Kev Inkline
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,140
When you have bad story but good combat, game is not good. But when you have good story and bad combat, game can be enjoyable. So having good story is paramount in making good rpg.
Having a good engaging story keep you interested in the game. What is the point of having good combat in lousy driven story? One can argue that in almost all rpgs stories are lousy so all that left is good combat. Those people identify themselves as combatfags.
When you have bad story but good combat, game is not good. But when you have good story and bad combat, game can be enjoyable. So having good story is paramount in making good rpg.
Having a good engaging story keep you interested in the game. What is the point of having good combat in lousy driven story? One can argue that in almost all rpgs stories are lousy so all that left is good combat. Those people identify themselves as combatfags.
Dear God, it's like idiocy itself has manifested into living creature.For my part, I found the spectre of lorefaggotry to be a constant and unwelcome shadow in Dark Souls. From all the NPCs waffling on about shit that made absolutely no sense (though I don't think this is unique to Dark Souls, so much as just that the Japanese are physically incapable of writing a dialogue scene that doesn't resemble a bad French arthouse film) to the fact that every online community discussing the game seemed to obsess over item descriptions and characters who were never even encountered in the game.
It didn't impact on the gameplay directly, but all the 'DEEP LORE' shit was a bit like playing the game with somebody masturbating loudly in the next room. Yes, you can ignore it, and it's probably not actually going to affect you, but until it's over you'll never quite be free of the fear of getting hit in the face with it.
Daily reminder that combatfags should go play dota2
That's why it's perfect for combattardsDota2 isn't an RPG, duh.
And only one of them makes them right.Only japanese and Cleve can still make blobbers these days.An RPG with good combat and puzzles (like most blobbers, for example) and a barebones story is better than an RPG with a good but completely linear and non-interactive story (like 99% of JRPGs out there).
The setting is the most important thing.When you have bad story but good combat, game is not good. But when you have good story and bad combat, game can be enjoyable. So having good story is paramount in making good rpg.
Having a good engaging story keep you interested in the game. What is the point of having good combat in lousy driven story? One can argue that in almost all rpgs stories are lousy so all that left is good combat. Those people identify themselves as combatfags.
The setting is the most important thing.When you have bad story but good combat, game is not good. But when you have good story and bad combat, game can be enjoyable. So having good story is paramount in making good rpg.
Having a good engaging story keep you interested in the game. What is the point of having good combat in lousy driven story? One can argue that in almost all rpgs stories are lousy so all that left is good combat. Those people identify themselves as combatfags.
You can have a good RPG with bad combat and bad story if the setting is good.
Example: Mass Effect 1.
Even though you are wrong the game industry of today agrees with you. That's why we see millions of words of 'story' in Pillars of Eternity, but the game feels lackluster due to the weak setting. Unable to diagnose the problem, the studios continue to throw more and more 'story' writing at the problem. The equivalent of this for 'combat' is the trend towards slapping an experience point grind and skill trees on things, confusing 'progression' with enjoyable combat.
It's much easier to create more story or progression (in part because these things can be easily outsourced to more people) than it is to increase the setting or combat quality.
Here is a list of the greatest RPG titles ever produced in the history of mankind, in alphabetical order:
Age of Decadence
Crescent Hawk's Inception
Geneforges
Nethergate
Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome
Ultima VII
Questions? I didn't think so.
All of these games have extremely strong settings, and either strong reactivity to player decisions, or else the game engine allows a lot of exploration and some freedom to be a creative arsehole and do hilarious stuff.
In terms of combat, though, it varies. The Spiderweb titles and AoD had amazingly good combat. Crescent Hawk's Inception was good but kind of cumbersome and the encounters were mostly randomly generated fluff. Teudogar's was very intuitive and good at what it did, if a bit simple. Ultima VII was just a hilarious shit show, probably I should label it as terrible combat but it's too ridiculous to hate.
So, strong setting and reactive storyfags win, eat shit combat queens. I will admit that a game with weak combat AND a restrictive game engine will never be top tier, though.
I don’t think combat alone is, or should be, more important than any other feature (unless the game is clearly about combat). But story is more like an icing over a gameplay (of which combat and certain narrative mechanics are a part of) cake.
Good gameplay can cover up for even lousy writing because if you’re having fun playing, who gives a shit what the story is like; but bad gameplay most usually ruins even the best of writing because you have to suffer through the lousy mechanical swamp to get to and through the story.
Story in games is like story in porn. You notice if it's not there, but it's not that important.
Here is a list of the greatest RPG titles ever produced in the history of mankind, in alphabetical order:
Age of Decadence
Crescent Hawk's Inception
Geneforges
Nethergate
Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome
Ultima VII
Questions? I didn't think so.
All of these games have extremely strong settings, and either strong reactivity to player decisions, or else the game engine allows a lot of exploration and some freedom to be a creative arsehole and do hilarious stuff.
In terms of combat, though, it varies. The Spiderweb titles and AoD had amazingly good combat. Crescent Hawk's Inception was good but kind of cumbersome and the encounters were mostly randomly generated fluff. Teudogar's was very intuitive and good at what it did, if a bit simple. Ultima VII was just a hilarious shit show, probably I should label it as terrible combat but it's too ridiculous to hate.
So, strong setting and reactive storyfags win, eat shit combat queens. I will admit that a game with weak combat AND a restrictive game engine will never be top tier, though.
Here is a list of the greatest RPG titles ever produced in the history of mankind, in alphabetical order:
Age of Decadence
Crescent Hawk's Inception
Geneforges
Nethergate
Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome
Ultima VII
Questions? I didn't think so.
All of these games have extremely strong settings, and either strong reactivity to player decisions, or else the game engine allows a lot of exploration and some freedom to be a creative arsehole and do hilarious stuff.
In terms of combat, though, it varies. The Spiderweb titles and AoD had amazingly good combat. Crescent Hawk's Inception was good but kind of cumbersome and the encounters were mostly randomly generated fluff. Teudogar's was very intuitive and good at what it did, if a bit simple. Ultima VII was just a hilarious shit show, probably I should label it as terrible combat but it's too ridiculous to hate.
So, strong setting and reactive storyfags win, eat shit combat queens. I will admit that a game with weak combat AND a restrictive game engine will never be top tier, though.
Lists Geneforge. Leaves out Arcanum and Fallout and Planescape.
Here is a list of the greatest RPG titles ever produced in the history of mankind, in alphabetical order:
Age of Decadence
Crescent Hawk's Inception
Geneforges
Nethergate
Teudogar and the Alliance with Rome
Ultima VII
Questions? I didn't think so.
All of these games have extremely strong settings, and either strong reactivity to player decisions, or else the game engine allows a lot of exploration and some freedom to be a creative arsehole and do hilarious stuff.
In terms of combat, though, it varies. The Spiderweb titles and AoD had amazingly good combat. Crescent Hawk's Inception was good but kind of cumbersome and the encounters were mostly randomly generated fluff. Teudogar's was very intuitive and good at what it did, if a bit simple. Ultima VII was just a hilarious shit show, probably I should label it as terrible combat but it's too ridiculous to hate.
So, strong setting and reactive storyfags win, eat shit combat queens. I will admit that a game with weak combat AND a restrictive game engine will never be top tier, though.
Lists Geneforge. Leaves out Arcanum and Fallout and Planescape.
Arcanum is decline, Planescape is pure and absolute decline, Fallout 1&2 are good but not good enough.
PST is one of the worst RPGs ever, tbh