Decline Can an RPG be real-time?

[anvi]

There is a problem that oldschool geeky RPGs were mostly lovingly made and had depth and were interesting and challenging and generally

And then sometime around 2000 things changed. 3D was part of it, it was a huge step in graphics and could be extremely immersive. But it was a huge extra cost, and it meant they needed a bigger audience to cover it. And that's where things went wrong.

I think EQ spoilt me because they really wanted to make an RPG, but in 3D. But in the race for $$$ over everything, other companies just went straight to making flashy action games with RPG-lite mechanics shoved in to give some illusion of depth. Some games do a better job than others. But generally the whole process of "streamlining" has been terrible and just means raping and dumbing down all that was good about RPGs.

But it is a matter of perspective. I don't know that I would care if I never saw EQ, but that set the bar so high for me, most games that came later seem primitive or a cop out in some way. Like if there's a big world to explore then I expect there to be factions. And if you piss off someone it should have an impact later in the game somehow. And there need to be places that kill me instantly if I fuck around or I'm not ready for yet. And I need to be able to make a bad character that struggles, or a great character that is ahead of the curve. Otherwise it is a shit game to me. It is either child proofed or doesn't have much depth, either way if there's no consequence to what I do, then I'm better doing something else. It needs content to add depth too. Items can't good and interesting if there are no bad items. And the game needs to make you play with the bad items for a while... only then will a good item feel good. Games that just throw uber lewtz at you constantly are nothing but a nuisance to me, having to compare the stats every 2 minutes..

EQ changed my perspective on realtime too. Anything that has lots of spells and decisions to make then turn based is great. But if you are mostly running around in realtime with a single character... and shooting things with guns or blasting it to death with fire, then it should be 100% realtime. So games like that which use RTWP, or anything like Elder Scrolls where you pause to eat cheese... or even anything like Diablos or anything with potions... all those things only exist because of "decline" embracing cut corners.

They were all just some tweaks and hard work away from being completely real time and balanced to perfection so that you get beat up if you are slacking... and if you play well then you do well. Game devs in history have always set the pace, and the player has to deal with the pace they set. So letting you pause is a cop out. But not only does it save them from having to balance things more, it also lets beginners play. I just don't think beginners should be accommodated in games that should be challenging.

 

[Harthwain]

As i said in the beginning, you could - in theory - make a game in real-time that will try to minimise as much as possible the input of players's dexterity in pressing keys but i have trouble thinking of one that really achieves it.

Greedfall - the game acts like your usual real-time action game, but you can press pause at any time. The game resumes after taking an action, so you can ponder as much as possible without losing anything, and you can pause as much as you want, even moment-after-moment or action-after-action, which completely removes the reflex side of things.

 

[Morenatsu.]

rpgs shouldn't be challenging. i want them to be easy so i can get them over with and move on to the games i actually want to play

 

[Serus]

As i said in the beginning, you could - in theory - make a game in real-time that will try to minimise as much as possible the input of players's dexterity in pressing keys but i have trouble thinking of one that really achieves it.

Greedfall - the game acts like your usual real-time action game, but you can press pause at any time. The game resumes after taking an action, so you can ponder as much as possible without losing anything, and you can pause as much as you want, even moment-after-moment or action-after-action, which completely removes the reflex side of things.

There some misunderstanding here. I have no doubt that you can make a system that includes real-time but where real time is only part of it. A system that will eliminate all or almost all player dexterity from equation.
When i talked "real time" i meant "real time" without options to influence the game state when outside that mode. Basically a "real - real time" game. Can one make a real-time system where player actions will not be influenced by his physical prowess in the real world? I think that, in theory, it can be made to some extent. Game where player's physical abilities are of so little importance that it matters very little and doesn't change the outcomes inside the game. But i can't pinpoint any crpg that did it.

 

[Butter]

There some misunderstanding here. I have no doubt that you can make a system that includes real-time but where real time is only part of it. A system that will eliminate all or almost all player dexterity from equation.
When i talked "real time" i meant "real time" without options to influence the game state when outside that mode. Basically a "real - real time" game. Can one make a real-time system where player actions will not be influenced by his physical prowess in the real world? I think that it can be made to some extent, where player's physical abilities are of so little importance that it matters very little and doesn't change the outcomes inside the game. But i can't pinpoint any crpg that did it.

Some games like Pillars and DAO (I think) let you program your character's AI so that you don't have to micro them in fights. If that were the only option, it would be a real time game where player dexterity plays no part.

 

[Radiane]

Just consider the "real" time in which those rpgs take place as a sequence of very fast and an automatic succession of fast rounds, and every game turns into turn based mode eventually

 

[luj1]

The most popular RPGs are real-time.

And no one gives a shit something is popular except brainless faggots such as yourself.

Skyrim is popular, so? It is still trash.

If a game is dominated by player skill, and not character skill, which is usually the case with real-time games, then it is not an RPG but merely an action game with character elements.

 

[Vic]

If a game is dominated by player skill, and not character skill, which is usually the case with real-time games, then it is not an RPG but merely an action game with character elements.

I'd argue that's not true. You can't just go up to the toughest enemies and kill them no matter how skilled player you are. You need to build your characters stats and equipment first. If you try to beat a Dragon Priest in Skyrim at level 1 you will get slaughtered.

 

[WhiteShark]

I'd argue that's not true. You can't just go up to the toughest enemies and kill them no matter how skilled player you are. You need to build your characters stats and equipment first. If you try to beat a Dragon Priest in Skyrim at level 1 you will get slaughtered.

Actually, you can find people online talking about both level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim and the more severe level 1 while acquiring 0 skill points playthroughs, so I don't think this point holds.

 

[Vic]

I'd argue that's not true. You can't just go up to the toughest enemies and kill them no matter how skilled player you are. You need to build your characters stats and equipment first. If you try to beat a Dragon Priest in Skyrim at level 1 you will get slaughtered.

Actually, you can find people online talking about both level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim and the more severe level 1 while acquiring 0 skill points playthroughs, so I don't think this point holds.

Yes but are these plathroughs done through player skill alone? Or are they using items/skills/etc. to boost the power of the character? Because then this point still stands.

 

[luj1]

I'd argue that's not true. You can't just go up to the toughest enemies and kill them no matter how skilled player you are. You need to build your characters stats and equipment first. If you try to beat a Dragon Priest in Skyrim at level 1 you will get slaughtered.

Actually, you can find people online talking about both level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim and the more severe level 1 while acquiring 0 skill points playthroughs, so I don't think this point holds.

Wait, there are actually level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim? And 0 skill point playthroughs?

 

[WhiteShark]

Yes but are these plathroughs done through player skill alone? Or are they using items/skills/etc. to boost the power of the character? Because then this point still stands.

The level-1-with-no-skillpoints guide I glanced at recommends a handful of items, but you essentially can't use any weapons but fists nor armor but robes in order to avoid skillpoint acquisition. Also, I think you've perhaps unintentionally moved the goalposts. The fact is that if redditors can beat Skyrim with their fists while wearing robes the game is obviously dominated (which was the original assertion) by the player's physical abilities and that it's recommended to have a handful of defensive items to make it mildly less gruelling in no way contradicts that.

If we take your implicit extremist interpretation that the use of anything but your starting equipment (or is even that out of bounds?) means the player didn't win through his own skill alone and apply it to other genres it becomes obviously absurd. Would you say a Doom player didn't win through his own skill alone if he used anything but the pistol? What about a Monster Hunter player who upgrades from his starting arsenal of bone weapons?

Wait, there are actually level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim? And 0 skill point playthroughs?

Apparently. Vic's earlier post inspired me to check. The first thing I found was a guy on GameFAQs talking about his level 1 run and how he had already defeated three dragon priests. EDIT: And I forgot to mention, the author of the guide linked above says that he did in fact beat the whole game at level 1 with 0 skill points.

 

[luj1]

Then what the fuck are we even talking about? Action games like these cannot be RPGs.

 

[Funposter]

If being able to beat a game at level 1 means it's not an RPG, then that disqualifies the original Fallout.

 

[WhiteShark]

If being able to beat a game at level 1 means it's not an RPG, then that disqualifies the original Fallout.

You've missed the point entirely. Unlike Fallout, Skyrim isn't a game where you can avoid fighting everything. The fact that you can fight and win against everything at level 1 shows that the dominating factor in combat is player skill rather than character skill.

 

[Vic]

Yes but are these plathroughs done through player skill alone? Or are they using items/skills/etc. to boost the power of the character? Because then this point still stands.

The level-1-with-no-skillpoints guide I glanced at recommends a handful of items, but you essentially can't use any weapons but fists nor armor but robes in order to avoid skillpoint acquisition. Also, I think you've perhaps unintentionally moved the goalposts. The fact is that if redditors can beat Skyrim with their fists while wearing robes the game is obviously dominated (which was the original assertion) by the player's physical abilities and that it's recommended to have a handful of defensive items to make it mildly less gruelling in no way contradicts that.

If we take your implicit extremist interpretation that the use of anything but your starting equipment (or is even that out of bounds?) means the player didn't win through his own skill alone and apply it to other genres it becomes obviously absurd. Would you say a Doom player didn't win through his own skill alone if he used anything but the pistol? What about a Monster Hunter player who upgrades from his starting arsenal of bone weapons?

Wait, there are actually level 1 playthroughs of Skyrim? And 0 skill point playthroughs?

Apparently. Vic's earlier post inspired me to check. The first thing I found was a guy on GameFAQs talking about his level 1 run and how he had already defeated three dragon priests. EDIT: And I forgot to mention, the author of the guide linked above says that he did in fact beat the whole game at level 1 with 0 skill points.

you are retarded. It is pointless to argue.

When I said beat dragon priest at level 1 I was simplifying. I meant beat one without improving your character skill. You linked that guy on gamefaqs but he boosted his characters skills and acquired daedric weapons. who gives a fuck if he is level 1 he clearly boosted his char’s power.

I quote his words:

Almost everything dies in one attack with either sword, bow or spell

That is clearly character skill and not player skill.

 

[Funposter]

If being able to beat a game at level 1 means it's not an RPG, then that disqualifies the original Fallout.

You've missed the point entirely. Unlike Fallout, Skyrim isn't a game where you can avoid fighting everything. The fact that you can fight and win against everything at level 1 shows that the dominating factor in combat is player skill rather than character skill.

Literally the first point in the guide you linked is to pick a particular race because of the boost to Hand-to-Hand damage that it receives. It's not player skill, it's just a lack of difficulty.

 

[WhiteShark]

you are retarded. It is pointless to argue.

When I said beat dragon priest at level 1 I was simplifying. I meant beat one without improving your character skill. You linked that guy on gamefaqs but he boosted his characters skills and acquired daedric weapons. who gives a fuck if he is level 1 he clearly boosted his char’s power.

I quote his words:

Almost everything dies in one attack with either sword, bow or spell

That is clearly character skill and not player skill.

You have to be doing this on purpose. The very first thing I linked was a level 1 with 0 skillpoints guide and the guy said he beat the game that way. That disproves your point regardless of what the second thing I linked says. I only linked the GameFAQs post to show luj.

Literally the first point in the guide you linked is to pick a particular race because of the boost to Hand-to-Hand damage that it receives. It's not player skill, it's just a lack of difficulty.

You're still missing the point. It is quite obvious that player skill is the deciding factor when you consider defenses. A level 1/0 skillpoint playthrough in robes means that practically anything can kill you if it hits, something the guide itself mentions. Skyrim might not be particularly hard, but the fact you can and must avoid damage through player reflexes in order to succeed proves that the game is dominated by player skill.

 

[Vic]

The very first thing I linked was a level 1 with 0 skillpoints

Level 1 with 0 skillpoints but stacking magic resistance, using vampire/werewolf form and abusing bugs, among other things.

 

[Morenatsu.]

What is an rpg

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

What is an rpg

If a game is dominated by player skill, and not character skill, which is usually the case with real-time games, then it is not an RPG but merely an action game with character elements.

One needs to distinguish between the player's physical skill and the player's mental abilities, the latter of which are relevant for games with turn-based combat as well as real-time. As mentioned by others, Fallout can be completed at level 1 by exploiting the player's knowledge of the game, but this would not turn it into a game dominated by the player's physical skill. Moreover, the vast majority of CRPGs with real-time combat have minimal requirements on the player's physical skill, as is the case for almost all Dungeon Master-likes and Underworld-likes.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Just consider the "real" time in which those rpgs take place as a sequence of very fast and an automatic succession of fast rounds, and every game turns into turn based mode eventually

It is not the time continuity to make something real-time. A chess game where turns automatically end after a certain time is a real-time game.

 

[luj1]

the vast majority of CRPGs with real-time combat have minimal requirements on the player's physical skill

That varies from case to case.

The more player skill is used, the less of an RPG it is.

 

[Morenatsu.]

See? That's what I'm saying. The easier the game is, the more of an RPG it is. All of you asking for challenging gameplay are ruining the genre! RPGs should require NO SKILL.

 

[laclongquan]

What is it? A non-Prosperium prosperized thread? I dont get the idea here

Because, what?

Fallout New Vegas.

Witcher series.

Skyrim.

Are they not Real time? Are they not RPG?