The Gentleman Loser
Novice
Dying... evolving... how about Devolving?
-
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.
Are RPGs Evolving or Dying?
- Thread starter VentilatorOfDoom
- Start date
Awor Szurkrarz
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 21,899
RTS was to wargames what modern popamole "RPGs" are to classical RPGs. Decline.felipepepe said:
Also, the whole idea of taking a strategic game in real time? We're talking about games where a turn last a week+ and units are whole divisions. Then you end up with stuff like rocket infantry unit needing 100 or something attacks to destroy a harvester unit, except that unlike in a real strategic game, the harvester unit doesn't lose any of its effectiveness when losing strength.
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 27,260
The Gentleman Loser said:
No, but only because you're using the wrong word. Look up Devolution in a dictionary or Wikipedia to see why.
The proper, unmistakable term is "de-evolution".
The Gentleman Loser
Novice
Unkillable Cat said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolving
Definition Three.
It's weird like that. This definition only appears in the verb from, not the noun form.
I'm not saying things are going back to an earlier state. Just degenerating.
Joe Krow
Erudite
CRPGs died when designers stooped basing them on PnP RPGs.
Obviously the first step was making RPGs real-time. Diablo was the first nail in the coffin but there was still hope even then.
Games like Morrowind and Bloodlines (two modern examples) stayed true to RPGs roots by basing the combat on character attributes. Unfortunately, the new RPG fans didn't like that. The game was not responding in the way it would in a pure action game... the character would either miss or do minimal damage despite the head-shot.
To rectify, they decided to use character attributes to modify player ability instead (see Oblivion and Alpha Protocol). Now having a shit character made the head-shot more difficult but if you got one it registered. Character attributes are now identical to the guns in a FPS- better ones made the game easier to play (faster, steadier cross-hair, etc). There are little or no recognizable RPG mechanics. In effect skills no longer modify the character, they modify the player.
In terms of "evolution" I don't see how things can decline any further.
Obviously the first step was making RPGs real-time. Diablo was the first nail in the coffin but there was still hope even then.
Games like Morrowind and Bloodlines (two modern examples) stayed true to RPGs roots by basing the combat on character attributes. Unfortunately, the new RPG fans didn't like that. The game was not responding in the way it would in a pure action game... the character would either miss or do minimal damage despite the head-shot.
To rectify, they decided to use character attributes to modify player ability instead (see Oblivion and Alpha Protocol). Now having a shit character made the head-shot more difficult but if you got one it registered. Character attributes are now identical to the guns in a FPS- better ones made the game easier to play (faster, steadier cross-hair, etc). There are little or no recognizable RPG mechanics. In effect skills no longer modify the character, they modify the player.
In terms of "evolution" I don't see how things can decline any further.
The Gentleman Loser
Novice
Funny enough once 3D and a Gun is involved, people can't seem to account for stats at all. People complain about the shooting in games like "Deus Ex", "Mass Effect (1)", "Alpha Protocol", and "Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines" often because the gun play does not work like in most first or third-person shooters. The cone of fire effect confuses people, even in the games with the clearly drawn slowly closing cross hairs. People seem to misunderstand what is happening, and why.
It seems having stats-based aiming and a real-time 3D environment will never work hand-in-hand... or at least not to peoples expectations.
---
Oh, your sig reminds me... remember when they used to say "non-linear"?
Now they say C&C, and half the time it's just leading to the things you got listed there... and also usually all the Choices are made in dialogue. Not enough games have non-linearity through game play anymore. What ever happened to "actions speak louder than words"?
Even worse most games just have the "BIG CHOICE!" right at the end. It's like a footnote.
"Psst... whose side do you want to be on for this final fight? One side will instantly forgive you for everything, and the other will despise you despite all the good you have done. Be sure to save now so you can see both endings just by reloading and replaying this fight! Don't worry about anything before this moment, we've gone ahead and made it all trivial. Now... choose your immediate consequence!"
And that pretty much sums it up. It's supposed to be Choice and Consequences, but the consequences are so predictable it becomes "Choose your Consequences" instead.
It seems having stats-based aiming and a real-time 3D environment will never work hand-in-hand... or at least not to peoples expectations.
---
Oh, your sig reminds me... remember when they used to say "non-linear"?
Now they say C&C, and half the time it's just leading to the things you got listed there... and also usually all the Choices are made in dialogue. Not enough games have non-linearity through game play anymore. What ever happened to "actions speak louder than words"?
Even worse most games just have the "BIG CHOICE!" right at the end. It's like a footnote.
"Psst... whose side do you want to be on for this final fight? One side will instantly forgive you for everything, and the other will despise you despite all the good you have done. Be sure to save now so you can see both endings just by reloading and replaying this fight! Don't worry about anything before this moment, we've gone ahead and made it all trivial. Now... choose your immediate consequence!"
And that pretty much sums it up. It's supposed to be Choice and Consequences, but the consequences are so predictable it becomes "Choose your Consequences" instead.
Serious_Business
Best Poster on the Codex
Rpgs are becoming better and better
Fuck
Rpgs are better because it's all a matter of perspective
Fuck
Darwin called, he said some things just don't survive
Fuck
Fuck
Rpgs are better because it's all a matter of perspective
Fuck
Darwin called, he said some things just don't survive
Fuck
Awor Szurkrarz said:
Yeah, I see your point, sad but true...Series like Steel Panther have vanished, and even more "modern" ones, like Warhammer: Dark Omen (my favorite strategic game) have been abandoned/dumbed-down in favor of Real-Time...
I still like RTS games thought, and enjoyed a lot Civ V, so you proven your point and made me feel as hazardous to Strategic Games as people who love Dragon Age 2 are to RPGs.
Well done!
Metro
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,792
RTS games have been pretty bad the last several years -- most of them just amount to highlighting a box of units and smashing them into a box of enemy units. About as strategic as Ancient Art of War -- good concept for 1984 but no so much 25 years later.
Joe Krow
Erudite
"Who knows, within a few years, The Elder Scrolls may be the last true RPG that hasn’t been greatly or subtly changed to make a game designed for a narrow audience into one that has mass appeal."
deuxhero
Arcane
Dead, with some zombies (Obsidian, ITS)
AlaCarcuss
Arbiter
circ said:
The Creative Assembly?... Paradox?, Matrix? and 1C? (and all their associated devs - battlefront etc.), Eugen (R.U.S.E)?, NeoCore (King Authur, Kings Crusade etc)? ... countless smaller devs.
Shit, there's zillions of RTS developers (especially compared to RPG devs). Not that I'm particularly fond of the genre (I prefer TBS), but there's a few good ones still. I'd say the RTS genre is doing pretty well still on PC.
Conversely, and I don't know how many times this has to be said, DOW 2 and it's expansions are NOT RTS, they don't even resemble an RTS so I don't know why people keep referring to them as such (because DOW 1 was RTS?). They are squad based tactical shooters with some RPG elements for good measure. I don't mind - I think they're great, especially the two expansions, but NOT RTS.
waywardOne
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 2,318
RPGs can't evolve; they are fixed, well-defined entities. they can have variants which could end up differentiating enough to no longer qualify as an RPG, but that is certainly not evolution.
circ
Arcane
The proper term is DEVO!Unkillable Cat said:
Azrael the cat
Arcane
circ said:
Unfortunately, 'if a problem comes along, you must whip it...' doesn't seem to have any logical application to the downfall of crpgs:-(. Otherwise I would obey the mighty DEVO, I really would.
Awor Szurkrarz
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 21,899
Dark Omen was Real-Time. Except that unlike Command & Conquer, Starcraft, etc. it was a tactical Real Time Simulation, not Real Time Strategy.felipepepe said:
Tactical shooters? You mean like Counterstrike?AlaCarcuss said:
From what I've seen, the combat is the same as in DoW. And combat in DoW still has the same RTS gimmicks that were derived strategic games. You still get super-tough units, you still get short range of sight, etc.
It's not a true tactical game. It's RTS minus the base building part (Real Time Operational
?).Norfleet
Moderator
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 12,250
Not just the "new" RPG fans, either. As an old RPG fan, I didn't care for it either. The real reason we don't care for it is simple: When you set up and visibly SEE the headshot, there is the reasonable expectation that it should thus RESPOND like a headshot. There isn't any such expectation in "classic" RPGs because you never see it: In "classic" games, a possibly not-animated-at-all sprite possibly makes a stabbing motion in the general direction of an enemy sprite, which may react to this by flashing. You are then told damage was inflicted. Since you didn't SEE the guy get stabbed through the face, you have no reason to expect him to react as such.Joe Krow said:
The death of the "classic" RPG is the direct effect of graphics: Mechanics that worked well at a high level of abstraction become nonsensical when you can see things at a very low level, and your opponent is now walking about apparently unfazed by 30 arrows visibly stuck all the way through his head, something no one should be surviving. The jarring effect of being told you MISSED when there is no physically possible way this could have happened detracts greatly from the game experience. This didn't happen without the fancy graphics: You were just told you missed, and it was up to you to imagine what the hell happened.
Consider the typical RPG mechanics: They're extremely generous, and tend to lean towards low lethality. A level 1 warrior swinging at a naked man has an approximately 50% chance to hit him. This chance includes a large number of abstractions: The man could be dodgng, etc. We accept this because we cannot see any contradictory evidence that this is untrue. When we can now SEE that the man is simply STANDING THERE, a completely stationary target who is not moving at all, when you whack him with a sword, you expect that this qualifies as a hit. When you shoot him at him from 5 feet away with a gun, you expect that he's going to get shot, and probably not all that far from where you're aiming, even if your character sucks, because, quite frankly, practically no one could suck that much in real life. So naturally, it's quite jarring when you...miss, with swords that somehow strike an invisible forcefield and bullets that fly off at 80-degree angles to enable such a thing.
kasmas
Educated
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 111
Gaming industry is trying to make money by mixing and recycling the same things over and over again and since the consoles are out technology is stuck too , sooner or later modern RPGs will look and feel all the same and this will create the ground for many developers to go classic .
Just my opinion .
Just my opinion .
Johannes
Arcane
So your problem with RTS's is that they are too abstract? That's not the same as difference as between old- and newschool RPGs at all.Awor Szurkrarz said:
Unless decline just means any change you personally dislike.
circ
Arcane
Um what? He just stated an obvious difference between classic strategy games and RTS's. How is that a personal dislike? He didn't endorse either system. Maybe actual strategy games are too abstract in your opinion.
And calling it a real time Strategy is kind of stupid in the first place, as it has nothing to do with strategy. Tactics maybe, but not strategy. There aren't any environmental factors to bother with most of the time except choke points, sometimes there's morale, but it's simplified. No supply lines, no weather or equipment modifiers. It's about capping and harassing and so on.
And calling it a real time Strategy is kind of stupid in the first place, as it has nothing to do with strategy. Tactics maybe, but not strategy. There aren't any environmental factors to bother with most of the time except choke points, sometimes there's morale, but it's simplified. No supply lines, no weather or equipment modifiers. It's about capping and harassing and so on.
Fucking console morons who don't know the difference between strategy and tactics go play popamole Counterstrike instead.
AlaCarcuss
Arbiter
Awor Szurkrarz said:
Counterstrike is a squad based tactical shooter?
Shooter's don't have to be FP/3P you know. I probably should have said "squad based tactical game" so as not to confuse you.No. Like say Bungie's Myth series or (god forbid) even JA2, only RtWP and with small squads of units rather than single man units. (but as each unit in DOW2 acts as a single entity anyway, there's no real difference). Yeah, DOW 2 has far more in common with those games than any so called RTS.
Awor Szurkrarz said:From what I've seen, the combat is the same as in DoW. And combat in DoW still has the same RTS gimmicks that were derived strategic games. You still get super-tough units, you still get short range of sight, etc.
It's not a true tactical game. It's RTS minus the base building part (Real Time Operational
Huh? There's no fucking strategy involved, real-time or otherwise - it's all tactics. What the hell to you consider a true tactical game? (mind you, there's not much strategy involved in most RTS's, so I'll give you that).
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.