is there a difference between rpg and fps anymore?

[metadigital]

But none of those games made me want to shoot random civilians just because it was so damn fun to do combat.

 

 

And DeusEx had a really piss-poor system, I just used the "lightsabre" all the time because all the other weapons were so laggy and devoid of precision that I was wondering if JC Denton might be seriously handicaped. I remember one gun was especially awful, it fired exactly 5 shots no matter how you clicked your mouse and it had so much lag that you wondered if your mouse was broken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It sounds like you weren't paying sufficient attention to the maintenance of your firearms. ^_^

 

I am trying to reach a compromise here in which both camps of the debate can go away happy.  Is that so wrong?

 

Yes, it will cost time and money to implement both but in the end it will mean a higher quality game which will overall yield more sales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you are trying to rationalize your own peculiar requirement; I am not aware of anyone else who wants this, certainly not a minority significant enough to warrant the extra investment of resources that might better be utilized doing something

[alanschu]

You can't seriously be that daft, as Its a standard system for balancing FPS Games.

 

Day of Defeat Source for example,  has the same Mechanic, Certain Weapons have a different amount of -Accuracy so depending upon the weapon used determines just how accurate your shot is... even if you have the cross hairs directly on the other player.

 

In TES they simply link that mechanic to your characters skill with the weapon so its even more noticeable.

 

So even in the precious FPS Genera "the players skills and the character skills contradict each other.."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Irrelevant. I was assessing your asinine interpretation that Hell Kitty was referring to our skills as magic casters when stating the term player skill. Look closely at what I wrote, I made no statement as to how things should or should not be. I'm not sure if it was strawman and obfuscation, or just some sort of mind boggling deduction on how you thought his comments about player skill referred to

 

Furthermore, the fact that weapons aren't precisely accurate isn't a contradiction of player skill, even if you use your messed up interpretation of Hell Kitty's post. In fact, when dealing with a RPG elements such as in System Shock and Deus Ex, it demonstrates an excellent way to combine both player skill and character skill in a game. And in no way is this contradictory. Since my character has poor skill with a bow, it should take that into account with more random shot placement. Not "it only looks like you hit the opponent, but you actually didn't" that a game like Morrowind has.

 

 

That's because you're looking at RPGs as action games, not as what they are, storytelling games. The goal isn't "to beat the enemy," though that's what many CRPG developers turn it in to. The goal is to "see what happens." Win or lose, either is good. The character is just one you play, much like an actor, and you improv his actions, using the rules to determine the outcomes. And the character can die, it's okay when he loses, it just plays the drama along.

 

 

No, it's because I was stating how poorly conceived Mortis Nai's argument was about Hell Kitty talking about how it should not contradict our "skill" at casting magic in real life. Look closely, I made no statement in that post about how things should or should not be in an RPG. So no, I'm not looking at them as action games.

 

 

 

For reference, here's the post you two quoted:

 

You can't seriously be that daft. Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.

 

Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character. For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.

 

I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.

 

 

Mortis Nai somehow thought that Hell Kitty was talking about our skill as magic casters, not as gameplayers. That's just baffling.

Edited December 28, 2006 by alanschu

[alanschu]

Funny thing, I just searched the page for entries of "unaware" and it turns out I only see one such entry and it's in your post. Show me exactly where I wrote 'unaware'. Or alternatively, provide some actual argument instead of assuming how I am playing the game - especially when you flat out ignored that I said moving now, but managed to remember I said moving further down the line when you find it funny to claim I have Counterstrike skills.

 

I think he's referring to your close range shots. If you get the close, it's a safe assumption that the guy is probably unaware, especially if you're playing on Realistic difficulty.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think he's referring to your close range shots.  If you get the close, it's a safe assumption that the guy is probably unaware, especially if you're playing on Realistic difficulty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that safe of an assumption, really. In Realistic, hostile perception is somewhat more accurate than on lower difficulty levels.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That's called metagaming.

 

I just keep a medium to long distance and shoot while on the run. I don't always hit, but I don't always fail either. Metagaming would be making calculations and tests to see where the bullets fly off (if you remember bullets would go into different directions in a small arc that represented his chance to fail) at different skill levels so I can adjust accordingly when using the weapon. I don't do any of that.

 

Yes, actually, I would call that strategy (as opposed to your mouse tinkering, above); if you were using a real machinegun, you would learn to counter the natural (and predictable) movement of the barrel as you fired, in much the same way.

 

In real life I'm in control of myself, not overseeing an avatar that is meant to be its own individual. JC can't properly handle Assault Rifles whereas I can. JC is his own character, he isn't aware of what I know. The very existence of such a blatant recoil is to suggest that the character of JC is separate from me in several ways.

 

That's just YOU

[213374U]

[snip]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TL;DR

 

Chances are it's all incoherent gibberish, anyway.

 

 

Not that safe of an assumption, really. In Realistic, hostile perception is somewhat more accurate than on lower difficulty levels.

In previous posts you claim you have succesfully played through the game in a stealthy fashion. And now you say this? What's it gonna be then?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

snip

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Chances are it's all incoherent gibberish, anyway.

[213374U]

NO U!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The same kind of respect you show to others, right back at you.

[metadigital]

That's just YOU

[alanschu]

I think he's referring to your close range shots.  If you get the close, it's a safe assumption that the guy is probably unaware, especially if you're playing on Realistic difficulty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that safe of an assumption, really. In Realistic, hostile perception is somewhat more accurate than on lower difficulty levels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I only ever played the game on Realistic difficulty. If you're getting close to the enemy, you're either using ballistic armor, chewing through medkits like they are going out of style, or coming up to him unaware. Even medkits might not be an option, as there are some rifles that will do over 100 pts of damage to JC. So if they hit you in the chest or the head, you're instantly dead.

 

 

Even still, with the "player skill" adjusting for the wobbling scope, is that any different than say a turn based game allowing players to spend extra AP on aiming? And for adjusting the recoil of the SMG, that's nice and all, but there's still the fact that your gun's spray is going to be much wilder than had you had a high skill in the weapon.

 

And my Expert Rifle skill guy can pull of headshots from the hip while jumping consistently After a while, there's no point in using the scope, as JC is just as accurate from the hip. And I can do this while engaged in a firefight with multiple badguys. While running around with low skill (and hence the wide crosshairs), you'll score some hits, but not nearly as much as when the things are so tight that the "moving" crosshairs are as tight as an untrained person is after waiting 5 seconds for the crosshairs to converge.

[213374U]

The same kind of respect you show to others, right back at you.

Lol

[metadigital]

In fact, I think I'll go and play a game of Deus Ex right now!

[alanschu]

If it wasn't for War in the Pacific, I would.

 

All this talk of Deus Ex always has me wanting to play more Deus Ex :D

[Diogo Ribeiro]

This isn't a limitation, though, it's a feature. Seriously. Learning that you can adapt to the recoil of a shotgun, for example, is providing the player with the enjoyment of learning and mastering a skill.

 

But the player can adapt to the recoil of a shotgun by improving the character's skill. Is there really an enjoyment to be had in learning how to master a skill by not mastering it at all, and just going around its restrictions? The game presents you with a minor challenge. Should you want to have a smaller recoil when using Assault Rifles you need to improve the Rifles skill. You then learn how to use it and adapt to the initially violent recoil. Then you figure out that the you can improve said accuracy without much challenge in acquiring and spending points - all you need to do is perform a movement opposite to that of the weapon's recoil.

 

I can find no enjoyment in that, sorry. I would if I fought long and hard to obtain the necessary points to dump into it and thus improve it, though.

 

Personally, I enjoy solving the logic puzzles and achieving feats in the game

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I only ever played the game on Realistic difficulty.  If you're getting close to the enemy, you're either using ballistic armor, chewing through medkits like they are going out of style, or coming up to him unaware.  Even medkits might not be an option, as there are some rifles that will do over 100 pts of damage to JC.  So if they hit you in the chest or the head, you're instantly dead.

 

Grenades, ballistic armor, using the environments for cover or to distract hostiles (ie, light, sound), speed or cloaking augmentations seem to work just fine.

 

Even still, with the "player skill" adjusting for the wobbling scope, is that any different than say a turn based game allowing players to spend extra AP on aiming?

 

Would guiding a nuclear warhead yourself while adjusting its trajectory in realtime and seeing it all through an inbuilt camera in the nuke be any different than, say, a turnbased game where you deploy the nuke and have to contend with the nuke's attack power and the country's defense rating? Is guiding an invading army against a nearby region in HoI: Doomsday any different than guiding those soldiers across an FPS scenario where the invading success was determined by how quickly you fired?

 

I would have to say yes.

 

And for adjusting the recoil of the SMG, that's nice and all, but there's still the fact that your gun's spray is going to be much wilder than had you had a high skill in the weapon.

 

I didn't claim it would completely go around the skill system, just given limitations. And going around certain limitations doesn't mean it will go around all of them, does it. The lack of accuracy and attack power are still in place but you can circumvent some of the base limitations by doing what I did.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Role-Player

[metadigital]

in a roleplaying game I look forward to crafting a character and have it play a role on the gameworld. And have it live and die by itself and have little to do with me as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I don't think that is possible. The character that YOU create, is a part of you (to a lesser or greater extent). You are arbitrarily creating a very limited character.

I suppose this is an answer to your question but it does nothing to bridge the gap of dissent. I could explain why but again, I don't think it would be particularly helpful. Like you I enjoy solving puzzles and achieving feats in a game, whatever the means. But if a game goes to great lengths to present a division between character and player then there are different kinds of enjoyment to be had, because the challenges should be adequate but often aren't. It really has much to do with this division and hence why I suggested playing an avatar of myself rather than that of a character. Either the game wants to place the character directly into the gameworld or it wants to place me instead. If it's going to put me then I care little for statistics because it should be about me and my skills. If it's going to put a character then I want those statistics or feats or numbers or colours or whatever that differentiates me from the character to be there - not only because it's not about me, but because otherwise both will likely come to a point where they contradict or undermine each other. I can have a lot of fun either way but I care little for designs which combine both and can't really make up their minds on which one to go with, and alternate between limitations and unforeseen consequences of direct player control and then fudge things up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said, I think that is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation: you play the game via your PC, it is true, but the puzzles are solved using the player's brain, and the player's knowledge of >spacial conception / learned behaviour / knowledge / whatever< so the player is always ineluctably inextricable from the PC.

 

You can never divorce the player from the PC, lest you end up with WATCHING a play.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But I don't think that is possible. The character that YOU create, is a part of you (to a lesser or greater extent).

 

Abstracted vs. direct control. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Fallout. It's possible. They pretty much maintain the necessary levels and differences between player control and character role.

 

As I said, I think that is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation: you play the game via your PC, it is true, but the puzzles are solved using the player's brain, and the player's knowledge of >spacial conception / learned behaviour / knowledge / whatever< so the player is always ineluctably inextricable from the PC.

 

You can never divorce the player from the PC, lest you end up with WATCHING a play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not asking for a complete separation of both, neither would I want to. I want games that go for attempts at combining a sense of character and direct player into the same context to do a better job, or at least a coherent one.

[metadigital]

But I don't think that is possible. The character that YOU create, is a part of you (to a lesser or greater extent).

 

Abstracted vs. direct control. Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Fallout. It's possible. They pretty much maintain the necessary levels and differences between player control and character role.

As I said, I think that is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation: you play the game via your PC, it is true, but the puzzles are solved using the player's brain, and the player's knowledge of >spacial conception / learned behaviour / knowledge / whatever< so the player is always ineluctably inextricable from the PC.

 

You can never divorce the player from the PC, lest you end up with WATCHING a play.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not asking for a complete separation of both, neither would I want to. I want games that go for attempts at combining a sense of character and direct player into the same context to do a better job, or at least a coherent one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But the only point of contention for you, then, is the player's direct control over the character in combat.

 

Because the player is directly controlling the PC in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Fallout from a cognitive perspective. I.e., the player can still recognize that the terrain looks like a perfect trap, or use their mathematics skill to solve a puzzle.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But the only point of contention for you, then, is the player's direct control over the character in combat.

 

Uh, yes.

 

Welcome to 1999, and thank you for being the only one who didn't fail their Reading check.

 

Because the player is directly controlling the PC in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Fallout from a cognitive perspective. I.e., the player can still recognize that the terrain looks like a perfect trap, or use their mathematics skill to solve a puzzle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These are not situations I enjoy but can live with. Theoretically, an oafish Orc probably wouldn't spot traps or be able to solve puzzles. Meanwhile, a genius-like character could (and should) probably solve a riddle or puzzle on his own depending on much knowlede of the surrounding environments he has. But these can already be dealt with in some degree which while not optimal can be satisfying nonetheless.

[metadigital]

So you see the inherent inconsistency in your argument, then?

[Pidesco]

I don't think he does... :ph34r:

[Mortis Nai]

Let me put the shoe on the other foot a moment.

 

In an FPS Game I want:

 

1: Dialogue Choices and Options that have a major effect on the end of a Game.

 

2: A Level up process and the collection of Experience for character growth by defeating MOB's and Completing Quests.

 

3: A Romance Option!

 

4: 100% Melee action, guns suck, I want Broadswords, Axes, Daggers, Spears and perhaps a Sniper Cross Bow.

 

5: Stealth and other Non Combative ways of solving Combat Encounters.

 

6: Weapon Skill and Aim to be completely determined by the Characters skills that improve as the character levels up.

 

 

This would all be bad, why?

 

Because it turns one Genera into another genera and leaves a void.

 

There is space enough in the world for FPS Games, RPG Games and Action RPG's... you do not have to destroy one of them so the other two can survive.

 

 

PS: I love how every time Alanschu cant respond to a point without admitting he is wrong, he calls it "Irrelevant."

[Diogo Ribeiro]

So you see the inherent inconsistency in your argument, then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The player's direct control over a character during combat only poses a problem when a system allows direct player control to override any skill or ability that defines said character. As alanschu pointed out, Morrowind stands as a point of contradiction between these two elements, as a player could use his reflexes to shoot back at someone with a bow but some character statistic determined that there was no hit despite the player having fired at point blank. Hence why I've stated my preference over a system that manages to include both elements but does not shortchange neither the player nor undermines the notion of a character.

 

On the other hand, the player's control during non-combat situations only poses a problem when a system allows a character's role to remain neutered by allowing all hardships to be solved by the player when the character has the means to do so himself. I already gave examples on a previous post, so I won't go into it again. As I said I don't enjoy these situations but can live with them - not because of preference or bias or somesuch - but because the character is not in the same risk. Its integrity as a character is still there.

 

In Fallout, a PC with low skill levels at Science may not be able to understand scientific gibberish on some computer. And there's nothing the player can do to go around this rule of the mechanics. He can only increase the character's skills, or if the situation was devised to do this, he could find alternate means to understand what is there. But the player could never, only within the context of playing the game, access the information that the PC could not see for himself. The game tells you the PC can't do something and he can't. Now compare to Deus Ex and the present situation being discussed. By comparison which do you think provides a more coherent system - the game that presents limitations to a character and the player must play with those limitations, or a game that presents limitations to a character but the player can break them?

 

You could always counter that in Baldur's Gate 2, PCs with low or high Int scores were useless when it came to answering riddles because these obstacles were aimed at the player exclusively. But here the game doesn't tell you anything, there is no rule associated with this. Nothing ever states "You can't understand this riddle therefore you cannot answer it". No, I don't enjoy this design but at least it's conscious and knows who it's targetting. It doesn't tell you "You can't do this" and then allows you to.

 

Where's the contradiction?

[213374U]

Your example is still inconsistent. You are comparing Fallout's Science skill usage and application with DX's combat skill system. In the real world, no matter how hard you try, you can't properly operate a nuclear reactor without adequate scientific and technical background. Funnily enough, a difference of 1% in your science rating could mean the difference between success or failure, regardless of attempts taken. This is inconsistent with how scientific knowledge works and is applied as well, as with enough work (and a certain degree of scientific knowledge), one might end up solving a problem that seemed unsolvable at first sight, in what would probably constitute in-game a spontaneous increase of the science rating.

 

However, you can keep taking shots at a target, and chances are you'll hit it eventually, provided you have a basic understanding of that weapon's operation. The same works for FO's ingame mechanics. Even with a low small guns rating, you would still hit the target if you tried enough times or got close enough.

The two skills are as apples and oranges, but they are treated the same way by the ruleset, so I don't think Fallout is much better off in skill implementation than DX.

 

In DX, JCD is supposed to be able to fire a handgun with some degree of proficiency, I don't think this needs explaining. Therefore the game isn't "telling you that you can't do something and then allowing you to do it", it's just merely indicating a low probability of success (your claims of uncanny accuracy with the sniper rifle notwithstanding).

 

I also find it surprising that despite what you have said, you are less tolerant with that than with the player stepping in to solve a situation that the character lacks the means to overcome. Swapping between in and out-of-character freely like that (and the situations that require this by addressing the player directly, or by whatever circumstances) would appear to stomp on the barrier between player and character way more than DX's player-influenced combat skill system.