Community Larian Studios RPG Survey - The Results

[HoboForEternity]

Gameplay always trump story, but story rich games with passable combat is good too.

Eg. Planescape torment, etc.

Mind that i say passable and not bad. If you want to tell a story and have no idea to design a good ggameplay then dont hide the story behind annoying gameplay part.

In that aspect, i can respect telltale game and i still love twd season 1, wolf among us and borderlands, but other telltale are lacking in story aspect too, usong old tired formula etc.

Story heavy games with straight up bad gameplay is unplayable no matter how good the story is.

But in larian context, they really should focus on they are doing: good tactical combat, extensive simulation and interactive gameplay and wacky 13 years old sense of slapstick ish humor that somehow works and quite a nice change from all doom and gloom if more serioud RPG.

Comedy is underrated as a whole in rpg

 

[Ranarama]

People who care about tactical combat and don't care for story can be satisfied with the 1000th replay of their favourite title.

Whereas Storyfags and even people who like tactical combat yet insist that it be in service to some sort of plot require something new once in a while.

That's nonsense. You could spin it as easily the other way around. There are people who claim to have played games like P:T several times. On the other hand once you know all the mechanics, all the enemies and all the tricks (after a few playthroughs at most) any tactical challenge is gone so you need a new game. See, that was easy.

Yeah, they run out of story games, as I said. Any tactical game that loses its challenge after a playthrough is a poor tactical game. How many hours do people get out of CK2 and the like.

I guess coming up with your point was easy, because it was stupid.

 

[Zeriel]

Rather alarming seeing the storyfag versus tactical combat bars. Also it seems that Larian's attempt to bet the farm on co-op is trying to serve a non-existent market. Hopefully they'll pay some attention to this.

It's popular with game journalists, though!

 

[Bumvelcrow]

It's popular with game journalists, though!

I saw Swen in video after video going on about how fantastic the co-op is and how much fun, and how the DOS2 can have four player co-op, and I just wince. Partially because Swen is so boundlessly enthusiastic I don't want him to be disappointed. Can you imagine a disappointed Swen? That'd be like a scolded puppy. But mainly because DOS has some decent tactical combat, and that's not really the sort of thing (if done well) that lends itself to IRL social situations. I want to stop and think after a turn and plan my strategy, not be forced into unplanned action because my co-op partner is getting frustrated by my inactivity. Also it's hard to think deep thoughts when somebody is looking over your shoulder.

I supposed what I'm trying to say is that I'm an antisocial SOB and don't want to have to share my game with noisy peasants. But also, there are plenty of sharing games - is it too much to ask for one that I can play at my own pace in my own time?

 

[Zeriel]

I'd be fine with it if it was really what his consumers want, but the surveys have revealed time and time again that most people only play singleplayer. It's just funny to me that he builds his games to please a tiny sliver of journalists and streamers instead of the majority of people paying for the product--but I can't argue with the results. It's pretty clear the co-op meme factory is what caught the attention of so many with the original DOS who would normally have no interest in this sort of game. It's great marketing.

 

[Serus]

People who care about tactical combat and don't care for story can be satisfied with the 1000th replay of their favourite title.

Whereas Storyfags and even people who like tactical combat yet insist that it be in service to some sort of plot require something new once in a while.

That's nonsense. You could spin it as easily the other way around. There are people who claim to have played games like P:T several times. On the other hand once you know all the mechanics, all the enemies and all the tricks (after a few playthroughs at most) any tactical challenge is gone so you need a new game. See, that was easy.

Yeah, they run out of story games, as I said. Any tactical game that loses its challenge after a playthrough is a poor tactical game. How many hours do people get out of CK2 and the like.

I guess coming up with your point was easy, because it was stupid.

CK2 is neither a crpg nor tactical, but you can have a cookie for the effort.
A piece of advice: If you don't understand what subject you are discussing, don't discuss it. You end making really stupid posts.

 

[YES!]

Well, the story rich isn't a surprise considering the mental capacity of you idiots. The challenge isn't a surprise either since you all just love hipster shit and console games for retards. I believe people must have assumed character progression meant story-wise and not mechanics-wise. Also, you idiots wouldn't know tactical combat if it raped your face so you may have voted for it unknowingly as tactical applies thought and there is no reason to think if you aren't challenged. Or people from other, more hardcore, forums voted for that.

If you retards love story so much, why not read books? Movies, books, plays, basically any passive media is a way, way better medium for stories. I just want content and a story, not your storymode retard game bullshit. I hate you guys with a passion as you continue to destroy the genre I love with your ignorance and retardation.

 

[YES!]

Meh, I feel like people give DOS' story too much shit. I mean, it's not great, but most quests are very good for example, NPC have good interactions, etc

You are talking about game mechanics and content while they are spouting hyperbole and platitudes. These people think the FF games have good stories. I don't think one of them have ever read a good book. They are just ignorant children who fail to grasp the point of a game, too dumb to read a book, and most likely watch other people play video games online than actually playing the game themselves. This is the storybook fans, who want games to be slightly interactive books or movies. Fuck gameplay, fuck systems, fuck rpg mechanics - they just naked emo children and romanceable recruitables. And controller support. Just something simple for retards they can watch on youtube while thinking they actually like games or aren't retarded.

 

[YES!]

People who care about tactical combat and don't care for story can be satisfied with the 1000th replay of their favourite title.

Whereas Storyfags and even people who like tactical combat yet insist that it be in service to some sort of plot require something new once in a while.

That's nonsense. You could spin it as easily the other way around. There are people who claim to have played games like P:T several times. On the other hand once you know all the mechanics, all the enemies and all the tricks (after a few playthroughs at most) any tactical challenge is gone so you need a new game. See, that was easy.

Yeah, they run out of story games, as I said. Any tactical game that loses its challenge after a playthrough is a poor tactical game. How many hours do people get out of CK2 and the like.

I guess coming up with your point was easy, because it was stupid.

CK2 is neither a crpg nor tactical, but you can have a cookie for the effort.
A piece of advice: If you don't understand what subject you are discussing, don't discuss it. You end making really stupid posts.

Arguing with these kids is futile. They were raised wrong and no one told them how dumb they are and how useless their thoughts are.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

They should have first made a poll thread about the evaluation methods to be employed for the poll. Then a counter poll thread to that first poll thread. It's the only way.

 

[Daedalos]

Fallout 1 and 2, some of the highest regarded cRPGs on this site, have absolute shit "gameplay" vice a ví, combat and encounters, yet the story, writing, atmosphere are paramount and drives the game forward.

So the gameplay, what is that, then? Interaction between objects, characters, but also combat and encounter design.

If you make a flawless gameplay game, but with wholly uninteresting story, writing and characters, the game will plummet.

You can have a game with great combat and lackluster story, IF it's not a cRPG, otherwise you will need strong story, writing and interaction elements, or the game will fail as an RPG.

 

[groke]

Meh, I feel like people give DOS' story too much shit. I mean, it's not great, but most quests are very good for example, NPC have good interactions, etc

DivOS's main questline is like a turd chaser after an afternoon at the sidequest vineyard.

 

[Ranarama]

CK2 is neither a crpg nor tactical, but you can have a cookie for the effort.
A piece of advice: If you don't understand what subject you are discussing, don't discuss it. You end making really stupid posts.

Only someone completely wrong would focus on peripheral details, and not the actual argument. You get no such cookie, because you've made zero effort.

 

[HoboForEternity]

Idc about co op cos i dont have friends who plays crpg

 

[Roguey]

I think everyone is basically saying the same here.
People may play for the story, but they aren't capable of telling a trash story from a good one.
As long as it is something, they'll happily claim the game has a "great" story. And that "great" stories are very important to them, lying to themselves about their standards (though not consciously).

"Story rich" doesn't strike me as synonymous with "great writing" but rather something with much more than a bare-bones plot.

 

[vonAchdorf]

A rich setting helps to cover up a weak story as well (most TES games).

 

[Kev Inkline]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

You present this stuff as if it was something like rocket surgery. The point is, anyone with a high-school education could do the correct graphs within 1 min.

It isn't any harder than slpelling correctly.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

You present this stuff as if it was something like rocket surgery. The point is, anyone with a high-school education could do the correct graphs within 1 min.

It isn't any harder than slpelling correctly.

For the graphs sure, but the magic happens before. Like which data sets to drop before drawing the graph for a Likert-scale style survey.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

You present this stuff as if it was something like rocket surgery. The point is, anyone with a high-school education could do the correct graphs within 1 min.

It isn't any harder than slpelling correctly.

For the graphs sure, but the magic happens before. Like which data sets to drop before drawing the graph for a Likert-scale style survey.

Yeah, sure, and which questions to ask and how. I agree. But on the assumption they got the design down as they wanted, and that the info is useful, why not display it in an easily digestable manner?

Anyways

 

[vonAchdorf]

I agree that this is way easier to read.

Character Progression even slightly trumps story if you add the two strongest sentiments. People like their skills and gear.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Yes kids, it's true. The Codex is best even when it comes to making graphs. Best at everything, the mother of all websites.

It is known.

 

[Falksi]

Goddamn that's a bad way to report Likert-scale type graphs. With 1 min of work they could have procuced stacked horizontal bars. Bah.

They probably didn't even have a pages long discussion thread about the evaluation methods.

You present this stuff as if it was something like rocket surgery. The point is, anyone with a high-school education could do the correct graphs within 1 min.

It isn't any harder than slpelling correctly.

For the graphs sure, but the magic happens before. Like which data sets to drop before drawing the graph for a Likert-scale style survey.

Yeah, sure, and which questions to ask and how. I agree. But on the assumption they got the design down as they wanted, and that the info is useful, why not display it in an easily digestable manner?

Anyways

I am actually surprised that Replayability didn't get more votes for Very Important/Important.

For me all the best games are very replayable, and have at least a few key choices which mean you should play through them twice minimum.

So happy to see Co-op & Crafting do so poorly though. Totally fluff elements which rarely add any fun to games for me.

 

[Morm]

I know i'm kinda off-topic, but in your opinion, what are the rpg with the best tactical combat ?