Community The Age of Incline: RPG Codex's 2012-2016 GOTY Results

[sstacks]

(So this is a double post from the Shane Plays LPs and Interviews thread, but since it directly relates to this thread I thought I would post it again here in case anyone is interested. Infinitron or any other mod I completely understand if it needs to be removed.)

Podcast version of Saturday's show with felipepepe & Matt Barton discussing the Codex's 2016 GOTY voting is now out.

I recorded some bonus audio for the podcast version with Matt Barton that includes extra discussion beyond the radio show due to Codexer questions.

Podcast:
http://shaneplays.com/2016-crpg-game-of-the-year-radio-show-podcast-ep-87/

YouTube version (audio only):

 

[V_K]

as a summary I agree that pacifist runs in all RPGs suffer from this

Pacifist runs in most Quest for Glory games work like charm (although they do involve a fair amount of running from enemies).
Most Deus Ex titles also have no-kill runs that reportedly work pretty well (haven't played them myself can't attest to that).

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

as a summary I agree that pacifist runs in all RPGs suffer from this

Pacifist runs in most Quest for Glory games work like charm (although they do involve a fair amount of running from enemies).
Most Deus Ex titles also have no-kill runs that reportedly work pretty well (haven't played them myself can't attest to that).

Aren't Quest for Glory mostly adventure games? And yes I forgot about Deus Ex. So yeah, pacifist RPGs work when there's something to do other than clicking on dialogues, whatever it's stealth or puzzles or time-management or whatever doesn't matter.

 

[V_K]

Aren't Quest for Glory mostly adventure games?

They're hybrids, but with regards to how your build affects your playstyle, they're more RPGs than many "pure" RPGs.

 

[gaussgunner]

I agree, but that is a problem of non-combat related gameplay in every cRPG. The systems are not complex enough because is too difficult to implement. To be perfectly honest, I think that if the dialogue system were deeper, it would cause even more resentment because “cRPGs is about killing things” superficial mentality.

This is correct, which is why there are so few RPGs without combat. Though combat can be supplementet by any other gamey game mechanic, like card games or city development or whatever. To avoid this issue there has to be some 'dynamic' part. My point wasn't that the problem is completely exclusive to AoD so I think it's safe to say that we agree on this point.

I agree in principle. Typical RPG dialogue is banal rambling and false choices, so there's room for improvement. CYOA (or "dialogue tree") isn't an improvement; it takes away player agency. You're just guessing answers on a multiple choice test.

Rather than adding more and more dialogue, I would try to make other non-combat gameplay more interesting. Let players solve problems more creatively by interacting with objects and the environment. For example, an NPC says you can't do something. What does he rely on to stop you? Is there an item somewhere that you could steal or destroy? Can you smear his reputation? Goad him to commit a crime? Set his house on fire so he runs home to put it out? Bring his favorite food, spiked with laxatives?

Also, I love the way Bloodlines gives XP for completing quests or tasks (advancing the plot) rather than body count. Step in the right direction.

But nobody denies that skill checks is not a core gameplay of most cRPGs, even though they should. The question is how to make this type of gameplay more active, interactive and less passive. I think that pacific playtroughs are doomed in that regard, unless you implement a very complicated puzzle real life conversation system, but most players would hate this system, because they like action, not puzzles. Or they can enjoy some puzzles, but not as a core feature of gameplay.

I think that the only way to avoid this issue would be to make an RPG with a completely new structure and gameplay. Some sort of social simulator, but with actual plot and challenge.

I've been down that road with a few text-only prototypes. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would've been a banal dating/relationship simulator. Generic sheeple going about their daily routines, more or less, on AI-controlled schedules. They can't have any handwritten dialogue (their AI will contradict it) so obviously no plot.

If you go less extreme, i.e. handwritten dialogue with relationship stats (whether displayed as "emotion bars" or not) as another stat check, players will definitely hate it. It doesn't add anything meaningful, it just obscures the link between choices and consequences.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I've been down that road with a few text-only prototypes. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would've been a banal dating/relationship simulator. Generic sheeple going about their daily routines, more or less, on AI-controlled schedules. They can't have any handwritten dialogue (their AI will contradict it) so obviously no plot.

If you go less extreme, i.e. handwritten dialogue with relationship stats (whether displayed as "emotion bars" or not) as another stat check, players will definitely hate it. It doesn't add anything meaningful, it just obscures the link between choices and consequences.

It can be something in-between. Imagine a game where the challenge is to convince an NPC to join your group. This is done via standard RPG dialogue. To get him to join you need to uncover his 'secret' and then use it in the dialogue. The secret is known to a number of NPCs, to get them the player must expand his network of contacts or influence to let him know enough people, then through bribery for example he needs to convince a specific NPC to tell him the secret. The networking and bribing is dynamic so no hand-written dialogue, getting the info is a hand-written dialogue and using it when talking to the NPC is again a dialogue. This is pretty vague, but it's an idea, not a game design document. A relationship between a social simulator and the dialogue is like a plot in RTS games. Hand written intro - dynamic mission with some hand written parts - dynamic outro. Of course with CnC and stuff.
But in general it's no different than any RPG game out there. You have dialogues and actual gameplay and one affects the other. Whetever it's the social simulator I've mentioned, combat, sneaking (like Deus Ex), solving puzzles, playing card games (any of these Japansese card-RPGs) or whatever doesn't really matter. The biggest flaw of diplomat playthroughs in AoD is that dynamic gameplay is mostly just not there. All that's left is some minimal exploration and scarce puzzles.

 

[gaussgunner]

It can be something in-between. Imagine a game where the challenge is to convince an NPC to join your group. This is done via standard RPG dialogue. To get him to join you need to uncover his 'secret' and then use it in the dialogue. The secret is known to a number of NPCs, to get them the player must expand his network of contacts or influence to let him know enough people, then through bribery for example he needs to convince a specific NPC to tell him the secret.

You can do that without any 'social simulation', just simple dialogue scripting. Set a variable when you learn the secret, which unlocks the dialogue option to recruit that NPC.

Keep it simple, that's the best way.

sneaking (like Deus Ex)

Straw poll: who likes crawling simulators?

I guess Deus Ex and Bloodlines are decent stealth games. They don't force you to sneak all the time, and they provide enough information that it's not just a crapshoot like in most games.

solving puzzles, playing card games (any of these Japansese card-RPGs)

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You can do that without any 'social simulation', just simple dialogue scripting. Set a variable when you learn the secret, which unlocks the dialogue option to recruit that NPC.

Keep it simple, that's the best way.

You can do literally everything imagineable in RPGs with a simple dialogue scripting. Combat? Pick 'attack him' dialogue option and check your combat skill. Same for sneaking, spell-casting, travelling etc. The point was to avoid reducing gameplay to skill-point hoarding and saving+loading for diplomat characters in RPGs. Sure, you can make finding the guy or reaching right dialogue tree a challenge, but that's just turning it into an adventure game.

sneaking (like Deus Ex)

Straw poll: who likes crawling simulators?

Considering the fact MSG, Thief, Splinter Cell and Hitman were at some point a very successful game series, a lot of people.

 

[gaussgunner]

The point was to avoid reducing gameplay to skill-point hoarding and saving+loading for diplomat characters in RPGs.

Right. I'm with Lurker King on this: "The question is how to make this type of gameplay more active, interactive and less passive. I think that pacific playtroughs are doomed in that regard..."

You can have a battle of wits in pen & paper rpgs. In crpgs you're just pretending your character has social skills. Diplomacy is only as interesting as the script you're reading. Basically it's a shortcut around combat or some other non-dialogue obstacle. It feels like cheating, when it works.

What's the point of skill checks? Alternate plotlines for different builds, right? If there are only a handful of plotlines (i.e. fighting, covert action, business, or seduction) there's no need for dozens of skills. 5-10 should be enough. It should be possible to complete most plotlines without fighting unless you waste your points on combat skills. It would be pretty easy, more of an entertainment experience than a gaming challenge.

 

[laclongquan]

So if I will give my cock a name and will start talking to it, will my masturbation count as an RPG?

Only if there are skillchecks attached to your dialog lines!

He can call it RPG if he want. We will snicker at that for it's no way the same size as a RPG. Delusion of grandeur!

 

[Lurker King]

To avoid this issue there has to be some 'dynamic' part. My point wasn't that the problem is completely exclusive to AoD so I think it's safe to say that we agree on this point.

That is an insoluble problem, because it's a pseudo-problem. What most players consider dynamic gameplay is just a synonymous for combat or exploration. There is nothing to fix in dialogue trees as gameplay element. This is just a matter of personal preference. If most games labelled as cRPGs were games like “King of the Dragon Pass”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

I don't think that the reason is that they are easier. The reason is that to experience game to the fullest you have to make a hybrid character. These games favor hybrids (diplomat-gunslinger is probably the best Fallout build), AoD favours specialists.

Every time I engage in a discussion about AoD it feels like entering in the Twilight Zone, because everything is inverted and things are perceived upside-down. Games that treat skill checks as fluffy are presented as favoring hybrids. That’s completely lunacy. These games favors specialists, combat specialists, but give you the illusion that skill check matters because your survival is not affected by it. The bulk of the game is resolved by combat. You use skill checks to interact with the environment, but you have to fight. Skill checks are there just to make your exploration more awesome. They don’t actually track players' limitations.

Also, please note that in these games a talker will often be pushed into dangerous combat and will have to get out of it, which makes things a bit more interesting. The most talented diplomat in Fallout will have to at least be able to run away.

That’s not true, is it? In FO you don’t really have a pacifist playtrough, you have one way to reach to the end trying your best to avoid fights with outdoor skill because the game was not designed to be played that way. In Arcanum, you have to do a bunch of gimmicks to avoid trash combat in maps, but you are still overwhelmed by combat in every quest. VtM:B is the same thing. You talked as if AoD should learn with the classics how to implement a better pacifist playtroughs even though they don’t support pacifist playtroughs at all. That’s why the “pacifist” player is always in danger, because these games revolve around fighting. In AoD, on the other hand, non-combat builds face real danger that were properly implemented for these types of builds. Once again, the reality it’s precisely the opposite of what you are saying.

I think that the only way to avoid this issue would be to make an RPG with a completely new structure and gameplay. Some sort of social simulator, but with actual plot and challenge.

Exactly, and players that complain about pacifist playtroughs now, would complain even more then.

So as a summary I agree that pacifist runs in all RPGs suffer from this, but it hurts AoD more because it's much more focused on pacifist characters.

It is not focused on pacifist characters; it allows you to be a pacifist character. This is a big difference.

Also I disagree with the notion that AoD is hard (at least when we exclude the combat), making a good pacifist and finishing the game isn't honestly that hard, just a bit tedious.

Trying telling that to players that played most classics of the 90s, but keep whining on steam about the learning steep curve. It is hard in comparison to most cRPGs. Saying it is easy just to diminish the design principles of the game won’t make reality go away. You just need to consider the achievements data to know that most players can do a lot of things.

I agree in principle. Typical RPG dialogue is banal rambling and false choices, so there's room for improvement. CYOA (or "dialogue tree") isn't an improvement; it takes away player agency. You're just guessing answers on a multiple choice test.

Guessing answers is player’s agency. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it non-gameplay.

Rather than adding more and more dialogue, I would try to make other non-combat gameplay more interesting. Let players solve problems more creatively by interacting with objects and the environment.

And there you have it. To solve the “problem” of dialogues not being gameplay, let’s add interactions with the environment, because the only genuine gameplay is moving my character model from point A to point B. Just because you don’t like certain kinds of gameplay, that doesn’t make them nongameplay.

 

[Lurker King]

What's the point of skill checks? Alternate plotlines for different builds, right? If there are only a handful of plotlines (i.e. fighting, covert action, business, or seduction) there's no need for dozens of skills. 5-10 should be enough. It should be possible to complete most plotlines without fighting unless you waste your points on combat skills. It would be pretty easy, more of an entertainment experience than a gaming challenge.

That’s not enough. First, you will have to deal with a bunch of winning about this restriction, “But most cRPGs have tons of skills! That sucks”. Second, cRPG systems and character building try to model the reality in some way, and since in the real world people have a bunch of skills; you should have a bunch of skills. Third, even if you had only three or four skills, if the implementation aims to be realistic, you either wouldn’t be able to master the three, or wouldn’t be able to beat most skill checks. The only way to solve this problem is by making skill checks decorative, easier or less realistic, which is what most cRPGs do. You either ignore realism, admitting that you don’t want skill checks getting in the way of player’s agency, or you don’t. There is no middle ground here. My point is that you guys are ignoring the advantages of this realistic approach. The more the game world impose itself on the players, the more interesting it is. That’s not just story or CYOA stuff. You guys keep talking about the annoyance that is hoarding skills and reloading, but that is a simplistic way of seeing things, because the game was not designed to be played like other cRPGs that are focused on combat.

 

[Lurker King]

You can do literally everything imagineable in RPGs with a simple dialogue scripting. Combat? Pick 'attack him' dialogue option and check your combat skill. Same for sneaking, spell-casting, travelling etc. The point was to avoid reducing gameplay to skill-point hoarding and saving+loading for diplomat characters in RPGs. Sure, you can make finding the guy or reaching right dialogue tree a challenge, but that's just turning it into an adventure game.

Because you are assuming a definition of cRPG that involves a character model interacting with the environment. That’s an assumption, not an argument. What defines cRPGs are two things: the skills and the systematic reactivity. Most games that are mislabeled as CYOAs are cRPGs, and most games that are mislabeled as cRPGs are action games with one or two cRPG features in it. It’s a cultural prejudice.

 

[Lhynn]

Some cuck hijacked the thread it seems.

The more the game world impose itself on the players, the more interesting it is. That’s not just story or CYOA stuff. You guys keep talking about the annoyance that is hoarding skills and reloading, but that is a simplistic way of seeing things, because the game was not designed to be played like other cRPGs that are focused on combat.

Yeah, no, its shit. You could have literally made the process automatic with no player input and most non combat runs wouldnt have seen the difference.

What defines cRPGs are two things: the skills and the systematic reactivity.

Cool, so any game without skills isnt an RPG, and every game with systematic reactivity and skills is? (what the fuck does this even mean?)

Most games that are mislabeled as CYOAs are cRPGs

most games that are mislabeled as cRPGs are action games

It’s a cultural prejudice.

 

[Lurker King]

Lhyn, you can post all the smiles and memes in the world. In case you haven't notice, showing your despise for people who disagree with you only proves that you despise people who disagree with you and you are full of yourself. I also think you are deluded idiot, but I won't keep posting this over and over, because it doesn’t change people points of views, it doesn’t matter a thing.

 

[Lhynn]

Lhyn, you can post all the smiles and memes in the world. In case you haven't notice, showing your despise for people who disagree with you only proves that you despise people who disagree with you and you are full of yourself.

Dude, i dont despise you.
Also theres not much room to agree with you when all you write is nonsense.

I also think you are deluded idiot, but I won't keep posting this over and over, because it doesn’t change people points of views, it doesn’t matter a thing.

Aw, has nothing to do with the fact that you couldnt make a decent argument to save your life? its just because "it doesnt change people points of views and it doesnt matter".

 

[gaussgunner]

I'll take some of the bait...

I agree in principle. Typical RPG dialogue is banal rambling and false choices, so there's room for improvement. CYOA (or "dialogue tree") isn't an improvement; it takes away player agency. You're just guessing answers on a multiple choice test.

Guessing answers is player’s agency. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it non-gameplay.

No it isn't. If you have to guess, you're not in control. You have no agency. You might as well be reading a bad novel.

Rather than adding more and more dialogue, I would try to make other non-combat gameplay more interesting. Let players solve problems more creatively by interacting with objects and the environment.

And there you have it. To solve the “problem” of dialogues not being gameplay, let’s add interactions with the environment, because the only genuine gameplay is moving my character model from point A to point B. Just because you don’t like certain kinds of gameplay, that doesn’t make them nongameplay.

Moving around in the world. Items & inventory. Stats & leveling. Combat. Dialogue & narrative. All of these are typical RPG gameplay mechanics which can be tedious if done poorly or overused. It's possible to eliminate one or two and still call a game an RPG (-lite). But this runs the risk of over-using other mechanics. And if the developer's rationale boils down to laziness, expect poor workmanship throughout.

....5-10 should be enough....

That’s not enough. First, you will have to deal with a bunch of winning about this restriction, “But most cRPGs have tons of skills! That sucks”. Second, cRPG systems and character building try to model the reality in some way, and since in the real world people have a bunch of skills; you should have a bunch of skills. Third, even if you had only three or four skills, if the implementation aims to be realistic, you either wouldn’t be able to master the three, or wouldn’t be able to beat most skill checks. The only way to solve this problem is by making skill checks decorative, easier or less realistic, which is what most cRPGs do. You either ignore realism, admitting that you don’t want skill checks getting in the way of player’s agency, or you don’t. There is no middle ground here.

Let 'em whine about all those "shitty old AD&D games" with only 6 stats and no skill trees. That's enough for me. In real life I don't have the particular skills to solve every problem, but I sort it out using my wits, perception, memory, manual dexterity, strength, charisma, whatever.. and/or tools.

The highest purpose of skill/stat checks is to alter the prewritten plotline to fit the player's abilities in a (more or less) open-world simulation.

My point is that you guys are ignoring the advantages of this realistic approach. The more the game world impose itself on the players, the more interesting it is. That’s not just story or CYOA stuff. You guys keep talking about the annoyance that is hoarding skills and reloading, but that is a simplistic way of seeing things, because the game was not designed to be played like other cRPGs that are focused on combat.

The game? I'm not still trashing your favorite game, I'm talking about future crpgs.

Realism is overrated. A game only needs to be consistent within itself, not concern itself with trifles.

 

[hivemind]

you are all autistic

 

[V_K]

We've had a thread on non-combat gameplay before, by the way. Lots of cool ideas thrown around there.

 

[Jazz_]

You can have a game where skill checks count and are tied to active gameplay and player agency. Take for instance a banal fetch quest, you have to get a certain item in a certain place, said place is heavily guarded, you spent all your skill points in social skills and none in combat skills, you go there, and get murked. So you can't hope to beat the baddies because you are pitiful in combat, but thanks to your high persuasion/charisma you can recruit companions who will do the dirty work for you and kill the baddies, quest done. You just passed a skill check to complete a quest but you still had gameplay, player agency, exploration, and so on.

 

[Lurker King]

you are all autistic

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'll take some of the bait...

I agree in principle. Typical RPG dialogue is banal rambling and false choices, so there's room for improvement. CYOA (or "dialogue tree") isn't an improvement; it takes away player agency. You're just guessing answers on a multiple choice test.

Guessing answers is player’s agency. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it non-gameplay.

No it isn't. If you have to guess, you're not in control. You have no agency. You might as well be reading a bad novel.

You see a girl you like and approach her. Are you in control or are you "guessing answers"? You apply for a job and get an interview. Are you in control or are you guessing answers? You got the job but now you want a raise. You talk to your boss about it. Some lines will get you the raise, others will get you thrown out of his office. Do you know which ones in advance?

So is real life nothing but acting a part from a particularly bad novel?

Let 'em whine about all those "shitty old AD&D games" with only 6 stats and no skill trees.

You mean the combat-heavy games? Not that there's anything wrong with it but we're talking about non-combat gameplay here.

That's enough for me. In real life I don't have the particular skills to solve every problem, but I sort it out using my wits, perception, memory, manual dexterity, strength, charisma, whatever.. and/or tools.

The highest purpose of skill/stat checks is to alter the prewritten plotline to fit the player's abilities in a (more or less) open-world simulation.

Are you a good cook? It's a skill. The more you cook, the better you get. Your wit, perception, and memory can help you develop the skill faster but they aren't a substitute. A friend of mine is very skilled at carpentry (which isn't his daytime job). I have the right stats but not this particular skills. Sames goes for everything else, from driving and swimming to writing and persuasion to lockpicking and disabling alarms, not to mention combat skills. I've seen very intelligent people who aren't good at public speaking (skill) or don't have any streetwise (skill), like that Harvard professor who invested 600k with the Nigerian scammers.

 

[Jasede]

Games rarely get better by featuring more so-called 'realism'.

 

[naossano]

I see that Fallout 1.5 Resurrection appear amongs the vote. Great that some mod can get the same recognition as commercial games.

 

[V_K]

You see a girl you like and approach her. Are you in control or are you "guessing answers"?

It's kinda sad these things need explaining, but I'll bite.
You're in control because you can decide what and how you are going to say and do. You're not limited to three arbitrary options.
You're in control because you have enough information to make informed decisions. You don't have to guess blindly.
You're in control because you can read her non-verbal reactions and adjust your behavior accordingly, on the fly. You don't have to stick with your initial choice.
You're not in control only as much as the girl's own agency goes. She may well have made up her mind before you approach her - but no "right answers" will help you with that, and no "wrong answers" will harm you.
Unless you're a complete dumbfuck, that is.