| |
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
|
|
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Hexy, Hexy. This is a discussion, not a squabble - here, a disagreement is not a personal attack that must be defended, it is an opportunity to further the discussion. This topic (as with all game design issues) is of great interest to me, and I am happy to discuss it, but I am not interested in squabbling. Any comments made should be related to the topic, and if I agree or disagree with you, it will certainly be due to my opinions on game design, and not based on any personal feelings, or desire to have the last word. I try to ensure that everything I say is relevant to the discussion, and that if I disagree with someone, I clearly explain why - I ask you to do the same, and to leave the defensive knee-jerk reactions out.
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
How cute...
Unfortunately, you're arguig a completely different point than I do. Although you probably DID read what I wrote, you simply did not understand it or chose not to. Whatever.
This is what I am referring to, a purely defensive remark that makes no attempt to address the topic. Plus, it's untrue - I answered your question directly. If you really think I missed your point, then why didn't you clarify it in your last post? This is clearly squabbling. And as if more proof were needed...
quote:
Funny that System Shock was all about killing monsters... due to the fact that it was a shoot-em-up.
...there it is. I already cast SS aside as unnecessary to my argument, and even asked you a direct question about the very topic we are supposed to be addressing in this thread. Yet you chose to ignore the question and continued to pursue an off-topic and completely pointless argument, to which I will not respond.
Instead, I will ask you my question again (and of course, I'm interested to hear everyone's answers):
I believe that Ultima Underworld alone is irrefutable proof that excellent & realistic RPGs do not need the traditional monster xp/level-up system - do you agree?
quote:
Oh... I read 'I disagree' as a reply to my statement about gaining exp?
I was disagreeing with the notion that a lack of monster xp harms realism, but I can see how this may have been unclear. I'll try to make my overall point now, as concisely as possible - I have no problem with awarding xp for combat, but what I think is a problem is that systems which award generic experience for killing give every player an artificial incentive to fight - and I'm not talking about fighting for survival, I'm talking about fighting at every opportunity - which is great for fighter characters, but it worsens the game for others. It is a fine system for action/RPGs, but is not conducive to "real" roleplaying.
quote:
Many RPGs that give you exp for killing monsters also give you exp for finishing quests, although quests take long to implement etc. Killing monsters are STILL a completely perfect way to give exp, due to the fact that you DO become more experienced while fighting.
Yes, very true. But if a character who avoids combat is disadvantaged compared to one who enjoys combat, because he/she is losing out on generic monster xp, then your game system is flawed. It's supposed to be a role-playing game - so why are you penalising some players for choosing to play certain types of roles? Now, if you're not awarding generic xp for killing monsters, but are only awarding points that improve combat skills, then your system is not flawed - the fighters are being rewarded appropriately for their actions, and the non-fighters are ignoring a reward that is of no interest to them. Everybody's happy. The monster xp system doesn't work for everyone, it only works realistically for fighters, and forces all other characters to (a) behave unrealistically, or (b) play with a massive experience deficit.
quote:
...as in Morrowinds case; spend a couple of minutes paying a trainer and basically maximizing your skills.
Morrowind's trainer system is a seperate issue - I agree it is a flaw of the game, but it's not part of the skill-based experience system. Such a flaw could occur in exactly the same way in a monster-xp system. We're talking about appropriate rewards for player actions, and in this respect I firmly believe the skill-based system is significantly less flawed than the traditional system.
quote:
Ok, maybe a simple mindless beast was a bad example. How about a demi-god? A demon? The main bad guy who is powerful in all aspects and thusly not particuarly easy to fool with a spell or such?
OK, a different example - in this case, there's a damn good reason to fight, and that's exactly what I was talking about before: forcing all players to fight for no reason is senseless, and makes some players behave out-of-character and therefore enjoy the game less. Forcing them to fight for a reason that is entirely justifiable is OK (although I would still prefer to see developers create non-combat solutions here too, like in PS:T). As long as the developers ensure that all the character types they have allowed in their game are catered for, then there is no problem at all (ie, don't just shove the player into a small, bare room; thieves need hiding places, mages may need to get out of melee range, etc, so levels should be designed accordingly).
quote:
As for Ghandi, yeah. I'm sure sitting down, doing nothing would be a great tactic to use while being attacked by a few iron golems
lol, OK, I was responding to your comments about pacifism in real life, where iron golems do not exist.
As for gameworlds, an RPG pacifist wouldn't be restricted to sitting down all the time, just because it was Gandhi's special move. A pacifist could be a skilled diplomat, or a magician who sticks to non-lethal spells. A pacifist doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow - he/she could be a thief, a liar or manipulator.
The more you think about the different ways problems can be tackled in RPGs (and the great RPGs like Fallout and PS:T that have embraced this diversity), the more possibilities for new & varied gameplay emerge, and potentially the more players you will please. I find the attitude that we should stick to the old, simple hack & slash formula baffling. Don't you want to see the form evolve? |
Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:05 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
This is what I am referring to, a purely defensive remark that makes no attempt to address the topic. Plus, it's untrue - I answered your question directly. If you really think I missed your point, then why didn't you clarify it in your last post? This is clearly squabbling. And as if more proof were needed...
Very well... you're right about that.
And as to my point; being afraid of loosing precious exp from slaying monsters=being afraid of loosing precious exp from spending hours in one place training a skill.
Both hinder story advancement, in their own way.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Yes, very true. But if a character who avoids combat is disadvantaged compared to one who enjoys combat, because he/she is losing out on generic monster xp, then your game system is flawed. It's supposed to be a role-playing game - so why are you penalising some players for choosing to play certain types of roles? Now, if you're not awarding generic xp for killing monsters, but are only awarding points that improve combat skills, then your system is not flawed - the fighters are being rewarded appropriately for their actions, and the non-fighters are ignoring a reward that is of no interest to them. Everybody's happy. The monster xp system doesn't work for everyone, it only works realistically for fighters, and forces all other characters to (a) behave unrealistically, or (b) play with a massive experience deficit.
I never meant that monster xp should be THE only way of gaining exp, but it was a realistic and viable way to gain exp. A wizard gets to practice his spell flinging abilities. A thief prectices backstab and such.
In the end, I won't argue that talking etc. should also yield exp. Which it sometimes does (in various RPGs). Which (also stated) is often harder to implement, due to conversations and such being handcrafted, and not as plentisome (what? it's a word... I think) as monsters and enemies.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
I was disagreeing with the notion that a lack of monster xp harms realism, but I can see how this may have been unclear. I'll try to make my overall point now, as concisely as possible - I have no problem with awarding xp for combat, but what I think is a problem is that systems which award generic experience for killing give every player an artificial incentive to fight - and I'm not talking about fighting for survival, I'm talking about fighting at every opportunity - which is great for fighter characters, but it worsens the game for others. It is a fine system for action/RPGs, but is not conducive to "real" roleplaying.
Actually that is the part I thought was wierd. Due to the fact that you SHOULD get exp rewards for killing monsters. NOT having it DOES harm realism. Training SHOULD make you improve.
Furthermore the fact that the game MAY worsen for those who do not wish to play as fighters in a tough, medieval world where they are heroes in a saga, often with some kind of enemy, is about the same as for the trainers. It isn't system based. You can make exp rewards in an leveling system work perfectly well for all character type. The simple fact that many games haven't done this is another issue. Why? Because it's more difficult with dialogues (I guess you COULD do it in some kind of Morrowind-esque way, but hey, who would ever want Morrowind dialogue?). Baldur's Gate gave exp for disarming traps, and stuff like that.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
lol, OK, I was responding to your comments about pacifism in real life, where iron golems do not exist.
As for gameworlds, an RPG pacifist wouldn't be restricted to sitting down all the time, just because it was Gandhi's special move. A pacifist could be a skilled diplomat, or a magician who sticks to non-lethal spells. A pacifist doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow - he/she could be a thief, a liar or manipulator.
The more you think about the different ways problems can be tackled in RPGs (and the great RPGs like Fallout and PS:T that have embraced this diversity), the more possibilities for new & varied gameplay emerge, and potentially the more players you will please. I find the attitude that we should stick to the old, simple hack & slash formula baffling. Don't you want to see the form evolve?
WAIT HERE... did I just caught a hint of smugness and insult from that starting comment? Because, as you WELL know, piln, such thing have NO PLACE in a discussion, right? RIGHT? Or maybe I'm just getting paranoid with all your questionable "correcting" of my statements? OH WAIT! Was I being smug and sarcastic here? Oh what a pickle...
Even though I was mostly refering to situation in an RPG with a real-life approach.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Fri Dec 19, 2003 8:54 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
...being afraid of loosing precious exp from slaying monsters=being afraid of loosing precious exp from spending hours in one place training a skill.
Both hinder story advancement, in their own way.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the link you're making there, but if you're suggesting that a desire to refrain from combat hinders story progression, I have to disagree. I often find the opposite: that combat is simply used as filler to increase play time between story-advancing dialogues and scenes (worst example that I have played: M&M7, in which the vast amount of non-story-related battling was enough to make me abandon the game; BG came close, but the story was just interesting enough to keep me playing). In fine examples like PS:T and Fallout, avoiding combat actually improves the story, since the non-violent approaches often yield more information and IMO are usually more satisfying than fighting.
It's interesting you used the word "afraid" ... here's why I personally avoid combat in some cases: I've never been a huge fan of the D&D ruleset, and I find it makes for rather dull combat in CRPGs (just my taste, I know many will disagree). So in D&D-based games, I try to make the least combat-oriented character I can get away with, so as to make the game more interesting for me. If I know the game is full of hack & slash, I probably won't play it, since it's unlikely it'll show me anything new. Hearing that Fallout could be completed without killing a single person, i was fascinated - this was something new to me, so I seized the chance to experience it. When I played Arx Fatalis, I found the combat system to be quite dynamic and fun, so in that game I really enjoyed fighting - but the sheer variety of viable approaches on offer led me to play the game 3 or 4 times, exploring as many different possibilities as I could. For me variety is key - almost every other genre of game I play revolves around fighting and killing things (and usually in a more enjoyable way than most RPG combat), so when a game offers me the chance to do something different, I'll take it.
I don't avoid combat out of fear, but out of boredom - but what if I want to play a character who is afraid of combat? That's a perfectly reasonable role-playing decision, and one that I'm sure would be welcomed at most p&p RPG sessions, at least those that value role-playing over action (I'd be interested to hear what others think of this). But there are few CRPGs that would support such a decision, and that's because most favour action over role-playing. I think the situation should be reversed.
quote:
I never meant that monster xp should be THE only way of gaining exp, but it was a realistic and viable way to gain exp. A wizard gets to practice his spell flinging abilities. A thief prectices backstab and such.
Very true, but this still angles your game toward fighting and killing. If we use our imaginations, we can envision countless ways that a thief or mage could negotiate enemy territory, which could bring much-needed variety to RPG gameplay. Let me suggest two examples using different game systems. In both cases, my objective is simply to get from A to B, but there are hostiles between me and my destination:
1. in Deus Ex (playing stealthily) I could create a distraction to lure a number of enemies into a roomful of proximity-triggered gas and EMP grenades, while I hide behind a trolley full of toxic waste, ready to push it in after them. Or maybe I could use my increased lifting strength to place heavy obstacles to trap them. I could then simply sneak past them - nobody killed, no shots fired, I get the satisfaction of creating my own solution to the problem, and because I'm not missing out on xp for kills (because there isn't any), I am perfectly happy to accept this outcome.
2. in almost any D&D-based game (let's say BG), playing as a thief I could sneak past my enemies, or as a mage I could cast a stupifying or immobilising spell on them and pass them by. Remember, my objective is simply to get through the area, but if I do it this way, I get no experience, even though I have played to my character's strengths and acheived my goal. There is absolutely no reason for me to kill those characters in order to achieve my objective, but I am compelled to do it anyway, because otherwise, I'll lose out on xp and will struggle later in the game. In terms of role-playing, my hand is forced and I am not free to make my own choices. If I'm not playing as a fighter, then my enjoyment of this RPG is marred.
The fact that non-violent solutions to quests are rewarded does not solve the problem, since there are many occasions in this type of game where hostile areas must be traversed to reach a goal - sequences that do not form a quest goal themselves, but are still necessary for completion of the quest. So no characters are rewarded for simply crossing a map, but if xp is awarded for kills and not for other methods then there is an unfair bias toward those who kill en route, even when it is not required. Other methods still require character skill and perhaps some player ingenuity, so the fact that only killing is rewarded in these situations makes no sense (and does harm the experience - like I've said before, it forces a choice between playing out-of-character or missing out on xp).
That's what I mean by monster xp not being conducive to role-playing.
It's worth noting also that the above example of an action possible in Deus Ex would not require scripting - in a well-designed simulated world it's not the designer but the player that creates the solutions based on their characters' skills, their own playing style and the opportunities provided by level design. So, if a game is designed from the ground up with player choice in mind, such varied approaches needn't mean huge amounts of extra development time. Physics & AI form an endlessly reusable ruleset, much like the combat rules in D&D CRPGs.
quote:
Actually that is the part I thought was wierd. Due to the fact that you SHOULD get exp rewards for killing monsters. NOT having it DOES harm realism. Training SHOULD make you improve.
Well, that theory is perfectly sound, and if I hadn't played a wide range of RPGs (computer and otherwise) I would probably agree with you. But in practise, I have found that it actually isn't true. As I said before, Deus Ex and the UUWs are by far the most realistic and immersive RPGs I've played. You don't get any character development from fighting here, and (while I agree with your logic) I did not find that this harmed realism in any way. It just didn't matter. That's just my opinion, I'd be interested to hear which RPGs everyone else found to be the most realistic.
Some games show that monster-xp systems do not necessarily aid realism; I enjoyed PS:T & Gothic (I think that had monster xp, didn't it?) tremendously, and they both feature immersive and believable worlds (Gothic moreso) but neither were particularly realistic in the action department. Nor are any of the D&D-based CRPGs I've played; the D&D system is well-balanced and streamlined, but realism IMO is not one of its strengths.
I see your point that experience for non-combat activities could be difficult to implement fairly in a Morrowind-style skill-based system, and I agree this would take a lot of thought to get right. But I do believe it could be done, and would be beneficial. Morrowind's system is on the right lines, and I think with some honing it could be a lot more rewarding to a wide range of playing styles than the traditional systems.
Another alternative is a purely goal-based reward structure, like that of Deus Ex (did the Ultima Underworlds use this too?). No xp for kills (which I would prefer), no xp for repeated skill use (illogical maybe, but not necessarily harmful to the experience). It is flawed in theory, but at least this way all players will receive equal reward for reaching a particular point in the game; nobody is penalised for choosing the playing style that suits them.
In practise, I have found the style of Deus Ex and Ultima Underworld to be the most satisfying. In principle I prefer the Morrowind-style system (without the levelling - it's unnecessary), but I haven't seen a game that's executed it properly yet. I prefer both to the traditional system. I acknowledge that monster-xp is fine for the development of characters who kill routinely (so it works for action/RPGs), but for a game that is supposed to allow a variety of playing styles (which I believe should be true of all RPGs) it has some fundamental flaws.
quote:
WAIT HERE... did I just caught a hint of smugness and insult from that starting comment? Because, as you WELL know, piln, such thing have NO PLACE in a discussion, right? RIGHT?
Right... lol... you got me. No offence intended, of course, just a bit of sarcasm that kind of... slipped out.  |
|
Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:45 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Picking up on your idea of a character avoiding combat out of fear, Playing a low level mage in D&D campaigns will do that for you. Since at level 1 they usually have something like 4HP and one semi-useful spell, keeping them alive is hard work. They are afraid of combat and rightly so. Great and interesting discussion.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:21 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
I was beginning to wonder if anyone but me & Hexy were reading this thread! 
I'm glad you're finding it interesting, I was worried the long posts might be putting everyone off.  But this is a great topic that peterb started, and I love to get my teeth into design-related stuff, especially when there's a few viewpoints on offer. |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 3:29 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by piln
I'm not entirely sure I understand the link you're making there, but if you're suggesting that a desire to refrain from combat hinders story progression, I have to disagree. I often find the opposite: that combat is simply used as filler to increase play time between story-advancing dialogues and scenes (worst example that I have played: M&M7, in which the vast amount of non-story-related battling was enough to make me abandon the game; BG came close, but the story was just interesting enough to keep me playing). In fine examples like PS:T and Fallout, avoiding combat actually improves the story, since the non-violent approaches often yield more information and IMO are usually more satisfying than fighting.
It's interesting you used the word "afraid" ... here's why I personally avoid combat in some cases: I've never been a huge fan of the D&D ruleset, and I find it makes for rather dull combat in CRPGs (just my taste, I know many will disagree).
No. Spending lots of time jumping in one place to gain some extra in your jump skill is just as bad as traveling around the world just to get a chance encounter to get some more of the sweet sweet exp. Catfish?
Afraid? YOU used the word FEAR in the first frickin' place. Thankee.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Very true, but this still angles your game toward fighting and killing. If we use our imaginations, we can envision countless ways that a thief or mage could negotiate enemy territory, which could bring much-needed variety to RPG gameplay. Let me suggest two examples using different game systems. In both cases, my objective is simply to get from A to B, but there are hostiles between me and my destination:
Sorry for not quoting the whole long-winded text, but my posts are already inflated by several hundred percents as it is.
THIS shows that combat is ONE viable way of giving exp to all kinds of characters. And, as I STILL said, you should be able to gain exp in other ways. Use of hide, use of disarm trap etc should reward exp. Which, fortunately, level-based games like BG2 give you.
Doth thee see the ying and yang?
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Well, that theory is perfectly sound, and if I hadn't played a wide range of RPGs (computer and otherwise) I would probably agree with you. But in practise, I have found that it actually isn't true. As I said before, Deus Ex and the UUWs are by far the most realistic and immersive RPGs I've played. You don't get any character development from fighting here, and (while I agree with your logic) I did not find that this harmed realism in any way. It just didn't matter. That's just my opinion, I'd be interested to hear which RPGs everyone else found to be the most realistic.
Some games show that monster-xp systems do not necessarily aid realism; I enjoyed PS:T & Gothic (I think that had monster xp, didn't it?) tremendously, and they both feature immersive and believable worlds (Gothic moreso) but neither were particularly realistic in the action department. Nor are any of the D&D-based CRPGs I've played; the D&D system is well-balanced and streamlined, but realism IMO is not one of its strengths.
No. Deus Ex ONLY rewarding you for completing mission objectives, talking to people and finding secret places is purely moronic. It doesn't matter how many you kill, how much you escercise your skills or anything. You only get that static exp. It's actually WORSE than ONLY giving exp for killing stuff.
Mr. A gets to point B by only sneaking a bit, and then by simple dumb luck finishing his mission. While Mr. C kills all guards, sneaks past some, disables traps etc and gets the EXACT same ammount of skill-points as A is purely
laughable.
You still have a long way to go in the world of RPGs.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:00 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
No. Spending lots of time jumping in one place to gain some extra in your jump skill is just as bad as traveling around the world just to get a chance encounter to get some more of the sweet sweet exp. Catfish?
I agree.
quote:
Afraid? YOU used the word FEAR in the first frickin' place. Thankee.
Hmmmm... yeah, I've mentioned "fear of losing out on monster xp," but not fear of entering combat (which is essentially the opposite) - that's the concept I quoted in my last post, and I'm pretty sure you were the first to bring it up. But I don't understand why you're getting defensive about this anyway - I already said it was an interesting point, and you can see that it prompted more discussion from myself & Corwin. So why are reacting as if I insulted you?
quote:
THIS shows that combat is ONE viable way of giving exp to all kinds of characters. And, as I STILL said, you should be able to gain exp in other ways. Use of hide, use of disarm trap etc should reward exp. Which, fortunately, level-based games like BG2 give you.
Doth thee see the ying and yang?
Yes, I understand fully what you are saying. I've already acknowledged the fact that combat is fine for a killer's development, and I've already pointed out the flaws: that it's often the only way, and that alternative awards do not make up for the vast amount of xp a hack&slash approach will yield. If you play BG2 using sneak or non-lethal magic instead of combat whenever possible, will you receive the same amount of xp as if you had fought all the way? I think you are well aware that the answer is "no," and that the faults I have already described exist and have not yet been addressed. Repetition will not alter this fact.
And it's "yin," by the way.
quote:
No. Deus Ex ONLY rewarding you for completing mission objectives, talking to people and finding secret places is purely moronic. It doesn't matter how many you kill, how much you escercise your skills or anything. You only get that static exp. It's actually WORSE than ONLY giving exp for killing stuff.
How so? Neither system is perfect, but the former levels the playing field for all characters and gaming styles. The latter is biased towards one type of behaviour. Do you really think that's better?
quote:
Mr. A gets to point B by only sneaking a bit, and then by simple dumb luck finishing his mission. While Mr. C kills all guards, sneaks past some, disables traps etc and gets the EXACT same ammount of skill-points as A is purely
laughable.
Come on, I know you don't honestly believe that is a sensible example (why no traps for Mr.A? Why was it so easy for him to wander over the finish line, when Mr.C was unable to manage without a massacre?). Be honest now, did you find any areas in the game where such unbalanced events could occur? And even if they did, wouldn't this indicate poor level design, and not an intrinsic flaw in the goal-based system?
I think I've been pretty objective so far, and I've acknowledged strengths and weaknesses of all the rule systems we've discussed. From your last-but-one post I thought you'd chilled out and were willing to engage in a reasonable discussion, but all I'm seeing now is the disappearance of objectivity and good manners...
quote:
You still have a long way to go in the world of RPGs.
Oh dear.
Sorry mate, but bickering's not my thing. I believe I've stated my viewpoint pretty well, so unless someone else wants to add something of substance, I reckon we should leave it at that. |
|
Mon Dec 22, 2003 1:10 am |
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
Wow, I go away for a while thinking that no one was interested and I come back to see a very interesting (if heated) discussion. Thanks, guys. A lot of interesting points were raised here.
Based on the discussion I guess I'll have to give Deus Ex another go -- I tried it out briefly but dismissed it as "just another doom clone," but it sounds like it gives you more flexibility than I gave it credit for.
One thing that's clear to me from Hexy's posts is that there is a strong emotional attachment to the traditional forms and cliches used in RPGs ("Kill foozle" "get better equipment" "improve your statistics") that leads directly into the much larger discussion (or dare i say it "flamewar") of what exactly an RPG is. I don't think I'm prepared to tackle that one yet.
I think the idea of training in RPGs requires a lot more work than any of us have yet admitted. In "real life" becoming an expert with a sword takes years, not months or weeks or days. I'm not sure how that translates to games that we play (because, let's face it, we don't always want our games to be just like real life). I am sure, however, that claiming that a game not giving experience (in the sense of "improved skills") for killing is "not realistic" is not correct. It's simply a different implementation choice. |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:20 am |
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
Oh, and on another note: has anyone here tried Deus Ex 2: Invisible War yet? Is it good? |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:26 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Check out hte Deus Ex forums and you'll see it's a VERY mixed bag!! Dhruin wrote an excellent review for the main news page.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:21 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
One thing that's clear to me from Hexy's posts is that there is a strong emotional attachment to the traditional forms and cliches used in RPGs ("Kill foozle" "get better equipment" "improve your statistics") that leads directly into the much larger discussion (or dare i say it "flamewar") of what exactly an RPG is. I don't think I'm prepared to tackle that one yet.
Emotional attachment? MAYBE a little, but I'm only human... for the moment 
The thing is, I still don't see how a leveling system is bad.
Yes, I admit that there ARE skill-based systems which are good, like in Daggerfall and Fallout. And there are pretty bad skill systems like in Arcanum and Morrowind.
Same thing goes for level-based systems, which I still tend to prefer.
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
I am sure, however, that claiming that a game not giving experience (in the sense of "improved skills") for killing is "not realistic" is not correct. It's simply a different implementation choice.
Since when does different implementation choices have anything to do with reality? Not giving exp/training for killing monsters is about as realistic as ONLY giving exp/training for killing monsters.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:51 am |
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Since when does different implementation choices have anything to do with reality? Not giving exp/training for killing monsters is about as realistic as ONLY giving exp/training for killing monsters.
Perhaps I misread your earlier posts -- in terms of what you're saying here, I actually agree. I agree with you that both not giving any experience for killing monsters and giving experience for killing monsters are valid implementation choices, and are equally "realistic."
One of the original points of my article is that the reward system used in a game can have subtle (and not-so-subtle) narrative consequences. Some people (i'm one of them) are more interested in the narrative elements of RPGs than in the stat play. Since the vast majority of RPGs to date use "dead monster == you become a better person!" as the hidden formula, I'm musing on what narrative options are opened up by games that don't hew so strictly to that formula. Surely the acclaim given to Fallout, which allows the player to avoid that cliche, is evidence that other people are intrigued by that possibility too.
How about a game where the user has a limited amount of sanity, and for each creature you kill, you become less stable (an RPG version of Eternal Darkness)? Perhaps a game where NPC reactions are determined by some social stat; the more things you kill, the more you develop a reputation as a killer, and NPCs start charging you more, won't talk to you, eventually try to kill you. A game where violence has a cost as well as a potential benefit; every battle could require a strategic decision about whether engaging in it would be a net loss or a net gain. Perhaps a world where healing is really really expensive.
Hell, the very use of the word "monster" implies a wholly assumed ethical position that killing whatever creature you're up against is OK. How about an RPG without monsters? Look, for example, at the ethical dilemma posed by the the Gargoyles in Ultima 6. That's a great narrative decision that broke the strictures imposed on the expected narrative of RPGs by the forms we all expect to see.
There are pencil and paper RPGs -- Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu -- where life is short and weapons are deadly. How about one of those as a CRPG? You'd have to find some way to make it interesting for multiple plays, which kind of limits how tight the narrative can be. Imagine an RPG with the die-rolled equivalent of Counterstrike combat -- take one good hit, and you're dead. Imagine how that would change the development of your character -- in that universe, stealth and being able to avoid nonessential battles would be a much more important skill than "Thog find bigger sword!"
As I indicated in my original article, I'm not advocating some "RPGs shouldn't have combat!" position, just pointing out that by viewing constant combat as a requirement of RPGs has serious narrative implications that may retard the growth of the form. |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:27 am |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
The thing is, I still don't see how a leveling system is bad.
Yes, I admit that there ARE skill-based systems which are good, like in Daggerfall and Fallout. And there are pretty bad skill systems like in Arcanum and Morrowind.
Same thing goes for level-based systems, which I still tend to prefer.
Fallout uses both a level-based and skill-based system, plus the perks on top of that. Luckily, all these elements well complement each other and make SPECIAL, IMO, a fabulous character system.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:56 am |
|
|
dkhalsa
Village Dweller
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 2
|
Piln - I have enjoyed reading your comments and agree with most of what you said related to games (except that after 5 hours, I grew intolerably bored with everything about Morrowind).
However, I have to point out that your point about watching the movie Gandhi because it is real is very far from true. The movie is a fictionalized account at most loosely based on the life of a real person, and is rife with innacuracies. Despite this, as I said, I agree with most of what you said and find it to be intelligent and well argued. |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 7:24 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
Perhaps I misread your earlier posts -- in terms of what you're saying here, I actually agree. I agree with you that both not giving any experience for killing monsters and giving experience for killing monsters are valid implementation choices, and are equally "realistic."
One of the original points of my article is that the reward system used in a game can have subtle (and not-so-subtle) narrative consequences. Some people (i'm one of them) are more interested in the narrative elements of RPGs than in the stat play. Since the vast majority of RPGs to date use "dead monster == you become a better person!" as the hidden formula, I'm musing on what narrative options are opened up by games that don't hew so strictly to that formula. Surely the acclaim given to Fallout, which allows the player to avoid that cliche, is evidence that other people are intrigued by that possibility too.
Errr... let me summarize what I have been trying to point out in this thread. Over and over again. Although I didn't think I was going to bother with it, I see how it might have been muddled up.
When you fight, you gain experience and you train yourself. When you talk, you gain experience and you train yourself. When you accomplish goals, you gain experience and you've trained stuff (most likely). That's realism. That's how it works in most games. That is... good.
Only gaining experience when fighting monsters is not realistic. Not gaining experience when fighting monsters is not realistic.
Gaining overall experience like in level-based games is nice. Why? Because it is an easy game-ified version of improving. Is gaining overall experience from one thing realistic? Could be, many times, it is not. Does that mean its bad in a game-related way, where many things should be broken down? No.
Is it worse than ONLY gaining in ONE skill when practicing it, as in a skill-based system? No, not really. Both are slightly unrealistic. One approach, the level-based one, I find better in a game related fashion. Why? Because it fits better with improvement that should be swift and easy. Why? Because it is a GAME.
Killing monsters is often a major part in gaining exp. I see no real trouble with this, partly because dialogue, traps, quests, experimenting, foraging, hunting, growing crops etc are harder to implement (well, maybe not foraging, but that would introduce food to the game, which makes the game unnecessarily complex). But also partly because it gives the game some well-deserved action and that it probably would be easier to find a fight in a old-fashioned fantasy world than a giving conversation. That action part is of course for people who enjoy it. Which seem to be a majority, if you look at games today. Growing crops, opening a buisiness in an RPG would be kind of boring IMO, especially with today's AI. If you find that enjoyable, you could always play SimFarm.
NOTE: I've talked about your typical HOSTILE fantasy/Sci-Fi/whatever world.
As for this:
quote:
Originally posted by peterb
How about a game where the user has a limited amount of sanity, and for each creature you kill, you become less stable (an RPG version of Eternal Darkness)? Perhaps a game where NPC reactions are determined by some social stat; the more things you kill, the more you develop a reputation as a killer, and NPCs start charging you more, won't talk to you, eventually try to kill you. A game where violence has a cost as well as a potential benefit; every battle could require a strategic decision about whether engaging in it would be a net loss or a net gain. Perhaps a world where healing is really really expensive.
Hell, the very use of the word "monster" implies a wholly assumed ethical position that killing whatever creature you're up against is OK. How about an RPG without monsters? Look, for example, at the ethical dilemma posed by the the Gargoyles in Ultima 6. That's a great narrative decision that broke the strictures imposed on the expected narrative of RPGs by the forms we all expect to see.
You often don't fight endlessly in monster-killing-spree games. Why? Because killing tha townspeople or such "creatures" will HAVE repercussions, like being chased by the police, people won't talk to you or sell you stuff, people will attack you.
Have you played a game called Baldur's Gate? Or Morrowind? Or IceWind Dale? Those are monster slaying RPGs, where you CAN kill townspeople and get some exp/training and some nice equipment, BUT where the aforementioned repercussions exist.
I am not opposing that idea. In fact, I want it to be kind of like that. Saying that the two concepts (combat oriented RPGs and repercussions from fighting) would somehow be mutually exclusive is wrong.
Games like Diablo or Darkstone won't let you kill townspeople. Because there you have a more forced central role as the hero of an epic saga.
Thanks for this good monologue. No, no, thank you! I must've gained a severe raise in my dialogue skill... or 50 exp.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
