games contemporaneous with IE, and most that came after. They go all the way to rouge, hack, and dungeon. The genre was started like this, and if you can't understand why genre fans would want to see games like the games they've seen in the past, then I don't even know what to say to you.

Well, there are different shades of course. We have real turn based games like Fallout, Isometric Realtime w/ Pause like BG/P:ST, real time like divine divinity, tile based real time like Eye of the Beholder, tp real time w/pause like KOTOR, real time first person with a too hit roll like Morrowind (the outer limits of acceptable), etc. Lots of ways to have stat resolved combat. But once you use your skill to aim, and there's no to hit roll, you're just outside of stat resolved combat, and that is basically a bright line.

Only in Western games. Japanese games are still chock full of stat-based combat goodness. Of course when folks say they want stat-based combat in RPGs what they really want is a particular type of combat from older PC RPGs they used to play, not any old stat-based combat. Personally I love me some Jagged Alliance 2 or Silent Storm style turn-based combat, while the type of combat from the old Bard's Tale games I played once upon a time I have zero interest in. Even JRPGs seem to be moving more and more towards action though. Even FF12 was an action RPG. Japanese Strat RPGs are one of the last holdouts of stat resolved turn based tactical combat, but mainstream JRPGs went action a while ago, which coincides with when I stopped playing them. . .

Random Noob - You're just being obtuse at this point. We are saying that we are fans of a certain type of game that has existed in a certain form for a long time now. We want more games that provide that experience, and don't want games that provide half the experience we're looking for mixed in with something else. Liking CRPGs traditionally has meant liking stat resolved combat, and just because developers choose to make games with other types of combat/world interaction and call them "RPGs" does not obligate us to like them just because we are CRPG fans. CRPG has an established meaning and an established fan base, and it should not come as any surprise that the more the genre strays from its established meaning, the less fans will like it. And I'm sick of people saying that stat resolved combat is just a tradition of CRPGs that does not have to be followed or even given deference. My favorite color is actually grey (I'm sure you find this ironic) and I have always liked things that are grey. If someone were to come along and make a pink shirt but call it grey, there is not reason to think I would be predisposed to like it because it is called "grey". The name has no meaning, but what it traditionally stands for means everything.

QFT. I mean the whole point of a crpg is to build and develop your character and then watch as they character you built suceeds or fails on those merits. Once you start allowing my skill with the keyboard and mouse to affact how my stat/skill built character plays, then you've sort of defeated the whole purpose of building a character in the first place. I mean, in Oblivion I could pick any lock in the game with a 5 skill in lockpicking and a 30 agility. Why? Because my player skill in manipulating the lockpick gui was overriding my character skill. So what's the point of a lockpicking skill in the first place? I've got nothing against FPS games either. I just like them different. There's nothing left to say. This is the point of the topic, and the CRPG right here. Other types of combat are fine for other genres, but once you take away stat resolved combat, you just don't get the experience you traditionally get from a CRPG, and I play CRPGs to get the experience I've always enjoyed getting out of them. Its as simple as that. Chess wasn't made obsolete by monopoly, and when you want to play chess, monopoly is not a reasonable substitute, even if you represent yourself with the king instead of the dog.

I don't have time to do line by line replies, but here's a quick response to basically everything that has been said. Twitch skill is a simulation of NOTHING. Your ability to use a mouse to aim at something is just as contrived as rolling dice. Tactical decision making is a reasonable proxy, because the player is doing the EXACT same thing they would be doing if they actually were the character. If you can do the exact same thing, then I can concede that no simulation is needed. But if I do need to simulate something like combat, why should I prefer the ability of the player to aim with a mouse to the dice roll of the character, especially since the character is defined relative to the world by his stats? That said, my prefferred game would actually have the character's perception and intelligence limit my tactical options. In fact, that would be as close to perfect as an RPG combat system could get imo. I believe in coherent game worlds. Nothing breaks immersion for me like having the character stop being the character, and succeed or fail at a physical task based on my reflexes. This is a personal preference, but it is not the preference of one person, like people here are claiming. RPGs are traditionally played in a certain way, and believe it or not, a lot of people like it. In fact, 80% of poll respondents so far prefer stat resolved combat.

Why is this dreadful? I guess it must be terrible to have your character fail at a persuasion check then if you're a really convincing guy in real life? And man, it ruins a game when a real life locksmith fails a lock picking check. Your character is not you in an RPG. That's the whole point of having stats. Either you have the stats and they determine outcomes, you have the stats and they don't determine outcomes, or you have no stats and player skill determines outcomes. The first one is RPG gameplay. The second two are just Doom. I like Deus Ex's combat because it is fun. I consider Deus Ex an FPS though, with some RPG elements. I don't know anyone into RPGs that considers Deus Ex or System Shock an RPG. . . And why exactly has anything "died with iso"? Iso is still probably the best viewpoint for RPGs, and such modern RPGS as NWN2, DA:O, and AOD feature iso prominently.

Well, that just goes to why first person is a bad viewpoint for RPGs. Of course, this is not first person, and aiming is generally very simple in TP games. Better yet, they could use a lock on or assisted aiming system, with stats determining if you hit. I never heard anyone complain about missing in BG, Diablo, or Torment after clicking on the target. How is this different?

It helps that you are wrong in this particular case. As for the "dreaded" Oblivion combat, no, we do not have clumsy first-person melee. We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them. How can I be "wrong" in my preference for stat resolved combat? The problem with Oblivion's combat is not that its clumsy. Its that the character's stats don't determine the outcomes, so its more of an action game (albeit a terrible one) than an RPG. All the previews of AP are saying the game is an action rpg that skews more for action fans, and I'm just hoping they're reading too far into this. System Shock 2 and Deus Ex have nice hybrid systems. Hell, even morrowind's combat had a to hit roll. And while this poll only has 4 responses, everyone has said they prefer stat resolved combat. And bullets going where I put them is exactly what I don't want I want the guns to "put the bullets" where my character points them. If he's a better shot with his gun than I am with a mouse, I want to hit. If I'm a better shot with my mouse than he is with his gun, then I want him to miss. I don't want to just put on the main character's face as a mask. Let me put it this way. When I want to play an RPG, I expect stat resolved combat, where the character does things I tell him to. When I want to play a FPS I expect to point and shoot things. If the RPG is going to have FPS combat, then it had better be as good as a top end FPS. Otherwise, you're just suffering through combat that isn't good enough for a real FPS to get to the RPG elements. I've done that in games like bloodlines, but it really hurts the overall experience.

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

I'm generally excited by Alpha Protocol, and think it sounds like a great way for Obsidian to strike out with its own IP. That said, I'm concerned that the combat won't be rpgish enough, and maybe won't be RPG combat at all. Right now, it sounds like Obsidian may even be committing the cardinal sin of borrowing a mechanic from Oblivion, by having stats only impact damage, not aim. I am hopeful that the reports I'm hearing are exaggerated, because the idea of Obsidian taking cues from the prime suspect in the destruction of the Western RPG is just too much to handle. If the dreaded Oblivion combat really is in the game, will there at least be an option for system shock 2/deux ex style combat where character skill impacts aiming? Thanks for any responses.

I believe in voting with my wallet, and Obsidian is one of only two mainstream rpg makers (the other being CD Projekt) that I want to support. To that end, I would like to know what the "best way" to buy Obsidian's games is. Do some stores/distribution channels result in the company seeing more revenue? Is it better to buy from Best Buy than Amazon on day one to help boost early numbers which help publisher's decide whether or not to make a sequel? I know this may sound like a weird question, but we lost Troika, and while Obsidian seems to be doing well, I want to make sure I do my own small part to keep the last refuge for the "golden age" spirit making games as long as possible. Thanks. P.S. This isn't butt kissing or anything. I just really can't deal with the thought of a world where the only RPGs are made by awful companies like the now console obsessed Bethesda or post BG2 Bioware. Since when did PC RPGs have to be accessible to the lowest common denominator?

Sorry if I made it sound like you leaked it. I just appreciate that you actually spoke to us about it when you saw it was released. And of course I appreciate the fact that you're single handedly finishing a BIS project. If you want to keep on finishing old BIS games, I don't think any of us will complain. P.S. I'd even buy Obsidian created Oblivion style games light on role playing, if it bank rolls private projects like Black Hound. And you know how I feel about those from your blog .

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35970 Yes, you can really play it. Josh Sawyer has also commented on the demo over at NMA. On a personal level, I'd like to say thank you to Josh for continuing the dialog on a game that was sadly canceled long ago, and even moreso for taking on Black Hound. Obsidian may be the last company keeping real PC RPGs alive, but Josh is really going above and beyond the call of duty.

Josh. I'm not trying to be rude here, but why are you posting reviews of squad based FPS games, and games that cater to console players no less? Between this and your earlier entry about mechanics where you seemed to think that traditional crpgs are dead, you're scaring me. I support Obsidian specifically because the company is basically run by BIS expatriates, but if you're not going to carry the traditional crpg banner (so far I feel like Obsidian is the only company left still waving that flag) then you can count me out. I'm upgrading my computer just to play NWN2, and I didn't even like NWN. I'm doing it because of BIS. I spent hours reading the recovered scripts and listening to voice clips from KOTOR2 because of BIS. If these games were made by any other developer (other than the departed BIS or Troika) then I wouldn't go to these lengths. But if you go down the Oblivion path, then you'll lose me, and a lot of other people that feel the same way as I do. Maybe its stupid to support Obsidian as much as I do based on my love of BIS games. Maybe it was stupid to support Troika the same way. But stupid or not, I and people like me do support you, and cut you more slack, than any other developer on the planet. I'd think twice before gambling that away and making a game that has more in common with Rainbow 6 and Oblivion than it does with Torment or Fallout. . .

Out of curiosity, what year are you, and what school do you go to? I understand if you don't want to "out" your school online. I'm a 2L at a top 4 law school, and a large number of students play video games here. In fact, many students even play them in class (and I'm not just talking about flash games, they play Super Mario World). You're greatly overstating the videogame stigma in my opinion. No offense, but I think that you've fallen into the trap of thinking that the rest of the population is like law students in anyway (a trap I also fell into as a 1L). I'm currently taking a class on managing public relations with a professor from Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy, and the main point he wants us to understand is that the vast majority of the population knows NOTHING about politics, let alone the law. These are fresh issues to most people, and most likely fresh issues to most gamers. It wasn't too long ago that games with some more serious issues in them (Fallout and Planescape Torment) actually sold very well, and I don't see any reason why similar games couldn't sell well today, if someone would just make them.

Josh - I think that you've hit the proverbial nail on the head with this post. We need more deep games with real moral choices. Isn't Obsidian the perfect developer to do that though, since you have so many of the Black Isle employees who made Planescape and the Fallouts? I read the original script to KOTOR II, and that ending gave me Planescape flashbacks. . .

Jack-of-all trades master of none? Well, I guess that's alright for some games, but you can't really build a genre around games like that. Personally, I'll always play the Fallouts of the world (If only more games of this caliber would be made) for my character, story, and world interaction needs; the ninja gaidens of the world for action; and the Hitman and Thief games of the world for stealth. Oblivion was just a long bland mess to me, and every time that a game moves in this direction, it becomes worse at "scratching a particular itch." I only played oblivion to see what everyone was talking about. After I played it a little, I wanted to play a deep RPG, and a real action game, because Oblivion was so disappointing as both to me. And I never really made a point of using different attacks in Oblivion, and did fine because it was so easy.

But Oblivion does not introduce a series of new moves which the player must make split second decisions regarding. When you move from the simple "one button blocks, one buttons swings" combat of oblivion into parrying, dodging, attacking in different ways, etc, then you've made the game one dependent on a player's "twitch" ability much more so than a fallout of Planescape Torment. Well, that's just your opinion. I find it more rewarding to have my characters succeed or fail based on who they are, not how good I am with a mouse. I play action games when that's what I want. But comparing stat resolved combat to Progress quest isn't fair. The outcome of combat in a traditional rpg reflects decisions you made about character build and equipment. Progress quest involves no player choice at all. Incidentally, I actually enjoy progress quest more than the entire TES series combined

But this requires a high degree of player skill, which basically means the game is an action game, not an RPG anymore. At best, its an RPG which excludes RPG fans who aren't into or good at action games.