If you want to say the game is just another entry in the deus ex fps style, that's fine, but be honest about it. This is clearly not a game made to appeal to your hardcore fans, and that's fine, but don't act like it is ridiculous to want a company that has only made games in a certain style to make more games in that style. Just like a lot of rpg fans like "old" gameplay because it is the type of gameplay in the games we have liked in the past, I'm sure there are plenty of Obsidian fans who like your "old" style of games, and there's nothing wrong with not jumping up and down with joy when you go in a different direction.

 

There are also "hardcore fans" (do I count as one with my nearly 5000th post count and the fact I consider OE as my favourite company?) who approach the combat and such properties of game based on

 

A) how it fits in game

B) is it fun

C) does it fundamentally affect game's core (which in this case is roleplaying) in harmful way

D) if not, is the approach preferable to orthodox one

 

instead of spouting out presumed superiority of one style in all contexts.

 

"We're not making a game just for you and ten other angry guys with tastes that are narrower than a hallway in a camp of pygmy dwarves."

 

- JE "I write kickass quote material" Sawyer

Edited July 24, 200817 yr by Xard

"don't act like it is ridiculous to want a company that has only made games in a certain style to make more games in that style."

 

Yeah, then people will whine that they aren't changing or adapting or making new things.

 

Look at the DA stuff: "WAAA! It's 'generic fantasy'!" crap. Or the cries when Obsidian made KOTOR2, and NWN2.

 

It's claled adaption. If games, and game devs didn't change; we'd still be stuck with 'RPGs' that were nothing more than dungeon crawlers with turn based combat not the RPGs that you say you like. Thank god, people didn't stick with doing the same. Or BIO would still be working on medical software, or Obsidian would stick with making KOTOR 10 10 years from now. *shrug*

In fact we'd still be in caves

I don't mind the system Mass Effect has, where it's a giant target to aim for and as long as you're even close, it'll register if your character has enough points in that stat. But generally, I prefer my stats to count more than my own twitch ability.

Being a hardcore fan doesn't mean only liking a particular type of gameplay and rules system. One might consider themselves a hardcore fan due to loving the stories and characters that Obsidian makes.

 

The idea that Obsidian should "be honest" and admit they aren't really making an RPG because it doesn't fit into ones own definition is the attitude of a spoiled child who can't handle not getting things their way.

 

Anyway, I mostly agree with what random n00bman has posted. Stats and skills only say what your character can do and how well they can do it, why they do it, the characters motivations and personality is what the player wants it to be.

To be fair, it does make sense to "want a company that has only made games in a certain style to make more games in that style." I think it's all about balance - the balance between 'slam dunks' and more wacky titles, the balance between your standard repertoire/style and branching out. We seem to be getting quite a different sort of game with AP, and possibly with Aliens... but we have SoZ and probably something else in the pipeline. I'd really like to see OE people make their own IP RPGs (and not go the path of Torn, TBH, etc), but I'm not too worried.

There are also "hardcore fans" (do I count as one with my nearly 5000th post count and the fact I consider OE as my favourite company?)

 

S.T.A.L.K.E.R was my favourite game of 2007. Clear Sky is out at the end of August, DO WANT!

So long as we're going to say that combat should be player skill vs. character skill, you also really have to consider the other aspects of the genre.

 

If you are playing a dumb character, do you still manage to find all the solutions to the quests you undertake? Or should your character be too dumb to piece things together? When you're given a stupid puzzle in an RPG, shouldn't your character's skill determine whether or not you figure it out and complete it rather than the player having to figure it out (like some of the stupid puzzles in the KOTOR games)? If you are playing PNP, and you are playing an extremely intelligent character, are YOU, the player, ever going to think up clever enough responses and quest solutions while you are playing? Or does the DM simply roll some dice and tell you that your super-intelligent character devised a way out of his predicament?

 

Every single game that has weapon skills has them affect damage. Don't pretend that it's just Oblivion. Deus Ex adds more damage when you have more skill, Bloodlines adds more damage as you add more skill, Mass Effect adds more damage when you add more skill, etc. I think it's stupid to do it that way, but that's how it seems to always be done. (I'd prefer that you do things like modify your weapon or simply start buying higher quality bullets once you can afford them). And I have to say that I didn't like the idea in Deus Ex of a trained government agent not even being competent enough to shoot a sniper rifle without it rocking all over the place.

 

And in party-based games, do player stats determine your combat tactics, or does an intelligent player have to come up with good tactics to get through puzzles? Does a rogue automatically search for traps all the time and disarm them, or does the player have to tell the rogue not to run around like an idiot?

 

I'm just fine with making combat twitch-based and simply fun. Regardless of how awesome you are at Baldur's Gate, if you the player are an idiot, you're not going to beat Sarevok at the end. And perhaps in 3.5E games, we should have characters choose their own feats based on how intelligent they are. So your dumb fighter, without your input, could pick Skill Focus: Perform just because he gets delusions of being a singer.

I am totally poindexter. I just want to do the strategy and let the character and his stats take care of the tactical stuff.

 

However so long as the game has a suitable easy mode for people who are not action fans that works for me.

I'm just fine with making combat twitch-based and simply fun. Regardless of how awesome you are at Baldur's Gate, if you the player are an idiot, you're not going to beat Sarevok at the end. And perhaps in 3.5E games, we should have characters choose their own feats based on how intelligent they are. So your dumb fighter, without your input, could pick Skill Focus: Perform just because he gets delusions of being a singer.

 

I understand all your points and all I can say is I do not find twitch based fun but I know many people do. I guess I do not understand why both of us cannot be catered to. It is not like there is a massive shortage of twitch action games out there.

I don't mind the system Mass Effect has, where it's a giant target to aim for and as long as you're even close, it'll register if your character has enough points in that stat. But generally, I prefer my stats to count more than my own twitch ability.

 

Yep if it is an "Action" game like Mass Effect that works for me.

I am totally poindexter. I just want to do the strategy and let the character and his stats take care of the tactical stuff.

 

However so long as the game has a suitable easy mode for people who are not action fans that works for me.

 

Wouldn't this break game's combat however? You get whining from hardc0re roleplayers about MotB being too easy but if you visit MotB boards you'll see topics with desperate gamers trying to beat some fight.

 

If you start to incorporate "suitable easy mode" to gameplay mechanics you have great chance of creating Win Button. And I'd rather have for first time since IWD's good combat in RPG

 

The dangers are real unless they make something like this: Brutal & Masculine - Very Hard - Hard - Normal - Easy - Very Easy - For Co-ordinately Handicapped - Win Button"

 

And isn't this argument that everyone should be able finish the game the same argument "real players" nowadays sneer so much at?

 

I don't mind the system Mass Effect has, where it's a giant target to aim for and as long as you're even close, it'll register if your character has enough points in that stat. But generally, I prefer my stats to count more than my own twitch ability.

 

Yep if it is an "Action" game like Mass Effect that works for me.

 

Well, ME's realtime combat isn't any good

I'm just fine with making combat twitch-based and simply fun. Regardless of how awesome you are at Baldur's Gate, if you the player are an idiot, you're not going to beat Sarevok at the end. And perhaps in 3.5E games, we should have characters choose their own feats based on how intelligent they are. So your dumb fighter, without your input, could pick Skill Focus: Perform just because he gets delusions of being a singer.

 

I understand all your points and all I can say is I do not find twitch based fun but I know many people do. I guess I do not understand why both of us cannot be catered to. It is not like there is a massive shortage of twitch action games out there.

 

What there's an absence of, however, are RPGs with well done, twich based action.

What there's an absence of, however, are RPGs with well done, twich based action.

 

Are there? I guess I am too distracted by all the ones coming out with horrible twitch based action. I just assumed I did not find it fun because I do not particularly care for twitch based games.

Wouldn't this break game's combat however? You get whining from hardc0re roleplayers about MotB being too easy but if you visit MotB boards you'll see topics with desperate gamers trying to beat some fight.

 

If you start to incorporate "suitable easy mode" to gameplay mechanics you have great chance of creating Win Button. And I'd rather have for first time since IWD's good combat in RPG

 

The dangers are real unless they make something like this: Brutal & Masculine - Very Hard - Hard - Normal - Easy - Very Easy - For Co-ordinately Handicapped - Win Button"

 

And isn't this argument that everyone should be able finish the game the same argument "real players" nowadays sneer so much at?

 

Is Alpha Protocol supposed to cater specifically to the "real players" and the "hardc0re"? I do not mean for it to have a 'win button' I assumed that it would be a "Very Easy-Easy-Normal-Hard-Very Hard-Hardc0re" setting sort of thing.

 

Well, ME's realtime combat isn't any good

 

Yes it sucked. But it was easy and bearable like in Jade Empire.

That's exactly the point. It would be awesome to have great combat in RPG first time in many years...

 

Wouldn't this break game's combat however? You get whining from hardc0re roleplayers about MotB being too easy but if you visit MotB boards you'll see topics with desperate gamers trying to beat some fight.

 

If you start to incorporate "suitable easy mode" to gameplay mechanics you have great chance of creating Win Button. And I'd rather have for first time since IWD's good combat in RPG

 

The dangers are real unless they make something like this: Brutal & Masculine - Very Hard - Hard - Normal - Easy - Very Easy - For Co-ordinately Handicapped - Win Button"

 

And isn't this argument that everyone should be able finish the game the same argument "real players" nowadays sneer so much at?

 

Is Alpha Protocol supposed to cater specifically to the "real players" and the "hardc0re"? I do not mean for it to have a 'win button' I assumed that it would be a "Very Easy-Easy-Normal-Hard-Very Hard-Hardc0re" setting sort of thing.

 

 

 

I just wonder how they'd actually make it without breaking game's combat as a whole.