Another Icewind Dale kickstarter?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Did IWD2 have a holy sword in it? I recall Carsomyr, Purifier, Foebane, and Pale Justice well but don't recall any analogue in IWD2.

[Bryy]

 

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

 

Yes, that has RPG elements, too. I'd go as far as to say it is more RPG than FPS.

 

But once again, you're not making a very good case (or any case) besides "I don't like it so it's not". Which is all good and fine, but for some reason you seem to want to "win the argument".

 

What I intended for my case to be is "these two games that we can agree are not RPGs (TF2 and Bioshock) are considered RPGs under the definition proposed by Piccolo. Thus, his definition is not valid." Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

 

What does it matter what his definition is? It's his opinion. Is there a reason why you need to prove that his opinion is invalid?

 

Genre and subgenre are hard. There's no real line between them anymore. Hell, Madden has an RPG mode.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Bryy

[Ffordesoon]

Personally, I want their next Kickstarter to be SF-focused, and hopefully based in space opera traditions. That's a subgenre that gets a weirdly small amount of attention in RPG-land, even allowing for KOTOR (which is Star Wars, and thus more fantasy than SF) and Mass Effect (the RPG-ness of which is debatable). Even the Japanese don't go near space opera enough in their games.

 

The Mandate might scratch a little bit of that itch for me, but good lord, look at the amount of high and low and dark and epic fantasy games that are being funded! One isn't going to redress the balance! Two won't either, but it'd be better than one.

 

Plus, you know, what's what's the highest-grossing crowdfunded game ever? Star Citizen, by a mile. That's a space game. What's the genre that consistently does the best on Kickstarter? Old-school cRPGs. Add to that a developer of Obsidian's stature (which The Mandate did not have), and you have to ask why the chocolate and the peanut butter have not yet collided in an explosion of awesome.

 

All I want is Avellone writing an isometric text-heavy space game with turn-based combat similar to XCOM, planetary exploration, ship-to-ship combat, a story that veers more toward the personal than the epic, a sweet universe, and wonderfully damaged characters that cause me to question my assumptions about life, the universe, and everything. And lasers.

 

Is that so hard? Yes? Well I don't care. Do it anyway.

 

EDIT: Also, as regards this endlessly tedious RPG debate that I'm drawn to like a moth to a flame, I will say this: does it say RPG on the box? Then it's an RPG. Does it not say RPG on the box? Then it's not an RPG. Do you know why? Because genre is only important for marketing purposes. In discussions of merit, the only two questions that matter are "Does it succeed at what it's trying to do?" and "Do I like what it's trying to do?"

Edited April 1, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Piccolo]

The simple fact is that the only defining and essential feature of an RPG that separates it from action games and adventure games is character development through the use of numbers or stats. It doesn't matter whether the experience is limited to a simple dungeon crawl, as long as the character development system is fleshed out enough to allow for unique characters whose progression has a significant impact on gameplay. Your characters then fulfil "roles" based on what their stats are.

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

 

Getting money for upgrades isn't the same as having a fleshed out character who's defined by attributes and skills.

 

Some action-adventure games even have very basic skill systems, but because character development isn't fleshed out or important enough, I would only consider them action-adventure games with RPG elements.

[Piccolo]

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

 

The character development systems (or RPG mechanics) in those games are significant enough for both to be considered RPGs. Of course, they're also a hybridization of the stealth genre and the horror genre respectively.

 

If you took away the stats, they would just be action games with an emphasis on stealth and horror respectively.

[khalil]

What does it matter what his definition is? It's his opinion. Is there a reason why you need to prove that his opinion is invalid?

 

Genre and subgenre are hard. There's no real line between them anymore. Hell, Madden has an RPG mode.

I enjoy pointless arguments that I have no chance of winning. Plus, I get to see how other people think, which is nice.

 

 

The simple fact is that the only defining and essential feature of an RPG that separates it from action games and adventure games is character development through the use of numbers or stats. It doesn't matter whether the experience is limited to a simple dungeon crawl, as long as the character development system is fleshed out enough to allow for unique characters whose progression has a significant impact on gameplay. Your characters then fulfil "roles" based on what their stats are.

You know what game lets you advance characters via the use of numbers and stats? TF2: MVM mode. You get money from shooting the robots, and then spend said money on upgrades to jump height or whatever. Is TF2 an RPG? Bioshock Infinite let you upgrade your guns and plasmids vigors. Is it a RPG?

 

Getting money for upgrades isn't the same as having a fleshed out character who's defined by attributes and skills.

 

Some action-adventure games even have very basic skill systems, but because character development isn't fleshed out or important enough, I would only consider them action-adventure games with RPG elements.

 

I find the upgrades in MVM to be fairly defining, and that goes doubly so for loadouts (both in MVM and in normal games). A demoman with targe, eyelander, and booties plays very differently from one with the scottish resistance and ullapool caber. Edited April 1, 2014 by khalil

[khalil]

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

The character development systems (or RPG mechanics) in those games are significant enough for both to be considered RPGs. Of course, they're also a hybridization of the stealth genre and the horror genre respectively.

 

If you took away the stats, they would just be action games with an emphasis on stealth and horror respectively.

 

And there's the problem. I think RPGs are dependent on choices and fleshing out what starts as a blank slate, whereas you think RPGs are dependent on using stats and levels. Our ideas of the genre are fundamentally different.

[Bryy]

Personally, I want their next Kickstarter to be SF-focused, and hopefully based in space opera traditions. 

I, too, would enjoy an Obsidian-bred space saga set in San Francisco.

[Piccolo]

 

 

What about say... Deus Ex? I've seen arguments for and against it being an RPG. The primary style of gameplay seems to be pointing at the bad men and making them fall down, but it does have extensive character building options. Also, System Shock.

The character development systems (or RPG mechanics) in those games are significant enough for both to be considered RPGs. Of course, they're also a hybridization of the stealth genre and the horror genre respectively.

 

If you took away the stats, they would just be action games with an emphasis on stealth and horror respectively.

 

And there's the problem. I think RPGs are dependent on choices and fleshing out what starts as a blank slate, whereas you think RPGs are dependent on using stats and levels. Our ideas of the genre are fundamentally different.

 

But here's the thing - the adventure genre revolves around choices. You assume the role of a character and make choices from their perspective through branching dialogue trees. 

 

What adventure games generally lack is any significant character management or progression that actually has an impact on gameplay, such as levelling.

[Karkarov]

 

I would say efforts better spent elsewhere.  IWD was just  combat game with a pretty par story slapped on it.  It wasn't bad at all but I would rather they work on RPG's that are more narrative and character focused.  Also if they want to go full on combat strategy style game ....  Well other posters already said it.  They need to go pure turn based and look at a different setting all together and probably build up the classes/rules/world from there.

 

Why? When IWD obviously worked. At the time it sold even more then the lauded Torment.

 

Well the fact that IWD was playable with good mechanics, not pretentious, didn't force specific stats or you get a crap ending, and didn't require more reading than crime and punishment probably helped.  Personally I will tell you Torment was a great story that was a wonderful read, but it was an absolutely terrible game and by far the worst of the IE titles.

[BruceVC]

I played IWD for the first time about 6 months ago and there is a major difference between it and games like BG2 ( I haven't played BG1 yet) and thats the lack of interesting party interaction. Its not just the fact that there was no Romance but rather the fact that your party members are like cardboard caricatures, there was no  depth and very little affinity I felt for my party members

 

I liked IWD but I really feel if a modern day  RPG doesn't allow some kind of party interaction then it will be missing something that will appeal to most gamers around what they expect from an RPG experience

[Silent Winter]

I played IWD for the first time about 6 months ago and there is a major difference between it and games like BG2 ( I haven't played BG1 yet) and thats the lack of interesting party interaction. Its not just the fact that there was no Romance but rather the fact that your party members are like cardboard caricatures, there was no  depth and very little affinity I felt for my party members

 

I liked IWD but I really feel if a modern day  RPG doesn't allow some kind of party interaction then it will be missing something that will appeal to most gamers around what they expect from an RPG experience

check out the IWD NPC project - adds 5 banter-worthy NPCs (including romance )

 

IWD is more a game for those who want to focus on combat (in a lovely environment).

I disagree that there can be no empathy for NPCs that don't banter - it's like having multiple PCs - IWD doesn't really have much in the way of RP choice though.

I just started a game of NWN2-SOZ - creating 4 party members myself but they can all be selected during conversations to add their little bit, based off their skills.  To me, this brings them more into the game and not just 'many-legged-killing-machine'

Having said that - back when I played Eye of the Beholder, there was no party interaction and only basic conversation with a couple of the dwarves in the settlement, but  I still managed to roleplay the game and care about my party members.

Since BG1-2, I do prefer to have pre-written companions though - (but then there was a lot of variety to choose from there)

Edited April 2, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Sarex]

Did IWD2 have a holy sword in it? I recall Carsomyr, Purifier, Foebane, and Pale Justice well but don't recall any analogue in IWD2.

 

Yes it had Cera Sumat and you know what the best thing was. If you imported you characters in to the HoF mode you could get an even stronger version of it and you dual wield 2 Holy Avenges.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Sarex

[Jarrakul]

Cera Sumat also required fighting what may have been the most difficult fight in any unmodded IE game. Which apparently a lot of people were upset about, because they put so much effort into winning the fight and then got an item only paladins could use, but personally I thought find rewards for proving you don't need them to be kind of pointless. It's like Aec'Latec or Demogorgon. You didn't fight them for the loot. You fought them to prove you could.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Looks like I'm going to replay IWD2 soon. Holy Avengers are just too awesome.

 

And Totment was a horrible game. Having a good story isn't good enough if combat is that awful.

[Bryy]

Everyone needs to stop saying Torment was a horrible game before I explode into a million blobs.

[BruceVC]

Looks like I'm going to replay IWD2 soon. Holy Avengers are just too awesome.

 

And Totment was a horrible game. Having a good story isn't good enough if combat is that awful.

 

Kaine I doubt you are talking about the same Torment we are talking about  ..

[Ffordesoon]

Everyone needs to stop saying Torment was a horrible game before I explode into a million blobs.

No, he said Totment was a horrible game. Didn't you ever play Playernscarp: Totment? It wasn't very good.

[Amentep]

Everyone needs to stop saying Torment was a horrible game before I explode into a million blobs.

I read that as "...explode into a million hobos" for some reason.

 

I loved IWD and to a lesser degree IWD2. Even though they are linear in their storytelling, I loved the exploration aspect of it; traveling the locations, looting stuff.

 

Lots of fun. I'd be up for more in some fashion.

[khalil]

Looks like I'm going to replay IWD2 soon. Holy Avengers are just too awesome.

 

And Totment was a horrible game. Having a good story isn't good enough if combat is that awful.

Combat was **** in all of the IE games. The difference is Torment let you talk your way out of it. (Unless you want Nordom, then you're ****ed.)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Torment wasn't as good a game as its biggest fans would have you believe. Still better than IWD, though.

[Bryy]

Torment wasn't as good a game as its biggest fans would have you believe. Still better than IWD, though.

At first, I broke a bottle but then taped it back together.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Combat was **** in all of the IE games.

Sorry, but that isn't true. Combat in the IWD series was absolutely fantastic.

 

No, he said Totment was a horrible game. Didn't you ever play Playernscarp: Totment? It wasn't very good.

It was. Using totebags in Sigil was pretty lame.

 

Everyone needs to stop saying Torment was a horrible game before I explode into a million blobs.

It was a horrible game. It had good NPC interaction and told a good story, but the actual gameplay was awful.

[tajerio]

It was a horrible game. It had good NPC interaction and told a good story, but the actual gameplay was awful.

 

 

This is but one step away from "what is a game," and that way madness lies.

[Amentep]

Eh, I consider the ability to choose dialogue choices, and upgrades to be part of the gameplay.

 

But then I think anything in a video game counts as part of the gameplay if its a part that you interact with OR effects your interaction with other things.

 

So I liked PST for the dialogue and the weird characters and the cool implementation of the setting and I liked IWD for the narrative, the ability to create and develop my own party and the ability to hack and slash my way through beutifully realized landscapes and pathways.