Do you prefer stat resolved combat, or player skill resolved combat?

[spacekungfuman]

I'm generally excited by Alpha Protocol, and think it sounds like a great way for Obsidian to strike out with its own IP. That said, I'm concerned that the combat won't be rpgish enough, and maybe won't be RPG combat at all. Right now, it sounds like Obsidian may even be committing the cardinal sin of borrowing a mechanic from Oblivion, by having stats only impact damage, not aim. I am hopeful that the reports I'm hearing are exaggerated, because the idea of Obsidian taking cues from the prime suspect in the destruction of the Western RPG is just too much to handle.

 

If the dreaded Oblivion combat really is in the game, will there at least be an option for system shock 2/deux ex style combat where character skill impacts aiming? Thanks for any responses.

Edited July 19, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[Pop]

I'd point you towards some Josh posts about the unsatisfactory nature of poindexter combat in this type of a game, but considering the loaded questions / answers you've already made up your mind.

 

Plus, I'm lazy.

[spacekungfuman]

I'd point you towards some Josh posts about the unsatisfactory nature of poindexter combat in this type of a game, but considering the loaded questions / answers you've already made up your mind.

 

Plus, I'm lazy.

 

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

[SirPetrakus]

I'm generally excited by Alpha Protocol, and think it sounds like a great way for Obsidian to strike out with its own IP. That said, I'm concerned that the combat won't be rpgish enough, and maybe won't be RPG combat at all. Right now, it sounds like Obsidian may even be committing the cardinal sin of borrowing a mechanic from Oblivion, by having stats only impact damage, not aim. I am hopeful that the reports I'm hearing are exaggerated, because the idea of Obsidian taking cues from the prime suspect in the destruction of the Western RPG is just too much to handle.

 

If the dreaded Oblivion combat really is in the game, will there at least be an option for system shock 2/deus ex style combat where character skill impacts aiming? Thanks for any responses.

 

Well, remember how in ME had this huge crosshair that meant "if it's in here it's getting shot"? I'm guessing it will have another huge crosshair like that so you won't miss easily. As for shooter fans, they can always up the ante.

[Patrick K Mills]

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

 

It helps that you are wrong in this particular case.

 

As for the "dreaded" Oblivion combat, no, we do not have clumsy first-person melee. We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them.

[SirPetrakus]

We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them.

 

*ba dum tsss*

[spacekungfuman]

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

 

It helps that you are wrong in this particular case.

 

As for the "dreaded" Oblivion combat, no, we do not have clumsy first-person melee. We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them.

 

How can I be "wrong" in my preference for stat resolved combat? The problem with Oblivion's combat is not that its clumsy. Its that the character's stats don't determine the outcomes, so its more of an action game (albeit a terrible one) than an RPG. All the previews of AP are saying the game is an action rpg that skews more for action fans, and I'm just hoping they're reading too far into this. System Shock 2 and Deus Ex have nice hybrid systems. Hell, even morrowind's combat had a to hit roll. And while this poll only has 4 responses, everyone has said they prefer stat resolved combat.

 

And bullets going where I put them is exactly what I don't want I want the guns to "put the bullets" where my character points them. If he's a better shot with his gun than I am with a mouse, I want to hit. If I'm a better shot with my mouse than he is with his gun, then I want him to miss. I don't want to just put on the main character's face as a mask.

 

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. 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.

Edited July 19, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[Starwars]

If the RPG is going to have FPS combat, then it had better be as good as a top end FPS.

 

This sums up my thoughts on the matter. At least in my previous experience with action-RPGs, I always feel they pull off in two different directions. The actiony twitch based gameplay, or the stats-heavy RPG gameplay. With the popularity of many action-RPGs, I guess that many people feel it's the best of both world, but personally I always get the feeling that I get the worst of both worlds instead. Or, even if the combat works well, I don't get the fulfilment that either a great FPS can bring, or a slowerpaced RPG can bring.

This is the case with Mass Effect for me... I feel the combat flows nicely, the controls are quite nice (on PC at least, never tried the Xbox360 version) etc, even so I feel it oh-so... unfulfilling.

 

But it's also due to stuff like perspectives and realtime/turnbased. I normally vastly prefer purely statbased stuff, but in games that feature an "actiony" perspective and gameplay (TES, Vampire:Bloodlines etc), it also serves to annoy me to no end. And that's that split which I mentioned before... If it becomes completely twitch based, then I feel the RPG is lacking. If it goes completely statbased then I feel annoyed at how I can't hit despite that I'm aiming well. Maybe there is some golden balance there and maybe Alpha Protocol will hit, but it hasn't happened for me as of yet.

 

So yeah, I think action-RPGs just aren't for me I suppose.

[Pidesco]

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

 

It helps that you are wrong in this particular case.

 

As for the "dreaded" Oblivion combat, no, we do not have clumsy first-person melee. We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them.

 

How can I be "wrong" in my preference for stat resolved combat? The problem with Oblivion's combat is not that its clumsy. Its that the character's stats don't determine the outcomes, so its more of an action game (albeit a terrible one) than an RPG. All the previews of AP are saying the game is an action rpg that skews more for action fans, and I'm just hoping they're reading too far into this. System Shock 2 and Deus Ex have nice hybrid systems. Hell, even morrowind's combat had a to hit roll. And while this poll only has 4 responses, everyone has said they prefer stat resolved combat.

 

And bullets going where I put them is exactly what I don't want I want the guns to "put the bullets" where my character points them. If he's a better shot with his gun than I am with a mouse, I want to hit. If I'm a better shot with my mouse than he is with his gun, then I want him to miss. I don't want to just put on the main character's face as a mask.

 

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. 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.

 

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.

[Bos_hybrid]

I've spoken about this with Josh in the past, and we just disagree.

 

It helps that you are wrong in this particular case.

 

As for the "dreaded" Oblivion combat, no, we do not have clumsy first-person melee. We do, however, have guns that generally tend to put bullets where you point them.

 

How can I be "wrong" in my preference for stat resolved combat?

 

So your preference is right, and everyone else's is wrong?

 

I like Oblivion, so my vote doesn't count.

 

[Cycloneman]

When I tell my character to do something, I expect him to do it. If my character is inaccurate with a firearm, I don't want that to be modeled by my carefully putting the crosshairs directly over the target's head and then my character shooting his gun off in some random direction; I want it to be modeled by the crosshair shaking, the gun twitching heavily after I fire, and so forth.

[spacekungfuman]

When I tell my character to do something, I expect him to do it. If my character is inaccurate with a firearm, I don't want that to be modeled by my carefully putting the crosshairs directly over the target's head and then my character shooting his gun off in some random direction; I want it to be modeled by the crosshair shaking, the gun twitching heavily after I fire, and so forth.

 

Well, that just goes to why first person is a bad viewpoint for RPGs. Of course, this is not first person, and aiming is generally very simple in TP games. Better yet, they could use a lock on or assisted aiming system, with stats determining if you hit. I never heard anyone complain about missing in BG, Diablo, or Torment after clicking on the target. How is this different?

[random n00b]

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.

cRPGs ≠ PnP RPGs.

 

 

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.

Funny that you would say this, and then praise Deus Ex's rather lackluster combat.

 

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.

 

 

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.

In DX, stats affected how long it took for the crosshair to settle down and also added a small percentage to base weapon damage.

[spacekungfuman]

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.

 

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. 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 one is RPG gameplay. The second two are just Doom.

 

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. . .

 

And why exactly has anything "died with iso"? Iso is still probably the best viewpoint for RPGs, and such modern RPGS as NWN2, DA:O, and AOD feature iso prominently.

[random n00b]

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.

Huh? And here I thought this thread was specifically about combat? Nice try at going off on a tangent, though.

 

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.

 

 

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.

Or you try and find a compromise where player skill isn't irrelevant and stats mean something. Wow, that was hard.

 

 

The first one is RPG gameplay.

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.

 

 

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. . .

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.

 

 

Iso is still probably the best viewpoint for RPGs

Opinion alone does not constitute fact.

[Istima Loke]

I do think that the first option is impossible to do and the second shouldn't be done exclusively in a role playing game. What I mean is that "player skill" will always play a role whether it is the obvious type like twitch play or the not so obvious type like problem solving skill (which is used in combat as well, when for example you choose who to shoot first or when to take cover and reload) but the character's skills should be a factor as well in a rpg (I don't think there's reason to explain why is that, right?).

 

Since AP was labelled as an action-RPG from the beginning I was expecting the combat to require twitch play. Now whether I will like it or not I think that would depend of how it will be implemented. Generally, since I do believe that the player's abilities will always "interfere" with the character's (one way of another) I tend to find the notion "it depends on what kind of game you'd like to play" more accurate that the whole "what is an RPG" debate. So if the developers want to make a game that will require your hand-eye coordination skill they would make it more towards twitch play but if they want to make a game that requires one's analytical skill more they would try to erase the action-y parts to let the player focus on the strategic parts (by making it turn-based or something).

 

At least that's my take on it at any rate.

 

P.S.: I can't really know about the third option, I've never played Oblivion.

[H]

Huh? And here I thought this thread was specifically about combat? Nice try at going off on a tangent, though.

And why exactly should combat have its own mechanics that are fundamentally different from how the rest of the game works? I'm looking forward to your answer.

[random n00b]

[quote name='H

Edited July 20, 2008 by random n00b

[H]

Because, as opposed to player reflexes, hand-eye coordination and perhaps a limited degree of tactical savvy, which are the factors which govern combat in the more action-oriented cRPGs, there is no way to reasonably measure a person's actual strength of personality as manifested by their persuasiveness, or their knowledge of real-world locks. This is easily extended to a great deal of other non-combat skill application instances. Did I really have to explain this?

So if a way to measure the hawtness of the player suddenly gets discovered, it should be immediately implemented in all RPGs, and skills like Seduction and Diplomacy should be removed?

Why, did you perchance assume I couldn't provide one? Try harder.

I certainly expected you to provide an explanation, a ridiculous one. I wasn't disappointed.

Game systems are not about "fairness" or "symmetry". They are about FUN.

Absolutely. Do you find it hard to believe that some people actually enjoy stat-based combat?

Edited July 20, 2008 by H

[Hell Kitty]

The idea that it's either character stats or player skills that determines the outcome is nonsense. Player skill always plays a part in games, otherwise they wouldn't be games, you'd just create your player and then watch as a non-interactive movie plays out.

 

Even if damage and aim is determined solely by stats, it's still the player who decides when, where, how, and who to attack. If a character dies attacking an enemy who is far to strong, it isn't solely down to the characters stats being too low, it's also because the player made a poor decision. I'm currently playing Persona 3, a turn-based RPG, and while it's the characters stats that determine if you hit the enemy and how much damage you do to them once the individual attack has been launched, the outcome of the battle is also determined by which attacks the player chooses, which persona they have equipped, and which enemies they target.

 

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.

 

To give a proper example of this, rather than the nonsense above, in Silent Storm, your character can be standing right in front of the enemy, but if your weapon skill is too low and the roll determines you don't hit, then your character will aim away from the enemy before firing, purposely missing them. Hell, player skill isn't even the issue here, it's that the game doesn't factor in that being at point blank range ought to mean you don't need a high weapons skill to hit.

 

Of course when people argue against player skill, it seems that what they really are against is player reflexes. This is a leftover of the days when CRPGs were PnP simulators. In PnP, the character can't use any of their physical skills, because the game world and everything in it exist solely on paper and in the players imagination, but some folks seem to have taken this as a rule rather than what it really is, an impossibility.

 

CRPGs aren't limited to what PnP RPGs can do. Nor are they limited to being what any one person prefers them to be.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[spacekungfuman]

I don't have time to do line by line replies, but here's a quick response to basically everything that has been said. Twitch skill is a simulation of NOTHING. Your ability to use a mouse to aim at something is just as contrived as rolling dice. Tactical decision making is a reasonable proxy, because the player is doing the EXACT same thing they would be doing if they actually were the character. If you can do the exact same thing, then I can concede that no simulation is needed. But if I do need to simulate something like combat, why should I prefer the ability of the player to aim with a mouse to the dice roll of the character, especially since the character is defined relative to the world by his stats?

 

That said, my prefferred game would actually have the character's perception and intelligence limit my tactical options. In fact, that would be as close to perfect as an RPG combat system could get imo.

 

I believe in coherent game worlds. Nothing breaks immersion for me like having the character stop being the character, and succeed or fail at a physical task based on my reflexes. This is a personal preference, but it is not the preference of one person, like people here are claiming. RPGs are traditionally played in a certain way, and believe it or not, a lot of people like it. In fact, 80% of poll respondents so far prefer stat resolved combat.

Edited July 20, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[random n00b]

[quote name='H

Edited July 20, 2008 by random n00b

[Hell Kitty]

Anyway, as far as AP is concerned, I'm happy with what I've heard about it: Aiming is left entirely up to player skill, and character skill determines things like the amount of damage done, recoil, reload speed, and the availability of special moves.

[H]

Where did that "immediately implemented in all RPGs" came from? Are you some sort of fundamentalist or what? This is Alpha Protocol we are talking about, not every RPG to be done in the future.

OK, should such system be implemented in AP, if it was doable? And please, don't avoid actually answering the question this time.

Also, if you can think of a feasible way to implement this, I'd love to hear it, as I suspect a few devs would. Otherwise, it doesn't even merit discussing. It is not an argument, it's nonsense.

Indeed. Anyway, you don't like this one? Here's another: let's replace, say, the hacking mini-game with a little exercise at actual programming. Player skill FTW!

Do you find it hard to believe that some people actually enjoy player-influenced combat?

Not at all. Fortunately for them, these folks have shooters and slashers to play with. Fans of stat-based combat soon will be left with nothing.

[Hell Kitty]

Tactical decision making is a reasonable proxy, because the player is doing the EXACT same thing they would be doing if they actually were the character.

 

Not true. The player typically has access to information that they wouldn't if they actually were the character, sometimes through the UI (such as choosing to attack a weak character because selecting them brings up a box telling you that they have a low health bar), sometimes through the camera angle used in the game (such as an isometric or third-person view allowing the player to see enemies or locations their character can not).

 

Also the rules of the game world will determine the choices you make. In a typical FPS you might choose to run in guns blazing because you know that you have a full health bar and your character can survive several shots to the face, whereas your actions will change in a Rainbow Six style game because you know a single shot could be fatal.

 

I believe in coherent game worlds.

 

The coherency of game worlds has little to do with the issue of player skill vs character skill. See the Silent Storm example from earlier.

 

This is a personal preference, but it is not the preference of one person, like people here are claiming.

 

No, no one is claiming that. Is doesn't matter how many people prefer one system or the other. Tradition isn't a rule. One can prefer that an RPG features x, y, and z, but that doesn't mean games without x, y, and z aren't RPGs, which is what your loaded poll claims.

 

Do you find it hard to believe that some people actually enjoy stat-based combat?

Do you find it hard to believe that some people actually enjoy player-influenced combat?

 

And some people enjoy both, sometimes separately in different games, sometimes together in the same game, like AP. And the enjoyment one gets from them has nothing to do with what genre that game belong to. Crazy, huh?