182 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

daemon1129 wrote...
There are better ways to use stats, like attributes, skills, etc.  What ME and DA did was poorly desgin in my honest opinion.  But that is because the game doesn't continue after end game.  There are no grinding or exploration that doesn't involve doing quests or main plot.  So attributes are pointless.  Bioware could have completely remove attributes alltogether and the system would have been fine. 

Attributes are pointless in a game without grinding and/or plotless exploration?

What you said there showed why attributes are pointless in ME, it is because they didn't bothered to actually use it.
How about I put points in dex to improve my aim with pistols?  

ME1 has a weapons skill. What would adding dex change? You're still putting points into raising the accuracy.

Stats don't have to be right in the opening and player just magically put points into himself whenever he levelup.  It can work in the background without overwhelming the player with 30 different attributes and skills. 

I just think people now seems to abandon attributes completely, instead of thinking how to modernize the system.  It is afterall just numbers, you can do whatever with it in a game. 

But what is it you want to do with them? You haven't actually said how adding stats would improve the game.

[Bryy_Miller]

I'm rather sick of these discussions/statements/whatever they are. Of course the old school RPG is dying. Just like WW2 shooters died.

[daemon1129]

AlanC9 wrote...

daemon1129 wrote...
There are better ways to use stats, like attributes, skills, etc. What ME and DA did was poorly desgin in my honest opinion. But that is because the game doesn't continue after end game. There are no grinding or exploration that doesn't involve doing quests or main plot. So attributes are pointless. Bioware could have completely remove attributes alltogether and the system would have been fine.

Attributes are pointless in a game without grinding and/or plotless exploration?

What you said there showed why attributes are pointless in ME, it is because they didn't bothered to actually use it.
How about I put points in dex to improve my aim with pistols?

ME1 has a weapons skill. What would adding dex change? You're still putting points into raising the accuracy.

Stats don't have to be right in the opening and player just magically put points into himself whenever he levelup. It can work in the background without overwhelming the player with 30 different attributes and skills.

I just think people now seems to abandon attributes completely, instead of thinking how to modernize the system. It is afterall just numbers, you can do whatever with it in a game.

But what is it you want to do with them? You haven't actually said how adding stats would improve the game.

The idea is that attributes can represent how powerful a character is in a way that weapons skill cannot. DEX or STR or AGI can have an bigger impact on how powerful your character is without having ridiculous amount of different skills. The system ME had was needlessly too much. DEX not only have an effect on how well you aim, but also others. I will not give out more examples because ME1's combat was fairly limited to begin with, I don't want to conjure up improvements for a game that is already seeing its second sequel.

The point is, attributes can offer a lot more choices and depth in creating your character than what ME2 or DA2 was using. Of course only when done right. Again I don't want give out specifically when it is done right. It would only be called my own opinion and it would disregarded as soon as I finish my first sentence.

Also it is not about improving a specific game, but to improve on the system that have existed way before I was born.  There is no need to give up on imroving/modernize it, and replace it with something that offer less depth than before.

Modifié par daemon1129, 21 mai 2011 - 10:37 .

[wowpwnslol]

tez19 wrote...

HAHAHAH oh dear PC nerd, look at you absolutely SEETHING. I love the nerdrage on these forums. SEETHE some more go on.

Yeah, it's sad to see classic RPG gaming dying out and developers catering to 14 year old console failures like you.

[AlanC9]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

I'm rather sick of these discussions/statements/whatever they are. Of course the old school RPG is dying. Just like WW2 shooters died.

But those are going to come back. We're all going to get bored with killing Arabs one of these days. So either the Chinese really step up their game or we're going to have to go back to killing ****s.

Edit: That's banned by the swear filter?

@ daemon1129: at the moment, your ideas are too half-baked to be worth discussing. There's no content to respond to either positively or negatively.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 mai 2011 - 06:12 .

[abaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

But those are going to come back. We're all going to get bored with killing Arabs one of these days. So either the Chinese really step up their game or we're going to have to go back to killing ****s.

And that in itself is something to puke over. I mean killing Arabs just because some developer ****s think they have to add additional fuel to the rage.

[Verilee]

If I look at how it all began, old School RPG on PCs, and where we are now, there IS a certain change. And not for better.

The consoles are a market that the companies cannot ignore, and don't want to ignore. Sad thing is, that the PC, with all its advantages, is being ignored by them, and that the console versions seems to rule over the PC versions now.

What is "classic" or "old school RPG" at all? To me, it is a special game experience, that I have been enjoying since late 80s (on Amiga back then), and then with PC later on.

This special game experience includes overall atmosphere created by the world the RPG is set in, and then, it's just a lot of things that add to that overall experience... like, the printed manual, the fabric-made map, the character / party creation, the stats, the inventory, the loot, the music, graphics, voiceovers, logbooks, the battles, the encounters, AI, NPCs, whatever, each of them is a piece of the puzzle.

Some games deliver most pieces, some just parts of them.

In general, the direction is set - streamlined and skimmed down products that can easily be played on a console, where you don't have a mouse and keyboard. Even some TW2 players reported it's better to play it with the controller... (I don't play the TW series as playing predefined characters is not what I like in an RPG).

And, of course, tailored for the masses... no manuals needed, just plug and play... or was it plug and pray? I remember the old days, when reading the manual, that often had a hundred pages or more, was absolutely necessary to understand the game and get the most out of it. And now?

If you look at the Elder Scrolls series, it can easily be seen as well... from Arena and Daggerfall, including the fat manuals and clue books, to an already more consolidated, skimmed down Morrowind, and an even further skimmed down Oblivion, just so it can be played on consoles as well. Although Morrowind and Oblivion are still great, though, but the direction is clear, and I fear the worst for Skyrim.

Companies just don't make the efforts any more to make unique PC versions where all the advantages and possible details a PC can handle in an RPG are supported.

Maybe there will be companies who will just see this segment as their special niche, and might produce such games, old school RPGs for PC, but I don't have much hope for that.

What great companies did we have... oh my... even EA once was one of them... remember the Bard's Tale series? SSI, Attic, 3DO, Origin, Mindcraft, Interplay... and, of course, Bioware... until DA:O. And now? Most of them don't exist anymore, and Bioware is certainly at the crossroad...

In these days, all that counts is money, numbers, turnover and sales...

Game developers who thrive to deliver masterpieces in a certain segment, not mass products... are there any around still?

[abaris]

Verilee wrote...

The consoles are a market that the companies cannot ignore, and don't want to ignore. Sad thing is, that the PC, with all its advantages, is being ignored by them, and that the console versions seems to rule over the PC versions now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about that either. But for a game developer its the better option. They only have to deal with two fixed sets of hardware. It's easier and cheaper to write something for the console.

[Verilee]

abaris wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about that either. But for a game developer its the better option. They only have to deal with two fixed sets of hardware. It's easier and cheaper to write something for the console.

yes, you are right, sadly... and this fact leads to the obvious shift in the products... and I fear, tailored PC versions will decline even further. Not many options then for us RPG lovers... I, for my part, will simply not buy games anymore if this (what happened to DA:O with DA2) is the future, as much as I regret that.

[Drachasor]

I don't think it is bad as people are making out.

Old School RPGs often had very strong tactical elements. Bioware is tossing a lot of these elements aside, but gaming in general is not. They still exist in other games like Starcraft II, Civilization V (I am well aware that this game has many problems, but it isn't because they decided tactical gameplay was bad), etc. I firmly believe there is still a place for squad-based tactical games. Like the article says, RPG elements are constantly being added to other genres, so we'll eventually get something very much like an old school RPG when you get enough story-based elements added to a tactical combat game.

I think Bioware has made a bit of a mistake by trying to get very nearly the same audience with ME2 and DA2. Going after the action gamer is perfectly fine and good, but there are plenty of gamers that are also interested in other genres. DA2 should have maintained and strengthened its focus on combat tactics (which could have used a bit of a redesign), and been advertised to woo players who enjoy such games. Add a story onto that and you pretty much have an old-school RPG.

I will say that DA:O was not as strong in the tactical department as it could have. While combat was fun, it could also tend to be a bit sterile at times. I think we can all agree there was certainly a lot of room for improvement. Unfortunately they went in the opposite direction that they should have. Probably because they deemed it "safer" since action games are an easier quantity to deal with. It would be a riskier move to try to court RTS or other strategy game fans, but quite doable overall, imho.

I think we could look at Blizzard as sort of an example here. They have increasingly added more story to their games over the years, branching out into RTS with heavy story, action RPGs with ever increasing story elements, etc. Bioware could do the same, starting with a heavy story focus and branch out into different types of gameplay. I think that would be a lot better than make multiple different games with very similar (though not identical) gameplay.

[Pasquale1234]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I think the reason I don't object to the streamlining of some of these mechanics is that they most of the "choice" in stat allocation and character builds is illusory to begin with.  Computer games are designed to support a certain number of builds, i.e. approaches to conflict resolution.  These builds assume a certain stat allocation.  In a typical RPG, (including tabletop versions) the build or class implies a certain stat allocation, making attributes almost redundant.

Even ME1 reflects this, for all the credit for RPG-ness its goofy, granular skill system gets.  There are no basic attributes.  Instead, the character just gets to put points into skills.  The game doesn't bother to check strength or dexterity scores--it assumes that those scores are there, ready to support whatever skills the player chooses.

I haven't been a fan of redundancy and needless complexity for a long time.  Granted, a computer handling the math makes it manageable, but sometimes the only point seems to be making it look enough like D&D that players can congratulate themselves for being hardcore RPG players.

That depends entirely on the specific game's mechanics.

If a skill is completely static, i.e., has only one possible functional level, then attributes don't matter.  Otherwise, they can make a great deal of difference.  Example: increasing dexterity might improve a character's lock-picking, defense, and attack speed.  Increasing strength might increase a warrior's damage output per attack and enable them to use heavier weapons and armor, where an increase in constitution increases their total health points and an increase in cunning might improve their resistance to certain types of enemy attacks.  All of these things make an appreciable difference to people who like to manage their party builds, and greatly enhance the player's ability to plan and utilize different kinds of strategies and tactics.

[Travie]

There will always be companies that skimp on complexity to save cash, making a sub-par game.

Feel sorry for them, but also realize that there will always be developers like CDprojekt that make quality RPGs (like The Witcher 2) and don't compromise on features to make a quick buck.

[Chromie]

Travie wrote...

There will always be companies that skimp on complexity to save cash, making a sub-par game.

Feel sorry for them, but also realize that there will always be developers like CDprojekt that make quality RPGs (like The Witcher 2) and don't compromise on features to make a quick buck.

People should really support them and buy the game. Everyone will be in for quite a treat.

[MassEffect762]

Can anyone give me one solid RPG EA has ever created?(I don't play many games)

[Verilee]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Can anyone give me one solid RPG EA has ever created?(I don't play many games)

Well, the original Bard's Tale series in the late 80s, a series of 3 games (Tales of the Unknown, Destiny Knight, Thief Of Fate), by Interplay, published by EA. Not sure if EA was involved in the creation process though. I played them all on the Amiga Platform, they were great RPG experiences at that time (nice audio and video, animated pictures, technically far superior to the PC versions).
And there exists a Bard's Tale Construction Set, same gameplay as parts 1-3, but you could design your own adventures in that. Could say, ancient modding...

Beside that series, I don't know any RPGs from EA. Anyone else?

Modifié par Verilee, 22 mai 2011 - 07:34 .

[hexaligned]

MassEffect762 wrote...

Can anyone give me one solid RPG EA has ever created?(I don't play many games)

Oldschool indeed but... UO is the only decent one I can think of.  They might have come into the picture after Origin had already released it though.

[Davasar]

The thing is, those that defend and like watered down version of RPGs should be happy. They are getting what they want.

So what if those of us lament to demise of great RPGs? Why would anyone who doesn't like the great RPGs of old care?

They should just be happy that they 'won' and now the games coming out will be stripped of features, require little tactics or thinking, and have stories and characters that are at best shallow, pale comparisons to those in great games that have come before them.

Be happy that they are now catering to you people, and that they will most likely produce games every 18 months that require little effort from both you the player and the developer.

Welcome to the Madden styled franchise of the once RPG, now Action genre.

As was stated above by one of the posters: it just means I will not be buying the watered down, devolutionized games that claim to be RPGs anymore.

[Gatt9]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I think the reason I don't object to the streamlining of some of these mechanics is that they most of the "choice" in stat allocation and character builds is illusory to begin with.  Computer games are designed to support a certain number of builds, i.e. approaches to conflict resolution.  These builds assume a certain stat allocation.  In a typical RPG, (including tabletop versions) the build or class implies a certain stat allocation, making attributes almost redundant.

Even ME1 reflects this, for all the credit for RPG-ness its goofy, granular skill system gets.  There are no basic attributes.  Instead, the character just gets to put points into skills.  The game doesn't bother to check strength or dexterity scores--it assumes that those scores are there, ready to support whatever skills the player chooses.

I haven't been a fan of redundancy and needless complexity for a long time.  Granted, a computer handling the math makes it manageable, but sometimes the only point seems to be making it look enough like D&D that players can congratulate themselves for being hardcore RPG players.

That depends entirely on the specific game's mechanics.

If a skill is completely static, i.e., has only one possible functional level, then attributes don't matter.  Otherwise, they can make a great deal of difference.  Example: increasing dexterity might improve a character's lock-picking, defense, and attack speed.  Increasing strength might increase a warrior's damage output per attack and enable them to use heavier weapons and armor, where an increase in constitution increases their total health points and an increase in cunning might improve their resistance to certain types of enemy attacks.  All of these things make an appreciable difference to people who like to manage their party builds, and greatly enhance the player's ability to plan and utilize different kinds of strategies and tactics.

Exactly.

A person can understand something,  but lack the physical qualities necessary to perform it.  A person could understand classical dance style,  but be so clumsy as to be unable to perform it.  That doesn't mean they couldn't teach it.

Stats serve a great deal of purpose in a properly designed system,  which we haven't seen since Fallout TBH.  So of course they appear "Irrelevant",  when you neglect to implement the majority of their function,  they stop functioning. 

So to be honest,  it's not the case that Stats are irrelevant,  it's that Developers stopped implementing the varied uses that games such as Fallout included,  because of a large group of people who hate RPGs but insist they're RPG players.

-Take for instance the kid on the Fallout forums who understood nothing about RPGs,  but insisted Armor class and To Hit rolls were "Stupid".  He absolutely refused to read anything outlining their purpose,  refused to learn anything about RPGs.  All he wanted was a Shooter with dialogue.

-Or a recent poster to the ME2 boards,  who insisted he "Shouldn't have to read a book to play a game".  Again,  completely disinterested in learning anything about RPGs,  just wants a Shooter with dialogue.

-Countless times have Devs commented on people complaining "Why is my guy missing?  He's right there in front of him!  I should hit everytime!".

Devs don't even bother educating people,  instead they remove all of the features in order to cater to a group who actually hates the genre.  Hence the stats not having functions any longer.  It's gone because someone who hates RPGs complained,  and Devs didn't bother educating,  instead catered.

I suspect strongly that it's the Suits who don't want to lose a single sale that are ultimately responsible for it.

Well, the original Bard's Tale series in the late 80s, a series of 3 games (Tales of the Unknown, Destiny Knight, Thief Of Fate), by Interplay, published by EA. Not sure if EA was involved in the creation process though. I played them all on the Amiga Platform, they were great RPG experiences at that time (nice audio and video, animated pictures, technically far superior to the PC versions).
And there exists a Bard's Tale Construction Set, same gameplay as parts 1-3, but you could design your own adventures in that. Could say, ancient modding...

Beside that series, I don't know any RPGs from EA. Anyone else?

Wasteland,  the precursor to Fallout.  Ultima.

Oldschool indeed but... UO is the only decent one I can think of.  They might have come into the picture after Origin had already released it though

Thank you sir,  I now feel old!

Ultima existed long before Ultima Online.  EA owned Origins for most of their lifespan,  and folded them when UO started pulling in big monthly revenues,  as EA publicly announced "MMOs are the only game to make!",  and shut down just about everyone to make them.

[hexaligned]

Gatt9 wrote...

Oldschool indeed but... UO is the only decent one I can think of.  They might have come into the picture after Origin had already released it though

Thank you sir,  I now feel old!

Ultima existed long before Ultima Online.  EA owned Origins for most of their lifespan,  and folded them when UO started pulling in big monthly revenues,  as EA publicly announced "MMOs are the only game to make!",  and shut down just about everyone to make them.

Yeah I played Ultima 7, and I think I had a bundle pack with U6 and Wing commander 2 in it, but I didn't play much of that one.  I was like 11 when I played UO, I just have vague memories of  people on the server complaining about EA ruining the game.  I wasn't exactly sure how much involvment they had with Origin before that.

Modifié par relhart, 22 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

I think the reason I don't object to the streamlining of some of these mechanics is that they most of the "choice" in stat allocation and character builds is illusory to begin with.  Computer games are designed to support a certain number of builds, i.e. approaches to conflict resolution.  These builds assume a certain stat allocation.  In a typical RPG, (including tabletop versions) the build or class implies a certain stat allocation, making attributes almost redundant.

Even ME1 reflects this, for all the credit for RPG-ness its goofy, granular skill system gets.  There are no basic attributes.  Instead, the character just gets to put points into skills.  The game doesn't bother to check strength or dexterity scores--it assumes that those scores are there, ready to support whatever skills the player chooses.

I haven't been a fan of redundancy and needless complexity for a long time.  Granted, a computer handling the math makes it manageable, but sometimes the only point seems to be making it look enough like D&D that players can congratulate themselves for being hardcore RPG players.

That depends entirely on the specific game's mechanics.

If a skill is completely static, i.e., has only one possible functional level, then attributes don't matter.  Otherwise, they can make a great deal of difference.  Example: increasing dexterity might improve a character's lock-picking, defense, and attack speed.  Increasing strength might increase a warrior's damage output per attack and enable them to use heavier weapons and armor, where an increase in constitution increases their total health points and an increase in cunning might improve their resistance to certain types of enemy attacks.  All of these things make an appreciable difference to people who like to manage their party builds, and greatly enhance the player's ability to plan and utilize different kinds of strategies and tactics.

A game can be designed with layered statistics that all end up making sense in the end.  All too often, however, game designs include redundant statistics that don't actually provide any additional depth.  A game needn't fiddle endlessly with real-world explanations for how a character accomplishes his in-game feats; what's important are his strengths and weaknesses relative to the tasks the game is written to highlight.  It is very easy for statistical systems to become about what a character can't do.

An example: From the early days of D&D, Strength was the stat for the hand-to-hand fighter.  It modified both chances to hit and damage after a hit (speaking of potentially redundant systems).  Dexterity provided modifiers for ranged to-hit (but not damage) and defense.  As the game evolved, it made steps toward making space for a fighter based more on finesse than power.  Alas, the game wasn't built that way at its foundation.  By 3rd Edition, a player could allocate character building resources to make a fighter more concerned with speed and dexterity than power.  The power-based fighter was still vastly superior, particularly since it didn't require all of its elective abilities to bend the assumptions of the game.

The game could just have easily tied fighting skill to class and level without making a judgment on whether power or finesse were the deciding factor.  The game could have given the player the choice to make his fighter Power, Finesse, or Balanced and offered customization options within those categories.  The end result could have been a much better balanced game that offered more options, all without granular calculations of attributes.

In some fields of RPG design, there has been a move more to simulate how stories are told than to try to simulate how people do things in the real world.  If you think of a character in terms of what role he fulfills in a story, rather than as a set of quantifiable characteristics, you may start finding ways to represent him in the game with fewer statistics, without losing the feel of the game (particularly in tabletop games, where there isn't a computer to do all the math instantly).

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
In some fields of RPG design, there has been a move more to simulate how stories are told than to try to simulate how people do things in the real world.  If you think of a character in terms of what role he fulfills in a story, rather than as a set of quantifiable characteristics, you may start finding ways to represent him in the game with fewer statistics, without losing the feel of the game (particularly in tabletop games, where there isn't a computer to do all the math instantly).

I can see why this never took off at the ruleset level. Good PnP GMs do this sort of thing on their own. It's also a **** to implement in a computer game since we can't currently create dialogue on-the-fly. Though it might work in a TES game where the dialogue is weak anyway.

[In Exile]

Travie wrote...

There will always be companies that skimp on complexity to save cash, making a sub-par game.

Feel sorry for them, but also realize that there will always be developers like CDprojekt that make quality RPGs (like The Witcher 2) and don't compromise on features to make a quick buck.

The Witcher 2 is definetly a great game... but if anything, it's the anti-old school RPG. A single, fixed and voiced protagonist, with no statistical customization, and action combat? Hell, branching storylines and choice are themselves relatively modern features.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I wouldn't say "oldschool" RPGs are dying. They are just hibernating till studios get smart enough to make more. It takes effort and creativity to make a game, especially a good game and even moreso if it is a RPG with plot twists and creative player-based options. Sadly, there's alot of trash out now that is cheap and easy to make, flooding the market with uninspired filler content. Maybe it's the economy, maybe various companies aren't feeling terribly inspired. I feel the playstyles and mechanics of some of the best games never become obsolete. Sure, graphics can be dated, but well-made game concepts never grow old. So the "oldschool" style of RPG will be back I feel, people just love the conspiracy theories and doom-and-gloom speeches because it attracts attention.

[LPPrince]

Old School RPG's are either dying or hibernating, but I know one thing.

It sucks that they aren't being made.

It seems that all developers want to do now is streamline RPG's by removing some of the elements that people have grown accustomed to seeing in them.

ME1 was RPG-lite, and ME2 removed even more of those elements.

Fable was RPG-lite, Fable II removed even more, and Lionhead even said that Fable III is more of an Action Adventure than RPG now anyway.

DAO was a return to the classics. REJOICE!

And poof. DA2 removes some of those elements.

I'd cry if I was a softie for things like this.

[Winterfly]

LPPrince wrote...

Old School RPG's are either dying or hibernating, but I know one thing.

It sucks that they aren't being made.

It seems that all developers want to do now is streamline RPG's by removing some of the elements that people have grown accustomed to seeing in them.

ME1 was RPG-lite, and ME2 removed even more of those elements.

Fable was RPG-lite, Fable II removed even more, and Lionhead even said that Fable III is more of an Action Adventure than RPG now anyway.

DAO was a return to the classics. REJOICE!

And poof. DA2 removes some of those elements.

I'd cry if I was a softie for things like this.

Today, they try to make these RPG to consoles (which never can have a proper old school RPG) and to please the tea bagging idiots who play Halo and such. 

People like that will never understand the depth of a good story or the art put into a making of a proper RPG world and characters. They just want big ****** and cool monsters to slay in awesome animations. Which we did not have back in Baldurs Gate.

Merrill was a gem compared to Isabel who is simply the collect wet dream of 10 PnP nerds and 10 gaming nerds who played to much Sin in one package.

It is a pity really, that Bioware put down som uch effort into their own settings in ME and DA to just have it torn asunder by action and cutting **** to pieces. Hell I made my own setting in pen and paper and it hurt my soul when people just run around and axe **** and powergame when I DM.

I can imagine the guy or gal who been part of creation of Thedas and what not in Dragon Age, being rather dissapointed they aim to please teenagers and jockeys who like to insult people and kill stuff. For them  you can have a square box as playing ground and a 80 hour long fight.

And these are the people Bioware are going to focus on now? With Mass Effect 3? Thank you Bioware. Remember your past? You clearly dont. What made you into what you are.

Modifié par Winterfly, 23 mai 2011 - 01:36 .