random n00b
-
Posts
629 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by random n00b
-
-
...I don't want to know.
-
Good luck with that.That those who don't share my viewpoint are wrong.
Heh, looks like Cycloneman outsmarted you, even if he just provided a recollection of the element(s) common to the games that you listed, rather than a meaningful definition of "RPG" (which, given the premises, I would think impossible). Kudos to him.All right, this might not be perfect (and I doubt there'd be any large-scale agreement on it) but I'll take it. In other words, it's not the definition of an RPG anyone would accept, but it satisfies the requirements of the challenge. PM me which prize you want.It's cool that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, though.
-
Um, that's not quite what I understood from the article. What you are describing is another well documented disorder, though.Fascinating. It claims that some people procrastinate to cause crises just to get kicks.
Bad stuff man. The depression analogy in the article is pretty good.It occurs to me that I might well fall into that category, or have done in the past.I still can't imagine going to your average shrink and going like, "well, I'm fine and all, I'm simply lazy beyond belief is all"...
-
You know that just ain't gonna happen.
-
Yes, Verdi is indeed awesome.
Seriously though, great thread. Some of the pieces mentioned I knew, most I didn't. I'm going to have a lot of listening to do!
-
-
Sure, I was in fact thinking of Fallout 2, as that game fits what I'm saying perfectly. Let's assume I want to play the stereotypical evil gunslinger. The way I imagine him, he's arrogant, selfish, and utterly without respect for either property or life. So, at character creation, I'll tag Small Guns, Speech, and perhaps... First Aid or Doctor. So, I have a character whose good stats are PE,AG,LK, and decent IN. I arrive at The Den looking for Vic. At this point, the character sheet alone limits my options to:Can you give an example from a game? The distinctions you are making here are not clear to me.- storm the complex
- strike a deal with Metzger
- join the slavers
I can't screw him for a discount because I'm playing a male. Note that if I was playing a monk-type, my options would be further limited, as taking on the guards with my fists alone would be nothing short of suicidal.
The way I've built this character means he could just storm Metzger's complex without too much risk, but since he's an evil SOB, he doesn't give a crap about the slaves, and doesn't like the idea of risking his neck for them. Therefore, it's the artificial personality I have invented for the character, that will determine what the choice is in the end (simply buy Vic off him), because joining the slavers means that too many people will hate me (the character is not too stupid). If I was playing a goody-two-shoes, joining the slavers would be out of the question as well, albeit for different reasons.
So, the idea is that two factors circumscribe what are the options that my character has:
A represents what is within the realm of possibility (this also excludes any patently suicidal course of action). B represents what the character could do without stepping out of character, that is, without breaking the conception I have previously built of his personality, and/or metagaming. The intersection is the optimal choice for the character in a given situation (optimal from a roleplaying POV!). A is no doubt important, but it is B what defines for me what this kind of game is about, since that's the core of roleplaying - A can vary as the game progresses, but B hardly will.
Well, yeah. They could perhaps had Paul appear in some mission later and give you a hand or something like that, but that wouldn't really affect the plot any more than seeing him lick his wounds at Tracer Tong's. It is a very significant change in-game though, as one of the major characters dies or not depending on your actions.Saving Paul's life, despite appearing monumentally sigficant at the time, changes nothing in the remaining game, except you get a few lines of dialogue with him in Hong Kong. Sure, you can get a warm and fuzzy glow inside from saving him, but a well-designd game should make something that sigficant actually mean something to the gameworld.
Actually, Lebedev is simply arrested. He is killed at some point after JC defects for good, and the murder is blamed on him. But Lebedev is not important - Anna Navarre is. The outcome is the same in the end, she ends up dead either way. But JC shooting a fellow agent to protect a known, albeit unarmed, terrorist or JC shooting the terrorist himself is a fairly important decision from an in-universe perspective at least. Yep, the game does not feature a multi-branching plot, and that makes the consequences of most choices trivial from a gameplay perspective, but not as far as the narrative goes. And in any case, most games that boast an open-ended storyline aren't much better at providing decisive consequences to the player's choices. Fake choice all across the board.Saving Lebedev from Anna on the plane is even worse. Not only does it have 0 gameplay signifcance other than a few lines of dialogue, but the next time you see Manderley you are told Lebeded was tracked down and killed anyway, offscreen where you could do nothing about it. That's an example of game design that offers you something that appears to be a sigificant choice then spits it back in your face 10 minutes later by telling you it didn't matter anyway, because we killed him without you.I really wish they had had more time to devote to this game, and the option to stay with UNATCO hadn't been scrapped. That'd have been grand!
- storm the complex
-
I'm drooling already!Welcome to the spiritual successor to Deus Ex!
Freudian slip?Anyway, whatever it is I hope it is a success for Oblivion... -
I guess you could have a character be defined by his abilities, but for me that just doesn't cut it. When I'm playing a (good) cRPG in which choices are of any consequence, I have a mental scheme of the character's personality that I create before I start playing, and develop the character accordingly. The character's skills and abilities only determine the options available, not the ones he will choose, because that's determined by his personality. Obviously, a bunch of pixels cannot have a personality, much like a sheet of paper. That's why I must make it up and direct the character accordingly. Punching some guy or sneaking past him is a cosmetic decision for me and ultimately inconsequential, what's important is WHY that guy is a problem. Is he a slaver guard and I'm trying to free the slaves, or is he just the casino guard?Fair enough. To me, a characters skill's and stats define their personality. They have to, because obviously a bunch of pixels or polygons has no actual personality of their own. If my character is very strong and has a high unarmed combat skill, that defines part of his personality because his use of strength and punching is going to be a important aspect of how he deals with things. That same character may have a low personality or a low intelligence and these will also impact and define his personailty.
No, I mean choices made to affect the world, as opposed to choices to affect the character internally (taking a perk).I am not sure what you mean by the "choices made by the character externally"? Do you mean choices made by you, the player?
DX didn't allow many decisions, but the ones allowed were fairly important. Killing Agent Navarre to save Lebedev? Protecting Paul Denton or beating it? Killing Gunther outright or trying to reason with him? Merging with Helios or killing Bob Page? Those actually affected the plot. And the game also had other, more "flavor", choices such as shutting down Lucius DeBeer.Well, Deus Ex wasn't really a crpg (My opinion! lol) It was an action game that gave you some choices as to how to solve things through the use of a skill set, a biomod set, and a gear set. Also, I like Deus Ex, but it lacked significant player choice really. Most of them were pretty superficial: Sandra runs away, smuggler lives or dies, nothing too earth shaking. Not much of the world changed its response to you based on your actions, iirc. Deus Ex was mostly a problem solving action game. I'm not putting it down in any way. I enjoyed it a lot.Sure, the game wasn't great as far as character development goes - it wasn't even a proper RPG and was not open-ended by any means. But choices were significant and did have an impact, and they did allow for glimpses of the personality of JC through the player's choices.
-
To me, the set of skills and stats of a character are only very loosely related to that character's personality. It's the choices made by the character externally by which its personality acts and is developed, not its STR score or the perk chosen at level-up. FPSs mostly lack any fundamental decision component outside of "am I going to use the raygun or the boomstick to splatter the thing's brains all over the wall?", and that's why they are boring in this respect. Those games could very easily have a stat system you could play with, and still be without choice or meaningful character development. Think Deus Ex, and remove all player choice outside of skill point allocation.The really fun thing about a good stat based character is that it has a personaility that isn't me. In FPS games I find that the character that I am "roleplaying" really doesn't have any personality other than as some sort of weird cyber extension of my hands and eyes. WHich is always somewhat dull. -
I'm attacking you? Because I'm disagreeing with you and considering the points you made? Wait, isn't that what a discussion is all about?For the last few posts, it appears you been attacking me for having an opinion and posting it. I'm OK with that; it comes with the territory, but I am not saying that you need to agree with me so please don't take it in that way.
And playing a character and having it interact with the gameworld is related to stat fiddling how? And how does that preclude player skill from being a factor, too? That's the connection I'm challenging.Every stat built charaacter has strengths and weaknessess, every stat build character has a personality. Fallout yielded so many fun characters. None of them were min-maxed. That's not the point. The point is to build a character to interact with the gameworld based on who they are. That's they way I play it anyway.
That's fine.Right. I'll say it again. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol needs to be X or Y or Z. That has nothing to do with my posts. I am answering the orginal question in the thread: "Do you prefer stat resolved combat or player skill resolved combat?"
-
Some people liking what's traditional does not preclude those same people from liking innovation as well - you are potentially making a mischaracterization, and you are doing it on purpose. No, tradition alone is not a good reason to hold on to something that's obsolete, because the mechanics that spawned those traditions were limited purely by hardware concerns and were themselves heavily modified versions of PnP rulesets in many cases, or borrowed heavily from them in others.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.I also care very little for your not considering me a "RPG fan" or whatever, I already said I operate on a case-by-case basis, and stat-based mechanics aren't enough for me to even consider a game. I am also perfectly willing to accept that people like old systems, and I am a (fairly crappy, yet) avid chess player myself. What I don't agree with is the close-minded stance that genres are closed and immutable, much less a genre as vague as "role-playing games".
Again, I'm argumentative because I refuse to accept the dogmas you take for granted. But then, it wasn't me who started a thread dissing a game's combat system because it doesn't properly observe some arbitrary "tradition" (nevermind the fact that it was never meant to), and a poll that dismisses differing opinions beforehand. Whatever.
-
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.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.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? Then the whole "that's the whole point of crpgs" thing is something you throw around whenever you feel like it, but it's not actually intended to mean anything, yes?There is no fundamental connection. I never said that.
Nitpicking. But yeah, if a cRPG is only about fiddling around with stats (from your previous posts about stats), there's no point in doing anything else, unless you want to artificially crank the difficulty up for some reason.So are you saying the only way to make and play a stat-based character is min-maxing?
Oblivion is not AP. Oblivion is not any other game either. It is only Oblivion. General conclusions cannot be drawn from the shortcomings of one game in particular.It was an example of a situation where mixing player skill and character skill didn't work. That's the only relevance. -
I don't have a "take" on cRPGs. I operate on a case-by-case basis. But I'm not impressed by others telling me what cRPGs should be about.If that is your take on a crpg, so be it.
No, that's just the way it was done in the IE. It really has nothing to do with roleplaying. You want IE-style mechanics, OK. But don't pretend that there is some sort of fundamental connection between character development and the retarded, artificially induced failings of game mechanics from the past.Otoh, if you're saying that failing a backstab because you missed a skill roll is specifically something bad, I would just say that TO ME, that is the entire point of a crpg. You build your character with the knowledge of the stats and skills and let the actions of that character succeed or fail based on those numbers.
No, you didn't say anything about it, but you've been reducing cRPGs to playing with stats. I guess you could not min/max, but if you strip everything else away, there's not much more to do, really.If you say so. I said nothing about min/maxing so you must be reading my mind or something.
Then, if you weren't meaning to draw any conclusions from it, what's the relevance of that example outside of a discussion about Oblivion?No. That was a single example from a game that failed to do it well. Nothing more, nothing less. -
And shades of gray not only do not exist, but cannot exist.If it is suppose to be a CRPG in any form then stat based combat is a must. If it is to be a FPS or Third Person Shooter, then player skill is a must.Eh, OK.
As defined by whom? Perhaps I'm more interested on seeing how my CE rogue doublecrosses her partymates than watching her fail repeatedly at backstabbing some immobile bozo that is only a few inches away from the tip of her weapon. Role-playing does not mean Baldur's Gate.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.
So then, roleplaying for you is just min/maxing. Interesting.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.
And because Oblivion failed at delivering a balanced blend of player skill and character stats to affect the game does that mean that it cannot be done? DOES NOT COMPUTEI 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? -
Have you played DDO? It's a party-based, PvE-focused MMO that plays very much like that, and used to benefit from a large simultaneous playerbase. Soloing is possible as well.I would not purchase a MMORPG unless it offered free online play, id est Guild Wars I and II, and had the option to "solo" through the game. Sure, it may seem that these requirements defeat the purpose of an MMO, but that is exactly what I am trying to convey - I do not like MMORPGs and would rather play a single-player or small-multi-player game.
You don't want to pay monthly fees for periodic new content, that's fine. But the gameplay thing is just an excuse, or you haven't looked enough.
-
-
Anecdotal evidence is hardly enough to assert a general rule.
A KotOR MMO failing could mean trouble for the franchise, but otherwise there's no way to know if a MMO would preclude a third installment.
-
-
-
Huh? And here I thought this thread was specifically about combat? Nice try at going off on a tangent, though.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.Yeah, it's really awesome to sneak behind some goon, stab him in the head, and then have the game display *miss*. The paradigm of immersion, indeed.
Or you try and find a compromise where player skill isn't irrelevant and stats mean something. Wow, that was hard.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 is PnP gameplay, where there's no other way of determining outcomes. cRPGs are NOT tabletop RPGs, nor do they necessarily play the same.The first one is RPG gameplay.
Yeah, whatever floats your boat. The bottom line is that Deus Ex had a hybrid system you liked, but since it proves you are wrong, you are moving it outside the scope of your point.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. . .
Opinion alone does not constitute fact.Iso is still probably the best viewpoint for RPGs -
cRPGs ≠ PnP RPGs.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.
Funny that you would say this, and then praise Deus Ex's rather lackluster combat.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.Also, I'm surprised nobody has noted how dreadful is to have the player play flawlessly, only to have the game tell her that her efforts have been for naught. Purely stat-resolved combat died with isometric games.
In DX, stats affected how long it took for the crosshair to settle down and also added a small percentage to base weapon damage.I'm fairly sure that stats in System Shock 2 only affected damage, not the chance to hit. Same goes for Deus Ex where the stats afected the unsteadiness of the crosshair and, perhaps(I'm not really sure), damage instead of the chance to hit. So if you liked combat in these games I really don't see what you're complaining about. -
'Cause I'm pure dagnasty evil.
It's just a fact.
-
WHOANSWERED YES????
☜
The Mass Effect comparisons must get annoying
in Alpha Protocol: General Discussion
Posted