| |
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
|
|
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
@Hexy- I wouldn't really know, not having played either of the SS games, but isn't System Shock 2 supposed to be the RPG?
@Roqua- No, your argument about combat is not necessarily true. RPGs cannot forever have nothing more than point-and-click combat. The genre is evolving, as so many other genres have. Games like Deus Ex should be considered RPGs. There are going to be more and more games like it in the future (Stalker, Xenus). And you can't say that the genre will die. We can't just classify these games as action games along with the rest, because they don't necessarily appeal to the action gamer. More and more RPGs are becoming "hybrids," but we can't just call that the genre forevermore.
But anyway, to get back on track, combat does not determine by itself whether or not a game is an RPG. Why do you and Hexy argue that combat in an RPG cannot rely on the player's skill with a mouse? When was that ever a rule? Where is this written?
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:46 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
You remember correctly Piln. Ah, they were the good old days!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:46 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by mkreku
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.
Doesn't matter. I removed it, since it was a bit over-the-top. But, I have yet to see the same courtesy (or should I say maturity?  ) from you.
The big question: Will someone start attacking my arguments and points?
I THOUGHT piln would do it, but golly gee, he seems so bussy sitting on his imaginary throne/psychologist armchair, desperately trying to enforce the piln's-rules-of-a-conversation laws, not attacking the argument itself, but parroting desperate stabs at the "maturity" of it. Talk about pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
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.
The mental ability IS more important for acting a role, compared to physical ability. When someone tries to act or bluff his way out of a situation, he will use his mental abilities to take on a role, which is real roleplaying. A person skilled with a sword is not necessarily a good actor or roleplayer. Same goes for someone who's good with math. But they're still roleplay their identities pretty well.
If I play a warrior in every CRPG, it could be because I simply think warriors are easy to act as, since they reflect most of my personality. Same goes for rogue, wizards etc.
And, still, doing an overall generall direction as in dialogue or puzzle-solving is different from specialized combat directions. At least when it requires you to push down more than two buttons, and increasing the clumsification rate enormously. Plus, I don't think that you should completely remove the need for a player's need to handle a mouse or a keyboard. Just minimize it.
I have NO problems with games like Morrowind. But combat in that game is quite different from combat in Arx or Gothic. Real-time can be "fun", and is more realistic in one way, although not very roleplay-ish. But in the end, neither real-time nor turn-based have much impact on the overall RPG experience of a game, although pause-and-play is probably best.
quote:
Originally posted by MageofFire
I wouldn't really know, not having played either of the SS games, but isn't System Shock 2 supposed to be the RPG?
Probably. But, at least I was discussing RPG-ism of SS1.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
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.
PnP RPGs, which is VERY close to character abilities only (although still integrating the actual ROLE-PLAY part from the humans, which is necessary in a ROLE-PLAYING game), seems pretty popular. CRPGs that are pretty close to PnP (IE games, but more notably Fallout games) seem pretty popular.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:04 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I'll preface my comments by saying "a good game is a good game" - regardless of the label or mechanics.
I fully agree with the principle that a "true" RPG should be as reliant on the character's stats as possible. Despite comments that the story or other elements are what really make a RPG, in my opinion it's the use of the character stats to define the character's interaction with the gameworld that is the critical element. It's through those stats that the role itself is defined: merely pretending to play a role isn't adequate - that would make Max Payne a RPG. This obviously includes combat.
The story, atmosphere and so on will separate a good RPG from a poor or average one but they're not the key ingredient.
Many developers have chosen to "spice up" the traditional elements with action-combat, puzzles and other elements - and if it's well done and fun I say go for it, but it dilutes the "RPG-ness" (I'm tired, so I'm going to invent words). Some RPGers like a "pure" experience - at least occasionally.
So why worry about the impact of a player's dexterity on combat when the player's mental abilities will affect things like puzzles? Actually, combat itself isn't a special case - it's just that so many RPGs are full of combat and if the combat is action based that makes a huge impact on the gameplay so it takes a hightened importance. The player's personal mental abilities will always have an impact in some areas like tactics which can't be avoided but a good design should try to interpret the character's actions through the stats wherever possible.
Puzzles are an example of poor design and nothing else. They're actually an adventure game element more than a RPG element but more importantly, a good RPG design should never let a stupid character solve difficult puzzles! A good design would simply respond to a low-Int character with something like "you stare at the strange symbols but none of it makes any sense" and the game should provide an alternative solution. Yes, I realise very few games achieve this but a good RPG design should aim for this.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:19 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
First of all, play nice everybody, I don't care who startet making personal attacks instead of staying on the topic, it stops right here, now!, or I will start giving warnings, and erase your posts. Don't spoil this interesting discussion with opinion tyranny, it's just another way of capitulate on arguments.
The definition of a RPG, or a CRPG, is getting a lot harder with all these hybrid games. SS1 or SS2 feels like FPS, maybe alone for the fact that it's a single character party and first person view AND scifi enviroment and items. That alone is ofcourse no argument for not calling SS1 and SS2 a CRPG. But are there other aspects in those games that really determine them as CRPG's?
To answer that, we have to determine which elements should be involved, and how strong should they be for a game to be accepted as a CRPG in it's root.
Suggestion for elements could be:
Character development
Combat (Character Vs Player skills dependant, (Action Vs Strategy), Hybrids???)
NPC societies in the gameworls
NPC interaction complexity
Evolving story with possibilities to change/develop.
Interactive enviroment (Climb trees, drink water, hide behind rocks etc)
Item/equipment manipulation.
More...?
Sure a lot of games have more or less all the elements, but are they strong enough for us to accept it as a valid CRPG element? And is it okay for a game not to have 1 or 2 elements at all, but be very strong in the other elements and still get the label CRPG???. Or should each element category be weighted into an average value, which determines if a game is a CRPG or not, and how do we determine which value should be the marker.
Can a game be a CRPG light, or is it just another word for Ex a RTS with few light CRPG elements (Ex Warcraft, Spellforce, Lords of Everquest etc.)?
It is probably not an easy answer, and many may even say that they don't care because if they feel the game is like a CRPG, it is a CRPG, and this discussion can continue forever.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:53 am |
|
|
mkreku
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Location: Uppsala, Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
I fully agree with the principle that a "true" RPG should be as reliant on the character's stats as possible. Despite comments that the story or other elements are what really make a RPG, in my opinion it's the use of the character stats to define the character's interaction with the gameworld that is the critical element. It's through those stats that the role itself is defined: merely pretending to play a role isn't adequate - that would make Max Payne a RPG. This obviously includes combat.
I don't think anyone is arguing for Max Payne-like combat systems in RPG's. But to take an example: Deus Ex. In Deus Ex, which played very much like an FPS, you could get a sniper rifle. In the beginning of the game, that sniper rifle took 15 seconds to reload, it wobbled like crazy when you tried to aim with it and you could barely kill anything with it. But as the game went on, you spent your experience points increasing your sight, your weapon skills and your general combat abilities, and suddenly the aim was perfectly still, you reloaded the weapon within 2 seconds and you could make every shot count. This is why I consider Deus Ex to be an RPG, even though it has lots of action elements.
I mean, if you're really good, you could use the wobbly sniper rifle right from the start and turn Deus Ex into just another generic FPS. But if you're like me, who always die before I even leave the shop in CS, you really have to train your character before you can make use of any weapons. This is what I call a good mix of action and RPG. When the stats of my character are obvious and visible to me all the time, and my combat abilities are directly dependant upon them, but I still get to do the dirty work myself. I use the stats to get the action done, or in other words: I get to play the role I've just created in my character through his eyes. It still does require a certain amount of skill from the player, but the emphasis lies on my character, and the action part is just one of the game mechanics that make it a challenge to play.
The same system is used to determine the character's "intelligence" (computer skills/electronic skills) in Deus Ex. If I'm not smart enough to hack the ATM's, I'll be poor and miserable. If I'm not smart enough to pick the lock on that door, I'll have to blow it up and alert the guards inside. Everything depends on what kind of character you decide to create.
A game like Deus Ex that allows two (or more) ways of playing, where one of them is the RPG way, is still a "pure" RPG. You just have to decide for yourself which way you want to play the game.
_________________
Swedes visit NordicGamers for the latest game reviews in swedish! |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 11:09 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
In the end, most discussions about RPG end up in the same question: "What is an RPG?". As all games borrow more and more from each others, and especially RPGs, it gets harder to give a straight border, I think.
IMO games like Spellforce, Warcraft and HoMM are still mainly RTS games. Why? Because they either contain little to no dialogue, have very limited ways to develop your character/hero, focuses around base building and army-making, and have very limited side-quest.
Deus Ex did contain FPS elements, but they were more on a tell-your-character-WHAT-to-do-not-HOW-to-do-it basis. Plus, it was so advanced in all other areas of RPGs, that RPG is the only suitable term for it, IMO.
IMO:
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Of course there are things all CRPGs agree on. Progress through various accomplishments, increasing of the character's attributes, an attribute/skill system, a story with more or less branches, and a more complex inventory than just your weapons.
Stuff that sets RPG apart from each other are:
more/less advanced dialogue
more/less advanced skill and/or class system
more/less advanced combat
more/less world size
more/less NPC and environment interaction
more/less races/playable characters
more/less advanced quest-system/main-plot flexibility
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:14 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
The mental ability IS more important for acting a role, compared to physical ability. When someone tries to act or bluff his way out of a situation, he will use his mental abilities to take on a role, which is real roleplaying. A person skilled with a sword is not necessarily a good actor or roleplayer. Same goes for someone who's good with math. But they're still roleplay their identities pretty well.
You seem to be missing the point. The argument put forward was that players' reflexive abilities should be disallowed because they can have a distorting effect on roleplaying. The flaw in the argument is, as I said, that players' mental abilities can distort roleplaying too. The fact that roleplaying is a mental discipline is neither here nor there; the discrepancy between player and character ability is what we're talking about. The example you used above only holds true for an intelligent and/or charismatic character with acting skills - if a player can use his/her own intelligence to manoeuvre a less smart (or inappropriately skilled) character through an encounter, then that isn't real roleplaying.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
quote:
Originally posted by piln
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.
PnP RPGs, which is VERY close to character abilities only (although still integrating the actual ROLE-PLAY part from the humans, which is necessary in a ROLE-PLAYING game), seems pretty popular. CRPGs that are pretty close to PnP (IE games, but more notably Fallout games) seem pretty popular.
What's your point? I'm not disagreeing with what you say, I just don't see how it relates to the discussion, or the text you quoted from my post.
The point I was making (and I don't know if you were trying to dispute this or not) was that Ultima Underworld and Morrowind (among others) contain reflex-based action, and love 'em or hate 'em, they are undeniably RPGs (maybe we should vote on it, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming weight of opinion will be behind me on this one). That means the theory that a "proper" CRPG cannot contain reflex-based action isn't sound.
The popularity of other "types" of RPG would only be relevent if realtime CRPGs were so unpopular as to be regarded as a niche interest by the RPG community, and that simply isn't the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
I fully agree with the principle that a "true" RPG should be as reliant on the character's stats as possible... The player's personal mental abilities will always have an impact in some areas like tactics which can't be avoided but a good design should try to interpret the character's actions through the stats wherever possible.
I'm in total agreement with Dhruin here. And a good realtime CRPG will do just that (interpret the character's actions through stats), without making reflexive action-gaming skills more important. We might all disagree on which games acheive this successfully, but that just proves that this is an area of personal preference of user interface, and individual game balance - there's nothing here (in this discussion) that proves realtime action is inherently "bad" for roleplaying.
[edit]:
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
In the end, most discussions about RPG end up in the same question: "What is an RPG?". As all games borrow more and more from each others, and especially RPGs, it gets harder to give a straight border, I think.
I agree. [/edit] |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:26 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Of course there are things all CRPGs agree on. Progress through various accomplishments, increasing of the character's attributes, an attribute/skill system, a story with more or less branches, and a more complex inventory than just your weapons.
Stuff that sets RPG apart from each other are:
more/less advanced dialogue
more/less advanced skill and/or class system
more/less advanced combat
more/less world size
more/less NPC and environment interaction
more/less races/playable characters
more/less advanced quest-system/main-plot flexibility
Yes, I forgot your list, and it resembles my list very much, but the big question, how much should "more/less" be, to be accepted as a valid level for CRPG status? Personally I think it calls for a more advanced system, to determine this question.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:40 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
quote:
Originally posted by piln
The point I was making, was that Ultima Underworld and Morrowind (among others) contain reflex-based action, and love 'em or hate 'em, they are undeniably RPGs (maybe we should vote on it, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming weight of opinion will be behind me on this one). That means the theory that a "proper" CRPG cannot contain reflex-based action isn't sound.
Agree, as it is written here: "CRPG's can contain reflex-based action", But if it is the gamers mouse action/reflex ONLY that determines the hit/damage amount, then I would say that it should have other very strong CRPG elements besides combat, to not fall into another category (FPS or Action), and I'm not only talking about bigger swords or guns for making a difference in combat.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:52 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
You seem to be missing the point. The argument put forward was that players' reflexive abilities should be disallowed because they can have a distorting effect on roleplaying. The flaw in the argument is, as I said, that players' mental abilities can distort roleplaying too. The fact that roleplaying is a mental discipline is neither here nor there; the discrepancy between player and character ability is what we're talking about. The example you used above only holds true for an intelligent and/or charismatic character with acting skills - if a player can use his/her own intelligence to manoeuvre a less smart (or inappropriately skilled) character through an encounter, then that isn't real roleplaying.
Yeah, that's true. Because the person isn't trying to roleplay. To many, it's easier to do it the smartest/easiest way, even if it's not in-character. But the option is often there; to use your big dumb warrior to chop down all resistance. To actually play your role, even though you might get punished for it.
The other way around is another thing.
A person too stupid for his a character (for example: a wizard with high intelligence) failing to solve riddles or not finding the right piece to the puzzle, even though his character would, is a tricky question. Maybe some kind of system that helps you through puzzles and riddles, which becomes more and more apparent as your character gets more and more intelligent could be something. Kind of like how dialogue works in many RPGS. If your character is smart, he gets better dialogue options, and vice versa. But it's up to the human to choose what he would say if HE was an evil, slightly insane wizard. Again, a test of your role-playing skill.
Actual thinking should IMO come before physical activities in a COMPUTER-RPG.
I think, that mental capabilities are more important when playing a role, and that it also should have more impact on gameplay than physical activities. In the end, for most people, their characters will often resemble themselves, the skill of roleplaying is minimizing that resemblance, and make the character unique. That is to say if you really want to try and role-play. Which most don't bother with.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
What's your point? I'm not disagreeing with what you say, I just don't see how it relates to the discussion, or the text you quoted from my post.
The point I was making (and I don't know if you were trying to dispute this or not) was that Ultima Underworld and Morrowind (among others) contain reflex-based action, and love 'em or hate 'em, they are undeniably RPGs (maybe we should vote on it, but I'm pretty sure the overwhelming weight of opinion will be behind me on this one). That means the theory that a "proper" CRPG cannot contain reflex-based action isn't sound.
Trying to say: I think that you are now asserting that because the majority says so, then it's true. Just because a lot of people say there's a god, it's not necessarily right.
Just because a game is "fun", and thusly sells well, it doesn't have to be a RPG.
I am NOT saying that games like Ultima, Daggerfall and Gothic should not be called RPGs, because they DO contain an overwhelming ammount of RPG features. But the requirement that the role playER is to decide how his warrior is going to handle every movement with his sword, plus requiring the human to be all over his/her keyboard and mouse takes from the actual role-play feeling, rather than giving to it.
Since, IMHO, the important part of an RPG is the actual mental projection and the actual playing of the role, rather than trying to dictate over HOW your character is supposed to use his skills, but rather orchestrating WHAT he is to use them for. There's a fine line there, I know, but there's a fine line to a lot of things.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:54 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Michael C
...how much should "more/less" be, to be accepted as a valid level for CRPG status? Personally I think it calls for a more advanced system, to determine this question.
Interesting... do you think such a system is possible? At first glance I thought "no" (or at least that it would be so complex as to be impractical), but after a little thought I'm not so sure...
On a slight tangent... feature lists like yours and Hexy's look to me like a good basis for a review ratings system (specifically for RPGs)... if you can define some sensible guidelines for gauging each of those features on a numerical scale, you could give readers an idea, at a glance, of the type of experience they can expect from each game... of course, you could employ a system like that for any genre, but I think it would be of value to RPGers, as they do tend to be more particular about their game content...
And if that's possible, then maybe the in-depth system you suggest would be acheivable, and beneficial. I don't know... Thinking about it some more, it seems to me that personal preferences are bound to come into play at some point... but then again, I can't honestly say it would be impossible to devise a system that measures those features without human bias... wait a second - the system would have to be devised by a human, wouldn't it, so I guess that brings my train of thought to a screeching halt 
Hmmm... I'll sit on the fence for now. But it's certainly an intriguing idea...
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
I think that you are now asserting that because the majority says so, then it's true. Just because a lot of people say there's a god, it's not necessarily right.
Just because a game is "fun", and thusly sells well, it doesn't have to be a RPG.
Ah, I see your point, and agree with those comments (mostly) - but I was suggesting that the games in question are considered true RPGs by most CRPGers, not because of their sales or popularity, just because of the make-up of the games themselves. You're right to state that a large weight of opinion does not necessarily equal fact, but since no objective system (like that suggested by Michael C) currently exists, I don't think we've got anything but personal opinions to go on.
quote:
But the requirement that the role playER is to decide how his warrior is going to handle every movement with his sword, plus requiring the human to be all over his/her keyboard and mouse takes from the actual role-play feeling, rather than giving to it.
Well... I think we're getting to the heart of the matter here... I personally find the exact opposite. mkreku's description ("the stats of my character are obvious and visible to me all the time, and my combat abilities are directly dependant upon them, but I still get to do the dirty work myself.... I get to play the role I've just created in my character through his eyes.") struck a chord with me. That's the way I like to play RPGs too; if I have extensive, detailed control over everything my character can do, in as direct a way as possible, I feel closer to the character and the game world, and find roleplaying more satisfying and less diluted by the game's interface. By comparison, I feel point & click systems (generalising here) are typically more abstract; that my control over my character is limited to relatively vague directions, and that the interface is more of a barrier to my feeling of immersion. Which, I'm guessing is pretty much the opposite of your view, Hexy. I'm not trying to convert others to my viewpoint, just elaborating so that others may see where I'm coming from. And the simple fact that there is a range of differing opinions on this matter proves, I think, that definitive arguments against certain common gameplay elements (eg, realtime action) can't be made. |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:16 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Ah, I see your point, and agree with those comments (mostly) - but I was suggesting that the games in question are considered true RPGs by most CRPGers, not because of their sales or popularity, just because of the make-up of the games themselves. You're right to state that a large weight of opinion does not necessarily equal fact, but since no objective system (like that suggested by Michael C) currently exists, I don't think we've got anything but personal opinions to go on.
So you're saying that for some things, you have to look from a the majority's perspective, although it is still recognized as based on opinion? At least when labeling things in genres? Well, I guess I can accept that. Even though, it's a sometimes shifting majority.
As for the rest, well, I think that kind of puts a nice end to this part of the discussion. Guess it had a kind of happy ending after all, although it looked bad at one point.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:29 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
So you're saying that for some things, you have to look from a the majority's perspective, although it is still recognized as based on opinion? At least when labeling things in genres? Well, I guess I can accept that. Even though, it's a sometimes shifting majority.
Yeah, something like that. In this case specifically, we've got no established rules; a large weight of personal opinion from others familiar with the subject is the closest we can get. So when trying to define rules or guidelines, I think it makes sense to try to make them fit the existing opinions and preferences of CRPGers, rather than make decisions that leave a large portion of them out in the cold, so to speak, since they are the most reliable source of information we currently have.
And the mention of a shifting majority is a good point, which highlights the need for flexibility - good games of any genre (and their creators) need to move with the times and accept new ways of doing things, and I think CRPGers' expectations and judgements should evolve in the same way.
quote:
As for the rest, well, I think that kind of puts a nice end to this part of the discussion. Guess it had a kind of happy ending after all, although it looked bad at one point.
Too true. Michael C showed us the way 
Apologies if I came accross as too argumentative or rubbed anyone up the wrong way.
Hmmm... what now? Any more contenders for "most overrated RPG?" |
|
Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:08 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
Okay Piln you ask for it sitting there on your high fence!
We may need a system (Advanced perhaps), to determine if a game is a CRPG in it's roots or not. The system should be as "objective" to fill out as possible, so that, no matter if you like the game or not, you should end giving the game the same CRPG-score, when using the system.
The system will not directly tell us if the game is good or not, just how much and how heavy the CRPG enhancing features are in the game. Ex: The system will not consider if the story is god or bad, but instead consider if it's twisting, changing and have mulitple paths etc. So we are talking about features that are pure facts, that can be answered with either "Yes" or "No" without the possibility to drop in your own biased opinion.
Okay here it comes:
I suggest to divide the RPG enhancing elements into 6 major categories:
1. Story. A well written twisting and possible changing main story is a core element in a good CRPG, and many interesting side stories is also a plus.
2. Characters. The Character(s), you are going to roleplay, and your possibility, to influence their development and actions.
3. NPC’s. The AI’s you are going to roleplay “against” (for). How complex and diverse are they compared to real characters.
4.Gameworld. Size, does it feel real, different enviroments, Nature, day cyclus, seasons change, everything that makes the world more believable and real, for the best immersive experience.
5. Manipulation.. Everything about items , weapons etc, interactive enviroment, How big is the “to do” list during the game (Freedom of choices).
6. Combat. Speaks for it self.
Under each category, I have made several “features”, which all should be answered with a Yes or a No compared to the games features, and for every Yes answer, the game gets another point towards a higher CRPG-Score.
In the end all points in each category can be counted together and divided with the number of features in each category to give the game a final CPG- Score in each category.
Suggestion for a CRPG-feature list
STORY:
1. Development of main story (Killing foes is not counting as story development)
1.1 Story develops during few (Max 10) milestones
1.2 Story develops often: over 10 times during game
1.3 Story develops very often (Over 30 times during game)
1.4 Story changes end goal a few times (Max 5 times)
1.5 Story changes end goal several times (over 5 times)
1.6 Story twist and turns end goal many times (Over 10 times during game)
2. Main story complexity (Main story path possibilities)
2.1 Story is more than complete linear
2.2 Story have more then 3 major paths during game
2.3 Story have more than 5 major paths during game
3. Player impact on story (Players influence on story variations)
3.1 Player can during actions change story path.
3.2 Players action twist the story considerable (more than 5 times)
3.3 Players action twist a lot (More than 10 times)
4. Story endings (Losing the end battle is not an alternative ending).
4.1 More than 1 ending
4.2 More than 3 different endings.
4.3 More than 7 different endings.
4.4 Different endings is chosen before than the last 5 hours of gameplay!
5. Optional stories/quests (Numbers, Development, complexity, player impact)
5.1 Optional stories is possible.
5.2 Several optional stories (Over 5)
5.3 Many optional stories (Over 15)
5.4 Plenty of optional stories (Over 25)
5.5 Optional stories got further development
5.6 More optional stories got further development (Over 5)
5.7 Many optional stories got further development (Over 12)
5.8 Over 25 % of optional stories is more than just “kill this” or “get that” or “bring this”.
5.9 Over 50 % of optional stories is more than just “kill this” or “get that” or “bring this”.
5.10 Player have impact on optional stories (more than just doing them or not)
5.11 In over 25% of side stories player have impact on development!
6. Background material possible for extensive story readers (Ex books, events, dialogues)
6.1 A few possible times to get extra material (Over 3)
6.2 Many possible times to get extra material (Over 15)
6.3 Plenty of times to get extra material (Over 30)
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 30
CHARACTERS:
1. Character choices (Must have impact on game-play, not only visual changes)
1.1 More than one race
1.2 Several races (Over 3)
1.3 Many different races (Over 6)
1.4 More than 1 profession (Either from beginning or during development)
1.5 Several professions (Over 3) (Either from beginning or during development)
1.6 Many professions (Over 6) (Either from beginning or during development)
2. Character development complexity (Not armour or weapon upgrade).
2.1 More than 3 different attributes to develop (skills/attributes/traits/pegs or alike)
2.2 More than 7 different attributes to develop
2.3 More than 15 different attributes to develop
2.4 Development of at least 3 different attributes happens over 10 times (3x10=30 upgrades)
2.5 Development of at least 3 different attributes happens over 20 times (3x20=60 upgrades)
2.6 Development of at least 3 different attributes happens over 30 times (3x30=90 upgrades)
(Note: adding Ex. 5 points to an attribute at one time is only 1 upgrade).
3. Impact on societies (reputation, guilds, fractions. (not killing societies!))
3.1 Player have impact on other societies (at least 2)
3.2 Player have impact on at least 5 different societies
3.3 Player have a reputation which have impact on gameplay.
3.4 Player have a different reputation which have impact on gameplay in different societies.
3.5 Player can be member of groups (Guilds, movements, orders or alike)
3.6 Player can change status (reputation, rang) in groups.
3.7 At least 3 different groups available
3.8 At least 5 different groups available.
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 20
NPC's
1. Professions
1.1 Traders or merchants available
1.2 Other NPC’s offering the player alternatives to dialogues (Healers, teachers etc.)
2. Dialogue complexity
2.1 Player have topics to conversations
2.2 Players topic choices can have permanent consequences.
2.3 NPC’s offer more topics, as specific topics are being triggered.
2.4 NPC’s offer new topics depending on players reputation or actions.
2.5 Player can try add his/her own topics.
2.6 NPC’s have a big contribution to (main) stories
3. Societies (NPC amount and variations)
3.1 Many NPC’s belongs to different societies.
3.2 At least 3 different societies exists (At least 5 people/creatures in each society)
3.3 At least 5 different societies exists (At least 5 people/creatures in each society)
3.4 At least over 20 different interactive NPC’s
3.5 At least over 50 different interactive NPC’s
4. Aliveness (Not standing around doing nothing, but during their daily business)
4.1 NPC’s are accessible depending on night & day cycle
4.2 NPC’s move around on locations
4.3 Many NPC’s are doing their daily business.
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 16
GAMEWORLD
1. Size (No teleporting, fighting or magic must influence the travel, just walk/run)
1.1 Over 5 minutes of realtime to get from one end of gameworld to another (No teleporting)
1.2 Over 10 minutes of realtime to get from one end of gameworld to another (No teleporting)
1.3 Over 15 minutes of realtime to get from one end of gameworld to another (No teleporting)
2. Area variations (An Area is a physical big location with it’s own unique living beings and nature)
2.1 More than 1 major different area in the game
2.2 At least 3 major different areas in the game
2.3 At least 7 major different areas in the game
3. Freedom (Exploring)
3.1 Gameworld offers for the most part of it freedom to visit from the beginning!
3.2 Gameworld offers more than one physical path to most locations.
4. Time, elements and misc
4.1 Night & day cycle
4.2 Night & day cycle have impact on gameplay/gameworld
4.3 Seasons
4.4 Seasons have impact on gameplay/gameworld
4.5 Weather differences
4.6 Weather can change on same location.
4.7 Weather conditions have impact on gameplay/gameworld
4.8 Game offers natural disasters/happenings!
4.9 A few Sound effects make the gameworld more alive.
4.10 Many sound effects make the gameworld more alive.
4.11 Sound effects are mostly directional (surround alike)
4.12 Visual 3D world
4.13 First person or shoulder look available.
4.14 Characters or NPC’s can change appearance.
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 22
MANIPULATION
1. Interactive elements (Barrels, doors, water etc. (Not including any collectible items of any kind)
1.1 There are interactive elements in the game
1.2 There are at least 3 different interactive elements in the game
1.3 There are at least 6 different interactive elements in the game
1.4 There are at least 10 different interactive elements in the game
2. Item complexity (Amount, combinations, use variations)
2.1 At least 3 different types of items available (Armour is one type & weapons another type)
2.2 At least 6 different types of items available
2.3 At least 50 different items available.
2.4 At least 200 different items available.
2.5 At least 500 different items available.
2.6 At least 1000 different items available.
2.7 Custom items available
2.8 At least 5 different custom items available.
2.9 At least 10 different custom items available.
2.10 At least 20 different custom items available.
2.11 A few items (At least 5) got more than 1function
2.12 More items (At least 25) got more than 1function
2.13 Many items (At least 100) got more than 1function
3. Interactive brain teasers ( Traps, switches, locks, levers etc)
3.1 Traps are available (Not creature ambushes or alike)
3.2 Traps have more solutions (At least 2) to eliminate or bypass
3.3 At least 3 different traps available
3.4 At least 6 different traps available
3.5 Traps needs more than character skills to eliminate
3.6 Game contains switches and levers of any kind.
3.7 Switches and levers do often offer brain gymnastic for more than just finding them!
3.8 Locks are available
3.9 Locks needs more than character skills to unlock
4. Assignments (To do list)
4.1 Journal, or own notes should for most of the game time offer a good amount of assignments (At least 10 different)
4.2 Journal, or own notes should for most of the game time offer a good amount of assignments (At least 20 different)
5. Environment change possibility.
5.1 Player can change environment (By magic or explosions or just chop down trees)
5.2 Player can change at least 3 different elements in an environment!
6. Multiple characters.
6.1 Player can control more than 1 character.
6.2 Player can at least control 3 characters at one time (party)
6.3 Player can continuously change characters if he likes!
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 33
COMBAT
1. Pace
1.1 You can break away from realtime combat (At least pause, and give new orders)
1.2 Turn/phase based combat is available
2. Action possibilities (Magic, Weapon, items, Using environment (Hide, Cover, traps etc)
2.1 Character(s) can do melee attack / defence
2.2 Character(s) can do ranged attack/ defence
2.3 Character(s) can do Magical (unnatural) attack/ defence
2.4 Character(s) can hide or cover in shadows or behind physical objects
2.5 Character(s) can use recovering items during combat
2.6 Character(s) can use other (than recovering) items during combat
3. Enemy complexity
3.1 Over 10 different enemies (offering different combat tactics)
3.2 Over 25 different enemies
3.3 Over 50 different enemies
3.4 Enemies must have other options than attacking the closest character
NUMBER OF CRITERIAS: 12
The RPG-feature score in each category will be in “%” & determined by the number of criterias a game can fulfil in each category compared to the actual number of criterias in each category
like:
# = Number of criterias checked in each category
Story: #/30X100 = Score%
Characters: #/20X100= Score%
NPC’s: #/16X100= Score%
Gameworld: #/22X100= Score%
Manipulation: #/33X100= Score%
Combat: #/12X100=Score%
Totally Score: (Story score%+ Characters score%+ NPC’s score%+ Gameworld score%+ Manipulation score% + Combat score%)/6 = CRPG- score%
A suggestion for a score table for both each category and total score:
RPG No 0-9% (Defently, no CRPG- element worth mentioning, No Hybrid toward CRPG, No CRPG)
RPG Ultra light 10-19% (No CRPG, But MAYBE a hybrid but with vague CRPG elements and basis in another genre)
RPG Light 20-39% (No CRPG, but defently a hybrid with fair CRGP elements, but still have basis in anaother genre)
RPG Medium 40-59% (Yes a CRPG, Perhaps a hybrid, but with basis in the CRPG genre)
RPG More 60-79% (Defently a CRPG, with considerable CRPG features)
RPG Heavy 80-89% (This CRPG ouzes of CRPG elements)
RPG Deity 90-100% (Does this game exist yet?)
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:53 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
