| |
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
|
|
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Nothing like a good anticlimax.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:56 pm |
|
|
Lord Chambers
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Posts: 29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Although I don't think you'd be out adventuring much. I guess any RP would mostly be moving within cities and castles. You could walk around in the cities picking up rumours, buying things (not weapons and potions, but information, buildings, thugs, caravans etc).
Imagine; a game system completely built upon dialogue gaining exp from doing "quests" in form of working for higher bureucrats or politicans, trying to find diplomatic solutions to various heated debates between powerful fractions and such.
Yes, I can imagine it, but I definetely can't imagine it being all that fun. As you so deftly put, "I would never play such a boring pile of crap." I feel the same way, and that worries me a bit, hating the implication that I'm some monkey who smiles and claps when my character gets a bigger sword.
I wonder how much of this sentiment is due to only playing RPGs that have strong combat elements, or some innate aspect of humanity. Is it because we play RPGs with combat, or is it because we're inherently combatitive?
I think a precursor for a combatless RPG would be a few games, probably strategy/RPG hybrids, that have combat elements, but no combat that your character is involved in. Perhaps you're a mob boss and you just have your squad go do a hit, or maybe you're a bureaucrat who has your interns beat up other bureaucrats. You'd probably see the combat, you just wouldn't be doing it yourself, and you wouldn't be making the combat choices for other characters. Regardless the setting these fictional games would be in, I think players need to disassociate having their character engaging in combat before it could be very plausable for them to play a game without any combat. |
|
Tue Jan 20, 2004 11:45 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Yes, I can imagine it, but I definetely can't imagine it being all that fun. As you so deftly put, "I would never play such a boring pile of crap." I feel the same way, and that worries me a bit, hating the implication that I'm some monkey who smiles and claps when my character gets a bigger sword.
I wonder how much of this sentiment is due to only playing RPGs that have strong combat elements, or some innate aspect of humanity. Is it because we play RPGs with combat, or is it because we're inherently combatitive?
Be a happy monkey who makes a good tactical decision in combat, or be a happy monkey who manages to choose the right dialogue-option in a conversation? That's damn straight!
Most people don't want to read a book when playing a computer game, or do little else. I guess that is a part of many humans' minds; it's fun to move around, to have action happening, making them stay alert and exited while doing something (like playing a game). Using more body parts than their eyes, their brains and their buttocks.
Although, perhaps there are many who enjoy just sitting in front of a computer screen, reading and reading, with some clicking, but I can't really see why you'd stay exited for a long time constantly doing things like that.
I do think, however, that the best thing is to have a mixture between the two, much like games have today. 
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 21, 2004 1:20 pm |
|
|
mkreku
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 112
Location: Uppsala, Sweden |
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Armageddona
mkreku, what do you need an RPG for? If you want to improve both your charachter, and your car, get a life!
If you feel offended, I'm sorry, I wan't meaning anything.
I would probably be offended if your post had made any sense to me. But it doesn't so I'm not.
I wonder if it would be possible to combine the exploring and vehicle physics of GTA Vice City with an RPG system of some sorts? I've seen some mod on the net that's called GTA RPG or something, but I've never tried it. But in that world it would be possible to make a fun game without combat. The quests could consist of races, or taxi missions, or pizza delivery missions and stuff. Instead of the ever switching between cars (as seen in the original GTA Vice City) you'd get your own personal car that you could upgrade as you gained money and/or experience. The better your car gets, the more you could do, for example use your new and improved car to jump over a river to see the other side of town. I am sure it would be a fun game to play, since that's what I enjoyed most of GTA Vice City: the exploring and car jumping/driving.
_________________
Swedes visit NordicGamers for the latest game reviews in swedish! |
|
Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:51 pm |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by mkreku
I wonder if it would be possible to combine the exploring and vehicle physics of GTA Vice City with an RPG system of some sorts? I've seen some mod on the net that's called GTA RPG or something, but I've never tried it. But in that world it would be possible to make a fun game without combat. The quests could consist of races, or taxi missions, or pizza delivery missions and stuff. Instead of the ever switching between cars (as seen in the original GTA Vice City) you'd get your own personal car that you could upgrade as you gained money and/or experience. The better your car gets, the more you could do, for example use your new and improved car to jump over a river to see the other side of town. I am sure it would be a fun game to play, since that's what I enjoyed most of GTA Vice City: the exploring and car jumping/driving.
Well, the physics and exploring would probably be easy to implement. However, just travelling around in your car constantly doing bloodless FedEx quests would be pretty boring. And, what would happen when you slam into another car? Or when you hit a pedestrian? Would everything be indestructible except oneself? Besides, what would the plot be?
Centralize most around your vehicle wouldn't be very RPG-ish, now would it? More like Mechwarrior 2 or something.
Although, I guess to make it more RPG-ish, you'd have to introduce a ton of other stuff like: a good dialogue system (since GTA VC has none), an inventory, skills, stats etc.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Wed Jan 21, 2004 4:36 pm |
|
|
Joeman
Protector of the Realm
Joined: 03 Jan 2004
Posts: 254
Location: USA |
I have read too many threads debating if games lacking certain elements are still considered RPG.
Seriously. Some of you need to free your mind and think outside the box.
For me, there is only good games, bad games, and so so games. I wouldn't entirely reject a game just because it doesn't have this or doesn't have that.
It's possible to make a good RPG without fighting if there is market for it.
_________________
Arguing over the internet is like competing in special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded. |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:22 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Joeman, no-one was talking about rejecting games that aren't RPGs. And marketability is irrelevant - the question was whether it's possible, not whether it'd sell.
I have no doubt that an RPG without combat is possible, you just have to look for non-combat gameplay in other genres (mostly adventure, I guess) to see that it could be done. Quality is another matter - violence has been such a common part of videogames so far that ways of creating gameplay around combat have been explored and refined quite extensively, in comparison to other activities. So it's easier to make a good game with lots of fighting - there are simply more established ways of doing it than things like dialogue/diplomacy. Only well-written titles have overcome the relatively primitive current state of story- and character-driven games (but when it works, like in PS:T, I generally find it more rewarding than combat).
Alternatives to combat with proven gameplay that would work in an RPG-type game are a bit thin on the ground, I think... there's stealth, of course, which has become quite common nowadays, that'd fit the bill. Sports and driving/flying genres have plenty of examples of non-combat (but still fun) gameplay, but I can't think of a way to incorporate those into an RPG unless you're placing some tight limitations on the player character's occupation and potential development. There are some great puzzle and music-based games, which are almost always combat-free, but again I have difficulty imagining how to translate their good points into something that would fit an RPG, since they are usually very abstract (Tetris, Frequency, etc).  |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:13 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
Actually, thinking of it, an RPG devoid of combat would never be as good as one with both. You know, that RPGs considered good have today. Having more dialogue than combat could be good, but would probably not appeal to the larger crowd. I know I would NOT like it.
Even hack'n'slash games like Diablo have some kind of dialogue.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:08 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Actually, thinking of it, an RPG devoid of combat would never be as good as one with both.
I agree with that. I think some degree of choice is vital for any good RPG, and prohibiting a character from fighting (when your character should be physically and mentally capable of it) is as bad as forcing him/her to fight (when other solutions are conceivable). Having said that, there could be exceptional circumstances where such restriction would make sense (eg, a Clockwork Orange RPG, where your character finds violent acts impossible), just as some RPGs can work convincingly with unavoidable combat.
Although I don't think most RPGs should lack combat, I think Lord Chambers' original question was a good one, because it forces us to really think about the gameplay of non-combat activities. As it is, I feel many designers approach RPGs in a very traditional way - the battling/action path is considered the "foundation" and if alternatives such as diplomacy, trickery, etc. are to be available, they are tacked on with significantly less thought to gameplay than the combat mechanics (which are, after all, refined from many years of similar games). By thinking about how to make an RPG with no combat at all, we force ourselves to tackle the current shortcomings of non-combat gameplay; if solutions are found, they can be incorporated back into the RPG genre as a whole (and even other genres), resulting in more rewarding gameplay for everyone. |
|
Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:19 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
That and because no form of entertainment media can endure without violence. Sex can be avoided (occassionally) but violence must be present in order to be a successful entertainment media.
If you want a RPG without a lot of violence try the old King's Quest series by Sierra. You could die (a lot) but there was no actual combat (until the later games).
But for the lack of character development and combat most people classify it as a puzzle/adventure game... not a CRPG.
I wouldn't say that entertainment can't exist without violence, but that interest cannot exist without conflict and tension. Dialogue, plot, characters, situations, etc., all these become exciting and hold our interest when there is conflict and danger.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:32 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
I wouldn't say that entertainment can't exist without violence, but that interest cannot exist without conflict and tension. Dialogue, plot, characters, situations, etc., all these become exciting and hold our interest when there is conflict and danger.
Precisely my point. Violence has all sorts of meanings. If you force or co-erce someone to do something they weren't inclined to do in the first place then you have committed an act of violence. What's the difference between hitting someone with a sword and killing them or talking them out of conquering the world? In one case you ended their life, in the other you ended their life-goal.
Without conflict there is nothing... and physical violence is often a result of conflict in these games for the same reasons it is often a result in the real world.
I do think it's amusing that the game that everyone is asking for... it's called the Sims, and most die-hard RPGers avoid it like the plauge. But even in the Sims you can become a mass murderer...
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:03 pm |
|
|
Gig
Southern Spirit
Joined: 20 Feb 2002
Posts: 3226
Location: NFG Headquarters |
@Xen: Do you remember when I first came to RPGDot I included the Sims in a list of my top 10 rpgs? You gently informed me that the Sims wasn't an RPG (you were gentle... that was, however, my introduction to flaming!!  ). I really couldn't understand why it didn't qualify as an RPG back then. I can be hard for a newbie to tell the difference because the Sims feels like an RPG if you don't have much to compare it to. |
|
Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:51 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
I wouldn't say that entertainment can't exist without violence, but that interest cannot exist without conflict and tension. Dialogue, plot, characters, situations, etc., all these become exciting and hold our interest when there is conflict and danger.
Precisely my point. Violence has all sorts of meanings. If you force or co-erce someone to do something they weren't inclined to do in the first place then you have committed an act of violence. What's the difference between hitting someone with a sword and killing them or talking them out of conquering the world? In one case you ended their life, in the other you ended their life-goal.
Without conflict there is nothing... and physical violence is often a result of conflict in these games for the same reasons it is often a result in the real world.
I do think it's amusing that the game that everyone is asking for... it's called the Sims, and most die-hard RPGers avoid it like the plauge. But even in the Sims you can become a mass murderer...
If we look at stories across all genres (from films to books and games), we see that conflict and tension are indispensable elements. As you said, this can take various forms: in your example attacking with a sword or talking to a person, both cause us to ask, "What will happen next?" Will the person struck by the sword survive or die? Will that slur be rebutted and honor preserved? As long as the audience keeps on asking "What next?" and they're interested, a story has overcome much of the initial hurdle of getting the audience to accept it. (Suspension of disbelief.) It may be that RPGs we're disatisfied with fail to ask the critical questions ("What is the problem? How do I, the player, fix it?) or ask the wrong questions (to which we already know the answers) to keep us playing. The latter is probably the biggest problem with many RPGs now, in that we already know the questions and the answers (we know the plot, i.e., save the world, and the answer, i.e., kill the big bad guy(s)).
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sat Jan 31, 2004 9:16 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Namirrha
It may be that RPGs we're disatisfied with fail to ask the critical questions... ...or ask the wrong questions (to which we already know the answers) to keep us playing. The latter is probably the biggest problem with many RPGs now, in that we already know the questions and the answers (we know the plot, i.e., save the world, and the answer, i.e., kill the big bad guy(s)).
Yeah... all that repeated dialogue from incidental characters  . It would be a step in the right direction to iron that out... not necessarily remove it completely (because it can provide a natural way for players to remind themselves of forgotten information), but make it clear to the player that the NPC can't tell them anything they haven't already heard.
I also think the general quality of writing just needs to improve... even the better examples (like PS:T and Fallout, BG and KOTOR) suffer from too much waffle. Scripts need tightening up - if we have to take a break from interactivity to absorb information, it doesn't make sense to make those breaks too long (and uskippable, if you want to know what you're doing), and it's worse if they aren't directed with any visual flair (as is usually the case). Too many games try to deliver full details about the setting and character backgrounds right from the start (usually shoe-horned into early characters' dialogues - Outcast and KOTOR stick in my mind), instead of just letting the player find out as they explore.
Two good examples I can think of right now are Half Life and Beyond Good & Evil: HL's dialogue is so concise and neat, and doesn't need breaks from normal gameplay, and the game also uses visual storytelling to good effect; BG&E lets you loose in a detailed and unusual setting without feeling the need to spill its guts right away - you're not bombarded with information from the start, but pick it up gradually as the game progresses, and again dialogues and cutscenes are no longer than they need to be. Shame this kind of writing & direction isn't common in RPGs.
Even though it had a lot of waffle in the dialogue, Outcast did some good tricks too: it had random(ish) camera angles that made talky bits less drab to watch, and gameworld activity went on as you spoke; I'm still impressed by the memory of talking to a worker in the fields and spying a patrol marching round the corner in the distance... a few seconds later, the guy I was chatting to yelled "soldiers!" - everyone scattered as the patrol opened fire and normal gameplay resumed (I legged it and hid, like a chicken  ).
[rant]But I think the biggest problem right now is many developers think it's fine to have their stories and scripts written by team members with no writing skill or experience. It's not, it stinks to high heaven. And so does bad voice acting  [/rant] |
|
Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:15 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gig
@Xen: Do you remember when I first came to RPGDot I included the Sims in a list of my top 10 rpgs? You gently informed me that the Sims wasn't an RPG (you were gentle... that was, however, my introduction to flaming!! ). I really couldn't understand why it didn't qualify as an RPG back then. I can be hard for a newbie to tell the difference because the Sims feels like an RPG if you don't have much to compare it to.
The only reason I wouldn't call the Sims an RPG is because of a lack of character advancement. I admit to never playing it but I don't think your character advances in any way... though I've heard they can change based on what happens to them, etc.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:15 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
