Review Absolutely idiotic Gothic 3 review

[Vault Dweller]

Baldur's Gate has all the skills, yet 0 choices, which is why it has never been considered a decent RPG (but an adventure game with stats) around these parts.

 

[Roqua]

A lot of choice in an actual crpg makes it better, a lot of choice in an action game make it an action game with a lot rp choices. If it was never an rpg to begin with, no amount of choice will make it one.

This is crpg 101 shit. Freshman.

"Gothic 1 & 2 were adventure games with RPG elements"--VD, yesterday

So, to you there is a magic amount of choice that magically changes an action game into an rpg? That is impossible.

I'm sure Gothic 3 is fantastic and broke new grounds in the action gamewith rpg elements genre, and if player skill and physical character skill were seperated, it would be a fantastic rpg (minus the lack of character creation, poor character development, preset attitude of prevoiced, prechosen character and jumping puzzles), but an rpg it never was, isn't, an never will be.

I am not saying the game isn't packed full of roleplaying and meaningful choice, but thats only an aspect of what rpgs encompass. Thats why Betrayal at Krondo, being devoid of those things, isn't one, but is still a great game, and if it had them, would be a great rpg.

When people have "roleplay" murder mystery parties, or when i roleplay a fireman, and my wife roleplays a cheerleader, we are roleplaying, just not playing an rpg, and the people roleplaying sherlock holmes and the butler aren't playing an rpg.

 

[Roqua]

Baldur's Gate has all the skills, yet 0 choices, which is why it has never been considered a decent RPG (but an adventure game with stats) around these parts.

You can chose who is in your party, make a character and decide who that character is, decide somewhat whow he interacts with those around him. to be good or evil, to do a quest this way or that way, to sneak in and steal, or plow in and kill sometimes. You can force kill npcs, etc. It had your standard, preset module rpg choices. I agree its a poor rpg (made poorer due to the piss poor combat), but its an rpg. And I don't think anyone can fault tthe devs of BG for overemphasiszing graphics over content. This is even more aparent in 2. Yes, they can be faulted for a lot. Just as Gothic 3 can be faulted for a lot. But you can't compare the two since one is a poor rpg, and the other is a good action game (but both do have crap combat).

As for the quotes you wanted, I have pulled a couple just from two threads. I wore out my ctrl c and v so I had to stop. i could go on for days though.

I agree that graphics are big for what you describe, but Roqua is right. If PB had made a modest update in graphics, and more towards gameplay and polish, the game would have been better...not to mention FINISHED. Without all the bogus reviews and horde of kids having the game crash on them (Yes, I had the dreaded save bug as well until 1.09) the game would have sold better than it has.

I love the game too, but they needed more time on this puppy.

I would be very surprise if g3 would not be financial success if they would use g2 engine, they should add new models, armors [...]. They don't have to sell as much copies as bigger developer to make profit obviously, and they fan base is big, that is one of the most popular games in big part of Europe. Paradox games made what 6 games whit the same engine: EU, EU2, Diplomacy, HoI, HoI, Crusader Kings (any more?).

Come now, there are plenty of games that are doing just fine without having graphics as good as G3's.

I already mentioned NWN2. There are plenty of others. And the Gothics are huge in Europe, something I think many are forgetting. Roqua has made a decent point. They could have made a really polished game and had it looking almost as good. Throw in climbing and the ability to swin underwater like the old Gothics (and the various quests that could have needed these features) it would have sold quite well.

The main problem many people had with the earlier Gothics were the UI and the combat. I can understand to some degree why they didn't like the UI. I loved the combat.

If they had given it a modest graphical update (while keeping their art and design at its usual brilliant level) and cleaned up the User Interface, possibly making combat easier in execution (NOT difficulty, its now been made too easy), they would have had a polished winner. And the reviewers would still have been reviewing it. This game has had mammoth amounts of fan hype, all over the internet. It was on every radar.

I agree with this poster about the, imo, horrendous combat system.

You know what? I could have loved this game, and DeadAlfs has the correct score for this game for the wrong reasons.

But the combat sucks. And this from someone who figured out easily how not to get stunlocked at an early level; I know the combat system...which is interesting if it were implemented correctly. But fuck me, is the whole game mechanic of combat utterly screwed. In combat, you autotarget friendlies (who then proceed to backstab you if you hit them whilst you tried, really tried, to hit those three orcs in front of you, but the autotargetting which you'd turned oof targeted them instead ).

I really tried to love this game...hell, I did. at level one, or two, when I first saw Vangard, domed in...wow. When I libereated my first city...cool! When I did some cool quest, and saw those amazing sights which looked SO MUCH COOLER than Oblivion's...I so wanted to play this game for much longer than the hundred+ hours I put into Oblivion.

But after going through the centre of the continent, the fucked up performance and fucked up combat just frustrated me too much. Trying to liberate Vengard was the straw which borke this camel's back...

This game, for all it's promise, for all irt's good looks, for all it's cool scenery and vista's and tableaux...this game sucks.

Clearly it's possible that the engine was designed inflexibly, and therefore became impossible to adapt. However, given all the release date srewups, I'd guess that lack of time was the most significant factor.

Shoot the guy who did the UML models.

Or was the game spaghetti code?

I don't agree. I believe that if the graphics are fairly good, the crowd will still follow. An updated G2 engine could have pulled in the crowds, as long as it was polished, had UI updates, etc.

If the graphics are shit, then the moron majority will leave it alone. Art, detail...these things tend to even the score. Check out how many people are saying 'NWN2's graphics are as good as Gothic3/Oblivion/etc' This is bs, but they believe it because they like the game, and the graphics are not bad.

As to the unfinished game; I believe PB stuffed up by trying to create such a massive world while using far too few people in its team. If it had another 6months to a year, it could have pulled it off in style, but the team was just too small for a game of this magnitude, in the timeframe alloted.

I agree with this. It should have had more time.

4. Reviewers are starting to get more hostile towards unfinished games, which lets be fair, its what Gothic 3 realy is.

Im playing G3 now and although it is a good game, Im cant help to feel disapointed, since G2, that I played just 2 months ago, is cleary superior in almost everything (everything except the graphics and the interface).

Also, while the game is indeed beautiful, it does not justifies the horrible performance in decent PCs.

Gothic 1 & 2 were adventure games with RPG elements

G3 gets props because it's not a shitty game like most CRPGs out these days.

But I agree that the combat is terrible. The previous one was clunky and hard to learn, which created the impression that you had to rely on your keyboard skills rather than stats, BUT, this system proves that it was more fun that way in the long run.
I don't think the quests are any better than G2, but they aren't worse either. Gothic games are action based, so I never expected any real depth in that department. Quest wise compare G3 to Bloodlines and they are completely different games, although both action CRPGs.

I'm also getting tired of "poor performance". Name a graphics rich game that's really well optimized these days. If you want that, go get a fucking console and stop whining already.

I wasn't impressed with Gothic 3 initially, mostly because of the bugs and it always crashing on my system etc. I gave up on it but have recently started again with the latest patch. Now it has a fair few things fixed its pretty decent and I'm enjoying it. I feel I should defend it now, rather than trash it, lol....hence, that reviewer is a cocksucker and hasn't got a clue

But really, the standard of reviewing these days has gone to hell. Even If I still had issues with the game that review is fucking ridiculous....game journalism has never been at such an all-time low

I agree with the combat paragraph... sort of. I didn't really find it clunky or non-responsive. Just have to get used to the timing if that's the problem. But there was a lack of variety in it, and that made it poor for me.

Though it is a bit early to say (Havent spend more than ~20 hours
with the game, then stopped ,still waiting for the blasted combat
rebalancing patch simply because I would hate to have close combat
to change on me completely mid game). I think I have to agree with
most things he notes (more so than his O review, though he was 80%
there too and just fell to some unjustified nitpicking towards the end imo).

The game mechanics need more fine tuning - some bugs must be fixed (ambient sound), so a solid 80% is ok. I'll add 10% if everything is fixed.

Currently i'm playing the G3 demo with a Radeon 8500 and it's playable with low settings. But i will have to buy another GFX card before i will buy the full game.
But i'm still enjoying the demo a lot. The battles are much too easy compared to the previous gothics. I hope PB will patch the balancing issues.

Currently i'm playing the G3 demo with a Radeon 8500 and it's playable with low settings. But i will have to buy another GFX card before i will buy the full game.
But i'm still enjoying the demo a lot. The battles are much too easy compared to the previous gothics. I hope PB will patch the balancing issues.

These two topics were mentioned in the developer Q&A at WoG. Both were conscious decisions by the developers - and nobody likes them.

 

[Volourn]

"Baldur's Gate has all the skills, yet 0 choices"

A fuckin' lie as usual. Why do you embarass yourself? Trying to claim that G3 is a fullblow RPG while BG isn't. What a moron.

Bottom line is that G3 is an Action RPG. BG is a RPG. You may not think it's a good one; but it is a RPG.

 

[sabishii]

I don't disagree that Gothic 3 is an action RPG (though it feels more "adventury" than "actiony" IMO)... but the "action" part doesn't detract from it's "RPG-ness." It's as much of an RPG as the other games, except that it also has a lot combat. I did not feel that its combat replaced, or took away, from its RPG elements.

 

[Volourn]

It's not the amount of combat it has that makes it an Action RPG. JE has less combat than either BG but JE is still an Action RPG; while BG is just a RPG. It's how the combat works that makes it an Action RPG.

JE combat - while it has stats - relies on player skill with the controller as does G3 with the keyboard/mouse while BG's combat does not to any real degree hence why JE /G3 are Action RPGs and BG is not.

 

[Roqua]

I don't disagree that Gothic 3 is an action RPG (though it feels more "adventury" than "actiony" IMO)... but the "action" part doesn't detract from it's "RPG-ness." It's as much of an RPG as the other games, except that it also has a lot combat. I did not feel that its combat replaced, or took away, from its RPG elements.

I don't feel that way either, since almost every crpg is combat heavy. Too combat heavy. This isn't about the amount of combat, but instead the type. In this case the type is twitch. twitch combat relies on player skill, not soley character skill, to decide the outcome of actions or combat. Since this is not possible in a real rpg or crpg, any game that incorporates this is not a rpg or crpg.

The RP qualities of G3 and if its an rpg or not are not connected.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A lot of choice in an actual crpg makes it better, a lot of choice in an action game make it an action game with a lot rp choices. If it was never an rpg to begin with, no amount of choice will make it one.

This is crpg 101 shit. Freshman.

*********Achtung! This thread is about to explode! Stay the fuck out if you value your sanity*************

So, what's an RPG then?

"Gothic 1 & 2 were adventure games with RPG elements"--VD, yesterday

So, to you there is a magic amount of choice that magically changes an action game into an rpg? That is impossible.

It's possible. The BG games are basically adventure games with stats. Add some meaningful choices and you'll have fantastic RPGs.

You think that AoD could be an RPG. Wait, let me remove all choices, sticking with one story line, what do we have? An adventure game. Put the choices back and ta-da! - it's an RPG.

I'm sure Gothic 3 is fantastic and broke new grounds in the action gamewith rpg elements genre, and if player skill and physical character skill were seperated, it would be a fantastic rpg (minus the lack of character creation, poor character development, preset attitude of prevoiced, prechosen character and jumping puzzles), but an rpg it never was, isn't, an never will be.

If you say so, young padawan.

... when i roleplay a fireman, and my wife roleplays a cheerleader...

Got any pictures?

You can chose who is in your party, make a character and decide who that character is, decide somewhat whow he interacts with those around him. to be good or evil, to do a quest this way or that way, to sneak in and steal, or plow in and kill sometimes.

You can choose who is in your party? You can choose who is in your party?!! That's your example of meaningful choices? Followed by "you can decide who that character is"? How embarrassing for you.

Btw, what is this garbage that you copy-posted? What's it supposed to prove?

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Baldur's Gate has all the skills, yet 0 choices"

A fuckin' lie as usual. Why do you embarass yourself? Trying to claim that G3 is a fullblow RPG while BG isn't. What a moron.

Bottom line is that G3 is an Action RPG. BG is a RPG. You may not think it's a good one; but it is a RPG.

Of course it is.

 

[sabishii]

I don't disagree that Gothic 3 is an action RPG (though it feels more "adventury" than "actiony" IMO)... but the "action" part doesn't detract from it's "RPG-ness." It's as much of an RPG as the other games, except that it also has a lot combat. I did not feel that its combat replaced, or took away, from its RPG elements.

I don't feel that way either, since almost every crpg is combat heavy. Too combat heavy. This isn't about the amount of combat, but instead the type. In this case the type is twitch. twitch combat relies on player skill, not soley character skill, to decide the outcome of actions or combat. Since this is not possible in a real rpg or crpg, any game that incorporates this is not a rpg or crpg.

The RP qualities of G3 and if its an rpg or not are not connected.

Twitch based gameplay is based on player skill, but so does any other type of gameplay. If combat were totally based on character skill, there would be no player input at all - all actions and tactics would be decided based on a character's intelligence or wisdom. For example, every time in Fallout you're moving to another hex-tile, choosing a type of attack, this is player skill; if it were solely based on character skill you would not be choosing any of these actions, but rather your character himself has to choose - this is character skill. Another example, say you make a character with very very low wisdom and intelligence. However, the game does not limit you from standing back and considering the circumstances of the upcoming battle, whereas if it were totally based on character skill your character would most likely rush in without any reluctance, ending in his death.

 

[Roqua]

Roleplaying in an rpg is a mental activity, not physical. Just as playing a larpg is different from playing an rpg, it has a differnt name do differntiate the differences.

There is a group called ARMA or ARPA or some shit, which is a group that has actual medieval melee combat. They also roleplay while doing it. But since the oytcome of their battles is depednant on their personal physical skill with swords and maces and shit, and not the created characters skill whose role they are playing, they are not larping. They are roleplaying and having mock melee battles.

Now, lets say we all decided to have a party, and then dress up in medival attire and fight each other with swords, but our personal skills with swords wouldn't matter, only the characters whose role we are playing and that character's physical abilities and skills (just like in a real rpg), then that would be a different case correct?

In the ARMA/ARPA case and our party case, everyone is roleplaying a character they created, which falls in the mental catagory since roleplaying is a mental activity. But, there is a key different between the combat both groups would engage in. In one group the actual physical skill and capabilities of the person playing the character is important, in the other it isn't.

Another example to clarify would be we have a group of people playing a pen and paper rpg. They decide that regular old rpgs are boring and want to spice things up. So for melee combat they break out Rock'em sock'em Robots and all agree that the dm will play the blue robot and the pc will be the red robot. Whoever wins the game of rock'em sock'em robots will win the in-game battle. For ranged combat the will use a different system, new characters start out with an elastic band that they shoot at a can from afar. When the character levels up or gets a better weapon the player can move closer to the can and use a slingshot or a wristrocket or a bb gun.

For melee, the players upgrade to an empty toilet paper roll and have to try and hit the cat that is running around the house with it. When they level up or get better weapons they move up to larger, slower anaimals, like dogs, sheeps, and then cows (or amybe a fat or crippled player) and get to use a paper towel roll, then a broon stick, then a bat.

To decide if they make a jump they go outside and measure it off and jump.

This might be super neat-o fun and better and more funner than any rpg combat could ever be, but as soon as they start doing all these fun things they stop playing an rpg and start playing another sort of game. The type or name of the game they are playing doesn't matter right now, only the fact that it isn't an rpg.

Am I wrong? Are my two examples wrong? No, agian I prove that I am right. I win yet another argument. No one can deny this that is rational. playing a role and being a role at the same time is impossible. It goes against the theory of noncontradiction. I have 100% logic and reason on my side. Anyone that does not admit that I am right doesn't. they have hopes, wishes, beliefs, and pipe dreams, which are useless in this discussion.

Please say I'm wrong. prove I'm wrong. logically and rationally and as well and as solid as i've proved I'm right.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Am I wrong? Are my two examples wrong?

Nope. Spot on.

No, agian I prove that I am right. I win yet another argument.

That's because you are a winner. That's why your wife is willing to role-play a cheerleader for you, and my wife isn't. Oh well...

 

[Roqua]

Am I wrong? Are my two examples wrong?

Nope. Spot on.

No, agian I prove that I am right. I win yet another argument.

That's because you are a winner. That's why your wife is willing to role-play a cheerleader for you, and my wife isn't. Oh well...

Thank you for admitting the truth.

On the subject of your wife. All you have to do is find out what turns her on and be that for her. In my wife's case, its firemen. I guess she wants a fireman bad enough to dress up as a cheerleader to get it. I'm always a fireman, where I have her switch it up. Sometimes a maid, sometimes a stripper, sometimes an escort, sometimes whatever I can think of.

What works well is going to a bar or club seperatly and faking you are strangers. Also, we make deals, if i give her a message for an hour she will jerk me off and tell me lesbian stories (that are made up, I can't get her to do it for real.) She also won't tell me stories during sex, which would be nice.

its all about negotiation. She wants something, you want something. collaborate and both get what you want.

 

[sabishii]

Roleplaying in an rpg is a mental activity, not physical. Just as playing a larpg is different from playing an rpg, it has a differnt name do differntiate the differences.

There is a group called ARMA or ARPA or some shit, which is a group that has actual medieval melee combat. They also roleplay while doing it. But since the oytcome of their battles is depednant on their personal physical skill with swords and maces and shit, and not the created characters skill whose role they are playing, they are not larping. They are roleplaying and having mock melee battles.

Now, lets say we all decided to have a party, and then dress up in medival attire and fight each other with swords, but our personal skills with swords wouldn't matter, only the characters whose role we are playing and that character's physical abilities and skills (just like in a real rpg), then that would be a different case correct?

In the ARMA/ARPA case and our party case, everyone is roleplaying a character they created, which falls in the mental catagory since roleplaying is a mental activity. But, there is a key different between the combat both groups would engage in. In one group the actual physical skill and capabilities of the person playing the character is important, in the other it isn't.

Another example to clarify would be we have a group of people playing a pen and paper rpg. They decide that regular old rpgs are boring and want to spice things up. So for melee combat they break out Rock'em sock'em Robots and all agree that the dm will play the blue robot and the pc will be the red robot. Whoever wins the game of rock'em sock'em robots will win the in-game battle. For ranged combat the will use a different system, new characters start out with an elastic band that they shoot at a can from afar. When the character levels up or gets a better weapon the player can move closer to the can and use a slingshot or a wristrocket or a bb gun.

For melee, the players upgrade to an empty toilet paper roll and have to try and hit the cat that is running around the house with it. When they level up or get better weapons they move up to larger, slower anaimals, like dogs, sheeps, and then cows (or amybe a fat or crippled player) and get to use a paper towel roll, then a broon stick, then a bat.

To decide if they make a jump they go outside and measure it off and jump.

This might be super neat-o fun and better and more funner than any rpg combat could ever be, but as soon as they start doing all these fun things they stop playing an rpg and start playing another sort of game. The type or name of the game they are playing doesn't matter right now, only the fact that it isn't an rpg.

Am I wrong? Are my two examples wrong? No, agian I prove that I am right. I win yet another argument. No one can deny this that is rational. playing a role and being a role at the same time is impossible. It goes against the theory of noncontradiction. I have 100% logic and reason on my side. Anyone that does not admit that I am right doesn't. they have hopes, wishes, beliefs, and pipe dreams, which are useless in this discussion.

Please say I'm wrong. prove I'm wrong. logically and rationally and as well and as solid as i've proved I'm right.

Uh... to be honest I have almost NO idea what you said. So I can't really disprove anything you said since.. I dunno what you said.

Besides that, you totally ignored my argument. You said twitch-based combat is player skill, that a real RPG is only character skill. I refuted that by saying that there is no such thing as no player skill unless you're watching a movie. Then you come back saying NOTHING about my statements and instead comparing LARPing and ARMA?

The only thing I get from what you said is your first sentence, "Roleplaying in an rpg is a mental activity, not physical." And what exactly does that have to do with combat? Are you ROLEPLAYING when you're in combat? Are you defining your personality? Having a non-twitched based - non-"physical" - combat system is no different from a turn-based strategy game. Are you saying that when you're fighting in Civilization, you're roleplaying? Are you roleplaying while playing chess?

Edit: I read the last paragraph over and it didn't really give my intent. What I mean is, if combat is the defining point of an RPG, and that RPG combat must be non-twitched-based or "non-physical", then any strategy game can be an RPG.

ARMA isn't a roleplaying event, by the way. It's a study of western martial arts (ARMA - Association for Renaissance Martial Arts), similar to Karate. Get your facts straight.

 

[Roqua]

I didn't ignore your point. I addressed it, you are just retarded. Roleplaying a character indicates supplying the personality and making decisions for that character. A retard would have a hard time roleplaying a genius. Whereas agenius should have no problem roleplaying a retard. If the genius makes smart decisions when he should make stupid ones, that means he isn't playing the role he is roleplaying correctly, correct?

During the act of playing a role, part of that act is supplying directions. Watch9ing a movie isn't roleplaying. Roleplaying in an rpg is an activity, just not a physical one. Your example is retarded, and the fact I had to articulate my point makes you a fucking idiot.

And ARMA, or the other group with the word anachronism in their name, put on shows and roleplay at events. i saw one in WA, or OR. With my own eyes. Unless their real names are Gorathal and they talk like idiots all the time, what i saw was roleplaying.

 

[sabishii]

I didn't ignore your point. I addressed it, you are just retarded. Roleplaying a character indicates supplying the personality and making decisions for that character. A retard would have a hard time roleplaying a genius. Whereas agenius should have no problem roleplaying a retard. If the genius makes smart decisions when he should make stupid ones, that means he isn't playing the role he is roleplaying correctly, correct?

During the act of playing a role, part of that act is supplying directions. Watch9ing a movie isn't roleplaying. Roleplaying in an rpg is an activity, just not a physical one. Your example is retarded, and the fact I had to articulate my point makes you a fucking idiot.

And ARMA, or the other group with the word anachronism in their name, put on shows and roleplay at events. i saw one in WA, or OR. With my own eyes. Unless their real names are Gorathal and they talk like idiots all the time, what i saw was roleplaying.

You DIDN'T address my point. You said roleplaying is a mental, not a physical activity. Okay... What did I say? "Twitch based gameplay is based on player skill, but so does any other type of gameplay." Where do I talk about roleplaying in that sentence at all? Where do I say the word "roleplaying" in my paragraph at ALL? I was talking about the fact that combat itself HAS to involve personal skill. NOTHING about roleplaying. Seems to me you're the retarded one.

Secondly, you probably missed my edit, but what I added in my previous post was, "What I mean is, if combat is the defining point of an RPG, and that RPG combat must be non-twitched-based or "non-physical", then any strategy game can be an RPG."

"If the genius makes smart decisions when he should make stupid ones, that means he isn't playing the role he is roleplaying correctly, correct?" Correct. So does that mean if you make a low Int and Wis character in any game then you're always going to rush in headfirst and ignore anything that has to do with strategy?

What you saw was a SHOW. Or do you expect them to go on stage and just boringly demonstrate certain maneuvers? I'm not sure why the hell you're arguing this point, because all you have is a single inference of a single event, whereas I KNOW what they are. Visit this site: http://www.thearma.org/

 

[sabishii]

Okay... I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me know if I'm right:

1. When you said "player skill" versus "character skill", you meant "physical skill" versus "mental skill." If that's what you meant, then I can't disagree that that's the difference between twitch-based combat and turn-based. The thing is, I took you literally, and there IS "player skill" involved in all types of combat.

2. When you say that RPGs are defined by "mental" combat, you mean that RPGs are defined by mental combat AND roleplaying outside of combat. I misunderstood you here, as I thought you meant RPGs are solely represented by non-physical combat. We'll have to agree to disagree here, because my definition of an RPG is different from yours. For me, an RPG is any game that allows and supplements roleplaying (e.g. the ability to do whatever is plausible for your character, and plausible consequences for these actions instead of having to imagine consequences in your head), with no stipulation in terms of combat. For you, if I understand correctly, an RPG is if it does the above, but also must have a strictly mental based combat system. I'm just going to have to disagree with that, as I take the words "roleplaying game" as simply "game for roleplaying" not "game for roleplaying that must be this type of combat."

 

[Roqua]

Show or not, my example was good, because I was talking about an event. Their website has no impact on my point.

Combat is not the defining point of an rpg. You could have an rpg with no combat. And yes, all video ga,mes require physical input, but the extent of that input and type of input helps catagorize the type of game it is. As does the type of combat. RPGs could have RT or TB combat, or no combat at all, and still be rpgs. If a game has no roleplaying it can't be an rpg. If a game involves physical activities and those physical activities, such as jumping, connecting in combat, dosging a blow, hitting with an arrow, are dictated by player skill instead of character skill, the game isn't an rpg.

Now, games have mental attributes also, and some crpgs use these to good effect. A good example would be the scorpion test in FO 2.

A for a D&D character with low int and wis always charging into battles, that is a retrded example. Do retdrads always charge into battle? No, they stand there, poop their pants, drool, and smile all goofy. If you created a character, even one that was rather bright and wise, that never backed down froma fight, and always charged head first into any frolic, then that is what that character does, and to roleplay that character correct, even when its the right thing to do, you charge in.

What happened when Socrates was ordered to stop preaching and teaching by the state? He was a wise man but he didn't back down. He died for his beliefs, which could be argued isn't wise. But if Socrates was wise or not is not debatable. He was very much so.

Someone can have low wis and int and be a coward, or very brave. Or anything in between.

Some systems reduce int into a mnemonic mechanism.

Now, to help your retarded argument, I'll make actual good points to support what you are saying. There are some rpg systems, such as The Riddle of steel, that has combat that is definitly assisted by player knowledge in the system. its a very complex and detailed system, so players can have their character win battles that they otherwise should have lost due to having a much greater knowledge of the combat system. The same could be said for The Burning Wheel.

That is one end of the spectrum. The other end would be a game like Fudge, where the game is very not complex or detailed, and no amount of experience with the system would assist characters in combat, or help players help their characters in combat by knowledge of the system.

Most games have a good mix. Any system with any amount of detail or complexity will have a learning curve. But once that curve is reached, all players, and therefore all characters, are on an equal playing field gamewise (given they are all equally as bright).

If people choose not to roleplay the characters they created correctly in an rpg, thats on them. Its not a fault of rpgs. And sometimes stupid people make the right decisions. Lets say you decided to stop thinking you actually have anything relevant to say and stopped posting about this nonsense, that would be a perfect example of this.

Lets chalk this up to you are stupid and I am not, I know what I'm talking about and you don't. Its no big deal. I know a lot about what makes an rpg an rpg. Its nothing i would actually mention to anyone in real life. Your stupid, I'm sure you don't like to broach that topic in real life. Its okay. Lets be friends.

 

[Top Hat]

Vault Dweller, could you please clarify a point for me. Are you saying that a RPG requires non-linearity while adventure games require linearity? If you are, then you're really yoking adventure games unnecessarily. Just because the majority of adventure games are essentially barely-interactive stories does not mean that all are, or need to be.

One of my favorite adventure games is The Colonel's Bequest. It's not full of a great deal of choice-and-consequence; however it is certainly non-linear. You can miss clues, not find secret passages or where the bodies end up, not overhear conversations, and not find some treasure. The ending changes (although sometimes only slightly) depending on some of your actions in-game (although you can't save any of the main victims). And there's a summation which alludes to things that you might have missed.

 

[Roqua]

Okay... I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me know if I'm right:

1. When you said "player skill" versus "character skill", you meant "physical skill" versus "mental skill." If that's what you meant, then I can't disagree that that's the difference between twitch-based combat and turn-based. The thing is, I took you literally, and there IS "player skill" involved in all types of combat.

2. When you say that RPGs are defined by "mental" combat, you mean that RPGs are defined by mental combat AND roleplaying outside of combat. I misunderstood you here, as I thought you meant RPGs are solely represented by non-physical combat. We'll have to agree to disagree here, because my definition of an RPG is different from yours. For me, an RPG is any game that allows and supplements roleplaying (e.g. the ability to do whatever is plausible for your character, and plausible consequences for these actions instead of having to imagine consequences in your head), with no stipulation in terms of combat. For you, if I understand correctly, an RPG is if it does the above, but also must have a strictly mental based combat system. I'm just going to have to disagree with that, as I take the words "roleplaying game" as simply "game for roleplaying" not "game for roleplaying that must be this type of combat."

this was posted while I was typing my last post. So I'll leave that and address this. Your definition is meaningless. I could define a car as anything that has four wheels, but that isn't correct. And if you want to know why your definition is wrong, reread the first post you replied to on this and tell me how my two examples are wrong with your new found understanding of what we are talking about.

edit: p.s. I guess you aren't as retarded as I thought, just a little slow on the uptake.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller, could you please clarify a point for me. Are you saying that a RPG requires non-linearity while adventure games require linearity?

No.

You can miss clues, not find secret passages or where the bodies end up, not overhear conversations, and not find some treasure.

I meant meaningful choices.

 

[Volourn]

A role playing game's combat is based on the character's skill. That's why a game like IWD is ujsually term a dungeon crawl and not just an action game depsite its focus being on combat - because said combat is based on the character stats. While a game like Gothic 3 or JE or BL while having role-playing are Action RPGs because the action - the combat - is mainly base don player manipulation of the mouse/keyboard/controller.

You can click all you want in IWD; it won't make your characetrs fight better. However, in BL or G3 or JE (not to same degree); the faster you click; the better you do. That's why G3 is an Action RPG. No matter how good the role-playing is. BL's role-playing is pretty much as good as any full fledge RPG; but it is still an Action RPG. It has nothing to do with the amount or even quality of combat. It has to do with the style of combat.

I know this for a fact.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Facts are DEAD.

 

[sabishii]

Okay... I think there is some misunderstanding. Let me know if I'm right:

1. When you said "player skill" versus "character skill", you meant "physical skill" versus "mental skill." If that's what you meant, then I can't disagree that that's the difference between twitch-based combat and turn-based. The thing is, I took you literally, and there IS "player skill" involved in all types of combat.

2. When you say that RPGs are defined by "mental" combat, you mean that RPGs are defined by mental combat AND roleplaying outside of combat. I misunderstood you here, as I thought you meant RPGs are solely represented by non-physical combat. We'll have to agree to disagree here, because my definition of an RPG is different from yours. For me, an RPG is any game that allows and supplements roleplaying (e.g. the ability to do whatever is plausible for your character, and plausible consequences for these actions instead of having to imagine consequences in your head), with no stipulation in terms of combat. For you, if I understand correctly, an RPG is if it does the above, but also must have a strictly mental based combat system. I'm just going to have to disagree with that, as I take the words "roleplaying game" as simply "game for roleplaying" not "game for roleplaying that must be this type of combat."

this was posted while I was typing my last post. So I'll leave that and address this. Your definition is meaningless. I could define a car as anything that has four wheels, but that isn't correct. And if you want to know why your definition is wrong, reread the first post you replied to on this and tell me how my two examples are wrong with your new found understanding of what we are talking about.

edit: p.s. I guess you aren't as retarded as I thought, just a little slow on the uptake.

Your two examples don't coincide with my definition. I don't really care if combat is mental only, or mental and physical. My definition is simply that the type of combat doesn't matter, that an RPG is literally what the letters stand for, a game for roleplaying. As for my definition being ridiculous... Lol. Is there a universal definition for an RPG now? The argument for what an RPG is has gone on for over several different threads in this forum alone. But somehow you can just come up and say you definition is correct and my definition is incorrect. This is why I said to agree to disagree.

For the majority of (mainstream) gamers, an RPG is simply a game that has a combat system that you describe, based on mental skill only. And to them, whether or not it has actual roleplaying (choice & consequence and what not) doesn't matter, it's the combat system (and character development, which is most likely wrapped around the combat system) that matters. So if there were a universal RPG definition, this would be it. Is this what you subscribe to, that RPGs are solely based on what type of combat it is?

I may be slow on the uptake, but part of the misunderstanding is on your part. For example when you say "character skill" and "player skill" but mean "mental skill" and "physical skill", and when you talk about roleplaying when my point originally had nothing to do with roleplaying, simply just the combat system.

 

[Hazelnut]

Facts are DEAD.

Reading the Codex recently that is truer than (I assume) you meant. But LOLers anyway.