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.

What are your Unpopular RPG Opinions?

Geckabor

Savant
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
173
I think an RPG without combat can work, but for the skill checks/interactions to be meaningful, you would need to implement... a combat system for them. What I'm saying is, you don't specifically need physical violence, but to have a fun and interesting game, you probably need a system that replicates the mechanics of one. One of my favorite examples of this is a game called Thea: The Awakening. In this game, all non-combat interactions are resolved the same way as the combat interactions are (a card game), the only difference is that different attributes of your characters are used for your skills and stats.
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
but for the skill checks/interactions to be meaningful, you would need to implement... a combat system for them.

I don't think that's true. It - for speech, for example - could also be a scaling puzzle of sorts where a series skillchecks guide you towards the end of discussion where the resolution for the NPC might not be just "yes" or "no" on the matter at hand. I.E. a conflict, but not combat. Combat might be one of the end results, though.

But anyways... I'm just full on unworkable ideas when I'm drunk. :lol:
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
but for the skill checks/interactions to be meaningful, you would need to implement... a combat system for them.

I don't think that's true. It - for speech, for example - could also be a scaling puzzle of sorts where a series skillchecks guide you towards the end of discussion where the resolution for the NPC might not be just "yes" or "no" on the matter at hand. I.E. a conflict, but not combat. Combat might be one of the end results, though.

But anyways... I'm just full on unworkable ideas when I'm drunk. :lol:
Oblivion speechcraft already perfected this you pleb
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
I wrote something here, but messed it up in drunken enthusiasm and can't recall anymore....
 
Last edited:

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
Please, minigame has nothing to do with rpg, since it's the player's skill that is being tested, not the character's.

That's why I said "decent developers with the right mind". A minigame need not be about the player, but about the character. You are absolutely right in what you said.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
São Paulo - Brasil
Viata

Well, here is my take on that: A CRPG is an electronic game that tries, in some way, to emulate pen and paper RPGs. It is not a real genre just like "games with over 50 hours of gameplay" aren't a genre. Electronic games (and most games for that matter) derive their genre (that is, their division in separate groups of similar things) from their gameplay. Platformers are a genre because platformers all have a similar type of gameplay, where you time and aim jumps, use different abilities and vertical movement to beat enemies and go through long stages (often with exploratory elements). 3d platformers are actually a different genre because the kind of activity you do in them, the skill you need to win it, is different. They focus much less on precision (even because it is hard to give precision to the player with a movable camera) and much more in exploration.

An electronic game, at least a single player one, however, can never be a true RPG. As such, it is limited in somehow aping the P&P genre. Another example of this would be those Fighting Fantasy books (they were called "Livros-Jogos Aventuras Fantásticas" in Brazil), which in similar way can't be RPGs, but can somehow ape the genre to give the player an idea of what it is (Fighting Fantasy did this very well, I think). Now, CRPGs have done this in several ways, such as using attributes, stats and what not, using similar combat mechanics as P&P games, using similar character concepts such as levels, races, classes, etc, using similar settings, and so on. But none of those things really define a game as an RPG. Rather, it is just an issue of approximation, but especially, of the imaginative aspect of the game that the player interacts with. Which is why I said I consider Zork an RPG game. Zork is thorougly an adventure game, where you need to explore areas and solve their puzzles in order to progress. And yet, it is very similar to older dungeon crawlers, in that you have strange puzzles and traps trying to stop you from taking the most treasure you can carry. In fact, I would say that the gameplay specific to adventures, that is puzzles that are based on the story and exploration of the gameworld rather than simply being logical or mathematical puzzles, is more compatible with actual RPG gameplay than the basic tactical gameplay* people usually associate with the genre (of course, you can always use both and the best CRPGs certainly did). Most adventure games aren't CRPGs because the game aren't trying to copy pen and paper games in any way, and they also frequently add in a heavy storytelling element that separates the player from their character, stopping any attempt to really "role-play". But Zork doesn't, while there is no character building, there isn't an effort from the game of fitting your character into a separate story with no control from you. Other text adventures like Deadline frequently did this as well. These games weren't called RPGs, but my point is that they could.

Anyway, my point is not to argue empty semantics. Rather, I consider important these affirmations:
  1. There is no specific gamplay elements linking CRPGs with pen and paper RPGs or with other CRPGs (that is, there is not an specific part of the gameplay that must be present for the game to be called a CRPG by its developers).
  2. The imaginary aspect of a computer game is important in making it feel like a P&P RPG, and if that is what you care about, combat in itself is not paramount.

Finally, I haven't actually played DE. But from what I read, the "game" isn't a game at all, it is more like one of those visual novels or whatnot.

*I say this for two reasons. First because the puzzles are somewhat similar to the creative problem solving players will frequently encounter in real RPGs (although even that isn't a defining feature either). Much like a character in D&D might kill a difficult foe by luring it in a room full of acid pools and throwing it in one, or use the old illusory bridge to lure the troll into an abyss, or try to grab a scorpion-man's tail to make it poison itself, a character in an adventure game will usually need to come up with creative solutions to the problems presented, although in this case the solutions are usually pre-defined, rather than creative. Second because in tactical games, the player is not supposed to really use anything besides the pre-made and clearly (hopefully) defined options given to him. It is easy for CRPGs that focus on this to simply boil down to an optimisation game. In fact, some pen&paper games focus so much on this that people are expected to always play within the rules, which actually makes a game less of an RPG.

Edit:

Please, minigame has nothing to do with rpg, since it's the player's skill that is being tested, not the character's.

Every RPG has things that test the player skill. If it didn't, it would be a simulation, not a game. Whether it is your skill making the character, or your strategical skill or whatnot, the idea that eliminating player skill is important to an RPG doesn't hold water if taken as a whole.

Mini-games aren't very good, however, because they try to represent something by doing something completely different. Speech mini-games are particularly annoying because they have nothing to do with actually convincing the NPC of anything at all. A good example of doing this kind of stuff without mini-games is, however, the old Neuromancer game. In there, you would be able to hack different places and even deal with different NPCs by finding information and gathering clues from the various places you already had access. If hacking had been an abstract mini-game instead, the game would have suffered greatly for it.
 
Last edited:

ERYFKRAD

Barbarian
Patron
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
28,235
Strap Yourselves In Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Every RPG has things that test the player skill. If it didn't, it would be a simulation, not a game. Whether it is your skill making the character, or your strategical skill or whatnot, the idea that eliminating player skill is important to an RPG doesn't hold water if taken as a whole.
Sure, but allowing player skill to override character skill entirely is where this slips.
 

Chippy

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
6,037
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Witcher 1 was a gigantic step forward in the genre.

- It had different weapons & styles that were suited to certain enemies.
- It combined weapon styles with your magic. E.g. more damage with a style or special attack if an enemy was burning from a spell.
- It required you (especially at higher difficulty levels) to research your enemy before you were most effective at killing them. E.g. The Beast was a challenge, but if you knew it was sucseptible to stun, you had a greater chance of 1-shotting him before he tore your balls off.
- You couldn't just focus on weapons and ignore magic; certain enemies exploded or poisened you, so it made sense to engage at range.
- The combat was more realistic than most games: blinding, stun, pain, knockdown effects ran the risk of enemies getting a luck 1-shot in and killing you.
- The low magic and low gold economy promted players to roleplay a bit more. I had to gather the resources for my potions. I had to seek out quests to fund that suit of armor or weapon upgrade.
- It blew apart the: "Have HP, have a big sword; can finish game easy" approach. Ignore the status effects above at your peril. Ignore protective signs at your peril. Ignore taking protective potions at your peril. Example: the koshchey.

I could go on, but anything more than a paragraph or so seems to be too much for the autists. :roll:
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Witcher 1 was a gigantic step forward in the genre.

- It had different weapons & styles that were suited to certain enemies.
- It combined weapon styles with your magic. E.g. more damage with a style or special attack if an enemy was burning from a spell.
- It required you (especially at higher difficulty levels) to research your enemy before you were most effective at killing them. E.g. The Beast was a challenge, but if you knew it was sucseptible to stun, you had a greater chance of 1-shotting him before he tore your balls off.
- You couldn't just focus on weapons and ignore magic; certain enemies exploded or poisened you, so it made sense to engage at range.
- The combat was more realistic than most games: blinding, stun, pain, knockdown effects ran the risk of enemies getting a luck 1-shot in and killing you.
- The low magic and low gold economy promted players to roleplay a bit more. I had to gather the resources for my potions. I had to seek out quests to fund that suit of armor or weapon upgrade.
- It blew apart the: "Have HP, have a big sword; can finish game easy" approach. Ignore the status effects above at your peril. Ignore protective signs at your peril. Ignore taking protective potions at your peril. Example: the koshchey.

I could go on, but anything more than a paragraph or so seems to be too much for the autists. :roll:
it managed to merge DDR with RPG
 

King Crispy

Too bad I have no queen.
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
1,876,560
Location
Future Wasteland
Strap Yourselves In
Not sure if already mentioned, but Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is a great older RPG. It was plagued by some early bugs, yes, -- one quite an infamous one -- and it suffers from some clumsiness such as shallow character development, but it's one of the fondest choices among my personal favorites.

I hate the fact that Lilura agrees with me about RoMD, but there are some things we all have to learn to live with.
 

Duralux for Durabux

Guest
Not sure if already mentioned, but Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is a great older RPG. It was plagued by some early bugs, yes, -- one quite an infamous one -- and it suffers from some clumsiness such as shallow character development, but it's one of the fondest choices among my personal favorites.

I hate the fact that Lilura agrees with me about RoMD, but there are some things we all have to learn to live with.
Never played Pool of radiance, Should I give it a shot?
 

DalekFlay

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
14,118
Location
New Vegas
Witcher 1 was a gigantic step forward in the genre.

Not sure I agree with every bullet-point but I replayed Witcher 1 earlier this year and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. Better than I remembered, and holds up well today despite what you see teh cazuals say in Witcher 3 threads. The combat still sucks though.
 

Chippy

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
6,037
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Witcher 1 was a gigantic step forward in the genre.

Not sure I agree with every bullet-point but I replayed Witcher 1 earlier this year and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. Better than I remembered, and holds up well today despite what you see teh cazuals say in Witcher 3 threads. The combat still sucks though.

True, but I would say that the Witcher 1 tried to address more blind spots than other games did. Without going down the autist route. For example: in RL combat, if your a lone swordsman (without a shield, or even with one) and surrounded by enemies: you're chances of survival are pretty low. A blind spot we gamers have is that as long as you have buckets of HP, and the guy behind you keeps plunging his spear into you back, you're ok. Which was also true in the W1. Because I expect it would have been infuriating if you were just instantly slain.

But they did try to address it. Getting surrounded by enemies caused you to be knocked back, or knocked over, and some enemies inflicted status effects. So you didn't really want to use the strong or fast style - you ideally switched to group style which incorperated knockedown effects of its own, and most importantly - I don't think any other game I'm aware of has done this - each of your sword swings hit all of the enemies in range, per hit.

I would say there was an element of flawed genius to the combat. It was definitely onto something.
 

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,756
Never played Pool of radiance, Should I give it a shot?
Pool of Radiance is one of the greatest CRPGs ever made, and you should absolutely play it at least once and preferably several times.

3902-pool-of-radiance-dos-front-cover.jpg
3903-pool-of-radiance-dos-back-cover.jpg
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Witcher 1 was a gigantic step forward in the genre.

Not sure I agree with every bullet-point but I replayed Witcher 1 earlier this year and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. Better than I remembered, and holds up well today despite what you see teh cazuals say in Witcher 3 threads. The combat still sucks though.
Really wish they'd go back and improve the combat but I know it will never happen :negative:
 

undecaf

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
3,517
Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2
Real Time First Person >>> Turn based Isometric


Come at me

Bull, you're just saying this. No prestigious codexer would ever say that and mean it.

Anyway, I've been drunk since last saturday, so however retarded I may sound, it's all due to alcohol and all that I say has a point of genius behind it; it just needs to be deciphered. So yeah, cheers. :lol:

:hero:
 

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