Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

BROS SO IT IS GENERALLY AGREED

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,983
Note that in pretty much any tactical game that gives you a movement speed and a way to use, also gives you ways to modify that speed. Action rpgs tend not to do this because it would 'ruin' the platforming elements, or screw over the AI (the same way it usually does in a tactical game.)

You're supposing a degree of complexity for a turnbased game that would make the interface incredibly unwieldly and difficult to develop. You want to design a system to calculate jumping difficulty for EVERYTHING IN THE GAME. Just for jumping. Then you need a separate system to account for say, kicking an object, or dragging it, or standing on it. You need to implement dropping items onto the ground, and a specific action for using something to intentionally ignite an object on the floor. 3 years later your budget is going to be gone while you're trying to implement the 400th discrete feature that needs to be individually programmed because you can't just use a god damned physics engine. You'd have to take something like incursion's interface, which is already a giant clusterfuck, and then triple the number of actions. You need a command for jumping onto things, over things, jumping to extend your reach while you do something in mid air...

In reality, what will happen, is a few things will get implemented, and you can interact with those, but nothing else. Maybe they implement an option to use a torch to light flammable things on fire for the 1 in 3000 people who give a fuck. But they'll forget to make a similar option for trying to ignite something using a stationary fire source like a bonfire or wall torch. KotC lets you burn Web spells for extra fire damage using fire spells, but it doesn't work with all sorts of other shit, like attacking with a fire elemental or a flaming weapon. And because it's abstracted away, there's no indication of whether your character tried to do what you want and failed, or you simply don't have control over your character. People tend to assume the later in these situations, which makes you feel like you're not playing a fucking game, but just watching some cutscenes. This NEVER happens in an action game, because everything your character can do is apparent. If you have a flammable object and a flaming sword, you can just swing one at the other. If it doesn't light, you assume the sword can't light the object. You don't try to swing the flaming sword at the flammable object and find yourself suddenly paralyzed and unable to try such a thing, like you do in a turn based game.

And if you don't want to feel anything while playing a game, you may as well play with spreadsheets instead. What is the point of names, graphics, descriptions, stories or characters if not to make the player feel something? If you've never felt fear or excitement while playing an RPG, you've been playing some awfully shitty games.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Wait, what? Where do all these imaginary extra controls come from? Surely if kicking in a turn-based game is an extra command then it's also an extra command in a real-time action RPG. Same for igniting an object. And why can't you use a physics engine behind the scenes to calculate what you can and cannot do in a turn-based game?
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,983
No, igniting an object needs to be a seperate command in a turn based game because everything you do has to be a discrete, specific action, with discrete targets. If I'm holding a burning torch in an action game, I can swing it at thin air, a pool of water, the ground, an enemy, or whatever the fuck I want. If it's a turn based game, I can usually just use it for light. Maybe I can also use it as a weapon, but then I'm still limited to swinging at enemies, unless you can swing weapons at thin air or objects. Look at how something like Nethack handles weapon use: You can swing at an enemy, or thin air, or an ally, or a wall, but only at 'spaces'. You can't swing your sword at a potion to shatter it. You can't swing your mace at a chest on the ground to shatter it; they had to implement a separate command to force the lock with your weapon, then implement chances of breaking the lock, the chest contents, and the weapon based on various things. This adds in stupid metagame elements too if not handled flawlessly, stuff like giving you the option of interacting with mysteriously conspicuous objects. Why can I interact with the candles on the table but not the silverware? Oh, the candles are special items, while the silverware is a background detail.

In an action game, swinging your weapon isn't limited to any set of targets. The default is to let you swing at anything you're looking at. It might not have the effect you want (lol invincible panes of glass) but it'll never stop you from trying. Can you imagine if you were playing a PnP game, told the DM you wanted to swing your weapon at the window, and he said 'lol you can't even try, there's no rule for that'.

It'd be like the difference between a game of D&D being played normally, or having the players only answer questions fed to them by the DM or select predefined actions. I'd much rather figure out and volunteer myself the idea to smash the head of the glowing statue, than have the game ask me if I want to out of the blue, or be made available to select for attack even though none of the other furniture in the dungeon was.
 

Kaanyrvhok

Arbiter
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
1,096
thesoup said:
I wouldn't call RTWP games action games. No one plays them purely RT anyway.

Action games require player skill, or rather dexterity / muscle memory, something no one needs to play Baldur's Gate or PS:T.

Besides console shooters I dont know too many action or sports games that take that much in dexterity or muscle memory. I wouldn't even say a fighting game takes it.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
DamnedRegistrations said:
No, igniting an object needs to be a seperate command in a turn based game because everything you do has to be a discrete, specific action, with discrete targets. If I'm holding a burning torch in an action game, I can swing it at thin air, a pool of water, the ground, an enemy, or whatever the fuck I want. If it's a turn based game, I can usually just use it for light. Maybe I can also use it as a weapon, but then I'm still limited to swinging at enemies, unless you can swing weapons at thin air or objects. Look at how something like Nethack handles weapon use: You can swing at an enemy, or thin air, or an ally, or a wall, but only at 'spaces'. You can't swing your sword at a potion to shatter it. You can't swing your mace at a chest on the ground to shatter it; they had to implement a separate command to force the lock with your weapon, then implement chances of breaking the lock, the chest contents, and the weapon based on various things. This adds in stupid metagame elements too if not handled flawlessly, stuff like giving you the option of interacting with mysteriously conspicuous objects. Why can I interact with the candles on the table but not the silverware? Oh, the candles are special items, while the silverware is a background detail.
:what:

How do you swing a torch in your action RPG? Equip it and and then left mouse click. How would you do it in a turn-based game? Equip it and attack the space in front of you. There is no difference. How about attacking random pieces of furniture? Yep. You can do that in, say, Ultima VI. You just press the attack button and choose a target. I don't understand at all why you think that turn-based games need super complex controls to achieve what real-time games can do. It's bizarre. It's like you have one single game in mind when you think of turn-based RPGs and all the concepts and possibilities of turn-based gameplay comes straight from it. Which game is it? Care to tell me?
 

BLOBERT

FUCKING SLAYINGN IT BROS
Patron
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
4,236
Location
BRO
Codex 2012
I THINK THE BRO IS GETTING AT THE POINT THAT AN ARPG LETS YOU SWING YOU WEAPON AT ANYTHING WHILE TURNBASED USUALLY INVOLVES DISCREET TARGETS

IN A TURN BASED GAME YOU USUALLY PICK ONE SPACE OR TILE FOR YOUR ACTION WHEREAS AN ARPG OFFERS A MUCH LARGER POSSIBILITY OF TARGETS

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A GEERALIZATION BUT THE BRO IS RIGHT IN AN ACTION GAME IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO BREAK A TABLE WITH YOUR SWORD IN OE HAND THEN SHOOT THE DEBRIS IN THE OTHER WITH A PISTOL OR IN AN ARPG YOU SWING AT THE TABLE BUT CATCH AN ENEMY STANDING TO CLOSE

THESE ACTIONS ARE MORE COMPLEX IN TURN BASED GAMES AND AGAIN IT IS THE DIFFERECE BETWEEN REPRESENTING DISCREET UNITS VERSUS ACTIONS IN AN OPEN SPACE IN REAL TIME

I DONT THINK THIS IS POPAMOLE JUSTIFICATION IT IS JUST A DESCRIPTION OF REALIUTY

AND I THINK NO JUDGEMENT IS IMPLIED THERE ARE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES TO ANY SET OF PARAMETERS
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Sure, but grid versus no grid is another discussion entirely. You could have a very decent turn-based RPG without a grid in which you can select individual objects by the pixel to perform actions on.
 

BLOBERT

FUCKING SLAYINGN IT BROS
Patron
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
4,236
Location
BRO
Codex 2012
BRO YEAH I AGREE BUT I THIK THE OTHER BRO IS GETTING AT THE FACT THAT USUALLY REAL TIME GAMES HAVE MORE OPTION LIKE HIS EXAMPLES BECAUSE IT IS EASIER TO DO AND THE COMPLEXITY OF ALLOWING ALL POSSIBLE OPTIONS IN A TURN BASED GAME MAY DETRACT FROM WHAT MAKES IT GOOD IE FOCUS ON ECOUNTER STRATEGY

I COULD BE WRONG THOUGH

YEAH I GET WHERE YOU ARE GOING VS GRID AND NON GRID BUT ARE THERE ANY TURN BASED GAMES THAT ALLOW THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENVIROMENTAL INTERACTIVETY IN COMBAT SITUATIONS!!?

I THINK THE FORMAT OF REAL TIME IN AD OF ITSELF ALLOWS FOR MORE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIVETY AND WIDEST RANGE OF APPLICATIONS FOR A GIVEN ACTION BUT AGAIN I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THIS MAKES REAL TIME SUPERIOR BY ANY MEANS

I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT OF EITHER OR BEING SUPERIOR I TOTALLY AM INTO TURN BASED COMBAT DONE RIGHT

AND NOT TO BELABOR ANY OTHER POINTS FROM OTHER THREADS BUT REAL TIME DONE RIGHT WOULD BE DARK SOULS VERSUS DIABLO BECUASE IN DIABLO IT SEEMS THERE IS NO REAL GAMEPLAY REASON FOR IT TO BE REAL TIME OTHER THAN APPEAL TO THE POPAMOLE

AGAIN BRO THIS IS MY OPINION AND THE OTHER BRO GOT ME THINKING ABOUT THIS I AM NOT SURE I AM RIGHT
 

Giauz Ragnacock

Scholar
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
502
MMXI: No, I do not support feature creep (and while I never was in the know on anything Duke Nukem Forever all the years it was supposed to finally go gold, neither should any of its fans). I just believe that platforming has proven to be a reward in itself over the many years of gaming, and just making it a movement command feels... wrong. Having your jump mechanics start out horrible and later on change up on you every now and then like in Morrowind also disenchanted me.
 

CreamyBlood

Arcane
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,392
Wow, nine pages of watching the newfags hash it out yet again. Not a big deal, there were some good insights in there, plus I'm an idiot. It's nice to know that someone is still carrying the torch. Carry on... my wayward sons.
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,662
So... yeah... Dark Souls is pretty good. It sorta reminded me of roguelikes or something like Ultima Underworld except updated for the modern audience. More Western than western RPGs. Gothic. Interesting gameplay mechanics. Gritty, suckadick difficulty. Doesn't give a shit about the player. Warns you of hard areas by killing you. Warns you of easy areas by killing you. My kind of game.
 

sigma1932

Augur
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
119
oldmansavage said:
An RPG in my opinion must have two qualities in order to be considered as such.

1. Character progression

2. Combat where your success is determined by character skill opposed to player skill.

1. I agree, given that by "character progression", you mean they grow in ability inherently, and not merely as a result of finding new items or having old men with white beards teach them new tricks. Also, said progression must be MEANINGFUL-- as in there needs to be point in the game where if you don't advance your character, they can't continue due to lack of character ability.

If you give a bunch of stats to a guy, but they don't really matter either because the mechanics are so badly designed, or because every character ends up with the same stats in the end(i.e. FO3's character building system in both cases), that's not character progression, that's cosmetic BS.

2. I agree here as well, however i'd expand this point to include concepts outside of combat as well... it should be about your character's ability to lead, persuade, entertain, pick locks, hack computers, turn lead into gold, eat large amounts of food, drink merrily, etc. and also about what the character knows (i.e. not just quest info, but also general knowledge within the setting) as opposed to what the player knows.

The point of an RPG is about directing the character(s) to accomplish goals within their measurable skill and knowledge limits, and avoid substituting the player's skill and knowledge for the character's.

That said, I'd also add a third point:

3. There must be some challenge, obstacle, or goal for the character to be directed to accomplish or overcome rather than just having he player set their own benchmarks. Usually this will be "quest" or "story related", but its no required to be-- a game that's 100% sandbox and nothing else isn't an RPG, it's a sim.

mondblut said:
Poor Traveller, he can't play with us any more.

Sounds more like an adventure game to me (aka Zelda-- reach checkpoint/claim doodad/accomplish task, get stronger).
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
sigma1932 said:
Sounds more like an adventure game to me (aka Zelda-- reach checkpoint/claim doodad/accomplish task, get stronger).

The second oldest roleplaying game in the world is "like zelda". Yeah, right.

A module containing not nearly enough harvestable xp to get one character up one level is probably an adventure game too. :roll:
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
I was going to say something like:

"So a cRPG in which you can only get to level 1.99999 is an adventure game while a cRPG in which you can get to level 2 is an RPG?"

Imagine a piece of DLC that raises the level cap from 1.99999 to 2. It could be called "The RPG DLC".
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
Well now its done and everyone agreed its the best rpg of the year, i demand dark souls avatars for the forum!
 

sigma1932

Augur
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
119
mondblut said:
sigma1932 said:
Sounds more like an adventure game to me (aka Zelda-- reach checkpoint/claim doodad/accomplish task, get stronger).

The second oldest roleplaying game in the world is "like zelda". Yeah, right.

A module containing not nearly enough harvestable xp to get one character up one level is probably an adventure game too. :roll:

If that module is the entire game, then, well...I can't say it's an adventure game, because there's a whole other set of definitions for that, but...I CAN say it's not an RPG... not because the character didn't grow inherently -- they did -- but since they didn't grow enough to level-up, the character buliding system is without a doubt meaningless, and therefore it's not an RPG. (more on this after the next quote).

See how that works?

Regardless, all I was saying was it sounds more like an adventure game than an RPG... not that I think there's something wrong with it, or wrong with adventure games for that matter... It might be better than many RPGs out there, so don't get so butthurt over it.

MMXI said:
I was going to say something like:

"So a cRPG in which you can only get to level 1.99999 is an adventure game while a cRPG in which you can get to level 2 is an RPG?"

Imagine a piece of DLC that raises the level cap from 1.99999 to 2. It could be called "The RPG DLC".

Depends how much of a difference that one level makes... but for sake of brevity, I think it's a pretty safe argument that gaining one level isn't going to make a significant difference in overall gameplay, so that one level alone isn't going to make it an RPG, and if it does, the emtire character building system as a whole is probably too shallow to have any significant meaning on gameplay in the first place, which means it's still not an RPG.

On that note, just to prevent the idiocy on the level of adding a third level of XP to this discussion and having it spiral into some other vortex of inane devil's advocatry like so many brown floaters being flushed down the porcelain offering bowl... where the threshold of "meaningful difference" in character ability exists is a subjective argument that can only be derived on a case-by-case basis... plus, unless a company wants to rocket themselves into bankruptcy by making such a lobotomized I-do-know-what of a game, they're more than welcome to liquidate their assets and send me the money... I'll even set a portion of it aside for a marketing campaign to tell their target audience to go play ProgressQuest instead.

That way, at least their credit rating would remain somewhat intact.

.....................................

K, WTF was that? I need to go to bed, being awake for 34 straight hours is too much...
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Played it a bit. It's pretty fun. Originally started off with a Wanderer with the Little Being's Ring, but quickly quit that shit in the Undead Parrish once I better understood the character system and gifts. Started up a Pyromancer instead and took the Master Key, instead of the ring of health regeneration ring that does...nothing. Endurance (need more roll power) and Intelligence are what I'm focusing on, though I did pump Dexterity and Strength a bit to have some combat ability, like being able to use a shortbow, or this nice sword I found (turns out the developers knew people would try and cheese the red drake fight, so instead of letting you kill it that way, they pat you on the head for your cleverness and give you a powerful weapon).

My actionfag senses detect a few things wrong with the combat, like somewhat clunky controls, strange button-mapping, cheap enemy placement, goofy lock-on mechanics (especially on big bosses), and weird hitboxes, but the issues are mostly minor, and while having your character die to one of these issues is annoying, it isn't a common enough occurrence to really drag the game down...yet.

Level design is really great though. Areas are crammed full of secrets to find...including deadly enemies. This (and New Vegas) are how exploration should be handled in open world action RPGs, not the godawful Bethesda way.

So far, so good. Once I kill this cheesy goat demon, I should be able to get back to having a bunch of fun crawling around some dungeons, hacking and burning things up.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
oldmansavage said:
2. Combat where your success is determined by character skill opposed to player skill.

Counterpoint: Imagine if you will a tactical roleplaying game where the enemies have vastly higher stats than your units and in order to win the player has to plan his moves extremely carefully.

(For a real life example, try FE11 Hard 5 mode with no Generals)

There is no action element whatsoever, but it is not really accurate to say that no player skill was involved. Player skill was actually very significant to success. Specifically, the mental skill of planning the proper moves. Character stats alone certainly didn't give you the victory.

So I think your point number 2 is poorly phrased; there are forms of player skill besides that found in action games.
 

Mortmal

Arcane
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
9,158
Edward_R_Murrow said:
Played it a bit. It's pretty fun. Originally started off with a Wanderer with the Little Being's Ring, but quickly quit that shit in the Undead Parrish once I better understood the character system and gifts. Started up a Pyromancer instead and took the Master Key, instead of the ring of health regeneration ring that does...nothing. Endurance (need more roll power) and Intelligence are what I'm focusing on, though I did pump Dexterity and Strength a bit to have some combat ability, like being able to use a shortbow, or this nice sword I found (turns out the developers knew people would try and cheese the red drake fight, so instead of letting you kill it that way, they pat you on the head for your cleverness and give you a powerful weapon).

My actionfag senses detect a few things wrong with the combat, like somewhat clunky controls, strange button-mapping, cheap enemy placement, goofy lock-on mechanics (especially on big bosses), and weird hitboxes, but the issues are mostly minor, and while having your character die to one of these issues is annoying, it isn't a common enough occurrence to really drag the game down...yet.

Level design is really great though. Areas are crammed full of secrets to find...including deadly enemies. This (and New Vegas) are how exploration should be handled in open world action RPGs, not the godawful Bethesda way.

So far, so good. Once I kill this cheesy goat demon, I should be able to get back to having a bunch of fun crawling around some dungeons, hacking and burning things up.

Be careful with int, pyromancy doesnt scale with it, however soul magic does scale with and of course some weapons.
One problem with it or maybe its another quality, is once you choosed you cannot get back, attacking a friendly npc changing your stats, its done its done!
You should have a look on the wiki character builds if you fear to mess up:
http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/PvE ... +engine%29
 

sigma1932

Augur
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
119
PorkaMorka said:
oldmansavage said:
2. Combat where your success is determined by character skill opposed to player skill.

Counterpoint: Imagine if you will a tactical roleplaying game where the enemies have vastly higher stats than your units and in order to win the player has to plan his moves extremely carefully.

(For a real life example, try FE11 Hard 5 mode with no Generals)

There is no action element whatsoever, but it is not really accurate to say that no player skill was involved. Player skill was actually very significant to success. Specifically, the mental skill of planning the proper moves. Character stats alone certainly didn't give you the victory.

So I think your point number 2 is poorly phrased; there are forms of player skill besides that found in action games.

I expect Oldmansavage to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he means that how well the player aims an on-screen crosshair and how quickly they spam a button or other such real-world actions shouldn't influence your character's combat prowess, no how smartly they manipulate the characters within the confines of the game mechanics-- which is the whole point of an RPG.

Just because you might able to reliably plant the crosshair on the correct pixel on your screen to pick a worm off an apple hanging from a tree from half an in-game mile away dosn't mean your character can reliably pick the same worm off the same apple from the same distance unless something in his backgrond that's reflected in his stats/abilties/etc. says he can.

Likewise, as a converse and non-combat example, if the player for some odd reason can't seem to succeed at completing the lockpicking minigame (the difficulty of which is unaffected by your character's lockpicking skill) that comes up every time they direct the character to pick a lock, that shouldn't mean the character isn't skilled enough to open the lock successfully. (In other words, I'm saying the lockpicking mini-game in FO3/NV in theory brings the player's abilities into the mix rather relying solely on the character's lockpicking ability, and takes away from the RPG factor of the game).

I'll reiterate my elaboration of this point again: the basic point of an RPG is for the player to manipulate their characters within those characters' ability/knowledge/etc. limitations and those of the game-world's mechanics, without real-world influences, to complete tasks/challenges/goals/etc.

That is, to do exactly what you're describing in the example you provide... because the player's intellect isn't adding some sort of statistical bonus to, for this example, their "troops" that they couldn't othewise achieve within the limitations of the game's mechanics, so it's allowed.

Otherwise, the context you're taking his statement to is basically saying the player isn't allowed to participate in the game at all except to start it up and maybe click a "continue" button.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
Right. I don't disagree with your point, I'm just saying that there is probably a better way to phrase it. "Success is not determined by player skill" makes sense when provide a long explanation of what you mean, but it's a bit misleading when you just look at the plain meaning of the words.

It's especially confusing because there are some RPGs where the player doesn't really need to think or do much beyond grind up his stats to win. So you could criticize those RPGs for not requiring enough (mental) player skill to win.
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
Use terms like somatic skill or motor skill instead of sounding like a retard
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
3,585
Location
Motherfuckerville
Mortmal said:
Be careful with int, pyromancy doesnt scale with it, however soul magic does scale with and of course some weapons.

Thanks for the tip bro. It seemed like pyromancy should scale with intelligence...but it doesn't. Just the pyromancer's flame determines damage output. That's interesting, as it means I can free up more points to go into strength and dexterity, while leveling endurance and attunement, for a more Fighter/Mage type of build. Not a huge fan of the sorceries either. The soul arrows have terrible tracking, and enemies can easily dodge them unless they happen to be a huge butterfly.

I'm in Blighttown now, and I've explored a bunch of optional areas too, though I found a few roadblocks in some of those areas namely ghosts, drakes, and a big hydra. Fun stuff, though Blighttown is murder on the frame rate and it is so easy to fall to your death. Once I fix up my controller, I'll probably be diving back into the game. So far, pretty solid, with a few flaws, but it's looking like RPG of the year 2011, unless some indie title slips in.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom