How RPG fans ruined RPGs: Telengard on the Fiery BioWhore and the True Nature of the Awesome Button

[Lurker King]

You are the one making a strawman here. DOTA and the likes are not cRPGs, or at least they are not the type of games we have in mind in this discussion. We are talking about games with character system, stats, etc., like ToEE, BG2, AoD, SitS, etc. What is good combat for DOTA is poison for these games. My point is that some players want a type of experience playing cRPGs that is not even remotely associated with challenge, but the same players will dismiss gamers that enjoy FO4 for wanting the same experience with no stats. That is a blatant hypocrisy. Either they assume that challenge in cRPGs is mandatory or they drop the “consoletards are a bunch of popamoles” act altogether. Knowing more about RPG systems and cRPG history means absolute nothing if in practice you just want the same mindless entertainment of causals.

 

[agris]

popamolization

 

[Telengard]

a bunch of stuff

The only problem with your post is the suggestion that a combat system that would be in service to the story would suck. One thing has nothing to do with each other, because a tight combat system is compatible with any story.

So, most people don't want to delve this deep into the craft, because it "ruins" the experience. They start thinking about how things are made, rather than just enjoying them as an experience. So, fair warning.

Outside of things devoted to combat, like Kung Fu movies and old rpgs, when you see combat in entertainment, it is not actually about the physical struggle between the characters. Rather, it is about the personal conflict, with the fighting merely being an outwards expression of the personal conflict between them. That personal conflict is what gives the fighting weight. Modern moviemaking has, of course, thrown this idea out, along with so much else, and just dumps fighting in wherever there needs to be an action beat, and then uses whatever "cool" moves are currently popular without regard to character or theme. Which is why most fights these days are just kinda there, kinda ho-hum, even if they are technically impressive as fights.

And the reason for that lies in what things can elevate a story from the hum-drum to the good. Most rpgs have a long list of combat skills and some non-combat skills. And what all of these skills have in common is they are about interacting with the physical world of the story. Which is fine in a game that is itself about interacting with the physical world, such as an old rpg - ie, killing things and taking their stuff. But if the focus of the game is instead story, then all of these skills will only allow you to interact with the story at the most base of levels. Sure, the dev might put in a butterfly effect - you use your skills to save the princess, and the princess goes off and claims her throne and yadda yadda. But here, you did not interact with the story directly. You did not use your Galahad-purity to save the day, thus lending a higher meaning to your actions. You just used some skills.

And this fact flies in the very face of good storytelling. Even at the very basic, to have a good Tragedy, the tragedy should be caused by the main character's foibles, not something that just happens to some random dude because reasons. The main character's foibles are what gives the Tragedy meaning to the audience, and what makes it satisfying for them in the end, when the character dies.

In a story-based game, the Player should be interacting with the story at every level, not just the most base level. And the character sheet should not be a list pf physical and combat skills, it should be a list of things related to story and personality, since that is what the game purports to be about. Then, to bring all this that back to story and combat. Once story is the focus, once the goal is to tell a good story, combat naturally falls away in importance. Because first and foremost, in a story, the end of any conflict is decided by the story, not by the actions of the Player. The story tells you when and where characters will die, not dice rolls. The story tells you when combats will happen and how difficult they will be, not the character's stats and the Player's strategic actions. The story tells you whether you will win the game or not, not that gameplay.

And so, putting it all together, if the goal is to make a quality story with interactive stats, the best way to go would be to throw out physical stats completely. You make a choice at character generation regarding role, and that determines your fighting ability and style, and that ability and style never changes. Because the changing stats in the game are all based on story, not combat. As they should be in a game purportedly about story. So, utilizing, for instance, Pendragon's system, with it's paired morales of things like Lust/Chaste on a 1-20 scale, with Lustful at one end of the spectrum at 1, and Chaste at the other, at 20. Then each religious Faith has, say, five favored traits, and if you have high marks in those traits, your faith grants you a bonus. Then the key is, these stats are how you interact with the game, not skills. For instance, your character encounters the Temptress, and your Lustfulness gets challenged by her. And you, as the Player, can choose to have your character attempt to resist the temptation, or succumb to it. And then, the character would roll for Lust, and based on their choice and the result, a story-based event would occur, with the character perhaps fighting and losing to his lust, or remaining chaste and pure, or being already lustful and just giving in. And in that way, your character would be telling the story himself through the actions of his personality, instead of the story just kind of being thrown at him in random blobs of exposition.

 

[adrix89]

What is good combat for DOTA is poison for these games.

How the fuck is it poison?! Explain!

It takes much more challenge to be aware of the enemy action and predict what they do and counter them then a brain dead AI.
In those games every system is used to the maximum, every experience point is carefully invested, you have to know not only what you have but also what your opponents have.
At best you can say cRPGs have an advantage in resource management and attrition but even there Roguelikes absolutely kick your ass.
Should we go into true tactics games or strategy while we are at it?

Players can accept good combat fine. cRPGs were never about combat exclusively, they were a mix with narrative which is why they could get away with combat sucking.
That doesn't mean it can't have good combat, it is not something specially, it is not something unachievable, combat is EVERYWHERE.

 

[Lurker King]

In a story-based game, the Player should be interacting with the story at every level, not just the most base level. And the character sheet should not be a list pf physical and combat skills, it should be a list of things related to story and personality, since that is what the game purports to be about. Then, to bring all this that back to story and combat. Once story is the focus, once the goal is to tell a good story, combat naturally falls away in importance. Because first and foremost, in a story, the end of any conflict is decided by the story, not by the actions of the Player. The story tells you when and where characters will die, not dice rolls. The story tells you when combats will happen and how difficult they will be, not the character's stats and the Player's strategic actions. The story tells you whether you will win the game or not, not that gameplay.

I don’t buy it. You should have good combat in a story-based game. The problem is that your definition of story-based cRPG is a caricature. No cRPG worthy of it’s salt will implement a story that makes player’s decision and combat mere appendices. Instead, they will present a narrative, like any game master in a PnP campaign would do, and provide the player will some choices. A detailed combat system should be there in case you decide (or need) to engage a NPC in combat. The fact that a developer, or game master, decided to invest in a narrative with a compelling story and characters, should affect absolute nothing in the combat department. The reason being that no story is so good to the point in which you have no meaningful choice in it, which include the combat. I think your argument just reflect your prejudices preferences about games. Since you never cared about story and C&C in games in the first place, it was easy for you to associate the popamolization of the industry with games that have more story, C&C, etc., instead of the most obvious candidates, such as the target audience and lack of knowledge to implement things properly. I do not want a visual novel or a mere strategy game. I want both in one, perfectly integrated, because that is what cRPGs should strive to achieve.

 

[Lurker King]

How the fuck is it poison?! Explain!

It takes much more challenge to be aware of the enemy action and predict what they do and counter them then a brain dead AI.
In those games every system is used to the maximum, every experience point is carefully invested, you have to know not only what you have but also what your opponents have.
At best you can say cRPGs have an advantage in resource management and attrition but even there Roguelikes absolutely kick your ass.
Should we go into true tactics games or strategy while we are at it?

Players can accept good combat fine. cRPGs were never about combat exclusively, they were a mix with narrative which is why they could get away with combat sucking.
That doesn't mean it can't have good combat, it is not something specially, it is not something unachievable, combat is EVERYWHERE.

How many points in each skill do you have to implement to have a decent build in DOTA? Which race and stats do you have to choose to make a proper mage in DOTA? What are the characters backgrounds in DOTA? What is the basic equation that underlies your chances to hit the target in DOTA? What are the penalties or the advantages to use an armor, or shield, or staff in DOTA? Nothing this makes sense in strategy games like DOTA because they try to do something else. Challenge in this type of game is based on coordination and reflex, just like in arcade games, platformers, etc. They are not harder or easier than cRPGs, because their standards are different. In a proper cRPG, the challenge is in mastering the system, which is something completely different. The great AI you are talking about is easy to implement when you don’t have the same complexity involved in proper cRPGs, especially if it as project funded with millions. The fact that you thought that the likes of DOTA is relevant to a discussion about challenge in cRPGs implies that you are confused to a point that you have no idea about what is a cRPG anymore.

 

[adrix89]

How many points in each skill do you have to implement to have a decent build in DOTA? Which race and stats do you have to choose to make a proper mage in DOTA? What are the characters backgrounds in DOTA? What is the basic equation that underlies your chances to hit the target in DOTA? What are the penalties or the advantages to use an armor, or shield, or staff in DOTA?

Are you fucking mental?
Figuring out what out of the many item combinations that are all unique, not linear like in skill point system. Where you have to know what synergizes with your character and abilities. Where in a tight gold economy you can lose the game because you wasted your gold on a useless item and now you are behind the power curve. Where not only you have to know your stuff but also what the enemy is using and counter with consumables.
THAT is MUCH MORE complicated then putting some points into a linear system that you can understand 5 minutes with a bit of thinking.

In any competitive game between a competent DOTA player and the MASTER CODEX RPG COMBAT GURU I will always bet on the DOTA player.

 

[Telengard]

In a story-based game, the Player should be interacting with the story at every level, not just the most base level. And the character sheet should not be a list pf physical and combat skills, it should be a list of things related to story and personality, since that is what the game purports to be about. Then, to bring all this that back to story and combat. Once story is the focus, once the goal is to tell a good story, combat naturally falls away in importance. Because first and foremost, in a story, the end of any conflict is decided by the story, not by the actions of the Player. The story tells you when and where characters will die, not dice rolls. The story tells you when combats will happen and how difficult they will be, not the character's stats and the Player's strategic actions. The story tells you whether you will win the game or not, not that gameplay.

I don’t buy it. You should have good combat in a story-based game. The problem is that your definition of story-based cRPG is a caricature. No cRPG worthy of it’s salt will implement a story that makes player’s decision and combat mere appendices. Instead, they will present a narrative, like any game master in a PnP campaign would do, and provide the player will some choices. A detailed combat system should be there in case you decide (or need) to engage a NPC in combat. The fact that a developer, or game master, decided to invest in a narrative with a compelling story and characters, should affect absolute nothing in the combat department. The reason being that no story is so good to the point in which you have no meaningful choice in it, which include the combat. I think your argument just reflect your prejudices preferences about games. Since you never cared about story and C&C in games in the first place, it was easy for you to associate the popamolization of the industry with games that have more story, C&C, etc., instead of the most obvious candidates, such as the target audience and lack of knowledge to implement things properly. I do not want a visual novel or a mere strategy game. I want both in one, perfectly integrated, because that is what cRPGs should strive to achieve.

There's two things at play here: risk and quality storytelling.

Now, story-seeking Players aren't in it for risk, so this doesn't really affect them. But in a game game, risk is one of the major components of what makes the action thrilling. In a classic crpg (and many other games), you're putting your little dude's life on the line. When you lose, your little dude is dead and you have to start over from scratch. That's what's being put on the line. Story-based games, on the other hand, trade out risk for the draw of the narrative. People (as in the human race) like stories, so it's a big draw to be a part of one.

They trade out risk by removing things such as the Game Over screen. And they've been doing that since Dragonlance modules included a passage declaring that all important characters should have plot armor. Plot armor pretty much destroys risk at a fundamental level. And once that's gone, you're barely even a game anymore, in the classic sense of "game". But a story has to do that. To cite everybody's favorite: Final Fantasy VII. Aeris can't die until it is time for her die by the plot. Technically for the characters, her death should be just as compelling whenever or however it happens. But for the Player and the narrative, it is far more compelling to have it occur in a massive, weepfest event against the big bad, than it would be if she was dropped by some mook in a random encounter.

And all of this is troubling for quality combat. Take out risk, and you've already robbed it of much of its impetus. Risk is one of those things that's often ignored these days, but it's a major component of games - for instance, poker. Poker is a different game when real money is involved, because the nature of the risk changes the nature of how the Player plays.

Story has never damaged combat directly, which is why its effects are not normally recognized. It has only ever affected combat indirectly, by taking away that which is combat's biggest draw, thus deflating it like a balloon. The best compromise has always been one like Thief, where there's an intro and an outro, and the rest is emergent. But unfortunately, that style isn't as compelling to people as a fully interactive story, so it isn't a workable solution in the field.

 

[adrix89]

There's two things at play here: risk and quality storytelling.

That is true to some extent. But most games aren't like that. You just restart from the last checkpoint.
That does not mean it cannot have challenging combat. Chess does not throw your pieces permanently into the garbage never to be used again, the game restarts for another go.
The same applies to combat encounters.

Of course there are also roguelikes and survival games that are all about permadeath and the long attrition.

 

[Lurker King]

There's two things at play here: risk and quality storytelling. Now, story-seeking Players aren't in it for risk, so this doesn't really affect them.

This type of discussion is only meaningful if it is normative. I’m not really interested in whether some players only care about the story to the point that challenge is a detail. That is trivial. What is not trivial is whether that there was such a thing as story-seeking players before developers get in the way of challenge by determining the destiny of NPCs. This is just a design choice that end up being accepted over the years by imitation, habit and conformism.

The fact is that authors make their target audience. Popamole audience or hardcore audience, they are all created. The popamole audience will always be bigger, but apart from this, nothing is set in stone. If most story-seeking players are looking for story that shit all over on the challenge part, that is because the cRPGs more invested in the story department always had crappy combat. In order to change this, you just have to provide new games that achieve both (I know, not an easy task), and educate them about the importance of detailed combat system and challenge in cRPGs. Aesthetical appreciation of games, just like in everything else, is not a passive and uninterested task. It requires interpretation, critical thinking, knowledge, effort, etc. Mindless entertainment is an attitude that reflects lack of thinking, is not an object.

 

[DeN DarK]

Actually, it is very radical thinking. But it is Codex. Why not.
Still I think best way to make cRPG - use all 3 approaches + good story. You somehow omitted story from this all

The problem with (1) and (2) is not just the variety of skills and combos in itself, but the way this variety of choices should be implemented to provide the type of experience these players want. They want abundance of skill points, low skill checks and many ways to interact with the environment. However, they don’t want content gated by harsh skill checks. Which means that the skill checks are just poor excuses to provide them with cool ways to do shit they want. They don’t want just combos and new abilities, they want overwhelming broken combos and super-destructive builds that deals absurd amount of damage and let them feel like gods of destruction. It is impossible to find a middle term between this mindset and a hardcore mindset, because their experience is entirely based on the possibility to break the combat system. You can provide more abilities and combos, but if the game is challenging, people will cry and moan about how stupid your game is, and how it should attempt to emulate the likes of D:OS and BG2. However, and this is the funny part, they will never admit that they want this because is easier. No, they will say that this is what the definition of a fun cRPG is.

As always we speak about normal setting.
I humbly presume I have hardcore mindset. I like to play on the hard settings, sometimes on the hardest possible (recent games). Still I didn't like save-scumming for every single battle, exessive min-maxing and e.t.c. Actually I rarely play in Ironman mode, or solo in party games for first time. Plus I like story and story branches, choice of the ending and e.t.c.
I think that normal difficulty must be very easy for seasoned players (most of the Codex) - just because we play in RPGs for 10+ years. And for normal difficulty entry window must be wide, even medium optimized class must be able to finish game. But it must be less and less wide for higher difficulties.
Yes - it will be harder for devs. But it give them more wide audience -> more money -> more games. Question is how proffesional they are and how big. How much audience AoD can have? Not very much because it is focused on hardcore players. On us. It have only one difficulty for everyone, not so wide help and tips in-game, not very good graphics and e.t.c. I think AoD is brilliant but very niche because it is small indie work.

They don’t want just combos and new abilities, they want overwhelming broken combos and super-destructive builds that deals absurd amount of damage and let them feel like gods of destruction.

Very funny. Tell it to hardcore min-maxers here. They make monster-builds in any game and think that everyone who didn't dump stats is idiot. )

they don’t want content gated by harsh skill checks

For some games it is very good. Because not all games worth second playthrough, but can be finished once. And you actually don't mind to play all side quest once but don't want to start game second time and see mediocre main plot one more time and suffer. For brilliant games with replayability and branching - you right, gated content is bad thing.

 

[DeN DarK]

That is not the same thing at all. There is a difference between one player controlling a full party and a team of players each one using his character. The first breaks the immersion because you can’t role-play five people at once. You can argue that many cRPGs do this, but they are just idiotic. Many “classic” common places in the genre are stupid.

You are just wrong. Take party with main character and companions with difference story. They accompany you - you don't try role play them. Same thing with custom party - you make YOUR character, and some other characters with backstory. If you can't do it, it didn't mean anyone can't do it. About idiotic RPGs - if you think something is idiotic it didn't mean anything. Even on Codex people disagree, and in the outside world popamole is standart )

What I mean by telling the players to fuck off is that the developers should not accepting idiotic demands that ruin the setting for the sake of gameplay. By the way, where do you get this romantic idea that developers take any critical feedback seriously? 99% of the time they will just implement whatever is they decided to do. They may implement some minor modifications to please the crowd, but deep changes? They almost never do that.

Most things devs do they to on the earlier stages. Thats what I'm saying. They implement things that they think will please target audience. They cannot tell to that audience to fuck off as you said, because they advertise game to that crowd and try to add things there for that crowd. Hardcore or not hardcore target audience - it didn't matter. Why you think I have some romantic ideas is beyond me.

Seriously? Can’t you tell the difference between a game that is innovative and another dungeon crawler? You can have new approaches to settings, narratives, combat systems, leveling systems, etc. There is nothing mysterious about implementing new ideas in the genre. Sure, you can’t make everything new, but there is a big difference between an refreshing cRPG and another cRPG filled with trash mobs.

Yes, of course I cannot tell difference thats why I tell about Arcanum and PST. But it seems you can't give definition too. You hide behind "it is known to everyone, are you stupid?" approach.

But I do this in my personal life, because I’m more afraid of doing mediocre meaningless shit than satisfying other people expectations. The conventional wisdom in these cases is the mediocrity speaking. Can't you see? Every time someone try some new, someone like you will come and say these things about survival and playing safe, and most of the time they will listen to this advice, and do a bunch of shit in order to survive. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that you must do shit to survive, you will always do shit to survive, and you will not be able to do anything that is worthy, because you are too afraid and more worried about survival. On the other hand, if you are invested in making some contribution that will last, you will work ten times harder to leave your mark. I mean, this is not even a choice. There is no point in doing something just to survive. You have to achieve excellence. If your conditions doesn’t allow to do, you have to improve them to achieve excellence. That is what matters. If you have to put yourself under extreme pressure because you’re going against the norm, so be it. If a medium-sized company didn’t allow me to do what is necessary to make great cRPGs, I would leave it and make a smaller company. There is no excuse.

Very radical speach, with much presumption how someone like me believe in doing shit to survive. But I just drop it because it doesn't have sense and it is not about me.
Still it seems very naive thinking that every innovation is good thing and will give financial success and will be understood. Your personal life is your personal life, you can be very innovative and e.t.c.. But as professional - your opinion must be based on some basis. You want add some new thing? How it will affect goals? Not your egoistic goals but goals of company? How it will affect work of your collegues? How it will be received by your audience, especially if you already give them some promises? Game dev is team work. Team work means company. Company means business. And business means survival. Survival can be achieved with different means. Playing safe isn't always best survival strategy but sometimes it is and without knowing inner kitchen of the company it is hard to tell why they don't make game full of "new" things.

Actully I like to see some new things and RPGs. But I always prefer to be advocate of the Devil than one of the Lynch crowd. )

If there is a target audience associated with Fallout now is because developers like Tin Cain created that audience in the first place. I bet that he decided to move on when everybody was using arguments like yours “Don’t take risks”. “It’s better a mediocre product than a total failure”. Repeating that most developers are mediocre and too dumb to make their own audience only shows that they are mediocre authors that contribute to the low standards in the industry, nothing more.

Yeah. Before fallout games didn't exist - it is known. Audience for RPGs didn't exist. What the matter with you? Why didn't you enjoy nice and pretty fallout 4? Why didn't you change your taste?
All I'm saying is:
Audience and authors have link. And it can work both way. Authors look on audience and exploit our desires. For hardcore old-school gamers they make "return of the classic, spiritual successor, old-school" for popamole they make "best graphics ever, new gun-skins, play with your friends, share on Facebook".
Still devs can add some new things that after that became "must have" and crowd will be expecting them ever after in other games. But it is slow process. They add one or two thing here, another one or two there. Because make "new" things it sin't ony matter of risks but also matter of new ideas.

 

[Lurker King]

Very funny. Tell it to hardcore min-maxers here. They make monster-builds in any game and think that everyone who didn't dump stats is idiot.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. There is a difference between min-maxing to have the better build, and having a bunch of overpowered spells that break the combat. Min-maxing in a hardcore cRPG is one the common results of mastering the system, but doesn’t break the combat; while overpowered builds in games like BG2 are pretty common early, doesn’t require much thinking, and make the combat system a joke.

For some games it is very good. Because not all games worth second playthrough, but can be finished once. And you actually don't mind to play all side quest once but don't want to start game second time and see mediocre main plot one more time and suffer. For brilliant games with replayability and branching - you right, gated content is bad thing

That has nothing to do with AoD, but with the difference between taking character building and setting seriously, instead of providing the players the illusion of character building. Usually, cRPG players want all the stats and skills, but don’t want to be punished by failures, especially in the use of skills. If the skills are relevant to open a important option, that skill check should be difficult, unless you are an expert in that particular skill. The problem is that most cRPGs with skill checks never do this, instead they feed the illusion of character building. They throw some skill checks across the game almost randomly, without thinking and offer an abundance of SPs. The consequence is that players will usually pass in the skill checks, because they are there just so that you can do cool shit using skills. There is no thought about whether the skill requirements are plausible on that particular situation because they are just an excuse to massage the player’s ego.

You are just wrong. Take party with main character and companions with difference story. They accompany you - you don't try role play them. Same thing with custom party - you make YOUR character, and some other characters with backstory. If you can't do it, it didn't mean anyone can't do it.

I disagree about the custom party part. Role-playing with multiple characters is larping.

Yes, of course I cannot tell difference thats why I tell about Arcanum and PST. But it seems you can't give definition too. You hide behind "it is known to everyone, are you stupid?" approach.

Then what are you trying to prove? I thought your point was that is not easy to identify what is original, but now you admit that you can spot the difference without a definition of originality. My point is that you don’t need a definition of originality to identify a new element in comparison to older elements. So what it’s your point?

Very radical speach, with much presumption how someone like me believe in doing shit to survive. But I just drop it because it doesn't have sense and it is not about me. Still it seems very naive thinking that every innovation is good thing and will give financial success and will be understood. Your personal life is your personal life, you can be very innovative and e.t.c.. But as professional - your opinion must be based on some basis. You want add some new thing? How it will affect goals? Not your egoistic goals but goals of company? How it will affect work of your collegues? How it will be received by your audience, especially if you already give them some promises? Game dev is team work. Team work means company. Company means business. And business means survival.

But it is your talk about the risks of innovation that assumes a caricatured conception of originality, not me. The fact that you think I’m being radical prove this. Genuinely creative individuals are always using previous knowledge and techniques to move forward. Only naïve teenagers adopts this adamism worldview, almost as if history is starting with us. To leave a mark you need talent, work, determination, discipline to master a domain and courage to think for yourself and take risks. If you think that this is incompatible with sensible business, you need to go out more.

 

[DeN DarK]

This is irrelevant to the discussion. There is a difference between min-maxing to have the better build, and having a bunch of overpowered spells that break the combat. Min-maxing in a hardcore cRPG is one the common results of mastering the system, but doesn’t break the combat; while overpowered builds in games like BG2 are pretty common early, doesn’t require much thinking, and make the combat system a joke.

Again - we speak about normal difficulty? I sure that normal difficulty in most RPGs is not reccomended for people here and can count as story mode. Just forget about it. It isn't for you.
Plus question what and exactly how some builds or spells in BG is overpowered2 is different question. Still even hardcore players like to make overpowered builds. Why it is bad for beginners and casual players? From devs pov, not from large pov there we think how less they use theirs brains. )

That has nothing to do with AoD, but with the difference between taking character building and setting seriously, instead of providing the players the illusion of character building. Usually, cRPG players want all the stats and skills, but don’t want to be punished by failures, especially in the use of skills. If the skills are relevant to open a important option, that skill check should be difficult, unless you are an expert in that particular skill. The problem is that most cRPGs with skill checks never do this, instead they feed the illusion of character building. They throw some skill checks across the game almost randomly, without thinking and offer an abundance of SPs. The consequence is that players will usually pass in the skill checks, because they are there just so that you can do cool shit using skills. There is no thought about whether the skill requirements are plausible on that particular situation because they are just an excuse to massage the player’s ego.

I think all games made for massaging players ego. You just find out that most games cannot massage yours because they didn't pose to much challenge )
But in general, that you saying is right - if we speak about very good game and devs have in mind replayability for that game. If we speak about mediocre one-time game - it is too much work for devs and it can be never seen. That the general idea behind absense of branching. I hope I see return of it someday, maybe in indies.

I disagree about the custom party part. Role-playing with multiple characters is larping.

And you already heard objectons on that topic. I totally understand that you disagree. But I think that it just thing that you can't understand. I like companions with dev-made stories, but I like my custom made companions too. I made my stories for them and e.t.c. But if you think I'm just pretending I cannot prove otherwise.

Then what are you trying to prove? I thought your point was that is not easy to identify what is original, but now you admit that you can spot the difference without a definition of originality. My point is that you don’t need a definition of originality to identify a new element in comparison to older elements. So what it’s your point?

My point - 1. You cannot make all things new at once. You make SOME things new in one game, add more in next game and e.t.c. 2. New not always mean good by default and old dosen't always mean bad by default. DA:I add soooo much new things compared to BG.
3. Than adding "new" you don't know how it will be received and if it is good thing or bad.

But it is your talk about the risks of innovation that assumes a caricatured conception of originality, not me. The fact that you think I’m being radical prove this. Genuinely creative individuals are always using previous knowledge and techniques to move forward. Only naïve teenagers adopts this adamism worldview, almost as if history is starting with us. To leave a mark you need talent, work, determination, discipline to master a domain and courage to think for yourself and take risks. If you think that this is incompatible with sensible business, you need to go out more.

I dunno there you find adamism in my words, but as about naive teenager - your words more suited for one. "To leave a mark you need talent, work, determination, discipline to master a domain and courage to think for yourself and take risks. " If you think it always enough you must learn a lot. Be brave and you will be successful motto. )
You talk about risks - than you aknowledge that risks exist. If you fail - you fall. Than you must aknowledge depths of risks. More risks - more chances you will fall.
Of course all qualities from your speech can be compatible for business (and there I say it is not?) - but it doesnt mean that you business will be success only because of that. You trying to generalize too complicated thing and call some "must have" traits for that thing. But they just don't exist.
Not all business builded from scratch became mega-corporation, you know.

Actully maybe radical is wrong word. I think this speech is full of pathos and full of maximalism of youth:

But I do this in my personal life, because I’m more afraid of doing mediocre meaningless shit than satisfying other people expectations. The conventional wisdom in these cases is the mediocrity speaking. Can't you see? Every time someone try some new, someone like you will come and say these things about survival and playing safe, and most of the time they will listen to this advice, and do a bunch of shit in order to survive. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe that you must do shit to survive, you will always do shit to survive, and you will not be able to do anything that is worthy, because you are too afraid and more worried about survival. On the other hand, if you are invested in making some contribution that will last, you will work ten times harder to leave your mark. I mean, this is not even a choice. There is no point in doing something just to survive. You have to achieve excellence. If your conditions doesn’t allow to do, you have to improve them to achieve excellence. That is what matters. If you have to put yourself under extreme pressure because you’re going against the norm, so be it. If a medium-sized company didn’t allow me to do what is necessary to make great cRPGs, I would leave it and make a smaller company. There is no excuse.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE!

THERE IS NO EXCUSE!


Anyway I think this discussion became more personal and less about RPGs - and can be continued indefinitely. I think I will end it now.

 

[Lhynn]

Telengard you seem to think CYOAs are the ultimate storyfag rpg.

 

[Telengard]

Telengard, you seem to think CYOAs are the ultimate storyfag rpg.

The ultimate storyfag rpg will be a game with VR'd Drizzt with dual scimitar wands, a secondary flesh-port controller, and lots of ladies for your third scimitar.

More to the point, though, basic CYOA is what rpgs have got now. Basic CYOA with a blank-slate character without the slate (since slates can be written on, and rpg characters can't), to be exact. He's just a blank. (And in this terminology, a blank-slate character refers to personality and desires, not physical stats.) You've got this amorphous blob with no personality, all so Players can more easily can pretend that they are the main character. And in so doing, there is no possibly of witty dialogue based on the character's beliefs, since the character has no beliefs. There's no possibility of fiery arguments based on the character's ideals, since the character has no ideals. The character's desires cannot be reflected in the themes of the story, since the character has no desires. The character is just a blank series of MadLibs, which the Player fills in on an as-needed basis on how they feel that day, or on whatever answer they think will min/max the best outcome.

You can't make a good story by first throwing out the primary tool by which writers make something good, that of character.

Just by doing that, you've limited the story to schlock. Why schlock? Because schlock doesn't need anything like character or quality. It just needs action and awesome. To take a game mentioned in this thread - Planescape: Torment. How did that game get around this? By denying just about everything rpg. Is the main character bound by the game's class limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's level limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's stat limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's alignment limits? No. And so on. The main character stands entirely separate from the usual rules of rpg. He has a place in the world (instead of existing as someone just arriving in it) with his own personality, a lengthy history within that world that is writ into the story, and a fixed series of events that he must traverse and that it is guaranteed he will succeed in traversing (because story), in order to reach the already plotted end as the story tells it. Essentially, the Player is allowed to make their character anything they want it to be, as long as what they want it to be is the Nameless One.

 

[Akratus]

I can't be arsed to read this thread but let me just say that if you blame the fans in any way rather than the people who put business before art you're quite wrong.

 

[Lhynn]

The ultimate storyfag rpg will be a game with VR'd Drizzt with dual scimitar wands, a secondary flesh-port controller, and lots of ladies for your third scimitar.

More to the point, though, basic CYOA is what rpgs have got now. Basic CYOA with a blank-slate character without the slate (since slates can be written on, and rpg characters can't), to be exact. He's just a blank. (And in this terminology, a blank-slate character refers to personality and desires, not physical stats.) You've got this amorphous blob with no personality, all so Players can more easily can pretend that they are the main character. And in so doing, there is no possibly of witty dialogue based on the character's beliefs, since the character has no beliefs. There's no possibility of fiery arguments based on the character's ideals, since the character has no ideals. The character's desires cannot be reflected in the themes of the story, since the character has no desires. The character is just a blank series of MadLibs, which the Player fills in on an as-needed basis on how they feel that day, or on whatever answer they think will min/max the best outcome.

You can't make a good story by first throwing out the primary tool by which writers make something good, that of character.

Just by doing that, you've limited the story to schlock. Why schlock? Because schlock doesn't need anything like character or quality. It just needs action and awesome. To take a game mentioned in this thread - Planescape: Torment. How did that game get around this? By denying just about everything rpg. Is the main character bound by the game's class limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's level limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's stat limits? No. Is the main character bound by the game's alignment limits? No. And so on. The main character stands entirely separate from the usual rules of rpg. He has a place in the world (instead of existing as someone just arriving in it) with his own personality, a lengthy history within that world that is writ into the story, and a fixed series of events that he must traverse and that it is guaranteed he will succeed in traversing (because story), in order to reach the already plotted end as the story tells it. Essentially, the Player is allowed to make their character anything they want it to be, as long as what they want it to be is the Nameless One.

Well, half agree half disagree.
Play some "Choice of Games" CYOAs, sabres of infinity, choice of robot, they do a fairly good job at letting you mold your personality, with a blank slate character. There are some others that are good, but none quite as good as these ones.

 

[Archibald]

I was honestly surprised to see it being largely ignored around here, given the Codex reputation. It's ironic even, considering how often I see codexers lamenting how games no longer do certain things that Dota 2 not only does, but also excels at.

Every "hardcore" gamer likes to think that his favourite games are most complex and are bestest in general. Hard to accept that other games have noticeably more depth. I love crpgs and jrpgs and pnp rpgs, but reality is that vast majority of them have completely broken systems that are further made irrelevant by fucked up encounter designs.

 

[Lurker King]

This is pure ignorance, coordination and reflex are some of the most inconsequential skills in Dota. Systemic knowledge and decision making are far more important, and it's usually what separates a good player from a great one.

There is nothing too deep about. We are talking about a game with real time combat. Anyone who played these games knows that coordination and reflex are key. Fast decision-making is just another name for coordination and reflex. Now, try to compare this with a proper turn-based combat system, which completely disregards how fast you have to click on a button. The difference in how you play the game is enormous. I bet that if DOTA became turn-based, most of the experienced players would suck in it, because the dynamic changes.

I was honestly surprised to see it being largely ignored around here, given the Codex reputation. It's ironic even, considering how often I see codexers lamenting how games no longer do certain things that Dota 2 not only does, but also excels at.

Because it’s a strategy game for retards, not a cRPG.

 

[Lhynn]

Fast decision-making is just another name for coordination and reflex.

What the fuck?

 

[Neanderthal]

I can't be arsed to read this thread but let me just say that if you blame the fans in any way rather than the people who put business before art you're quite wrong.

Somebodys buyin the shit games, an if a dev can make a turd an sell millions on it, well hes gonna int he? Then again when devs say features that were done quarter o a century ago are hard to implement now, well that sends its own fuckin signal, namely that games an developers have fuckin declined big time. I mean its fuckin amazin how unambitious some devs are, but that wunt be a problem if there were no sales o shit an we all stood up an said we want better than this regurgitated crap.