Obsidian should make a Sci-Fi RPG

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

 

I don't get why people equate soldiers to straight up fighters.  Today's soldiers fight guerrilla style, they don't stand there getting hit.  They are part fighter, part rogue, part ranger, part medic, part technical specialist, etc.  They need to have good personal skills, in order to deal with civilians, tactical awareness, driving skills, etc.  Some soldiers are specialised engineers, others field medics, yet others are leaders of men.  Personally I am leaning more towards a 'template' system than a full class system: you choose a base template such as soldier which gives you basic training skills, then take lenses like 'Office Lens' to give them the skills an officer would have, 'Medic lens' for a field medic, 'Power Armour lens' for the power suit wearing assault troops, etc.  For those who recognise this, yes I am stealing the template system from GURPS here.

 

As for the world itself, I'd actually like a more hard sci-fi approach, I'm not talking 2001 level hardness just harder than the space magic we have been getting as sci-fi lately.  Would enable them to look into the impact of certain technologies, such as genetic engineering, AI, automation of daily life, and themes like Transhumanism, which I find interesting.  Instead of aliens I would propose we should have human subspecies created with genetic engineering, bioroids (biological androids, essentially 'assembled people' but not clones), uplifted races etc, kind of like how Red Dwarf had GELFs (genetically engineered life forms) instead of aliens.  This would both allow people to play 'humans with funny bits on their nose' like in Star Trek, more exotic things like uplifted squids, and still preserve aliens as something mysterious, either as a precursor race that you can investigate the ruins of or to keep them truly alien, essential space Cthulhus whom humanity cannot comprehend.  This is of course my own perfect sci-fi setting, my own wishlist, but screw you guys I think it's awesome.

Stick with "Fighter" is you prefer it for the "guy in armour who stands at the front and takes the hits". As it's based on PoE background is separate anyway. It could be a pirate, a bounty hunter, or wealthy playboy weapons designer rather than regular military. The Scout/Ranger is intended to cover the guerilla fighting style.

 

The advantage to using PoE rather than designing a new system (based on GURPS or otherwise) is fairly obvious. With a lot of the groundwork already done it would require far fewer development resources to make the game, which is pretty much essential if you are targeting a niche market. Added to that, Obsidian wouldn't have to pay anyone for a licence. Furthermore, connection to another successful game, all be it in an entirely different universe, aids marketing.

 

The trouble with "Hard" SF is you open up all your convenient plot devices to scientific scrutiny. Why does that sniper rifle only have a range of 20m? Why is that hero duel wielding giant swords against guys with plasma cannons? How does FTL travel work? How does psionics work? Why don't those insectoid aliens collapse under the weight of their own exoskeleton? How come that armour fits a human and an orlan? However, if you make it clear that it isn't to be taken deadly serious, you can have your laser swords and plasma pistols with "it's fun" being the only justification needed. This approach worked perfectly well for Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Besides, far to many games have caught the "dark and serious" disease (AKA Nolanitis). I want to play a game that isn't afraid to be fun.

 

Eww, you just want a reskin of Fantasy!  Ewwwwwwwww!

 

Seriously though, a lot of the 'issues' you list there is because you are trying to fit sci-fi to the system used by Pillars, a game designed for Fantasy.  Pillars is designed for close up skirmishes not gun battles, and that is precisely why it would not work.

 

As for wanting hard, I specifically said I wasn't asking for hard like 2001, just harder than the Space Fantasy Magic we have been getting.  There has barely been even Star Trek level of hardness in sci-fi shows these days.  Oh, and just because it looks at how transhumanism would affect society wouldn't mean it would be dark and serious, on the contrary Transhumanism fiction tends to be optimistic and bright as compared to the future envisoned by Cyberpunk.

 

And fantasy is just a reskinned Western. So what? I like stories of swashbuckling action and adventure, and I'm sick and tied of the same old generic-fantasyland scenery. Which is another problem with "hard" SF: it tends to be about issues, not adventure. Who am I? What is the nature of reality? It's all a time paradox! (see: Intersteller, Oblivion, etc). The adventure and fun gets squeezed out.

 

If you are going to do a top down or isometric party based game it has to be about close up skirmishes. Which you can only really justify with "soft" SF. If you are going to do realistic gun battles you are talking about moving to a 3D 1st or 3rd person viewpoint, which immediately movies you into shooter territory and limits party size. I really, really don't want another Mass Effect* or CoD clone!!!!

 

PoE is a lot less fantasy-flavoured than D20 for example, in terms of things like names for stats and skills and prevalence of firearms, rates of fire and reloading.

 

 

*Okay, I would buy a Mass Effect game that didn't force you to play as a badass space marine, but it still wouldn't be a RPG.

 

Hmm seemed to forget the emoticon at the end to show I was teasing about the eww.

 

So you want space fantasy, that is fine, it can be fun but I would prefer sci-fi.  You seem to presume a lot of things about hard sci-fi that isn't necessarily true, a lot of assumptions about what it must have.  And again, I'm not saying it has to be hard sci-fi, just not space fantasy for once.  Isometric does not mean it has to be close up skirmishes, the old X-Com games show it can be done, and if it does then it doesn't mean it has to be a first person or a shooter, that's quite the assumption there.  Sounds like you are clinging to some dogma you mentioned upthread a bit yourself.

 

We both have a preference for the type of game we want.  I want a harder sci-fi to you, doesn't mean either of us is wrong. 

[Fardragon]

Yes, something like the X-Com isometric approach would be good, but it's still really a skirmisher when you consider the actual ranges involved. A Sniper rifle can shoot a few hundred meters, rather than the few thousand it should be capable of.

 

But that would cost a lot more money than using existing resources, and I don't think such a game can be made at all unless it can be done on a modest budget.

 

And what do you mean "not just space fantasy for once"? The only "space fantasy" CRPGs I can think of are the two KOTORs, which is hardly saturation point compared to the number of pseudo-medieval fantasy games out there!

Edited June 3, 2015 by Fardragon

[FlintlockJazz]

Yes, something like the X-Com isometric approach would be good, but it's still really a skirmisher when you consider the actual ranges involved. A Sniper rifle can shoot a few hundred meters, rather than the few thousand it should be capable of.

 

But that would cost a lot more money than using existing resources, and I don't think such a game can be made at all unless it can be done on a modest budget.

 

And what do you mean "not just space fantasy for once"? The only "space fantasy" CRPGs I can think of are the two KOTORs, which is hardly saturation point compared to the number of pseudo-medieval fantasy games out there!

If they are what you class as skirmish then so are all shooters you said they would have to be.  The ranges in FPSes are about the same, you do not get snipers sat on mountains shooting people 10 klicks away (sniper rifles can shoot a lot further than a few hundred meters, and you can shoot things a few hundred meters away in X-Com).

 

Yes there is a vast majority of fantasy, I was talking in regards to sci-fi products specifically, and how in the last few years we see more space fantasy than sci-fi in relation to each other, and by products I am talking about shows and books too.  Seems that Space Fantasy is considered more the default, even Mass Effect was more Space Fantasy in my mind than sci-fi especially towards the end (and I don't just mean the ending).  Off the top of my head, the last Deus Ex game was the last sci-fi RPG that wasn't space fantasy, and maybe X-Com though that wasn't an RPG and a bit iffy on it. 

[Fardragon]

I think you have a very narrow definition of what Science Fiction should be, and dismiss anything else (including all Space Opera) as "Space Fantasy" out of hand.

 

And I wouldn't class Deus Ex as an RPG. It goes in the "shooter with token RPG elements" box with Mass Effect.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Fardragon

[FlintlockJazz]

I think you have a very narrow definition of what Science Fiction should be, and dismiss anything else (including all Space Opera) as "Space Fantasy" out of hand.

 

And I wouldn't class Deus Ex as an RPG. It goes in the "shooter with token RPG elements" box with Mass Effect.

I don't dismiss it.  I like Space Fantasy, I love Star Wars, I just think it's important to distinguish the two because they are actually quite different and appeal to different tastes.  I would classify Star Trek as Space Opera and Mass Effect (especially 2 onwards) as Space Fantasy, there's a scale between the two extremes of Space Fantasy and Hard 2001 Sci-Fi. 

 

But hey, if we are pointing out narrow definitions then I think your definition of RPGs is also very narrow and dismiss anything else as 'shooter with token RPG elements'.  In fact, which Deus Ex are you classifying as shooter there?  Just the last one?  All of them?

[Fardragon]

Mass Effect is quite clearly Space Opera if you read the definition, as is Star Trek, Bablyon 5, Blake's 7, Lensmen, Humanx Commonwealth, 1980s Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica and so on. They don't have to feature "realistic" science in any form.

 

Space Fantasy is Star Wars, some Japanese stuff, Guardians of the Galaxy (original comic) and occasionally Doctor Who. The requirement is they include "magic" in some form.

 

None of the Deus Ex games come close to what I would consider an RPG. A few choices in which skills to upgrade and multiple paths through missions doesn't make an RPG.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Fardragon

[FlintlockJazz]

Mass Effect is quite clearly Space Opera if you read the definition, as is Star Trek, Bablyon 5, Blake's 7, Lensmen, Humanx Commonwealth, 1980s Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica and so on. They don't have to feature "realistic" science in any form.

 

Space Fantasy is Star Wars, some Japanese stuff, Guardians of the Galaxy (original comic) and occasionally Doctor Who. The requirement is they include "magic" in some form.

 

None of the Deus Ex games come close to what I would consider an RPG. A few choices in which skills to upgrade and multiple paths through missions doesn't make an RPG.

Have you actually played Mass Effect?  Because from your comments it sounds like you haven't.  Mass Effect includes magic from the get go (called Biotics), has giant cthulhu monsters (the Reapers), includes resurrection from complete death using magitech (Reaper-tech), has space-zombies (husks), etc. 

 

Space Opera actually does attempt to use "realistic" science in order to explain stuff, with the degree that it uses determining how far along the Space Fantasy - Hard Sci-fi axis it is.

 

So what does a game need to be considered an RPG in your eyes?  Because most people consider the first Deus Ex to be an RPG even if they don't classify the later ones as such, it has stats that influence all aspects of the game including shooting (you won't hit your target if you don't have enough points in the skill even if you are pointing right at them, so no it's not a first person shooter), choice and consequence (moreso than most other RPGs), does it need to be isometric for you to consider it a RPG?

[Emc2]

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

[Fardragon]

Biotics is just variation on psionics, which is a staple of most Space Opera. It features prominently in Babylon 5 and Lensmen, and is also found in Star Trek, Blake's 7 and Humanx Commonwealth, plus many others, including some "Hard" SF, such as Dune and the Traveller RPG.

 

It has a "scientific explanation". It's not REAL science, but it is no more unreal than the explanations for FTL travel. Realistic science is NOT a component of Space Opera. Do some research if you don't believe me.

 

That is why the introduction of midichorians to Star Wars was so controversial. Adding a "scientific" explanation for Force powers changes the genre of the entire saga - it doesn't matter how bonkers the explanation it is, as long as it exists. Fortunately TCW did a good job of restoring the mystical balance.

 

Cuthonic enemies are also a common Space Opera theme. They are found in Babylon 5 and Humanx Commonwealth, to name but two.

 

The ideas of an axis, with hard SF at one end and "Space Fantasy" at the other is itself incorrect. SF has many subgenres (e.g. Planetary Romance) and they do not all lie on a straight line.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Fardragon

[Amentep]

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

"An RPG is what I say it is"

 

With apologies to John W. Campbell (who said it first, regarding Science Fiction), I doubt you'll get an agreement on anything else.

[FlintlockJazz]

Biotics is just variation on psionics, which is a staple of most Space Opera. It features prominently in Babylon 5 and Lensmen, and is also found in Star Trek, Blake's 7 and Humanx Commonwealth, plus many others, including some "Hard" SF, such as Dune and the Traveller RPG.

 

It has a "scientific explanation". It's not REAL science, but it is no more unreal than the explanations for FTL travel. Realistic science is NOT a component of Space Opera. Do some research if you don't believe me.

 

That is why the introduction of midichorians to Star Wars was so controversial. Adding a "scientific" explanation for Force powers changes the genre of the entire saga - it doesn't matter how bonkers the explanation it is, as long as it exists. Fortunately TCW did a good job of restoring the mystical balance.

 

Cuthonic enemies are also a common Space Opera theme. They are found in Babylon 5 and Humanx Commonwealth, to name but two.

 

The ideas of an axis, with hard SF at one end and "Space Fantasy" at the other is itself incorrect. SF has many subgenres (e.g. Planetary Romance) and they do not all lie on a straight line.

Psionics has been debated as space magic for years, suggest you do some further research yourself.  It is considered a bigger sign of fantasy than FTL, as at least FTL could maybe be possible but is unlikely, psionics is considered magic especially when it goes beyond mind reading and into the capabilities such as those used by biotics.  I am not going to further discuss your other points since not only do I not feel the need to defend my tastes for hard sci-fi from your apparent belief that it is BadWrongFun that I am starting to feel talking to you (all I did originally was express what I wanted in a sci-fi game, I never said what you wanted was invalid just not to my tastes), but I have noticed that you seem to ignore half my posts, such as my questions about why you consider Deus Ex not an RPG, a question I was genuinely asking you since I wanted to understand where you were coming from, indicating that you are just trying to 'beat' me rather than converse with me and are only responding to things that you can prove wrong and trying to avoid answering things yourself.  Good night.

[rjshae]

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

 

Gary Gygax described role-playing as a group, cooperative experience. Single player CRPGs are at best a sub par, perhaps even mediocre simulation of that interaction. Most of what has been debated is the relative effectiveness of that simulation.

 

"When AI approximates Machine Intelligence, then many online and computer-run RPGs will move toward actual RPG activity. Nonetheless, that will not replace the experience of 'being there,' any more than seeing a theatrical motion picture can replace the stage play." -- Gygax.

[Fardragon]

Of course Psionics is "space magic". It is still a core feature of the Space Opera genre. The Lensmen series is considered a genre defining example of Space Opera, and that features characters throwing planets and stars around with the powers of their minds. It makes Mass Effect look seriously grounded.

 

"Space Magic" runs through all Space Opera and is essential to it's functioning. I'm an Astrophysicist, so I've read the various scientific papers discussing FTL travel using warp drive. The maths is very interesting as a thought experiment, but they require a source of negative mass in order to warp space in that way, and there is only one way to get one of those - magic!

 

Other taken-for-granted genre staples, such as the "deck plates" that generate the artificial gravity that lets characters conveniently walk around are just as magical.

 

Space Opera hinges on Clarke's 3rd law: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Ergo, any magic can be explained by sufficiently advanced technology.

 

The only thing differentiating Space Opera from Space Fantasy (if you consider it a separate genre at all) is that Fantasy does not try to suggest that there is an in-universe scientific explanation for the magic.

 

 

Occasionally the Magic Happens. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is considered an early example of Hard SF. Verne realised that in order to remain submerged for an extended period his submarine would require a power source that did not exist at the time, so he created a magic one. He didn't predict the development of nuclear power, he merely created a necessary plot device, and we got lucky.

 

Just as often, it doesn't happen. We haven't discovered Carvorite, nor are we likely to. Sometimes we can try to make it happen, such as the Star Trek Cloaking Device. But even if we get it to work it was still just a magic cloak when it appeared in "Balance of Terror".

 

Sometimes it goes the other way. Jurassic Park tried to be scientifically plausible when Michael Crichton wrote it, but we have now found that DNA completely denatures within around 540 years.

 

 

 

P.S. As for not talking about your other points about GELFs and whatever, I don't have an opinion. They are plot elements that may or may not appear. And on RPGs, as others have pointed out, there is no hard and fast definition (unlike Space Opera), but I would suggest you ask yourself why you think Deus Ex is one, and if so, what is Bioshock and what is Arkham Asylum? All I know is what I look for in a CRPG: the ability to create my own character (including backstory), a party of NPC companions who interact with my character and I can control in combat, a story that doesn't have too much railroading and combat which is stat based rather than twitch based.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Fardragon

[Qistina]

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

 

RPG is a Role-Playing Games, the game where the player is playing a role, meaning you as player playing a role in said game

 

A "role" that need an interpretation, since playing a role doesn't always means playing a character, but a character is a role.

 

For example, in an act, you play a role of a king but also play a character of a king, let say "King Arthur", you not only play a role of a king but the character himself. But if playing a role itself is not playing the character of said story. A role of a king is not King Arthur the person.

 

So there should be RPG and CPG...CPG is Character Playing Games in which most Bioware games now is

[Fardragon]

 

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

 

RPG is a Role-Playing Games, the game where the player is playing a role, meaning you as player playing a role in said game

 

A "role" that need an interpretation, since playing a role doesn't always means playing a character, but a character is a role.

 

For example, in an act, you play a role of a king but also play a character of a king, let say "King Arthur", you not only play a role of a king but the character himself. But if playing a role itself is not playing the character of said story. A role of a king is not King Arthur the person.

 

So there should be RPG and CPG...CPG is Character Playing Games in which most Bioware games now is

 

As a definition that isn't very useful, since it makes the majority of computer games, from Donkey Kong to Call of Duty, RPGs.

 

What I consider a CRPG is a game that tries to emulate the experience of playing a Pen and Paper RPG, which is why I consider things like an interactive party and stat based combat important.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Of course Psionics is "space magic". It is still a core feature of the Space Opera genre. The Lensmen series is considered a genre defining example of Space Opera, and that features characters throwing planets and stars around with the powers of their minds. It makes Mass Effect look seriously grounded.

 

"Space Magic" runs through all Space Opera and is essential to it's functioning. I'm an Astrophysicist, so I've read the various scientific papers discussing FTL travel using warp drive. The maths is very interesting as a thought experiment, but they require a source of negative mass in order to warp space in that way, and there is only one way to get one of those - magic!

 

Other taken-for-granted genre staples, such as the "deck plates" that generate the artificial gravity that lets characters conveniently walk around are just as magical.

 

Space Opera hinges on Clarke's 3rd law: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Ergo, any magic can be explained by sufficiently advanced technology.

 

The only thing differentiating Space Opera from Space Fantasy (if you consider it a separate genre at all) is that Fantasy does not try to suggest that there is an in-universe scientific explanation for the magic.

 

 

Occasionally the Magic Happens. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is considered an early example of Hard SF. Verne realised that in order to remain submerged for an extended period his submarine would require a power source that did not exist at the time, so he created a magic one. He didn't predict the development of nuclear power, he merely created a necessary plot device, and we got lucky.

 

Just as often, it doesn't happen. We haven't discovered Carvorite, nor are we likely to. Sometimes we can try to make it happen, such as the Star Trek Cloaking Device. But even if we get it to work it was still just a magic cloak when it appeared in "Balance of Terror".

 

Sometimes it goes the other way. Jurassic Park tried to be scientifically plausible when Michael Crichton wrote it, but we have now found that DNA completely denatures within around 540 years.

 

 

 

P.S. As for not talking about your other points about GELFs and whatever, I don't have an opinion. They are plot elements that may or may not appear. And on RPGs, as others have pointed out, there is no hard and fast definition (unlike Space Opera), but I would suggest you ask yourself why you think Deus Ex is one, and if so, what is Bioshock and what is Arkham Asylum? All I know is what I look for in a CRPG: the ability to create my own character (including backstory), a party of NPC companions who interact with my character and I can control in combat, a story that doesn't have too much railroading and combat which is stat based rather than twitch based.

 

I'm sorry but just what are we supposed to be discussing here then?  I asked for clarification on what you considered an RPG because you repeatedly stated it as counter-reasons, but now you pull the "There's no hard and fast definition!" card?  One that I had already pointed out to you?  I already explained why I considered it one, and was asking you why you didn't, and you evade the question.  For someone who keeps throwing out claims that people are dogmatic or narrow-minded in their views you are certainly coming across as very dogmatic and narrow-minded yourself. 

 

I wasn't referring to GELFs when I asked you to start responding to questions, but you saying that you don't have an opinion and that they are plot elements also makes me question why you started making out that I was after some hard sci-fi if you consider them as such, since I explicitly stated that I didn't want it hard like 2001, I never mentioned being against FTL or many other things.  Is it because I wanted the game to look into how things like genetic engineering would impact society?  Pillars looks into how knowledge of the soul and reincarnation would affect society, it's not hard sci-fi is it?  Is it because I said I wanted it harder than a lot of the sci-fi we have been getting?  There is a degree of hardness and again I explicitly stated that I didn't want it hard like 2001, I just like there to be better worldbuilding and more thought into why they have certain conventions than the typical fare we get. 

 

I feel like you were strawmanning me, making it out that I am standing for some pet peeve of yours so that you can tear it apart.  And are unwilling to consider that people may not like your pet idea of reskinning Pillars, rather preferring they build a system around the world rather than forcing the world to adhere to a system not designed for it.  This is not an attack I am just genuinely confused as to what it is being debated here and what I feel is happening.

Edited June 5, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[Qistina]

 

 

We really need an official definition of RPG. This has been an endless discussion in many places.

 

RPG is a Role-Playing Games, the game where the player is playing a role, meaning you as player playing a role in said game

 

A "role" that need an interpretation, since playing a role doesn't always means playing a character, but a character is a role.

 

For example, in an act, you play a role of a king but also play a character of a king, let say "King Arthur", you not only play a role of a king but the character himself. But if playing a role itself is not playing the character of said story. A role of a king is not King Arthur the person.

 

So there should be RPG and CPG...CPG is Character Playing Games in which most Bioware games now is

 

As a definition that isn't very useful, since it makes the majority of computer games, from Donkey Kong to Call of Duty, RPGs.

 

What I consider a CRPG is a game that tries to emulate the experience of playing a Pen and Paper RPG, which is why I consider things like an interactive party and stat based combat important.

 

 

I think you misunderstand my statement, playing a role and playing a character is actually different.

 

It is like an actor who play in any act, he/she play the character of the story, the character who have a role, example "King Arthur" is a character, his role is a King. So playing "King Arthur" is both playing a character and a role in the opera/theatre/movie...

 

But in video games, there are two types of character, a blank one and the one who have a backstory and everything.

 

So a blank character when played, we play only role, there is not much character to play with. The example is in Dark Souls, you play whatever class you choose, if you play Knight then a Knight you are, the role to begin with is a Knight, but you may build your character freely.

 

Non-blank character have origin, background, backstory and everything that being established before you choose them. the example is in Dragon Age:Origin. When you choose Human Noble means you choose a character that is "Whatevername" Cousland (there is actually a default name). This is the character you want to play, then you choose your class, this is your role. If you choose a Warrior class then you play "Whatevername" Cousland and his/her role is a Warrior in said family. Now that is character and class role. He/she is also the second son/daughter of a TLord of the land. That is another role. Later he/she becomes a Grey Warden, another role.

 

Of course some games allow choices, these choices are actually illusion, it just an option to the players to direct their character path, on how the story will turn out

 

Most players CONFUSED when playing such game, they put in themselves into the character. It is easy to play blank character where you may make whatever you want, you may pretend that character is you even because of it's nature. But the non-blank character you cannot do so, you are supposed to play that character and his/her role in the game, but most players REFUSE to accept the role and putting themselves in, they whine on forums demanding this and that, the devs listen to them and the next game ruined, for example Dragon Age:Inquisition...the main character is RUINED

 

So what is RPG? It supposed to be "Role Playing", not playing as yourself

 

I give another example, if you play as a said good Archer, but the game is FPS, your reflex suck, you cannot aim and shoot properly because you just suck playing FPS games, is that playing a role? NO

Edited June 5, 2015 by Qistina

[Fardragon]

@Qistina I don't think I misunderstood what you where saying. In that sense the Arkham games come pretty close to being perfect "role playing" games, since they put you right into the role and make you feel and act like Batman. However, when I play PnP games I often play a character who acts pretty much the way I would (if rather braver). Not really much role playing involved at all. So when I look for a CRPG I look for something that resembles PnP gaming, which means it might not actually involve much role playing!! Hence a very literal definition is unhelpful. What I really want is a PnP simulator, not a role playing game.

 

 

@FlintlockJazz As for genetic engineering, that can feature in any SF subgenre. The original Jurassic Park novel was very much "Hard" SF, but the Jurassic World movie will be very "soft" SF indeed! There are two reasons for that. One is the nature of the summer blockbuster movie - it's designed to entertain, not provoke thought. The other is discoveries made in the field of genetic engineering and cloning, which have caused recreating dinosaurs to look very much less plausible than it did in 1990 when the novel was written.

 

But as for "would I like to see a SF CRPG in which genetic engineering was a major theme?" I really don't care one way or the other so long as the story is good.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Fardragon

[Qistina]

Well if the game is about Batman, you play as Batman and feel being Batman, then it is an RPG, you are indeed role playing as Batman, not your self.

 

See, that's simple.

 

If you are playing as your self, then it is not an RPG. If the game is an RPG but failed to make the player role playing then it is a bad RPG

 

FPS is not an RPG because you need your own reflex, not the character. Your character is just an avatar of you in the game.

 

Dark Souls is still an RPG because the mechanic not 100% depends on your reflex, the camera lock and stats still count. It's a partial RPG

 

What happen today is gamers and game companies want to justify FPS games as RPG is because of they want to make future games for consoles.

[Labadal]

The only Sci-Fi rpg I want from Obsidian is one that is isometric, party based and turn-based combat.

[Fardragon]

Well if the game is about Batman, you play as Batman and feel being Batman, then it is an RPG, you are indeed role playing as Batman, not your self.

 

See, that's simple.

 

If you are playing as your self, then it is not an RPG. If the game is an RPG but failed to make the player role playing then it is a bad RPG

 

FPS is not an RPG because you need your own reflex, not the character. Your character is just an avatar of you in the game.

 

Dark Souls is still an RPG because the mechanic not 100% depends on your reflex, the camera lock and stats still count. It's a partial RPG

 

What happen today is gamers and game companies want to justify FPS games as RPG is because of they want to make future games for consoles.

If I'm "playing myself" I think in terms of moral and character based decisions, not in terms of skills. I usually play Mass Effect as the Sniper class, but I know for a fact that I am an absolutely lousy shot in real life.

 

My preference for stat based, rather than twitch based combat has more to do with a fondness for mathematics and complex character creation than whether or not one is more "role playing" than the other.

 

The bottom like is I don't care if you call a game an RPG or not. What matters to me is "is this the kind of game I like?". It so happens that PoE is the kind of game I like, despite it's many flaws. But as far as I am concerned, it's biggest flaw is it's setting. Not because it is inherently bad, but because it feels old and tired and cliche and I feel like I have seen it all before. Whilst I personally like retro space opera, and I think that would make a good setting that hasn't been used for that kind of game before, I would be interested in anything that gets me out of Generic Fantasyland.

[Qistina]

I think Obsidian should make Sci Fi game like KotOR 2 but without lightsaber and Jedis. i think it will be cool.

 

Gunslinger build is popular in KotOR, but i like heavy rifles better because they look sexy.

 

So there should be a transport that is also our base, a spacecraft. There should be crafting we we can modify or even create weapons and armors, creating bombs and mines, making stimulants and med packs.

 

We can upgrade our spacecraft, there should be spacecraft battles, or maybe even large scale space battle and we act as wing leader. It will be cool if there is also missions involving bombing enemy bases or something

 

The main theme could be we are a space police force, but we can pick up party members from various background along the way.

 

Or maybe we may choose our faction, everything else turns out depends on what faction we choose in our journey.

[Faerunner]

As a definition that isn't very useful, since it makes the majority of computer games, from Donkey Kong to Call of Duty, RPGs.

 

What I consider a CRPG is a game that tries to emulate the experience of playing a Pen and Paper RPG, which is why I consider things like an interactive party and stat based combat important.

 

I agree with you on the first one.

 

I disagree with you on the second one, which is kind of why I think there shouldn't be one definitive definition for all RPGs, but rather many sub-names and sub-genres of different RPG types. Therefor players can recognize and express the definition of what they want, RPG game designers can better explain what kind of game experience they're offering, and it would clear up a lot of confusion and disappointment.

 

I mean, there are some vague definitions at present, "old school cRPG," "casual/modern console RPG," "JRPG," etc. But they're still pretty vague and lead to a lot of confusion and controversy, as different people with different tastes can't agree on what's what.

 

For example, while all three Dragon Age games are technically Tolkien-esque European Fantasy RPGs, each game offers a slightly different roleplay experience.

1) DAO has a mostly "blank" protagonist who isn't voiced, can be one of three races and from one of six backgrounds, and uses the text-based dialogue tree.

2) DA2 has a mostly pre-defined 20-something voiced human protagonist, with one set background, one set family, some very set feelings about said family (like you HAVE to want to reclaim your mother's family fortune and dote on dear old mommy, even though I hated both of them; I just wanted to go live in the Hanged Man), and has one of three distinct personalities (Good, Goofy, and Jerk).

3) DAI goes for a middle ground in that you could choose between different races and class combinations, which determines your background, but you can still express different views and experiences in your background, but you're still voiced so the voice actor determines how your character feels when delivering each line rather than your imagination.

 

Fans are now divided over which roleplaying experience is "best," and many claim that they want Dragon Age to "go back to true Role-Playing!" but no one can agree on what true roleplaying is since different people have different tastes on it.

 

It'd be great if different RPG types and genres had different names, so the devs can say ahead of time, "This game will features X type of RPG," so people who like it can jump on-board and those who don't can go find a video game that does.

 

I think you misunderstand my statement, playing a role and playing a character is actually different.

 

It is like an actor who play in any act, he/she play the character of the story, the character who have a role, example "King Arthur" is a character, his role is a King. So playing "King Arthur" is both playing a character and a role in the opera/theatre/movie...

 

But in video games, there are two types of character, a blank one and the one who have a backstory and everything.

 

So a blank character when played, we play only role, there is not much character to play with. The example is in Dark Souls, you play whatever class you choose, if you play Knight then a Knight you are, the role to begin with is a Knight, but you may build your character freely.

 

Non-blank character have origin, background, backstory and everything that being established before you choose them. the example is in Dragon Age:Origin. When you choose Human Noble means you choose a character that is "Whatevername" Cousland (there is actually a default name). This is the character you want to play, then you choose your class, this is your role. If you choose a Warrior class then you play "Whatevername" Cousland and his/her role is a Warrior in said family. Now that is character and class role. He/she is also the second son/daughter of a TLord of the land. That is another role. Later he/she becomes a Grey Warden, another role.

 

 

I think that's a little too simplistic. I think think there are different tiers of blank and non-blank protagonists, not just "one" and "the other" set in stone.

 

There are some truly blank blank slates, like Neverwinter Nights: "The city of Neverwinter is besieged by a plague, Lady Aribeth has called for a champion, crowds of people filled the streets answering her call, and You were one of the few chosen to study at the Academy. Now fill in your gender, race, class, stats, name, character bio, etc. We won't actually acknowledge any of this in-game except a throwaway line or two acknowledging that your gender, race, or class (mostly to see if you meet the requirements for certain gender-specific romances or class-specific quests), but that's it."

 

There are some that are the mostly blank ones, like your aforementioned Dragon Age: Origins. I count those as semi-blank rather than non-blank. Yes, you're given one of six set backgrounds, with set families, friends, and references to your childhoods. "You are a city elf who was raised in the alienage. This is your cousin Shianni, your father Cyrion, and this is your wedding day." "You are a mage who was torn from your family at an early age and taken to the Circle to study magic. This is your teacher Irving, today is your Harrowing, and if you pass you become a full mage."

 

HOWEVER, everything else is left "blank" for the player to fill in the gaps. The character isn't voiced, so you can fill in the "tone" with your own imagination. While your background, family and friends are chosen, you can still express how you feel about them and what your relationship is like. Do you love them, hate them, snark friendily with them, snark hurtfully at them, never want to leave, can't wait to get out of there, etc? You can also influence your own background, since characters make references to your pre-game life based on remarks you made rather than you reacting to what others said you felt. For example, in the City Elf Origin, if you choose certain dialogue options then characters will say things like, "Still have your mother's smart mouth, I see," or "Still casual, as always." Conversely, if you tell your cousin you want to run away to join the Dalish, then in a later conversation the game will treat you as having grown up hearing stories of the Dalish. If you don't, then in a later conversation the game will treat you as having only a vague idea of what the Dalish are. Speaking of Dalish, if you're a female Dalish and you flirt with your male hunting partner at the game's opening, then he and other characters will act like you two're childhood sweethearts. If you don't, then he doesn't treat you any differently from a male Dalish buddy, and no one ever mentions you two being an item. THAT'S roleplay freedom.

 

And then there's the OTHER type of semi-blank protagonist; the almost pre-defined movie protagonist in a seeming RPG. The Shepards of Mass Effect, the Hawkes of DA2. The pre-determined in all but cosmetics. "This character you are controlling is a fully voiced 25-year-old human from Lothering, with three set personalities: Good, Goofy, and P!ssed off. You can choose which of the three personalities is most prominent for Hawke, but otherwise Hawke is completely pre-written and pre-determined by us for you. This is where you grew up, this is how you felt about it, this is your family, this is how you feel about them, this is where your family has to go, this is how we say you have to feel about it (Hawke WANTS to go to Kirkwall; Hawke WANTS to reclaim the old family fortune; Hawke WANTS to strike gold in the Deep Roads; Hawke WANTS to move to Hightown) and you have no say. You just point and click the character where to go."

 

And then there's just full-on pre-determined like Sora from Kingdom Hearts, Link from Legend of Zelda, or Mario. 100% pre-determined, you just direct where they go.

 

I personally think the blanker the better when it comes to RPGs, or at least "mostly blank" like DAO. Because then you actually have room to slip into the character's skin and move around, instead of just pointing and directing them where to go from a distance. To me, the difference between a blank(ish) PC and a pre-written PC is the difference between slipping your hand into a puppet and directing it from the inside, verses just tugging a marionette string from a distance.

 

 

Most players CONFUSED when playing such game, they put in themselves into the character. It is easy to play blank character where you may make whatever you want, you may pretend that character is you even because of it's nature. But the non-blank character you cannot do so, you are supposed to play that character and his/her role in the game, but most players REFUSE to accept the role and putting themselves in, they whine on forums demanding this and that, the devs listen to them and the next game ruined, for example Dragon Age:Inquisition...the main character is RUINED

 

That's all a matter of opinion.

 

I personally think that "playing a role" is actually better with a semi-blank character than a fully defined one. I might as well watch a movie if I just wanted to watch a fully formed character act out in ways completely independent of my will or input. Also, if I'm going to be told "this is your character," I want to actually be able to design and control who mycharacter is, how they feel, and what makes them act, not being told "this is what Hawke wants to do and how Hawke plans to get it done; you just need to do the clicking."

 

I also think that the devs actually ruined the Dragon Age franchise by moving away from the semi-blank DAO protagonist to the semi-formed ME Shepard/DA2 Hawke type protagonist.

 

So, what's ruined for you is improved for me.

[Fardragon]

I think Obsidian should make Sci Fi game like KotOR 2 but without lightsaber and Jedis. i think it will be cool.

 

Gunslinger build is popular in KotOR, but i like heavy rifles better because they look sexy.

 

So there should be a transport that is also our base, a spacecraft. There should be crafting we we can modify or even create weapons and armors, creating bombs and mines, making stimulants and med packs.

 

We can upgrade our spacecraft, there should be spacecraft battles, or maybe even large scale space battle and we act as wing leader. It will be cool if there is also missions involving bombing enemy bases or something

 

The main theme could be we are a space police force, but we can pick up party members from various background along the way.

 

Or maybe we may choose our faction, everything else turns out depends on what faction we choose in our journey.

The way I see it, the biggest problem with doing a KOTOR style game is the 3D 3rd person viewpoint effectively limits the size of party you can have. Three is pretty much the maximum, and I would prefer a larger party. It's not a deal-breaker though.

 

If you got rid of jedi, what would you replace them with? The KOTOR games only have three non-jedi classes, and they don't play very differently to each other. The reason games like Mass Effect have "space magic" is to give characters something to do in combat other than shoot guns. Even if you go for a classless system, you still want to give characters a good range of abilities to choose from.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Fardragon

[Qistina]

No need for magic, just make weapons or items that can deal AoE attack, bazooka for example, then make items and armors giving buffs. So we can build any character that can do all those stuff "scientifically"