Luridis

Yea well, the previous argument against Skyrim's lack of to-hit mechanics was that it made hits too easy. Now, they're too hard. I would say the best option in either case, if the mechanic is undesired, is that one should simply not play that game. That said, I don't think to-hit mechanics, as implemented in a system like THAC0, is a required element of something that is to be called an RPG. You say the first two fallout games are some of the best RPGs ever made. I can't really know because I've not played them. I'm not big on apocalypse stuff, even if science/tech setting for an RPG wouldn't bother me. I'm really excited about games based on Numenera though, I see few games in what I'd call the "post-populace" setting.

I'd have actually considered this given some of what I've read in non-media commentary, but since I am not interested in installing "origin" I guess I'll have write it off.

Edit: I think there's a bug somewhere in the post editor. Every once in a while when I edit a post I end up with a double post, the original and my recent edit being in different posts.

Well what I think it boils down to is that I consider games like Skyrim and Diablo to be RPGs because they still have an elaborate stat system that scales the character's power allowing them to progress. But, there are some action adventures and FPS adventure games that have started calling themselves RPGs simply because they introduce a class mechanic. And, I don't think they qualify because they don't have any sort of stat progression. I mean, Team Fortress has classes and still isn't an RPG. Obviously some people draw the RPG line closer in than that and avoid action mechanics. But, that's what their opinion of an RPG is, and they're entitled to it. And, I even understand why they feel that way. There's just not enough games being made with the more traditional mechanics these days. A mechanic I personally don't much care for is real-time-with-pause. I understand the developers are trying to bridge the gap between turn based play and real time play. But, I see it as giving up the best of both worlds for a mediocre compromise. I like both real time and turn based systems, have seen both done very well and mixing them always diminishes both. So... Yea, I know what it's like to feel strongly about a particular mechanic, just like 500metrictonnes and Qistina.

Looks like I won't be seeing this... I hate the world a little more each and every day, what a piece of work humanity is. http://www.cnet.com/news/sony-cancels-the-interview-release/

One more, only slightly creepy. I've always thought she was attractive, but not really my type. Lots of people the world over think she's the bomb. What's slightly creepy? I went to school with her. But, I cut myself some slack because I was never into her like that. Maybe it's because I remember how she looked at like 12.

Looking up LARP costume feeds can yield interesting diversions... Then, of course, my tastes tend towards the unconventional.

I try not to watch television. But, I caught a bit of that on a fleeting glimpse of Fox News. What was most interesting was this... So, our power grid may not be safe? I work on computer systems and have this to say: Only a foolish person connects anything essential to the internet that does not require access to it. I'm willing to bet the people running power plants weren't too keen on the idea of connecting grid controls to a public network, which makes Fox's statement dubious or ignorant at the very least.

History: Societies and empires rise, and later they decline. Nut: But it's being caused by the cornbread wendigos! History: Attacking the cause is irrelevant if the result is inevitable. Nut: Secular Pyramid Donkeys! History: Malevolent Dictator Seeks Fertile Soil.

Oooops. Every sharpshooter in the world just winced painfully. From everything more than 10 meters shoot a person in the eye is a chance taking depending on many factors even from a pistol, let alone crossbow and especially bow. Skill matters a lot. And, yes, archery never dominated warfare before firearms popped up. Partly because of teaching somewhat skilled archer took an awfully lot of time, and they died easily if an enemy managed to get in melee, which cavalry was often able to accomplish. That's irrelevant to RPGs, of course, but... I'm hurt. Regarding Skyrim, I don't think comparing its role system to something D&D-like is viable. They're just different, not "worse" or "better". Learning to do things by doing them makes perfect sense, in Skyrim it's just taken beyond last line of absurd by some abstract value of "level" tied to it and absence of stats and restrictions in general. Bethesda understood KISS principle in a wrong way, yeah. Very wrong way. [here goes some nasty comment about raising conversation skills in D&D 3.5 with xp earned by endless killing.] "I'm learning how to be courteous with that person by butchering him/her! No person - no need to be courteous, and I always know where to put extra belongings, yay!" I know that happens only with a lousy DM, but ruleset allows that and in videogame there's just no DM, so what you're going to do? I'm agree with the point that mixing player's skills with character's skills to succeed in some action is stupid, though. Viable gameplay wise, but stupid in general. I hope you'll forgive me a little lecturing on OP in the end (it was intended to be imho, but... well, it happens. Sorry. ). Every argument about what an RPG should be and what not loses its scope pretty quickly because of lack of definitions. Genre originated in PnP gaming was never decently defined for computer gaming. "Role-Playing Game? I can roleplay in Call of Duty, you know. So it's gotta be an RPG, by genre name. What now?" Bad thing is, there's no way to deny such statement completely. It has some truth in it, strictly speaking. Some. Old-school RPG fans take for basis a complex system, consisting from ruleset that makes character feel alive, world that gives him a place to live and deep book-like narrative tying those two together, but that's not obvious for newcomer or casual bystander used to simplicity. Matter of tastes in the end. Big videogame developers trying to appeal to both sides and thus releasing freaks of a games with no sense for a dime inside. It's not their fault, it's their job, sadly. That said, RPGs are not going downhill. They've always been a niche sport, and with computer gaming developing they came out of their niche and was deformed by big ugly world. tl;dr Skyrim is s***ty, but somewhat fun game. I hope that Bethesda will remove the former and increase the latter, but that's never going to happen. Cheers :D Shooting in the eye... was wrong choice of words when I should have just said head. And the distances I had in my mind were no where near 10m, more like 3.0 - 4.5m. The point isn't about distance or weapon... The point is that causing catastrophic damage to the human body at relatively close range with just about anything is relatively easy in the absence of defensive skills or armor because hit points are a progression mechanic and not a very real representation of human frailty. The human heart has one hit point and be it a marathon runner or couch potato, a butcher knife there is likely to be fatal to both people. I just didn't write out all of what was going through my head. Shoot a person with a bow in the face at 3' they're likely to die, or at least off the battlefield. While the same thing can happen in an RPG to a level XX badboy wearing impervious armor of the ancient gods and we're talking about a tickle. That was the point of the whole statement, player controlled aiming does not trivialize the stat based defenses in action RPGs. Some of the over-generalizations I saw were trying to say just that, because you aim in skyrim, you've just made stats meaningless and that is simply not true. I'm tired and a feeling seedy, so I'll have to answer the other later.

Fair enough. Your perspective has actually improved my opinion of BGS and Skyrim. I personally would like them to have a more sophisticated (and moddable) combat system, but I actually like what they're doing with in the high-level sense that they're reifying abstract systems and exposing them as actual gameplay. (But I wouldn't want that to become widespread in RPGs, either.) Have you ever tried Duke Patrick's combat mods (in either Oblivion or Skyrim)? He's an SCA-er that tries to apply principles of real-life combat in the games. His mods make both games more extreme in terms of both player skill and RPG stats. So for example blocking becomes much more important for survival, with the timing entirely based on player skill but with the effectiveness heavily mitigated by character skill. Also, as an aside, both he and Arwen (of Realism Tweaks fame for the Fallout games) have complained about how difficult it is to port their mods to Skyrim because of the lack of stats. Arwen eventually gave up, and DP decided to fake hidden attributes in order to implement his mechanics. Like I mentioned before... I don't expect anyone to agree. I just see the whole thing from a different perspective, that being one of a person who sees at it's heart, what are essentially just two different formulas for damage scaling. (Attacks_Per_Time - RNG_Misses) * (Weapon_Damage + Class_Bonuses) * (1.0 - Target_DR/100) = Damage_Received vs On_Player_Attack_Success Damage_Received = (Weapon_Damage * (Weapon_Skill_Bonus + Perk_Adjust)) - Target_DR/100 Or whatever the pseudocode would be, I'm a bit tired ATM so the math may not even be correct. I don't know the exact details of how their code generates the values, but that's the sense of it. That said, I understand that Qistina and 300metrictonnes disagree completely and I understand why they feel that way. Completely isolating the player's direct action from any involvement in the outcome makes a character feel more separate from you. There is also a charm to that style of play that even I miss dearly. Let's just say I am glad Obsidian wasn't considering action oriented game mechanics for PoE, we have plenty of action RPGs to choose from already. Where I wholeheartedly disagree with those two is that the RNG hit mechanic is a defining element of the genre. EDIT: Damn I hate trying to reply through fatigue... I sound like basket case.

I'll have to address the rest later. But on number 5, you're kind of making my point for me. To see why, I'll have to go all the way back to the beginning statement. 500metric posted, "This is why "actionising" RPGs is such a mistake, as it blurs the distinction between the player and his character. In Skyrim, I played a character who had the lowest possible Archery skill. In other words, his stats defined him as someone who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a bow. Yet because I had good aim with the mouse and keyboard, my character was a veritable sharpshooter." To which I replied, "A level 10 warrior in the D20 system does more damage to a bear with a longbow than a wizard would because the warrior class specializes in weapons. A level 10 archer in Skyrim does more damage to a bear with a longbow than would a destruction focused wizard because the player has specialized in archery by progressing the skill and selecting talents therein." You replied, "Also, in regard to your point about shooting a person in the eye with a bow and arrow: in the real world, shooting somebody in the eye is very difficult, except under perfect conditions. It's likely that even an expert shot is going to miss entirely, bounce off the eye socket, graze an ear, have the arrow deflect off the helmet, or have any one of a thousand other outcomes. In computer games all those possibilities are usually compressed into either headshot = instakill or enemy X loses Y hitpoints, depending on the game. Eventually game engines might be able to show dodge and deflection animations, which would satisfy (and frustrate) most people. But we're not there yet." And finally the last two exchanges... Basically 500metrictonnes stated that "actionising" RPGs is bad because it puts part of the two-hit mechanics in the player's hands, allowing someone with almost no archery skill to be a sharpshooter. And, by extension that makes their ability to do damage a matter of player skill instead of character skill. Yet he is ignoring that the purpose of THAC0 is to scale damage to character level (because number of attacks statically increase with level, and this is not subject to RNG), which is not lost in Skyrim, even if the player hits 100% of the time. Additionally, D&D gets more attacks per round per level and in Skyrim that's always more or less in the player's hands, hence the need for a scaling component on the essentially fixed number of attacks per time. I explained that his argument was an oversimplification because, while you can point click and hit the target easily, it does not make the kill any easier to pull off than rolling a D20 to hit or miss the target. Why, because shooting someone in the eye in Skyrim is subject to physical DR of their armor, their total hit points, block mechanics, etc. So, in the end, the result of "actionising" the to hit mechanics in Skyrim produces the same net effect that rolling a D20 would: damage scaling. That is because, in the real world, shooting someone in the face is usually fatal, even if doing so could be classified easy. In essence, just because a "hit" might be easier to land in Skyrim because RNG is not involved, the mechanics of the skill system, armor and weapons produce exactly the same result: damage is scaled to character skill and not the player's skill. The player can have a 99% hit rate with bows and yet still take 15 arrows to kill a bear at a skill of 15, and that same bear that would be killed in a single shot by a player with 80 skill and 12 perks in archery. EDIT: Sorry for all the edits, trying to wrap up my thoughts into something communicable.

1: Welcome aboard! I drew out a lurker, here that's a good thing, unlike Apocrypha. 2: You say, "there are different types of RPGs" and then say "but action RPGs aren't RPGs." What's to prevent action RPG from being yet another type? But, more importantly, where do you draw the line between a "RPG Type" and something else with "RPG elements"? Just curious how other peeps see that. 3: Most of the people who LARP that I have met would wholeheartedly disagree with you. The premise that what they are doing is a "game" is central to a lot of what they do. From their own suspension of disbelief to even a legally defensive position should someone get hurt. I don't LARP myself, but for some of them "it's a game" could almost be their tag line. 4: I know what character and world building are, a d20 system isn't required. What I am trying to figure out is why this generalization, though not all inclusive, seems to come up repeatedly. Rule #1: Tactical inputs by the player are required for a game to be considered a RPG. Rule #2: Action based inputs, regardless of any and all tactical merit, are never considered an RPG. Summary: Auto-attacks with a special action queue might be an RPG. Any game with direct action created by player input cannot be a RPG. 5: You're just dead wrong here. Depending on range, shooting a person in the eye is remarkably easy, especially with something like a crossbow. Hence the need for rules like, "Always treat a firearm as if it is loaded." Because it is that easy to fatally wound someone, archery dominated warfare for a long part of our history because it is very effective.

It's not so much about which skills are used but to what extend they effect the gameplay.That's why we used to talk about tactical-RPGs and action-RPGs. But that was back when RPG term actually mattered and could be defined in some way. One of the best comments I've seen... because that's exactly how I think of the difference between a game like Oblivion and a game like NWN2. Both are role playing games, one is played as a party, from a tactical standpoint, and the other is played first person from an action oriented perspective. Not all action RPGs have you pushing a single button. Ever play an illusionist in Skyrim? Running in and mashing a button gets your face ripped off. Ever play a barbarian? (Light Armor & Two-Handed) Running in and just mashing attack will get you killed the first time you aggro 1+ in heavy armor because they'll stagger-lock you. But then, I have the self-discipline to not sit there and exploit the known holes in the AI. And, most of the time I run with mods to AI and combat that cause enemy groups to do a better job of flanking maneuvers, etc. Personally, I blame the bad AI on having to be written to run on PS3, that machine's 256MB of RAM has done more damage to gaming in the past 8 years than anything else has. Why? Because tons of games run on middleware where so much of the game's core code base has to be tuned to run well on the weakest platform.

I have an annotation for the title... Unless God arranged for this particular cab driver to be in the right place at the right time. Don't reply angry! Always remember... Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. - Julius Caesar Edit: That reminds me, I should probably put that in my sig and explain it.

I see that article as over-analysis. Being "nervous" is not a natural state, and you cannot force yourself to relax. If you're nervous then you're experiencing irrational fear. i.e. Fear of things you can't know and/or control: they won't like me, won't hire me, she won't be interested, etc. unless I am like X. So, there's the disconnect between who you are and who you think they want to be, hire, date, etc. Root cause = Suffering as the need for control and/or approval.

Oh, one more... Since you mentioned Celtic and monotonic, I've always loved the sound of the Native American end-blown flutes... http://youtu.be/47eEevgvGYE

If you don't mind vocals that can background because they don't draw you in focus on what's being said, try these below. I listen to this when I write code at times to, which I definitely could not do if the lyrics weren't quiet or rhythmic. I don't know if it's the same issue for you, but for me vocals pull me away when they make me want to listen and reflect on their meaning. Also, I can't speak for their popularity... I don't really listen to the radio anymore. Then also, for no vocals, not even chants, there's just about everything from the X3 sound track, or even X series as a whole... http://youtu.be/BhXXWhOFJzU

Kelly Macdonald: Some of you know her as Helena Ravenclaw in Harry Potter. But, for us in Generation X, she'll always be... heh... Diane. (Some of her pics from this movie are a little too, NSFW for the forum.)

I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time that is all very subjective. I won't say you're entirely wrong, but I won't agree that you're entirely correct either. 1 - There are hefty differences between a game like Doom and one like Oblivion. Doom does not have: classes, character levels, skills, differences between various resource pools based on said classes (health, mana, etc.). There are other significant mechanics missing from Doom, like notoriety, recognition of changes to world state beyond "all enemies dead on 1st floor", guilds, alignment, henchmen, etc. Perhaps most telling of all, Doom doesn't have a player created character name reflected by in-game dialogue. 2 - This one is also very different between the genre, and you're oversimplifying it a bit. For instance: In a First Person Shooter, the function of zooming as a sniper is focused on the weapon and its configuration. While in games like Skyrim and its ilk, this is a function of class, progressive skill or character level. Not just the ability to do it, but the length of time it can be maintained. You also mention twitch skills and to-hit mechanics. Again, damage scaling, if it exists at all in a first person shooter is a function of the weapon. In a first-person RPG, this is a function of the weapon, passive skill, class and other progress tied abilities like perks, talents, specializations, character level etc. The question that really needs to be asked is what is the function of to-hit mechanics & dice rolls or RNG? Is this an essential game play element to the RPG genre, or was it simply a means to an end? That end being: is the use of to-hit just another form of damage scaling? Before you answer either one of those, ask yourself this question: Are LARPers not really role playing because they're not using dice? 3 - I see your point, but that is also an oversimplification. In the real world shooting a person in the eye with a bow and arrow is usually fatal or, at the very least debilitating to the point where the person is removed from battle. In a first-person-RPG that same shot to the eye can be little more than a tickle because of values like health, armor skill, survival mechanics, etc. 4 - Again, see my previous question about LARPing, are they not role playing just because they're not rolling dice? I ask because LARPing is largely considered a roleplaying game, yet doesn't use paper stats and dice. 5 - Please don't say things like this. Let's not discourage game developers from trying new things or we'll live in a world of copycat games & mechanics that is one dimensional and bland. 6 - A level 10 warrior in the D20 system does more damage to a bear with a longbow than a wizard would because the warrior class specializes in weapons. A level 10 archer in Skyrim does more damage to a bear with a longbow than would a destruction focused wizard because the player has specialized in archery by progressing the skill and selecting talents therein. (I say archer in Skyrim because the class mechanics are essentially still there because of the way the mechanics work, but are just much more of a pain in the butt to level because progression doesn't work as well without the class system.) So again, is dice/RNG just a form of damage scaling, or is that mechanic a defining element of what we call an RPG? 7 & 8 - Large publishers are becoming money focused to a fault and that is quite annoying yes. But you cannot deny that (7) is subjective as hell. I don't think publishers are 100% responsible for the state of RPG games, or the acceptable use of the genre's acronyms. Some of what is being done in (8 ) sucks, but please don't discourage experimentation by making the gross over-generalization that any change is bad.

I was following the topic of narrative... More Lovecraft please. And no, slenderdork and pyramid heads don't count, even if they share a genre. And for it to be truly Lovecraft, the end can't be the player besting villain. The options are to survive it, join with it, or realize it was you all along. I've seen people try to sell things like the unlikely underdog (think Frodo) as Lovecraft-like. "But it was so much more powerful than our little train that could, and he won by pure luck, a dagger in the Achilles heel." Nope... Sorry, he won, you can't win in a Lovecraft theme, no matter how unlikely, lucky or hapless the protagonist. Finally, the more baffling and haunting it is after the fact, the better.

On the note of narratives... Can we please get beyond "Zombie Apocalypse" already? As fiction goes, it's unrealism is on the level of Superman, even though it's often attributed to various kinds of disease. Super fast and super powerful yet starving most of the time, yea ask a Tiger or Cheetah about that... What happens if it misses one too many chances at prey when it has been some time hungry. Great physical strength and speed in nature require energy, and lots and lots of it. Fancy 70 lbs of T-Bone anyone?

I mentioned that earlier as well. The narrative can be told by more than just words, music, atmosphere, mechanics, animation & artwork, etc. Also, narrative can include story or, in the case of some really good games, the story can be a diversion from, or even antithetical to it. I think when we feel like we're not being told the whole story, or that NPCs are lying to us, that it is a sort of subconscious realization what's actually happening. I remember watching Shutter Island with my sister and in the opening scene where he's riding a ferry to the island I shouted, "Damn!" My sister inquired and I said, "My mind just spoiled the ending for me." She of course didn't want to know, but ask me afterward what clued me in. I said, "He didn't carry his own smokes. He needed a light too, at the second occurrence I knew. Institutions hold on to that stuff for you, if they allow it at all."

Okay, this has gotten too serious in places, time for something funny.

D3 is not really a good example of anything. And good sales do not equal a good game. It equals good marketing. And in D3 case, good Blizzard reputation. But Blizzard **** on themselves with D3. Their reputation went down the drain after D3 even if it sold well (I bought it but I wish I didn't). I liked the engine's smoothness and graphics quality. I liked little else about the game.