| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
"I can kill an orc with a sword in Gothic (if I have the stats and equipment), but probably not in real life. So, would you define Gothic as an RPG if I just click on an enemy and my character spun off and did its own thing a la Dungeon Siege?"
Yes, because then my skill with controls have no effect on the character whose role I am playing. I'm not saying that would be more fun, I am saying it would be playing a role and not having the avatar being a personification of my keyboard/mouse skill in a game. I do not like the dungeon siege, or IE games poit and click combat (or that is how I play the IE games). I like turn-based tactical, strategic combat like realms of arkania, toee, and x-com. But what I like has nothing to do with what an rpg is.
"You believe this, but is isn't a fact, just your opinion. We are talking about video games, not Maxwell's Equations. There are no rules or guidelines that define an RPG strictly."
Thats the thing, but there is historical presidence and words that are all ready defined. P&P had no twitch based factors though there was ample opertunity to impliment them. The DM and you could wrestle to find out the outcome of your character vs. the badguy, but they didn't. A little armwrestling would have made combat more exciting. Or shooting a slingshot at a can to see if your archer hits his target. That would not be roleplaying.
I have never played p&p but I bet all those things described above would make it funner, but you would not be roleplaying a character.
A living, realistic world doesn't make a game an RPG. Then Republic the Revolution would be an RPG (and it has leveling up also).
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:33 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
If you think you're character should be the one killing the monster, not you, why don't you have him make his own dialogue selection with NPCs as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good example, MageofFire. A good RPG has to be challenging and demanding to the players themselves, not just the numbers on their character sheets.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Taking on the MENTALITY to actually role-play your character through dialogue (which is easier to manipulate through game mechanics, if you have a character skilled in speech), advancement and quest solving is what it's all about.
Ok. Seriously. We need to do something about this whole read-a-part-of-what-someone-says-then-try-to-point-out-something-he-already-brought-up-in-the-same-text. Jeeez...
Just read what Roqua said and maybe it'll sink in better.
quote:
News to me. Which game(s) in particular are you talking about? Off the top of my head, good RPGs I have played with reflex-based action: Daggerfall, Morrowind, Ultima Underworld 1&2, System Shock 2 (action/RPG, I know), Deus Ex, Arx Fatalis, Gothic... with all the honesty and objectivity I can muster, I can't apply your quote to any of them.
Uh... really?
Let me help you then. Arx Fatalis and Morrowind: You have to hold down left mouse button and drag the mouse around on the screen for each movement in melee, then you have to watch the arm swing along in a overblown movement. Morrowind had an option with which you could remove this, fortunately.
Gothic instead requires you to do key-combos for each and every movement, and although it's swifter than in Arx, it relies even more on YOUR skills. Plus, it requires you to go into some form of combat mode, dear gawd.
Any of this ring a bell? Yes? No? Maybe?
And what the heck is with this constant bringing up of that FPS System Shock? What does that have to do with a discussion about RPGs?
Deus Ex was a pretty good RPG/FPS hybrid. But it sure wasn't as slow or annoying as either Arx or Gothic, due to the fact that all you need to do is click on the mouse, and voilá he shoots! Same with Morrowind.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Wow... sounds like you need a better mouse. Or maybe slow down those lightning reflexes of yours. Seriously... I suspect you may have been over-egging the pudding slightly, but if that was honestly your experience with Arx, then you have my sincerest condolences. I hope your motorics get better.
Too fast, too slow, or simply that you accidently moved the mouse 0.00001 mm too far to the left when doing a magic, thus resulting in the program not recognizing your movement.
You never had this problem with Arx? Wow.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:52 am |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
It's really pretty easy to do Gothic combat once you get used to it. Then it becomes more of a test of your character's stats and abilities. I can't speak for Arx or Morrowind.
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:59 pm |
|
|
crpgnut
Captain of the Guard
Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 197
Location: St. Louis |
Just to add my 2˘ to this discussion. Spellforce isn't a pure crpg but it certainly has the requirements that meet most crpg standards. The combat is point and click. How well you hit and avoid being hit are decided by your choice of stats. You name the character, pick what skills will be learned and can't use what isn't chosen. Certain weapons and armor will be denied because of your choices. Dialogue occasionally has multiple choices, but many times there is only one. Here is a quest in the game: a particular npc is afflicted with a disease. There is a cure for this disease and he knows who knows how to make the cure. When you talk to this person, they refuse to cure the man. You now have a choice. You can get them to name another person who can make the cure or you can take a potion that will ease the sick man's pain. If you choose to ease his pain,
one set of actions happen, if you learn the other healer another set of actions take place.
Spellforce sounds like 100% crpg, right? It's not. Most of the game is full of building huge armies of units that go whack enemy units. The sidequests part of this game is making it very interesting for this "pure" crpger though.
_________________
'nut |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:07 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Just to add my 2˘ to this discussion. Spellforce isn't a pure crpg but it certainly has the requirements that meet most crpg standards. The combat is point and click. How well you hit and avoid being hit are decided by your choice of stats. You name the character, pick what skills will be learned and can't use what isn't chosen. Certain weapons and armor will be denied because of your choices. Dialogue occasionally has multiple choices, but many times there is only one. Here is a quest in the game: a particular npc is afflicted with a disease. There is a cure for this disease and he knows who knows how to make the cure. When you talk to this person, they refuse to cure the man. You now have a choice. You can get them to name another person who can make the cure or you can take a potion that will ease the sick man's pain. If you choose to ease his pain,
one set of actions happen, if you learn the other healer another set of actions take place.
Spellforce sounds like 100% crpg, right? It's not. Most of the game is full of building huge armies of units that go whack enemy units. The sidequests part of this game is making it very interesting for this "pure" crpger though
Yes, you have to compare just WHAT the game is centered about. The same can be said about Deus Ex etc.
How much dialogue/questing etc does the the game have? In spellforce's case, not much compared to the ammounts of combat and base-building.
A hybrid, nothing more.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:30 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Is Gothic an RPG if you play a mage instead of a sword fighter?
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:34 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Let me give you my best politicians response:
The mage character in Gothic is a bit more adjusted for RPG play.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:48 pm |
|
|
mkreku
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Location: Uppsala, Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
And what the heck is with this constant bringing up of that FPS System Shock? What does that have to do with a discussion about RPGs?
So.. Either Nietzsche was right and god really is dead, and Hexy took his place and started deciding once and for all what games are RPG's and which are not... Or could it be that Hexy is talking about a game he never played and just blurts out stupidities in an online bulletin board as fast as his chubby little fingers can type?
I am guessing on the second alternative, since no lightning bolt has hit me while writing this.
System Shock/System Shock 2 starts out with a low level, unequipped, weak character. Through quests, "dialogues" (with multiple options), gathering of equipment, solving riddles, exploring space stations, modifying weapons, training skills and stats, evolving a character, finding clues and battling scary critters (in real-time) you eventually beat this AI called Shodan to win the game. It takes the normal gamer around 25-30 hours, requires lots of tactical thinking (to build up a usable character) and a bit of brains for some of the nastier problems. But because the combat is executed in real time and actually demands that the player knows how to aim himself, this somehow magically removes all the aforementioned RPG features and turns this game into a simple FPS? Maybe like Doom? Or maybe you were thinking about Quake? In either case, think again.
_________________
Swedes visit NordicGamers for the latest game reviews in swedish! |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:47 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by mkreku
But because the combat is executed in real time and actually demands that the player knows how to aim himself, this somehow magically removes all the aforementioned RPG features and turns this game into a simple FPS? Maybe like Doom? Or maybe you were thinking about Quake? In either case, think again.
Yes, what we are saying is that because the player's skill is more important in combat than the character's whose role you are playing, it is not an RPG. Other RPG like elements are irrelevent if my personal ability to hit buttons timely and correctly, aim, and click bottons and manipulate a mouse are incorporated into combat. Because when that happens I stop playing a role and become the role and hence cannot be playing a a role-playing game.
I never personaly said System Shock was an FPS, I never played it. It does sound like a fun game from the way you describe it. A good action game with RPG elements.
I really wish people would put a minutes thought into our argument and tried to understand what we are saying before posting.
Hexy is desiding what games are true RPGs and what is not based on logical criteria and a solid agrument backed up with examples and reasoning. It doesn't make him God, he just has the ability to understand what playing a role is, and actually being the role is.
Certain games blur the line, but an rpg is an rpg is an rpg. I'm not trying to anger anyone, I'm just trying to make a point and case so every game coming out that has an element that a previous RPG had doesn't get labeled falsely as an RPG. Because an RPG is one thing, and an action game with RPG elements is another.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 7:35 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
Roqua: You and Hexy are looking at the small picture. Roleplaying is mainly about story and the place your character has in it. Although most games blow combat up to main activity, it is not a prerequisite for a roleplaying game, therefore the implimentation of combat is not crucial to the RPGness of a game. I could accept Gothic being called an RPG with action game elements, but not the other way around.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:38 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by mkreku
System Shock/System Shock 2 starts out with a low level, unequipped, weak character. Through quests, "dialogues" (with multiple options), gathering of equipment, solving riddles, exploring space stations, modifying weapons, training skills and stats, evolving a character, finding clues and battling scary critters (in real-time) you eventually beat this AI called Shodan to win the game. It takes the normal gamer around 25-30 hours, requires lots of tactical thinking (to build up a usable character) and a bit of brains for some of the nastier problems. But because the combat is executed in real time and actually demands that the player knows how to aim himself, this somehow magically removes all the aforementioned RPG features and turns this game into a simple FPS? Maybe like Doom? Or maybe you were thinking about Quake? In either case, think again.
I once played a game called System Shock. In this game, there were NO levels, constant fighting against mutants and robots in a poorly animated environment that made Wolfenstein 3D look like heaven. Now, this wasn't your ordinary combat either; In this combat, space had no meaning, and you could hit the mutants with a gray little pipe from across a hall-way. You could shoot with some weapons and, unless you looked into the floor, turned around, and did not press the fire button, you always hit the enemy.
In this game, you had NO skill levels, the only thing there were to collect was weapons, health and energy kits etc.
Sometimes, you'd get the chance to "hack" through a door, presented was a lame-ass puzzle, in which you needed to create a "thread" or something through to finish.
Oh there was a lot of reading, dialogue that was presented to you with nothing else than a short text. No choices what so ever.
System Shock 2 is another thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
Roqua: You and Hexy are looking at the small picture. Roleplaying is mainly about story and the place your character has in it. Although most games blow combat up to main activity, it is not a prerequisite for a roleplaying game, therefore the implimentation of combat is not crucial to the RPGness of a game. I could accept Gothic being called an RPG with action game elements, but not the other way around.
I'm sorry, but is any game with a story now considered an RPG? RPGs have always been about stats. Stats and a mental effort to act a role.
HOW combat is handled is cruical for an RPG. The same for dialogues etc.
If you had an RPG in which you had to, like in the Quest for Glory series, write your OWN dialogue, and have speech-skills/charisma, it would be just as lame as Arx combat.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:47 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
@Hexy, you are overstating the case in order to make your argument sound more convincing (it isn't working). And your personal comments towards mkreku in your last post were pathetic and immature; I'm almost ashamed to have defended you a few posts ago when someone misinterpereted your words. Most of us find this topic interesting and want to explore it intelligently. You've simply picked a side and will happily defend it with opinionated comments that have little or no basis in fact, and personal insults, and so are obstructing objective discussion for everybody else. Notice how you and Roqua are currently arguing the same point, but you're the only one getting annoyed responses from other users? That's because Roqua is being honest, objective, logical and polite, and actually improving the discussion even for those who disagree. You are not. Please discuss objectively without exaggeration to support your personal viewpoint and without insulting people, like Roqua and everybody else otherwise the thread becomes a waste of time for everyone. I've no reason to expect you'll actually consider my words with any more grace than you've shown so far, but I'm asking you (not for the first time) to stop bickering and start discussing - show some respect for others and their opinions.
[edit]: I see you have edited your post to remove the personal comments. Now, if we can keep the discussion on-topic (example: System Shock's graphical prowess and collison detection have no bearing on any part of this discussion) maybe this thread will be a little more rewarding.[/edit]
@Roqua
quote:
I really wish people would put a minutes thought into our argument and tried to understand what we are saying before posting.
Don't worry, Roqua, I've considered your viewpoint and I think you're arguing it well, and I'm sure the others are not dismissing it out of hand. I'm enjoying the discussion, rest assured there is no anger in my words towards you.
I can certainly see the logic in your argument, I just don't think you've followed it through completely. You say you should be "playing a role and not having the avatar being a personification of my keyboard/mouse skill," which I agree with, but you have to accept that some of your own personality and abilities will colour your behaviour and progress in every RPG. Your capacity for lateral thinking will affect your performance in puzzle-solving tasks; your tactical ability will have a huge impact on the outcome of battles; your mathematical skill determines the efficiency with which you build your character. All these things are player abilities, and will have the same effect on the game regardless of character make-up. So the distinction between a player's mental ability and other abilities (ie, reflexes) is not relevant, since mental abilities can have exactly the same distorting effects on roleplay.
So, like I said in an earlier post, that brings us to a choice: either commit fully to the "character-ability-only" logic and eliminate player ability completely, or allow some player ability and use your judgement to determine the balance. The former option is not viable, since the only way to remove all influences of player ability is to remove all interactivity, and then you no longer have a game. The latter is the only realistic option (and it highlights the subjectivity of this issue). What logic to use when determining that balance? As mentioned before, there are flaws in the rationale of allowing players' mental ability but not reflexes - to allow one to influence roleplay (which it undeniably does), but prohibit the other entirely because it might influence roleplay does not make sense.
A realtime interface that allows more specific control of character actions is just as valid, in principle, as a turn-based interface with entirely stat-based action. There is nothing inherent in the principles of either system that makes them "OK" or "not OK" for RPGs - what matters is the execution in each individual game. You have said that a game which relies more on player reflexes than character make-up is flawed as an RPG, and that is something I wholeheartedly agree with. But you have to admit that this is a highly subjective area, and therefore not a sound basis for hard-and-fast rules. I personally would say that a game only meets your criticism if its demands on player reflexes are exceptionally high - something like Quake3 - and I haven't played an RPG that fits that bill. Of all the realtime RPGs mentioned in recent posts, I have found none that feature reflex-based action that is prohibitively demanding (ie, so difficult that I cannot play the character I want), therefore the balance is OK (for me), therefore my opinion of them as RPGs is unchanged (with the possible exceptions of Deus Ex and the SS games - these undeniably have an emphasis on action, and player skill requirements that I accept are offputting to many RPGers). Others may disagree, which is fine, but the issue cannot be stretched into anything more than personal opinion.
A good RPG will not include reflex-based action that prohibits us from playing the characters we want. In my experience, in games like UW, Gothic, Morrowind, control of my character is no more difficult than in point & click systems, and in no way dependant more on my twitch-gaming skills than my characters' abilities; therefore, it doesn't restrict my choice of character or behaviour in any way that invalidates the games' RPG status. You could argue that these games allow skilled players to exceed their characters' abilities by performing well in reflex-based action; however, this argument leads nowhere, as this is the same distortion that is possible in all RPGs as a result of players' mental faculties, and it's up to a good roleplayer to tailor a character's behaviour accordingly. In a p&p RPG, a good roleplayer would not allow his/her character to act on his/her own specialist knowledge, or behave more intelligently or diplomatically than stats & personality should allow (otherwise, a good GM will spot it!); a good roleplayer can exercise the same control in CRPGs.
For a theory to be scientifically sound, it has to match observations. Now, the "character-ability-only" theory certainly has logical components, but as a whole it does not match observations, and IMO doesn't work in a practical way. If it did, Ultima Underworld and Morrowind (for example) would not be RPGs at all, and that is something that very few people would say is true. Look here to see pretty strong evidence that Gothic is generally regarded as a "proper" RPG by Dot regulars. Now, admittedly, I am citing personal opinions as evidence here - but we're talking about the subjective area of "what makes an RPG?," so surely a large weight of opinion from people knowledgeable about the subject is a valid observation... and perhaps enough to make you wonder if your theory is sound?
On a totally unrelated note, you mentioned the System Shock games - they are indeed great fun (if you like being terrified), and are both impeccably designed games (RPG or not  ). I'd recommend both... I actually prefer the first, but I'd say go straight for the second one if old DOS games with fiddly controls aren't your cup of tea.
Last edited by piln on Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:55 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
An excellent, well reasoned presentation Piln. I agree totally with everything you wrote. You echoed my feelings precisely.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:47 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Cheers corwin. I was wondering what your thoughts would be on this issue, as I seem to remember you not being a huge fan of reflex-based action... maybe from the Arx forums, when we were talking about the black beast chase... am I remembering that right, or am I getting mixed up?  |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:06 am |
|
|
mkreku
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Location: Uppsala, Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I never personaly said System Shock was an FPS, I never played it. It does sound like a fun game from the way you describe it. A good action game with RPG elements.
I really wish people would put a minutes thought into our argument and tried to understand what we are saying before posting.
Hexy is desiding what games are true RPGs and what is not based on logical criteria and a solid agrument backed up with examples and reasoning. It doesn't make him God, he just has the ability to understand what playing a role is, and actually being the role is.
I know you did not say anything about System Shock, Roqua, which is why I quoted Hexy instead of you. And I did read your post and understood your opinion. I also think you have a strong argument for your version of what a role playing game is, although I do not personally agree.
Hexy doesn't exactly "understand what playing a role is", but he sure does agree with your version of what playing a role is all about. My version of role playing differs from yours, and I see no point in arguing about it. In that case I just agree to disagree. But when Hexy posts a condescending message, insulting everyone who disagrees with his twisted opinion of which games are RPG's or not I do react. This thread would be much more interesting without his narrow minded, "I-gotta-win-this argument-at-all-costs" messages.
I do enjoy your (Roqua) and Piln's obviously intelligent and well thought-out posts, though. Keep up the good discussion and this interesting thread might live a bit longer.
Ps. Too bad I never got to see the "pathetic and immature" comments from Hexy though. Guess I'll have to check this thread more often.
_________________
Swedes visit NordicGamers for the latest game reviews in swedish! |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:11 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 8:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
