PC Gamer says that Levitation is out.

[Vault Dweller]

No, not nothing. A set of pretty postcards and a tape with the soothing voice of Patric Stewart.

 

[bryce777]

Yeah, rereading my post I could have been a little more clear, and I was exaggerating a little. Maybe a better example; You have a fresh faced peasant lad (level 1 fighter) facind down an armoured warrior (level 10 blackguard). The peasant has a THAC0 of 20, and the blackgaurd has an AC of say 10. The only way the peasant is going to damage the blackguard is with a natural 20. What this means as far as the actual fight is concened, assuming the blackguard doesn't actually attack, is that the peasant is going to spend most (90%) of his time simply bouncing a mace off of armour (not missing completely), 5% of the time he WILL trip and miss completely, and 5% of the time he'll get lucky and actually manage to hurt the blackguard. I don't think this is far off what you'd expect to see in the same real life situation.

What to-hit rolls in D&D are supposed to be simulating are all the possible events in a combat situation reduced to a single roll. So it's supposed to take into account player skill with a weapon, enemy dodging abilities, armour, critical hits, positioning, etc. In a 3d rpg you can simulate most of these things more effectively in other ways, rather than depending on a single roll of the die. Many things we take for granted in PnP rpgs were originally concessions to the limited time and equipment players had available. From combat to the leveling system. Now with crpgs we don't have to make those same concessions, but for some reason, so many developers still do.

Well, first off then you get into a totally different kind of game. I have no interest in a gladiator simulator. Well, maybe I would if it were detailed enough, but as part of a game called an RPG, it is just annoying. It is nothing like what we would call an rpg - it is more akin to gauntlet of old, if anything.

Further, if you want to go the arcade route, it fails in that way, too because the opponents you face don't change their skill, just the amount of damage they can take or dish out. If you want to go the arcade route (in which case you get just another non rpg with a sword), it's better to axe the skills completely. Melee also really sucks for action games, generally, too. To make it not suck, you would need a totally different style of gameplay and game design ala double dragon or mortal combat and again it would be nothing that could be called an RPG.

 

[Drakron]

...

What to-hit rolls in D&D are supposed to be simulating are all the possible events in a combat situation reduced to a single roll. So it's supposed to take into account player skill with a weapon, enemy dodging abilities, armour, critical hits, positioning, etc. In a 3d rpg you can simulate most of these things more effectively in other ways, rather than depending on a single roll of the die. Many things we take for granted in PnP rpgs were originally concessions to the limited time and equipment players had available. From combat to the leveling system. Now with crpgs we don't have to make those same concessions, but for some reason, so many developers still do.

Except for one tiny detail.

YOU FUCKING PLAYING SOMEONE ELSE.

When that gets into your tick skull?

Any system that depends on the player skill against character skill is not a RPG, the reason of why we have roll-to-hit is because there is always a element of random in combat ... you dont ALWAYS hit and you dont ALWAYS miss because of your stats, level and skill.

A system WITHOUT a roll system removed the random element of life ... in real live people dont always hit something even if they are one of the best, sometimes they miss.

A system without rolls will turn into a "success or failure" based ONLY on stats, in a cRPG does that ... well its ends up being a question of how good the player is on using the interface and that takes us away from roleplaying anything BUT us.

I take you have no idea about D&D either because movement always been a factor ... the roll-to-hit are simply to make combat (or anything) unpredicable no matter how powerful a character is there is always the chance he will miss.

 

[Bosco]

Don't worry, everyone. In an out-of-character moment, Pete went through the trouble of making an extensive explaination as to why they left Levitation out, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind that they had good reason to do so:

No, we don't get into defending every decision we make in trying to make the best game we can. Sorry.

 

[Hamanu]

@bryce777
Sure, that's all true if the focus of the game is the combat. What I see are essentially some pretty small changes made in the interest of making to world seem more real. I don't play rpgs for the combat, and so I don't see this as all that much of a sacrifice. Yes there's a larger element of player skill as opposed to character skill involved, but really, it's an improvement over daggerfall and morrowind where if you wanted to you could kill any melee enemy simply by walking backwards. In all fairness, I could be completely off base here and Oblivion could end up being a Jedi Academy clone, if that happens I'll gladly eat my words. I don't think what they've shown so far points to that happening though.

@Drakron
That was awesome, thanks for contributing. I wasn't going to respond, but I think it's worthwhile to correct some assumptions.

First, I don't have ticks.

I do understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you.

Player skill is always an element in rpgs. I'll give you an example from an old D&D session. Party's dead, one level 9 or 10 cleric is left. So you have one idiot cleric against a nightwalker, seems like a tough fight until you realise that the cleric can cast plane shift as a touch attack and send the nightwalker to the elemental plane of fire. I know you're going to come back and tell me that a nightwalker can plane-shift at will, I know that, but that's beside the point. The point is that the cleric was played by a skilled person who knew how the system worked. Don't tell me that a bad player would have done the same thing. They COULD have, but they wouldn't have. They would have whipped out their dagger and died.

RPG's aren't about stats, alot of people (myself included) would say that they actually hinder an RP experience. Look at the above example, a good rper would have had the cleric attack with his dagger, becuase that's what the cleric would have done. As you said, rping is about playing someone else. Think about that, rping is about taking someone's role, making decisions for them, trying to think like them. It's essentially becoming someone else. You don't need stats and rules to do that, you need an imagination. The player's handbook is an aid, not the game. That's why I don't think the changes they've made are a loss to the game, I think that they'll enhance the RP experience.

They're not subsuming the rp aspect because rping isn't about statistics and die rolls.

 

[LlamaGod]

Why exactly isnt Unarmored in, anyways?

Characters cannot punch? what the fuck is that

Yeah, fighting unARMED is exactly what unARMORED was about.
Hand-to-hand (an idiotic name) is still in.
But did Unarmored make a lot of sense anyway? How can someone get armor rating without wearing armor? Doesn't make a lot of sense. It shouldn't have been in anyway.

I DONE FUCKED UP

anyways, I always like to go unarmored/unarmed in games like these

 

[LlamaGod]

Why exactly isnt Unarmored in, anyways?

Characters cannot punch? what the fuck is that

Yeah, fighting unARMED is exactly what unARMORED was about.
Hand-to-hand (an idiotic name) is still in.
But did Unarmored make a lot of sense anyway? How can someone get armor rating without wearing armor? Doesn't make a lot of sense. It shouldn't have been in anyway.

I DONE FUCKED UP

anyways, I always like to go unarmored/unarmed in games like these

 

[Proweler]

No, not nothing. A set of pretty postcards and a tape with the soothing voice of Patric Stewart.

Oblivion cut from Game.

 

[Drakron]

@Drakron
That was awesome, thanks for contributing. I wasn't going to respond, but I think it's worthwhile to correct some assumptions.

First, I don't have ticks.

I do understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you.

Player skill is always an element in rpgs.
...
They're not subsuming the rp aspect because rping isn't about statistics and die rolls.

Problem is just because a player knows how to use a spell does not mean rolls go away .. its a touch attack so there was rolls involved and not "my character does it and works".

A cleric that does not know what his spells do its not a very good cleric ...

Bad roleplaying is a buch of illiterate barbarians with a Int score of 7 doing advanced calculus in relation to water and food rations to cross a desert.

The problem is knowing how the system works and remain in character ... very easy for players to read the module or pick up the MM and check stats.

 

[Dreagon]

Don't worry, everyone. In an out-of-character moment, Pete went through the trouble of making an extensive explaination as to why they left Levitation out, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind that they had good reason to do so:

No, we don't get into defending every decision we make in trying to make the best game we can. Sorry.

Wow. Is that guy a public relations genius, or what?

 

[Reconcilliation]

Can someone remind me what exactly Oblivion has going for it?

Edit: I fucked up.

 

[Micmu]

Player skill is always an element in rpgs. I'll give you an example from an old D&D session. Party's dead, one level 9 or 10 cleric is left. So you have one idiot cleric against a nightwalker, seems like a tough fight until you realise that the cleric can cast plane shift as a touch attack and send the nightwalker to the elemental plane of fire. I know you're going to come back and tell me that a nightwalker can plane-shift at will, I know that, but that's beside the point. The point is that the cleric was played by a skilled person who knew how the system worked. Don't tell me that a bad player would have done the same thing. They COULD have, but they wouldn't have. They would have whipped out their dagger and died.

There's a HUGE difference between player's wits (tactics, knowledge) in RPGs and player's twitch skill (reflexes, practise) in action/RPGs, so you are giving a wrong example. Because that was the real topic here.

 

[Hamanu]

I used to know a DM who would make mages get up and actually 'cast' the spells they wanted to make their characters cast...

I never played more than once with him though, and I played a barbarian.

Anyways, sounds to me like they're catering to both skillsets here, twitch gaming's an element sure, but it also seems like there's much more movement and many more options in combat that what I've seen before. Add to this a battle with many enemies and suddenly tactics becomes very important, much moreso than it was in previous games.

Sorry for the thread hijacking though, back on topic now. I always liked to play devil's advocate.

 

[Imbecile]

Sorry for the thread hijacking though, back on topic now. I always liked to play devil's advocate.

Oh no you don't!

sorry.

I like the fact that it uses both character skill, and player skill, but I can appreciate that some don’t.

I guess there's a fine line between “the best of both worlds” and “falling between two stools”.

 

[HardCode]

There is no ideal combat system for an RPG that can be represented on a computer. They will all have their pros and cons. I happened to like Morrowind's combat system because of these reasons:

PROS:
* Smoothness regarding immersion - you travel in 1st person, spot a monster in that POV, and there is no transition to combat, you just fight. No change of view or load screen. And the 1st person POV helps keep immersion.
* Hit Rolls - the system had hit rolls, which is definitely the way to go for RPG games. Period.

CONS:
* Combat Visuals - it looks like you hit, but you didn't. This could have been fixed with further animation, but CPU power would have limited the implementation of all of those animations.
* No tactics - Swing away, or cast away. Only three "moves" per weapon. Only possible tactic would be sneaking to get a critical hit, but that doesn't coun't because you aren't in combat yet.

Just a short list, but it illustrates that any combat system on a computer game will have pros and cons. Turn-based combat would probably have the pros and cons vise-versa for the most part. Each player will favor one over the other. I don't think their is a perfect one.

However, the one common element is the Hit Roll. It is absolutely necessary or else you have Counter-Strike.

 

[Imbecile]

However, the one common element is the Hit Roll. It is absolutely necessary or else you have Counter-Strike.

I guess this is the sticking point that I disagree on. Where you are in full control of your character in real time, you no longer need a proxy Hit Roll.

The issue with this is that your skills should not be your characters, and that this makes the game, effectively, a FPS. What stops this from being the case (to me at least) is the fact that movement, damage, blocking etc.. are all governed by stats. While you lose the hitting aspect of your character, the overall picture is still the same. You are both limited/aided by the strengths and weaknesses of your character.

Equally you might ask, where does this stop? Why not ditch damage,, movement, and all those other modifiers, why not just go the whole hog and make an FPS. Whats the big deal with the Hit Roll?

The problem if you hand over control of real time movement and control to the player, and he swings at an opponent, who is in the way, he expects to make contact. There might be the odd unique issue, like a dodgy eye, but generally speaking you have simulated hitting the enemy. Effectively this is your Hit Roll.

If you add a to hit roll, you are effectively double counting as they both perform exactly the same function. it has to be one or the other. Either you have no control of real time movement in combat, and the hits are calculated for you, or you try to make your own hits, which substitutes for the Hit Roll.

 

[HardCode]

I guess this is the sticking point that I disagree on. Where you are in full control of your character in real time, you no longer need a proxy Hit Roll.

But you are missing the point brought up many times. If YOU the human at your computer determine whether or not your PLAYER CHARACTER scores a hit, then that doesn't accurately represent your PLAYER CHARACTER's abilities. It represents YOURS. And "YOURS" is Counter-Strike, the "PLAYER CHARACTER's" is an RPG.

 

[Imbecile]

I guess this is the sticking point that I disagree on. Where you are in full control of your character in real time, you no longer need a proxy Hit Roll.

But you are missing the point brought up many times. If YOU the human at your computer determine whether or not your PLAYER CHARACTER scores a hit, then that doesn't accurately represent your PLAYER CHARACTER's abilities. It represents YOURS. And "YOURS" is Counter-Strike, the "PLAYER CHARACTER's" is an RPG.

Im pretty sure I acknowledged that point, and explained why I felt it wasnt an issue. Dont see why I should have to do it again, even if you use caps.

 

[HardCode]

Then we will agree to disagree

 

[bryce777]

I guess this is the sticking point that I disagree on. Where you are in full control of your character in real time, you no longer need a proxy Hit Roll.

But you are missing the point brought up many times. If YOU the human at your computer determine whether or not your PLAYER CHARACTER scores a hit, then that doesn't accurately represent your PLAYER CHARACTER's abilities. It represents YOURS. And "YOURS" is Counter-Strike, the "PLAYER CHARACTER's" is an RPG.

I guess what's frustrating to me is, not only do people seem unable to grasp what an rpg is, but that really a lot of the people dont want an rpg at all. That is ok, but it is pretty idiotic to bill it as an rpg when it's a bunch of fingertwitching punctuated by a bunch of cutscenes.

 

[HardCode]

I guess what's frustrating to me is, not only do people seem unable to grasp what an rpg is, but that really a lot of the people dont want an rpg at all.

Yes. This problem of consumer ignorance is what is driving the game developers to make mis-matched games. Genre is out the window.

There are genres for a reason. The purpose of a genre in the first place is to represent different classifications of something. Like music. There is classical, pop, rock, metal, rap. While sometime a cross-over is successful, it isn't meant to be that way all the time. Metallica played with an orchestra, but how many metal fans want orchestras in all metal music? How many classical fans want metal in all classical music?

Game companies are trying to satisfy all the people all the time. That will eventually lead to failure. Keep RPGs as RPGs. Make FPS games if you want to take that part of the market share. RTS games should be made in the RTS genre. Mixing them all of the time leads to a "nobody wins" situation.

 

[Proweler]

From all those shoddy comparison I get the feeling a few people didn't play counter strike over here.

 

[bryce777]

I guess what's frustrating to me is, not only do people seem unable to grasp what an rpg is, but that really a lot of the people dont want an rpg at all.

Yes. This problem of consumer ignorance is what is driving the game developers to make mis-matched games. Genre is out the window.

There are genres for a reason. The purpose of a genre in the first place is to represent different classifications of something. Like music. There is classical, pop, rock, metal, rap. While sometime a cross-over is successful, it isn't meant to be that way all the time. Metallica played with an orchestra, but how many metal fans want orchestras in all metal music? How many classical fans want metal in all classical music?

Game companies are trying to satisfy all the people all the time. That will eventually lead to failure. Keep RPGs as RPGs. Make FPS games if you want to take that part of the market share. RTS games should be made in the RTS genre. Mixing them all of the time leads to a "nobody wins" situation.

I agree, except RTS games are an abomination.

 

[Imbecile]

Yes. This problem of consumer ignorance is what is driving the game developers to make mis-matched games. Genre is out the window.

Game companies are trying to satisfy all the people all the time. That will eventually lead to failure. Keep RPGs as RPGs. Make FPS games if you want to take that part of the market share. RTS games should be made in the RTS genre. Mixing them all of the time leads to a "nobody wins" situation.

Yeah, thats kind of what I meant earlier when I was talking about falling between two stools - we defintely are getting more genre bleed now. Sometimes its succesful, sometimes its not.
I guess Deus ex is probably a good example of succesful mix, as is Rome Total War, but there are more than enough examples of it not working too.

I like RPGs, and I like real time, first person. I just dont think that Hit Rolls work when the two are combined - but the rest of it works pretty well for me, and lots of others too. So I guess we win. We happy, imbecilic many.

 

[yipsl]

Actually I just want a game where I can gas jews and rape teenage girls, but don't tell anyone.

Please keep comments like that out of a thread I start. I know you're just being an ass, but I find it very offensive and I take it personally. After all, I would have been on Hitler's list for two different reasons.

Now, back to the thread:

" Howard described it this way: "It's amazing how many people played Morrowind and said, 'Why is my character missing when he swings? The enemy is right there!,' "

It's amazing how many adult devs think that a game can be designed around polls of teenage kids. It's like they could call the "Making of Oblivion" DVD: "RPGs for Dummies".

I'd rather have RPGs for intelligent gamers, just like I'd like to see FPS, strategies (both real time and turn based) and adventure games for intelligent gamers. No wonder these people can't win a national election.