NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[Jaesun]

and that is cRPG related how exactly?

 

[Oriebam]

Thought the thread was about the retardolands and it's citizens since a few dozen pages ago or more

Don't think anyone was intolerant of fucking my little pony here, though

 

[Wyrmlord]

and that is cRPG related how exactly?

America Online was used to published Neverwinter Nights the original.

 

[Flatlander]

Developer of 100 Rogues is worried about how every developer these days is just copying off the old classics like Wizardry and Ultima.

http://www.dinofarmgames.com/?p=418

On Avadon:

As you can see, we have an incredibly complicated UI here. No less than SIXTEEN buttons on the bottom of the hud, TWELVE slots to equip something on your character, and a large inventory for all the LOOT in the game.

I too have been lately worried about this recent trend of everyone in the indie scene making complicated old school RPGs.

 

[7hm]

I’m talking about games like Wizardry, Ultima, and even to some extent, Fallout. The games were overly complex, and I don’t mean “for casual players”, I mean they were just too complicated for their own good.

Oh lord.

(a great example was how many skills there were in Fallout – Outdoorsman? Doctor? Gambling? Who’s going to take these?

Spiderweb Software is one example of a company that pretty much exclusively copies the designs from 15 years ago. Now, in theory, I should love them, because they are copying games like Fallout and Arcanum, which I consider to be, probably, the best computer role-playing games ever made. However, Spiderweb is also copying the fundamental weaknesses of those games.

Jesus. At least get your facts straight. Jeff isn't copying Fallout and Arcanum. He's copying his own games. Over and over again. And he's simplifying them. Over and over again.

...

On the other hand, I agree with this bit:

Does it make sense that for most of the “fights” in your game, you can’t possibly lose? Absolutely not, there can be no tension in a game without the threat of losing. Does it even qualify as a fight if it’s “supposed to be easy”?

But basically he's just writing a blog piece ripping on Spiderweb for making games in the same tradition for 15 years. People keep buying em, so...

...

edit:

And from another one of his posts:

I love roguelikes, but they all have huge problems stemming from this somewhat undecided purpose. Some of them have an “auto-explore” key, and anyone who plays these games enough will want this feature in just about any of them. This means that the big, expansive levels (of Crawl in particular) are entirely wasted. The UIs are arguably needlessly fiddly, with the player constantly needing to remove his “+2 sword” when he gets a “+3 sword” and other such situations that are entirely the result of a “loot drop” mentality, a mentality which is inherently illogical from a classical game design perspective but makes tons of sense in a high-fantasy simulator.

Needless to say, I don't agree.

Interesting nonetheless. He comes off as a hipster douchebag, but he's interesting at least.

 

[jancobblepot]

I’m talking about games like Wizardry, Ultima, and even to some extent, Fallout. The games were overly complex, and I don’t mean “for casual players”, I mean they were just too complicated for their own good.

 

[JarlFrank]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

Back then I was maybe 12 or something, and I never thought "that sounds too overwhelming I will never understand this game" but "Yay I love large games with tons of content and complexity!!"
So either I was a kid with a super-brain who could understand games that were "too complicated for their own good", or modern gamers - who aren't even kids anymore - are just retarded.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

Back then I was maybe 12 or something, and I never thought "that sounds too overwhelming I will never understand this game" but "Yay I love large games with tons of content and complexity!!"
So either I was a kid with a super-brain who could understand games that were "too complicated for their own good", or modern gamers - who aren't even kids anymore - are just retarded.

Call of Duty has no problem reaching more than 10 million sales. Bethesda is the biggest selling "RPG" dev.

Yes, modern games only play retardo. And even then only mostly if it has a competitive online to give them the feel that they aren't useless fucks.

They just aren't trying at all anymore and have no interest in complexity or exploring the possiblities of the medium.



Also I'd argue that games nowadays don't have tons of content. Say what you want, Oblivion, GTA, Red Dead Redemption and MMOs and so on also have "tons of content". Its just that they have tons of shitty, absymal content.

I'd rather have a high quality 20-25 hour romp (Fallout 1) than 500 hours of really stupid fetch-quests.

 

[DraQ]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

Back then I was maybe 12 or something, and I never thought "that sounds too overwhelming I will never understand this game" but "Yay I love large games with tons of content and complexity!!"
So either I was a kid with a super-brain who could understand games that were "too complicated for their own good", or modern gamers - who aren't even kids anymore - are just retarded.

Fucking this.

Back in mid 90's the hype largely consisted of "MOAR X" where X could be units, scenarios, areas, weapons, classes, skills, km squared of the gameplay area and so on, while everyone was going "SO AWSUM!!!" rather than "OMG THIS GAEM WILL SURELY IMPLODE MY MALFORMED LITTLE BWAIN".

Can't say I have ever been a fan of hype by quantity, but quantity is at least measurable, verifiable and may imply complexity, while claims of being "TEH BEST ARPEEGEE EVAR" are not and do not.

 

[Flatlander]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

 

[Flatlander]

I fucking love these old RPG backcovers. There is no way in hell something like these
http://www.c64sets.com/wasteland/Inlay_back.jpg
http://www.c64sets.com/pool_radiance/por_pkg02.jpg
would work for modern games. I mean, declaring that STRATEGY IS EVERYTHING right in the box?

 

[Renegen]

I’m talking about games like Wizardry, Ultima, and even to some extent, Fallout. The games were overly complex, and I don’t mean “for casual players”, I mean they were just too complicated for their own good.

what

You have to read what they say between the lines and very slowly, because a lot of them don't actually try to give their opinions on anything, they just want to sound like a fag and get attention. Sometimes the fans will sound just as stupid, and that's because they are all losers that secretly want to work for the gaming industry, and not knowing any better, they just promote whatever the industry is doing to "fit in". Reading what this guy has to say, he don't really display any intelligence and has a lot of basic logical flaws.

Here's another gem:

It doesn’t take a genius game designer to see the weaknesses in this kind of a “loot-oriented” system in a game. It necessarily becomes busy-work: Oh, look, leather armor. Oh look, chainmail armor! Now you have all these items, most of which are completely useless garbage whose most exciting destination will be the item shop in town for a few pieces of gold.

He's just described every single MMO. Just to troll him maybe we should send this paragraph to Blizzard and see him freak out as he watches his bridges burn in slow motion.

 

[Surf Solar]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

Back then I was maybe 12 or something, and I never thought "that sounds too overwhelming I will never understand this game" but "Yay I love large games with tons of content and complexity!!"
So either I was a kid with a super-brain who could understand games that were "too complicated for their own good", or modern gamers - who aren't even kids anymore - are just retarded.

Fucking this.

Back in mid 90's the hype largely consisted of "MOAR X" where X could be units, scenarios, areas, weapons, classes, skills, km squared of the gameplay area and so on, while everyone was going "SO AWSUM!!!" rather than "OMG THIS GAEM WILL SURELY IMPLODE MY MALFORMED LITTLE BWAIN".

Can't say I have ever been a fan of hype by quantity, but quantity is at least measurable, verifiable and may imply complexity, while claims of being "TEH BEST ARPEEGEE EVAR" are not and do not.

And then you have sports games like Fifa, NBA live or whatever where there are lots of stats and shit to modify and develop - yet no one of the "new generation players" complains about these.

 

[Jaesun]

And then you have sports games like Fifa, NBA live or whatever where there are lots of stats and shit to modify and develop - yet no one of the "new generation players" complains about these.

Having stats does not == cRPG hon. Just FYI.

 

[Surf Solar]

And then you have sports games like Fifa, NBA live or whatever where there are lots of stats and shit to modify and develop - yet no one of the "new generation players" complains about these.

Having stats does not == cRPG hon. Just FYI.

I know, it was rather aimed at that quote from lots of retards "oh, there are so many numbers in this RPG, wtf it's too complex"

 

[DraQ]

Also, regarding EA, there are people who should just be exterminated.
Not tried, not punished, but simply exterminated, using fastest, most efficient methods possible, without regard for being humane or anything.

I vote to exterminate all fuckers that wants to exterminate people first.

Derp.
Alas, rat diplomacy isn't always a valid solution.
Sometimes you just need to call pest control.

EA in particular and whether or not in engages in unethical business practices is irrelevant here - you still have all the other wonderful examples of people-who-according-to-you-deserve-to-live. Like those involved in that old oil companies shitstorm, where the corporations paid researchers and experts of all sorts to "confirm" that tetraethyllead is completely harmless, while at the same time experiencing insane turnover in the workforce, because the workers dropped like flies due to acute lead poisoning and in one case, referred to one of the buildings they worked in as "house of butterflies" due to the colorful hallucinations caused by brain damage nearing terminal levels.

Sure, it's mainly legal structures that allow decision making power, demand for profits at all costs, and lack of personal responsibility to come together in such a wonderful manner, but they don't create those little sociopathic shits in responsible positions, they merely push the existing ones to the top.
And the legitimate use for shit is agriculture - as fertilizer.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I remember times when games used to advertise their number of skills and items, or technologies and units (in strategy games) to create hype and make everyone go "WOW THIS GAME IS HUGE AND HAS LOTS OF STUFF IN IT".

Back then I was maybe 12 or something, and I never thought "that sounds too overwhelming I will never understand this game" but "Yay I love large games with tons of content and complexity!!"
So either I was a kid with a super-brain who could understand games that were "too complicated for their own good", or modern gamers - who aren't even kids anymore - are just retarded.

Fucking this.

Back in mid 90's the hype largely consisted of "MOAR X" where X could be units, scenarios, areas, weapons, classes, skills, km squared of the gameplay area and so on, while everyone was going "SO AWSUM!!!" rather than "OMG THIS GAEM WILL SURELY IMPLODE MY MALFORMED LITTLE BWAIN".

Can't say I have ever been a fan of hype by quantity, but quantity is at least measurable, verifiable and may imply complexity, while claims of being "TEH BEST ARPEEGEE EVAR" are not and do not.

And then you have sports games like Fifa, NBA live or whatever where there are lots of stats and shit to modify and develop - yet no one of the "new generation players" complains about these.

It's because they are for sports fans. For people dedicating lots of time and love to sports, who probably know names of all the players from their favourite teams, their strong and weak sides, etc.
These guys are no different from us. It's just that there's much more of them, so they still get games made by big developers.

The main problem is the hostile black advertising that creates an environment hostile to games that we like.

Also, regarding EA, there are people who should just be exterminated.
Not tried, not punished, but simply exterminated, using fastest, most efficient methods possible, without regard for being humane or anything.

I vote to exterminate all fuckers that wants to exterminate people first.

Then you just voted for exterminating yourself. It wasn't very smart.

 

[Surf Solar]

http://fonline2238.net/forum/index.php? ... #msg158775

Basically a discussion if die throws are cool/not cool.

Percentages and skillpoints don't make rpg, what you do and can do ingame makes it. You can roleplay even in counter strike if you want. What works in singleplayer doesn't necessarily work in multiplayer. In fallout singleplayer crits were funny because the player character used them against enemies and got funny results. In fonline we players are in the receiving end and it's not very funny anymore.

Players don't like it when unexpected random things happen. You make a plan, execute it but it is ruined by random factor which is a lucky crit in this case.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it very derpy.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

http://fonline2238.net/forum/index.php?topic=19104.msg158775#msg158775

Basically a discussion if die throws are cool/not cool.

Percentages and skillpoints don't make rpg, what you do and can do ingame makes it. You can roleplay even in counter strike if you want. What works in singleplayer doesn't necessarily work in multiplayer. In fallout singleplayer crits were funny because the player character used them against enemies and got funny results. In fonline we players are in the receiving end and it's not very funny anymore.

Players don't like it when unexpected random things happen. You make a plan, execute it but it is ruined by random factor which is a lucky crit in this case.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it very derpy.

Actually, the extremely random crits was the worst part of Fallout. I have found damage multipliers for hitting critical locations in GURPS and JA2 and crippling based on exceeding a specific damage value much more appealing gameplay-wise as they reward good positioning and high skill levels.

 

[Surf Solar]

http://fonline2238.net/forum/index.php?topic=19104.msg158775#msg158775

Basically a discussion if die throws are cool/not cool.

Percentages and skillpoints don't make rpg, what you do and can do ingame makes it. You can roleplay even in counter strike if you want. What works in singleplayer doesn't necessarily work in multiplayer. In fallout singleplayer crits were funny because the player character used them against enemies and got funny results. In fonline we players are in the receiving end and it's not very funny anymore.

Players don't like it when unexpected random things happen. You make a plan, execute it but it is ruined by random factor which is a lucky crit in this case.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it very derpy.

Actually, the extremely random crits was the worst part of Fallout. I have found damage multipliers for hitting critical locations in GURPS and JA2 and crippling based on exceeding a specific damage value much more appealing gameplay-wise.

This can be fixed by making them a bit less lethal, ofcourse. I felt just rather "wat" when some people actually want to remove ALL the die throws in the background..

 

[UserNamer]

Pony fans are pretty much what broke my hope for humanity.

Why is that? MLP:FiM is a fine serie with good characters and plots, a cute sense of humour and well-written dialogs. The main target audience may be kids but that doesn't change the serie's quality.

how the fuck can you know that without having watched a single second of it? Or did you lose you sanity and actually watched that stuff?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

http://fonline2238.net/forum/index.php?topic=19104.msg158775#msg158775

Basically a discussion if die throws are cool/not cool.

Percentages and skillpoints don't make rpg, what you do and can do ingame makes it. You can roleplay even in counter strike if you want. What works in singleplayer doesn't necessarily work in multiplayer. In fallout singleplayer crits were funny because the player character used them against enemies and got funny results. In fonline we players are in the receiving end and it's not very funny anymore.

Players don't like it when unexpected random things happen. You make a plan, execute it but it is ruined by random factor which is a lucky crit in this case.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it very derpy.

Actually, the extremely random crits was the worst part of Fallout. I have found damage multipliers for hitting critical locations in GURPS and JA2 and crippling based on exceeding a specific damage value much more appealing gameplay-wise.

This can be fixed by making them a bit less lethal, ofcourse. I felt just rather "wat" when some people actually want to remove ALL the die throws in the background..

Making them less lethal would be even worse. Just make them more consistent. The main problem in Fallout was shooting people in the eyes and in the head and still having them survive and eventually swarm you and kill you usually with a critical hit. Flat damage multipliers simply reward planning, positioning and high skill levels. Random criticals just turn the game into a mess.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I really should just keep my shit image spamming in GD....

 

[sea]

http://fonline2238.net/forum/index.php?topic=19104.msg158775#msg158775

Basically a discussion if die throws are cool/not cool.

Percentages and skillpoints don't make rpg, what you do and can do ingame makes it. You can roleplay even in counter strike if you want. What works in singleplayer doesn't necessarily work in multiplayer. In fallout singleplayer crits were funny because the player character used them against enemies and got funny results. In fonline we players are in the receiving end and it's not very funny anymore.

Players don't like it when unexpected random things happen. You make a plan, execute it but it is ruined by random factor which is a lucky crit in this case.

Maybe it's just me, but I find it very derpy.

It's extremely derpy.

Random chance/die rolls exist in RPGs in order to simulate the fact that things don't always work 100% in the real world - skill can mitigate chances of error, but never completely eliminate it, and even a master sharpshooter is bound to miss now and then. In playing an RPG, you accept the possibility of missing and living with the consequences - it's what risk and reward are all about. Skill when playing an RPG comes as much from making a good plan as it does from being able to compensate for the situations when things don't work exactly as you anticipated, something which I think is downplayed when people use the "RPGs are all about stats and not about skill" argument. RPGs wouldn't be interesting or tactical if there were no random chance involved, they'd just be puzzle games.

That said, Fallout's "critical miss and shoot your own eye out with 150 skill in guns" was pretty dumb, but these sorts of issues are problems with the rulesets and not with the fundamental idea of die rolls. Anyone who confuses the two problems really ought to reexamine their arguments (and perhaps their entire perspective on RPGs).

 

[DraQ]

Making them less lethal would be even worse. Just make them more consistent. The main problem in Fallout was shooting people in the eyes and in the head and still having them survive and eventually swarm you and kill you usually with a critical hit. Flat damage multipliers simply reward planning, positioning and high skill levels. Random criticals just turn the game into a mess.

This.

I wouldn't want to remove all randomness/die rolls from an RPG, but there is certain proportion of uncertainty to control above which gameplay becomes a russian roulette for your character.

From the simulationist PoV the role of randomness is obvious, however, as much as I hate gamistfags, there are certain minimal gamist criteria to be observed when making a game - namely giving player enough control to make the game's outcome determined by player's decisions and player's skills.

Randomness is important, as it forces player to be flexible and account in their planning for the possibility that something goes horriblywrong. Certain deghree of unpredictability makes gameplay much more interesting as it eliminates the possibly of just going through motions and playing by rote and requires player's plans to be robust enough to be carried out despite being perturbed by random factors - anyone who has ever had the displeasure of playing oblivious which has no randomness should know that already.

However, if you add too much randomness, player's decisions will become largely irrelevant. For example in Fallout, there was very little positioning involved, so the decisions mostly boiled down to who to shoot first, with what and in what part. Then you either won spectacularly, or were spectacularly slaughtered.