Let's settle this once and for all! Who's the Top Dog?

[Junior Boy]

"A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters"

You don't think there's a difference between being able to play a wide array of characters and being able to play just one?

Wikipedia clearly doesn't.

Then it's settled.

For "Junior Boy", it should be

Suck my dick.

 

[Crispy]

Stow that shit, JB. This isn't gd, so if you can't resist the trolling, gtfo.

 

[Emotional Vampire]

"A role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a game in which the participants assume the roles of fictional characters"

You don't think there's a difference between being able to play a wide array of characters and being able to play just one?

Wikipedia clearly doesn't.

Then it's settled.

For "Junior Boy", it should be

Suck my dick.

 

[Kz3r0]

Rerail: Which of the three does the following better, fill out and post:

Story:Torment.
Setting:Torment.
Atmosphere:Torment.

Combat:Fallout.
Character building:Arcanum.
NPCs:Torment.

C&C:Arcanum.
Mainquest:Torment.
Sidequest:Arcanum.

Fun:Fallout.
Immersiveness:Torment.
Replayability:Arcanum.

Feel free to add more factors and add reasons why...

 

[Emotional Vampire]

Combat is important but as the best RPGs demonstrate is hardly a requirement:

I fail to see best RPGs in that list. To me it only demonstrates that with a broken combat and shoddy game mechanics no amount of great setting-plot-hypertext-whatever makes a quality RPG, resulting in a wasted opportunity.

Incidentally, a large part of combat in RPGs is... choice. Mostly which stats/skills/weapons/spells you have and which you don't.

In before "You can choose a gun in CoD durr hurr"

 

[Junior Boy]

I'm as terse as monblunt. And that post wasn't any less constructive than some others here, just I have fewer posts than other people that are allowed to troll. But I'm not a troll, and you're right. My bad, crispy.

EDIT = I have to voice my support for the LARP/dialogue crowd. Many games do have some form of choice, whether it be character progression or regarding the main campaign. But evolved dialogue, a developed storyline, literary progression...ALL are always unique to RPGs.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Stow that shit, JB. This isn't gd, so if you can't resist the trolling, gtfo.

BAAAAWWWWW

 

[Talonfire]

It's good to see that the Codex has such a high level of sophistication and maturity that it's above saying things such as "BAW".

 

[Grunker]

Indeed. The first post of mine in this thread was to be proven direly wrong.

Good thread. Next to no bashing. Rare sight on ma Kodex.

- Tyrax Lightning

 

[Junior Boy]

Yeah, but then it devolved into another argument over the nature of RPGs. Might as well look at it this way: Here at the Codex our discourse inevitably goes *deeper,* man.

Looking at that one post of yours, Grunker:

PS:T's combat was better than Arcanum's and worse than Fallouts. But it had me entertained every step of the way. With the exception of the overload of combat in the Fortress of Regrets and maybe 1 or 2 other places, I wasn't bored for one second.

See, I liked PST combat, too. I thought the animations were cool, the spell effects were more dynamic (look at magic missile, even) and while it lacked any tactics, it was entertaining, fluid, and even pretty. It was just sort of shallow and slow.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Rerail: Which of the three does the following better, fill out and post:

Story:Torment.
Setting:Torment.
Atmosphere:Torment.

Combat:Fallout.
Character building:Arcanum.
NPCs:Torment.

C&C:Arcanum.
Mainquest:Torment.
Sidequest:Arcanum.

Fun:Fallout.
Immersiveness:Torment.
Replayability:Arcanum.

Feel free to add more factors and add reasons why...

agreed with all of this

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

It's good to see that the Codex has such a high level of sophistication and maturity that it's above saying things such as "BAW".

hurr durr

Ok, I'm done trolling

 

[The Village Loon]

Torment wins it because of the atmosphere, setting, NPCs, dialogue, story and just the experience of playing the game. Fallout 1 comes in a close 2nd as the atmosphere and setting are just as good. Both games made my imagination go wild and left a everlasting impression.

Sorry Arcanum, you never did it for me. I tried to like you, but your world never inspired me and your gameplay at times made me throw you away. I never finished you, but I gave you hours and hours of playtime.

 

[Quilty]

Hang on a minute.

Has BLOBERT expressed his opinion yet?

I need to know what he thinks.

 

[mondblut]

Incidentally, a large part of combat in RPGs is... choice. Mostly which stats/skills/weapons/spells you have and which you don't.

And your point being...?

In before "You can choose a gun in CoD durr hurr"

Or army setup in a strategy game, or rotation of bricks in tetris :shrug:

But evolved dialogue, a developed storyline, literary progression...ALL are always unique to RPGs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_game

 

[Junior Boy]

Mondblunt, stop raping me with my own love of Wikipedia.

RPG's don't exist, is basically what we should agree on.

 

[JarlFrank]

Mondblunt, stop raping me with my own love of Wikipedia.

RPG's don't exist, is basically what we should agree on.

RPGs have about as many subgenres as Metal is basically what we should agree on.

 

[made]

All this thread proves is that Arcanum, while undoubtedly the best RPG ever made, is just too complex, too bizarre, too ambitious to appeal to the unwashed masses.

 

[Fezzik]

RPG's don't exist, is basically what we should agree on.

Nah, RPGs exist, there are just many different combinations of elements that go into it that can produce different types of RPGs. I generally look at an RPG as a game where you play some dude(s) who walks around independently with many different ways he can do stuff depending on how he's developed and gameplay is based off those different ways of doing stuff.

The whole "different ways of doing stuff" could be different combat units, or it could be a thief vs. a mage, it could be a diplomat vs. a tech character, or multiple solutions and choices and consequences. But whatever it is, if the game makes one option possible and does a shitty job, that's going to affect the overall quality of the game. So while Arcanum, for example, has some tremendous and brilliant points, its lackluster performance when it comes to the implementation of these elements in gameplay ultimately knocks it down a bit.

So I don't agree with VD's assessment that if having things like multiple solutions, varied character development, etc are essential pieces of an RPG, then an RPG where these things are theoretically better than in another RPG is itself better overall. Implementation definitely counts. If Arcanum had both had the theoretical edge and had everything implemented at least serviceably, then it would probably beat Fallout. But as it is, Fallout is not only well-designed in most departments, but its implementation of its design is solid, which isn't true for Arcanum.

In short, I agree with what PorkaMorka said in another thread: if an RPG sets out to include something but fails, all it will achieve is annoying the player with the poorly implemented element. If an RPG designer includes combat as an option, it should work well or else it should be underplayed. That's why, for instance, I prefer Torment to Arcanum as well. It doesn't have near the replay value, but, with the exception of having a little more combat than it needed, it stuck to doing the things it did best, and those things it did better than Arcanum.

 

[Zomg]

roleplaying exists, games exist, lemme get a Venn diagram in here

 

[Darth Roxor]

djinn exist

fixed

 

[Vault Dweller]

RPG's don't exist, is basically what we should agree on.

Nah, RPGs exist, there are just many different combinations of elements that go into it that can produce different types of RPGs.

Indeed.

So I don't agree with VD's assessment that if having things like multiple solutions, varied character development, etc are essential pieces of an RPG, then an RPG where these things are theoretically better than in another RPG is itself better overall.

I don't agree with it either. Lucky for me I didn't claim that.

If Arcanum had both had the theoretical edge and had everything implemented at least serviceably, then it would probably beat Fallout. But as it is, Fallout is not only well-designed in most departments, but its implementation of its design is solid, which isn't true for Arcanum.

Now all you need to do it prove it.

 

[Squeek]

Nah, RPGs exist, there are just many different combinations of elements that go into it that can produce different types of RPGs....

That's a good point, but not correct, IMO (especially if you mean CRPG). If there were no technical limits, if these games could be designed to work any way at all, the cream would rise a lot further to the top and comparing them would become a lot easier. It's the lack of real variety -- not the presence of it -- that's confusing.

First and foremost RPG is about collaboration. Then it's about unlimited opportunity. Then it's about game mechanics matched with asserted realities. RPG is the ultimate game. To express that in software would require something along the order of the ultimate software.

The games we've been playing do a pretty darn good job with the third most important thing, a poor job with the second, and don't even attempt the first. They're cool video games, but developers still have a long way to go.

 

[Zoidstar]

Halo can be an RPG if you want it to be, its about using your imagination. Sophisticated game mechanics and content are their to support the imagination. Therefore whoever here has the best imagination is the best RPG. Fin.

 

[Fezzik]

So I don't agree with VD's assessment that if having things like multiple solutions, varied character development, etc are essential pieces of an RPG, then an RPG where these things are theoretically better than in another RPG is itself better overall.
I don't agree with it either.

Lucky for me I didn't claim that.

My use of the word "theoretically" was probably misguided, but what your posts indicate to me is that you're saying that the role-playing elements of an RPG, if good enough, should determine the quality of an RPG far more than the implementation of the elements that go into that, like the difference between a combat-oriented path and a less combat-oriented path. If that weren't the case, why would people choosing Fallout over Arcanum be indicative of them simply preferring combat and being in a more Mondblutian camp or whatever? Sure, combat was mentioned, but I would hardly think that combat alone would be the determiner for most of the folks here, especially considering that Fallout's combat is nothing special. I mean, sure, that could happen, but if it were the case, you'd have more posts like PorkaMorka's. I think it's more to do with Arcanum's combat and dungeons and the like being annoying more than anything, which has less to do with a combat obsession and more to do with not liking annoying things.

If Arcanum had both had the theoretical edge and had everything implemented at least serviceably, then it would probably beat Fallout. But as it is, Fallout is not only well-designed in most departments, but its implementation of its design is solid, which isn't true for Arcanum.

Now all you need to do it prove it.

I'll try to give a more in depth response at some point in the next few days when I don't need to be studying as much, as I'd prefer that to giving a lame response or engaging in a silly quote battle or something. But the idea is that, while the quest design in Arcanum and the builds were interesting and had great variety, there are many things like the BMC mines, poor encounters, tedious and exploit-like grenade combat, and a main quest that is pushed forward via combat and poorly designed dungeons (though there are some features of the dungeons I like quite a bit), which are a lot more of a drag than a joy. There are similar things to be found in Fallout, of course, for instance the combat is technically pretty similar and there are places with lots of baddies that the player has to get through whether they're a combat build or not (cathedral, military base). But I found the combat wasn't something the player had to drag himself through and for the most part, if you were playing a stealthy character, combat could be avoided without having to prowl quite so much as in Arcanum.

Maybe this is a subjective measurement which I'd rather avoid, (and if I have more time in the next few days I'll try to give a more in depth response) but many points in Arcanum grated on my nerves, whereas with Fallout even the weaker features didn't bug me. In that sense, Arcanum had a good structure (quests, writing, etc) to build the game into, but the game itself, which is built out gameplay based on the character skills and whatnot, was filled with tedium.

I know that is not a logical, point-by-point, fact-based breakdown of things, but I'll see what I can put together in the next week or so, if it's still relevant by then.