Company News Obsidian is hiring again = RPG overload

[Hazelnut]

That was cruel Drakron - he was enjoying it... :twisted:

 

[Old Scratch]

Anyone who doesn't consider Bloodlines just a plain ol' CRPG is off their fucking rocker. Baldur's Gate 2 for that matter.

Could you role-play in it as a character you made? Yes.
Was there freedom in how you could accomplish quests? Yes.
Did what your character experienced in the game have an effect on the resolution of it? Yes.
Did the game strive to immerse players in the world? Yes.

Putting Bloodlines or BG2 in the same genre category as Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, D&D Heroes, or Dungeon Siege is an atrocity. I realize the last portion of Bloodlines did descend into action-heavy territory, but it does an injustice to the work that went into that game to make it feel like a real RPG by labeling it an action-RPG because of a few god damn rushed sections at the end.

Action RPGs are action games that utilize the stat and leveling systems from RPGs but not the role-playing part or much else, as it gets in the way of any "action". Real-time(not pseudo RT) combat is a must too - a game isn't an action RPG if it has only turn-based combat as there's not a whole lot of fucking action there is there? Otherwise you're looking at 2-3 games that could qualify for CRPG status and surely no one here is that anally retentive.

Somewhere on the main page a list of what are considered plain CRPGs needs to be posted by the Codex staff for scrutiny so some of the retarded statements that get tossed around here can be laid to rest.

 

[obediah]

Action RPGs are action games that utilize the stat and leveling systems from RPGs but not the role-playing part or much else, as it gets in the way of any "action". Real-time(not pseudo RT) combat is a must too - a game isn't an action RPG if it has only turn-based combat as there's not a whole lot of fucking action there is there? Otherwise you're looking at 2-3 games that could qualify for CRPG status and surely no one here is that anally retentive.

Action RPGs can have as much role-playing as they like. The 'action' just means that your sucess in combat and perhaps other actions is going to be at least partially dependent on your controller-fu. Many action rpgs are light on roleplaying/branching because it's an economical combination, but an action rpg could have as much role-playing as any traditional crpg.

To sum up (and leaving the whole "rpg or not rpg" thing out):

Diable, Deus Ex, Gothic, Oblivion, Bloodlines = action rpg

Icewind Dale, Pool Of Radiance II = not action rpg

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

So far, DX2 has a deep and involving storyline, and offers a lot more choices to make than did the first game. So... everyone on this board harps about how important meaningful choices are in an RPG, and when Invisible War focuses intently on such choices, it gets ripped apart because it doesn't use skill points and different ammo types. Cool.

Really? I haven't played it, but never read anyone say anything to this effect over at TTLG. And if you think it's just VD obsessing over stats, Spector himself shouted "But it's not an RPG anymore" when Witchboy told him they were getting rid of those. At least he had the decency to warn us months before release though!

 

[Volourn]

"Action RPGs can have as much role-playing as they like. The 'action' just means that your sucess in combat and perhaps other actions is going to be at least partially dependent on your controller-fu. Many action rpgs are light on roleplaying/branching because it's an economical combination, but an action rpg could have as much role-playing as any traditional crpg."

Yup. Seems a fair defintion to me. This is why both JE and BL are both Action RPGs 'cause while they have as good as role-playing as most 'full fledge RPGs'; their combat is definitely action oreinted.

That's why IWD is best described as a dungeon crawl.

 

[Zomg]

It's not like Deus Ex was much of an RPG to begin with - yet, for most players, it felt like one just because there was a really strong illusion of consequence and freedom if you weren't wary. Plus, it was just mechanically fun to combine some light sneaker gameplay, light build design, poking around for secrets, and the story was pretty intruiging for a lot of folks. But roleplay-wise it's not like you could really assert much of a personality for Denton prior to the big decision or significantly alter the plot.

DX2 was mostly just a failure to do the same thing. It sucked because it sucked, because of crappy level design, loading times, poor writing, bad plot threads, bad enemy design, et cetera, not really because of mechanical changes. The stuff like universal ammo and the dropping of permanent build considerations is just ancillary to the listlessness of a game that was developed under a childlike faith that consoles print money.

I agree with obediah's characterization of the "action RPG" label.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, if he's only a few hours in, perhaps, he should play the game a bit more before he starts making "as good as the original!" statements, no? Am I missing something here?

I'm allowed to have an opinion after playing a few hours, and I'm allowed to compare it to the original, which seems like the logical thing to do.

Of course, you are allowed to have an opinion, but a smart thing to do would be to play a bit more before you share your first and very early impressions with the world. Then again, that's what most reviewers are doing these days, so I guess it's ok.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No, but I think there is a definite connotation here that they are.

Most action RPGs are.

Probably not Arx, but I haven't played it enough. I would argue that Deus Ex and Jade Empire come close; I haven't played through enough of SS2 to say for certain. But it also depends on what criteria you are using to judge the "depth" of the Gothic series.

Choices, consequences, multiple solutions, superb atmosphere and reactive AI, great character development (not the character system, but your place in the world), etc.

Ultima Underworld is as much of an action RPG as System Shock 2, Deus Ex, or Gothic. The combat takes place in real-time, you have direct control over your character's actions, and you initiate each action singularly in real-time. The player's skill is a significant determinant of the outcome of combat. That sounds like an action game to me. The term "action game" is not mutually exclusive with deep, intelligent, meaningful content.

Action game, imo, is a game focused almost exclusively on killing things, like Diablo, Deus Ex, and System Shock. Arcanum has a real time mode, but I don't think anyone would call it an action game.

No, it isn't in and of itself. But if you take the open-ended gameplay aspect out of Gothic, how exactly does it possess more depth than Deux Ex, for example?

See above.

Yeah, not even a remotely relevant comparison. Fallout:BoS wasn't made by the same people who made Fallout, and there was no intent to build anything upon the orignial game design. It wasn't a sequel, just some quick one-off to make money using that Dark Alliance Engine.

Fine. Compare Oblivion to MW, when you get a chance to play it. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

If these things can ruin your enjoyment of a game, then you're placing an undue emphasis on aspects of the game that are trivial.

Finish the game first.

So far, DX2 has a deep and involving storyline, and offers a lot more choices to make than did the first game. So... everyone on this board harps about how important meaningful choices are in an RPG, and when Invisible War focuses intently on such choices, it gets ripped apart because it doesn't use skill points and different ammo types. Cool.

Meaningful choices.

I don't see anything wrong with bringing some new suggestions to the table. "Hey, you don't normally seem to like these kinds of games, but you might like this one if you give it a fair try."

Fair enough.

 

[Old Scratch]

Action RPGs are action games that utilize the stat and leveling systems from RPGs but not the role-playing part or much else, as it gets in the way of any "action". Real-time(not pseudo RT) combat is a must too - a game isn't an action RPG if it has only turn-based combat as there's not a whole lot of fucking action there is there? Otherwise you're looking at 2-3 games that could qualify for CRPG status and surely no one here is that anally retentive.

Action RPGs can have as much role-playing as they like. The 'action' just means that your sucess in combat and perhaps other actions is going to be at least partially dependent on your controller-fu. Many action rpgs are light on roleplaying/branching because it's an economical combination, but an action rpg could have as much role-playing as any traditional crpg.

To sum up (and leaving the whole "rpg or not rpg" thing out):

Diable, Deus Ex, Gothic, Oblivion, Bloodlines = action rpg

Icewind Dale, Pool Of Radiance II = not action rpg

Okay, that seems like a logical explanation. I've always associated the term "action RPG" with Diablo; just an action game with RPG character advancement. Gaming journalists and PR monkey's tend to use it to refer to simple hack & slash type games too, so I've come to cringe whenever the label is brought up.

 

[Keldryn]

Somewhere on the main page a list of what are considered plain CRPGs needs to be posted by the Codex staff for scrutiny so some of the retarded statements that get tossed around here can be laid to rest.

Good luck coming to a consensus on that one. :D

 

[Keldryn]

Really? I haven't played it, but never read anyone say anything to this effect over at TTLG. And if you think it's just VD obsessing over stats, Spector himself shouted "But it's not an RPG anymore" when Witchboy told him they were getting rid of those. At least he had the decency to warn us months before release though!

I honestly don't miss the skills that much. In the original game, the Rifle, Lockpicking, and Computer skills were really the only worthwhile ones anyway. Any of the others I only put points in near the end or when I had a few extra point to use up. I'm about 12 hours into Invisible War now (just finished the Black Gate ruins), and it doesn't feel any less like an RPG than did the orignal game.

 

[Keldryn]

Of course, you are allowed to have an opinion, but a smart thing to do would be to play a bit more before you share your first and very early impressions with the world. Then again, that's what most reviewers are doing these days, so I guess it's ok.

Oh give me a break. The smart thing to do is not share my first impressions with others? Get off your high horse before you smack your head on the door frame.

I didn't give a complete in-depth review of the game. I didn't say that the game is definitely as good as the original and that all those who say otherwise are stupid or mistaken. I think my original post made it clear that I wasn't very far into the game. There is nothing wrong with stating to the world that I've only played the game for a few hours, but I'm enjoying so far and finding it as compelling as the original. First impressions are as valid as I've-finished-the-game impressions, so long as both are taken in context.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Depends on how you get this first impression, doesn't it? It's just like posting here. Sharing your thoughts is always welcome. Posting before you think isn't.

Take Oblivion, for example. Posting your thoughts after a few hours is pointless as you have no idea what you are talking about. You only think that you do.

 

[Volourn]

"Take Oblivion, for example. Posting your thoughts after a few hours is pointless as you have no idea what you are talking about. You only think that you do."

Nonesne. It took me two horus to realzie that WM was shit, and not worth my time. I ahven't played Oblivion AT ALL, and I already know I'd 99.,9% chance hate it.

And, it took me not even a couple of hours to come to the conclusion, that I really liked FO or BG.

This idea you need to play all or most of a game to understand it is garbage. Plain, and simple bullshit garbage.

Game over.


P.S. There, as always, *are* exemptions to these rules.

 

[Keldryn]

Choices, consequences, multiple solutions, superb atmosphere and reactive AI, great character development (not the character system, but your place in the world), etc.

Using that criteria, I'd definitely put Deus Ex in that category. I have to admit that I'm really not feeling the Gothic love. I've been trying to play it lately, but it just isn't grabbing my interest. It feels extremely bland, the NPCs react very predictably, the non-linear setup is severely hampered by the fact that you can't wander very far without running into a monster that will severely kick your ass, and the choice between the three camps is... meh. Feels like picking the least boring of the three.

The whole "prison dome" thing seems like a really artifical way to justify a fairly limited world size (without making it an island or some such thing), and not having to build models of women and children (and clothing/armor variants for each). Maybe I'd find Gothic 2 more to my liking.

Action game, imo, is a game focused almost exclusively on killing things, like Diablo, Deus Ex, and System Shock. Arcanum has a real time mode, but I don't think anyone would call it an action game.

I would agree with you on Diablo, and probably System Shock, but Deus Ex is not focused exclusively on killing things. I think in the original game there are only a couple of characters that you absolutely have to kill -- and I think they made an effort to make it so that you don't have to kill anyone in IW. And I certainly played Deus Ex (and am playing IW) as much more of an investigative type.

Fine. Compare Oblivion to MW, when you get a chance to play it. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

Will do. Probably won't be for several months, at least.

Finish the game first.

Fine, I'll report back when I'm finished it. Still not hampering my enjoyment ~12 hours into the game though.

Meaningful choices.

The choices certainly feel meaningful. However, without playing through the game a second time and seeing how choosing different affects the game, I can't be 100% certain.

However, the illusion of your choices making a difference can be pretty powerful. :D I'm not planning on giving it a second playthrough, at least for a long time. Too many other games I haven't touched yet. I destroyed the Nassif Greenhouse, and the Order told me that I made reprehensible choices and that they were going to send agents to kill me. I reloaded the game and didn't destroy it, so I don't know if they actually do that. However, given a certain revelation in the Black Gate ruins (a nod to Ultima VII maybe), I suspect not.

 

[Keldryn]

Depends on how you get this first impression, doesn't it? It's just like posting here. Sharing your thoughts is always welcome. Posting before you think isn't.

Take Oblivion, for example. Posting your thoughts after a few hours is pointless as you have no idea what you are talking about. You only think that you do.

Where do you get off accusing me of posting before I think?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Choices, consequences, multiple solutions, superb atmosphere and reactive AI, great character development (not the character system, but your place in the world), etc.

Using that criteria, I'd definitely put Deus Ex in that category.

IIRC, the game offers 3 real choices: whether or not to kill the rebel leader, Lebedev, and whether or not to help Paul or run. The choice of the ending 1 min before the game ends doesn't count. There are very few consequences in the game, and most choices don't mean shit. Multiple solutions are limited to shoot/hack/look for a vent to crawl through.

Now, compare that to 4 very different ways of getting into Khorinis in Gothic 2:
1. Getting farmer's clothes and telling the guards that you are a worker
2. Trading the pass for a favor
3. Bribing the guards
4. Exploring and finding a tricky way in.

As for the rest, the atmosphere is good, the AI doesn't stand out of the ordinary, and there is no character development, as there are no choices and consequences that define your character.

I would agree with you on Diablo, and probably System Shock, but Deus Ex is not focused exclusively on killing things. I think in the original game there are only a couple of characters that you absolutely have to kill -- and I think they made an effort to make it so that you don't have to kill anyone in IW. And I certainly played Deus Ex (and am playing IW) as much more of an investigative type.

You can play as a pacifist, for all I care, but each mission throws scores of enemies at you that can't be reasoned with and can only be killed. While you can avoid some of them, it's impossible to avoid killing quite a few people in every mission. 99% of people are hostile and will start shooting on sight.

Fine, I'll report back when I'm finished it. Still not hampering my enjoyment ~12 hours into the game though.

Keep up the good work!

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

In IW you can kill everybody with a name, or you can kill nobody at all. In the original you are supposed to be required to kill Anna Navarre, but some people have found a way around it and Gunther's dialogue actually reflects this. I believe there's some guy named Howard Strong you have to kill as well. Someone managed to beat it without any skills, augs or inventory items. He did use a lot of crates though.

Vault Dweller: It seems odd that you are comparing methods of accomplishing a goal in Gothic 2 with ethical decisions in Deus Ex.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller: It seems odd that you are comparing methods of accomplishing a goal in Gothic 2 with ethical decisions in Deus Ex.

I'm not. I compared multiple solutions of both games. As for ethical decisions, I didn't compare all 3 of them to anything.