mEtaLL1x said:
The thing is, if you guys had any evidence for your claims whatsoever you would be able to change my mind.
You are perfectly aware of the falseness of such a statement.
Yeah, because I've never admitted when I was wrong around here.
Again, a conflict of personal definitions of the genre.
No. If it is a <b>PURE</b> RPG it should be role-playing in ALL aspects. If even one aspect, be it dialog trees, plot affecting ability, or combat, is not dependent on the character's abilities then it cannot be a PURE RPG.
(Disclaimer: Much of that argument is not stuff I believe in, but stuff put in to clarify things for people who think picking options out of a list is roleplaying.)
I value story, dialogs, characters, options/nonlinearity and world much higher than combat.
What you VALUE has nothing to do with genre classification. I value good, strategic turn based combat. I still consider BG and Planescape to be RPGs despite their lack of good, strategic turn based combat. I still consider Fallout to be an RPG despite my dislike of it's combat system. What I value, in other words, has no effect on how I classify a game.
What I value only affects what games I choose to play.
<b>obediah</b>
It's ok, it wasn't actually said anywhere in the post... this is why I'm not an author.
<b>Zufuriin</b>
You could say the same thing about Fable's combat system, but there is a guide out there for going through the game without actually leveling up your skills.
Essentially when skill increases do little more than improve damage, or add new combos they become little more than power ups. Waht is the difference between... say increasing your archery skill to get higher range, and finding the Long Beam in the original Metroid?
This is not having the character determine the success of actions, it is simply putting a modifier on the player skill.
RPGs should be about decision making and planning, not twitch reflexes.
<b>Vault Dweller</b>
I just don't see anything fucking wrong with to-hit rolls. If your skill is high enough, you hit most of the time - that's some very basic RPG stuff. The only complaint was that when you miss, it still *looks* like you hit. An obvious solution would have been to make it look like you missed. Is it really some fucking rocket science to you?
What about dodging/blocking/parrying animations attached to failed rolls though?
I always figured if I end up actually making a game I'd do this:
Define several (3-5) "contact points" on the player, humanoid characters and various monster types. Then have 5 attack animations where the attack passes through those points. Then make 5 dodges/parries for each creature type that block to or avoid being at each of those points. Finally, have the attack identify itself so the appropriate blocking animation can be played.
For larger creatures or well armored (dragons) ones I would just have a "bounces off" animation to indicate failure to penetate natural armor. Incorporeal beings could just pass through.
Always seemed like a good idea to me anyway, then you could even have the battlefield animated with all characters constantly attacking/parrying while player decides what the next move should be. Would be cool...
Now if only I followed through on my ideas... heh.
<b>kris</b>
The beautiful part here is that the chances of Oblivion actually living up to Codex roleplaying ideals are roughly 0.0000001%