| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Jung,
I would like to hear your opinion on the bow-shooting exaple I asked.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:22 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Jung,
I would like to hear your opinion on the bow-shooting exaple I asked.
I didn't grasp what you were getting at the first time I read your example. Now that I read it again, it seems similar to the holodeck example I gave. My answer is yes, it is an RPG, but a different kind. As I have said all along, I don't have a problem with being able to control the outcome of a physical encounter using the players own skill. To me, it is still playing a role in a story, which is the essense of RP. If the player is not able to carry out the physical part, then they would decline to play such a game. The wrist rocket example is a very direct example in which the action of shooting a wristrocket requires similar skills to shooting a crossbow, but not as much strength. What if, instead of shooting a wrist rocket, you had to play a game of chess? Would that be objectionable? Some of the BG2 battles felt a bit like playing a game of chess sometimes, with strategy and counter strategy being required to strip your oponents defenses and attack with something that the opponent wasn't imune to. It still comes down to the player's own skill to win. It's not a big difference in my mind.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:59 pm |
|
|
Kabduhl
City Guard
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 127
|
Edit by Michael C: No, take this discussion else where (PM).
Kabduhl I,ve send all this text you wrote here uncencored to Val's (PM), as it all were addressed to her. Keep the discussion here on the topic! |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 7:42 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
True, but this is a different topic.
Errr... I thought that we were discussing how Gothic combat is overly complex in demanding you to direct your warrior's every movement?
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
You are contradicting yourself a bit here. You are saying there should be a ratio of physical and mental skills for an RPG with mental playing a larger role. I would agree with this, and I don't think Gothic violates this rule. I found the physical requirements for combat in Gothic to be minimal. Initially it took some getting use to, but later it became second nature. Then, you say that physical skills should have no impact, which I do not agree with.
Contradicting myself? OH, REALLY? I said that physical skills should have almost no impact, which is all I said. You make it into something else.
Anyway, even though Gothic demans much more of your physical skills compared to Diablo, it also demands that you know how to fight, giving you too much control of your warrior, directing his moves in detail. A controll you shouldn't be forced to have.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
Are you arguing against puzzles too? The reason puzzes balance gameplay is that it gives you something to do besides combat. If the puzzles are difficult, then they challenge you mentally to solve them. Many are busy-work, however.
Give me something else to do besides combat? Dialogue and figuring out quests do that for me. Puzzles can be fun and all, but they're not required. |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:06 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Errr... I thought that we were discussing how Gothic combat is overly complex in demanding you to direct your warrior's every movement?
I thought we were talking about the reflex based nature of combat, not the design flaws of the interface. I don't think that being reflex based makes it overly complex, but having to press too many buttons may.
quote:
Contradicting myself? OH, REALLY? I said that physical skills should have almost no impact, which is all I said. You make it into something else.
Well, you said mental traits should have a larger impact, which implies that physical should have some smaller impact. Then you say that physical traits should have no impact. This is a contradiction between "some" and "none," which is how I read it.
quote:
Anyway, even though Gothic demans much more of your physical skills compared to Diablo, it also demands that you know how to fight, giving you too much control of your warrior, directing his moves in detail. A controll you shouldn't be forced to have.
Again, I disagree. If you don't like this kind of gameplay, then you should avoid it, but I don't think that disqualifies it as an RPG. I don't believe combat control is the determinig factor of an RPG.
quote:
Give me something else to do besides combat? Dialogue and figuring out quests do that for me. Puzzles can be fun and all, but they're not required.
No, they aren't required, but all you are really left with is fedex quests and fighting quests without puzzles. I don't find dialog all that stimulating and fighting gets old too, so a puzzle is a welcome change.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:35 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
Errr... I thought that we were discussing how Gothic combat is overly complex in demanding you to direct your warrior's every movement?
No, not really. 
The original subject is whether games that has any user input in combat (ie., isn't *entirely* based on stats) can be called RPGs.
Gothic has been used as an example of a game that doesn't meet this criteria - but many of us think it's still an RPG.
Underlying all this is: what is an RPG?
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
What if, instead of shooting a wrist rocket, you had to play a game of chess? Would that be objectionable?
This is a good point. Back in the Dark Ages when I used to play PnP D&D, the DM would occasionally (admittedly not often) get us to solve some sort of puzzle/problem to decide whether we had succeeded in a particular task or not. Unfortunately I can't think of a single specific example now, so you'll just have to take my word for it.
Perhaps we were breaking some secret golden RP rule but it seemed appropriate to us.
Having some physical impact in Gothic's combat does not seem so different to me.
I still broadly agree with your direction, Roqua. A CRPG should be more reliant on stats than the player's skills - and the more so the better - but I still think there's room for less "hardcore" games to be called RPGs provided the balance isn't too heavily against the stats.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:36 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
I didn't grasp what you were getting at the first time I read your example. Now that I read it again, it seems similar to the holodeck example I gave. My answer is yes, it is an RPG, but a different kind. As I have said all along, I don't have a problem with being able to control the outcome of a physical encounter using the players own skill. To me, it is still playing a role in a story, which is the essense of RP. If the player is not able to carry out the physical part, then they would decline to play such a game. The wrist rocket example is a very direct example in which the action of shooting a wristrocket requires similar skills to shooting a crossbow, but not as much strength. What if, instead of shooting a wrist rocket, you had to play a game of chess? Would that be objectionable? Some of the BG2 battles felt a bit like playing a game of chess sometimes, with strategy and counter strategy being required to strip your oponents defenses and attack with something that the opponent wasn't imune to. It still comes down to the player's own skill to win. It's not a big difference in my mind.
I disagree. RPG characters have their own stats, I don't see why mine should affect theirs. Chess has nothing to do with their stats or their combat ability, it has to do with your chest playing ability and has no connection with role-playing at all.
The holo-deck example doesn't really sound much like role-playing. It can give you strength but can it make you be a sword-master? I barely remember STNG but I remeber the eposode w/ Sherlock Holmes and Captain Pikard was limited by his own detective abilities. Well, I guess that kind of enforces your point and not mine, but it doesn't seem like he was role-playing. He was playing Sherlock, but he had no stats, character development, or any other core-RPG characteristcs. If he was really role-playing Sherlock he would have supernatural detective ability. If he role-played Bruce Lee he would be great in Kung-Fu, but can the holo-deck do that?
The other holo-deck episode I remember was Werf was a cowboy with his son. Their gunfighting ability was their ability and not derived from role-played stats or character development, it came from their own statistics and their personal skill. Character development would be personal development, you know? Not really role-playing.
Druin, do you remember any examples of the types of problems you had to solve? Was it like the riddles on the chests in Betrayel at Krondor?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:55 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I disagree. RPG characters have their own stats, I don't see why mine should affect theirs. Chess has nothing to do with their stats or their combat ability, it has to do with your chest playing ability and has no connection with role-playing at all.
The holo-deck example doesn't really sound much like role-playing. It can give you strength but can it make you be a sword-master? I barely remember STNG but I remeber the eposode w/ Sherlock Holmes and Captain Pikard was limited by his own detective abilities. Well, I guess that kind of enforces your point and not mine, but it doesn't seem like he was role-playing. He was playing Sherlock, but he had no stats, character development, or any other core-RPG characteristcs. If he was really role-playing Sherlock he would have supernatural detective ability. If he role-played Bruce Lee he would be great in Kung-Fu, but can the holo-deck do that?
The other holo-deck episode I remember was Werf was a cowboy with his son. Their gunfighting ability was their ability and not derived from role-played stats or character development, it came from their own statistics and their personal skill. Character development would be personal development, you know? Not really role-playing.
My view of role-playing centers around me playing a role in a virtual world and seeing through my character's eyes and controlling its actions via my own as directly as possible. Yours seems to be character-centric where you define a character's stats and profile, and have it act of its own based on its own abilities. The problem is, you still have to control this character using your own wits. If the character could control itself based on its own intelligence and motives, would that still be role-playing? It would be a dull game, but carrying your view of role-playing to the next level. I have made this kind of point several times in this thread and I don't recall anyone addressing it. Why is it okay to control the character using your brain, but not your hand?
As you've pointed out, there is a problem with my view. What if you are incapable of adequately performing the action that your character needs for its action? Ideally, there would be a slider controlling the level of physical input required from zero to whatever. This is not likely to happen, so I suggest not playing the type of RPG that requires physical input if unable. Dumb people aren't likey to play RPGs because they require more thought and imagination. With Gothic, you need a bit of both.
In my holodeck example you would probably want to actually train a sword. Now that is role-playing! But, as you said it cuts both ways with intelligence. But if you aren't controlling the charater's thoughts at least, then you are just watching a simulation.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:01 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
No, not really.
The original subject is whether games that has any user input in combat (ie., isn't *entirely* based on stats) can be called RPGs.
Gothic has been used as an example of a game that doesn't meet this criteria - but many of us think it's still an RPG.
Underlying all this is: what is an RPG?
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
I thought we were talking about the reflex based nature of combat, not the design flaws of the interface. I don't think that being reflex based makes it overly complex, but having to press too many buttons may.
And what does that mean? Oh, yeah! That Gothic was an example of the topic we were discussing, and that I think the combat in Gothic relies too little on stats!
What is an RPG? Unfortunately, no one can be TOLD what an RPG is, you have to see it for yourself (Sorry, I just had to). |
|
Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:45 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
My view of role-playing centers around me playing a role in a virtual world and seeing through my character's eyes and controlling its actions via my own as directly as possible. Yours seems to be character-centric where you define a character's stats and profile, and have it act of its own based on its own abilities. The problem is, you still have to control this character using your own wits. If the character could control itself based on its own intelligence and motives, would that still be role-playing? It would be a dull game, but carrying your view of role-playing to the next level. I have made this kind of point several times in this thread and I don't recall anyone addressing it. Why is it okay to control the character using your brain, but not your hand?
As you've pointed out, there is a problem with my view. What if you are incapable of adequately performing the action that your character needs for its action? Ideally, there would be a slider controlling the level of physical input required from zero to whatever. This is not likely to happen, so I suggest not playing the type of RPG that requires physical input if unable. Dumb people aren't likey to play RPGs because they require more thought and imagination. With Gothic, you need a bit of both.
In my holodeck example you would probably want to actually train a sword. Now that is role-playing! But, as you said it cuts both ways with intelligence. But if you aren't controlling the charater's thoughts at least, then you are just watching a simulation.
You have to have your metal abilities be the controlling factor because, like you said, you'd just be watching a simulation.
A lot of games control a lot of mental aspects through statistics. Dialogue, NPC interatction and reaction, skill checks (like the radscorp test in FO2), etc, etc.
Decision making will always be part of role-playing.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:27 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
quote:
Originally posted by Hexy
What is an RPG? Unfortunately, no one can be TOLD what an RPG is, you have to see it for yourself (Sorry, I just had to).
 I think we finally agree on something, Hexy.
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Wed Nov 12, 2003 7:26 pm |
|
|
MageofFire
Griller of Molerats
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 1594
Location: Monastery of Innos |
(Sorry to necropost, but I just saw this.)
Hexy, if you think that Gothic's combat relies to little on the character's stats, you are wrong. Your character can hack away all day at a troll and never to it any damage if he's a level 5 with only level 1 one-handed weapons training and a weapon that does 20 damage. It doesn't matter what the player's skill level is in this situation. You have to get better if you want to beat a troll (or you can use a shrink monster spell  ).
_________________
OMG! WTF?! MONKEYS!!!!
=Member of numerous usergroups=
=Active in none of them=
Mediocreties, I absolve you! |
|
Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:05 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:56 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
