Crispy™ Have we hit PEAK RPG?

[Volrath]

Very low troll effort by the Greek Goatfucker.

Sad.

 

[Sigourn]

1) I am not confusing ANYTHING. It is YOU people who confuse the "i find it more fun" for "Everyone finds it more fun". We had that autistic "lady blogger" previously claiming that Fallout is the greatest crpg of all time, and i responded to that. Just because she finds Fallout great does not mean the general public does.

1. No one is saying everyone finds Fallout more fun. It would be a direct contradiction in a forum that constantly complains about the decline of cRPGs. How could there be such a decline if Fallout is universally accepted as the most fun game?
2. That many of us think Fallout is better than the newer games is proof alone that the newer games haven't surpassed Fallout. Why? Because if a game surpasses Fallout, it follows logically that we would agree with that and thus enjoy said game (like Fallout 3 or Fallout 4).
   
3. This is all our opinion. Of course, when we talk about "have games surpassed Fallout?", we are exclusively talking about our opinion.

Even then, opinion can be argued for. There's no argument as to why Fallout 3 is a better, or rather, a "better made" game and a better RPG than Fallout. People boil it down to:

1. It's fun!
2. Turn-based is boring!
3. Liam Neeson!
4. Atmosphere!

None of which have anything to do with an RPG. The second actually conceals the fact that Fallout 3 is a first-person shooter with RPG elements poorly tacked on top (something which New Vegas also suffers from, but New Vegas places more emphasis on quests as opposed to combat).

According to sales numbers, the most accurate and objective possible metric to judge what people find fun, the original 2 Fallouts were not fun at all, with sales numbers so low that even an indie release today would consider an utter failure. Also not many people still play those 2.

It is a fact that more people find Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 fun. It is not a fact that sales numbers automatically make them better than Fallout and Fallout 2.

2) No one is the absolute authority on what a crpg is and is not.

No one is, but I would much rather listen to the people who devote their time to cRPGs, as opposed to the mouth breathing retards that think that just because they like Mass Effect, Fallout 3 or Dragon Age they "love" cRPGs. No they don't. They don't love cRPGs. It's like saying you love women but you are only interested in shemales. The reason they love those games has nothing to do with those games being "RPGs".

Just because you imagine that Fallout 4 is not a crpg, does not mean it is not. It is definitely part crpg, it has a detailed character system with stats that influence combat directly, it has lots of NPCs and C&C, etc etc. It is an action-rpg that is perfectly valid. Not every crpg needs to be a sperg-fest spreadsheet simulator.

I'm doing Fallout 4 a service by not calling it an RPG, because if I did I would have to explain why it is such a terrible one. Someone already did that for me.

3) Technical limitations often influence the genre of the game, and what is considered possible.

True.

Back in the 1970s developers couldn't create openworld crpgs like Skyrim and Witcher 3, even if they wanted. It was not because gamers in the 70s and 80s didn't want to play such games, it was because the technology wasn't there to make them.

Skyrim and The Witcher 3 are not cRPGs. Other than that, true.

Similarly, back in the 90s, isometric was the best way to deliver quality art representation for rpgs of the day.

I personally agree with this.

Fast forward to late 2000s and 2010s, and the technology is there for RPGs to deliver rich 3D open worlds. And that is the standard that modern crpgs need to strive for

Why? For what purpose?

So yes, it is perfectly valid to compare the older fallouts to the newer ones, even if they have changed perspective. The old isometric perspective was a technology limitation, not a design choice

But this is where you are wrong. You are implying that isometric games were done purely because of technological limitations, even though you later explain why this isn't the case:

You want to deliver a tactical party based game

and even then, you are missing more stuff to mention, the most important of which is a cRPG actually being a cRPG, as opposed to an action game or a shooter with RPG elements tacked on top.

(Modded) New Vegas is my favorite Fallout game, but when it comes to vanilla there's no doubt that Fallout mops the floor with it. Even if we take mods into account, there's no doubt Fallout is the better RPG: "missing", for instance, is something that is accomplished in very shitty ways in New Vegas that goes directly against what a first-person shooter should play like.

You have budget constraints and can't create a 3D game

This is like saying people who paint landscapes only do that because they don't have a camera. Which is stupid. It's a decision one makes.

You said more things I'm not interesting in tackling because it ultimately boils down to opinion. "Voice acting" so far has proven to be more trouble than it is worth: it's only benefit is that people tend to buy games that have voice acting over games that don't. But with voice acting, you tend to run into stuff such as:

1. Poor voice acting. Very common in Bethesda games.
2. NPCs share the same voice actors. Again, universally true in Bethesda games. All NPCs in Morrowind sound the same bar a few.
3. The voices don't fit the characters. This can be very annoying for people.
   
4. It requires more money and as a consequence, games with voice acting will have fewer lines than games with no voice acting.

The only thing that you have said that makes any sense is "cRPGs don't sell well". Which by no means translates to "people don't enjoy cRPGs and cRPGs should cease existing", a blatant lie.

 

[Machocruz]

Sales numbers are only solid proof of interest, not post-purchase satisfaction. Where is the empirical evidence that most people felt, for example, that Fallout 4 was more fun/better than 3 since it sold more? No accounting for the vastly different circumstances surrounding the releases of old Fallout and new Fallouts, yet we see fit to judge their sales and popularity on the same footing. I suppose you can argue the probability that a game that sells a lot more than another has a larger number of people who found it fun, simply by virtue of audience size, but that's not what is being said here with the sales argument. And it's not helpful either. If only half of the 10 million people who bought game A found it fun, but all of the 1 million people who bought game B found it fun...see the problem?

 

[HeatEXTEND]

1) I am not confusing ANYTHING. snip

No way anyone is this thick and clueless without realizing it in the slightest bit themselves. I mean, there are boundaries to blatant stupidity. You're trying I guess, but you're pushing it a bit hard here.
Like:

It makes no sense, really. Having rich 3D open worlds, voice acted characters, cutscenes, etc, is a vast improvement

Like how movies made books obsolete? See how you're pushing it into the realm of absolute dumbfuckery; tone it down a bit, you're making it too easy to just disregard you as a sad sack of dumb; that's bad trolling.

 

[Deleted Member 16721]

You are mixing up your own so-called personal "incline" with actual incline. In my holy texts, it is written that incline is about the games themselves rather than one's newfound good taste, widescreen mods or increased accessibility for the plebs through 3rd party clients.

Why did I use quotes there? Because playing Fallout for the first time 21 years after it came out is hardly incline. More like an embarrassment. The horse bolted two decades ago. That's when the incline was.

And you have 200+ "quality RPGs" in your backlog and yet didn't get around to playing the greatest pure RPG ever until now? Double embarrassment.

Even if true, it is funny to me that someone would admit to those things on the 'Dex. Better to keep embarrassing things to yourself.

Also, Renaissance aficionados are not upset. Since 1996, we have basked in the radiant glory of the inexhaustible Renaissance.

There is no end of happiness in sight for us. We don't look forward with hope, we don't look backwards with regret. We've always been in the Renaissance, and we always will be.

It's not about my personal incline, it's about others like me who are doing the same thing. To say it's embarassing because I didn't have a gaming computer in 1997 when I was 12 years old to play Fallout is pretty silly Lilura. The fact that I and others can play it now is a testament to its lasting power and greatness.

It seems like you want to feel superior because you're probably older and played these games when they released, and don't want to share your toys with others. Unfortunately I can't play every single game all the time, but I've played hundreds of RPGs over my lifetime. I've been gaming since I was 4 years old with my first system being an Atari and it wouldn't be many years until I could discover and explore PC RPGs that I didn't even know existed when I was growing up.

So now we can all enjoy the Renaissance even if yes, it happened years ago and we understand those type of exact RPGs are not being made anymore. It's still incline that we can enjoy them today mostly hassle-free. I am very happy discovering these classics years later because I enjoy the classic style of CRPG too, but it wasn't until years into my life that I learned that's what I wanted. You can't fault somebody for that who grew up in an era that also featured consoles, and PCs were expensive for poorer families back then. So to shit on my discoveries is pretty selfish, but I'm not mad at you. If it wasn't for the efforts of Steam, GOG, modders, and kind RPG people then it would be much harder to play the classics today, and I appreciate that and call that incline. And it's not like we have a shortage of good modern RPGs to play, either. I'll always play NWN modules but it's nice to have Kingmaker, Bard's Tale 4, Lords of Xulima and a ton of others to play with too. More access to RPGs of all types in this modern era = incline. That's my stance on it.

 

[Achilles]

I am ashamed that TemplarGR is my compatriot.

 

[wyes gull]

I am ashamed that TemplarGR is my compatriot.

You have an island for lesbians, an island for homos and even an island for refugees. Why not fashion an island for retards, call it "Bottomofthesea-os" and boot the fucker?

 

[Achilles]

I am ashamed that TemplarGR is my compatriot.

You have an island for lesbians, an island for homos and even an island for refugees. Why not fashion an island for retards, call it "Bottomofthesea-os" and boot the fucker?

We have the island of Yaros where the military dictatorship used to exile communists on.

 

[orcinator]

Yes, Fallout’s skills are unbalanced. That’s good! It makes the game far more replayable. If you’re just making the same character every time, you don’t understand even a third of what the original Fallouts have to offer. And you sure as shit haven’t seen the whole game.

It's fine that everyone's playing kick the autistic but you shouldn't lie on the internet about how Fallout's shallow, trap filled mechanics are good.

 

[Luckmann]

I am sure this has nothing to do with demographics and relative IQ differences between evolutionary population groups.

There was a paper by Bratsberg and Rogeberg for declining iqs in norway. Biggest factor is dysgenics, which swamps the impact of immigration.

You say that as if one does not immediately relate to and correlate with the other.

 

[anvi]

Gaming has barely even begun. In 100 years you will plug your brain into a computer and live inside a new world that looks just like real life, only you can use magic and weapons in your journey to be a hero or villain. Gaming will be indistinguishable from the shit played today. I shouldn't need to explain this to anyone when the entire history of gaming is available for you to see and play online. Stop being so shit codex.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

In 100 years you will plug your brain into a computer and live inside a new world that looks just like real life, only you can use magic and weapons in your journey to be a hero or villain.

no thx

 

[anvi]

In 100 years you will plug your brain into a computer and live inside a new world that looks just like real life, only you can use magic and weapons in your journey to be a hero or villain.

no thx

Relax, you need a brain to plug it into a computer.

 

[TemplarGR]

I see a lot of people saw fit to trashtalk me and talk shit about my opinion, blatantly avoiding my arguments and just repeating the stupidity ad-nauseum.

I will avoid repeating myself, and i am not in the mood for continuing this debate and derailing the thread, makes no sense anyway and i can't handle responding to tens of spergs all by myself, but i would like to clarify and comment on some things that caught my eye:

No one is saying everyone finds Fallout more fun. It would be a direct contradiction in a forum that constantly complains about the decline of cRPGs. How could there be such a decline if Fallout is universally accepted as the most fun game?

I was responding to Lilura who in plenty of posts said exactly that. She specifically attacked another poster and claimed that the 1996-2002 games are better games than anything else, even by modern standards. Therefore more fun to play now. It is clear as day, she claimed the very thing "no one is saying" according to you...

Sales numbers are only solid proof of interest, not post-purchase satisfaction. Where is the empirical evidence that most people felt, for example, that Fallout 4 was more fun/better than 3 since it sold more? No accounting for the vastly different circumstances surrounding the releases of old Fallout and new Fallouts, yet we see fit to judge their sales and popularity on the same footing. I suppose you can argue the probability that a game that sells a lot more than another has a larger number of people who found it fun, simply by virtue of audience size, but that's not what is being said here with the sales argument. And it's not helpful either. If only half of the 10 million people who bought game A found it fun, but all of the 1 million people who bought game B found it fun...see the problem?

Actually, you just wrote a paragraph full of WRONG.

Let me put it this way, what is the best metric that people found a game to be fun, according to you? How can you determine that people liked a game, if not for sales?

Steam reviews are meaningless. A metric ton of shit have stellar steam reviews, and a ton of great games have poor steam reviews. Steam reviews are no indication of quality because not everyone who played a game writes a review about it. Not everyone has the same criteria nor review standards. It is a shitshow.

Metacritic user section is even worse for reasons we all understand...

So what? Completion rates? Well most of the games you people find "fun" should be considered total trash if we go by the numbers of people actually bothering to play after the first Act in most rpgs...

What else? The RPGCodex circlejerk? Were everyone will make 100 alts to vote Age of Decadence because it was made by Vault Dweller? And everyone will shittalk games like Skyrim even though it is his most played game going by steam counter?

How can you tell how a whole community received a game, other than sales numbers?

It is not a flawless metric, it can be influenced by many factors, but it still is the BEST of what we have.

Because in the end, if you are not having fun with a game, you are not going to buy it, or its sequel... It is as simple as that, and it is the most objective metric you can have if you want to assess community enjoyment of a product.

 

[Black Angel]

 

[HeatEXTEND]

How can you tell how a whole community received a game, other than sales numbers?

What community? Flies eat shit, ratata-ra-ta-tata that's all folks.

 

[TemplarGR]

What community? Flies eat shit, ratata-ra-ta-tata that's all folks.

The GAMING community, DUH!

 

[The_Mask]

The GAMING community, DUH!

Nice new tag you got there.

 

[Machocruz]

Sales numbers are only solid proof of interest, not post-purchase satisfaction. Where is the empirical evidence that most people felt, for example, that Fallout 4 was more fun/better than 3 since it sold more? No accounting for the vastly different circumstances surrounding the releases of old Fallout and new Fallouts, yet we see fit to judge their sales and popularity on the same footing. I suppose you can argue the probability that a game that sells a lot more than another has a larger number of people who found it fun, simply by virtue of audience size, but that's not what is being said here with the sales argument. And it's not helpful either. If only half of the 10 million people who bought game A found it fun, but all of the 1 million people who bought game B found it fun...see the problem?

Actually, you just wrote a paragraph full of WRONG.

Let me put it this way, what is the best metric that people found a game to be fun, according to you? How can you determine that people liked a game, if not for sales?

There is no best metric and you can only determine that people liked a game by them saying so or doing some kind of brain study while they are playing it.

Steam reviews are meaningless. A metric ton of shit have stellar steam reviews, and a ton of great games have poor steam reviews. Steam reviews are no indication of quality because not everyone who played a game writes a review about it. Not everyone has the same criteria nor review standards. It is a shitshow.

Metacritic user section is even worse for reasons we all understand...

So what? Completion rates? Well most of the games you people find "fun" should be considered total trash if we go by the numbers of people actually bothering to play after the first Act in most rpgs...

What else? The RPGCodex circlejerk? Were everyone will make 100 alts to vote Age of Decadence because it was made by Vault Dweller? And everyone will shittalk games like Skyrim even though it is his most played game going by steam counter?

How can you tell how a whole community received a game, other than sales numbers?

It is not a flawless metric, it can be influenced by many factors, but it still is the BEST of what we have.

Because in the end, if you are not having fun with a game, you are not going to buy it, or its sequel... It is as simple as that, and it is the most objective metric you can have if you want to assess community enjoyment of a product.

We don't have an adequate metric and you can't tell how a WHOLE community received a game unless you engage in extensive and rigorous polling, which will never happen and people are dishonest anyway. Is there a natural law stating that an adequate metric must exist? "The best of what we have" isn't good enough, unless you are lazy, because it lacks concrete information on the thing you are using it to measure. It is not an objective metric at all. Sales, at best, mean someone saw something they think they MIGHT like or had confidence they would get some value or satisfaction out of but provides no information about their actual satisfaction level after they bought and used the product. If they did, you would be able to provide hard evidence of such, but you haven't and you can't. How can you know if you are having fun with the game if you don't have it in the first place? People buy games they wind up not liking ALL THE TIME. Your metric and argument on this point would be useless to anyone who came along looking for definite information on this subject, and definite information is the only information with any value.

And btw, "communities" are fish bowls and who gives a shit what they think. When you are selling Skyrim, Fallout 4 or Rockstar numbers, you are selling to normies, and normies are not part of 'muh gaem communitah.' Tell them they are and they'll look at you like get away from me nerd.

 

[Darth Canoli]

What else? The RPGCodex circlejerk? Were everyone will make 100 alts to vote Age of Decadence because it was made by Vault Dweller? And everyone will shittalk games like Skyrim even though it is his most played game going by steam counter?

People with good taste prefer to watch Hitchcock movies over Guardians of the Galaxy 2.

And yet, over 28 movies, Hitchcock managed half Guardians of Galaxy 2 income, box office wise.

What does that tell us ? Hitchcock movies are a pile of shit and Guardians of Galaxy 2 is a masterpiece ?

I tried to watch that movie (Guardians thing 2), it was the dumbest thing i ever watched and i watched some shit, dude.

My dear TemplarGR you're on the right path to top your mate anvi tag wise, don't let us stop you.

P.S. Box office numbers :
Hitchcock : https://www.the-numbers.com/person/66230401-Alfred-Hitchcock#tab=summary
GotG 2 : https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel17a.htm

 

[TemplarGR]

People with good taste prefer to watch Hitchcock movies over Guardians of the Galaxy 2.

And yet, over 28 movies, Hitchcock managed half Guardians of Galaxy 2 income, box office wise.

What does that tell us ? Hitchcock movies are a pile of shit and Guardians of Galaxy 2 is a masterpiece ?

I tried to watch that movie (Guardians thing 2), it was the dumbest thing i ever watched and i watched some shit, dude.

My dear TemplarGR you're on the right path to top your mate anvi tag wise, don't let us stop you.

P.S. Box office numbers :
Hitchcock : https://www.the-numbers.com/person/66230401-Alfred-Hitchcock#tab=summary
GotG 2 : https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel17a.htm

You are comparing apples to oranges, because you fail at logic...

First of all, you can't compare incomes of significantly distant years because of inflation and different market sizes.

Also, Hitchcock movies weren't marketed in the same way Marvel Movies get marketed

Third, people prefer to go to theaters to watch spectacular special effects. Other movies they tend to watch from home. Hitchcock movies are mostly "home movies".

Fourth, Guardians of the Galaxy 2 appeals to a vastly larger age group, and is most appealing to young people, who tend to visit theaters far more frequently than older people who are couch potatoes and prefer to stay at home.

I could go on, but you should have realized by now, if you have any working braincell left, that the reason you can't compare the two is because you are comparing sales on theaters, which is only 1 way you can experience a movie, with sales of video games which is pretty much the only way to experience them. If you don't buy a game, you don't play it. You could rent, but you can rent movies too, and renting movies is more efficient and popular than renting games, because games take much more time than movies...

Also, you make the mistake of comparing a niche Movie to an AAA movie, in terms of production values (no movie in Hitchcock franchise relies on special effects and production values).

All in all, sales between the 2 movies you mentioned aren't a comparable metric. Different audiences, different time, different production values, different genre. Nothing is comparable, so you can't use that as an argument in order to claim that sales on videogames don't matter...

I am willing to bet, that if you include TV and rentals, more people have watched Hitchcock movies than Guardian of the Galaxy 2, but you can't count them as boxoffice numbers...

 

[Valky]

TemplarGR's dumbfuck tag has been well earned.

edit: btw I'm 6'1''

 

[Darth Canoli]

Didn't he just get (or get back) the Bethestard tag ?

 

[Zer0wing]

TemplarGR Neat tag, how to get one?

 

[Apostle Hand]

Hitchcock movies

My favorite Hitchcock movies are Psycho, Frenzy, Strangers on a train and Shadow of a doubt.