| |
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
|
|
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
I think so too. It was a good game for the time, though the controls were a little awkward. I think a better implementation of this can be found in Blade of Darkness and Gothic. When you're playing a single main character, this type of combat really allows your character to shine, doing cool, detailed moves that he or she probably wouldn't be doing in a party-based game.
Remember, this "real time" combat behaviour (as opposed to turn based or phased) is very inaccessible for a LOT of people. In fact, I suspect that one of the primary reasons many people enjoy CRPGs in general is that they need not have good reflexes. So, while I enjoyed the Gothic style - it was more difficult for me than the turn based style.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
Sat Dec 14, 2002 2:24 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
| Re: What features would be in your "ideal" CRPG? |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
AI scripting is often one of the last things worked on in a project, because they need the programmers writing code for other things. But I would love to see more companies have one or two dedicated programmers to script fantastic AI. Gothic, which I'm playing right now, is a good example of what it can be, and a mark which other developers should surpass.
Do we really (since the discussion is about what we REALLY want) want just scripted AI (this isn't AI in any real sense) or do we want REAL AI? Real AI isn't scripted but rather borne of a true intelligence engine and there will be sizeable differences in response of the AI and thus how the game will play.
I'm trying to keep my expectations realistic. The boys at MIT have been trying to create self-aware AI for the last twenty years, and the best they can do can't even compare to the complexity of an ant's brain. We've come far, but real AI is at least 20 years in the future, if not more.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:13 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
I think so too. It was a good game for the time, though the controls were a little awkward. I think a better implementation of this can be found in Blade of Darkness and Gothic. When you're playing a single main character, this type of combat really allows your character to shine, doing cool, detailed moves that he or she probably wouldn't be doing in a party-based game.
Remember, this "real time" combat behaviour (as opposed to turn based or phased) is very inaccessible for a LOT of people. In fact, I suspect that one of the primary reasons many people enjoy CRPGs in general is that they need not have good reflexes. So, while I enjoyed the Gothic style - it was more difficult for me than the turn based style.
I should've qualified it for real time games. I forgot to mention that I like turn-based games as well. Many of my favorites are games like Fallout 1 & 2, Might & Magic, Wizardry 8, and Heroes of Might & Magic. But I wouldn't say real time combat is inaccessible to a lot of people. What if the developers were able to include such things as combos that executed at the touch of a few assigned buttons? For example, if your character were to swing his mace left, right, then drawback for a powerful hit, all at the touch of one assigned button, wouldn't that make it easier than carrying out the combos? And the developers could leave in the independent combos and moves for those who wanted to learn and develop their own styles. I think really it's more of a matter that the developers make it user-friendly than saying real time is inaccessible.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sat Dec 14, 2002 11:29 pm |
|
|
ArcturusXIV
City Guard
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 142
Location: Oz |
I think combat differs based on the perspective the game is in. First person games (ideal for ranged combat) and third person games (ideal for hand-to hand arcade combat) generally use real-time combat and immersive environments. Isometric RPGs such as the Fallout series and Baldur's Gate series generally use more strategic warfare which depends on character formations, assigning commands to characters to attack different people in different ways, etc. In effect, Isometric RPGs are generally RPG/Strategy games whereas First and Third Person tend to be RPG/Action or RPG/Adventure.
_________________
"Madness is the first step towards unselfishness. Be mad and tell us what is behind the veil of 'sanity'. The purpose of life is to bring us closer to those secrets, and madness is the only means." --Kahlil Gibran |
|
Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:41 pm |
|
|
Kabduhl
City Guard
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 127
|
quote:
What would you like to see in the CRPG of your dreams?
Ok I'll chime in ...
quote:
1. Heavy, medium, or light on story?
Heavy on story, heavy on side stories, lots of story. Story = good.
quote:
2. Spoken dialogue or written text?
Spoken dialogue in key areas, just use written text for everything else unless your dev crew is made up of alot of dudes and gals with good voice acting talents.
quote:
3. One main character or a group of characters?
One main PC and if people join you, make them operate like Fallout 2 but with a little more personal motivation. I do NOT want to control an entire party though it feels like a strategy game to me then.
quote:
4. Lots of dialogue text or not much?
As much as necessary for the given situation. Some NPC's may be verbose longwinded or just have alot to say, while others might be quick and to the point. The more dialogue options the better.
quote:
5. Extensive amount of background material on the world and its history, in such things as books, maps, and legends?
Yes, the more history and lore the land has the better.
quote:
6. Action-oriented with lots of fighting, an even mix of fighting, quest solving, and character interaction, or heavy emphasis on non-violent solutions to quests and character interaction?
Multiple solutions to quests including non violent ways to complete some quests. A fair amount of fighting though cause fighting is fun but make the encounters smarter not more numerous. Lots of character interaction and quests that make sense.
quote:
7. Simple or complicated combat? Single or party-based combat? Point and click (Diablo, Morrowind) or combination-oriented (as in Gothic, Blade of Darkness, etc)?
Real time combat something like die by the sword.
quote:
8. Hundreds of spells or fewer, but more focused, spells?
Morrowind's magic system with some balancing so that you can't create such uber spells so easily. But I love the way you can make your own spells in that game.
quote:
9. First-person view (Might & Magic games, Morrowind, Wizardry 8, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, etc), third-person over-the-shoulder (Blade of Darkness, Gothic), or third-person isometric, also known as "bird's eye" view (Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc)?
1st and 3rd person so you get the best of both worlds. Isometric views sucketh.
quote:
10. Many skills and stats or fewer or no skills and stats?
Lots of stats and skills, the more the merrier as long as they all serve a purpose.
quote:
11. High fantasy (Tolkien, D&D, Elves, Dwarves, etc), gritty medieval fantasy (Gothic), or other unique fantasy (specify)?
Well if it's fantasy I prefer a Tolkein-esque world but Tolkein's world is pretty gritty it just also contains beauty as well. Mordor is quite gritty though. I highly prefer the ability to play many different races and beast races too. EQ, DAOC, Morrowind all have cool character selection.
quote:
12. Instead of fantasy, science fiction? Space opera (Star Wars, etc), apocalyptic (Fallout), near-future (Deus Ex), space ships/stations (System Shock 1 & 2), alien invasion, or a mix of science fiction and fantasy (Might & Magic, Wizardry games)?
If not fantasy then Fallout style. And preferably I would choose a Fallout type setting with multiple playable races over any other setting. My ideal setting would be a post apocalyptic world in which there are various mutated beast people as well as regular humans and mutants as playable races. People would use Psionics instead of magic.
quote:
13. Custom rules set made up by the developer, D&D ruleset, GURPS ruleset, SPECIAL (from Fallout, soon Lionheart), or other?
Custom rules made for the game.
quote:
14. 2D or 3D?
3D please, it's 2003 no more 2d games will be played by me.
quote:
15. Lots of possible interaction with the surroundings or little interaction with the surroundings?
Lots, Ultima IX had a good system you could move all kinds of stuff. I'd like to be able to move crates to make barriers and walls or toblock doorways etc. Morrowind's was cool too I love be able to steal the silverware and anything else that isn't nailed down.
quote:
16. Linear, directed exploration (Icewind Dale) or free-form, non-linear exploration (Fallout 1 & 2, Gothic, Morrowind)?
Non linear please.
quote:
17. Interaction in world politics and factions?
Yes please.
quote:
18. Ability to create or choose from many avatars (main characters) or one avatar?
The more choices and customization the better. Even in a game like gothic they could have allowed you to choose how you looked. Letting people customize their character in appearance is good. No customization = bad.
quote:
19. No history for character, except what the player has created or thought of, or pre-written history for the main character?
This totally depends upon the game. If the story requires a set background that's just fine.
quote:
20. Random dungeons and areas or hand-made dungeons and areas?
Hand made areas. Caves and dungeons and castles don't randomize. Just give people alot of stuff to explore and you don't need random dungeons. Make a decent world simulation to role play in and rpg'ers will be much more happy. |
|
Sun Feb 02, 2003 10:08 pm |
|
|
Kashya
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 17
Location: Australia |
I'd like to add a couple of 'wishes' from a female perspective. These are a few things that I REALLY want from any RPG. In order of importance they are:
1. Mouse control. I want to be able to do everything at the click of the mouse. I hate games that are keyboard controlled. Mouse control is why I choose to play PC games rather than playstation games etc. As shallow as it sounds, this is probably the single biggest issue for me. It is the deciding factor when it comes to deciding whether or not to buy a game. It's the main reason I won't play Gothic.
2. I infinitely prefer to adventure solo, or with just a couple of summoned creatures. I don't like having to control and micro-manage a party. But I think the player should be given the choice whether to hire/join NPCs or go it alone. This is another big issue for me, that also decides whether or not I buy a game. As soon as I see the words 'party based combat' I cringe, and put the game back on the shelf.
3. I prefer the third person over-the-shoulder perspective, or failing that, third person isometric. I won't buy or play first person games, they make me seasick LOL. But this is such a contentious issue that I think players should be able to choose which perspective they prefer. Then everybody is happy.
4. I want to be able to choose the gender of my character. The male bias in games is really unfair. I want to identify and connect with my character, and I really can't empathise with male characters.
5. I'd really like to see RPG games shift their focus away from melee combat. It seems to me (for men at least) that melee combat is the be-all and end-all of gaming. Maybe it's a gender thing, but my least favourite method of combat is the 'up close and personal' type. My characters all use ranged spells and weapons such as bows, exclusively. I never get close to a monster if I can help it, and I like being able to take a monster out before it ever gets near me (as in Divine Divinity and the Diablo games) and simple point and click suits me just fine.
What I'd really like to see, is games that offer players different styles of combat. So that players who like complicated melee fights with lots of special moves and such can choose to be warrior type characters, but other players who prefer a more cautious and simplified approach, should have the option to kill monsters quickly and easily with long ranged spells and weapons.
6. Another thing that REALLY bugs me are stupid, unfair RULES. When I find a terrific set of armor in a game, I want to be able to equip it. I don't want to be told that I can't wear it because my character is a mage, and mages can't wear armor. That stinks! I believe that every character, no matter what their class, should be able to equip and use every item in a game. In this respect I think Divine Divinity and the Diablo games win hands down over games like Baldurs gate and NWN.
7. Games should be both single-player and multi-player like the Diablo games. No MMORPG! What a rip-off!
That's it, these are the main issues for me. I know I'll probably get into trouble, but these issues really do make or break a game for me.
And I have learnt from bitter experience NEVER to buy a game without playing the demo first.
Cheers
_________________
Don't mind me ______ I'm not really here. |
|
Mon May 05, 2003 5:52 pm |
|
|
elkston
High Emperor
Joined: 21 Sep 2002
Posts: 691
Location: North Carolina, USA |
| Re: What features would be in your "ideal" CRPG? |
|
Hey, nice topic. I'll hit each area...
1. Heavy, medium, or light on story?
I'd say medium. Enough to give you some background on the environment and characters and a reason for adventuring. If anything, I prefer for the
story to be implied or discovered through gameplay mechanisms.
2. Spoken dialogue or written text?
Spoken dialogue is always nice.
3. One main character or a group of characters?
That's a tough one. I have enjoyed party games as well, but in my dream RPG I would like to focus on the development of a single character.
4. Lots of dialogue text or not much?
It's better to have too much than too little, but I prefer something just
in the middle. You never want to spend most of your time reading. You are supposed to *play* a game.
5. Extensive amount of background material on the world and its history, in such things as books, maps, and legends?
Yes. This always adds color and depth to the world. As long as the information is kept in books or other sources that the player can optionally read.
6. Action-oriented with lots of fighting, an even mix of fighting, quest solving, and character interaction, or heavy emphasis on non-violent solutions to quests and character interaction?
Even mix is better.
7. Simple or complicated combat? Single or party-based combat? Point and click (Diablo, Morrowind) or combination-oriented (as in Gothic, Blade of Darkness, etc)?
I prefer single combat that is combo-oriented.
8. Hundreds of spells or fewer, but more focused, spells?
I prefer a fewer amount of useful spells than tons of spells that may overlap in some way.
9. First-person view (Might & Magic games, Morrowind, Wizardry 8, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, etc), third-person over-the-shoulder (Blade of Darkness, Gothic), or third-person isometric, also known as "bird's eye" view (Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc)?
First Person.
10. Many skills and stats or fewer or no skills and stats?
Many skills and stats that actually have some USE in the game. I.e. strengths or weaknesses in your skills can determine how you solve certain situations in the game.
11. High fantasy (Tolkien, D&D, Elves, Dwarves, etc), gritty medieval fantasy (Gothic), or other unique fantasy (specify)?
Gritty medieval all the way.
12. Instead of fantasy, science fiction? Space opera (Star Wars, etc), apocalyptic (Fallout), near-future (Deus Ex), space ships/stations (System Shock 1 & 2), alien invasion, or a mix of science fiction and fantasy (Might & Magic, Wizardry games)?
I always dug the mixing of sci-fi and fantasy.
13. Custom rules set made up by the developer, D&D ruleset, GURPS ruleset, SPECIAL (from Fallout, soon Lionheart), or other?
Custom rules.
14. 2D or 3D?
3D
15. Lots of possible interaction with the surroundings or little interaction with the surroundings?
the more interaction the better. A real physics system, the ability to make objects, alter terrain, etc.
16. Linear, directed exploration (Icewind Dale) or free-form, non-linear exploration (Fallout 1 & 2, Gothic, Morrowind)?
I like free-form exploration, but I do beleive that some goal or mission should be driving the overall play.
17. Interaction in world politics and factions?
It should be available, but the player should be able to advance in the game being a total loner if he wants to.
18. Ability to create or choose from many avatars (main characters) or one avatar?
Choice is always nice.
19. No history for character, except what the player has created or thought of, or pre-written history for the main character?
No history. Let me create or imagine my own background.
20. Random dungeons and areas or hand-made dungeons and areas?
Hand made of course. 
_________________
All shall hear the words of Karras...the words of Karras |
|
Mon May 05, 2003 7:41 pm |
|
|
Delo
City Guard
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 125
Location: Center of the Universe |
Won't....Play...Gothic....
.....
... ..?..
.??.?..??.
????..??
How can this be....??..?
_________________
I don't do autographs. |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 3:35 am |
|
|
Drakton
Captain of the Guard
Joined: 14 Oct 2001
Posts: 195
Location: Monterrey, México |
I can't say that my preferences are so strong that I wouldn't enjoy a game that has not them, but I'd say I prefer 1st person over 3rd; real time combat over turn; single party over multi; multiple ways of quest solving (fighting vs. diplomacy as an option.) Since English is not my native language, I definitely appreciatte written text; the option of selecting the level of difficulty. And trolls, elves, orcs, faeries and dragons; swords and arrows; fireballs and meteor showers over any sci-fi environment
As for certain details of gameplay: Dungeon Siege had a very neat way of potion management, in which you drank only the needed amount; I would like that potions healed a % of your total health. In most games you drink a potion that heals a fixed amount of health points, but as you grow in levels and increase your max. health level, you need to drink more an more potions; I like unlimited inventory capacity, not having to eat, and be able to rest to heal and replenish mana.
_________________
"You may win a thousand fights, but you can only lose one" (Zaknafein to Drizzt - The Dark Elf Trilogy.) |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 4:12 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
I'd say I enjoy party-based RPGs over single character RPGs, since it gives you more strategy.
With the party-based games, I like to see RT with pause feature.
I like areas more than a huge map where you can go anywhere on. Why? Because giving the illusion of freedom is only stupid.
Every "wilderness area", except for in games like Morrowind and Gothic, still looks the same, so you don't gain ANYTHING by exploring anything that isn't a placed-out area.
I'd rather have a world map of areas like in Baldur's Gate, which gives you an easier way of exploring everything in the game.
I like class-level-skill based systems, with lots of skills for variation (ie. NOT crap like Gothic).
I like beeing able to choose between MANY different races and classes for variation.
Many dungeons with background stories like in BG and Daggerfall.
I really liked the setting in Arcanum; kind of the old West meets Magic.
I DON'T like the idea that if your character has lost 45 hps, he knows EXACTLY how much of a potion he needs to drink to replace them. |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 6:51 am |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
| Re: What features would be in your "ideal" CRPG? |
|
1. Heavy, medium, or light on story?
I want a story which must be entertaining at least.
2. Spoken dialogue or written text?
Spoken dialogue, but subtitles for quicker reference in case people are blathering too much (I tend to do the click-click-click thing if dialogue is too baroque)
3. One main character or a group of characters?
One character, or several chars after one another, but no party, please.
4. Lots of dialogue text or not much?
Not much.
5. Extensive amount of background material on the world and its history, in such things as books, maps, and legends?
Doesn't hurt, but it should be an optional read and additional pleasure instead of a must-read.
6. Action-oriented with lots of fighting, an even mix of fighting, quest solving, and character interaction, or heavy emphasis on non-violent solutions to quests and character interaction?
The latter. Ideally there should be the possibility to choose the character's approach to situations, with multiple possible solutions.
7. Simple or complicated combat? Single or party-based combat? Point and click (Diablo, Morrowind) or combination-oriented (as in Gothic, Blade of Darkness, etc)?
Keep it simple. Single. Trigger-finger oriented.
8. Hundreds of spells or fewer, but more focused, spells?
Does it have to be fantasy? No spells preferred, but if spells, give me all you have and let me pick my favorites. Unless the magic system is as horrible as that of Dungeon Master.
9. First-person view (Might & Magic games, Morrowind, Wizardry 8, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, etc), third-person over-the-shoulder (Blade of Darkness, Gothic), or third-person isometric, also known as "bird's eye" view (Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc)?
First person, though I also accept option No. 2 as long as the rest of the game is decent. The iso view is unimmersive and better suited for RTSes, unless the game has an exceptional story/feel (quite rare... for me the only enjoyable iso-CRPG-like games were JA2 and Torment).
10. Many skills and stats or fewer or no skills and stats?
The fewer, the better. I don't want a Rolemaster revival. Keep it smooth.
11. High fantasy (Tolkien, D&D, Elves, Dwarves, etc), gritty medieval fantasy (Gothic), or other unique fantasy (specify)?
If it has to be fantasy, it may not be high fantasy, and not generic. If a game bore (setting- or otherwise) any resemblance to BG or IWD, I wouldn't buy it. Give me the gritty, dark or weird type, or LoL (where I feel at home)  .
12. Instead of fantasy, science fiction? Space opera (Star Wars, etc), apocalyptic (Fallout), near-future (Deus Ex), space ships/stations (System Shock 1 & 2), alien invasion, or a mix of science fiction and fantasy (Might & Magic, Wizardry games)?
All of the above, but near future with a 'real' feel would be something I preferred. Or give me alternative timelines.
13. Custom rules set made up by the developer, D&D ruleset, GURPS ruleset, SPECIAL (from Fallout, soon Lionheart), or other?
I don't care as long as game mechanics are simple and smooth. Though I have to admit this excludes both D&D and GURPS rules. And Fallout which was based on GURPS before they lost the license.
14. 2D or 3D?
Is not exclusive. Generally, I have no problem with either 2D sprites (think Catacombs) nor 3D guys (think Quake), as long as the game itself is first person.
15. Lots of possible interaction with the surroundings or little interaction with the surroundings?
Lots of interaction with the inanimate (and animate) world.
16. Linear, directed exploration (Icewind Dale) or free-form, non-linear exploration (Fallout 1 & 2, Gothic, Morrowind)?
Free-form.
17. Interaction in world politics and factions?
Yes.
18. Ability to create or choose from many avatars (main characters) or one avatar?
Many. Even though it isn't this important for a 1st person game, unless you encounter a mirror (and, of course, stats differ).
19. No history for character, except what the player has created or thought of, or pre-written history for the main character?
Tabula Rasa, perhaps with some nice, later-to-be-discovered pre-written dark secrets
20. Random dungeons and areas or hand-made dungeons and areas?
I don't care as long as randomness doesn't mean as much repetition as in Daggerfall.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 8:38 am |
|
|
Ann DeFerm
Village Dweller
Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 5
Location: Norway |
>What would you like to see in the CRPG of your dreams?
I dream of a game where one can be whatever humanoid one want and do almost whatever one want (with consequences), as in be a flying little faerie adventurer who eiter go on a quest of discovery (whats over the next hill, where does this almost ivisible track go?), library-hunt (seeking books about long lost cities, castles, dungeons to try to find them... mostly a no-combat quests), standard quests for ppl or any combination of these.
>1. Heavy, medium, or light on story?
Heavy if one wish it. Maybe not all are interested in bookish knowledge? Let them ignore the main story and run around hunting monsters on their own if they wish. Or if they want it, players should be able to involve themself in anything from some of the main story to compleatly committed to the story... My wish as a player wary day to day...
>2. Spoken dialogue or written text?
Both
>3. One main character or a group of characters?
A group (but alone if one wish). I prefer group of at least 5 ppl.
And bird-wiew like NWN only one shuld be able to look from behind. Easier to get a feeling of the whole group this way.
>4. Lots of dialogue text or not much?
Some dialogue. Dialogues can tuch quests or whatever is said lightly, while books and scrolls can reveal more information/knowledge for those who feel they want to learn more about it... Thats what libraries is for! =
>5. Extensive amount of background material on the world and its history, >in such things as books, maps, and legends?
OH YES! OH YES! OH YES!
>6. Action-oriented with lots of fighting, an even mix of fighting, quest >solving, and character interaction, or heavy emphasis on non-violent >solutions to quests and character interaction?
I guess I already mentioned the player could deside depending on what style of play he likes. A warrior want to fight from morning to night, while many mages/scholars would prefer to jump from library to library (or from wizard's castle to another) with as little combat as possible...
>8. Hundreds of spells or fewer, but more focused, spells?
Few spells per level/circle... but the spells one gain later is not improved versions of lover spells. Rater let all spells power be based on char. level or abilities so they never become obsolete.
>9. First-person view, third-person over-the-shoulder, or third-person >isometric, also known as "bird's eye" view?
third person view, at least for group based rpg's.
Let the view be adjustable, please! 
>10. Many skills and stats or fewer or no skills and stats?
Many skills and stats. After all, combat is not the only thing one should do in a game, there is also reading, knowing history, geography, orher races speech/writing, hunting game, herb, climb (mountains), survival (this looks like a good spot to camp for the night), swim, perform (bard or acrobat for an audience in taverns or for the nobility) or .....
>11. High fantasy (Tolkien, D&D, Elves, Dwarves, etc), gritty medieval >fantasy (Gothic), or other unique fantasy (specify)?
high fantasy. Wheter its tolkien, D&D (Toril), Realms of Arcania or another of this type is what I prefer.
>12. Instead of fantasy, science fiction? Space opera (Star Wars, etc),
No thanks.
>13. Custom rules set made up by the developer, D&D ruleset, GURPS >ruleset, SPECIAL (from Fallout, soon Lionheart), or other?
Of all the systems I've tried the last 13 years I love Ultima Online's system best. Theres no level, no class, but alot of skills. One gain points in skills as one use it. Of corse one can also loose points in a skill if one stop using it over a period of time, or if one reach the aviable number of skillpoint it is possible to learn. In UO one could reach 100 points in 7 skills making a total of 700 points. One could freely use the 700 points in any skills one wanted so one could, if one wanted, reach 50 points in 14 skills or just use 400 points in 4 skills (100 point in one skill was maximum).
Altogh I play all the BG, IWD, NWN games I really detest this thing about level. At least I would prefer a skill-based game as UO over level based games.
>14. 2D or 3D?
Traveling the countryside would be best done on a map, and maps would be 2D. The rest of the game 3D.
>15. Lots of possible interaction with the surroundings or little interaction >with the surroundings?
Unsure of what you think of here.
But you just include alot!
>16. Linear, directed exploration (Icewind Dale) or free-form, non-linear >exploration (Fallout 1 & 2, Gothic, Morrowind)?
Free-form.
>17. Interaction in world politics and factions?
If one want to. (depends on the character)
>18. Ability to create or choose from many avatars (main characters) or >one avatar?
Many avatars per race. But drop the silly character protraits; the pictures seldom look like the game figures anyway. Its better to have many different faces/bodies/hairforms and colors.
>19. No history for character, except what the player has created or thought >of, or pre-written history for the main character?
Real RPG would be good idea here; not only the character's own history but also of his parents and grandparents. After all, the character probably start his adventure home or near his home so why not include his parents and grandparents into the game?
>20. Random dungeons and areas or hand-made dungeons and areas?
Both; Large and well-known towns, castles and dungeons could be standard while smaller towns, castles, ruins, dungeons and the tracks to said places is random... It would be good for a game's re-playability; each time you start a new game you would have to discover everything anew!
_________________
regards, Ann DeFerm |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 6:13 pm |
|
|
The Hulk
Avenger, Defender
Joined: 19 Feb 2002
Posts: 728
Location: Southeast U.S.A. |
1. Heavy, medium, or light on story?
Heavy story. Of course, too heavy and it might overwhelm some players and turn them off.
2. Spoken dialogue or written text?
As much spoken dialouge as possible. This is one really good reason why a game should be made on dvd's so that you could have only one dvd instead of 3-5 cd's. Yeah, I know the old argument that not enough people have dvd players, but has anyone offered both a dvd version and cd version of a game at the same time to see how well a dvd version would do? Not that I know of. I think if a game company did do that, they might be surprised how well the dvd version would sell. Black Isle/Interplay made the mistake of first releasing Baldur's Gate on cd and then months later releasing the game on dvd. Hello?? Of course few people were going to buy the dvd version after they already bought the cd version. If Black Isle/Interplay had released the dvd version at the same time as the cd version, the dvd version would have sold much better. It kind of reminds me of the old days where games came on many floppy disks and people got so tired of dealing with multiple disks. I think it's high time to move away from the piddly tired old 700mb cd storage medium and move to a higher density disc format like 4.7gb dvd.
3. One main character or a group of characters?
I have to admit I've enjoyed games that had each of these. I really enjoyed Betrayal at Krondor which had a party based system. And of course I enjoyed games like Morrowind and Gothic that had single character. So, I suppose if it was going to be party based, I'd want combat to be turn based as BaK was. If it's going to be single player, I'd want real time combat similar to DBtS or BoD, complete with limbs and blood flying in every direction during combat(with the option to have parental controls to give the game pg violence if desired).
4. Lots of dialogue text or not much?
I like a middle ground here. Too much and people with short attention spans(most young people)get turned off. Too little and it looks like the game was rushed and poorly done. I like the option of having in game books where players can read text to their hearts content to get all kinds of background history on people, places and things, hints, useful information pertaining to certain areas of the game, etc.
5. Extensive amount of background material on the world and its history, in such things as books, maps, and legends?
Yes please.
6. Action-oriented with lots of fighting, an even mix of fighting, quest solving, and character interaction, or heavy emphasis on non-violent solutions to quests and character interaction?
I really enjoyed the realistic fighting systems of Die By the Sword and Blade of Darkness. Limbs and heads flying during combat should be a distinct possibility(based on where a hit lands, the force behind the blow, and the level of armor protection the opponent has) when combatants are using edged weapons! Of course if a player lost a limb(s) during a fight, he'd be at a disadvantage during the fight and would have to hop if he lost a leg and if he lost and arm, might have to fight with his off hand and get penalties to weapons skills. If he lost both legs, his movement would be severely limited. If you lost both arms and both legs, you'd be effectively dead for all intents and purposes. Heh, could you imagine a dude with one arm and no legs crawling back to town beggin for healing? Or a dude with one leg and no arms hopping back to town(very difficult but not impossible)to get healed? And he'd have to go get healed somehow after the fight was over, or heal himself or else he'd slowly die withou the proper medical attention(first aid skill or healing potion). Of course if he lost his head during the fight, he'd be dead. I know, all this sounds really gruesome and would definitely be rated "M" but the parental controls would still be there to tone down the violence and gore levels if desired. I wish more crpg's would use this kind of combat system(with parental controls as an option to tone down the gore level if desired). I also like to have quest solving as part of the game too as well as character interaction. I also feel there should be non-violent solutions to most situations for those inclined to work that way. For instance lets say you come upon a group of orcs out in a forest somewhere. You could choose to just rush into combat of course, OR you could choose to use stealth(if you have the skill)to sneak and hide until they pass or you could actually try to communicate with them and converse with them(a dangerous prospect!)if you knew orcish or if the orcs knew your language. Perhaps the orcs would listen to what you had to say(though they'd likely be skeptical of anything you said and always be one step away from trying to separate your head from your shoulders). Perhaps there could be a diplomacy skill and also a charisma statistic that could help with situations like that. Or perhaps you could attempt to bribe them to let you pass unharmed? Any of these non-combat solutions could succeed or fail depending on the situation. Perhaps one of the orcs would disagree with the others and a fight between them would ensue? This kind of complexity would make the game so much more interesting than most others that are out there now. Another choice could be to perhaps intimidate the orcs into leaving you alone? A sufficient show of power might scare them enough to leave you alone. For instance, A mage could cast a powerful spell as a warning or a fighter could do a Conan-esque show of weapons proficiency, spinning and twirling his weapon around with great skill and finesse. Sure, these intimidations might not work, but then again they might depending on certain factors like how powerful and skilled you are as opposed to the skills and power of your opponent. Perhaps it would even be possible to befriend your opponent(and remain friends with them throughout the course of the game), given that you say the right things and are diplomatic and charismatic enough. Then again there are opponents who will not listen to a word you say and will try to kill you as best they can(undead for instance).
Another example could be that your character goes around giving money and items to certain people or races and gets increased reputation with the people that he is helping(and decreased reputation from their enemies) and getting all kinds of benefits in the process.
With character interaction, I'd also like to see things like romances develop like in Baldur's Gate 2. But these would be optional of course.
Oh, one other comment, is some realism and common sense in combat would be nice. For instance a man in a suit of full plate armor will be virtually unaffected by the attacks of a dog or wolf. The most a dog or wolf could hope to do was knock the man down.
7. Simple or complicated combat? Single or party-based combat? Point and click (Diablo, Morrowind) or combination-oriented (as in Gothic, Blade of Darkness, etc)?
Keep the combat relatively simple, BUT allow for added complexity for those that are so inclined to want to get into it. For instance, in Die By the Sword, you could just use the simple high, medium and low attacks and never get involved in the complex moves that were available to those who wanted that kind of complexity. Another example of added complexity is to allow mages to precast a spell and have it ready to use, for instance casting a fireball but holding on to it and not releasing it right away and waiting to throw it at the right moment. But, if the mage should fall down or get attacked before he can release the fire, it could affect him instead of his opponent. I also think spells and attacks should have the chance to be interrupted.
Also, I was thinking, wouldn't it be great if you could launch an attack that could potentially knock your opponent down and he'd have to take a second or two to get back up or perhaps stun him for a moment. Also allowing unarmed combat like martial arts, brawling and wrestling. Perhaps it could be handled like Virtua Fighter with all kinds of elaborate moves. Of course, you'd have to put some realism in it to balance things out. For instance, a halfling is not going to be able to flip an ogre in a wrestling match. Strength, bodyweight(including armor and equipment), momentum and skill should all be taken into account. Perhaps a submission hold could be used to make an opponent give up? Or a choke hold that knocks an opponent unconcious, but can be non-lethal if the player chooses. Of course, things could get interesting if a humanoid type player engages in unarmed combat and wrestling with a non-humanoid creature like a rabid wolf or something. But the player could still choke it into unconciousness if he could get hold of it and not lose his grip, or if he did not get bitten to death first. Of course, all this added complexity would be optional. If a player wants to just rush in and fight normally with a melee weapon, he could.
I've never seen a crpg(or any other game)with this much detail in it, but would really love to.
I definitely do not like click fests like diablo. I much preferred the combat of DBtS and BoD.
8. Hundreds of spells or fewer, but more focused, spells?
I'd like to see a nice variety of spells. Too few and it gets boring. Too many and most are never used. Make them all useful and functional and interesting in some way. Also, try to make spells original in some way. For instance, perhaps you could have a summoning spell that had the potential to summon almost anything or anyone. Thiscould be a dangerous but fun spell. When the summoned being appears, have some kind of contest of wills to control it or be able to baragain with it in some way to get it to do what you want. For instance, say you happen to summon an giant. Perhaps the giant is hungry and if you give it enough food it will do what you ask it to. Or if it's a greedy being like an orc or goblin, perhaps it could be bribed. But in some cases, like an elemental or undead, there may be no bargaining and you'd have to try to control it magically. Get creative with the spells.
9. First-person view (Might & Magic games, Morrowind, Wizardry 8, Arx Fatalis, System Shock 2, etc), third-person over-the-shoulder (Blade of Darkness, Gothic), or third-person isometric, also known as "bird's eye" view (Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, etc)?
I like the option of being able to switch between first and 3rd person views as desired.
10. Many skills and stats or fewer or no skills and stats?
Personally, I love a game that has alot of complexity and depth to it. Lots of skills and a good amount of stats. It makes a game alot more interesting and enjoyable for me. I don't like when games are "dumbed down" to appeal to a broader audience. I avoid dumbed down games all I can. Personally I think the best way to do it is have the best of both worlds. In the Realms of Arkania crpg's they had a simple and advanced mode of play. In simple mode, you'd not have to deal with stats and skills at all, the computer would handle all that stuff for you. In advanced mode you could handle all the minute details and intracacies of character creation and advancement. And you could switch from one or the other throughout the course of the game. Of course I always played in advanced mode.
11. High fantasy (Tolkien, D&D, Elves, Dwarves, etc), gritty medieval fantasy (Gothic), or other unique fantasy (specify)?
I enjoy both high and low fantasy gaming environments. High Fantasy like Middle Earth can be fun, but low fantasy like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is also nice too. Personally, I'd really like to see crpg(single player but with the option of multiplayer added) based on Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay(I know there is a mmorpg in development)that already uses some of it). I'd also really like to see a crpg based on Ars Magica(originally White Wolf but now Atlas Games). That would really be awesome. Talk about originality!
12. Instead of fantasy, science fiction? Space opera (Star Wars, etc), apocalyptic (Fallout), near-future (Deus Ex), space ships/stations (System Shock 1 & 2), alien invasion, or a mix of science fiction and fantasy (Might & Magic, Wizardry games)?
I suppose a science fiction rpg could be interesting if done right(think of the old megatraveller crpg's but in full 3d with awesome graphics and gameplay). I prefer fantasy though. I did not care for Fallout(except for the fact that I liked the addition of mature content, which could easily be put into a fantasy crpg) or Dues Ex. And I hate the combo of fantasy and sci-fi. It's never worked for me.
Speaking of Fallout, one thing I must really comment on though is I heard some guy from Black Isle once make a comment on a message board which was really disturbing to me that dealt with fallout and the dark and mature setting. These were not his exact words, but he said something like gay and lesbian encounters are only suited for games with dark settings like Fallout and had no place in a crpg with a normal setting. He made it sound as if all lesbians and gays were evil, bad or devoid of morals. I personally know some lesbians who are just the nicest, kindest people you'd ever meet. Strong morals all the way through. I'd definitely not call them evil or morally corrupt, or only suitable in a "dark" setting. So please, don't use stereotypes like that. Sure, I'd say that maybe if you were going to have gay and lesbian situations in a game, perhaps it should have an "M" rating, but that does not mean it also has to be "dark". A good example of a crpg with an "M" rating without being in a "dark" setting was Wizards and Warriors. That was not what I'd call a game with a "dark" setting. They just happened to have some nudity in the game that got them the "M" rating.
13. Custom rules set made up by the developer, D&D ruleset, GURPS ruleset, SPECIAL (from Fallout, soon Lionheart), or other?
As I said before, I'd love to see the rules and settings used from Ars Magica and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I'd also really love to see the GURPS rules used. A pox on Interplay for not reaching a settlement with Steve Jackson Games(creator of GURPS) during the making of Fallout! I played the GURPS system with my friends longer than any other. I prefer the skill based sytem of GURPS to the level based system of D&D and other games.
14. 2D or 3D?
Full 3D all the way.
15. Lots of possible interaction with the surroundings or little interaction with the surroundings?
Lots of interaction with surroundings. When my mage casts a fireball in the woods, I want to see a forest fire started! Of course I'd want to be able to make it rain or something to put out the fire if I wanted to. I want to be able to break down doors and walls. A stone wall may be very hard to break through, but if you have a trusty mining pick on hand, you can get through any stone wall eventually. Except perhaps for a magically protected wall or door. But the magic should be able to be nullified by a mage of an appropriate power level. I'd like to be able to let loose a fire elemental and watch it set fire to anything flammable in its way. I'd like to be able to summon a huge air elemental in a town and watch it blow roofs off houses, whisk people and items away throwing them hundreds of feet. Afterwards, people who owned the houses would go about trying to repair the damage(if they survived) but this would take time.
Or perhaps call down a thundercloud over a ship at sea and have lightning catch it on fire and sink it eventually.
I'd like to summon a giant who would uproot a nearby tree to use it as a club.
16. Linear, directed exploration (Icewind Dale) or free-form, non-linear exploration (Fallout 1 & 2, Gothic, Morrowind)?
Free-form non-linear. However, I think a player should never get totally lost from the main plot if they choose to follow it. Give them hints on where they could go next so they don't get stuck and confused and frustrated.
17. Interaction in world politics and factions?
Yes please. For instance, being able to build yourself a castle and perhaps even becoming king. If there was already a king in the area, you'd have to deal with that somehow.
18. Ability to create or choose from many avatars (main characters) or one avatar?
Have pre-made or quick characer creation for those who want to get in the game quickly but have the ability to create a unique avatar of your own, with the choice of sex and other races too. I like the ability to choose face, hair, body type, height and all that. And if I want a big muscular conan type character, I want to be able to see my character with big muscles. I've yet to see a 3-D rpg that has allowed big muscles like that.
19. No history for character, except what the player has created or thought of, or pre-written history for the main character?
Hmm, this could work well either way in my opinion depending on how it was done.
20. Random dungeons and areas or hand-made dungeons and areas?
Hand-made areas and dungeons as often as possible. Would be nice to have a few random dungeons and areas though.
I'd also like to add that I'd like to see strong AI in the game. Many times AI is just an afterthought.
I'd also like to have the lead taken by Morrowind followed as far as system requirement go. I am tired of crpg's having low system requirements and being graphically inferior to other games. Morrowind and Gothic started a trend to change that and I hope it catches on with other companies.
Another thing I'd like to add is that I think it is possible to let a player choose between turn-based and real-time combat. It may be a bit too much to ask, but I think it would be cool if it could be done.
Also, being able to buy and build things like ships, houses, castles, keeps, towers, etc. would be really cool, and having the ability to customize and furnish them as you saw fit. It would also be cool though if those possesions of your could come under attack and possibly be destroyed too. You could hire guys to protect those things and you could also defend them yourself. Also have the ability to repair them if they got damaged as well as the ability to cast magical protections over them.
I'm sure I could think of more if I sat here and thought about it, but I guess that is it for now.
_________________
"Mr. Magee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
-Bruce Banner
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild= |
|
Tue May 06, 2003 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
