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.

More realism in rpgs

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
The only answer is to make going to the toilet less realistic:

 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
I can get behind realism for immersion if by immersion we mean "fun". That's basically how it goes: you can make a game very realistic, but if the realism gets in the way of fun, you will be constantly reminded it's not a game but tediousness. For instance, New Vegas' Needs weren't fun. It got in the way of the gameplay, because the system was so simple to take care of it added nothing to the gameplay. On the other hand, JSawyer makes Needs harder to keep in check, so it added a more strategical spin to them that made managing Needs fun, IMO. This is why I also never installed a needs mod for Morrowind: Vvardenfell is brimming with food and water, why bother with a rather buggy mod that adds nothing except the need to (clunkily) drink and eat food for sustain?

The realism I can get behind 100%, however, is the one that lets me get past stupid sections in videogames, e.g. you have to find an alternate route because your character can't climb a fence, FUCK that shit. One of the things I really hated about The Witcher was Geralt's inability to jump.
 
Last edited:

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
Single player games can do the same thing, they just don't do it yet. Some of the survival games I've played had no savegame. It saves your progress when you log out, but there is no way to load a save, so if you die in the game there is no reloading. Sadly the only game I saw which did this had an extremely minor penalty for dying, or none at all. But in an RPG it would be perfect.

Some single player games do. The space trading game Oolite, for example, which I am currently trying, only lets you save at bases. That is, at the start and at the end of a trip. In RPGs, I am not so keen on the idea. Good RPGs are about letting you try different approaches, and a lack of saving ability wouldn't work with them, I think. It could be tried of course, I just wouldn't want to see all of them move in this direction. Your idea sounds better (to me) for quick mission-based games.
I think it only worked in EQ because you could avoid dying if you wanted to, you just had to take it easy and plan ahead. If you want to try something different and challenging, you can maybe make it pay off, but you might just die a bunch of times and lose everything you earned in the past week :P
Pathfinder is maybe a good recent example of this.

I haven't played Kingmaker yet, unfortunately. I am considering trying it, but the fact that it is full of time-limited quests (as I have been told) stops me. I hate time limits in RPGs, even though they are realistic.

The best combat RPG I have played recently is Underrail, and it didn't need any such tricks to make combat awesome. They just worked on their systems and encounters a lot, to make them challenging and feel good. I think that RTwP games are kind of stuck in not working on anything seriously, and then using dirty tricks to try to make it interesting. But as I mentioned, I haven't tried Kingmaker.
The time limits are ok I think. I am not that far into the game but the few time limited events I've had so far are all like 90 weeks or something. It means you can do a bunch of side quests and things first and then go and sell, and then get around to it when you are ready. The game is a bit shit at explaining itself though, so for example you get a message that there are some trolls causing trouble in your region and you are like ok whatever, and carry on doing your thing. And the next thing you hear the trolls killed lots of people and captured town and are marching on your capitol with an army. It still gives you time to go and fight back, but a lot of people lost the game because they didn't figure it out soon enough. But I think it is all easy enough to make sure you succeed. Game is really great. I am curious how it will turn out later because I am still semi early.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,506
Realism in games doesn't mean scientific realism. Lets look at example of WWII strategy Japan vs US. When player doesn't want to experience fighting against horrible odds as Japan, game developer needs to make scenario more balanced to allow playing both sides.
Now, even when Japan has more ships, as long as Japanese bombs are exploding as they should, and don't bounce out of US ships, the game is considered realistic. It realistically simulates warfare, even when Japan isn't as nearly dead at start as it was in real WWII.

Obviously when a game allows person who was pierced by a sword through to be healed naturally next day, and it's not a troll, or someone with regeneration, it feels weird.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Obviously when a game allows person who was pierced by a sword through to be healed naturally next day, and it's not a troll, or someone with regeneration, it feels weird.

That's the big mistake a lot of people make about the abstract nature of combat in RPGs. Because HP 'bars' are usually in red, to associate it with blood, it's not actually blood loss when your HP goes down. The dice rolls to whittle down HP just represents and on-going duel whereby the one who runs out of HP first is the character who is defeated. In a game a defeat is marked as a death for the enemy (because it's assumed that once all opposing forces are unconscious they can be killed off permanently) and usually unconsciousness for the player character, to allow for other surviving party members to wake them up (but it's a death screen if all party member die for the same reason as previously mentioned).

This is confused by computer games by the need for animated sprites and the like. Now all of a sudden the 'cool' game has blood splattering everywhere when a strike is made, sound effects of people taking an arrow to the knee, and special attacks which purport to remove blood, such as vampiric types action, blood magic etc, which all work by supposedly transferring blood from one being to another which effects the HP bar & etc.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,624
That makes sense if it wasn't because of cure magic, potions that restore health, games were loss of HP is translated as "injured", "heavily injured", etc.

I don't think there's any problem with understand HP as "health", we have to accept not everything can be realistic. Dying in one or two well placed hits would not be very fun, and it would be ESPECIALLY infuriating in games with RNG.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Threads like this are great for exposing the more irrational nature of some people on the topic of cRPGs and particularly those people who get into very specific rages about very specific things.

Take anvi , for example, (hi anvi) who is a regular rager that combat isn't 'hard' enough. I recently described Divinity: Original Sin's combat as 'satisfying' to which Anvi replied "bah humbug, it was too easy". Well, cRPG combat is not supposed to be extremely hard. I'm a combatfag myself and I am aware when combat is too easy, but it's not the ease of combat that is usually the issue, the issue is usually that the combat is unsatisfying. A very important distinction. Combat in a good cRPG should straddle the line perfectly between too easy and too hard. It should be average. It should be engaging, offer variety of method and a genuine threat of losing if you're incompetent or needing to work a few things out, but it should NOT be 3D chess just as it should NOT be button mashing the awesome button.

The key here is the word average. Not to be confused with mediocre, just average difficulty. A good cRPG should not only appeal to combat experts.

And you can carry this theme across any aspect of a good cRPG. Take Neanderthal , for example. Ever since 1992 or whenever it was he played Ultima 7 he's been banging on about cRPGs not following the simulationist angle and providing more 'realism'. In 1992 or whenever he got personally really excited that the game let him bake bread, that the game had NPCs with schedules who moved around, that it had day and night cycles and etc. What he doesn't care about is that the game had shit combat. Utterly retarded combat. So it was a game which magnified one aspect of cRPGs while minimising another. A good cRPG should have some flavour to it, some fun things you can do that are abstract from the grand routine of questing and looting, but that's all it ever should be, flavour. Neanderthal has really taken to one specific aspect of the game and, like anvi, demanded that that one aspect should be heavily enhanced in exception to everything else. A good cRPG should not only appeal to simulationists.

Can you see where this is going yet?

Now take puzzles. As ToddMcF2002 's recent thread on the Wizardry games showed, there are still many people who relish the idea that cRPGs should have Adventure Game like puzzles strewn about willy nilly. That if the game doesn't have puzzles that will leave you stumped for at least 3 days then it has failed at being a 'prestigious' game 'like that one I played once'. When the reality is that, yes, a good cRPG should have some puzzles, but not Adventure Game level puzzles, it should have puzzles which both fit the setting and provide a break from the usual gameplay routine of questing and looting that one would describe as being of average difficulty. Not enough to hinder the pacing of progress but not so dumb as to feel utterly pointless time wastes. Again, the flavour is more important than the difficulty. A good cRPG should not only appeal to adventure game enthusiasts.

Now instead of me repeating this for such things as crafting, romances/companions, C&C, turn based, etc etc etc, just apply the theory to them yourself.

And you can quickly see the problem here for people who suffer from the extreme personality syndrome. A personality syndrome that is particularly prevalent on the codex. The problem is that pretty much all the good cRPGs are indeed average. They please no-one by pleasing everyone. There are never any GREAT cRPGs because, by definition, a good cRPG is a jack of all trades, adequate in all, master of none. The very definition of the anti-thesis of the min/maxer mentality.

All cRPGs are shit? No. All good cRPGs are just AVERAGE.

When a game decides to go all-out on one specific angle, like Ultima did with simulation, or AoD did with C&C, or Arcanum did with crafting, or whatever it was that gets certain codex extreme obsessives obsessive about Arcanum, then those games get rabid fans for the highlighted angle that particular game took. And then these people suddenly expect all games to offer the same extremity, completely unaware that by doing so all of those games heavily neglected some other crucial aspect of a good cRPG.

These extremes that some games offer then divide and gain notoriety via controversy. "oh, you didn't like the highly prestigious impossible puzzle? What are you, an Oblivion fan?", "oh, you didn't like the 3D chess battle to loot the key to dungeon number two? What are you, an Oblivion fan?" etc etc etc. All the while these people are blissfully unaware that no game will ever have blindingly good versions of all these things at once. Not only would it be a monumental development project, beyond the scope of human achievement, but it would also not appeal to everyone anyway, the combatfags would complain that the dialogues and romances are too time consuming, the simulationists would complain there's too much hard combat, etc etc etc.

When the answer to what is a good cRPG has always been there and is really quite easy to achieve, just be average at everything. But that doesn't make people rabid fans, that doesn't win pissing contests about 'the best this' or 'the best that', it just provides good average games. Games like Blackguards, games like Xulima. Games like Baldur's Gate 2. Games which just have people say "meh, it was alright, nothing amazing, just ok". Inoffensive and unremarkable.

Realism? Well, you need some, for flavour, but extreme? Nope.
 
Last edited:

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,506
How would you actually do combat with two handed swords where people are not getting massive wounds? Two bladed swords are hard to use to not cut the wielder, much less to avoid murdering opponent instead of defeating him...
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
How would you actually do combat with two handed swords where people are not getting massive wounds? Two bladed swords are hard to use to not cut the wielder, much less to avoid murdering opponent instead of defeating him...

How would you survive a direct hit from a fireball without all your skin peeling away and leaving you in permanent agony & in need of specialised surgery for a lifetime let alone 'surviving with 2 hp left'...
 

Darth Canoli

Arcane
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,687
Location
Perched on a tree
All cRPGs are shit? No. All good cRPGs are just AVERAGE.

While i partially agree to your first three arguments, i disagree with that statement.

If you said something like : "all good cRPG don't excel in anything but are just good at everything" i'd agree, it's the Might & Magic trademark but a cRPG achieving being average at everything would be average at best.

Of course, if you mean successful instead of good, that's a different story, of course, some good or great cRPG can be successful but it's a fact AVERAGE so-called "cRPG" are successful, just like the in the movie industry, hollywood & bollywood shitting tons of successful turds on a daily basis.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
on that last sentence I'd argue you're confusing average with mediocre. The word average has been much maligned over the years & associated with all kinds of negative phrases as a result of wordsmiths being taught not to repeat words when writing essays etc.

Average difficulty used to mean average, for example, but instead nowadays it often means slightly easier than average, and that's the issue you're referring to with regard to modern interpretations of average.
 

Darth Canoli

Arcane
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,687
Location
Perched on a tree
on that last sentence I'd argue you're confusing average with mediocre. The word average has been much maligned over the years & associated with all kinds of negative phrases as a result of wordsmiths being taught not to repeat words when writing essays etc.

Average difficulty used to mean average, for example, but instead nowadays it often means slightly easier than average, and that's the issue you're referring to with regard to modern interpretations of average.

Maybe you're right, i'm not a native english speaker so i wouldn't know.

What i know is the translation of average in my language comes from both the latin words medius (centre, median, average) and mediocris (mediocre) and that's how it has always been used in latin languages, it might be different in germanic languages like english.
 

Old Hans

Arcane
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
1,443
How would you actually do combat with two handed swords where people are not getting massive wounds? Two bladed swords are hard to use to not cut the wielder, much less to avoid murdering opponent instead of defeating him...
if your using a two handed sword, you're probably not thinking "I hope I don't hurt this guy too bad"
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,506
How would you actually do combat with two handed swords where people are not getting massive wounds? Two bladed swords are hard to use to not cut the wielder, much less to avoid murdering opponent instead of defeating him...
if your using a two handed sword, you're probably not thinking "I hope I don't hurt this guy too bad"
But, incendiary device said HP is decreased accompanied with cherries and pink unicorns. The redeness of HP bar is just accidental relation to blood and other stuff flying to 3 meter distance.
 

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
Threads like this are great for exposing the more irrational nature of people.

And you can carry this theme across any aspect of a good cRPG. Take Neanderthal , for example. Ever since 1992 or whenever it was he played Ultima 7 he's been banging on about cRPGs not following the simulationist angle and providing more 'realism'. In 1992 or whenever he got personally really excited that the game let him bake bread, that the game had NPCs with schedules who moved around, that it had day and night cycles and etc. What he doesn't care about is that the game had shit combat. Utterly retarded combat. So it was a game which magnified one aspect of cRPGs while minimising another. A good cRPG should have some flavour to it, some fun things you can do that are abstract from the grand routine of questing and looting, but that's all it ever should be, flavour. Neanderthal has really taken to one specific aspect of the game and, like anvi, demanded that that one aspect should be heavily enhanced in exception to everything else. A good cRPG should not only appeal to simulationists.

Can you see where this is going yet?

Yep I've always ignored the Black Gates combat, never criticised it and I'd certainly never want a (perish the thought) game that had a well simulated world and TOEE or Severance combat. I don't expect a quarter century old games best features to be matched or exceeded by now, nor for it to be added to other better systems.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Yep I've always ignored the Black Gates combat, never criticised it and I'd certainly never want a (perish the thought) game that had a well simulated world and TOEE or Severance combat. I don't expect a quarter century old games best features to be matched or exceeded by now, nor for it to be added to other better systems.

And you always react to people questioning your obsession with the exact same sarcastic inference. "why would people not expect XYZ that I think is incline". When you've failed to prove in the first instance why your objective actually represents any kind of incline beyond it being something you personally enjoy doing.

You seem to think the world is entirely composed of developers who have no mind of their own. There will have been countless developers who enjoyed Ultima 7 as much as you did, who all took inspiration from it. You can see it in all kinds of games, the ever popular inclusion of day/night cycles, increase in crafting/food inserts, NPCs who wander about at will, I could find lists of games which do indeed follow this 'ideal'.

But it's never a mark of quality when this happens. People don't get excited for cRPGs just because the developer says they're going to have day/night cycles. Just because a game provides day/night cycles that doesn't mean Neanderthal is going to like it. What it is that you actually want :is a mystery: that only you know.

When you say "improve upon", nobody knows what you mean. Nobody knows if what you might propose would incite any interest whatsoever.

A game that combines Ultima 7 with ToEE combat?

Well, Ultima 7 is your classic 60 hour cRPG. And it has superfast real-time combat. Now apply ToEE combat to that. How much longer have you just made the game? How inaccessible have you now made the pacing of the game? These are the actual development questions that you're childish and foot-stamping attitude simply doesn't give a fuck about.

So, yeah, thanks for the usual lolfunny response that you always reply with, but if you actually want something to happen so much that you are willing to post repetitively about it for 30 years straight without ever developing a sense of proportion, how about you actually take a minute to explain exactly what "improve upon" means and exactly how merging two completely opposed cRPG extremes would work from a game development point of view, that of delivering a timely game that takes a specific amount of time to complete. Sure you could cop out and make a sarcastic joke about "I don't care if it takes 300 hours" Grimoire style humour etc, but in terms of reality, a game like your suggesting would take more developers than a guy in a cave... who spent 20 years making it...
 
Last edited:

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
(hi anvi) who is a regular rager that combat isn't 'hard' enough.
When have I ever complained about difficulty other than that one game?

DoS started tough and then got easy as it went on. That is a balance problem whether you can see it or not. The boss fights were fun but the rest was repetitive and boring. There is no need for that. Go play FFT and see why, every single battle was like a puzzle. Also "combatfag" makes no sense. Storyfags are stupid because you can get better stories than any game if you bother to read a book, or watch a good TV show or movie. Combat is something you can't get anywhere else. The whole point of a game is gameplay.
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
In this very thread you're complaining that save scumming makes things pointless in cRPGs, with particular reference to combat. This implies that dying means that combat was difficult enough for you to actually die in the first place. The reason cRPGs have a save anywhere system is precisely because combat is not supposed to be the sole focus, it's just another puzzle to overcome that happens to be one of the genre's main gameplay elements. You say you think cRPGs should have a means to make death feel more impactful, but why do you ask for this when death isn't supposed to be hugely impactful in cRPGs, it is supposed to mean simply "oopsy, try again".
 

MpuMngwana

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
336
One aspect of realism, which even most simulationist of RPGs tend to ignore, is shitting. Thus, I propose a shitting mechanic, inspired by the timeless classic Don't Shit Your Pants. Basically, aside from typical hunger, thirst, and sleep meter, you also get a shit meter. When the meter fills up, you will be notified that your character needs to poop. After you relieve yourself, the meter resets. However, you can't simply shit in front of your companions! So, to shit properly, several steps must be taken:

-Remove the character that needs to shit from the party
-Move him outside of the party's line of sight
-Remove your pants - this is important! If you skip this step, you will soil yourself and receive morale penalties
-Shit
-Wipe yourself - if you skip this step, your ass will get sore and there will be stat penalties. If you have diarrhea, and shit too often (we'll get to this in a bit), you may need to use soft toilet paper, which is more expensive, thus adding another exciting layer of resource management to the game
-Put your pants back on
-Get back to the party

This simple and unintrusive mechanic would add great amounts of immersion, realism and FUN! to any game. And you need to do this for all six party members, for six times the FUN!

But, for even more FUN! shitting should be integrated with other RPG systems. For example, you may need to choose between dropping some loot you were going to sell, and dropping your toilet paper and risk getting sore ass before your half-dead party gets ambushed by some orcs on their way back from the dungeon - Rsk & Reward! Choice & Consequence!

Also, different types of food and the way you eat may affect the quality of your shit:
-If your diet isn't varied enough, you might get constipated, taking HP damage every time you take a shit
-If you undercook your meal (in other words, fail your culinary check), you may get diarrhea, which causes dehydration and you need to shit more often, increasing the risk of getting sore ass
-If you don't wash the dishes after eating, you may get diarrhea the next time you eat
-If you don't wash your hands before eating, you may get diarrhea the next time you eat
 

anvi

Prophet
Village Idiot
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
7,530
Location
Kelethin
In this very thread you're complaining that save scumming makes things pointless in cRPGs, with particular reference to combat. This implies that dying means that combat was difficult enough for you to actually die in the first place. The reason cRPGs have a save anywhere system is precisely because combat is not supposed to be the sole focus, it's just another puzzle to overcome that happens to be one of the genre's main gameplay elements. You say you think cRPGs should have a means to make death feel more impactful, but why do you ask for this when death isn't supposed to be hugely impactful in cRPGs, it is supposed to mean simply "oopsy, try again".

That has nothing to do with how easy or not combat is though. That's about how meaningless it is to fail. The reason I would want that to be different is because I've played a game where dying had a harsh penalty and it made the whole game very different. It made every battle edge of the seat exciting, it also meant you had to practice fighting. You had to obsess over every move you would make in combat so that when you are panicking, you do the right things and win, and not hit the wrong buttons and die. It makes everything more meaningful and intense. This was in a game where you can choose your difficulty as you play though, if you don't want a challenge you can just pick easy fights. But if you pick harder fights you get better rewards, but more danger of dying and having a big setback.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
King's Bounty did exactly what you describe. Not strictly an RPG though, but very close. Have you tried it?
 

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