333 réponses à ce sujet

[DKJaigen]

GvazElite wrote...

To say it shorter:

I like customizing my character and party member down to the last bit possible. Loot, along with story can help the player to feel like he's progressing.

This is half the fun, and by taking out elements of choice and going "you can run in the hallway, and sometimes go into a classroom, but you're not allowed to go outside" it really just takes all the challenge out of a game for me.

And at the end of the day, isn't that the reason to play a game? To challenge yourself and to make you think? I think otherwise you're just playing an interactive novel.

I see your problem, your playing the wrong game. you should play WOW they have the challenge you so badly desire.
Also a game desnt neccisarly have to challenge you. Some games loke DAO and DA2 are more like books and movies for the sole purpose of entertainment.

[moilami]

Radwar wrote...

"Laidlaw puts it, there exists the sense that old-school RPGs may be a dying breed, vestigial organs of the modern game."

Yeah, the new breed of RPG's is what I call RPG's for dummies (like the books). It's as if gaming companies have it their heads that the new generation of gamer's aren't quite as bright as they used to be so we'll simplify the heck out of the game by removing tons of features for them, don't want them having to think too much. Heck, if a kid played classic RPG games like Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment, we have to wonder if their head wouldn't explode due to the "complexity" (of course there are always exceptions), but yet we managed to get through them and had a great time to boot.

Yeah. By judging comments made by apologists BG series was really bad RPG. Someone should make a youtube vid comparing BG2 and DA explaining how bad BG was and how awesum (sic) DA is. And now apologists say DA is bad and DA2 is how RPG should be. 

For them flashy 3D graphics and arcade action combat makes an RPG.


Edit: Facepalm where it belongs - BW forums.

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\\
…..\\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\\..*`*;..)
……..\\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…

Modifié par moilami, 03 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

AD&D was a fine PnP game in its time.

It was far from the best, though.  It was popular partly because it was simpler than many of its competitors.

THAC0 was significantly easier to understand than the dice numbering system of the d6 Star Wars game, for example.

It loses some of its charm in cRPGs.

Some, but not all.  And the things it lost, I think, are exacerbated by these increasingly simple mechanics we see in newer games.  Where are the utility spells?  Where's the strategic planning?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 03 mars 2011 - 07:45 .

[88mphSlayer]

i thought the problem with Origins' beginning was simply that the grey warden section was yawn-inducing, you had these great short stories during the Origin parts... and an exciting battle of Ostagar that sets up the rest of the game... and what's in between AND when you first meet darkspawn? a boring fetch quest in a boring forest

problems like that were throughout the game but much more tolerable when you're into the overall story and gameplay, but it's always harder to tolerate when the gameplay hasn't yet gotten fun and the story becomes a slog when you should be getting really excited

edit: Mass Effect 1 suffered from the same exact problem, the section when you're investigating on the Citadel just after the Eden Prime battle can be very yawn inducing the first time you do it and don't know where to go

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 03 mars 2011 - 07:55 .

[Blackened25]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Right, that's what I don't like about 4e. I agree with you and 3e, but I think its complexity doesn't actually achieve anything good. Skill points are stupid. I have x points per level, and I have to distribute them among twenty or thirty skills, gahh. It's needlessly convoluted. 2e didn't even HAVE skills. The only classes that had something similar were rogues (thieves and bards), and the only classes that had any abilities were casters. If you're not a spellcaster, your combat is autoattacking, over and over, simply because you didn't have any other options. And the spell memorization/spells per day system is just the most inane game mechanic I've ever played.

That's what I like about Origins (and DAII). Within any combat encounter, every single class has a sufficiently broad array of options on any given turn. A mage can cast any of these spells, a rogue or warrior can use any of these talents. No matter what, you have options, and those options work with the options of other classes.

I think the autoattacking thing is true only if that's all a dm lets you do. I've had plenty of players who wanted to do the streotypical jump on a chandelier and swing on it to attack, or trip someone before there was such a thing as a trip attack. It's great when these things are supported by the rules, but a DM really needs to never say no to something like this. In 3rd, there were a number of moves you could make that weren't just "5 foot step, full attack action".
As for skills, I prefer 3rd edtions way of doing it, since you have absoloute control over what skills your character starts with. 4th is ok, but i dislike every skill advancing by one every level, even if you did nothing to practice it and have never used it. 2e had proficiencies, which are basically skills. The skills and powers method of skills is basically the forerunner of what became 3rd. actually, almost everything skills and powers became third, just with streamlining.
*edit*
I agree with you about both Dragon Age games, I like that too. I think where 4th edition d&d got it right was to include alot of that. I think where they got it wrong was to handle spellcasting the same way. Casting was fine, it lost it's flexibility and it's "feel" with the change. That's the number one complaint my players have against 4th, you don't really feel like a mage anymore.

Modifié par Blackened25, 03 mars 2011 - 07:51 .

[Syrellaris]

Baldurs Gate 2 is pretty much the most awsome rpg I have played so far, though it has tons of boring and long filler battles. DA:O has some filler battles yes and I assume DA2 has them, they do not bore me however. I just think of it as a experience well.

same for Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, some of the best rpg's ever invented. Tedious grinding, but well rewarding in the end.

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

THAC0 was significantly easier to understand than the dice numbering system of the d6 Star Wars game, for example.

I never played d6 Star Wars, but that it was more difficult to understand than THAC0 boggles my mind. Not that THAC0 was that hard once you broke it down into what it was really doing, but it (and armor class) was just an absurdly assbackwards way of describing attack bonus and armor class in 3e.

[Maria Caliban]

Radwar wrote...

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind. Although you'll want to play the word game of what "RPG" actually stands for, RPG's in games as far as I remember has always had combat in it.

An RPG without combat is as much an RPG as one with forced combat.

A good RPG gives you access to a wide range of character development that is more than Kill People With Sword, Kill People With Bow, and Kill People With Magic.

Fallout: NV, Alpha Protocol, and the original Fallout let you play finish the game without killing a single person. Deus Ex only makes you kill two people. I don't remember how many people you had to kill in Planescape: Torment, but it was pretty low.

[Radwar]

Lumikki wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind.

Here is Seed mmorpg, made by role-players for role-players. Doesn't exist anymore, but it did not have combat at all.

So .1% is supposed to change that? I call that an MMOAG. Have a well known developer make an "RPG" without any combat and see the reaction people will have to it. They'll say it's an adventure game. Why? Because it's been like this since the late '70's with text adventures. When combat made it's way into those type of games, they became known as RPG's. I agree that "RPG" in it's meaning shouldn't absolutely have combat, but that's the way it is. It's easier to differentiate what type of game it is.

[Chuvvy]

I'd also argue that they're probably not taking into account restarts for the simple fact of. "Oh ****. that nose didn't look like that in the CC."

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

AD&D was a fine PnP game in its time.

It was far from the best, though.  It was popular partly because it was simpler than many of its competitors.

THAC0 was significantly easier to understand than the dice numbering system of the d6 Star Wars game, for example.

It loses some of its charm in cRPGs.

Some, but not all.  And the things it lost, I think, are exacerbated by these increasingly simple mechanics we see in newer games.  Where are the utility spells?  Where's the strategic planning?

Rolemaster was my game. I like combat being something else than "lol orc lost half of his hp when me critted".

[Sylvius the Mad]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I never played d6 Star Wars

Terrific game.  I think better than the later d20 Star Wars.

An even better example of a game more complicated than AD&D would have been Mythus.  I had a level 1 Mage whose character sheet was 9 pages long.  Rolling a new character could take hours.

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fallout: NV, Alpha Protocol, and the original Fallout let you play finish the game without killing a single person. Deus Ex only makes you kill two people. I don't remember how many people you had to kill in Planescape: Torment, but it was pretty low.

Only butting in here because I'm (farily) sure that it's two unavoidable combat encounters in Planescape: Torment. You can talk your way out of or otherwise avoid every other combat in the game. I can't remember what those two encounters were, though, because I actually liked combat in PS:T

[Maria Caliban]

Slidell505 wrote...

I'd also argue that they're probably not taking into account restarts for the simple fact of. "Oh ****. that nose didn't look like that in the CC."

They're talking about people who never finished the game. Not those who restarted more than once and then finished.

1. Start game
2. Play for two hours
3. Quit
4. Never play again

[Blackened25]

moilami wrote...

Rolemaster was my game. I like combat being something else than "lol orc lost half of his hp when me critted".

Rolemaster is great, I always loved "death by crit" systems like this. Character creation time is the one thing that holds people back from trying this game I find, But it's so worth every minute you spend.

Modifié par Blackened25, 03 mars 2011 - 07:57 .

[hangmans tree]

Maria Caliban wrote...
What about those of us who bought and played previous BioWare games religiously and like that BioWare continues to try to innovate instead of doing the same thing over and over?

What about we hardcore RPG fans who *don't* just play BioWare RPGs? Who play Oblivion, Dues Ex, World of Warcraft, the Witcher, Drankensang, Divinity II, Fallout: NV, and Dragon Age: Origins? Those of us who say, "Okay, Dragon Age: Origins was wonderful in some areas, but weaker than other RPGs I've played inother areas?"

What about we hardcore RPG fans who are *also* shooter, adventure, and RTS fans? Those of us who don't like RPG conventions simply because they are the conventions of the genre.

No other genre expects me to pick up 120 bits of crap, half of which is junk I'm supposed to sell while the other half are slight upgrades to the boots, armor, helmet, weapons, shield, rings, and amulet of my PC and the other 8 characters I'm controlling.

Here is an idea: Everything that the developer knows is crap? Label it 'crap.' Stick it in a special 'crap' section of the inventory that takes up 0 room. When I go to merchants, have a button that says [Sell all Crap]. When you hit the button, a pop up comes up tell you how much money you just got.

Whoa! We just saved the player time and now they can get back to the fun parts of playing a game. We must be dumbing down the RPG.

Maria Caliban wrote...
You know what? I've been on the Dragon Age II board for a while now and there's one complaint I've never seen.

No one has *ever* asked that point allocation at character creation be replaced by dice rolling.

All
these people who love Baldur's Gate II and love RPG mechanics seem to
never advocate for one of the oldest of those mechanics. Which is
strange, because when BioWare made Neverwinter Night, I recall many
people wanting to know if the 3d6 method or the 4d6 and drop the lowest
would be used.

And what about wound penalties? In many games,
the lower your HP, the worse you are at fighting. I know when I play
World of Darkness, PC can't fight or cast spells as well when half her
health is gone.

Or what about item weight? Encumbrance slowing
how fast your character runs and walks? Needing to eat and drink? An
attack penalty when fighting in darkness? Heck, even Dungeons and
Dragons 4th edition has that.

All these wonderful RPG mechanics
are neglected by those who claim to love RPG mechanics just because
they're part of the genre.

Maria Caliban wrote...

The thing about inventory is that
usually you collect weapons and armor or you collect stuff to sell for
weapons and armor. For this to be a continuous cash gain and for the
player to feel as though equipment measures their progress, you need to
constantly give them new stuff to use and to sell.

As the player
is constantly improving their armor and weapons, they're going to
expect to use that armor and weapon. Which means fighting. Fighting to
get more armor and weapons, and stuff to sell to buy more armor and
weapons.

The exemplar of this model of play is World of Warcraft.

Constant item acquisition. Constant item obsolesces. Constant stream of foes that progress in a very controlled fashion.

And
this is wildly addictive gameplay. You can strip a game of anything
like a story, non-combat gameplay, or characters, and people will
continue to kill things to get stuff to kill things to get stuff to kill
things to get stuff.

I hate it.

Holy crap, I agree.
Never thought this would happen...

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I never played d6 Star Wars

Terrific game.  I think better than the later d20 Star Wars.

An even better example of a game more complicated than AD&D would have been Mythus.  I had a level 1 Mage whose character sheet was 9 pages long.  Rolling a new character could take hours.

Lol never heard of that but I think I would had liked it very much.

[Radwar]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind. Although you'll want to play the word game of what "RPG" actually stands for, RPG's in games as far as I remember has always had combat in it.

An RPG without combat is as much an RPG as one with forced combat.

A good RPG gives you access to a wide range of character development that is more than Kill People With Sword, Kill People With Bow, and Kill People With Magic.

Fallout: NV, Alpha Protocol, and the original Fallout let you play finish the game without killing a single person. Deus Ex only makes you kill two people. I don't remember how many people you had to kill in Planescape: Torment, but it was pretty low.

Yeah, I know alot of people who play those games like that when they buy an RPG game.

[moilami]

Blackened25 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Rolemaster was my game. I like combat being something else than "lol orc lost half of his hp when me critted".

Rolemaster is great, I always loved "death by crit" systems like this. Character creation time is the one thing that holds people back from trying this game I find, But it's so worth every minute you spend.

Yeah, but I loved also the Fumble system. Things backfiring seriously lol.

[88mphSlayer]

Radwar wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Radwar wrote...

Actually, an RPG without combat is called an Adventure Game. The King's Quest Series & Monkey Island comes to mind. Although you'll want to play the word game of what "RPG" actually stands for, RPG's in games as far as I remember has always had combat in it.

An RPG without combat is as much an RPG as one with forced combat.

A good RPG gives you access to a wide range of character development that is more than Kill People With Sword, Kill People With Bow, and Kill People With Magic.

Fallout: NV, Alpha Protocol, and the original Fallout let you play finish the game without killing a single person. Deus Ex only makes you kill two people. I don't remember how many people you had to kill in Planescape: Torment, but it was pretty low.

Yeah, I know alot of people who play those games like that when they buy an RPG game.

lol i got bored with Fallout 3 once, cheated god mode and went on a killing rampage until nothing on the map was still alive... went back and finished the game legit and to be honest i think my own story of wasteland genocide with an infinite-ammo nuke launcher was far better than the main story 

[Lumikki]

hangmans tree wrote...

Holy crap, I agree.
Never thought this would happen...

Yeah, it's little sad how in some genre like example mmorpgs, the statical item gameplay has become all what it is. Hardly at all story and role-playing left. It's all level up to collect and upgrade better items and allmost nothing else. For social part in these mmorpgs has become, talk about RL BS with others or how to get better items or braging what you self have, that is the social aspect of mmorpgs.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 mars 2011 - 08:10 .

[Blackened25]

moilami wrote...
Yeah, but I loved also the Fumble system. Things backfiring seriously lol.

Man, the word fumble just brought back nightmares *shudders*.
I'll always remember the time this unarmed orc critted on the party's paladin, wrapped the chart a couple times with open ended rolls, and ended up breaking our poor pallys shoulder. All kinds of bleeding and who knows what else. That wouldn't happen in any other system i've ever played, good times lol

Modifié par Blackened25, 03 mars 2011 - 08:10 .

[moilami]

hangmans tree wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
What about those of us who bought and played previous BioWare games religiously and like that BioWare continues to try to innovate instead of doing the same thing over and over?

What about we hardcore RPG fans who *don't* just play BioWare RPGs? Who play Oblivion, Dues Ex, World of Warcraft, the Witcher, Drankensang, Divinity II, Fallout: NV, and Dragon Age: Origins? Those of us who say, "Okay, Dragon Age: Origins was wonderful in some areas, but weaker than other RPGs I've played inother areas?"

What about we hardcore RPG fans who are *also* shooter, adventure, and RTS fans? Those of us who don't like RPG conventions simply because they are the conventions of the genre.

No other genre expects me to pick up 120 bits of crap, half of which is junk I'm supposed to sell while the other half are slight upgrades to the boots, armor, helmet, weapons, shield, rings, and amulet of my PC and the other 8 characters I'm controlling.

Here is an idea: Everything that the developer knows is crap? Label it 'crap.' Stick it in a special 'crap' section of the inventory that takes up 0 room. When I go to merchants, have a button that says [Sell all Crap]. When you hit the button, a pop up comes up tell you how much money you just got.

Whoa! We just saved the player time and now they can get back to the fun parts of playing a game. We must be dumbing down the RPG.

Maria Caliban wrote...
You know what? I've been on the Dragon Age II board for a while now and there's one complaint I've never seen.

No one has *ever* asked that point allocation at character creation be replaced by dice rolling.

All
these people who love Baldur's Gate II and love RPG mechanics seem to
never advocate for one of the oldest of those mechanics. Which is
strange, because when BioWare made Neverwinter Night, I recall many
people wanting to know if the 3d6 method or the 4d6 and drop the lowest
would be used.

And what about wound penalties? In many games,
the lower your HP, the worse you are at fighting. I know when I play
World of Darkness, PC can't fight or cast spells as well when half her
health is gone.

Or what about item weight? Encumbrance slowing
how fast your character runs and walks? Needing to eat and drink? An
attack penalty when fighting in darkness? Heck, even Dungeons and
Dragons 4th edition has that.

All these wonderful RPG mechanics
are neglected by those who claim to love RPG mechanics just because
they're part of the genre.

Maria Caliban wrote...

The thing about inventory is that
usually you collect weapons and armor or you collect stuff to sell for
weapons and armor. For this to be a continuous cash gain and for the
player to feel as though equipment measures their progress, you need to
constantly give them new stuff to use and to sell.

As the player
is constantly improving their armor and weapons, they're going to
expect to use that armor and weapon. Which means fighting. Fighting to
get more armor and weapons, and stuff to sell to buy more armor and
weapons.

The exemplar of this model of play is World of Warcraft.

Constant item acquisition. Constant item obsolesces. Constant stream of foes that progress in a very controlled fashion.

And
this is wildly addictive gameplay. You can strip a game of anything
like a story, non-combat gameplay, or characters, and people will
continue to kill things to get stuff to kill things to get stuff to kill
things to get stuff.

I hate it.

Holy crap, I agree.
Never thought this would happen...

You know, you can RP as much as you want in WoW. My first mage was in RP server and it took me maybe about 4 months to level it to level 70 because most of the time I was just RPing. And when we did dungeons we RPed them too. Those were the good times. 

Taking dice stat rolling away from online RPGs makes sense because minmaxers would roll untill they get the best stats to make their chars OP. So if you would want to be competitive with them you would have to do the same. In the end everyone would have basicly same sum in stats. That's why it makes sense to call that phase out and give same sum of stat points to spend right away in char creation without rolling.

I would be about perfectly happy with WoW if it would allow guild vs guild world PvP and ally vs ally and horde vs horde PvP without those stupid "dueling" things.

[Radwar]

Wow, this thread is on fire, it's 3:00 AM over here.

[Blackened25]

Radwar wrote...

Wow, this thread is on fire, it's 3:00 AM over here.

I know, it's 12:15 am here. This is the kind of thread I enjoy reading, and staying up late for