Taking turn base action out of RPGs...

[kumquatq3]

This is sort of why I like to believe that CRPGs "should be about" giving the player many ways to meaningfully interact with the world and its characters -- outside of combat, that is.

 

Sure, thats the core, like the core of a FPS is running around with a gun shooting things dead.

 

but, as you know, there is more too it than that. What's a FPS without a FP camera angle or different weapon/enemy strengths and weakness.

 

What you describe is a way of making a good game, imo. Not nessasarily a good RPG.

 

Thats why things like The Sims or Pirates! arn't called RPGs, while they do give you the "core" qualities of one, they are still missing the qualities that make them a RPG. A truck with no leaves or branches isn't much of a tree.

 

It's obviously much harder to say what the "branches" are in a RPG (compared to a FPS), and it differs from person to person, but there still there.

 

That's why people remember those games. CRPG developers really want to cling to old tyme conventions about how stats work because CRPG die-hards flip out if they aren't followed, but observation of statistical conventions is not what separates the great CRPGs from the good ones.

 

Not 100% sure I know what you mean by this, I see a few ways you could be going with it. Break it down a bit, if you can.

 

 

Now, I'm not saying that CRPGs should become as fast-paced and brutal as Ninja Gaiden. However, I do think that less emphasis on statistics and more of an emphasis on behavior and "visceral" capability would allow casual gamers and seasoned role-players to feel similarly challenged by games.

 

Frankly, if you were sticking with TB, couldn't you effectively take care of "behavior" part with better enemy AI?

 

I think a large problem with TB combat is that the AI doesn't generally get beyond "Swarm" or "Snipe".

 

The computer has to make you think and devs can't be afraid of making the player lose sometimes. A la Ninja Gaiden. Obviously, TB isn't even going to match RT is "visceral" qualities.

Edited December 12, 2005 by kumquatq3

[J.E. Sawyer]

That I had?!  Well excuse me, but I saw a different context here that you picked up on and contemplated further upon later. So, what exactly do you mean by 'current' state then if not referring to the imminent context of KOTOR or NWN and that 'current' state of close-up 3D fps views and tactics found in 'current' CRPGs and which are these?

 

I sense no disagreement here since you only address the latter part to which I agree.  You still ignore the shift of view, which I regard as a major part of  the current state, as one of the reason behind why it has both been made easier for the casual player and harder for the tactician. But I am starting to get the feeling that you are not at all concerned about tactics in your context.

 

Shifty. Now I think you are having a Fall out with yourself (please make FO3 instead, haha) "It took so many tries and the battle took a really long time" in a context where you use Pool of Radiance to illustrate a time consuming game. I read that as your way of saying it was a bad thing, but you don't think that?

What is your issue with what I was writing about? The main thread is about the general topic of turn-based vs. real-time gaming and what it has to do with what CRPGs should have. I'm having difficulty understanding what you're getting at. Sorry.

 

I am concerned with tactics, but I don't think that squad-level tactics are necessarily at the heart of RPGs. What I will say is that I think involving squads in real-time combat but only allowing control over one character is... frustrating. Ninja Gaiden is very tactical, but the tight camera and single character don't dilute the experience because you're only controlling one character. And that one character has a lot of capabilities in a very short period of time. By contrast, a single NWN character doesn't necessarily have all that many options in any six second period. Combined with all of the other characters, there's a lot going on, but the player doesn't have a huge amount of control over the action.

 

No, I don't think that games being time consuming is inherently bad. I think it can turn a lot of people off, but I enjoyed those games. Similarly, I enjoyed Front Mission 4, but those missions and their set-up stages take an extraordinary amount of time. It's uncommon today.

[LoneWolf16]

Thats why things like The Sims or Pirates! arn't called RPGs, while they do give you the "core" qualities of one, they are still missing the qualities that make them a RPG. A truck with no leaves or branches isn't much of a tree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's still a tree. "

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I know, but thats the best example my sleepy mind could think of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh , trunk, now I get it

[kumquatq3]

I know, but thats the best example my sleepy mind could think of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh , trunk, now I get it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hate you guys

 

I'd like to point out, it does work. A tree trunk is a tree truck, but it needs (at least) branches to be a whole tree.

 

Me: 1 Them: 0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I know, but thats the best example my sleepy mind could think of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh , trunk, now I get it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hate you guys

 

I'd like to point out, it does work. A tree trunk is a tree truck, but it needs (at least) branches to be a whole tree.

 

Me: 1 Them: 0

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well it's 6 am here. I woke up early everyone else is still in nod land

 

I was just trying to figure out what you meant with your anology.

 

You could say that the more branches a tree has the better. But it would put tree surgeons out of business :D

Edited December 12, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sure, thats the core, like the core of a FPS is running around with a gun shooting things dead.

Would you honestly say that most games labeled as "RPGs" accomplish the goal of giving the player meaningful world choices as well as FPSs accomplish the goal of allowing the player to run around and shoot things? I don't think they do. I think most developers give it lip service. I think what they pay a lot of attention to are inventory systems, dual-wielding, and skill trees.

 

What you describe is a way of making a good game, imo. Not nessasarily a good RPG.

 

Thats why things like The Sims or Pirates! arn't called RPGs, while they do give you the "core" qualities of one, they are still missing the qualities that make them a RPG. A truck with no leaves or branches isn't much of a tree.

In another thread, I suggested that games like The Sims are distinctly simulators. They are very abstracted and make very little attempt at a coherent story. That may be another way to distinguish CRPGs from other types of games.

 

Not 100% sure I know what you mean by this, I see a few ways you could be going with it. Break it down a bit, if you can.

To be blunt, Fallout and Planescape had really crappy statistical systems. They were really easy to abuse as long as you figured out the very basic patterns to how things worked. If you stage up from tagged Small Guns to tagged Energy Weapons, make called eye shots and always wear the heaviest armor possible, you will probably kill most things in Fallout. By the end of the game, you will probably only die from critical hits or gross negligence of your character's health. Planescape was just easy to min-max if you wanted to. Tactics wasn't really at the heart of its gameplay. Fallout had interesting combat because of the setting, the sounds, and the visual feedback. Would Fallout's combat have been as interesting if a close burst to a raider with a submachine gun didn't make that distinctive sound and show the dance of death? I don't think so, to be honest.

 

On the other hand, Fallout allowed you to be a really horrible monster. It didn't quasi-allow it like Baldur's Gate did, where omniscient Flaming Fist dumbos would constantly stream in to annihilate you. It also didn't force you to be horrible. You could be a great guy (or gal), a hero (or heroine). You could really change things around you. That's what was great about Fallout. It certainly wasn't a tactical brainbuster... not in my opinion, anyway.

 

Similarly, Planescape allowed you to do so many things in so many ways. Yes, it had a lot of text, but it wasn't about reading as much as it was about choosing, about making a choice and seeing that impact. And the reactions to that seemed intimate and important in a way that simulator games don't really capture.

 

Frankly, if you were sticking with TB, couldn't you effectively take care of "behavior" part with better enemy AI?

 

I think a large problem with TB combat is that the AI doesn't generally get beyond "Swarm" or "Snipe".

 

The computer has to make you think and devs can be afraid of making the player lose sometimes. A la Ninja Gaiden. Obviously, TB isn't even going to match RT is "visceral" qualities.

Yeah, you definitely could. I think the problem is that most RPGs try to differentiate critters with stats, which are mostly invisible. Or in many cases the stats have such fine granularity that differences are really hard to figure out even with experimentation.

 

Someone earlier wrote (I think) that KotOR really made them feel like a tough Jedi. I had the opposite feeling. When I think of Jedi, I think of people who are fluid and graceful, switching up movements and abilities constantly. They're throwing lightsabres and Force Pushing people around and doing all sorts of nutty stuff. I didn't get that feeling from KotOR because the staging is so stiff and rule-regulated.

 

EDIT: I guess my point here is that I never felt like a Jedi because of the abstracted control system. The lack of visceral quality contributed to a lack of role-playing quality, in my opinion.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

On the other hand, Fallout allowed you to be a really horrible monster.  It didn't quasi-allow it like Baldur's Gate did, where omniscient Flaming Fist dumbos would constantly stream in to annihilate you.  It also didn't force you to be horrible.  You could be a great guy (or gal), a hero (or heroine).  You could really change things around you.  That's what was great about Fallout.  It certainly wasn't a tactical brainbuster... not in my opinion, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you think that had a lot to do with most of the obstacles in Fallout being human or at least human like ?

 

I mean if you meet nothing but "monsters" then combat is going to be the defacto result. In IWD for example , you could banter with the monsters, but most of the time you knew you were not going to reach a non violent agreement. And that made sense in the setting. Were you able to glibly chat your way through it would have totally killed the credibility. Yet in FO you can just about (only just mind).

 

Killing people in sick and twisted ways is what makes FO combat memorable. The system itself isnt particularly great. Fallouts very much the GTA of it's day. I doubt few of those remembering it fondly were really old enough to play it legally at the time.

Edited December 12, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[J.E. Sawyer]

I mean if you meet nothing but "monsters" then combat is going to be the defacto result. In IWD for example , you could banter with the monsters, but most of the time you knew you were not going to reach a non violent agreement. And that made sense in the setting. Were you able to glibly chat your way through it would have totally killed the credibility. Yet in FO you can just about (only just mind).

I don't know about that. I think if IWD had been designed with more "robust" diplomacy in mind, it could have been just as credible. Many of the critters with which you spoke were quite intelligent: goblins, orcs, yuan-ti, lizardfolk, salamanders, giants, etc. It just wasn't designed to be that sort of a game.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I don't know about that.  I think if IWD had been designed with more "robust" diplomacy in mind, it could have been just as credible.  Many of the critters with which you spoke were quite intelligent: goblins, orcs, yuan-ti, lizardfolk, salamanders, giants, etc.  It just wasn't designed to be that sort of a game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you were evil in alignment perhaps (and stronger) otherwise there isnt really a lot of common ground to work from.

 

They were intelligent, but unless you have some sort of common purpose (or at the least something you both want). If you warp that too far, then then they will just become "funny shaped humans".

[J.E. Sawyer]

Let's forget about "being evil" since that's not really a motivational tool in my opinion. If you disagree, let me know, but I always figured it was sort of a weak way to define characters -- monstrous or otherwise. But what if you decided that Kuldahar sucked and that the yuan-ti should be able to sack it? There's no support for that choice in IWD.

 

Similarly, there's no way to side with the twins in IWD2. Isair and Madae can't bribe you, they can't convince you of their cause, they can't get you to abstain or choose a different alliance. Basically, you're going to kill them one way or another. There's no super mutants overrunning the vault Legion of the Chimera overrunning the Ten Towns ending.

[Janmanden]

What experience are you looking for in a CRPG?

Specifically in CRPG I look for Roleplaying elements and fun and replay value mostly.

 

I seek the challenge of morals & combat and the immersion in itself and as part of the first to create the intimacy/close-up-and-personal-like-feel needed to actually doubt AND the freedom to go against my 'default' role. A premise Deus Ex/System Shock2 completely failed to deliver upon, and one where Fallout/PS:T/BG/KotOR excelled, imo.

 

The default role being: that one role that everyone that votes LS and Bastila as favorite K1/K2 paths in polls pick because that's the default 'hero' role everybody can relate to. It's unfortunately a mindless role, because it's so cliche in the SW setting.

 

I feel the major shift in 'current' CRPGs as being one of content and perspective more than one of skill. It's a GOOD shift, because the skillbased CRPG was really nothing short of a fantasy action game with a pair of character development boobs slabbed on to make it look like a female... Which thanks to that was still funny to fondle sometimes, hehe.

 

edit: grammar yuck, it's getting late...actually: early, I mean.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Janmanden

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Let's forget about "being evil" since that's not really a motivational tool in my opinion.  If you disagree, let me know, but I always figured it was sort of a weak way to define characters -- monstrous or otherwise.  But what if you decided that Kuldahar sucked and that the yuan-ti should be able to sack it?  There's no  support for that choice in IWD.

 

Similarly, there's no way to side with the twins in IWD2.  Isair and Madae can't bribe you, they can't convince you of their cause, they can't get you to abstain or choose a different alliance.  Basically, you're going to kill them one way or another.  There's no super mutants overrunning the vault Legion of the Chimera overrunning the Ten Towns ending.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree I suppose that is what I was trying to get at. In D&D monsters are sterotyipical and if you change that too much, then it's not D&D anymore. One of the advantages I see in a primarily human cast is that no one has those sorts of preconceptions about humans.

 

Thats very true. But then it's not just about supporting the sacking of the town, but also the different story branch that result from it. In some ways FO takes the easy options since it ends the game in failure if you choose that particular path. PST did very much the same thing. Failure (aside from the load screen) dosnt seem to crop up a lot in most RPGs.

 

The only solution I can see which would not involve writing multiple outcomes to almost every action would be to have more cinematic "endings". You would still fail, and have to reload, but you could at least see where that particular choice would have led.

[kumquatq3]

Would you honestly say that most games labeled as "RPGs" accomplish the goal of giving the player meaningful world choices as well as FPSs accomplish the goal of allowing the player to run around and shoot things? I don't think they do. I think most developers give it lip service. I think what they pay a lot of attention to are inventory systems, dual-wielding, and skill trees.

 

No, I really wouldn't say that.

 

That is, of course, why CRPGs fans (fans of things like Fallout especially) feel so disheartened. The games being put out arn't bad games necessarily, a lot of people loved Fable, but their not good RPGs.

 

On top of the fact that CRPGs seem to be getting thinned out and console RPG suffer heavily from these problems. The ones that do show promise on some fronts, Hammer & Sickle or K2, get plagued but other issues.

 

In another thread, I suggested that games like The Sims are distinctly simulators. They are very abstracted and make very little attempt at a coherent story. That may be another way to distinguish CRPGs from other types of games.

 

Fair enough, but if you ask anyone around here if Pirates! is a RPG, they will prolly say no (tho it does offer some of the best "Role PLaying" in recent memory :D )

 

It has a story and significant choices, some only to your immediate character, some to the game world.

 

But why wouldn't you call it a RPG? (or maybe you would)

 

I'd say one reason is because you lack the ability to significantly "build" your character. You get some options, your special skill and nationality, but something feels missing there.

 

Yeah, you definitely could. I think the problem is that most RPGs try to differentiate critters with stats, which are mostly invisible. Or in many cases the stats have such fine granularity that differences are really hard to figure out even with experimentation.

 

Hell, keep it stat based, just having some of your enemies work together in some loose fashion would be a HUGE step up. I mean, if you can have enemies try to flank you or give covering fire in RT in F.E.A.R., why not K3 or Fallout 3? I mean Silent Storm has already done some of those things in TB, to a degree.

 

I mean, you talk of things not evolving in RPGs, what has shown less improvement (or general movement) than enemy AI?

 

To be blunt, Fallout and Planescape had really crappy statistical systems.

 

So does K1 and K2 and lots of other RPGs. So "depth" of the system really isn't the issue it seems. Frankly, not sure what is. Whats the best implementation of rules system, created for the game or otherwise, in your opinion?

 

But, to get to your point, I agree that "Stats" won't make or break a RPG alone. Their a "branch", not the trunk, if you will.

 

Would Fallout's combat have been as interesting if a close burst to a raider with a submachine gun didn't make that distinctive sound and show the dance of death? I don't think so, to be honest.

 

To be fair, the Kotor series combat would be alot worse of without that lightsaber sound. Sometimes the little things go far.

 

Someone earlier wrote (I think) that KotOR really made them feel like a tough Jedi. I had the opposite feeling. When I think of Jedi, I think of people who are fluid and graceful, switching up movements and abilities constantly. They're throwing lightsabres and Force Pushing people around and doing all sorts of nutty stuff. I didn't get that feeling from KotOR because the staging is so stiff and rule-regulated.

 

The more you move away from "stiffness" the more you tend to go into "Ninja Gaiden" combat territory. Which is fine, could be a good game, but does that help or hurt a RPG? I mean, wouldn't stats be like getting a more powerful sword in Zelda. More and more insignificant if the player can make up for it in reflexes? Kinda prodding your view on stats a bit more.

Edited December 12, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Commissar]

Someone earlier wrote (I think) that KotOR really made them feel like a tough Jedi.  I had the opposite feeling.  When I think of Jedi, I think of people who are fluid and graceful, switching up movements and abilities constantly.  They're throwing lightsabres and Force Pushing people around and doing all sorts of nutty stuff.  I didn't get that feeling from KotOR because the staging is so stiff and rule-regulated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad I made such an impression. Anyway, what I meant by that statement was that the difficulty of the game - not very - allowed you to feel like the character really had some power behind him. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the combat was so fluid as to mimic the excruciating choreography of the Jedi fight scenes from the prequel trilogy.

 

If you guys can pull that off, I'd love to see it. I don't see it happening, not without abandoning all pretext of roleplaying game combat.

 

Isn't that sort of an unrealistic goal, anyway? I mean, Battlefield 2's not a great representation of actual combat, either. Sometimes you just have to work on suspension of disbelief and go with it.

[Janmanden]

What is your issue with what I was writing about?

 

My issue was (before you start distracting me) a follow up to @Hades_One's issues with "what's the point of tactics" and @Plano_Skywalkers issues with "multilayered" combat where you respond in part with "tactical abilities" and my own response to @Hades_One that: You picked up on the 'curent' state of CRPG's in extension to these arguments, where I thought you were referring to games recently mentioned as part of your theory on the 'current' state of CRPGS. In other words: why games like KOTOR was the 'current' state of CRPG's. Dang, that was long. But I can see now, that you were not speaking of that context. So that's kinda stupid in a rather futile way to keep pushing forward, wouldn't you agree? Yep, that was a rhetorical question.

 

edit: added some rhetorical nonsense.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Janmanden

[kumquatq3]

What experience are you looking for in a CRPG?

Specifically in CRPG I look for Roleplaying elements and fun and replay value mostly.

 

Two sides to the same coin, no?

[Janmanden]

What experience are you looking for in a CRPG?

Specifically in CRPG I look for Roleplaying elements and fun and replay value mostly.

 

Two sides to the same coin, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah... it felt like a very stupid question...that's why I made the answer longer, which you can't see here, because you cut that part out, to follow up on the retarded business of our previous encounter no doubt.

[kumquatq3]

Yeah... it felt like a very stupid question...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The question and the answer arn't stupid. You could have answered "TB/RT combat", "Choices that venture on the extremes", "new settings and mythos to explore" or even "the story is the most important part to me"

 

I just thought it important to note that the two things you listed are heavily connected

 

that's why I made the answer longer, which you can't see here, because you cut that part out, to follow up on the retarded business of our previous encounter no doubt.

 

1. No idea what you mean, honest

 

2. You sound mad at me

Edited December 12, 2005 by kumquatq3

[Janmanden]

1. No idea what you mean, honest

 

2. You sound mad at me

(2:) Nah, it was rather nicely done *Influence gained* (1:) if you had any idea what you were doing, but I guess I was mistaken *influence lost*. I may be mad, but I'm not sure it's actually outwards...

[kumquatq3]

Um......Ok!

[Volourn]

"agree I suppose that is what I was trying to get at. In D&D monsters are sterotyipical and if you change that too much, then it's not D&D anymore."

 

That's weird. D&D itself has done itself to alter the 'sterotype'. The existence of Drizzt, Athas halflings, dwarven bard characters in novels and in games, and the list goes on proves this. Yet, the funny thing is, all these things are very much D&D.

 

D&D stereotypes are menat to be just that. Stereotypes are meant to broken. In fact, the Forgotten Realms has LG tribe of orcs that are nearly their own race, and culture.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Volourn

[CoM_Solaufein]

Drizzt, your typical do gooder hero with no flaws. Munchkin.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"agree I suppose that is what I was trying to get at. In D&D monsters are sterotyipical and if you change that too much, then it's not D&D anymore."

 

That's weird. D&D itself has done itself to alter the 'sterotype'. The existence of Drizzt, Athas halflings, dwarven bard characters in novels and in games, and the list goes on proves this. Yet, the funny thing is, all these things are very much D&D.

 

D&D stereotypes are menat to be just that. Stereotypes are meant to broken. In fact, the Forgotten Realms has LG tribe of orcs that are nearly their own race, and culture.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At which point they just become funny shaped humans. Driizt is no more a dark elf than Eliminster is. Now he's a human with dark skin and odd shaped ears.

 

You can break them on an individual basis , but you cant break them beyond that without changing what they are. You just proved that with your LG orc example.

[Volourn]

"At which point they just become funny shaped humans. Driizt is no more a dark elf than Eliminster is. Now he's a human with dark skin and odd shaped ears. "

 

That's silly. Drizzt is who he is because he is a drow. He is who he is because of what he's had to deal with in his life. His experiences growing up has shaped him forever, and that's because of what he had to deal with as a drow. Drizzt is no human.