Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[Volourn]

." In Fallout Intelligence, Speech, Science, Doctor, even gender affected the dialogues."

Huh? Skills DO effect dialogue outcome in various BIO games. Why do you lie?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I think the intended point was to say it happens in so very few circumstances its almost negligible. Almost being the key word, of course.

As to the other point, I agree. There is a clear distinction between when you're having a character and a player doing things. The character that manages to pick a lock because he had the required knowledge or attribute is very different from the player who presses some buttons and does motions with his mouse to open a lock. If you're roleplaying a character, player skill should not get in the way nor should it override that of the character. Because if you're solving a problem thanks to your personal skill as a gamer, instead of the character's skill, what is the character doing? What role is the character playing if you are calling all the shots? What happens to the character when the gameworld doesn't care about his skills, but needs yours instead?

 

[Gwendo]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh). It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

The only advantage in TB games is that although the flow isn't realistic/immersive, you can do more actions at the same time, which is better.

(I also don't understand why when you're starting a game, you have trouble fighting... Rats. Bah!)

 

[Volourn]

"I think the intended point was to say it happens in so very few circumstances its almost negligible."

Anyone who has played KOTOR would know that to be false. Persuade is used LOTS. Not as effectively as in FO, imo, but it is used LOTS.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh). It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

Dice rolls are there to deal with probabilities. Probabilities, in fact, are something which is realistic.

Anyway, you seem to be looking at the different aspects of character control in an entirely superficial way. You're forgetting YOUR skills aren't fully used. How do you use your social skills to convince an NPC to do what you want? How do you use your intelligence to tell a character the super secret chemical formula? How do you turn your charisma, wisdom or intelligence into something that a videogame can recognize? You can't.

How realistic and immersive is that? Not realistic or immersive, in my book.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh).

And usually it's people like you who think that most games are role-playing because you play a role (duh): from Quake to Super Mario

It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

That's what FPSs (and Oblivion with the exciting FPS combat) are for.

 

[Neverwhere]

I can only imagine how some people here would have gone nuts had they been here when dialogue options were first included in CRPGs. After all, the outcome of the dialogue depends on the player, not on stats and skills...

No. The player chooses between the dialogue options presented to him, but the character's stats or skills are what determine (or should determine) what the player can choose from. Examples would be Fallout and Torment.

Same in a mini-game if the game is made stats- or skill-dependent. Even in Fallout or PS:T, whether you actually reached dialogue options which were stats- or skill-dependent often depended on player choices earlier in the dialogue tree.

 

[Neverwhere]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh).

And usually it's people like you who think that most games are role-playing because you play a role (duh): from Quake to Super Mario

It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

That's what FPSs (and Oblivion with the exciting FPS combat) are for.

So LRPGing actually does not involve any role-playing?

 

[Vault Dweller]

You mean LARP? Have you seen this thread? http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 61&start=0

Here are the first few opinions: gay, gay, gay and bad idea, gay, pathetic, pointless, and idiotic, retarded, gay again.... should I continue? There are some videos too.

 

[Seven]

I'd bring up taking something out of context again, but you being you, you'd probably just come up with something triumphantly whitty again. On a side note, I really would like to know how we went to discussing skill/stat based combat to discussing view point of the camera; furthermore, I'd love to know why you quoted a statement of mine related to stat/skill based combat to discuss camera angle. I suppuse I'm just not as smart as you otherwise I could come up with something outlandishly stupid to hide my faults.

Fine.

Let's examine (bear with me here, I'm pretty sneaky):

My problem with your point of view and the direction that Beth is taking (vis-a-vis combat) is that it creates no difference between a RPG and a FPS with a great story. Arguably from your point of view an FPS would be more of an RPG than an RPG because it puts you in total control, right?

Here's how I responded:

I know, I just figured that out. This is a 'hardcore' RPG site and people come here to either accept or reject games based on whether or not they live up to their rigid definition of an RPG. Blending genres doesn't bother me, obviously. I guess I was arguing for understanding more than anything else, but now I get it that some people just plain don't want to see genres mixed.

So no, I don't think an FPS is more of an RPG than a game with a different viewpoint. I also don't think a 3rd person-isometric viewpoint is "more RPG" than a first person one; yes, I know that most RPGs have been made with that kind of viewpoint. And about total control for an RPG... I'm not sure how that would work exactly, considering that you're playing a character who lives in a world separate from yourself, and thus has different abilities and restrictions than yourself.

The above text includes seven or so (apparently incoherent?) statements. About one and one fourth of them are either off or slightly off comments (I have highlighted them in boldface). The other statements are direct responses to your question, which I provided soley for clarification, in the hopes that you would understand me. I realize that I mentioned viewpoint, but I don't see how it destroys my entire response and totally strips it of value.

Remember the intital Fallout 3 discussions of how viewpoint matters in an RPG, and how having a first-person perspective can pose problems when trying to implement a skill check-only gameplay system (especially when it comes to interactivity)? Well being the retard that I am, I just say: So modify the system to include both reflexes and skill checks. I'm an idiot that's truly sorry for ruining everything.

Anyway, here's how you replied:

What the hell are you bringing up view point for?!?!?! We were discussing reflex based reactions vs skill/attribute checks in combat. Did it slip your mind, or perhaps you'd like to shift the discussion to the view point that Beth is using? There are easier ways to shift topic discussion than taking a point and then inverting it into something else.

So clearly I derailed the entire discussion by misleading you. You were so blindsided that you couldn't even respond to anything else that I wrote. I sincerely apologize. Next time I will do my best to not make any off comments in an effort to not corrupt the conversation.

If you're curious at all, my perspective comment was intended to be an analogy (which I'm obviously horrible at). Just as RPGs may not have been envisioned to include reflex-based gameplay, they also may not have been envisioned to be played from a first-person perspective. In other words, as I've stated more than once in this thread: mixing genres does not bother me. I call a FPS (with story & character advancement & dialogue options & inventory management) an RPG. I wouldn't mind calling it a Simulation either, but I don't really feel like getting some wrath from the hardcore sim gamers too.

Do you ever stop acting like a smart ass? You realize with you it's hard to distinguish the anal retentiveness from an actual point, so I'll just assume that you're entire post was an endeavor of internet felatio.

Just FYI, you do realize when I was taking about you and Beth's point of view I was referring to your opinions and not camera angle, right? Jeez this is almost like having a conversation with Volourn except with out the lies, myths,rumors and innuendos.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Same in a mini-game if the game is made stats- or skill-dependent. Even in Fallout or PS:T, whether you actually reached dialogue options which were stats- or skill-dependent often depended on player choices earlier in the dialogue tree.

And? That still doesn't change the character has its own set of skills and abilities determinging what it can do. That's because you need to have a degree of control, otherwise the game would play by itself. In a computer roleplaying game, you're meant to play a character who can operate independantly of the player skills. The only thing it requires from you is motivation and guidance; you're meant to be playing it after all, so you need some measure of control, otherwise its simply not about playing a character, its watching a character be played (much like what you get in console 'role-playing' games).

You need to point and click to have it execute actions, yes, but its actions will (or should) still be executed by it and determined by its abilities. Its no different from other game. How and where the player control is placed is what counts.

 

[Neverwhere]

In a computer roleplaying game, you're meant to play a character who can operate independantly of the player skills. The only thing it requires from you is motivation and guidance; you're meant to be playing it after all, so you need some measure of control, otherwise its simply not about playing a character, its watching a character be played (much like what you get in console 'role-playing' games).

Well, this is how your favourite CRPGs seem to work. I agree that FO and PS:T were great games, but nevertheless they are not the only form of RPG I can think of. In classic RPGs (early Ultima, Gold Box series, etc), you simply did not provide any motivation - the story was a give, there was no "player choice". Basically, you decided which area to visit, and you assumed control of your characters in combar. Were they RPGs? Yes. Would I enjoy playing them again now? I don't know.

My point thus is quite simple indeed. FO and PS:T do not define the CRPG genre. Player empowerment can take various forms: this is obvious when you see how control over combat on the one hand and dialogue on the other varies between games. I do not see why player empowerment in the form of a limited control over skill checks changes that. As long as stats still have an influence on the mini-game.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, this is how your favourite CRPGs seem to work. I agree that FO and PS:T were great games, but nevertheless they are not the only form of RPG I can think of.

My point thus is quite simple indeed. FO and PS:T do not define the CRPG genre.

Never said they defined it, really. I only pointed out some elements they have are much closer to what roleplaying is, or should be, about.

In classic RPGs (early Ultima, Gold Box series, etc), you simply did not provide any motivation - the story was a give, there was no "player choice". Basically, you decided which area to visit, and you assumed control of your characters in combar. Were they RPGs? Yes. Would I enjoy playing them again now? I don't know.

I explicitly stated motivation and guidance, the later being what you're refering to.

Player empowerment can take various forms: this is obvious when you see how control over combat on the one hand and dialogue on the other varies between games.

There are multiple ways, correct; which doesn't necesarily mean they're the more appropriate for role-playing.

I do not see why player empowerment in the form of a limited control over skill checks changes that. As long as stats still have an influence on the mini-game.

Note that I didn't disagree with both player and character skill being at work for the purpose of minigames; just how it may be implemented. I ocasionally bring up Wizardry 8's lockpicking and trap disarming minigame. The player manually handles the tumblers of a lock, or presses the correct icons which define what part of a trapped surface the character will try to disarm, but success in the situation is still determined by character skill.

A problem would be if the situation involved something akin to, say, Thief 3's lockpicking, which is only in your control, but on a CRPG. KoTOR's minigames come to mind as being pretty character-negligent as well.

 

[Neverwhere]

Note that I didn't disagree with both player and character skill being at work for the purpose of minigames; just how it may be implemented.

Well, it seems that we pretty much agree then. Even though this is rpgcodex.

 

[merry andrew]

You realize with you it's hard to distinguish the anal retentiveness from an actual point, so I'll just assume that you're entire post was an endeavor of internet felatio.

So difficult in fact that no one else in this thread has been able to respond directly to anything of relevance that I have posted in this thread

You're lazy and that's fine, so am I.

Just FYI, you do realize when I was taking about you and Beth's point of view I was referring to your opinions and not camera angle, right? Jeez this is almost like having a conversation with Volourn except with out the lies, myths,rumors and innuendos.

I just wrote a detailed post about how I mentioned viewpost as an off comment, and then restated my relevant responses, and this is how you reply? After this I probably won't respond to you in this thread again unless you decide to talk about the topic again instead of how much I confuse you.

There are people here who actually want to discuss the topic and not how much I act "like a smart ass". Again, I apologize.

 

[merry andrew]

If you're buying bread because you're anticipating french toast, yet you get cheese bread sold to you in a normal bread wrapper, I think you might have a reason to be annoyed, sure.

Of course. I just wanted some cheesebread, and didn't know that I was required to call it just cheese even though it's cheesebread. On second thought, my analogy was horrible because I didn't use french toast as an example, as I would much rather purchase some french toast than some cheesebread.

 

[Gwendo]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh).

And usually it's people like you who think that most games are role-playing because you play a role (duh): from Quake to Super Mario

Doom 3 can be a nice game with role playing, so yes. But I didn't say an RPG is only role playing, so no, I don't consider Doom 3 a RPG.

It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

That's what FPSs (and Oblivion with the exciting FPS combat) are for.[/quote]

And that's great, but the combat must be good to be played. I didn't like Morrowind's combat, for example.

 

[merry andrew]

The player certainly has some influence because he's the one who's playing a role. However, any action suggested by the player will be tested by character's stats and skills. It's when the success of actions is determined by the player as well, the game starts being less of an RPG and more of something else.

I guess I was trying to allude to the situation that comes up when the player will intentionally have their character avoid certain situations because they know that their character's skill is not sufficient to complete the task. To me, this creates a sort of all-knowing perspective, where the player is no longer acting as the character, but "controlling" the character. If a mini-game is introduced, I see this as a means to pull the player into the character.

Note that I didn't disagree with both player and character skill being at work for the purpose of minigames; just how it may be implemented.

That's where I'm at too, although I'm pretty sure we're not at the same place

 

[Gwendo]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh). It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

Dice rolls are there to deal with probabilities. Probabilities, in fact, are something which is realistic.

Why do you think dice are needed for probabilities? When I swing the sword with a mouse, there's a chance I won't hit it (either because I aim badly, I hit the armor, etc), so why add to that the dice factor?

Anyway, you seem to be looking at the different aspects of character control in an entirely superficial way. You're forgetting YOUR skills aren't fully used. How do you use your social skills to convince an NPC to do what you want?

Dialogue options? Pointing a sword to a NPC's neck? etc?

How do you use your intelligence to tell a character the super secret chemical formula?

I was talking about combat. Anyway, did you ply Arx Fatalis? You had to draw the runes to cast a spell.

But in any case, I'm not saying that a RPG has to be ultra realistic: that could be overwhelming and boring. But I'm sure dices and TB combat aren't necessary for what you ask.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Why do you think dice are needed for probabilities? When I swing the sword with a mouse, there's a chance I won't hit it (either because I aim badly, I hit the armor, etc), so why add to that the dice factor?

Dice are as good a probability dealing method like any other. If you're suggesting removing dice for the sake of doing away with the concept of dice altogheter in favor of some other mechanic with a different name, then yes, there's other things you can use. But if you're suggesting removing dice for the sake of removing probability issues, that won't solve it. You can remove dice, but you're not removing the random factor.

Dialogue options? Pointing a sword to a NPC's neck? etc?

So, everytime you want to convince someone, you suggest pointing a sword to an NPC's quest? What if you want to invite a female NPC out? What if you want to hire someone into your group? What if you want to convince an army to back you up?

Let me tell you, that's a lot of sword-pointing.

Cute, but no. I brought up social skills precisely because of that. You can have a game do away with a character's dexterity and have it use yours instead. You can remove the character's Evade rate and let it all depend on your reflexes. My point is that things like your social skills, or your intelligence cannot replace a character's because there is no way to convert those aspects of your personal skill into the game. You can dodge because you make certain movements. You can hit faster because you click faster. But you can't convey anything else. Thats my main problem with that kind of system.

Dialogue options, by the by, are not based on your intelligence.

I was talking about combat. Anyway, did you ply Arx Fatalis? You had to draw the runes to cast a spell.

Very shortly. I found the system too cumbersome at the time.

But in any case, I'm not saying that a RPG has to be ultra realistic: that could be overwhelming and boring. But I'm sure dices and TB combat aren't necessary for what you ask.

I'm not quite asking for anything. All I'm saying is I don't find that method to be particularly realistic or immersive; whereas turnbased combat gets the job done.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I guess I was trying to allude to the situation that comes up when the player will intentionally have their character avoid certain situations because they know that their character's skill is not sufficient to complete the task. To me, this creates a sort of all-knowing perspective, where the player is no longer acting as the character, but "controlling" the character.

Doesn't make much sense. In real life you are very well aware of your own strengths and weaknesses, and behave accordingly. You wouldn't call that controlling yourself, would you? Same in games.

If a mini-game is introduced, I see this as a means to pull the player into the character.

...or to entertain easily bored players.

So difficult in fact that no one else in this thread has been able to respond directly to anything of relevance that I have posted in this thread

Do you mind summarizing "anything or relevance" (copy-pasting will do) that you posted here? I believe that most of your points were answered, but in case we missed any....

 

[Neverwhere]

You mean LARP? Have you seen this thread? http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 61&start=0

Here are the first few opinions: gay, gay, gay and bad idea, gay, pathetic, pointless, and idiotic, retarded, gay again.... should I continue? There are some videos too.

I actually had enough time to waste to have a look at this thread. The problem is that people automatically associate LARPs with White Wolf games. And White Wolf games are townie goth and, I agree, utterly gay. On the other hand, I wouldn't call historic battle gaming gay. Making your own chainmail might mean that you have way too much time, but gay is not exactly the right word in that context.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ok, fair enough. To answer you original question then, I think that LARP is acting, not role-playing. Just an opinion.

 

[merry andrew]

In real life you are very well aware of your own strengths and weaknesses, and behave accordingly. You wouldn't call that controlling yourself, would you? Same in games.

Makes sense. I've just found myself wishing that my character could accomplish something through a means other than a skill check, especially if I feel that the skill check in question shouldn't be the only thing my character can use to determine the if the task can be completed.

Do you mind summarizing "anything or relevance" (copy-pasting will do) that you posted here? I believe that most of your points were answered, but in case we missed any....

Oh, no the rest of you didn't miss anything. That was for Seven, who couldn't respond to anything else that I wrote because I mentioned viewpoint somewhere in there. That's why I put a rolleyes icon at the end of that quote. Looks like this:

You realize with you it's hard to distinguish the anal retentiveness from an actual point, so I'll just assume that you're entire post was an endeavor of internet felatio.

then

So difficult in fact that no one else in this thread has been able to respond directly to anything of relevance that I have posted in this thread

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

In a RPG, you role-play (duh). It's more realistic/immersive to use your skills to fight (swing your sword with the mouse, for example), than using some dices to tell you if you hit or not.

Really? If that's the case, then why do your characters have their own skills and attributes then if it's more realistic and immersive to use your own skills and attributes?