RPG Watch ponders on the future of RPGs

[Diogo Ribeiro]

<b>Dhruin</b> over at <a href=http://www.rpgwatch.com/>RPG Watch</a> has written a short article where he covers some of the concerns and ideas that have surfaced around CRPGs over the last years. Titled <a href=http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=18&ref=2&id=1>The Avatar and Me</a>, it briefly - yet poignantly - points out the flaws in some of the recurring criticisms about CRPGS:

<blockquote>
Let’s consider some of the criticism of NWN2 from Matt Peckham’s pulled review at 1Up. Here’s a sample:

<blockquote>I'm cruising for a bruising (don't I know it), but NWN2 is a splash of cold water to the face: A revelatory, polarizing experience that -- in the wake of newer, better alternatives -- makes you question the very notion of "RPG by numbers." </blockquote>

There's not much doubt that "newer, better alternatives" means Oblivion (although Oblivion – like every RPG – still has plenty of rules and numbers). Peckham is saying, in part: the rules-based determination of interactions (from “hit” calculations to dialogue) in RPGs should be replaced by live action mechanics that place the player directly in the gameworld.

Fantasy action simulations.

Here’s my response: separating the player and the avatar provides the tools to enable better gameplay. Forget the current mood in the broad gaming press that rules inhibit player freedom in cRPGs -- embrace the good use of rules-based systems for the sake of better gameplay.
</blockquote>

Some people just need a robe and a wizard hat, I guess.

Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com/">RPG Watch</A>

 

[Dreagon]

"Here’s my response: separating the player and the avatar provides the tools to enable better gameplay. Forget the current mood in the broad gaming press that rules inhibit player freedom in cRPGs -- embrace the good use of rules-based systems for the sake of better gameplay. "

Exactly!! Oblivion shallowness and sacrifice of skills, weapons, and abilities were in large part due to Bethesda not wanting to make the extra animations required for them that their new "live action" system demanded. A good and diverse rules, skills, abilities system allows for a lot more freedom of action than flashy graphics anydays......

.....now if we could just convince the droolers that companies like Beth target of that simple fact.

 

[sqeecoo]

Fallout, Planescape and Wiz8 are some of my favorite games, but until we return to turn-based combat, which is not likely anytime soon, I prefer winning intense battles in part due to my own skill rather than clicking occasionally and waiting for the computer to calculate stuff.
Real-time does not really offer any significant tactical options the way turn-based combat does. On the other hand, the feeling of personal accomplishment is greater (in battles, not role playing) when the player skill influences the action. Emphasizing player skill should not be dismissed in principle just because it has lead to some horrible games.

 

[Twinfalls]

On the other hand, the feeling of personal accomplishment is greater (in battles, not role playing) when the player skill influences the action.

You sure about this, cupcake?

 

[mr nobuddy]

"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but why would anyone want to see Snow White and the Seven Samurai?"

 

[elander_]

Turn-base is a style of combat that favors roleplaying combat. Roleplaying is much more than combat.

 

[FrancoTAU]

I actually don't mind in theory if an Action RPG doesn't factor stats into combat as much. They just normally suck as either an action game or an rpg game. I'm more annoyed that there aren't any turnbased stat driven RPGs being made to complement player skilled Action RPGs.

 

[Crichton]

sqeecoo wrote:
On the other hand, the feeling of personal accomplishment is greater (in battles, not role playing) when the player skill influences the action.


You sure about this, cupcake?

Player skill has to enter into any kind of good gameplay. Naturally, player skill isn't necessarily reflex-based. Both squad-tactics games and action games involve player skill. The problem with RPGs is that most of them don't have either. A game with no reflex component and 1 manouvre unit just plain has crummy combat. Unfortunately this describes a huge swath of RPGs including some of the ones with the best roleplaying (fallout, arcanum). Naturally it also includes a lot of crap (NWN1, diablo).

I think to the extent that there is a positive trend it's adding action elements to single character games so that there's some kind of game in there, I don't think we'll see another diablo, it won't get any worse than dungeon lords or OB, i.e. no roleplaying/atmosphere/whatever but at least player skill is in. (I've heard that even that hellgate game rex is always slobbering over has added in some player skill)

This doesn't do much for people who'd prefer more small unit tactics games. The only positive news I've seen in that area is obsidian giving up on NWN's stupid single-character system and actually allowing you to manouvre your little party. This isn't really progress since from a combat-engine standpoint it's just an I.E. game with no autopause and no way of selecting multiple units. But it is a rebound from the lowpoint of NWN.

My solution? Use console emulators. The two best squad tactics games ever made were made for the play station and some of the game boy advance ones are alright. I've also heard good things about some of the ones announced for the PSP.

 

[Bradylama]

I guess you haven't played Silent Storm, yet. The first 2/3s of it, anyway.

 

[Crichton]

I played silent storm twice, the 2nd time I just played all the non-robosuit missions (since I knew which ones were which). But it doesn't hold a candle up to Tactics Ogre or Final Fantasy tactics.

SS2 did a nice job of trying to actually encourage different sorts of units but it had 3 huge flaws (not counting robo suits and laser guns)

1. flawed LOS system (if anyone in the party can see it, everyone can) encouraged just leaving a few snipers in back and drilling everything through the head even though there are three brick walls between the shooter and the target with a scout to act as a spotter.

2. AI simply cannot understand silent weapons. If the AI gets shot by a scout with a silent pistol or hit with a throwing knife, it just can't respond, it doesn't know how to search for something it can't see.

3. AI can't take cover from sniper fire. It can't tell where the shot came from, so instead of either searching for the sniper or trying to take cover, it just sits there and takes it.

SS2 is still the best pseudo-modern skirmish tactics game out there, but that's not saying much. FFT and TO have the best tactical AI ever seen in a video/computer game, no single move it makes is ever a clear cut mistake.

 

[Bradylama]

1. flawed LOS system (if anyone in the party can see it, everyone can) encouraged just leaving a few snipers in back and drilling everything through the head even though there are three brick walls between the shooter and the target with a scout to act as a spotter.

That's more a problem with setting than the LOS. A setting where spotters can send advanced targeting data back to shooters who can fire through walls would fit a near-future setting, but not necessarily a World War 2 one, even with pop science.

2. AI simply cannot understand silent weapons. If the AI gets shot by a scout with a silent pistol or hit with a throwing knife, it just can't respond, it doesn't know how to search for something it can't see.

If I was shot by a silenced weapon or hit with a throwing knife would be to panic or maybe to run away. The whole point of silent attacks is that the only frame of reference the target has is the direction the hit comes from, and considering the tremendous amount of pain associated with being shot or stabbed, I doubt any human being would put finding who attacked them at the top of their priorities list.

3. AI can't take cover from sniper fire. It can't tell where the shot came from, so instead of either searching for the sniper or trying to take cover, it just sits there and takes it.

I dunno, there were a lot of times when the AI knew where my sniper was and flanked him, but it tended to be one guy since my other squadmates had killed anybody else who could spot the sniper. Sniper rifles don't leave smoke trails, and silenced ones have muffled flashes. The AI would have to be looking at the sniper when he shoots, and not die, in order for the AI enemy to acquire a general awareness of the sniper's position. Good snipers are supposed to be concealed, anyways.

The reason I'm arguing with you about this is because while FFT and Tactics Ogre are both fine games, they don't have combat systems which lend themselves effectively to roleplaying systems.

 

[sqeecoo]

I'm surprised nobody mentions Jagged Alliance 2, which is an excellent squad based tactical turn-based game (heh).

Anyway, cupcakes have feelings too, and I know that killing an enemy after using my smarts and/or reflexes makes me happier than just clicking to see if I die or win.

I do prefer turn-based combat, which emphasizes strategy over reflexes, and also gives the player time to think, which allows a more complex and involved combat system. However, turn-based combat no longer suits the general game audience (which is fine, although I dislike it) so I doubt we will see very much of it in the future.

In real-time combat player skill making a difference creates a more enjoyable experience.
However, this allows the developers to ignore role-playing aspects, where previous, essentially boring combat systems (like Fallout's) needed to get you very interested in the setting and the fate of your character to be fun, something Fallout does very successfully.

 

[Oarfish]

The NWN2 review is right. Complete player control is preferable to the piss poor combat in NWN2, the engine itself allows for little in the way tactical variety and Obsidian didn't help things any by spamming 200+ generic enemies into every level so they could inflate the length of the game.

 

[Crichton]

That's more a problem with setting than the LOS. A setting where spotters can send advanced targeting data back to shooters who can fire through walls would fit a near-future setting, but not necessarily a World War 2 one, even with pop science.

It's a problem for anything trying to be a tactics game, anything which reduces the impact of terrain and LOS is problematic and in a pseudo-modern game where everything revolves around clinging to cover, it's absolutely horrible, invisible scouts calling in sniper fire like someone calling down artillery fire. When cover and LOS don't matter, it's essentially indirect fire, just pick a target, any target, press a button and hit them in the head, position irrelevant.

If I was shot by a silenced weapon or hit with a throwing knife would be to panic or maybe to run away. The whole point of silent attacks is that the only frame of reference the target has is the direction the hit comes from, and considering the tremendous amount of pain associated with being shot or stabbed, I doubt any human being would put finding who attacked them at the top of their priorities list.

Take a scout, give him a silenced pistol and have him shoot at a group of enemies. They just sit there and get shot down, 3-5 shots a piece, it'll take a few turns, the scout will have to reload a few times, they'll never do anything. It's not a matter of one enemy being disoriented by the pain, the AI just doesn't make any attempt to respond, even something as simple as looking at which side of the body the entry wounds are in and walking in that direction.

I dunno, there were a lot of times when the AI knew where my sniper was and flanked him, but it tended to be one guy since my other squadmates had killed anybody else who could spot the sniper. Sniper rifles don't leave smoke trails, and silenced ones have muffled flashes. The AI would have to be looking at the sniper when he shoots, and not die, in order for the AI enemy to acquire a general awareness of the sniper's position. Good snipers are supposed to be concealed, anyways.

The reason I'm arguing with you about this is because while FFT and Tactics Ogre are both fine games, they don't have combat systems which lend themselves effectively to roleplaying systems.

As long as you don't leave the sniper out in the open, the AI will never figure it out. They certainly should know which directions the shots are coming from because guys are flying back like they've been tackled by Troy Polamolu. When you have to deal with the AI's snipers, you may not know where they are, but you always have a general idea when you look at the shot pattern, when the AI can't even do that it ruins a huge part of the game. Combine that with invisible scouts in the open with silenced weapons a game of Rogues and Wizards, every bit as interesting as dungeon siege. One can avoid this by avoiding stealth and rifles and just using SMGs and MGs, but tactics revolves around combining different elements, when you have nothing but machine gunners, it's really not all that stimulating. (but it sure puts a lot of holes in walls!)

FFT and TO don't have complete role-playing systems since there isn't really any character interaction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with combat.

 

[Voss]

The NWN2 review is right. Complete player control is preferable to the piss poor combat in NWN2, the engine itself allows for little in the way tactical variety and Obsidian didn't help things any by spamming 200+ generic enemies into every level so they could inflate the length of the game.

What does 'complete player control' mean in this context? Taken literally, its absurd impossibility in a computer game.

A clunky interface (or the nigh-infinite enemies that most game designers pack into games) is not the fault of using a rules-based system,. Or, more accurately, a PnP based system, since even moron games like Oblivion have a set of rules underlying the game. A d20 game done right would have a lot of tactical possibility, unfortunately a pseudo-real time system can't really handle the rules, and fudging them to work in such an environment doesn't work out well. (And sadly Troika completely dropped the ball with enemy AI and cutting/not implementing a lot of options of the rules set).

 

[Bradylama]

It's a problem for anything trying to be a tactics game, anything which reduces the impact of terrain and LOS is problematic and in a pseudo-modern game where everything revolves around clinging to cover, it's absolutely horrible, invisible scouts calling in sniper fire like someone calling down artillery fire. When cover and LOS don't matter, it's essentially indirect fire, just pick a target, any target, press a button and hit them in the head, position irrelevant.

Nevermind that in order to hit somebody indirectly, the bullet has to be capable of penetrating any material in its path. You couldn't shoot guys through concrete.

Take a scout, give him a silenced pistol and have him shoot at a group of enemies. They just sit there and get shot down, 3-5 shots a piece, it'll take a few turns, the scout will have to reload a few times, they'll never do anything. It's not a matter of one enemy being disoriented by the pain, the AI just doesn't make any attempt to respond, even something as simple as looking at which side of the body the entry wounds are in and walking in that direction.

I never let anybody get into that kind of situation, so I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.

As long as you don't leave the sniper out in the open, the AI will never figure it out. They certainly should know which directions the shots are coming from because guys are flying back like they've been tackled by Troy Polamolu.

Of course, yet the AI also isn't going to advance in a sniper's kill-zone. At the distances you engage the AI with snipers they have no real way of retaliating even assuming they knew the sniper's exact location. Every time I engaged enemies with a sniper, they ran for cover and then moved around said cover. I can't attest to whether or not any of them actually came around looking for my snipers, because like I said, I had other squadmates running interference. Once again, I'll have to take your word for it.

FFT and TO don't have complete role-playing systems since there isn't really any character interaction, but that has absolutely nothing to do with combat.

You'll also note that this isn't Tacticular Cancer. A combat system like Silent Storm effectively lends itself to roleplaying systems because it offers a lot in terms of character variety and combat which can occur at impromptu points on a game map. FFT and TO have combat systems that can only be removed from any kind of non-combat element.

 

[WittyName]

Fallout, Planescape and Wiz8 are some of my favorite games, but until we return to turn-based combat, which is not likely anytime soon, I prefer winning intense battles in part due to my own skill rather than clicking occasionally and waiting for the computer to calculate stuff.
Real-time does not really offer any significant tactical options the way turn-based combat does. On the other hand, the feeling of personal accomplishment is greater (in battles, not role playing) when the player skill influences the action. Emphasizing player skill should not be dismissed in principle just because it has lead to some horrible games.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. The D&D style just does not translate well into real-time combat. The only way to fully control the actions of your party in NWN2 is to pause the game in the middle of combat which is fairly lame.

 

[The_Pope]

In theory I like player skill. However, a huge amount of supposed RPGs just make shitty clickfests and call it player skill without actually requiring any. Also, number crunchers can be great fun. DnD based number crunchers can't, because it sucks. If you're going to do a rule based RPG, get some rules that don't suck and a setting that doesn't suck to go with it.

Of course, a little part of me says that these shitty games where you mindlessly click until you see a slightly higher + number then masturbate onto the screen are the real RPGs and we should just rename this site to GamesThatDontSuckCodex.

 

[Greatatlantic]

I'm going to go on a fence here and say I like RPGs BECAUSE of the the numbers and rules. Lets say I want to make your stereotypical strong but dumb fighter. How do I know he's strong and dumb? Because his Strength is 8 and his Intelligence is 3. Furthermore, I now get to watch my character do +10 melee damage where my smart but scrawny character has a -2 melee damage penalty. Uh oh, my character was just challenged to a riddle contest. Since he's so dumb, he'll loose. It is just more satisfying for me to see this sort of numerical interaction in my CRPGs.

As for NWN2, I thought it was good, not great. I don't like RTw/P combat, though I find myself more forgiving when I have more characters to control. As for Real Time vs. Turn Based, I like both. Either one gives me a feeling of control over whats going on. For party games, TB is definitely preferential. For single player, going TB adds the risk of battles becoming incredibly non-interactive as all your opponents take their "Turn" while you can do nothing but watch. If you can't avoid that, then RT is preffered.

 

[Gambler]

A combat system like Silent Storm effectively lends itself to roleplaying systems because it

...allows you to shoot someone 3-4 times with sniper rifle before they die.

Lets say I want to make your stereotypical strong but dumb fighter.

As long as you want to make a cliche character that has one stat upped at the expense of others, you're okay. You will ride that stat till the end of the game. But if you want to make someone more reasonable and balanced, you're usually screwed. Balanced character for many games means "retarded in all aspects".

 

[sheek]

I don't see the big deal or news value. Just because it was publicized on a brother website? There are more insightful posts on these forums every single day.

 

[doctor_kaz]

I would like to know who the dumbass is that started and perpetrated this bullshit about how in role-playing games, statistics and die rolls are "outdated". I remember that this idea started to gain acceptance in about 2003 (first time I heard it, at least) back when Ion Storm tried to justify taking the skills system out of Deus Ex: Invisible War. Ion Storm and the apologists for Invisible War were saying: "You don't need stats anymore. A good developer can make a good RPG without stats. Stats are an outdated convention for nerds and they only gained popularity in PnP because there were no computers to simulate the game for you". This idea is complete bullshit and Invisible War sucked, in no small part because its nerfed role-playing system sucked. Unfotunately, it appears that Bioshock is following the Invisible War path, which is why I'm not very excited about it.

Then there's the idea that stats make games "inaccessible". Compare the sales for Deus Ex vs. Invisible War. Then compare the sales for Baldurs Gate 2 with Jade Empire. Christ, look at all the people who play stats-heavy MMORPG's, and then tell me that people can't comprehend role-playing stats. Yeah, there will always be the brain-damaged drooling Tommy Tallarico types that are intimidated by stats, but there are still a lot of people to whom they appeal.

Even action RPG's like Fable, Diablo, and Oblivion have tons of stats, only they don't give the player as much ready information on how their system work. In the case of Fable and Oblivion, they demand more of the player's reflexes and skills. If that's what you want, fine.

But if what you want is stategic character planning and tactical combat, then statistics are absolutely necessary. Every game with good tactical combat has them. Stats are for people who want the abilities of their avatar(s) on screen to be divorced from their quick reflexes and skills. That's the type of game that a D&D RPG offers. The same can be said for games like Freedom Force or Silent Storm. What are these "newer and better alternatives" that this moron talks about? Who else has done tactical combat without stats? How do you do combat like in D&D without all the rules? I always hear about how you can, but I never hear an actual example of it. What rules should be done away with?

 

[kingcomrade]

There are more insightful posts on these forums every single day.

You're welcome.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't see the big deal or news value.

I've been telling this myself to the rest of the staff. We need to stop posting news items about roleplaying in a site about roleplaying and move into other areas more important to CRPGs such as Romanian_Dude2005's 160 IQ and 15 inch cock.

Just because it was publicized on a brother website?

News posts are meant to encourage conversation on a given topic. That RPG Watch is a brother or sister site (not sure how they'd define themselves in that regard) is a fortuitous coincidence. This kind of editorial would be mentioned regardless of site affiliation - and in fact similar ones have been brought up here in the past - because the subject matter is relevant to the theme of this site.

There are more insightful posts on these forums every single day.

And those already have their space and time. I'm sure we can cannibalize ourselves for a while but at the end of the day it would end up feeling the same as posting news about a collective blog where we all rant and rave.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

On the other hand, the feeling of personal accomplishment is greater (in battles, not role playing) when the player skill influences the action.

You sure about this, cupcake?

I remember playing Final Fantasy X(ummm....look ESF fanboys over there!), and going against this boss called Seymoor Omnis(whatever, I just rented the damn thing). I was proud of myself after kicking his ass, which was a pain. Remember, FFX had turn based combat. So sqeecoo is wrong.