How about "Roleplaying" hmm???

[bgarske]

The very best thing about Fallout 1&2 is that you could really roleplay. You could choose a character that was intelligent and diplomatic and then pursue a storyline that fit that character or play a simple brute and pursue that course. You could choose to be good or evil or somewhere inbetween.

When playing different types of characters, I would put myself in their mindset and make decisions based on who they are. The best kind of RPG is one that rewards that type of roleplaying with varied responses, plotlines and outcomes.

I don't really care what Obsidian is working on right now as long as it has good roleplaying in it. (And is for the PC)

[roshan]

the rpg theyre making is primaly for the console. and i dont think it will have extensive roleplaying options.

[bgarske]

the rpg theyre making is primaly for the console. and i dont think it will have extensive roleplaying options.

How do you know for certain?

[Iolo]

the rpg theyre making is primaly for the console. and i dont think it will have extensive roleplaying options.

How do you know for certain?

Probably the fact that on the main Obsidian Web page it is stated that their first game will be for the PC and for the consoles and that the rumours are that the game will be KOTOR2. Of course, that doesn't mean the sequel can't have more roleplaying in my opinion.

[roshan]

console games will not have the same amount of roleplaying as pc games because consoles are more limited and also the markets have different tastes.

[Sammael]

I'm sure it'll have more varied roleplaying options than the original, but nowehere near the level of FO games (by virtue of being a completely different type of game).

[Pawe]

Fallout 1&2 and Baldur's Gate games were unique. They really had the roleplay in it. Based on all these stupid rumours surrounding the Delaware project we will see action oriented "RPG" game. Something like Diablo 2 but with 3d graphic and with no replayability.

[kefka]

I've replayed KotOR more than any other RPG. Not bad for a "console" game.

 

In fact, it's one of the few games that I play through then instantly start again. The rich story and well performed characters give it a movie feel that is quite intoxicating. And just like any good movie, a single viewing is never enough.

 

RPGs for console need not be simple. Morrowind is a fairly complex RPG and sold well on Xbox.

[JohnPnP]

Lets not forget a little title peter molyulalalala (something) is putting out for console pretty soon.

(project ego)Fable

 

'Nuff said.

[Darque]

Oh... you mean the game that's been delayed for what... 2 years and just got pushed back *again*?

 

*gasp* :ph34r:

[neriana]

Let's also not forget Peter Molyneaux's last title, Black and White. Fable looks cool, but Mr. M has a history of big ideas that fall apart in the implementation. Originality is only good if the programming and gameplay don't fall by the wayside.

[Saint of Killers]

Originality is only good if the programming and gameplay don't fall by the wayside.

Truth. But let's not forget the topic here. Someone mentioned Diablo. Can you really call that crap a c-rpg? Well, I can't. The Fallouts, Baldur's Gates And Torment where the best examples of rpgs I've played so far. The first two, for reasons everyone knows. Torment, even though is a one-character game, showed great creativity by the fact that one character could have so many personalities, and the choices you made actually changed the character, the story (in a sense) and your relation with the npcs. Choice, change and consequence are the essence of a good rpg. That's why Fallout has die hard fans that are still playing it. Even though the graphics are old fashioned and out-of-date, compared to todays games, there's one thing it has that no other rpg has quite matched : A non-linear structure held together by a great, great story. That's it.

[HiddenAssassin]

Hear Hear

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Truth. But let's not forget the topic here. Someone mentioned Diablo. Can you really call that crap a c-rpg? Well, I can't. The Fallouts, Baldur's Gates And Torment where the best examples of rpgs I've played so far. The first two, for reasons everyone knows. Torment, even though is a one-character game, showed great creativity by the fact that one character could have so many personalities, and the choices you made actually changed the character, the story (in a sense) and your relation with the npcs. Choice, change and consequence are the essence of a good rpg. That's why Fallout has die hard fans that are still playing it. Even though the graphics are old fashioned and out-of-date, compared to todays games, there's one thing it has that no other rpg has quite matched : A non-linear structure held together by a great, great story. That's it.

The problem with a game with a single character is everything hinges on the character. It dosnt matter what personality you can give them if someone dosnt want to be that character in the first place. Also for anyone with an inkling about Planescape PSTs end was obvious from the start.

 

So Fallouts quality is shown by the number of people still playing it ? Oki doki how many people are still play D2 ?

 

Perhaps games are like women. Once you find one you really get on with you cant look at others in the same way..

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The problem with a game with a single character is everything hinges on the character.

 

You could always make it so the story was not dependant of him. If you use the old "two kingdoms at war" storyline, they can keep being at war without your input.

 

Dynamic changes across the gameworld, oblivious to player input, can make it so the evolvement of the game doesn't need to be player-driven. You could even set up large events which would happen, and be carried out, without the player being nowhere near them.

 

I suggest try playing a bit of Avernum 3, which in a way, does what i'm talking of. Cities can be destroyed if you don't help them, but you're not required to help them as well. This poses the problem that you can be a successful adventurer, even doing courier jobs between towns. But if you don't help them, eventually said towns will be destroyed and if you were a courier/tradesmen the destroyed cities pose a problem to your income and means of survival now. You can either decide to prevent this, or ignore it and find other means of living. Not only that, even if you do help some cities, that doesn't mean they won't suffer from other raider/monster attacks, and it doesn't mean they won't have aditional problems further on, regardless of what you did before.

[Saint of Killers]

So Fallouts quality is shown by the number of people still playing it ? Oki doki how many people are still play D2 ?

 

Perhaps games are like women. Once you find one you really get on with you cant look at others in the same way..

People still play the Fallouts because every time they do they do it in a different way. Different character, choices, exploring, whatever. I know that's why I do it sometimes. People play Diablo because ... I don't know. Perhaps some people won't get bored doing the same simple task over and over and over.... Kinda like autism. But hey, whatever suits you, kid. What's worse is actually comparing the two games as if they were alike. Might as well compare Fallout with Tekken 3, or Street Fighter. Might as well compare it with Pac-man. There are a lot of people that still play those games. But the reasons are worlds apart.

 

And comparing games with women.... No, man, just no. Please.

 

Try better arguments.

[Volourn]

FO wasn't great because of its story. Anyone who says it was misses the whole point of FO. Tsk, tsk.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Is there a problem with people comparing FO2 with D2? I'd find it weirder if people were comparing FO2 or D2 with some of those you mentioned, however. At least FO2 and D2 have similar aspects which can be compared.

[neriana]

And comparing games with women.... No, man, just no. Please.

Ditto. <_<

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And comparing games with women.... No, man, just no. Please.

Ditto. <_<

Well, in both cases, success with them all depends on how you push their buttons... >_>

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

People still play the Fallouts because every time they do they do it in a different way. Different character, choices, exploring, whatever. I know that's why I do it sometimes. People play Diablo because ... I don't know. Perhaps some people won't get bored doing the same simple task over and over and over.... Kinda like autism. But hey, whatever suits you, kid. What's worse is actually comparing the two games as if they were alike. Might as well compare Fallout with Tekken 3, or Street Fighter. Might as well compare it with Pac-man. There are a lot of people that still play those games. But the reasons are worlds apart.

 

And comparing games with women.... No, man, just no. Please.

 

Try better arguments.

Yes and in the same way every game of Diablo2 is different. It's actually more different because you can change more variables than you can in FO.

The maps are for the most part random. The enemies are randomised and most important of all you never know what your going to get each time you kill one.

Diablo works on two levels. The carrot - items are so random that killing the same thing rarely results in the same item. The collector - In the same way that people will eat 100 boxes of ceral to complete a collection , so people will play Diablo to get what they think their character needs to be complete. Toss in a little competition and you have some very powerful driving forces.

 

Even if you allow for the multipath nature of the gameplay in FO your still doing the same thing over and over. Enemies will be the same, the maps will be the same. The items will be the same. So FO fits your argument for repition much better than D2 does.

 

Well I wouldnt want to offend anyone

 

It's not like it's even an arguement. People like different things people will always like different things. Just because they dont happen to like the same things as you dosnt make them stupid. There is a big difference between what you can do and what you want to do for fun. I can do complex math if I really have to. But I'd never do it for fun.

[neriana]

And comparing games with women.... No, man, just no. Please.

Ditto. <_<

Well, in both cases, success with them all depends on how you push their buttons... >_>

Yeah, and you would know . Let me check - hm, not finding any code here. Sorry, we have brains, not computer circuits. I'm sure you'll learn some day.

 

Diablo and Fallout are both billed as "RPGs". Each has character development and fighting. But I think Diablo's "action RPG" genre appeals to a very different type of gamer, or at least a different part of the gamer's psyche, than Fallout. I feel the same way about Diablo as I do about Dungeon Siege: it's a repetitive clicking exercise with rewards. It can actually be quite a bit of fun for a while. But feeling like a rat in the maze doesn't do much for me.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, in both cases, success with them all depends on how you push their buttons... >_>

Yeah, and you would know . Let me check - hm, not finding any code here. Sorry, we have brains, not computer circuits. I'm sure you'll learn some day.

Your wannabe feminist activism and assumptions about what i know of women is, quite frankly, wasted on me. If you can't be bothered to accept lighthearted comments such as these, i suggest you don't even try.

[Darque]

<_<

[Tigranes]

Actually, I do suggest he was joking... of course, some feminists don't even like those kind of jokes about women.

 

I haven't helped, have I?