Community The Age of Incline: RPG Codex's 2012-2016 GOTY Results

[gaussgunner]

Guys, what about this thread? We've got over 800 votes and almost no one is willing to write a short opinion about their favourite games?
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ty-review-thread-get-in-here-and-help.113633/

I would, but mine aren't on the list. I suppose I could write a balanced post-hype-cycle review of D:OS or NEO Scavenger though.

 

[Latelistener]

We've got over 800 votes and almost no one is willing to write a short opinion about their favourite games?

Spoiler

 

[Sensuki]

For me is less important what is the nature of cRPGs, and more important what are the features we should expect in a cRPG. You can say that a game that manages to implement one of the traditional features well (let’s say combat system, exploration, etc.) is a cRPG and I wouldn’t have no problems with that, even though it is not a genuine full-fledged cRPG. There is a continuum passing from robust character building, well thought combat system, dialogue trees, reactivity to pure hack and slash. The more engrossing the systems are, the more cRPGish it is. A clear picture of this is more important for players than endless discussions about the nature of cRPGs.

I would love to see a cRPG with no character system, that relied purely on player skill increasing throughout the game (or at least, players playing better to meet the increase in challenge). Nothing wrong with hack and slash combat in RPGs, however the combat is usually awful because RPG designers lean on RPG mechanics more than the actual combat system mechanics - such as the movement system, the animation fluidity, the shooting or h&s mechanics etc.

Pretty much all RPG designers are guilty of this actually (not just h&s etc), it's annoying.

 

[Lurker King]

I would love to see a cRPG with no character system, that relied purely on player skill increasing throughout the game (or at least, players playing better to meet the increase in challenge). Nothing wrong with hack and slash combat in RPGs, however the combat is usually awful because RPG designers lean on RPG mechanics more than the actual combat system mechanics - such as the movement system, the animation fluidity, the shooting or h&s mechanics etc.

Pretty much all RPG designers are guilty of this actually (not just h&s etc), it's annoying.

The problem is that this game would be a action game, not a cRPG. I understand your frustration. You are used to game competitions that require reflexes and coordination. cRPGs are the furthest thing from this. The abilities required involved mastering the combat system, making interesting combos, etc. Of course that is not an excuse for shitty combat, especially when it is not tied to character building as in a hack and slash.

 

[Sensuki]

I think you can still have an RPG layer on top of this. Who says that a combat system has to be built around some kind of behind-the-scenes progression system?

 

[gaussgunner]

I think you can still have an RPG layer on top of this. Who says that a combat system has to be built around some kind of behind-the-scenes progression system?

That's kinda what makes it "role playing". Basically the player's mind is acting through the character's body (and brain).

Add a story "role playing" element and you have a full blown RPG.
Add realtime player-skill-based combat and you have an Action RPG... stretching the definition of RPG.
Take away the progression system, and you have an Action Adventure. Not An RPG.

 

[Sensuki]

Combat is a part of an RPG, but I don't think taking the RPG elements out of combat takes the RPG out of the game as long as it is present in other systems.

 

[gaussgunner]

You could make a CYOA with extensive non-combat skill checks, bolt on a shooter game, and call it an RPG. You might even get away with it here. But if combat and the RPG elements aren't connected, isn't one of them just busywork?

 

[Sensuki]

not if it's fun?

 

[Darth Roxor]

I think you can still have an RPG layer on top of this.

yes like deep lore

 

[laclongquan]

Can you guarantee fun?

 

[V_K]

not if it's fun?

Can you name one Adventure game with action sequences that wouldn't be better without them?

 

[Irenaeus]

not if it's fun?

Can you name one Adventure game with action sequences that wouldn't be better without them?

Quest for Glory.

 

[Jasede]

But that's an RPG or at least an adventure/RPG hybrid.

 

[V_K]

Yep, and combat is fundamentally optional (unless you're playing fighter class).

 

[Irenaeus]

ok, Full Throttle has some fun action parts.

 

[MicoSelva]

Great work, felipepepe . You are a true titan of .

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Sorry for responding after a whole week, but I was super-busy.

That is an insoluble problem, because it's a pseudo-problem. What most players consider dynamic gameplay is just a synonymous for combat or exploration. There is nothing to fix in dialogue trees as gameplay element. This is just a matter of personal preference. If most games labelled as cRPGs were games like “King of the Dragon Pass”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

If it's not a problem, then stop complaining about people not liking reloading. You can't argue people out of being annoyed.

Every time I engage in a discussion about AoD it feels like entering in the Twilight Zone, because everything is inverted and things are perceived upside-down. Games that treat skill checks as fluffy are presented as favoring hybrids. That’s completely lunacy. These games favors specialists, combat specialists, but give you the illusion that skill check matters because your survival is not affected by it. The bulk of the game is resolved by combat. You use skill checks to interact with the environment, but you have to fight. Skill checks are there just to make your exploration more awesome. They don’t actually track players' limitations.

Not-true. Character that is only good at combat will miss many of the best rewards and quest endings in Fallout and many other RPGs.

That’s not true, is it? In FO you don’t really have a pacifist playtrough, you have one way to reach to the end trying your best to avoid fights with outdoor skill because the game was not designed to be played that way. In Arcanum, you have to do a bunch of gimmicks to avoid trash combat in maps, but you are still overwhelmed by combat in every quest. VtM:B is the same thing. You talked as if AoD should learn with the classics how to implement a better pacifist playtroughs even though they don’t support pacifist playtroughs at all. That’s why the “pacifist” player is always in danger, because these games revolve around fighting. In AoD, on the other hand, non-combat builds face real danger that were properly implemented for these types of builds. Once again, the reality it’s precisely the opposite of what you are saying.

I'm not arguing that this game favours pacifists more, just that they don't rely that much on skill checks.

Exactly, and players that complain about pacifist playtroughs now, would complain even more then.

Not true

It is not focused on pacifist characters; it allows you to be a pacifist character. This is a big difference.

It's "more focused" because in AoD Pacifist charters are catered to, while in FO they are somewhat allowed to exist if player knows the game well.

Trying telling that to players that played most classics of the 90s, but keep whining on steam about the learning steep curve. It is hard in comparison to most cRPGs. Saying it is easy just to diminish the design principles of the game won’t make reality go away. You just need to consider the achievements data to know that most players can do a lot of things.

It's hard to get into, which will drive-off many players. It's hard to get at first, but it's smooth sailing once you get the basics. Also, most games have pathetic achievement data, most Steam users barely touch their games. In Furi and Metal Gear Rising, only half of the players got the third stages.

 

[Lurker King]

I think you can still have an RPG layer on top of this. Who says that a combat system has to be built around some kind of behind-the-scenes progression system?

You could argue that a game would be a cRPG with action combat if it has one or more of the following features: (1) systematic reactivity; (2) robust resource management; (3) systematic interaction with the game environment. It is also possible to emulate the other actions we should expect in some cRPGs such as skill checks and choices based on your own stats. Just as in an action game your success depends on your reflexes, your decisions could depend on your wits. Some adventure games provide an interesting example of this. You need to take some pieces of information and make your own conclusions. In a sense, this is what CYOAish games such as “King of Dragon Pass” already did, and I consider these games to be cRPGs. Therefore, it is possible to have emergent gameplay and action in a cRPG under the assumption that there are strict limits related to your own stats.

 

[Lurker King]

If it's not a problem, then stop complaining about people not liking reloading. You can't argue people out of being annoyed.

Nobody likes to fail and reload, in any game. That’s just the price you pay for the challenge. My criticism is the extent of this frustration has been overblow as synonymous of bad design. This is not just impossible to defend, but reflects how much handholding, illusory character building, and combat we have in traditional storyfag games.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

If it's not a problem, then stop complaining about people not liking reloading. You can't argue people out of being annoyed.

Nobody likes to fail and reload, in any game.

But you've said yourself that they don't mind having to reload as long as they die in combat:
"The funny thing is that dying and reloading to beat an encounter is considering good gameplay, but dying and reloading to beat a skill check is save-scumming, dumb persistence, etc."