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

[random n00b]

[quote name='H

Edited July 20, 2008 by random n00b

[quicksilver_503]

it's nice to see sucj unbiased polling. and i actually did like oblivion. but i think you sjould have another one for "a combination of the two". i think this is a good balance.

[Slowtrain]

In crpgs I prefer stat-based combat. In shooters or flight sims or whatever, player-skill based combat is fine. They are different vibes and both are rewarding in their own way. I do find it unfortunate that stat-based combat is becoming so much less common though, but whatever. At the moment mainstream video game development is pretty much a monkey-see, monkey-do affair. Someday some developer will make a TB stat heavy isometric game that sells a bajillion copies and then everybody will start making those types of games instead.

[Cycloneman]

Well, that just goes to why first person is a bad viewpoint for RPGs.

...no it doesn't. That's a pretty big leap. If you do it poorly, it's annoying. Ergo, doing it at all is bad.

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 have no problem with the amount of drift in my character's firearm changing based upon his skill with said firearm, and even looping in to some autoaim when he gets really good.

I never heard anyone complain about missing in BG, Diablo, or Torment after clicking on the target. How is this different?

Yes, what is the difference between games when you adopt a much more distant, "controlling" and tactical role, and games where you take an in-the-action role?

 

What's the difference between FPSs and RTSs again? I mean, it's okay for a character to miss in an RTS, but not in an FPS. Why would that be? It's not like the relationship between me and my marine in Starcraft and me and my character in Halo are hugely different.

 

Oh wait, that was an extremely extended period of sarcasm. My bad.

Someday some developer will make a TB stat heavy isometric game that sells a bajillion copies and then everybody will start making those types of games instead.

I hate to burst your bubble, but...

 

No. They won't.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Cycloneman

[kirottu]

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.

 

That does indeed sound nice.

[Slowtrain]

No. They won't.

 

 

Maybe. But what was once old will be new again. These rt action/rpg hybrids are the flavor of the month atm. They'll last for a while then burn out like always. Something else will replace them.

[Sand]

If it is suppose to be a CRPG in any form then stat based combat is a must. If it is to be a FPS or Third Person Shooter, then player skill is a must.

[Slowtrain]

If it is suppose to be a CRPG in any form then stat based combat is a must. If it is to be a FPS or Third Person Shooter, then player skill is a must.

 

 

QFT.

 

I mean the whole point of a crpg is to build and develop your character and then watch as they character you built suceeds or fails on those merits. Once you start allowing my skill with the keyboard and mouse to affact how my stat/skill built character plays, then you've sort of defeated the whole purpose of building a character in the first place.

 

I mean, in Oblivion I could pick any lock in the game with a 5 skill in lockpicking and a 30 agility. Why? Because my player skill in manipulating the lockpick gui was overriding my character skill. So what's the point of a lockpicking skill in the first place?

 

I've got nothing against FPS games either. I just like them different.

[spacekungfuman]

If it is suppose to be a CRPG in any form then stat based combat is a must. If it is to be a FPS or Third Person Shooter, then player skill is a must.

 

 

QFT.

 

I mean the whole point of a crpg is to build and develop your character and then watch as they character you built suceeds or fails on those merits. Once you start allowing my skill with the keyboard and mouse to affact how my stat/skill built character plays, then you've sort of defeated the whole purpose of building a character in the first place.

 

I mean, in Oblivion I could pick any lock in the game with a 5 skill in lockpicking and a 30 agility. Why? Because my player skill in manipulating the lockpick gui was overriding my character skill. So what's the point of a lockpicking skill in the first place?

 

I've got nothing against FPS games either. I just like them different.

 

There's nothing left to say. This is the point of the topic, and the CRPG right here. Other types of combat are fine for other genres, but once you take away stat resolved combat, you just don't get the experience you traditionally get from a CRPG, and I play CRPGs to get the experience I've always enjoyed getting out of them. Its as simple as that. Chess wasn't made obsolete by monopoly, and when you want to play chess, monopoly is not a reasonable substitute, even if you represent yourself with the king instead of the dog.

[random n00b]

If it is suppose to be a CRPG in any form then stat based combat is a must. If it is to be a FPS or Third Person Shooter, then player skill is a must.

And shades of gray not only do not exist, but cannot exist.

 

Eh, OK.

 

 

I mean the whole point of a crpg is to build and develop your character and then watch as they character you built suceeds or fails on those merits.

As defined by whom? Perhaps I'm more interested on seeing how my CE rogue doublecrosses her partymates than watching her fail repeatedly at backstabbing some immobile bozo that is only a few inches away from the tip of her weapon. Role-playing does not mean Baldur's Gate.

 

 

Once you start allowing my skill with the keyboard and mouse to affact how my stat/skill built character plays, then you've sort of defeated the whole purpose of building a character in the first place.

So then, roleplaying for you is just min/maxing. Interesting.

 

 

I mean, in Oblivion I could pick any lock in the game with a 5 skill in lockpicking and a 30 agility. Why? Because my player skill in manipulating the lockpick gui was overriding my character skill. So what's the point of a lockpicking skill in the first place?

And because Oblivion failed at delivering a balanced blend of player skill and character stats to affect the game does that mean that it cannot be done? DOES NOT COMPUTE

[Hell Kitty]

I do find it unfortunate that stat-based combat is becoming so much less common though, but whatever.

 

Only in Western games. Japanese games are still chock full of stat-based combat goodness. Of course when folks say they want stat-based combat in RPGs what they really want is a particular type of combat from older PC RPGs they used to play, not any old stat-based combat. Personally I love me some Jagged Alliance 2 or Silent Storm style turn-based combat, while the type of combat from the old Bard's Tale games I played once upon a time I have zero interest in.

 

Someday some developer will make a TB stat heavy isometric game that sells a bajillion copies and then everybody will start making those types of games instead.

 

I suspect that while the number of gamers overall has grown, the amount of folks who enjoy (western style) stat-based combat is about the same as it always was. Thus, (western style) stat heavy turn based isometric RPGs will never be the "flavour of the month", but perhaps in the future there will be more devs happy to cater to smaller particular markets.

[spacekungfuman]

Random Noob - You're just being obtuse at this point. We are saying that we are fans of a certain type of game that has existed in a certain form for a long time now. We want more games that provide that experience, and don't want games that provide half the experience we're looking for mixed in with something else. Liking CRPGs traditionally has meant liking stat resolved combat, and just because developers choose to make games with other types of combat/world interaction and call them "RPGs" does not obligate us to like them just because we are CRPG fans. CRPG has an established meaning and an established fan base, and it should not come as any surprise that the more the genre strays from its established meaning, the less fans will like it.

 

And I'm sick of people saying that stat resolved combat is just a tradition of CRPGs that does not have to be followed or even given deference. My favorite color is actually grey (I'm sure you find this ironic) and I have always liked things that are grey. If someone were to come along and make a pink shirt but call it grey, there is not reason to think I would be predisposed to like it because it is called "grey". The name has no meaning, but what it traditionally stands for means everything.

[spacekungfuman]

I do find it unfortunate that stat-based combat is becoming so much less common though, but whatever.

 

Only in Western games. Japanese games are still chock full of stat-based combat goodness. Of course when folks say they want stat-based combat in RPGs what they really want is a particular type of combat from older PC RPGs they used to play, not any old stat-based combat. Personally I love me some Jagged Alliance 2 or Silent Storm style turn-based combat, while the type of combat from the old Bard's Tale games I played once upon a time I have zero interest in.

 

Even JRPGs seem to be moving more and more towards action though. Even FF12 was an action RPG. Japanese Strat RPGs are one of the last holdouts of stat resolved turn based tactical combat, but mainstream JRPGs went action a while ago, which coincides with when I stopped playing them. . .

[Pidesco]

Are all shades of grey equal? This all or nothing approach seems close minded and a bit pedantic to me.

[Slowtrain]

As defined by whom? Perhaps I'm more interested on seeing how my CE rogue doublecrosses her partymates than watching her fail repeatedly at backstabbing some immobile bozo that is only a few inches away from the tip of her weapon. Role-playing does not mean Baldur's Gate.

 

If you want to make the argument that a crpg is not neccessarily about building a character out of a set of stats and skills, then OK, I can't really argue. I used to post with a guy who maintained that every game was a role-playing game since you always played a role, even in Doom. So fine. If that is your take on a crpg, so be it.

 

Otoh, if you're saying that failing a backstab because you missed a skill roll is specifically something bad, I would just say that TO ME, that is the entire point of a crpg. You build your character with the knowledge of the stats and skills and let the actions of that character succeed or fail based on those numbers. That's the point of a crpg. Missing a backstab as you describe isn't bad gameplay or whatever. That's the way a stat system works. Perhaps you dislike stat systems? That's cool. There's plenty of room for games that doesn't use them.

 

 

Once you start allowing my skill with the keyboard and mouse to affact how my stat/skill built character plays, then you've sort of defeated the whole purpose of building a character in the first place.

So then, roleplaying for you is just min/maxing. Interesting.

 

 

If you say so. I said nothing about min/maxing so you must be reading my mind or something.

 

I mean, in Oblivion I could pick any lock in the game with a 5 skill in lockpicking and a 30 agility. Why? Because my player skill in manipulating the lockpick gui was overriding my character skill. So what's the point of a lockpicking skill in the first place?

And because Oblivion failed at delivering a balanced blend of player skill and character stats to affect the game does that mean that it cannot be done?

 

No. That was a single example from a game that failed to do it well. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited July 20, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Cycloneman]

An RPG is just another type of game, but with one addition: you level up.

 

You seem to be identifying "CPRG" with "Strategy game RPG;" the element of "your skill has **** to do with character behavior" is an element of strategy games, and as you can clearly see by the screen shots, this is a third person shooter.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Cycloneman

[Slowtrain]

Are all shades of grey equal? This all or nothing approach seems close minded and a bit pedantic to me.

 

 

Pedantic is not really the right word, I think. I see it more as celebrating the differences. I love runnning jumping climbing etc in STALKER and Thief, but I also enjoy constructing a character out of numbers and taking that character out into the world to see what happens based on those numbers and then working on those numbers as I go along.

[spacekungfuman]

Are all shades of grey equal? This all or nothing approach seems close minded and a bit pedantic to me.

 

Well, there are different shades of course. We have real turn based games like Fallout, Isometric Realtime w/ Pause like BG/P:ST, real time like divine divinity, tile based real time like Eye of the Beholder, tp real time w/pause like KOTOR, real time first person with a too hit roll like Morrowind (the outer limits of acceptable), etc. Lots of ways to have stat resolved combat. But once you use your skill to aim, and there's no to hit roll, you're just outside of stat resolved combat, and that is basically a bright line.

[Slowtrain]

An RPG is just another type of game, but with one addition: you level up.

 

You seem to be identifying "CPRG" with "Strategy game RPG;" the element of "your skill has **** to do with character behavior" is an element of strategy games, and as you can clearly see by the screen shots, this is a third person shooter.

 

 

I'm not specifically relating my posts to Alpha Protocol or saying what that game should be or shouldn't be. I was merely responding to the question in the poll.

 

Perhaps a mod should move this topic to general gaming?

[random n00b]

If that is your take on a crpg, so be it.

I don't have a "take" on cRPGs. I operate on a case-by-case basis. But I'm not impressed by others telling me what cRPGs should be about.

 

 

Otoh, if you're saying that failing a backstab because you missed a skill roll is specifically something bad, I would just say that TO ME, that is the entire point of a crpg. You build your character with the knowledge of the stats and skills and let the actions of that character succeed or fail based on those numbers.

No, that's just the way it was done in the IE. It really has nothing to do with roleplaying. You want IE-style mechanics, OK. But don't pretend that there is some sort of fundamental connection between character development and the retarded, artificially induced failings of game mechanics from the past.

 

 

 

If you say so. I said nothing about min/maxing so you must be reading my mind or something.

No, you didn't say anything about it, but you've been reducing cRPGs to playing with stats. I guess you could not min/max, but if you strip everything else away, there's not much more to do, really.

 

 

No. That was a single example from a game that failed to do it well. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, if you weren't meaning to draw any conclusions from it, what's the relevance of that example outside of a discussion about Oblivion?

[spacekungfuman]

No, that's just the way it was done in the IE. It really has nothing to do with roleplaying. You want IE-style mechanics, OK. But don't pretend that there is some sort of fundamental connection between character development and the retarded, artificially induced failings of game mechanics from the past.

 

Umm. . . These mechanics go back much further than IE, and existed in most games contemporaneous with IE, and most that came after. They go all the way to rouge, hack, and dungeon. The genre was started like this, and if you can't understand why genre fans would want to see games like the games they've seen in the past, then I don't even know what to say to you.

[Slowtrain]

If that is your take on a crpg, so be it.

I don't have a "take" on cRPGs. I operate on a case-by-case basis. But I'm not impressed by others telling me what cRPGs should be about.

 

 

That's cool. I wasn't particularly trying to impress you, just adding my opinion to the thread.

 

Otoh, if you're saying that failing a backstab because you missed a skill roll is specifically something bad, I would just say that TO ME, that is the entire point of a crpg. You build your character with the knowledge of the stats and skills and let the actions of that character succeed or fail based on those numbers.

No, that's just the way it was done in the IE. It really has nothing to do with roleplaying. You want IE-style mechanics, OK. But don't pretend that there is some sort of fundamental connection between character development and the retarded, artificially induced failings of game mechanics from the past.

 

There is no fundamental connection. I never said that.

 

If you say so. I said nothing about min/maxing so you must be reading my mind or something.

No, you didn't say anything about it, but you've been reducing cRPGs to playing with stats. I guess you could not min/max, but if you strip everything else away, there's not much more to do, really.

 

So are you saying the only way to make and play a stat-based character is min-maxing?

 

No. That was a single example from a game that failed to do it well. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then, if you weren't meaning to draw any conclusions from it, what's the relevance of that example outside of a discussion about Oblivion?

 

It was an example of a situation where mixing player skill and character skill didn't work. That's the only relevance.

[random n00b]

Random Noob - You're just being obtuse at this point. We are saying that we are fans of a certain type of game that has existed in a certain form for a long time now. We want more games that provide that experience, and don't want games that provide half the experience we're looking for mixed in with something else. Liking CRPGs traditionally has meant liking stat resolved combat, and just because developers choose to make games with other types of combat/world interaction and call them "RPGs" does not obligate us to like them just because we are CRPG fans. CRPG has an established meaning and an established fan base, and it should not come as any surprise that the more the genre strays from its established meaning, the less fans will like it.

So because I'm not willing to accept your view on how stuff should be, I'm being obtuse? Wow, thanks. I take great pride in being obtuse, then.

 

As for the rest of your post... well. I guess you just want AP to be IE/Aurora-style. Not gonna happen, so there.

 

 

There is no fundamental connection. I never said that.

No? Then the whole "that's the whole point of crpgs" thing is something you throw around whenever you feel like it, but it's not actually intended to mean anything, yes?

 

 

So are you saying the only way to make and play a stat-based character is min-maxing?

Nitpicking. But yeah, if a cRPG is only about fiddling around with stats (from your previous posts about stats), there's no point in doing anything else, unless you want to artificially crank the difficulty up for some reason.

 

 

It was an example of a situation where mixing player skill and character skill didn't work. That's the only relevance.

Oblivion is not AP. Oblivion is not any other game either. It is only Oblivion. General conclusions cannot be drawn from the shortcomings of one game in particular. Edited July 21, 2008 by random n00b

[Cycloneman]

Umm. . . These mechanics go back much further than IE, and existed in most games contemporaneous with IE, and most that came after. They go all the way to rouge, hack, and dungeon. The genre was started like this, and if you can't understand why genre fans would want to see games like the games they've seen in the past, then I don't even know what to say to you.

If you want stat-based combat and character action, try checking out RTSs and TBSs. Those also have stat-based combat.

[SirPetrakus]

I don't mean to pry ... but WOOOOOOOW! What's with all this quoting and sub-quoting and referencing and backstabbing? Chill out! Seriously, this type of combat has been done on Action RPGs before and it worked well in the past, let's not get ahead of ourselves and condemn something that we have not as of yet seen, ok? I think it would be cool if combat was turn based stat dependent and you could see your char dodging bullets like Neo in the process but we have to keep this in mind; this is OE's first IP and her main goal is to make a game appealing to casual gamers as well as old school BI devoted fans, sure it would have been great to get a modern day RPG a la fallout with its turn based combat but that would be like saying "we got our fan base, screw the rest of the world" and as much as I would like that, it can't be done. OE has to start off somewhere and then make a bold move when the time is right to a true RPG style game with no action elements. The fact that it worked in the KotoR games does not mean that every game should be done after them, besides OE wants to distance herself from BioWare as much as possible in order to make her own name in the gaming world. If AP is to be an action-RPG it needs SOME action elements and that usually translates in combat, if pointing the gun in generally the right direction isn't your cup of tea, you can always sit this one out, if it means that much to you, but this game can be played in more than one way and not just run 'n' gun Serious Sam style. If you are not referring to AP, start a similar topic in another part of the forums so it can be generally about games, otherwise QFT and as I said before I do like stat based combat as it was done in the Fallout series and in the KotoR games, the BG series, the NWN series, the IWD series, everywhere, but this is an ACTION RPG, get over it, it's not Oblivion with guns just because of that.