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

[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.

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.

 

No, you're being obtuse because you are making a point of ignoring the very simple fact that tradition matters because some people LIKE what is traditional. You keep saying the mechanics are outmoded or obsolete, and that they should not be adhered to just because of tradition. I am saying they should be adhered to because RPG fans like RPGs that use them. You almost could not be an RPG fan without liking them, because 99% of all PC RPGs ever made use them. If you could just acknowledge this simple point and *gasp* act as if it isn't wrong for RPG fans to want games similar to the games they've liked in the past, then you'd come across as being more reasonable. Of course, that requires you to abandon your argumentative stance, so you won't do it.

[spacekungfuman]

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.

 

I do play games in both those genres. But RPGs are my favorite, and when I say that, I'm referring to a specific type of game. Right now, good traditional RPGs are hard to find, and Obsidian is one of the last companies making them. This is why it makes me sad to see them making games that veer away from the classic style I and many others love.

[Slowtrain]

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?

 

 

It means that is what a crpg is to me. My take. My thoughts. My opinion. My experience. I posted in response to the OP's poll. Nowhere have I said that you (or anyone) needs to agree with me. In fact I went out of my way to say, everyone's ideas are fine.

 

For the last few posts, it appears you been attacking me for having an opinion and posting it. I'm OK with that; it comes with the territory, but I am not saying that you need to agree with me so please don't take it in that way.

 

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 fizzling 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.

 

Every stat built charaacter has strengths and weaknessess, every stat build character has a personality. Fallout yielded so many fun characters. None of them were min-maxed. That's not the point. The point is to build a character to interact with the gameworld based on who they are. That's they way I play it anyway.

 

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.

 

Right. I'll say it again. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol needs to be X or Y or Z. That has nothing to do with my posts. I am answering the orginal question in the thread: "Do you prefer stat resolved combat or player skill resolved combat?"

 

If the mods or the OP want this thread moved to general gaming, that's OK with me.

[random n00b]

No, you're being obtuse because you are making a point of ignoring the very simple fact that tradition matters because some people LIKE what is traditional. You keep saying the mechanics are outmoded or obsolete, and that they should not be adhered to just because of tradition. I am saying they should be adhered to because RPG fans like RPGs that use them. You almost could not be an RPG fan without liking them, because 99% of all PC RPGs ever made use them. If you could just acknowledge this simple point and *gasp* act as if it isn't wrong for RPG fans to want games similar to the games they've liked in the past, then you'd come across as being more reasonable. Of course, that requires you to abandon your argumentative stance, so you won't do it.

Some people liking what's traditional does not preclude those same people from liking innovation as well - you are potentially making a mischaracterization, and you are doing it on purpose. No, tradition alone is not a good reason to hold on to something that's obsolete, because the mechanics that spawned those traditions were limited purely by hardware concerns and were themselves heavily modified versions of PnP rulesets in many cases, or borrowed heavily from them in others.

 

I also care very little for your not considering me a "RPG fan" or whatever, I already said I operate on a case-by-case basis, and stat-based mechanics aren't enough for me to even consider a game. I am also perfectly willing to accept that people like old systems, and I am a (fairly crappy, yet) avid chess player myself. What I don't agree with is the close-minded stance that genres are closed and immutable, much less a genre as vague as "role-playing games".

 

Again, I'm argumentative because I refuse to accept the dogmas you take for granted. But then, it wasn't me who started a thread dissing a game's combat system because it doesn't properly observe some arbitrary "tradition" (nevermind the fact that it was never meant to), and a poll that dismisses differing opinions beforehand. Whatever.

[random n00b]

For the last few posts, it appears you been attacking me for having an opinion and posting it. I'm OK with that; it comes with the territory, but I am not saying that you need to agree with me so please don't take it in that way.

I'm attacking you? Because I'm disagreeing with you and considering the points you made? Wait, isn't that what a discussion is all about?

 

 

Every stat built charaacter has strengths and weaknessess, every stat build character has a personality. Fallout yielded so many fun characters. None of them were min-maxed. That's not the point. The point is to build a character to interact with the gameworld based on who they are. That's they way I play it anyway.

And playing a character and having it interact with the gameworld is related to stat fiddling how? And how does that preclude player skill from being a factor, too? That's the connection I'm challenging.

 

 

Right. I'll say it again. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol needs to be X or Y or Z. That has nothing to do with my posts. I am answering the orginal question in the thread: "Do you prefer stat resolved combat or player skill resolved combat?"

That's fine. Edited July 21, 2008 by random n00b

[Cycloneman]

I do play games in both those genres. But RPGs are my favorite, and when I say that, I'm referring to a specific type of game. Right now, good traditional RPGs are hard to find, and Obsidian is one of the last companies making them. This is why it makes me sad to see them making games that veer away from the classic style I and many others love.

If you love characters' accuracy having nothing to do with your own, why not play a P&P RPG?

[spacekungfuman]

I do play games in both those genres. But RPGs are my favorite, and when I say that, I'm referring to a specific type of game. Right now, good traditional RPGs are hard to find, and Obsidian is one of the last companies making them. This is why it makes me sad to see them making games that veer away from the classic style I and many others love.

If you love characters' accuracy having nothing to do with your own, why not play a P&P RPG?

 

Why should I have to do that, when CRPGs from rouge and hack on have given me the experience I'm looking for? I'm not asking for some crazy idiosyncratic thing. I'm asking for games of the type I like to continue to be made, instead of twisted into different genres. If it was only the odd game it would be one thing, but its getting harder to find a traditional rpg than an action rpg lately, and that just makes me sad. Its worse coming from Obsidian, since they're one of the few companies keeping the traditional style alive.

[Slowtrain]

For the last few posts, it appears you been attacking me for having an opinion and posting it. I'm OK with that; it comes with the territory, but I am not saying that you need to agree with me so please don't take it in that way.

I'm attacking you? Because I'm disagreeing with you and considering the points you made? Wait, isn't that what a discussion is all about?

 

 

To some degree, yes, but you're kinda just making things up by intepreting what I say to meet your own ends (min/maxing, fundamental connections). To me, in a discussion, if you want clarification on what somebody is thinking you do your best to ask for that clarification rather than simply make something up by loosely interpreting what they have said. The latter is more like a debating way of doing things vs a discussion way of doing things.

 

I recognize that the second hand nature of posting on the internet makes asking for clarification a little more difficult then when you are talking in person, but still its helpful sometimes.

 

Every stat built charaacter has strengths and weaknessess, every stat build character has a personality. Fallout yielded so many fun characters. None of them were min-maxed. That's not the point. The point is to build a character to interact with the gameworld based on who they are. That's they way I play it anyway.

And playing a character and having it interact with the gameworld is related to stat fiddling how? And how does that preclude player skill from being a factor, too? That's the connection I'm challenging.?

 

 

Stat fiddling is your term; I've never used it. I'm not really sure what it means. I build my characters following the ruleset and then level them according. I don't fiddle around with stats or hack them or anything. I'm not sure if that is what you are referring to though.

 

When I play a stat-based crpg, my hope is that the gameworld will reflect on the choices I have made for my character. My character should not be able to do everything in the gameworld, even though I THE PLAYA am capable of doing everything becasue I sit behind the keyboard in full control. My skill/knowledge should have as little impact on my characters ability to perform tasks and interact as possible. if my character has a weak backstabbing skill, they should fail at backstabbing most of the time, and sometimes they are just going to fail anyway because that's the way it is. In a stat-based game I don't find that problematic, because that is how they work. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't play it.

 

Obviously there will never be a situation where my knowledge as a human can actually be reduced to 0 impact on the gameworld, but the closer it can get to that point, the better I like it.

 

Also not all crpg worlds are equally well-reflective of your player's stats and skills. I'm not a huge fan of BG1 and BG2 as being awesome roleplaying experiences, although they are certainly OK in some ways.

 

The really fun thing about a good stat based character is that it has a personaility that isn't me. In FPS games I find that the character that I am "roleplaying" really doesn't have any personality other than as some sort of weird cyber extension of my hands and eyes. WHich is always somewhat dull.

 

To me.

 

Personally.

 

Right. I'll say it again. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol needs to be X or Y or Z. That has nothing to do with my posts. I am answering the orginal question in the thread: "Do you prefer stat resolved combat or player skill resolved combat?"

That's fine.

 

Thank you.

[Cycloneman]

Why should I have to do that, when CRPGs from rouge and hack on have given me the experience I'm looking for?

You... you do realize that the only reason CRPGs are like that is because P&P RPGs are like that and it's easily replicated, right?

[spacekungfuman]

Why should I have to do that, when CRPGs from rouge and hack on have given me the experience I'm looking for?

You... you do realize that the only reason CRPGs are like that is because P&P RPGs are like that and it's easily replicated, right?

 

They could be like that because of the phases of the moon for all I care. They've always been like that, and its what I think of, look for, and expect when I play a CRPG. There is no profound metaphysical point to argue about here. RPGs were made a certain way when I started playing them. I like that type of game play more than any other type of gameplay. Whatever someone may choose to call an RPG now, if it is not like the games I like to play, I probably won't like it. I am dissapointed that a company I like very much like Obsidian is making a game that I am less likely to enjoy. What exactly is the problem here?

 

For what its worth, I already said earlier that I do like FPS and TPS games, but I don't want to have to endure watered down gameplay from that genre to get to the RPG elements like C&C, dialog, character building etc. If AP has top notch TPS gameplay, then that's ok. But it still won't scratch that RPG itch that a traditional game with stat resolved combat would.

[spacekungfuman]

Randomnoob - the problem we're having is very simple. You are insisting that the label RPG is what matters, and that it can and should expand and be dynamic. I am saying terms be damned, I want games like those that the label traditionally stood for. If there was a subgenre like "Stat based RPG" that engrosses the type of game I'm talking about, I don't think there would be a problem. Rephrased with these terms, here is what I think our conversation has looked like. I have said that I like stat based rpgs, and want to see games made conform to that, because it is what I like. You have said that you do not care as much for that style of game as others, and that Action RPGs should also be made. In the end, I have said that I like a certain type of game and want to see more of them be made, especially by Obsidian, and you have said that I should want to play another type of game instead or in addition to that, because these other types of games are related to the games I like in some way. I see no dispute here, but you will not even acknowledge that stat based RPGs are a type of game distinct from all other types of RPGs that might have some merit of their own.

[random n00b]

The really fun thing about a good stat based character is that it has a personaility that isn't me. In FPS games I find that the character that I am "roleplaying" really doesn't have any personality other than as some sort of weird cyber extension of my hands and eyes. WHich is always somewhat dull.

To me, the set of skills and stats of a character are only very loosely related to that character's personality. It's the choices made by the character externally by which its personality acts and is developed, not its STR score or the perk chosen at level-up. FPSs mostly lack any fundamental decision component outside of "am I going to use the raygun or the boomstick to splatter the thing's brains all over the wall?", and that's why they are boring in this respect. Those games could very easily have a stat system you could play with, and still be without choice or meaningful character development. Think Deus Ex, and remove all player choice outside of skill point allocation.

[spacekungfuman]

To me, the set of skills and stats of a character are only very loosely related to that character's personality. It's the choices made by the character externally by which its personality acts and is developed, not its STR score or the perk chosen at level-up. FPSs mostly lack any fundamental decision component outside of "am I going to use the raygun or the boomstick to splatter the thing's brains all over the wall?", and that's why they are boring in this respect. Those games could very easily have a stat system you could play with, and still be without choice or meaningful character development. Think Deus Ex, and remove all player choice outside of skill point allocation.

 

Now you said something interesting. Choices and Consequences, dialog, character development, etc are a seperate issue from statistics. The real question, and this is subjective, is what makes a game an RPG to you. Here is an excerpt from a discussion I had with Josh about this very issue.

 

Part 1: The brain transplant

In an RPG, your character is a person in a world. His characteristics are set out by his statistics, and the way that those statistics impact his interactions with that world's rules of physics, standards of behavior and attractiveness, etc. The player essentially has his brain placed in the character's body, and has to abide by that character's physical abilities. (note, its really more like you become the pilot of his brain. All the data is still filtered through the character's mental statistics, but you give the orders based on that data.)

 

In a standard game, you just put on a mask. Regardless of how well the character could aim, run jump, dodge, etc, it is meaningless, because the player's ability with a mouse or controller is all that determines how the character fares. This is playing a role in a trivial sense, but all you're really doing is playing yourself, with another person's appearance.

 

And blended games like Oblivion are not any better when you look at the marginal cases. People tend to focus on the unskilled character who hits based on high player skill, but I think the bigger problem is the high skill character that misses based on low player skill. Many people are forgiving in the former case, because its fun to succeed. But how about in the latter, where a character with a heavy stealth build is always detected because the player (who wants to play as a stealth character) is simply not skilled with a mouse or keyboard. Ironically enough, this type of hybrid game restricts a person's ability to assume the role of a character different from himself, because the player isn't enough like the character that he wants to build. If you insist on taking the main characters in Splinter Cell or Thief as archetypes of the stealth based rpg character, then how can you respond to the Thief player who desperately wants to play the game in a stealthy way, but can't because the character is the only member of the character+player team who knows how to stealth. What I'm basically driving at is these types of games are only fun for people who are good at action games, and there may be little or no overlap between that group and CRPG fans. They're certainly not mutually inclusive, but its equally clear that the class of people who like action games does not include the entire class of CRPG fans.

 

Part 2: The Vacuum.

Part of being a person is making choices, and part of being a person who does not live in a vacuum is having those choices impact that state of the world. When Fallout 1 and 2, Arcanum, KOTOR 1 and 2, BG 1 and 2, and many other PC RPGs give you choices that impact the content in the game, they effectively tell you that your character is a PERSON, and that as such, he can impact the world, for good or for ill. If you take this away, then the choice that you make (moral or otherwise) in the game are no different in character than facial customization at the start of the game: they're merely aesthetic.

 

In Fallout, people would react to a child killer by saying "He's a terrible person, and I want nothing to do with him, based on his immorality." Where as In Oblivion (if you could be a child killer, which is impossible) people would say "Oh he's a child killer. Let me treat him like everyone else." To show the absurdity of this, let's consider a parallel reaction, based on your character having a big nose. In Fallout, people would probably say "He has a big nose. Sure he's a little ugly (so I don't want to sleep with him) but I'll treat him like any other human being". In Oblivion it would be "Oh he's got a big nose. Let me treat him like everyone else." In Fallout, choices can actually be moral, because they bear consequences, including social disapproval. In Oblivion, all you can really do is make choices about what type of nose you want to have. The Arena champ's nose. The worst mass murderer in history's nose. All choices that impact you, but only in superficial ways.

 

You are saying that only the second part matters. Crash and I are saying the first part is of critical importance. There's no right or wrong answer to this question, but tradition actually dictates that the first is most important, as the second type came into the picture much later. If Doom was totally unchanged except for giving the player choices about what to do in the world, what would you call it? The answer will basically end our debate either way, because we finally have clarity on what your position is.

Edited July 21, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[Hell Kitty]

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.

 

That's fine, nothing wrong with that. The reason this thread turned out the way it did is due to your loaded poll and insistence that what you want in an RPG is what is right and what others want is wrong and not what RPGs are all about.

 

Liking CRPGs traditionally has meant liking stat resolved combat

 

Nonsense, people like games of all kinds for all sorts of different reasons, and RPGs are no different.

 

it should not come as any surprise that the more the genre strays from its established meaning, the less fans will like it.

 

No, the more a genre strays from the type of games you want the less you'll like it, that is all. Many folks hate regenerating health in FPS, but that feature doesn't stop a game from being an FPS because traditionally shooters feature health kits.

 

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".

 

A more fitting analogy would be someone calling pink a "colour" and then you insisting that it's not a colour because you prefer grey, because that's exactly what you are doing.

 

RPG elements like C&C, dialog, character building etc

 

Choice & consequence and dialogue are not RPG elements. The only thing that makes an RPG is character building.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

To me, the set of skills and stats of a character are only very loosely related to that character's personality.

 

Fair enough. To me, a characters skill's and stats define their personality. They have to, because obviously a bunch of pixels or polygons has no actual personality of their own. If my character is very strong and has a high unarmed combat skill, that defines part of his personality because his use of strength and punching is going to be a important aspect of how he deals with things. That same character may have a low personality or a low intelligence and these will also impact and define his personailty. These are very simple examples. But they show how my characters create themselves as distinct beings: I am not very strong and can't fight and would never resolve things with my fists. My character might though. His personaility, ideally, is going to lead him through the game, not my personaility. His personality being defined by his unique mix of skills and stats.

 

It's the choices made by the character externally by which its personality acts and is developed, not its STR score or the perk chosen at level-up.

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "choices made by the character externally"? Do you mean choices made by you, the player?

 

 

FPSs mostly lack any fundamental decision component outside of "am I going to use the raygun or the boomstick to splatter the thing's brains all over the wall?", and that's why they are boring in this respect.

 

Agreed.

 

Those games could very easily have a stat system you could play with, and still be without choice or meaningful character development.

 

That's very true. Significant choices of some sort are an important aspect of any fun game. Be it crpg or not. I would also agree that a skill system alone is not enough to make a game a crpg.

 

 

Think Deus Ex, and remove all player choice outside of skill point allocation.

 

 

Well, Deus Ex wasn't really a crpg (My opinion! lol) It was an action game that gave you some choices as to how to solve things through the use of a skill set, a biomod set, and a gear set. Also, I like Deus Ex, but it lacked significant player choice really. Most of them were pretty superficial: Sandra runs away, smuggler lives or dies, nothing too earth shaking. Not much of the world changed its response to you based on your actions, iirc. Deus Ex was mostly a problem solving action game. I'm not putting it down in any way. I enjoyed it a lot.

[random n00b]

Fair enough. To me, a characters skill's and stats define their personality. They have to, because obviously a bunch of pixels or polygons has no actual personality of their own. If my character is very strong and has a high unarmed combat skill, that defines part of his personality because his use of strength and punching is going to be a important aspect of how he deals with things. That same character may have a low personality or a low intelligence and these will also impact and define his personailty.

I guess you could have a character be defined by his abilities, but for me that just doesn't cut it. When I'm playing a (good) cRPG in which choices are of any consequence, I have a mental scheme of the character's personality that I create before I start playing, and develop the character accordingly. The character's skills and abilities only determine the options available, not the ones he will choose, because that's determined by his personality. Obviously, a bunch of pixels cannot have a personality, much like a sheet of paper. That's why I must make it up and direct the character accordingly. Punching some guy or sneaking past him is a cosmetic decision for me and ultimately inconsequential, what's important is WHY that guy is a problem. Is he a slaver guard and I'm trying to free the slaves, or is he just the casino guard?

 

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "choices made by the character externally"? Do you mean choices made by you, the player?

No, I mean choices made to affect the world, as opposed to choices to affect the character internally (taking a perk).

 

 

Well, Deus Ex wasn't really a crpg (My opinion! lol) It was an action game that gave you some choices as to how to solve things through the use of a skill set, a biomod set, and a gear set. Also, I like Deus Ex, but it lacked significant player choice really. Most of them were pretty superficial: Sandra runs away, smuggler lives or dies, nothing too earth shaking. Not much of the world changed its response to you based on your actions, iirc. Deus Ex was mostly a problem solving action game. I'm not putting it down in any way. I enjoyed it a lot.

DX didn't allow many decisions, but the ones allowed were fairly important. Killing Agent Navarre to save Lebedev? Protecting Paul Denton or beating it? Killing Gunther outright or trying to reason with him? Merging with Helios or killing Bob Page? Those actually affected the plot. And the game also had other, more "flavor", choices such as shutting down Lucius DeBeer.

 

Sure, the game wasn't great as far as character development goes - it wasn't even a proper RPG and was not open-ended by any means. But choices were significant and did have an impact, and they did allow for glimpses of the personality of JC through the player's choices.

[Cycloneman]

They could be like that because of the phases of the moon for all I care. They've always been like that, and its what I think of, look for, and expect when I play a CRPG. There is no profound metaphysical point to argue about here. RPGs were made a certain way when I started playing them. I like that type of game play more than any other type of gameplay.

The reason Rogue and Hack and whatnot are that way is because P&P RPGs are that way, so why not play P&P RPGs? I mean, they encompass the general type of gameplay you seem to enjoy, there are plenty of good ones on the market, and social interaction can be worlds better in them than in a video game RPG.

[spacekungfuman]

They could be like that because of the phases of the moon for all I care. They've always been like that, and its what I think of, look for, and expect when I play a CRPG. There is no profound metaphysical point to argue about here. RPGs were made a certain way when I started playing them. I like that type of game play more than any other type of gameplay.

The reason Rogue and Hack and whatnot are that way is because P&P RPGs are that way, so why not play P&P RPGs? I mean, they encompass the general type of gameplay you seem to enjoy, there are plenty of good ones on the market, and social interaction can be worlds better in them than in a video game RPG.

 

Because the time commitment is very large for PnP. I used to play a long time ago, but it would not fit my life. Also, I can play a game on the PC while my wife surfs the web on her computer, vs having to spend hours totally focused on a pnp compaign every week out of the house.

 

But that's besides the point. I like playing PC RPGs with stat resolved combat, and while PnP is similiar, it is a different experience. You only control one character, and the simulation aspect of the combat is generally weaker. You tend to just stand there hitting each other or making things up on the fly, which is fun, but different from playing a bounded game like BG.

[Cycloneman]

Because the time commitment is very large for PnP. I used to play a long time ago, but it would not fit my life. Also, I can play a game on the PC while my wife surfs the web on her computer, vs having to spend hours totally focused on a pnp compaign every week out of the house.

PBP or PBE campaigns

 

But that's besides the point. I like playing PC RPGs with stat resolved combat, and while PnP is similiar, it is a different experience. You only control one character, and the simulation aspect of the combat is generally weaker. You tend to just stand there hitting each other or making things up on the fly, which is fun, but different from playing a bounded game like BG.

Like you can't find a simulationist rules system and play a game where you control multiple characters?

[Slowtrain]

I guess you could have a character be defined by his abilities, but for me that just doesn't cut it. When I'm playing a (good) cRPG in which choices are of any consequence, I have a mental scheme of the character's personality that I create before I start playing, and develop the character accordingly. The character's skills and abilities only determine the options available, not the ones he will choose, because that's determined by his personality. Obviously, a bunch of pixels cannot have a personality, much like a sheet of paper. That's why I must make it up and direct the character accordingly. Punching some guy or sneaking past him is a cosmetic decision for me and ultimately inconsequential, what's important is WHY that guy is a problem. Is he a slaver guard and I'm trying to free the slaves, or is he just the casino guard?

 

 

Can you give an example from a game? The distinctions you are making here are not clear to me.

 

I am not sure what you mean by the "choices made by the character externally"? Do you mean choices made by you, the player?

No, I mean choices made to affect the world, as opposed to choices to affect the character internally (taking a perk).

 

 

I'm not clear on your point. In a stat based game, the build of your character defines the charatcer internally but it also defines the character externally as well. His interactions with the gameworld flow from within.

 

Well, Deus Ex wasn't really a crpg (My opinion! lol) It was an action game that gave you some choices as to how to solve things through the use of a skill set, a biomod set, and a gear set. Also, I like Deus Ex, but it lacked significant player choice really. Most of them were pretty superficial: Sandra runs away, smuggler lives or dies, nothing too earth shaking. Not much of the world changed its response to you based on your actions, iirc. Deus Ex was mostly a problem solving action game. I'm not putting it down in any way. I enjoyed it a lot.

DX didn't allow many decisions, but the ones allowed were fairly important. Killing Agent Navarre to save Lebedev? Protecting Paul Denton or beating it? Killing Gunther outright or trying to reason with him? Merging with Helios or killing Bob Page? Those actually affected the plot. And the game also had other, more "flavor", choices such as shutting down Lucius DeBeer.

 

Sure, the game wasn't great as far as character development goes - it wasn't even a proper RPG and was not open-ended by any means. But choices were significant and did have an impact, and they did allow for glimpses of the personality of JC through the player's choices.

 

 

Well, we're going a little OT here, but why not! I loved Deus Ex. Great game. But it is filled with fradulent player choice: choices that appear to be sigficant but are in fact not significant at all. 2 of the ones you brought up are great examples:

 

Saving Paul's life, despite appearing monumentally sigficant at the time, changes nothing in the remaining game, except you get a few lines of dialogue with him in Hong Kong. Sure, you can get a warm and fuzzy glow inside from saving him, but a well-designd game should make something that sigficant actually mean something to the gameworld.

 

Saving Lebedev from Anna on the plane is even worse. Not only does it have 0 gameplay signifcance other than a few lines of dialogue, but the next time you see Manderley you are told Lebeded was tracked down and killed anyway, offscreen where you could do nothing about it. That's an example of game design that offers you something that appears to be a sigificant choice then spits it back in your face 10 minutes later by telling you it didn't matter anyway, because we killed him without you.

 

Again, I am not putting down Deus Ex. I probably played it more times than anyone else on this planet. But it doesn't really do very well as anything except a problem solving action game.

[Patrick K Mills]

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.

 

You posted a hilarously biased poll that contains the following line, "I like Oblivion, so my vote doesn't count." and you are telling me that opinions can't be wrong? But, you just said...

 

This thread is very lol.

[random n00b]

Can you give an example from a game? The distinctions you are making here are not clear to me.

Sure, I was in fact thinking of Fallout 2, as that game fits what I'm saying perfectly. Let's assume I want to play the stereotypical evil gunslinger. The way I imagine him, he's arrogant, selfish, and utterly without respect for either property or life. So, at character creation, I'll tag Small Guns, Speech, and perhaps... First Aid or Doctor. So, I have a character whose good stats are PE,AG,LK, and decent IN. I arrive at The Den looking for Vic. At this point, the character sheet alone limits my options to:

• storm the complex
  
• strike a deal with Metzger
  
• join the slavers
  

I can't screw him for a discount because I'm playing a male. Note that if I was playing a monk-type, my options would be further limited, as taking on the guards with my fists alone would be nothing short of suicidal.

 

The way I've built this character means he could just storm Metzger's complex without too much risk, but since he's an evil SOB, he doesn't give a crap about the slaves, and doesn't like the idea of risking his neck for them. Therefore, it's the artificial personality I have invented for the character, that will determine what the choice is in the end (simply buy Vic off him), because joining the slavers means that too many people will hate me (the character is not too stupid). If I was playing a goody-two-shoes, joining the slavers would be out of the question as well, albeit for different reasons.

 

So, the idea is that two factors circumscribe what are the options that my character has:

 

 

A represents what is within the realm of possibility (this also excludes any patently suicidal course of action). B represents what the character could do without stepping out of character, that is, without breaking the conception I have previously built of his personality, and/or metagaming. The intersection is the optimal choice for the character in a given situation (optimal from a roleplaying POV!). A is no doubt important, but it is B what defines for me what this kind of game is about, since that's the core of roleplaying - A can vary as the game progresses, but B hardly will.

 

 

Saving Paul's life, despite appearing monumentally sigficant at the time, changes nothing in the remaining game, except you get a few lines of dialogue with him in Hong Kong. Sure, you can get a warm and fuzzy glow inside from saving him, but a well-designd game should make something that sigficant actually mean something to the gameworld.

Well, yeah. They could perhaps had Paul appear in some mission later and give you a hand or something like that, but that wouldn't really affect the plot any more than seeing him lick his wounds at Tracer Tong's. It is a very significant change in-game though, as one of the major characters dies or not depending on your actions.

 

 

Saving Lebedev from Anna on the plane is even worse. Not only does it have 0 gameplay signifcance other than a few lines of dialogue, but the next time you see Manderley you are told Lebeded was tracked down and killed anyway, offscreen where you could do nothing about it. That's an example of game design that offers you something that appears to be a sigificant choice then spits it back in your face 10 minutes later by telling you it didn't matter anyway, because we killed him without you.

Actually, Lebedev is simply arrested. He is killed at some point after JC defects for good, and the murder is blamed on him. But Lebedev is not important - Anna Navarre is. The outcome is the same in the end, she ends up dead either way. But JC shooting a fellow agent to protect a known, albeit unarmed, terrorist or JC shooting the terrorist himself is a fairly important decision from an in-universe perspective at least. Yep, the game does not feature a multi-branching plot, and that makes the consequences of most choices trivial from a gameplay perspective, but not as far as the narrative goes. And in any case, most games that boast an open-ended storyline aren't much better at providing decisive consequences to the player's choices. Fake choice all across the board.

 

I really wish they had had more time to devote to this game, and the option to stay with UNATCO hadn't been scrapped. That'd have been grand!

Edited July 21, 2008 by random n00b

[Volourn]

I prefer stats based though mixed is good too, and I cna live with action/player physical skill combat too. OMGZ! I like all 3 options. HAHAHA!

[spacekungfuman]

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.

 

You posted a hilarously biased poll that contains the following line, "I like Oblivion, so my vote doesn't count." and you are telling me that opinions can't be wrong? But, you just said...

 

This thread is very lol.

 

The poll is a lark, of course. But the discussion in the topic has lead to some legitimate points being made on both sides. But to be honest, I think your reply was immature. You decided to make a game that differs fundamentally in terms of gameplay from every game you've made so far as a company, and every game that Black Isle made before you. It should not come as a shock that some of your fans would be skeptical of this decision.

 

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.

Edited July 24, 2008 by spacekungfuman

[Xard]

Unless spell of satan screws up the game AP's combat > every Bio and BIS/OE game (with possible exception of IWD's) combat

Edited July 24, 2008 by Xard