Spill your blasphemous opinions on CRPGs here

[Iucounu]

BG2 was the only game with magic I really enjoyed. The magic there was better than in all other DND cRPGs, and much better than in all the games were a mage is not much more than another kind of long-distance fighter.

Dark Souls, Gothic and Dark Messiah are the only Action-RPGs with a decent combat system.

Each and every 3d party-based cRPG would be much, much better as an Action-RPG, does't matter that it would be harder to control the party that way.

An Epic Level rpg where standard stick-fighters are on a par with spellcasters can only suck.

[Piccolo]

Dark Souls, Gothic and Dark Messiah are the only Action-RPGs with a decent combat system.

 

Mount & Blade does combat better than all three of those games.

[HoonDing]

- Western RPG makers should learn from their Japanese counterparts, how to properly model armors, weapons and haircuts

And romance scenes.

[AGX-17]

Little Lamplight? I wouldn't really know.  One of the first mods I installed was "killable children". 

You're talking up Bethesda's outstanding achievement of F3 yet you admit to downloading a mod to rectify horrible writing/design decisions which form a part of the whole which you previously praised unconditionally.

[Helz]

 

Little Lamplight? I wouldn't really know.  One of the first mods I installed was "killable children". 

You're talking up Bethesda's outstanding achievement of F3 yet you admit to downloading a mod to rectify horrible writing/design decisions which form a part of the whole which you previously praised unconditionally.

 

 

I praised FO3 for capuring the atmosphere of Fallout so well, not for being a perfect game.  The main plot is pretty crappy, but I can just ignore it because the game makes me feel like I'm inside the Fallout world.  It also paved the way for New Vegas, which is a stellar RPG.        

 

I have no problem "admitting" that I've modded the hell out of FO3 and New Vegas.  The humongous modding community is one of the greatest aspects of Bethesda's games (yes, I realize Obsidian did New Vegas).  

 

If anything, I expected I'd have to defend my claim that DA:O was a worthy successor to BG2.  Judging by the amount of people in this thread who've called the Baldur's Gate games dated and unplayable, I guess I shouldn't be suprised.  Now they're the real heretics.  

[Agiel]

Oblivion (modded, obv) was actually the most fun I ever had with an Elder Scrolls game, warts and all.

 

My very first Gamebryo RPG was Morrowind, and I suppose after that high watermark of New Vegas, I was sort of burned out on that form of game after some hours through Skyrim, so it didn't really click with me to the extent previous games had. 

 

Oh, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a way more cohesive game than the original Deus Ex was, and I actually totally agree with Tom Chick's review of that game.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Agiel

[BruceVC]

BG2 was the only game with magic I really enjoyed. The magic there was better than in all other DND cRPGs, and much better than in all the games were a mage is not much more than another kind of long-distance fighter.

Dark Souls, Gothic and Dark Messiah are the only Action-RPGs with a decent combat system.

Each and every 3d party-based cRPG would be much, much better as an Action-RPG, does't matter that it would be harder to control the party that way.

An Epic Level rpg where standard stick-fighters are on a par with spellcasters can only suck.

 

I don't consider Gothic an action RPG? Its the same as Elder Scroll games and Risen...what are those? cRPG ?

[Bos_hybrid]

Oh, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a way more cohesive game than the original Deus Ex was, and I actually totally agree with Tom Chick's review of that game.

 

[Sarex]

Mount & Blade does combat better than all three of those games.

 

Anything does combat better then Dark Souls, I swear the game was only "hard" because of the clunky combat you had to get used to.

[Azdeus]

This thread does for my bloodpressure what menthos does to diet coke.

 

[213374U]

If anything, I expected I'd have to defend my claim that DA:O was a worthy successor to BG2.  Judging by the amount of people in this thread who've called the Baldur's Gate games dated and unplayable, I guess I shouldn't be suprised.  Now they're the real heretics.  

 

Yeah, well. With CRPG fans it's a bit like the old joke: "What do you get if you put two Trotskyists in a room? Three Trotskyist groups"

[Keyrock]

This thread does for my bloodpressure what menthos does to diet coke.

 

[Serrano]

- Final Fantasy X-2 and XIII are actually awesome games

 

X-2 was a good game, loved the class system. It was embarrassing to be seen playing it though since X was a typical FF game and yet everything about X-2 seemed to be aimed exclusively towards teenage girls. Pretty bold move for a game developer and Square managed it extremely well, it also made the story and cast different from the usual RPG tropes. 

[Orogun01]

I do not care for Gothic, Risen or any other RPG where the end result of leveling is not that you excel at something but rather that you are competent at it.

[Tigranes]

Oh, you get very powerful at the end of those games. It's just that you can still die, which is no longer a real possibility, say, after level 15 in vanilla Skyrim.

[Gizmo]

I believe D&D doesn't translate well to video games, it denies player's agency and it turns combat to auto resolve based on stats.

Agreed... but... I don't understand the problem there; the point is to develop the character and make the best choices available to them... ergo, it has to be limited to their stats; why should player agency come into it at all? (Aside from perceiving the best options available to the PCs... and hopefully succeeding with them; perhaps with a bit of luck.)

 

It's not like the game is supposed attempt to swap the player for the PC; we have enough of that crap in game like Skyrim. The rules in D&D based cRPGs at least afford them some immunity to that.

 

Dungeon Crawlers make me claustrophobic and seem more like a version of hell than a game, try to vary the environment some more instead of everything being a square.

Crawlers are my favorite style; though I've not played one that I'd call an RPG.

 

Fallout: Fallout 2 is much better than Fallout.

Why exactly? FO2 is effectively the same game as Fallout 1, but with a worse (and less original) storyline to it.

FO2 does have some UI fixes that Fallout needed; but I can't see how it's better than Fallout ~just that it's bigger is all.

 

IMO the FO2 devs misunderstood the setting and honestly rather polluted it.

[Orogun01]

 

I believe D&D doesn't translate well to video games, it denies player's agency and it turns combat to auto resolve based on stats.

Agreed... but... I don't understand the problem there; the point is to develop the character and make the best choices available to them... ergo, it has to be limited to their stats; why should player agency come into it at all? (Aside from perceiving the best options available to the PCs... and hopefully succeeding with them; perhaps with a bit of luck.)

 

It's not like the game is supposed attempt to swap the player for the PC; we have enough of that crap in game like Skyrim. The rules in D&D based cRPGs at least afford them some immunity to that.

 

The rules in D&D where made for a tabletop system (maybe not so with third edition) where the player can directly communicate to the DM what their intent is. In that scenario you need attributes to determine chance of success. Video games are more straightforward in that you're limited to what choices are available, if on top of that the chances of success of those choices is random you have reduced what the player can do to the flip of a coin. Which would be fine if you could approach complete the game with any possible class build, but when the character you conceived is a bard/duelist that specializes on single combat and cavorting with wenches and the game decides to throw you into the forest to fight hordes. Well then we have a problem, since there is no way to communicate to the DM that I want to climb a tree and stab at the beasts from a branch.

 

In short; less comprehensive systems give players more freedom as they are not restricted by the failings of their class.

 

Another opinion:

I hate hand holding in dialogue, It kills any sense of immersion when the game sees fit to give me the right answer instead of letting me figure it out on my own.

[Orogun01]

Oh, you get very powerful at the end of those games. It's just that you can still die, which is no longer a real possibility, say, after level 15 in vanilla Skyrim.

I am fine with the possibility of losing, it makes the game so much interesting. What I'm not fine with is the game throwing more than what your character can handle and then pretending that there is a viable strategy, because when they conceived that level they where using a different build. You can't nerf players and then ask them to defeat the mightiest dark lord that threatens the land on hand to hand combat. 

 

And a bit of Devil's Advocate, if every monster in Skyrim was a viable threat then you couldn't get from point A to B without dying a few thousand times and burning some hours. on a 100 plus hours game where going from point A to B is all you do; its counteractive.

 

On that note; I hated Morrowind. Why are you going to make a FP game and then have everything be controlled by rolls. It is just ridiculous when the game says that I didn't hit a monster when I can clearly see that I'm hitting it. 

 

 

Edit: this thread its cathartic; I've been holding on to some of these opinions for years now.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Orogun01

[Gizmo]

The rules in D&D where made for a tabletop system (maybe not so with third edition) where the player can directly communicate to the DM what their intent is.

This is true, and it's a limitation of cRPGs.

In that scenario you need attributes to determine chance of success. Video games are more straightforward in that you're limited to what choices are available, if on top of that the chances of success of those choices is random you have reduced what the player can do to the flip of a coin.

You seem to misunderstand stat/attributes.

 

Stats reflect the person's strengths and limitations; their aptitudes, and their short-comings. They exist to say, "no"; but sometimes "yes". You assume [wrongly] that it's the flip of a coin [first off], and that this is actually bad if it were true [secondly].

 

I's not true because it's almost never 50/50 odds. A weighted percentile system (for so skill-rolls generally are), affords an impartiality of the [make-believe] reality. It effectively represents the state of the universe ~as it were; all things in flux and in progress; and a bit of past & future chance wrapped up into a single roll of the die. This is not controllable by the player ~~And never should be~~. The player should always be at the mercy of the PCs ability to influence a given situation. If the PC is an expert lock picker then their skill and confidence shifts the odds well into their favor, and yet they still cannot (and should not) totally control the outcome. Professionals can make mistakes, and even be unintentionally sabotaged by current or previous [or even extrapolated] events. No one is perfect, and yes indeed failures at 1% chance do happen in life; it is when they don't happen, that something is really messed up ~not the reverse.

 

In general use, under a weighted percentile system, PCs that are skilled, tend to succeed more often than not, and PCs with little to no skill, tend to fail most of the time ~as it should be... but what's neat about it, is that it's not always beyond possibility that fluke success happens; and it's not corn-ball or contrived when it does happen under a fair system.

 

When I was a child ~of I think 6yrs; I unlocked a secured combination padlock on a janitor's pool closet in our building; this was a without actually looking at the lock (needing to reach above my head to grab it), and it truly was by randomly spinning the dials; this stuff happens... it also happens that even people with the key to their own house cannot always get the lock open with it ~this stuff also happens; one can't control if something is wrong with the lock or if the the temperature has expanded the door, or if the door is glued shut; or if the PC gets a cramp in their hand at that moment... the actual details are insignificant, and all that matters is that they were not able to succeed at something, or that they were. Most times it doesn't matter much, and they can simply try again. (Have you never dropped your keys trying to unlock your house; and then tried again?)

 

It allows for an impartial reality in the game; what occurs, what's influenced, and what cannot be predicted.

In the game Fallout, it didn't matter if the character had 140% chance to hit with a gun, they still had a 5% chance of missing ~because nobody is perfect; and even if they were: the rest of the environment isn't, and so there would STILL be a margin for error.

 

but when the character you conceived is a bard/duelist that specializes on single combat and cavorting with wenches and the game decides to throw you into the forest to fight hordes. Well then we have a problem...

No, the character has a problem ~for being out of their element... that's not a problem for the game; not every PC should be able to win at every situation. ~Personally [though it's bad game design] I say that not every PC should be ~guaranteed~ able to win the game... That's not to say they couldn't win, but that they might not if the situation comes that they lack the ability to succeed at what's needed to win.

 

*Generally it's good compromise to have alternate ways to win; for just that event.

 

In short; less comprehensive systems give players more freedom as they are not restricted by the failings of their class.

This is a bad thing; the player isn't supposed to have freedom beyond the "failings" of their [character] class. The whole point of a character class is to outline what you cannot do ~(and what they happen to excel at). When this is circumvented, the game degenerates into 'lets pretend' and becomes a servile sandbox like Oblivion/Skyrim [gameplay].

 

Even games that eschew a class concept should still enforce what cannot be done; else it's devolves into a digital-daydream... That's the problem with [recent] TES games; they never say "no" to the player; they only say 'yes' or 'not yet'.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Gizmo

[alanschu]

Has this turned into a discussion about "what it really means to roleplay?"  Or maybe "What it means to be good roleplaying?

 

If so, see this post.

 

 

It's a thread about sharing what "against typical convention" preferences you have.  I don't think the idea is to actually get defensive and challenge people when they share said confession.  Easier to recognize "Orogun prefers different mechanics than I do" and ultimately probably more productive.

[Monte Carlo]

This thread should be a guilty pleasure not productive. Although I think pleasure is productive in and of itself.

[Orogun01]

Then you should say something dirty like: " I min-max my character in CoD"

I just think that we're out of complaints, I mean there aren't that many WRPGs.

Also, Ultima in no way deserved 9 sequels and were only made because Lord British is loaded.
 

[alanschu]

To be fair, the studio was effectively bankrupt in the early 90s (which is why they needed a buyer).

 

Was Garriott drawing too much of a salary?

[Amentep]

To be fair, the studio was effectively bankrupt in the early 90s (which is why they needed a buyer).

 

Was Garriott drawing too much of a salary?

 

From what I've read it was a number of factors; salaries to big names was part of it.  Part of it was the expense of making multiple floppy disc games (supposedly Wing Commander's success was a boon and a curse - great it sold well but it was on so many discs it was expensive to manufacture).

 

And with the success and the changes in the expectations of consumers, they were growing in staff.  Supposedly before it was sold, the Garriots had to dip into their personal savings to make payroll.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Amentep

[Keyrock]

Digital distribution must be a godsend to game companies, especially small to mid-size.  I imagine the money saved with digital distribution compared to burning discs must be quite significant.  Heck, even after Uncle GabeN and... (/looks up GOG wiki to see who runs the show) Uncle Guillame take their cuts, it's still gotta be a heck of a lot cheaper than burning discs, printing boxes, manuals, code wheels (ah, good ol' code wheels  ), etc.