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

[Telengard]

The danger of simplifications like this is that you believe they truly portray reality, and thus everything you elaborate from here is invalidated. There have never been 4, or 7 types of RPG fans; most RPG fans are appealed towards several of the game aspects, and often about all of them, with different priorities, or at the most not caring about some of them. And these preferences evolve within time, or change for just a particular game which is unusually good in one of its aspects. Otherwise, we'd have 3 or 4 separate genres.

These sorts of divisions are discussed by designers all the time. Because games are designed to appeal to people. In order to appeal to people, data is collected, grouped, and and made presentable for the higher-ups.

The seven types were released in a popular book of the time, and while I did not agree with dumping tacticians and grognards into the same category, it's not like they were enough left in RPGs by that point to make any difference.

Power Fantasy can't exist without a challenge that you eventually overcome, and new challenges that keep your gained power being tested. At least for me and for anyone else not being an instant-gratification-whore.

The whole idea behind the power fantasy is that your character gains power, and lots of it, while the world remains static. You get to do to the world all the things you wished to do but couldn't. It is wish fulfillment, at its core. Everything in the world of a power fantasy is not a wall, but a speed-bump that barely slows you down. That is what feeds the fantasy, what makes you feel powerful. If you hit walls, you wouldn't feel powerful, you would feel frustrated, and the fantasy breaks.

However, with power gamers, when they speak of challenge, they usually speak of challenge on the character sheet anyways, not in the game. They want their mad character building skillz tested, nothing else. And that sort of "challenge" doesn't break the fantasy in the slightest, of course.

This trend is not the fault of the RPG players, at all. It's the fault of the excessive mercantilization of the entertainment industry, and how the huge investments lead to "safe formats" that you can prove that returned the investments in the past.

Who was it that liked the idea of incorporating large parts Unearthed Arcana into 2e, with its high-power spells and cartoon classes? And who demanded that rangers be super dual-wielders to make them like Drizzt? Who was it who even now calls anyone who asks for something different, like an Old West RPG, a retard? Why, it is the people on this very forum!

And I'm shocked - shocked - that this is this case.

 

[DavidBVal]

These sorts of divisions are discussed by designers all the time. Because games are designed to appeal to people. In order to appeal to people, data is collected, grouped, and and made presentable for the higher-ups.

But it is wrong, and we are better than them. Don't fall in their mistakes. I am all 7 combined, and probably most people here is, as well. Give me a good story and I'll be a storyfag, and even gulp down the romance if it's like the one in Torment. Give me interesting mechanics and I'll make spreadsheets about it. Just make sure quality is good, and the mix won't be that important.

Who was it that liked the idea of incorporating large parts Unearthed Arcana into 2e, with its high-power spells and cartoon classes? And who demanded that rangers be super dual-wielders to make them like Drizzt? Who was it who even now calls anyone who asks for something different, like an Old West RPG, a retard? Why, it is the people on this very forum!
And I'm shocked - shocked - that this is this case.

I'm not sure I get what you mean, to be honest. Please clarify me if you A) deny that this trend has appeared in every entertainment genre equally and if yes, please tell me if it's true that B) the public is to blame for that. Because what happens with RPGs has happened everywhere. Watch a 1940s Disney movie, and watch the ones from now. Is that the codex' fault too? George R.R. Martin's failure is also the Codex' fault?

At least here there's a 30% of people that still values the essence of RPGs, the good challenge, originality, etc. Out there, it's not even 1% of the gamers.

 

[Telengard]

So in the prior quote Azrael says the Batman "Arkahm" games have a slightly more complex Awesome button and you've been hailing it as the anti-christ. And yet here you're rescinding? I smell something shifty, like fish, but more like squid or mushrooms or chinese porcupine. Can you elaborate because my brains are crashing and I got no bug fixes for this.

Sometimes an enemy is so good at their work that you've got to respect them. I don't personally agree with the Arkham games' design philosophy, but the fact that they fixed a decades old design problem that 3 dozen batman games and hundreds of superhero games in general had stumbled on and failed, you've got to respect that. They accomplished something special. They finally made the George Jetson action of just sitting there in a chair and stabbing at a single button with one finger something compelling. That kind of shit doesn't just happen. That is some serious craft.

Still, I hate their games.

EDIT: If somebody is playing a game for the story or the atmosphere or just because it's got Batman in it--and they also like a slighty more complex awesome button--then I have no qualms. You can have your cherry flavored ice cream and I'll keep my peach rainbow. I might even try your cherry flavored ice cream, since I like to sometimes behave differently. Maybe you'll do the same. No threats, no worries. But if anybody is thinking all games should be low challenge or it be absent, that's different. That's when it's red alert and my assets are on lockdown and you should expect full retaliation for any attacks on my territories. See, different opinions are great, but only if people can play what they like. If they can't then don't expect peaceful utopian community.

(Also want to add a lot of people c hoose more relaxed games because they've been busy or got a stressful life as it's. Their idea of entertainment is something slower and at ease. These people I have nothing against. Especially parents. This is not to say however a person working overtime can't also want a tense punishing game. It all depends. Conversely, I tend not to understand people who have relatively uneventual lives who prefer relaxed games. They already have relaxation.)

This thread lost a little bit of context when it was split off from the Beamdog thread. The first thing to understand about me is: I don't hate that other types of design exist. I was a bit peevy back in the 80s and 90s when your ancestors killed off tactical RPGs and crowed about the new Unearthed Arcana spells in 2e, since it showed your side won the power creep debate. But, water under the bridge. So then, fast forwards to the early 2000s, and I and others were having arguments with the proto-Codexers about how putting pre-broken powers into a game would break the delicate balance that is challenging combat. And I was laughed at and called a grogrnard, a retard (and much worse), and told that I didn't understand what made games fun. Shades of this thread, in other words.

And now here we are in the mid-teens, having followed the path of broken gameplay, power fantasy, and awesomeness to its inevitable conclusion. And now is the time when I get to say 'I told you so' whenever power gamers complain about the broken combat. Or at least I would, if they ever remembered calling me and mine retards way back when.

 

[Mustawd]

But it is wrong, and we are better than them. Don't fall in their mistakes. I am all 7 combined, and probably most people here is, as well. Give me a good story and I'll be a storyfag, and even gulp down the romance if it's like the one in Torment. Give me interesting mechanics and I'll make spreadsheets about it. Just make sure quality is good, and the mix won't be that important.

These kinds of focus group studies and polls are projected based on a general level.

 

[Mustawd]

And now is the time when I get to say 'I told you so' whenever power gamers complain about the broken combat. Or at least I would, if they ever remembered calling me and mine retards way back when.

Source link? Oh wait...search is completely broken...

 

[Telengard]

But it is wrong, and we are better than them. Don't fall in their mistakes. I am all 7 combined, and probably most people here is, as well. Give me a good story and I'll be a storyfag, and even gulp down the romance if it's like the one in Torment. Give me interesting mechanics and I'll make spreadsheets about it. Just make sure quality is good, and the mix won't be that important.

A lot of people get this wrong. That's not how data collection works. You're thinking too much in terms of individuals. Think of it more like a venn diagram. People can exist in multiple categories at once. If you like, say, sports games and rpg games, then you are in both groups.

Mind blowing, isn't it?

I'm not sure I get what you mean, to be honest. Please clarify me if you A) deny that this trend has appeared in every entertainment genre equally and if yes, please tell me if it's true that B) the public is to blame for that. Because what happens with RPGs has happened everywhere. Watch a 1940s Disney movie, and watch the ones from now. Is that the codex' fault too? George R.R. Martin's failure is also the Codex' fault?

At least here there's a 30% of people that still values the essence of RPGs, the good challenge, originality, etc. Out there, it's not even 1% of the gamers.

Most Disney movies sucked from time immemorial, especially in the 80s, so I don't know exactly what that would prove. 'Course, you're probably only talking cartoons, which shows you don't know from Disney.

There are lots of trends going on in entertainment all the time. The fact that everything must be writ to a 5th grade level, even the snews*, that's from the 80s. It didn't leak into computer games until investors got involved, of course, but it was alive and well in video games before then. The fact that Hollywood produces a lot of crap, well, I've watched some really godawful 60s films that people should see before they start saying things were all better before. Still, the corporatized crapfest of the modern day is a real thing, sourced from multiple fields. One of the big ones being: they no longer make anything for families anymore, but items strictly designed to appeal to a singular audience, while the family unit as a whole are ignored. And while the intelligence level of fringe objects in this new environment can now be much higher than, say, Gilligan's Island, your common entertainment will, of course, now be designed wholly for dumb teens. So, sex and melodrama and knockers and explosions and lots of teeny whining about the world.

EDIT: Hey, I just unintentionally summed up RR Martin with that last sentence! Bonus.

* Did that on purpose.

 

[Telengard]

Source link? Oh wait...search is completely broken...

Maybe one of these days I'll cull through the old and dead places of the internet, see what still remains. Those would be some fun old fights to bring back up.

In the meantime, here's some old players hating on UA.
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5074&start=30

Remembering why UA sucked!
by AxeMental » Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:58 am

Some will tell you its the stupidity of weapons specialization (leading to characters with a few weapons stealing the show from the guys with multiple weapons, and completely unbalancing the game (it also lead to number crunching, never mind the moving away from the archetypes (which up to that point were only personalized by how you played the character, what magic you collected, and perhaps some high stat roles).
After weapons specialization, that +1 sword never felt as magical or special...lets face it.

Other think the worst of its crimes was the concept of "personality control" it introduced, to such a high degree that it works against the concept of the game (that of free will) primarily in the Barbarian and Cavilier classes, (Caviliers that can't leave battle and are stuck working for some lord, barbarians that throw down their magical +3 long sword because someone tells them its magical. What utter crap, Conan would never do such a thing unless it scared him (though, thanks to Foster I understand why it was included, as a means to make them rare and not typically played with a mixed group). The bottom line was that DMs suddenly had to come up with stories explaining why Cavilier Joe is going adventuring (other then the usual greedy reasons) and it had to fit into the metaplot (related to his lord). Suddenly megastories became popular and TSR was more then happy to comply with backstory garbage and then eventually railroading (yes, I think UA is what started railroadings popularity which continued into 2E).

Whiles others say the worst thing was the way it opened the door to the concept of personalizing classes and other rules changes that require periodic purchases to stay BTB (which was later abused by 2E and 3E).
Before UA we all thought of 1E AD&D as a game like Monopoly, it wouldn't ever need to be changed, it was already perfect. Modules (like the idiotic DL series) were just that and could be simply ignored, not so with rules.

And of course there are other reasons I can't remember off the top of my head. I personally think the games doom (its shift to late 1E and early 2E) can be traced to this book showing up. It ushered in a whole new sort of player as well, the munchkin, who became the primary TSR buyer (always looking for change for novelty's sake not because it was better). I hated UA when I saw it for the first time, and I still hate it now. Sure, it had alot of good stuff in it (some spells, some cool magical items, def. of weapons, a hand to hand system that works) but the damage that was done by it "opening the door" to change doomed the game. It was only later when I came online that I learned the truth about why the UA even came into existance. It was to save a company that had grown into a fat cow. If Gary had somehow kept control of the company and not succumed to total greed, I seriously think the book would have never come into existance. A collection of random Dragon Articles should never NEVER have become canon law, they were never play tested to the degree they should have been, and the effect they had on munchkins is now history.

UA was simply, the begining of the end for 1E AD&D, Gary Gygax and TSR. I think a true 1Eer should ignore it as it wasn't part of the original concept of the game (but rather came years later as a shifting in company policy that was likely beyond Gygax's control). The rules seem minor, but in reality change the entire feel of the game when utilized. It truth it is a new game different then 1E (just as 2E is different).

I know this is old ground but a recent post about UA sparked my distaste for it.

by Kellri » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:50 am

Ok. I'm game. I have a healthy distaste for UA myself, and several things about it lead me to point to it as the beginning of everything subsequently 'wrong' about D&D from 2e onwards.

The weapons proficiency rules are just disastrous. Like you mentioned, they pile on way too many modifiers and lessen the impact of a magical weapon or really high strength. Rangers inexplicably come off really well with double-specialization, which leads to some really deadly multiclass characters. I also agree the system favors certain weapons and empowers others like darts (deadly - double-specialized +3/+3 5 attacks/round for 4-6 each). All of these factors weren't considered in MM or FF, so an unfair advantage is given to the PCs. A DM could work to include it on the other side, but it would only serve to prolong combat. The proficiency rules also don't pass my personal Gary test - does anyone seriously think he used them in play or just wrote about it in a game designer kind of way??

And of course there are other reasons I can't remember off the top of my head. I personally think the games doom (its shift to late 1E and early 2E) can be traced to this book showing up. It ushered in a whole new sort of player as well, the munchkin, who became the primary TSR buyer (always looking for change for novelty's sake not because it was better).

I understand the motivation with proficiencies was a response to other rpg designs at the time and also as a bone to throw to the players. Ultimately they just don't work, and upset several underlying structures. IMO, they ruined 2E completely. Skills & Powers was a travesty of kitchen-sink design tied to nothing. By 3E you could be doubly proficient in any skill from farting to fencing and in 4E you might unleash a wave of proficiency on your environment. This is your game suffering a homebrew hangover while the DM has left the building.

Barbarians and Cavaliers. Man, I loved the idea when I first saw the book in the bookstore. I was hip deep in Conan and the idea of a barbarian- class just clicked with me. And unclicked swiftly afterwards... it's just boring. There's no real focus on either a Runequest-style cultural barbarian or an REH-style mighty-thewed asskicker. It tries to do both with the rangery skills and the barbarian horde, and it also tries to throw in Conan's fear of magic to no real end. I would have honestly preferred if they just duplicated the fighter entry and threw in some new level titles. The Cavalier is pretty much the same - some weird mix of Arthurian knight with a Dragonrider of Perth. The bit about them surviving a negative hit point total while other classes cannot is senseless. I think a slightly weakened Paladin without alignment restrictions would have been a better idea. The thief/acrobat is just dumb. Weren't there much better classes being printed in Dragon around that time? Why not a bandit or even an archer!? As I'm sure you would agree, thief acrobats are seriously ghey.

Other think the worst of its crimes was the concept of "personality control" it introduced, to such a high degree that it works against the concept of the game (that of free will)

It all begins with those out of place Social Class/Comeliness rules and some of the class/demihuman background material. I don't so much think it forces a particular course of play on the PCs, but this is a good example of hard-coding campaign background into the actual rules themselves. As such, it's antithetical to the maxim - 'It's your game', because it does force a very particular type of campaign world. I don't hate these rules per se, but IMO they would have fit a lot better into a Greyhawk hardcover (one written by Gygax and not Ward).

So...to answer your question, yes I do remember why UA sucked. It still sucks.

by T. Foster » Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:21 pm

If I ever run another AD&D campaign, I think I'll probably use most of UA except perhaps for the first dozen or so pages. I still think Comeliness is a pointless overcomplication, and don't like the expanded race stuff (either the expansion of available PC races to include the underdark uber-races or the expanded level limits and class/multiclass eligibilities making there almost no reason to ever play a human), but I'm okay with pretty much everything else in the book -- the new classes, weapons, spells, magic items, and miscellaneous rule additions (horse barding, spell books, social class tables, revised unarmed & nonlethal combat rules). Yeah, using it changes the shape of the game a bit, to something more powered-up, more Mythus-y, but that's part of the "Gygax" feel to me, and since the only reason I'd run AD&D is if I wanted to run a Gygax-y game (otherwise I'd stick with OD&D), why not go all the way?

by geneweigel » Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:20 pm

Gads, the drow player characters that I had to sketch between 84 on just make me shudder recalling them and it has nothing to do with them being powerful. Just the out of context and awkward. I recall all the euphemisms trying to reach "fruity" without saying it that specifically.

"More cheekbones...you know how elves are...and give them something flowing...you know elves would have something gossamer...but give them a sinister smile and careless eyes..."

That kinda crap.

As an artist who was always eager to illustrate for the game, I felt like I was being used for some weird fetish fantasy instead of playing a Conan game half the time with all these drow players.

I think its hard for people to say that sometimes. They don't want to admit that their bosom friends had issues.

WELL, I'LL SAY IT! SOME OF MY BOSOM FRIENDS HAD ISSUES, OKAY?

The problem was that, by that time, there was such a hunger for something new from Gary that FINALLY when the book came out it was assumed that it would be 100% good (we'd never been let down before remember), we expected the DMG or PH quality. And the book wasn't sold as a grab bag, but as "official cannon".

For most it took a little playtesting to discover the inherent problems (kinda like 3E) and by then it was too late, the mantality of the game had shifted and there was no going back, like a virus infecting a new host (half the table liked the options, the others would bend just to keep the peace, who wanted to be a jerk). Classes that should have been light and adaptable, like the barbarian, proved clunky and too rigid not at all melding with the games underlying philosophy (as if the writer didn't even understand the game it was written for). This new philosophy really sparked the imaginations of the munchkin crowd however.

UA was likely the first wedge between the munchkins and the normal player as I remember it. Before UA 1E had very little for the munchkin (constanlty put in his place by the patient DM), after UA the normal players were told to sit down and watch as these supergeeks sprang to action, "the GOD Gygax has spoken (who new Gygax was pro-munchkin, certainly not the munchkins they couldn't believe their luck) sit and watch me role up my dark elf cavilier with weapons specialization with the blow dart (I know it sounds like 3E, wtf right?), and let me tell you his back story and how he came into service of lord Fagatto....".

UA my friends was the sound of the toilet flush, and thats when I and most everyone I know that played AD&D jumped out of the tank with our 3 core books, dice, lead figures, and handful of modules. We, thank God, missed the big suck down the drain into the sewer of 2E, of course there were those who took to that shit. In any event it was nausiating enough just to watch such a great game and company go down the shitter like that.

What could have been. The classes and spells were fine, the problem was the execution. I wish I'd known what was going on behind the scenes back then, it would have all made alot better since.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Hey Telengard do you think what you just described has anything to do with mudflation in mmorpgs and/or power creep in card games? Because from what I can tell, what you're describing comes across uncanny. It's the buildup of raw overall power, addition of new powers and the reduction of past powers. In order to not flood a player with millions of different powers and rules, different methods are used to moderate confusion and keep players focused. There's a tendency to make things linear.

But this might be the case of mixing apples and oranges. Yet it's like a loud siren in the midst of silence.

To explain why all games might be showing "decline" I think ti's explained by population. The industry has been growing since the early days. As the population grew, the games became more accessible. And in the process of this, players like ourselves were left in the dark cold outside, plugging the web for moral and information support. This is contradictory to the story we're told, that the games being more accessible is an improvement. We FELT ignored and discriminated until we stoped being dickheads and realized small groups of people can still make games we like. We're not actually in the dark cold outside if we choose not to be.

This is why in the "decline" thread I say the decline isn't important. There're lots of indie games and there's kickstarter. I know the games we have aren't AAA big budget, but IMHO they're satisfactory. Moreso, we can also play older games. I myself still find a lot of enjoyment in older games thx to GOG. I'm far from playing them all. I'll only play a fraction in my lifetime. I'm always amazed how many there're. Everytime I search I find new ones. This applies to both single player and MMO.

This is how I feel:

 

[Telengard]

Hey Telengard do you think what you just described has anything to do with mudflation in mmorpgs and/or power creep in card games? Because from what I can tell, what you're describing comes across uncanny. It's the buildup of raw overall power, addition of new powers and the reduction of past powers. In order to not flood a player with millions of different powers and rules, different methods are used to moderate confusion and keep players focused. There's a tendency to make things linear.

But this might be the case of mixing apples and oranges. Yet it's like a loud siren in the midst of silence.

It's not apples and oranges, so there are comparisons to be drawn. Mudflation can certainly be related to it, when the inflation is sourced from power creep introduced by new expansions. However, one does need to be careful with mudflation, as such inflation can be rooted in a number of different causes. For instance, poor design or intentional degradation of the economy by the owners in order to implement a new money-making scheme on top of the old economy.

Of course, MMORPGs themselves can even be rooted in power fantasy design. They're not usually, though, being much more often built around a hamster wheel rooted in socialization and peer group peacocking. (Translation: See my pretty feathers everyone, aren't they prettier than yours?)

Card games power creep can easily break the original balance of the game, which can make the game part feel empty and unsatisfying to long-time players, even as the collectibles market gets more and more excited. But there is an extra thing with card games, in that they're so cheap to make and print, and so popular, that one can make a lot of money doing them. A lot of money. But the money is in keeping costs low, since people won't pay much for card games. So, send out to China for the printing, and outsouce new card-making duties to know-nothing independents, who are frequently given weak instructions on how to proceed to mix with their poor design skills and little to no experience with the game. Such people can break the game balance through sheer misunderstanding of the basic elements that made the gameplay what it was, rather than through anything intentional.

So, there are similarities here. The big difference is, with people like the Biowhore, what they do they do for love because they are trying to do everything they can to please the player (being a whore, in other words). While card games and MMORPGs are using old psychological techniques (gambling and Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality) to keep people spending more money on trash. But whatever the source of the creep, it all ends the same, with a broken game.

To explain why all games might be showing "decline" I think ti's explained by population. The industry has been growing since the early days. As the population grew, the games became more accessible.

So true.

This is why in the "decline" thread I say the decline isn't important. There're lots of indie games and there's kickstarter. I know the games we have aren't AAA big budget, but IMHO they're satisfactory. Moreso, we can also play older games. I myself still find a lot of enjoyment in older games thx to GOG. I'm far from playing them all. I'll only play a fraction in my lifetime. I'm always amazed how many there're. Everytime I search I find new ones. This applies to both single player and MMO.

As someone who actually played indies before Kickstarter and Steam made it okay for everyone to do so, this is a far better time for RPGs than it's been in a long time. The indies are actually better games than they were, when they were being made on pocket money. Though I do worry that the same market forces that hit RPGs in the first place are going to hit Kickstarter and the current indie devs, eventually. But for now at least, RPGs are happening again.

 

[Shadenuat]

I want to drive the point home about how skill checks work nowadays and in some modern games like PoE & Deus Ex HR as compared to old ones. And probably play Captain Obvious a bit. Sorry didn't read the whole thread.

That part

However, pleasing that crowd isn't the ultimate level of whoredom. For the Biowhore, the obvious choice would be to set the game difficulty of getting past that pit at 1 point for every skill.

It's not just about difficulty. I think there's one fundamental flaw in how skill checks and skill application work today and it's a trap which even guys like Sawyer and "kind DMs" fall into. Remember that line about "If you have Ancient Poetry in your game, you better allow me to make use of it 5-10 times"?

Here's the problem with these options and their availability for every player - they are now basically made as a list of options player picks from. Game gives you a list, like a "stealth playthrough" (and puts ventilation shafts everywhere) or something else, and you know beforehand what are you going to do in the game. It is very different from original Deus Ex for example, where you just had a mission, and you had to work with your tools to accomplish it. Having highest Stealth couldn't get you through the game unless you had meta knowledge. Perhaps, at one point you had to swim or use breathing equipment. Or stack boxes. Or shoot somebody. Or use a gadget. But it's modern sequel just doesn't feel like that for some reason.

The same goes for many RPGs, up to PoE. Instead of relying on multiple mechanics player has to use to solve objectives, how often could you just pick from a list of options and skills to solve a particular dialogue and text quest?

This also goes into a realm of character builds and their usefulness. No skill should be fundamentally useless. However, that doesn't mean that every build must be automatically successful and win the game for you. Because at that point there is no game anymore, challenge, surprise or thrill. Generally how it looks is this - developer puts a gate in front of your progression, and allows you to break it with different skills and, so you *definitely* wouldn't fail, some sort of hidden quest item. Sometimes it is as obvious and simple as this, really, sometimes this gate looks a bit different, but how you pass it is still obvious as game solves this automatically.

And in many ways it's not just about challenge. Thing is, this sort of gameplay can actually rise from a noble goal to supply every player's character with options or create C&C. But, just like like fake Bioware C&C made for the sake of replayability, not simulation of game world, this surrogate type of making character builds viable can also turn out banal and boring.

 

[Roid King]

yes, we all know they changed their audience for a more casual one. But it was because it was profitable, not for some made up reason in that delusional brain of yours.

This.

Marketing is God. Look at a game like Skyrim. None of the additional millions who bought it did so because of how it compared to earlier games in the series, because of "more accessible" features or whatever. They bought it because of the music, the poster hero, Vikings, 11.11.11, and dragons. Video game publishers are learning capitalism.

 

[Spectacle]

Plenty of companies have failed hard when trying to market to a more casual audience though. If you alienate your core fans then that creates a lot of negative buzz around your product that will make it a lot harder to entice those causals to buy the game.

It works for Bethesda because they have cultivated an audience of hardcore popamolers that truly love the shit they are making, so they get positive buzz that synergizes with the marketing efforts rather than undermining them.

 

[Roid King]

Plenty of companies have failed hard when trying to market to a more casual audience though. If you alienate your core fans then that creates a lot of negative buzz around your product that will make it a lot harder to entice those causals to buy the game.

Yes. Just thinking aloud here, but I feel many publishers aren't really connected to their audiences. They're learning capitalism, but too quickly. Things change so fast in this industry (as much the audiences as the technology), there seems to have been no time for audiences and publishers to stabilize on the same wavelength. Maybe it's all the buy-ups, heavy-handed AAA publishers doing their thing, sometimes completely clueless. But it often appears to be a failure of marketing to the proper demographic. Battlefield, CoD and Assassin's Creed seem to have found their Michael Bay-audience, and can basically do whathever the hell they want with the actual games.

It works for Bethesda because they have cultivated an audience of hardcore popamolers that truly love the shit they are making, so they get positive buzz that synergizes with the marketing efforts rather than undermining them.

I wonder how many people would tolerate them and "remain loyal" if it weren't for the extreme modability of all their games from Oblivion on. Hard to say, but it was definitely on my mind when I bought Skyrim. Probably would not have bought it otherwise. I was not impressed with what I had heard about it beforehand (and there was a lot of negativity surrounding both Oblivion and Skyrim by "hardcore" fans, yet they sold and sold), but also knew it would grow with the mods.

 

[Spectacle]

Most bethestards play on consoles with zero mods, so moddability is apparently not essential to the business model. I'm sure the mods help keep the games in public memory during the years between each one though, but it's hard to say exactly what the impact is.

 

[Lhynn]

Most bethestards play on consoles with zero mods.

Consoles have a very low bar bro.

 

[adrix89]

What are we even talking about?

If we are talking about Role Play your precious D&D was shit in any version. There always was better tabletop RPGs then that.
RPGs as video games all boils down to the amount writing you can cram and because of the prevalence of voice acting it amounts to not much, and because developers want players to see all content it is at no consequence.
Planescape Torment was a TON of writing, that is all. There is no stats or skill checks that somehow define your character, it is all the version of a character, the branches a writer bother to write. Sometimes you forget that and get tricked that point you spent on a character has a meaning.
You roleplay as much as you would roleplay in a CYOA book.

As for combat cRPGs were always shit. cRPGs are nothing but glorified strategy games in the first place. There have been plenty of tactics and strategy games, there is nothing mysterious or unsolvable about them.
When you think of them as tactics games you see what is wrong with them. It is the level design,the environment, the missions and the enemies.
Power, the skills and abilities is the tools you use against an opponent and its forces. Chess, your move their move. Having overpowered abilities vs an AI with its own overpowered abilities isn't a big deal, it just means they are a little more flashy.
Yes adding skills, classes, stats and items complicates things and confuses the mind of the dumb developer but all those things aren't exactly new in tactics games.

 

[kwanzabot]

I do declare I do agree with the OP and i think he is a brilliant codex using member ^__^

 

[NotAGolfer]

Did you have to revive this utterly retarded thread, guise? Really?

Create a couple more threads with inane, condescending rants like the OP and designers will lose the rest of the respect they have for Codex.

 

[Infinitron]

Hmmm....

Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/morrowind-modding-thread.96403/page-6#post-4363691
Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...clickbait-rpg-list.100444/page-5#post-4360326
Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...abletop-roleplaying.99977/page-4#post-4361014
Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...e-to-a-perk-system.104574/page-2#post-4361262
Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/leveling-up.103396/page-5#post-4361361
Necro: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...at-best-a-4-10-game.99612/page-6#post-4362734

I can tell you'll go far here newbie

 

[Telengard]

Did you have to revive this utterly retarded thread, guise? Really?

Create a couple more threads with inane, condescending rants like the OP and designers will lose the rest of the respect they have for Codex.

I don't make threads. So what makes you think I made this one. Eh?

 

[NotAGolfer]

Well someone created it. I don't care who.
Too much edginess without any effort put into making convinceable arguments. But I guess that's not necessary is you feel so superior. But then again, why not just use a simple retard meme instead? Would have achieved the same with a fraction of the effort.
Also ignoring posters who tell you that nothing you rant about has any of the effects you claim it has, making up stories about dumbing down by creating more choices when the opposite is happening everywhere right now, dumbing down by making games more "accessible" and movie-like, meaning removing choices.
Games like BG2 are not dumb at all (some Codexers like to make it out to be because after 500 hours with the game and memorizing every encounter and the hard counters they have to use in it they start to get a bit bored so game has to be shit^^), using convoluted rulesets full of spells and abilities might be an easy way for game designers to get the player engaged, but it certainly works.
Later games like DA:O didn't have as many options and little "awesome button" mechanics anyway, but others already pointed that out. So in the end none of the claims in your rants have any merit to them, the conclusions you draw are logical fallacies and you don't even try to connect cause and effect, since that's beneath you I suppose. You just keep on ranting.
Fucking Codex edgelords, I swear.

Tl;dr. Shitty thread still is shit. Would not read again.

 

[Mustawd]

Maybe that should read "will not post again", so we can move on.

 

[The Nameless Pun]

Well someone created it. I don't care who.
Too much edginess without any effort put into making convinceable arguments. But I guess that's not necessary is you feel so superior. But then again, why not just use a simple retard meme instead? Would have achieved the same with a fraction of the effort.
Also ignoring posters who tell you that nothing you rant about has any of the effects you claim it has, making up stories about dumbing down by creating more choices when the opposite is happening everywhere right now, dumbing down by making games more "accessible" and movie-like, meaning removing choices.
Games like BG2 are not dumb at all (some Codexers like to make it out to be because after 500 hours with the game and memorizing every encounter and the hard counters they have to use in it they start to get a bit bored so game has to be shit^^), using convoluted rulesets full of spells and abilities might be an easy way for game designers to get the player engaged, but it certainly works.
Later games like DA:O didn't have as many options and little "awesome button" mechanics anyway, but others already pointed that out. So in the end none of the claims in your rants have any merit to them, the conclusions you draw are logical fallacies and you don't even try to connect cause and effect, since that's beneath you I suppose. You just keep on ranting.
Fucking Codex edgelords, I swear.

Tl;dr. Shitty thread still is shit. Would not read again.

This. And telengard must have a lot of free time to write those big, ugly posts that take years scrolling to reach the bottom.

 

[Telengard]

Well someone created it. I don't care who.
Too much edginess without any effort put into making convinceable arguments. But I guess that's not necessary is you feel so superior.

Superior? I was on the losing side of a war that you'all power-gamers won more than 20 years ago. That's not being superior; that's just being old. If you want to read about the war, it's still out there, on the pages of Dragon Magazine and dead forums. From a time when "power creep" was as hated as streamlined is today.

But then again, why not just use a simple retard meme instead?

A picture can tell a thousand words, but only in an emotional manner, not a logical. It's the female way to fight. I fight like a man.

Would have achieved the same with a fraction of the effort.

True.

Also ignoring posters who tell you that nothing you rant about has any of the effects you claim it has, making up stories about dumbing down by creating more choices when the opposite is happening everywhere right now, dumbing down by making games more "accessible" and movie-like, meaning removing choices.

People really should play ancient rpgs, where there are absolutely no character sheet choice at all, before they make comments like that. Games of old had only choice of tactics and strategy. Now all that's left is character sheet choices and story choices. Which DA:O provides more of than old D&D ever did.

Games like BG2 are not dumb at all (some Codexers like to make it out to be because after 500 hours with the game and memorizing every encounter and the hard counters they have to use in it they start to get a bit bored so game has to be shit^^), using convoluted rulesets full of spells and abilities might be an easy way for game designers to get the player engaged, but it certainly works.

The people who declared BG to be a streamlined, simple version of D&D were - shocker - Bioware itself in their advertising. And the reviewers of the day picked it up and repeated it ad nauseum. Many of which quotes can still be found today. And since I have even quoted them all on the Codex before, easily more easily findable now. The Biowhore made a streamlined game, and happily cashed a check from 2 million in moved product.

Later games like DA:O didn't have as many options and little "awesome button" mechanics anyway, but others already pointed that out.

The Telengard remake is free. Try it. You'll hate it.

Not that it really matters. You could just look at the character sheet of DA:O and compare it to an actual casual game, like Dungeon Siege. But I know, that would be too much work.

So in the end none of the claims in your rants have any merit to them, the conclusions you draw are logical fallacies and you don't even try to connect cause and effect, since that's beneath you I suppose. You just keep on ranting.

Are they all fallacies. When I am quoting Bioware and game reviewers, and you all are quoting Misty water-colored memories of the way we were

Fucking Codex edgelords, I swear.

Mm hmm.

 

[Mustawd]

Games like BG2 are not dumb at all (some Codexers like to make it out to be because after 500 hours with the game and memorizing every encounter and the hard counters they have to use in it they

Dude, BG2 is popamole RTwP garbage. GTFO and play some TB games and stop wasting your time with shallow action games posing as RPGs.