Castanova
Prophet
We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
Jim Kata said:"That topic is about different matter that is not connected to that. Those games are hack&slash - crpg game that is combat fest and have no other parts, so if you consider that crpg why can't you consider game that don't have other element. Ok details:"
they are RPGs. Period. If you want to make a new genre, call it something else.
Jim Kata said:That would make it have rpg elements, but not make it an rpg game any more than the sims is an rpg. Even selecting at the bgeinning is an rpg element as well, but if you never change after that it's not an rpg.
Jim Kata said:The only reward is to see guys explode and to get loot and experience - ie character development.
Jim Kata said:Like I already said if you elminated that element then to make the combat worth playing you would have to add in either 1) an actiony skill element ala M&B or 2) strategic/tactical elements that make it interesting. Then, as I said, it would no longer be an RPG.
Jim Kata said:If this were actually implemented in games it would matter a little, but it's not implemented in games except in the most crudest of ways where it makes no difference.
Jim Kata said:The combat itself is dreck. It would be 100 times worse if it were not an rpg, though. The combat has no real challenge to it, and there are no real stratetic considerations beyond character build.
Jim Kata said:"btw. sr2 (your example) have parts of reactive world that we were talking about and character stat are minimalistic, getting read of them would change almost nothing. Getting rid of reactive world turn that good game into unplayable pointless piece of shit"
It has STRATEGIC elements that are reactive, which is a part of pretty much all strategy games. That is not the same at all and has nothing to do with choices like are mentioned in this thread.
Castanova said:We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
Then redumbfucking should suffice in your case.Jim Kata said:Castanova said:We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
The court jester is usually the wisest one in the kingdom.
TalesfromtheCrypt said:Then redumbfucking should suffice in your case.Jim Kata said:Castanova said:We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
The court jester is usually the wisest one in the kingdom.
Jim Kata said:TalesfromtheCrypt said:Then redumbfucking should suffice in your case.Jim Kata said:Castanova said:We already have a pretty princess.. I think it's time for a court jester.
The court jester is usually the wisest one in the kingdom.
Except that never happened, and deathy the tool simply illiterated me after cheating in the poll, and later it was taken back....
Dementia Praecox said:OK, Bryce and TFC, take your fucking bitchfight out of this thread. There were some interesting discussion going on here, but right now you are killing all incentive for keeping it up.
I wrote a long fucking reply where the general gist were that you, Bryce, only picked up all the "idiots" and "morons" in TFCs posts, and you, TFC, only were fueling the fire. For crissakes you are both just arguing for the sake of arguing. I deleted it because it wouldn't have it's intended effect. And you (both of you) know why?
Because you are to fucking easy to bait.
Edit: Alright, the point has been made already. All for the better.
Dementia Praecox said:GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!
YOU WHINY FUCKING BITCHES!
READ:
Dementia Praecox said:OK, Bryce and TFC, take your fucking bitchfight out of this thread. There were some interesting discussion going on here, but right now you are killing all incentive for keeping it up.
I wrote a long fucking reply where the general gist were that you, Bryce, only picked up all the "idiots" and "morons" in TFCs posts, and you, TFC, only were fueling the fire. For crissakes you are both just arguing for the sake of arguing. I deleted it because it wouldn't have it's intended effect. And you (both of you) know why?
Because you are to fucking easy to bait.
Edit: Alright, the point has been made already. All for the better.
Jim Kata said:Dementia Praecox said:GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!
YOU WHINY FUCKING BITCHES!
READ:
Dementia Praecox said:-snip-
You're the only one who seems upset to me.
Jim Kata said:galsiah said:Until then, can you either say something worthwhile, or shut up.
Go fuck yourself. The spirit of the thread is that of retardedness. I pointed out that that would not be an RPG and then hilarity ensued. Sorry, but I am not going to bow out when people start flaming me with their retardedness.
Your "point" was already made. As third post, no less. So, if the thread was so retarded you claim, why the hell did you post here in the first place? Other than fucking flame baiting, that is?Jabbapop said:adventure game lol
Again where do you get that? The key element is the progression. I prefer strategic combat over action but having action or strategy elements do not make a game not an rpg any more than having small rpg elements makes an action or strategy game an rpg.
No, it permeates gameplay at all levels in fallout. It is the basic reward mechanism for combat and is something to occupy the player ina nd of itself. Without it the combat (and thereby the majority of the game) would have to be redone completely.
Well, I am not sure what you are getting at. I think gothic was largely poor in the sense of this kind of rpgpeople like so much. As an rpg by my definition (which does not mean it's a good game, just an rpg, and which seems to be the historic rpg definition) it is an rpg I suppose, but a very limited one.
What is the big difference between choosing stats to be a Mage and spells and going to Mage school in Gothic? In Magic school you are limited whit xp but you could also be limited by different factors connected whit school itself, Gothic have great concept but it is done in very minimalistic and straight foward manner"
Not sure where you are going with this.
The_Pope said:The question isn't whether such a game would deserve the vaunted three letter acronym, it's whether it would be a good game.
The_Pope said:Seeing as the vast majority of games don't have character development based on foozles clicked, I'd say it could be. While foozle clicking with a small chance of reward keeps lobotomised rats and MMO players (is there even a difference?) entertained indefinitely, some people are really tired of it.
Bryce said:see guys explode and to get loot and experience - ie character development
It's a thought, but I don't think this alone does enough. What you're getting from this, is a progressive change in core gameplay (if combat is core). What you're not getting is interesting choice.The_Pope said:1) Political Power. You start the game by yourself, and rather than getting a thousand hit points, you use some of that immense treasury all RPGs give you to hire a thousand mercenaries. Then you lead them to kill head foozle.
This has most of the advantages of stat progression, but also most of the disadvantages. It's more realistic/coherent, but that's about it. You're just grinding gold (all too often) rather than xp, and focusing on an uninspiring idea: ubar lewt, rather than ubar stats.2) Items. Even without ubar magik, the difference between a peasant with a pitchfork and a knight in full plate armor atop a barded warhorse is immense. It also provided constantly changing gameplay to prevent the player from getting bored.
This has the issue that the system is likely to be as rigid as the story it's based on. Unless you have a story which changes completely with each playthrough (and I'm not saying you can't), the progress a player makes is directly tied to the story direction he takes.3) Story based stat progression. Instead of getting rewards for killing generic foozles, you'd get them when you reach certain points in the story.
Jim Kata said:HardCode said:Nah. After about 2:00 a.m., any guy who talks to any of the drunk sluts left over are Fabio in her eyes.
Well, I did not mean in a pickup sense though I guess these days that seems to be what people do at bars, but the 2am leftovers are usually only appealing if you've been drinking for the last six hours.
galsiah said:The central problem I see with character progression (of any variety), is that it's a dull idea - and one which frequently becomes a player focus. Stat sheets and perk choices etc. can be interesting, but it's an almost entirely inward process. The focus is on the PC, and on the PC vs the game mechanics - the game world itself is almost entirely irrelevant here.
This is a stupid approach IMO. There's nothing wrong with complex, interesting systems which present choice and opportunity - only why separate these from the game world? The point wouldn't be to eliminate character progression in a general sense, but rather to make it part of the game world (e.g. through political influence, military control, control of information...).
This way the player is involved (dare I say immersed? - probably not ) in the game world as he weighs up options and pursues goals. He's not off in some abstract spreadsheet anti-LARP.
Particularly now that there is more potential (whether or not realized) to create rich, responsive game worlds, it seems a waste to divert player focus from that world. An isolated character progression system involving mechanical min-maxing does this frequently.
It's a thought, but I don't think this alone does enough. What you're getting from this, is a progressive change in core gameplay (if combat is core). What you're not getting is interesting choice.
Stat progression gives the player a wide range of options in how he changes the gameplay. Whatever replaces it ought to give such options - with support for widely differing styles (not merely hiring snipers vs machine gunners etc.). I think politics (in combination with other elements) can provide this, but it'd need to be a detailed system.
Yes, this is a problem. Meta knowledge is often needed to know what's worthwhile. This results in a related problem, that I've often been annoyed. When I decide to go a diplomatic way in a game that seems to allow for this kind of game play, I max out all diplomatic stats and skills. I if I go for the fighter-way through, I set them to average. And if I decide to play an idiot brute (Arcanum is afaik the only game that allow for rewarding game play this way), I set them as low as you can go. Never "almost max", or "almost minimum", because usually there just is a linear scale of what you get as dialogue options and solutions. (When I say max here its max in the sense of "enough to get the kind of response I want", when you get a certain level of meta-knowledge. Because even if there no point in being max-max, there is always some point along the scale 1-10/1-20/1-100, where you go from gimp to genius.)Krazu said:3)I don't really like speech skills (whit exception of game where there is possibility of finishing game without fighting but I rather predetermine my character then). There is no way of knowing haw much is good it is guessing whit no information, is 15/20 good enough or is 16/20 necessary, game don't inform you if your stat is good or not, was the fight necessary or my stat was not good enough? Should I make more points before talking (like decision before hard fight where you have information about opponent) whit diplomacy skill it is just random you either have good enough or not.
Aren't you describing the concept behind Mount & Blade? It does exactly this. If you haven't tried it, you should! Interesting medival fighting sim.The_Pope said:1) Political Power. You start the game by yourself, and rather than getting a thousand hit points, you use some of that immense treasury all RPGs give you to hire a thousand mercenaries. Then you lead them to kill head foozle. This would be far better than the same game with higher numbers popping up after each hit, as it would slowly transition from FPS/Top down action game to Tactical Shooter all the way to a full blown RTS. You would always have something new to do.
At first, I got the same gist as galsiah, but the way you describe it now sound way more interesting. You're basically suggesting the "learn by doing"-skill progression from Darklands and TES in a grander scale? My biggest fear for this kind of system, is that the only way of learning [something] would be to do a particular quest in a particular way. The exception would be if there is some unique skill that obviously only one guy in the world know of, and this guy wants a particular thing done in a particular way. If the skill is [use bow in an intuitive manner], it the same wouldn't work. There ought to be several people who know that, and who'd be able and willing to teach it to you. If this type of progression is going to work, there should be several quests or questlines that lead to the same thing, but in a different way. It suddenly hits me that I'm describing Gothic 3.The_Pope said:Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.
Dementia Praecox said:Aren't you describing the concept behind Mount & Blade? It does exactly this. If you haven't tried it, you should! Interesting medival fighting sim.
At first, I got the same gist as galsiah, but the way you describe it now sound way more interesting. You're basically suggesting the "learn by doing"-skill progression from Darklands and TES in a grander scale? My biggest fear for this kind of system, is that the only way of learning [something] would be to do a particular quest in a particular way. The exception would be if there is some unique skill that obviously only one guy in the world know of, and this guy wants a particular thing done in a particular way. If the skill is [use bow in an intuitive manner], it the same wouldn't work. There ought to be several people who know that, and who'd be able and willing to teach it to you. If this type of progression is going to work, there should be several quests or questlines that lead to the same thing, but in a different way. It suddenly hits me that I'm describing Gothic 3.
The_Pope said:Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.
I don't have any ultimate solutions to this, but I've been thinking on a system where certain traits and the such that's only available in certain combinations of stats/skills. If your stats/skills get higher than the trait "cap", will give you the benefits of that higher stat, but you loose the benefits of that particular trait. This has of curse to be justified in relative reasonable explanations. I don't have any exact examples right now, need my morning coffee. Of course this will probably add to the problem Krazu is describing, unless there are definitive meta-explanations or descriptions ingame. Another thing could be reaction modifiers the the average dirt-farmer who will react negatively to the smart educated guy, but will identify more with the mediocre average Joe, thus be more talkative. Age of Decadence does something interesting here, by separating between different types of speech/diplomatic-related skills. Although I do suspect they still work along the lines of: higher stat=more better results/abillities.
Kraszu said:The_Pope said:Finally, for a story based mode, the only thing necessary to let a player develop a character the way they like is variable rewards depending on how you do something. Shooting up a lot of giant bugs would get you a bonus to badassery while grabbing the slimy politicians collar and yelling at him until he lets you nuke the hive from orbit would increase your EXTREME collar grabbing skill.
Haw is that different from grind?
The_Pope said:As for items, the main reason for it as an option is that in most RPGs classes boil down to equipment sets. A rogue is a guy who can use a dagger, a knight is a guy who can wear armor etc. May as well cut out the spreadsheet and just use gear. It also has the added benefit of letting players out of a path they don't like much more easily. Gold grind could be prevented by tying items to the story; gothics system of giving out armor for getting to certain ranks in factions is a good example.
So the characters objectives aren't level grinding and getting phat lewt but in determining who/where is the vampire and how to destroy it.Hieronymous Grost: You see, doctor, there are as many species of vampire as there are beasts of prey. Their methods and their motive for attack can vary in a hundred different ways.
Captain Kronos: As are the methods of their destruction!
LCJr. said:But then don't you run the risk of replacing the level grind with "equipment grind"? It wouldn't matter if you had a character with mostly fixed stats and skills when equipment can take them from peasant to demigod.
Oh no, that would just make it a "gather knowledge and allies" grind.LCJr. said:You could have a CRPG with an already skilled character in situation were there skills won't do them any good if they blindly rush in. In the case of the movie Kronos' swordfighting skills do him no good without knowing who the vampire is or how to destroy it. A game like this could also shift the emphasis off massive amounts of combat to say gathering knowledge and gaining allies.
Good point, and I think that shows that even our 'social' RPGs are mostly combat games with some non-combat skills attached to them. Like AD&D, a 'real PnP RPG', used to call the skills "non-combat proficiencies". Pretty much every PnP RPG I've seen seems to either rely heavily upon the player's ability to talk, or exchange that ability for a single roll of a die (or add them together). Meanwhile combat has very detailed rules, even though a diplomacy check might have even greater consequences.Kraszu said:3)I don't really like speech skills (whit exception of game where there is possibility of finishing game without fighting but I rather predetermine my character then). There is no way of knowing haw much is good it is guessing whit no information, is 15/20 good enough or is 16/20 necessary, game don't inform you if your stat is good or not, was the fight necessary or my stat was not good enough? Should I make more points before talking (like decision before hard fight where you have information about opponent) whit diplomacy skill it is just random you either have good enough or not.
That's COMMANDER Shephard!Dementia Praecox said:They want to be extreme, like Captain ShepHARD.