Editorial 2005: The Year in Review

[FrancoTAU]

Twas a joke, good sir. I think most of us enjoy a good chunk of the games marketing themselves as RPG... we're just not going to smile and say they were so great and had no flaws.

The Oblivion fanboys are really bad at arguing over at their site. VD is single handily making them all look bad.

 

[LlamaGod]

-You don't appear to have liked many old-style classics (Baldur's Gate? You didn't like Baldur's Gate?).

Baldur's Gate is an 'old style classic'? Just about everything wrong with "modern" RPGs, Baldur's Gate has. It's a new style "classic", if anything.

-You didn't like Morrowind, which is (in my opinion) the genre-defining game of the RPG style which focuses as much on the game world as on the actual player character.

Emphasis on the character such as getting 100 in every possible stat and skill and being exactly the same character you where when you started, except you do more damage.

Did you even play Fallout or Arcanum? And would those be "old old style classical classics"?

 

[Azura's Star]

Did you miss the link?

No. If you'll notice, actually, I linked the link. And thank you, it was quite informative.

However, in addition to your rather helpful post, I also recieved at least one flame. I gleaned from this information a sense that the implication that there was a general consensus at the Codex forums was not a welcome one. Therefore, I decided a better tact might be to simply ask the author of the editorial, since he so conveniently happened to drop by.

*edit* @LlamaGod, I played Arcanum, not Fallout. I liked Arcanum. Not one of my favorite games ever, due to its undeniable flaws (bugs, combat, graphics), but still enjoyable for its excellent characters, story, and role-playing elements (multiple endings, choice in most situations).

I still must label the Baldur's Gate games as old-style, however (they were both, you'll notice, published before Arcanum). I liked them for many of the reasons I liked Arcanum (story, depth of character, although I'll admit there was less freedom to choose one's path). They also succeeded in areas where Arcanum failed (combat, especially magic, a robust item system, game stability).

Whatever.

 

[HanoverF]

It seems wading through the TES Forums that a good deal of complainers see the Obvious Crap photoshoped image, and don't read anything else as they harp on about how Oblivion was called Obvious Crap and don't bring up anything said in the text. So I guess it's true, they only care about the visual and don't care about the content.

I also like the ones who say "U Cant put just one side the bad stuf!!" Unless its a Dev diary, or fluff preview piece, which only shows the good.

 

[Vault Dweller]

However, in addition to your rather helpful post, I also recieved at least one flame.

It happens. Take it like a man :wink:

I gleaned from this information a sense that the implication that there was a general consensus at the Codex forums was not a welcome one.

You are mistaken. Then again, it depends on your posts.

 

[Fresh]

It seems wading through the TES Forums that a good deal of complainers see the Obvious Crap photoshoped image, and don't read anything else as they harp on about how Oblivion was called Obvious Crap and don't bring up anything said in the text. So I guess it's true, they only care about the visual and don't care about the content.

I also like the ones who say "U Cant put just one side the bad stuf!!" Unless its a Dev diary, or fluff preview piece, which only shows the good.

Aye they sooo didn't like that pic. copx said it brilliantly http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... ht=#174873.

Also, remember that the article wasn't voiced.

Creds to Spazmo for my sig.

 

[Azura's Star]

However, in addition to your rather helpful post, I also recieved at least one flame.

It happens. Take it like a man :wink:

I did. You will not notice a flame war cluttering up your forums.

I gleaned from this information a sense that the implication that there was a general consensus at the Codex forums was not a welcome one.

You are mistaken. Then again, it depends on your posts.

I quote:

Hey RPG COdex aint no hive mind thank you.

@Azura's Star: You need to keep in mind that just because some people at the Codex don't like certain games doesn't mean everyone here feels the same way. This site has its share of of BG lovers and haters, Diablo lovers and haters, etc.

Do people here really not object to the idea of a consensus? 'Cause that's not how it looks to me.

(note: I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with baby arm's post, but he's clearly trying to argue against the idea of consensus)

 

[LlamaGod]

*edit* @LlamaGod, I played Arcanum, not Fallout. I liked Arcanum. Not one of my favorite games ever, due to its undeniable flaws (bugs, combat, graphics), but still enjoyable for its excellent characters, story, and role-playing elements (multiple endings, choice in most situations).

Well, I see why you are as you are, you completely missed out on what makes an RPG an RPG. Roleplaying isn't multiple endings (there were only 2 anyways), roleplaying is being able to define your character by his abilities and disabilities and then having the game world react to them accordingly, allowing and disallowing options and choices from this.

So you make a specific character and play his role in the game world.

Arcanum was great because of all the possible ways you could make your character specific and in unique ways too.

Fallout had a good deal of that also, and you never playing it... another factor to why you seem to think Baldur's Gate r0x s0x

(also disliking a complex game for bugs and bad graphics is pretty shitty)

I still must label the Baldur's Gate games as old-style, however (they were both, you'll notice, published before Arcanum).

And thats why Arcanum's combat sucked. Baldur's Gate was sorta the head of this new style and Arcanum was forced to adapt to it. The new style blows chunks and Baldur's Gate is among it.

 

[Volourn]

"Great adventure game, poor RPG:"

Then stop covering it! IThis is supposed to be 'hardcore RPG site'.

That's why it's ahrd to tkae you guys seriously. You whine about role-playing gamews then you cover games you supposedly don't think are role-playing games like BG, Diablo, DS,a nd the like.

Don't be stupid, and use common sense. Cover role-playing games.

And, don't lie in articles.

Dumbasses.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Most of what's being posted on that thread is priceless. It never ceases to amaze me how people will often attack others because of how they convey their opinions by doing exactly that which they criticize. Best part is how everyone accuses the site of jumping to conclusions about the game, but then almost everyone posting on the thread jumps to conclusion about the site. Seems like Frankie will grow up to be a fine Cleve Blakemore one day.

They're basically being rebels against the 21st century of video games and don't understand how video games needs to move on and be a bit revolutionary.

I'd be surprised if he knew what revolutionary means.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do people here really not object to the idea of a consensus? 'Cause that's not how it looks to me.

(note: I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with baby arm's post, but he's clearly trying to argue against the idea of consensus)

Well, consensus in the context of your question implies that everyone feels the same way. Far from it. Think of the Codex as the community of people who like quality games, dislike where the industry is going, and can back up their points with well developed arguments (most of us, anyway). The rest is as diverse is possible.

 

[Spazmo]

However, in addition to your rather helpful post, I also recieved at least one flame. I gleaned from this information a sense that the implication that there was a general consensus at the Codex forums was not a welcome one.

Doesn't getting two different types of responses actually demonstrate that there's no hive mind? If there was, wouldn't everyone have either flamed you or offered helpful responses?

Therefore, I decided a better tact might be to simply ask the author of the editorial, since he so conveniently happened to drop by.

Right, and although you're beating a massively dead horse (we've been getting people asking staff "gosh what DO you like?" since Proverbius' NWN review in 2002), I guess I'll answer you.

Like VD said, there are RPGs that are good as RPGs, and RPGs that are good as adventure or action games. And, of course, there are RPGs that just plain suck.

Fallout, Arcanum, PST, Geneforge, perhaps some others, these are broadly the kind of games I want to see being made. They're not exact blueprints for the perfect RPG--each one has its flaws (for example, Arcanum, PST and Geneforge all have pretty terrible combat). But in terms of play style and design philosophy (aagh philosophy), that's what I'm looking for.

Then, you have games like BG1/2 (2 far, far more than 1), Icewind Dales, the action RPGs that aren't trash, and some others, which are fun games (although the Infinity Engine games have aged horribly), but not that good RPGs. They do better as adventure games or hack'n'slashers.

Then there's the flat-out bad games like (face it) Morrowind, NWN, KOTOR1/2 (2, again, far, far more than 1), and many, many more. These are the games that don't really do anything right at all.

I wonder, though, where are all the angry Dungeon Lords fanboys, huh? You guys are letting down D.W. here!

 

[Azura's Star]

Well, I see why you are as you are, you completely missed out on what makes an RPG an RPG. Roleplaying isn't multiple endings (there were only 2 anyways), roleplaying is being able to define your character by his abilities and disabilities and then having the game world react to them accordingly, allowing and disallowing options and choices from this.

You said it yourself: Role-playing is about choice. Multiple endings are a kind of choice. I listed them as a way in which Arcanum had superior RPG elements to Baldur's Gate because they facilitated the player's ability to play a role. That is, in Arcanum, you could successfully role-play the kind of person who would go the evil path, or the kind of person who would go the good path. In Baldur's Gate, you had only one choice, meaning you were more restricted in the roles you could play. As simple as that. I don't mean that multiple endings are what define an RPG, but they can help it fall more solidly into that category, because they make it more feasible to (watch me here, this is important) PLAY a ROLE.

By the way...who said I disliked Arcanum?

 

[Volourn]

"Then, you have games like BG1/2 (2 far, far more than 1), Icewind Dales, the action RPGs that aren't trash, and some others, which are fun games (although the Infinity Engine games have aged horribly), but not that good RPGs. They do better as adventure games or hack'n'slashers."

Then don't cover 'em, moron!

 

[FrancoTAU]

Azura's Star, everyone gets flamed here. I think it's actually encouraged. Just call him a faggot and than make your point.

Frankie over at the TES forums may be the stupidest person on the internet.

 

[Azura's Star]

However, in addition to your rather helpful post, I also recieved at least one flame. I gleaned from this information a sense that the implication that there was a general consensus at the Codex forums was not a welcome one.

Doesn't getting two different types of responses actually demonstrate that there's no hive mind? If there was, wouldn't everyone have either flamed you or offered helpful responses?

Yes, it does. I don't think there's a hive mind here (although I did say so, because I thought the quote was funny). So I asked for your opinion, instead. My comments on the reactions I got were simply surprise at the negative reaction to the implication that there might be a general consensus (not something that everyone agrees on, just most. Like, at the TES forums, you can pretty well bet that most people liked Morrowind. Not everyone, just most).

Therefore, I decided a better tact might be to simply ask the author of the editorial, since he so conveniently happened to drop by.

Right, and although you're beating a massively dead horse (we've been getting people asking staff "gosh what DO you like?" since Proverbius' NWN review in 2002), I guess I'll answer you.

Like VD said, there are RPGs that are good as RPGs, and RPGs that are good as adventure or action games. And, of course, there are RPGs that just plain suck.

Fallout, Arcanum, PST, Geneforge, perhaps some others, these are broadly the kind of games I want to see being made. They're not exact blueprints for the perfect RPG--each one has its flaws (for example, Arcanum, PST and Geneforge all have pretty terrible combat). But in terms of play style and design philosophy (aagh philosophy), that's what I'm looking for.

Then, you have games like BG1/2 (2 far, far more than 1), Icewind Dales, the action RPGs that aren't trash, and some others, which are fun games (although the Infinity Engine games have aged horribly), but not that good RPGs. They do better as adventure games or hack'n'slashers.

Then there's the flat-out bad games like (face it) Morrowind, NWN, KOTOR1/2 (2, again, far, far more than 1), and many, many more. These are the games that don't really do anything right at all.

Thank you. I still disagree on Morrowind, but I have my answer, now.

I wonder, though, where are all the angry Dungeon Lords fanboys, huh? You guys are letting down D.W. here!

There was only one, and he killed himself when he couldn't afford the Collector's Edition.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Just for the record, there are plenty of people on this board that like Morrowind and the KotORs.

 

[LlamaGod]

You said it yourself: Role-playing is about choice. Multiple endings are a kind of choice. I listed them as a way in which Arcanum had superior RPG elements to Baldur's Gate because they facilitated the player's ability to play a role. That is, in Arcanum, you could successfully role-play the kind of person who would go the evil path, or the kind of person who would go the good path.

What I mean is roleplaying is even deeper than that. That's also why Baldur's Gate is a craptastic game, because it doesn't have any of that "deep" roleplaying. (and morrowind doesnt even have light roleplaying)


as a side note, Icewind Dale could be a fun hack'n'slash game ala Goldbox, but it's just so fucking boring

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Then, you have games like BG1/2 (2 far, far more than 1), Icewind Dales, the action RPGs that aren't trash, and some others, which are fun games (although the Infinity Engine games have aged horribly), but not that good RPGs. They do better as adventure games or hack'n'slashers."

Then don't cover 'em, moron!

Put that in our suggestion box. Your advice is greatly appreciated, it's so awesome that you care!

 

[Azura's Star]

You said it yourself: Role-playing is about choice. Multiple endings are a kind of choice. I listed them as a way in which Arcanum had superior RPG elements to Baldur's Gate because they facilitated the player's ability to play a role. That is, in Arcanum, you could successfully role-play the kind of person who would go the evil path, or the kind of person who would go the good path.

What I mean is roleplaying is even deeper than that. That's also why Baldur's Gate is a craptastic game, because it doesn't have any of that "deep" roleplaying. (and morrowind doesnt even have light roleplaying)


as a side note, Icewind Dale could be a fun hack'n'slash game ala Goldbox, but it's just so fucking boring

Of course role-playing is deeper than multiple endings. It is about the ability to PLAY a ROLE. Multiple endings facilitate this. So does character customization (or, as you put it, abilities and disabilities). So does AI (which is the mechanism by which the world reacts to those abilities and disabilities, like you said). So does combat (how can you play the role of a great warrior if fighting sucks). So does dialogue (if you can't say what the role you're playing would say in a given situation, you can't effectively play the role).

Because of these things, Arcanum has better RPG elements than Baldur's Gate. I agree with that. Morrowind had different RPG elements. For instance, it had even less choice in dialogue and choice in endings than Baldur's Gate. On the other hand, it had way more choice in where you went and what you did there (there wasn't much to do in Arcanum if you were playing the role of the sort of person who didn't care about the big picture, and was just in it for personal gain, because there were very tight limits on what you could do without moving along the main quest line).

And Icewind Dale was trash.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Morrowind had different RPG elements. For instance, it had even less choice in dialogue and choice in endings than Baldur's Gate. On the other hand, it had way more choice in where you went and what you did there (there wasn't much to do in Arcanum if you were playing the role of the sort of person who didn't care about the big picture, and was just in it for personal gain, because there were very tight limits on what you could do without moving along the main quest line).

True, TES are different RPGs, and one shouldn't expect a dialogue-heavy game. However, DF was a true role-playing game with options, choices, and design that supported those choices (see my DF related posts at TES forums in those 2 threads). MW was a dumbed down version with limited choices and options (no climbing, less skills, less guilds, less and much crappier quests, poor character and enchanting systems, etc).

 

[LlamaGod]

So does combat (how can you play the role of a great warrior if fighting sucks).

Strength choices and possibilies from your combat prowess, while missing out on stuff that smarties could get ("You dumb oaf, go away!").

If I remember right that in Arcanum, if you were dumb enough you could talk this Ogre into helping you (because you guys were on the same level, strong and stupid).

Thats what I mean in RPGs, getting and losing choices from your design. Never once did that ever happen in Morrowind.

A Mage could go the same exact paths as a warrior and vice versa.

Baldur's Gate had some reactions, but generally didn't. More fun was when you'd be evil and get the same response as a good guy.

 

[Azura's Star]

Morrowind had different RPG elements. For instance, it had even less choice in dialogue and choice in endings than Baldur's Gate. On the other hand, it had way more choice in where you went and what you did there (there wasn't much to do in Arcanum if you were playing the role of the sort of person who didn't care about the big picture, and was just in it for personal gain, because there were very tight limits on what you could do without moving along the main quest line).

True, TES are different RPGs, and one shouldn't expect a dialogue-heavy game. However, DF was a true role-playing game with options, choices, and design that supported those choices (see my DF related posts at TES forums in those 2 threads). MW was a dumbed down version with limited choices and options (no climbing, less skills, less guilds, less and much crappier quests, poor character and enchanting systems, etc).

I disagree. I'll take those one at a time.

-No climbing: True, but the addition of jumping and levitating that were actually meaningful (like, they could get you to interesting places, instead of just over stuff).

-Less skills: I'll give you that...on the other hand, who ever used a language skill in Daggerfall?

-Less guilds: Perhaps less (I haven't counted the ones in Daggerfall), but way more varied. Can you really count each temple of the Eight Divines as a separate guild?

-Crappier quests: I disagree. There's no denying that Morrowind was heavy on FedEx/kill quests, but Daggerfall was even worse, with its randomized quest system! God, you thought those were good?

-Poor character system: Well, I do miss the advantage/disadvantage system, but I think Birthsigns are a reasonably decent replacement. And it's not like the advantages or disadvantages were in any way original or unique, like the ones in Arcanum.

-Poor enchanting system - Morrowind's enchantments were underpowered (stuff just didn't have enough enchantment points), but I thought the basic system was superior to Daggerfall's. The magnitude system provided for way more flexibility than Daggerfall's "pick from these five useful effects, which cannot be modified from their original forms" version of the same thing.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

-Less skills: I'll give you that...on the other hand, who ever used a language skill in Daggerfall?

Wouldn't it be better, in regards to gameplay, to make it so the skill would have opportunities to be used and useful, instead of it being removed completely? Sometimes features are cut from a game because they aren't appraised, because developers don't take the time to see how they could be improved and just remove them. Not saying that this is what Bethesda has done or does, though; but sometimes that's definitely the feeling we get.

 

[Jason]

Morrowind's enchantments were underpowered? Wow, I thought it was completely the opposite. It was very easy to exploit and fun in a munchkiny sort of way.