3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

What I did like about the Hammerhead missions were their structure. The fact that they are tied together makes for much more compelling plots. Like the Cerberus side missions in ME1.
--
Did I just say "funny to play"?

I need sleep.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Persuasion, IMO, should never be a skill. In the same way "winning combat" should never be a skill. 

I'm inclined to agree (except insofar as the game might allow a player to skip components of the gameplay he doesn't enjoy, as Jennifer Hepler suggested in an interview in 2007).

Persuasion, I think, should be the result of choosing the proper dialogue options.  Each NPC will react differently to different types of persuasion, and it's up to the player to decide which approach his character tries in any given case.

This isn't about persuasion as a skill, even for the player.  This is about consistent and credible consequences for in-character behaviour.

littlezack wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Items have mass.

I'd rather ME limited Shepard to 20 items or some other more credible limit.

Credibly speaking, Shepard couldn't carry much of any around with him. Certainly not another suit of armor.

We don't know that.  We don't know how heavy the armour was, or to what extent it broke down into smaller pieces when not being worn.

In Exile wrote...

For those with weak google-fu, Champions of Krynn is from 1990. 

That tells us nothing about the quality of the game.

the_one_54321 wrote...

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them. 

You just excluded party-based RPGs from the genre.

I hope that was an accident.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Controlling a party is not the same as playing multiple characters. Imoen is her own character, but you control her in the party. 

But IWD and Wizardry have the player construct the entire party.  By no measure are those characters anything other than constructs of the player, just like the Bhaalspawn.

In Exile wrote...

Why would you think I'm ragging on them for "breaking the rules of logic"? I'm just pointing out that for that poster  the last few good RPGs came out circa 1990, 10+ years before the sacred cows of this particular forum (whether it's PS:T, or BG, or BG II, or Fallout 1/2). 

It would be the same as someone saying that there have been no good movies since 1976. Certainly they're entitled to their opinion, but it says something about the type of fan the forum attracts, which was what the post was talking about.

There's nothing wrong with that.  I happen to think that the pinnacle of popular music in Europe and North America was reached in 1974.  While there have been some impressive high points here and there (particularly in the 1980s), it's been a predominantly downhill slide from 1975 onward.

Are you casting aspersions on these opinions simply because they favour older designs?  That seems to be what you're doing, but you're not addressing the designs themselves.  Just their age.

How is the game's age at all relevant?

AlanC9 wrote...

Yes, we do. ME2 was much more fun

I completely disagree.

Klijpope wrote...

Absolute tosh. That was just simpler to code, or the only way to code, rpgs back in the day. Those limits no longer have to apply.

But they still can, and some of us want them to.  Separating the player's skills from the characters skills is an important feature.  If my character knows how to build traps, then he should be able to build traps without me having to do it for him.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 juillet 2011 - 10:33 .

[EternalPink]

tonnactus wrote...

EternalPink wrote...


Someone mentioned a few pages back about the upgrades and how they were very linear which is true you upgraded from 10% to 20% etc with the few occasional "perk" upgrades such as increased AP or accuracy but you didn't have any choice,either you did the upgrade or you didn't

Even Deadspace had a better weapon upgrade system then Mass Effect 2 with the energy nodes and that was a third person shooter.

Umm it being a third person shooter matters? research/upgrades are not a genre exclusive so it having a better system whether its a FPS,TPS,RtS or watching paint drying game it shouldn't matter.

Don't actually own that game myself so how was it a better system?

[konfeta]

Even Deadspace had a better weapon upgrade system then Mass Effect 2 with the energy nodes and that was a third person shooter.

Arguable. Deadspace upgrades literally broke the game. It stops being a horror shooter when you have a gun that can gun down an army of necromorphs by about halfway through the second level*. Though the mechanism for upgrading (nodes) was definitely more interesting.

ME2's worst aspect of weapon upgrades is that there were no real trade offs and choices to be made outside of picking your gun. ME3 seems to be fixing that, at least.

Modifié par konfeta, 14 juillet 2011 - 10:38 .

[Praetor Knight]

EternalPink wrote...

Umm it being a third person shooter matters? research/upgrades are not a genre exclusive so it having a better system whether its a FPS,TPS,RtS or watching paint drying game it shouldn't matter.

Don't actually own that game myself so how was it a better system?

Well I've got both DS1&2 and you need to use Power Nodes that you either find or buy to upgrade equipment.

The only differences I see from ME2 is that the interfaces are different, with both styles making improvements to your equipment, only with different types of investments to do so.

[Someone With Mass]

EternalPink wrote...

Umm it being a third person shooter matters? research/upgrades are not a genre exclusive so it having a better system whether its a FPS,TPS,RtS or watching paint drying game it shouldn't matter.

Don't actually own that game myself so how was it a better system?

I think it was just as linear. It gave the illusion of choice because of branching paths, yet you could fully upgrade a weapon if you wanted to.

[Varen Spectre]

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the experience. 

We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and making a good character-driven story and good progression.

Well, in order to know whether there is some kind of conflict or not , I would firstly need to know: 

A) What does Casey Hudson or other developers from Bioware think, that people want from them? ... 

- I mean, does the first sentence mean that they think that (some / many) people want more traditional RPG elements (maybe those "stats" and "loot" from his third sentence) to be incorporated but Bioware has decided to focus on exploration, combat and character driven story instead? Becasue they (and other people) find these elements to be more important? - (Well, the third sentence about "stats" and "loot" could tempt to such interpretation of the first one.) 

- Or does it mean that according to Casey / Bioware, people actually do want them to further improve the elements of exploration, combat and character driven story, so they are doing it. Even if that means less (no) focus on "stats" and "loot". So there is no conflict between Bioware's and "peoples" ' vision in Casey's / Bioware's eyes. (The 2nd sentence kind of suggests this interpretation.)

 What do people actually want? ... 

And that, that is a topic of this thread ...

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 14 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .

[Bnol]

Il Divo wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Anyway, back on-topic, we as a community definitely overreacted over Hudson.

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the 
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent 
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

Come on, now, who doesn't want better progression, decisions, a great story and exploration?

When you put it like that, I don't think anyone could disagree. People will always prefer a better product. When ME2 was in development, ask anyone if they would've preferred everything you just listed. I doubt you would get a single 'no'.

The problem is that what constitutes 'better' differs from person to person. I think the omniblade looks great, but I've seen some criticism as well, as an example.

Except to the RPG purists that demand that RPGs must be entirely dependent on stats and loot to be RPGs.  Anyone who attaches the RPG label, even if a hyrbid, is destroying the name and holy definition that is the RPG. 

I completely agree with Hudson on this one.  Sure stats are meaningful tools to define a role and playstyle, but I don't need every stat shown to me, or to have to deal with tons of loot.  I don't find streamlining to be a dirty word, or just a euphemism for "dumbing down".  Streamlining is getting rid trash loot and dealing with an inadequate UI for it.  Streamlining is getting rid of lockers and being able to equip your entire squad on one screen.  I think they should have streamlined more by placing your armor interface in the armory instead of the captain's cabin to avoid another elevator ride. 

[Phaedon]

Bnol wrote...
Except to the RPG purists that demand that RPGs must be entirely dependent on stats and loot to be RPGs.  Anyone who attaches the RPG label, even if a hyrbid, is destroying the name and holy definition that is the RPG.  

I completely agree with Hudson on this one.  Sure stats are meaningful tools to define a role and playstyle, but I don't need every stat shown to me, or to have to deal with tons of loot.  I don't find streamlining to be a dirty word, or just a euphemism for "dumbing down".  Streamlining is getting rid trash loot and dealing with an inadequate UI for it.  Streamlining is getting rid of lockers and being able to equip your entire squad on one screen.  I think they should have streamlined more by placing your armor interface in the armory instead of the captain's cabin to avoid another elevator ride. 

Agreed.

[Iakus]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the experience. 

We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and making a good character-driven story and good progression.

Well, in order to know whether there is some kind of conflict or not , I would firstly need to know: 

A) What does Casey Hudson or other developers from Bioware think, that people want from them? ... 

- I mean, does the first sentence mean that they think that (some / many) people want more traditional RPG elements (maybe those "stats" and "loot" from his third sentence) to be incorporated but Bioware has decided to focus on exploration, combat and character driven story instead? Becasue they (and other people) find these elements to be more important? - (Well, the third sentence about "stats" and "loot" could tempt to such interpretation of the first one.) 

- Or does it mean that according to Casey / Bioware, people actually do want them to further improve the elements of exploration, combat and character driven story, so they are doing it. Even if that means less (no) focus on "stats" and "loot". So there is no conflict between Bioware's and "peoples" ' vision in Casey's / Bioware's eyes. (The 2nd sentence kind of suggests this interpretation.)

 What do people actually want? ... 

And that, that is a topic of this thread ...

I dunno about mechanics as such but what I want is for my choices to matter.  Particularly in a game where we're told they do.

If I have an option to, for instance, save, kill, or abandon a squadmate's father, I want that choice to actually mean something.  It needs to add to the story, not be forgotten as soon as the report is made.  In that sense, yes a character driven story is important.

If I have a choice in allowing a character to die or preventing it, I want there to be more repercussions than "blue points" and "red points"  Stats are all fine and good, but they aren't enough. 

If I have an upgrade for a weapon, I want to choose to use it over a different upgrade, not to just keep piling bonuses on because there's literally no downside to doing so.  Not having much loot is fine, as long as we can make the loot that is our truly ours

And oh yeah, exploration should mean more than firing probes at anomalies, then landing and slaughtering mercs.

As a side note about weapons:  I know numbers in games are no longer cool, but we need some sort of measurement when deciding how to customize our character.  Saying a given weapon in "good against armor, weak against shields" or somesuch isn't enough.  What is "good"?  What is "weak"  Compared to what?  A description of a weapon should be more specific, and not require searching for charts online.  Ideally a chance to test a weapon before bringing it into combat should be available.  Say, at a shooting range.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The character is as persuasive as your character is. You make in-character decisions. For a pure RPG (as opposed to a hybrid like ME) I would say that what we should really have is the same situation as combat:

Investing in certain stats gives you a +bonus to your persuasive skills (as stats give + accuracy/+dmg/+dodge to combat abilities) and you can pick social skills that give you bonus speech options (e.g. you can have ranks in seduction, charm, intimidate, debate, diplomacy) and these open new dialogue paths (e.g. seduction, charm, intimidate, debate and diplomacy). 

What you then do is make an in-character decision: if your PC is the charming sort, you pick [charm] options. If your PC is the sort that tries to read the mood, you do that. 

It's no different than how combat is currently handled. 

I like this idea, but until they quantify that entire system they need to use none of it so as to avoid restricting our ability to play our characters as we designed them.

Just as DAO prevented you from playing a character who was socially dominant, DA2 prevented me from playing a character who was socially inept.

A decent RPG game should offer both.

The choices that you make vis a vis dialogue options are no different than the choices (as the player) you make in combat. Stats are the degree of separation between you and the character (and in this case I think options should always be closed to a PC who does not have the requisite skill) but there is a difference between having the skill and combat technique and using it, and the using it part must come from the in-character decision. IMO.

I would object to the options being locked off from the player.  I would instead rather their chance of success be vastly lower.

If we get to that point, combat and movement and exploration should all be automatic and the entire game should simply be a simulation. Why do you get a dialogue choice at all?

Skill and personality are different things.

Phaedon wrote...

The description tends to describe the suggested playstyle though, no?

That's worthless information.  A suggested playstyle is an example of a use that might be successful.  That tells me nothing of how the weapon will fare when used differently.  IF I want a weapon that's effective across 3 specific playstyles, then I need the stats.

Hiding the combat mechanics from the player is a terrible idea.  There's is no benefit at all to doing so.  BioWare's most recent games have been appallingly opaque, and incredibly poorly documented.

In Exile wrote...

Here's a controversial claim:

You can only have reactivity when you radically reduce customization.

Examples:

1) To have useful items, you have to have very few and very different items. 
2) To have a reactive plot, you need a highly defined character to write the plot around.

Discuss.

I disagree.

On point 1, you can still have useful items while having lots of them, but the game becomes more difficult to balance.  With scaled content, that's a problem.  With a linear game, that's a problem.  But those needn't always be true.

On point 2, you can have a reactive player while having a customisable character, as long as the reaction is to characters that are not customised.  A good example of this would be something like NWN or KotOR, where the background of your character is entirely up to you, and he can have whatever motives based on that background you would like, but that background is largely irrelevant to the game's narrative.  That's cusomisation without sacrificing reactivity.

Done poorly, what you say is true.  But I'd rather not assume that all game's will be poorly designed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Apparently, though, the RPG UI matters more than quality RPG content.

Didn't the_one make that exact argument earlier in the thread?  He explicitly appealed to the UI as being the relevant different between RPGs and shooters.

It's like an argument over combat animations wrecking the combat. Some people value flash over substance, and that's very true of RPGs.

DA2 players have made exactly that argument, as well.  The over-the-top animations were said to damage verisimilitude, and thus harm gameplay.

Personally, I think combat animations have gone downhill from NWN and KotOR.  Those games have synched combat animations, and we haven't seen them since.

Sarevok Synder wrote...

 Take a look at the Cinematic mod 10 for Half Life 2. It was made by just one man. Then come back and tell me it takes seven "professionals" to make just one weapon.

I encourage you to read Adam Smith's description of a pin factory in "The Wealth of Nations".

[Epic777]

100+ pages and all because of the misrepresentation of the original source by the OP

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Personally, I think combat animations have gone downhill from NWN and KotOR.  Those games have synched combat animations, and we haven't seen them since.

Agreed. From an animation perspective, I think that KotOR represents the best of Bioware's efforts at making their gameplay visually pleasing. Personally, I would have taken synched combat animations over DA2's sped up style.  

[Manan]

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the experience.

We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't necessarily about stats and loot. It's about EXPLORATION and COMBAT and making a good character-driven story and good progression.

And so Mr Hudson said that loot and stats are less importent but at the very same time he talks about exploration and combat...

In my opinion exploration is pointless without the loot. You explore to gain more powerful weapons and gear. However both ME1 and ME2 did it wrong. They lacked balance between range of equipment and exploration. In ME1 we had no variation in weapons and gear but we had a lot of them. Same apply to exploration which was not develop enaught. In ME2 we had better variation in weapons and gear but we had only a few of them. As to sideqest BioWare did much better. What I am up to is that in ME3 there should be more weapon variation and more weapons in all as well as deep exploretion with opened terrain structure.

I agree about the stats.

[tonnactus]

EternalPink wrote...


Umm it being a third person shooter matters? research/upgrades are not a genre exclusive

While they are not genre exclusive,shooters are not known for that.Funny enough,Dead Space also have shops and the player loots money....

[Varen Spectre]

iakus wrote...

-snip-

If I have an upgrade for a weapon, I want to choose to use it over a different upgrade, not to just keep piling bonuses on because there's literally no downside to doing so.  Not having much loot is fine, as long as we can make the loot that is our truly ours

- snip -

Yup, I have very similar preferences.

I have played and still like many games from different genres, but somehow, I have eventually  found out, that my favorite games are these, so called, hybrids (my sig) and most of them don't have very developed / complex / complicated / clumsy (depending on the point of view^_^) traditional (I hope that's the correct term) RPG elements, but they do have relatively well developed stories and are starting to have better and better choices and consequences (Witcher 2). Also, maybe I am little bit shallow, but I can't help but to put a lot of emphasis on audiovisual aspects (animations, voiceacting, music) of modern games. As shallow as it may sound, they do allow developers to portray important situations in very deep and emotional way. Soo yes, these aspects - the aspects that constitute majority of modern RPG hybrids / action games with RPG elements and most of which were mentioned by Casey, are the most important for me as well.   

When it comes to addition of more traditional RPG elements, or even refining the ones that are already used in these hybrids, I have to admit, I have no clear vision, where should be the borderline.

Well, I am convinced that gameplay solely based on character's skills will, for better or for worse, be used in hybrids less and less and I am fine / put up (depending on my mood^_^) with that. As for the other aspects, I don't know.  

For example the quoted part - I am not sure where is the line between "meaningful and different" upgrades, items, etc. and "meaningless" duplicates with a little bit better "stats". I mean, how many weapons, armors, items, skills, abilities, upgrades,etc. are developers capable of creating before these items start to resemble each other too much? 3, 5, 10 or more?

I don't know. The easiest answer would be - create as much as possible but keep them different and meaningful. But what differences could still be considered meaningful? E.g. How much faster rate of fire (+3 rounds per second, +5, +10, more), how much higher damage (enemy kiled 0,5 seconds, 1 second or 1,5 seconds faster) how much more / less ammo, etc. should weapon have to be considered different from another?

Or to put it differently, what was / were the game(s) that had the right amount of items, weapons, skills, upgrades, etc. in other words "stats", so that they felt different but there were enough of them to keep player occupied (entertained) during the whole game? Or, what would be the ideal?

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:29 .

[Bostur]

Manan wrote...

In my opinion exploration is pointless without the loot. You explore to gain more powerful weapons and gear. However both ME1 and ME2 did it wrong. They lacked balance between range of equipment and exploration. In ME1 we had no variation in weapons and gear but we had a lot of them. Same apply to exploration which was not develop enaught. In ME2 we had better variation in weapons and gear but we had only a few of them. As to sideqest BioWare did much better. What I am up to is that in ME3 there should be more weapon variation and more weapons in all as well as deep exploretion with opened terrain structure.

I agree. Exploration and rewards are closely linked together. Rewards doesn't have to be loot as such, but in that case another type of reward needs to be invented.

I think the old fashioned pure RPG mechanics have some strong links that depend on each other. It's hard to replace some of them without having to reinvent everything from scratch.


There is some kind of 'triangular' effect going on with the concepts of Progression-Exploration-Loot. Its hard to simply take one of those away.

[Gatt9]

Bnol wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Anyway, back on-topic, we as a community definitely overreacted over Hudson.

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the 
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent 
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.

Come on, now, who doesn't want better progression, decisions, a great story and exploration?

When you put it like that, I don't think anyone could disagree. People will always prefer a better product. When ME2 was in development, ask anyone if they would've preferred everything you just listed. I doubt you would get a single 'no'.

The problem is that what constitutes 'better' differs from person to person. I think the omniblade looks great, but I've seen some criticism as well, as an example.

Except to the RPG purists that demand that RPGs must be entirely dependent on stats and loot to be RPGs.  Anyone who attaches the RPG label, even if a hyrbid, is destroying the name and holy definition that is the RPG.

You still have the problem that the genres have been well defined for nearly 30 years now,  and Bioware doesn't have the ability to reinterpret RPG = TPS now.  You can call people whatever you like,  but in the end,  Bioware does not define gaming.  

Seriously,  no one tries to claim that COD is an RTS because it's in Real Time and you need strategy to kill the other guy.  But Bioware releases a TPS,  claims it's an RPG,  and suddenly TPS's are RPG's because you talked to someone?  

No.  The genre distinctions work perfectly,  based on the gameplay,  not what some marketing guy decides should be put on the box in order to generate more sales. 

I completely agree with Hudson on this one.  Sure stats are meaningful tools to define a role and playstyle, but I don't need every stat shown to me, or to have to deal with tons of loot.  I don't find streamlining to be a dirty word, or just a euphemism for "dumbing down".  Streamlining is getting rid trash loot and dealing with an inadequate UI for it.  Streamlining is getting rid of lockers and being able to equip your entire squad on one screen.  I think they should have streamlined more by placing your armor interface in the armory instead of the captain's cabin to avoid another elevator ride. 

The problem is when "Streamlining" is a euphimism for a genre shift.  Streamlining is just fine,  the aforementioned Armor class issue is more effective,  more clear,  and functions the same when streamlined to Damage Resistance (With a little math on the design side during development).  Both of them are just damage reduction strategies,  you just need the AC equation on one side,  DR on the other,  and balance them and it's the same system with less mess.  That's streamlining.

Removing everything,  rather than readjusting the system to function better isn't streamlining,  it's excising.  When you excise the defining characteristics of a gameplay type,  you end up with some other type of gameplay.  In ME2,  the "Streamlining" resulted in gameplay identical to any given TPS.  Which makes it a genre shift.

Since it's about 10 pages ago,  just to support my assertion that Suits decide what game we'll get based on what they think will sell the most units,  not what makes the best quality game,  I shall toss in this little gem by the guy in charge of X-com...

http://www.gamespot....orenews;title;1

Now all Strategy games aren't worth making,  which leaves us with nothing but FPS according to the CEO of 2K games.

Oh,  and since people don't believe the market is slumping either,  and I'm already on the page...

http://www.gamespot....=topstory;title

Modifié par Gatt9, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:46 .

[DarkDragon777]

Enjoying a side-quest that adds extra narrative to the game is its own reward. Finding loot is just a small part of the side-quests; it shouldn't be considered the main part of said quest. However, that being said, loot should still always be included as it first of all, makes sense, and second of all, it is a motivator and adds excitement to gameplay and something to look forward to. And also, I wouldn't understand why anyone would prefer the ME2 side-quests that could be completed in less than 2 minutes.

[EternalPink]

Umm at the risk of upsetting americans, the gaming industry is more than the US, your statement about the gaming industry is about the US market

[InvincibleHero]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

What's with the wall of text? This isn't rocket science. I beat it on hardcore without levelling or upgrades. It's too boring to bother with another run. My point is simple; its game-play mechanics are shooter based. The "levelling" was a waste of time, it was no longer necessary. It was kept in to try make it look less like a pure shooter. Nobody could beat Sarevok without levelling, yet I could beat ME2 without doing so.

BTW, NWN was awful. And no I'm not going to do a YouTube video for you; because to be quite honest, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not.

The reason it is easier is because you have a shield and hit points both over two hundred and both regenerate in seconds. You could a;so effectively range fight and avoid damage by dodging and taking cover something not really possible in a melee based game like BG. If I had that on a level 1 character Sarevok would be toast as well. They are so dissimilar your argument has no meaning.

A level one Shepard could autofight (which takes no skill at all yet you had to use good shooter skills) every battle in D&D and win with 6 seconds back up to 240 or more shield and HP refresh. Shepard starts off more like a mid-level 15 or so D&D character.

I think you vastly mischaracterize it as easy. There is no way you never died to husk swarms or scions. Horizon is hard with three back to back encounters while not being able to save. You probably had to seriously exploit AI like sniper one of the scions while it can't move because you are outside the doorway and its detection range.

I could easily do that its called god mode which is present in the console. So no one just became invalid.

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

The issue is that people keep trying to define LARPsing as RPG,  when they're two totally different concepts that only share a commenality in the use of one mechanic.  LARPS is not an RPG,  RPGs are very defined Roles,  LARPs are very freeform Roles,  completely different implementations.

What you've been defining as an RPG is actually a LARPs.  The conflict arises only because the LARPsing community has always been a fringe offshoot of the RPG community that wants to take it alot further than what RPGs do.

LARPS- I am my character
RPG- I play my character

Two completely different concepts. 

Your opinions and defining of what constitutes a role playing game is invalid since you parade it as fact.  Playing D&D, my sheet of paper with all those pretty stats does nothing. I am my character. He/she does what i want 100% of the time.  My paper does not make my d20 roll to hit and cannot save itself if I decide to light it on fire though I can look up save of paper vs. fire and guess what it will still burn to cinders and ash. That is the originator of D&D. You are just wrong on most things. You have some points but invalidate everything with such flawed reasoning.

It is a ruleset for people to do the roleplaying period. A CRPG simulates this by giving choices or having a morality system of some kind and having some RPGs mechanisms like levels and stats. It does need to have some type of both, but need not have all of them or even a majority to be considered an RPG. It is why I consider Diablo to not be RPG, but I don't begrudge those that do. It is hack and slash and stats heavy, but still tacitly may be considered RPG. My opinion matters little and I don't treat it as be all end all as you do.

[Weiser_Cain]

Ideally what a want is something that works well enough on it's own for players that don't want to think and is deep enough for those of use that like to tweak the hell out of a character.

OK that's not really what I want, I want a game for people that own several sets of d20 dice but chugs all the math for you and has a cool UI. But I'll settle for what I said at first.

Shepard applies the undead template...

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm inclined to agree (except insofar as the game might allow a player to skip components of the gameplay he doesn't enjoy, as Jennifer Hepler suggested in an interview in 2007).

Persuasion, I think, should be the result of choosing the proper dialogue options.  Each NPC will react differently to different types of persuasion, and it's up to the player to decide which approach his character tries in any given case.

This isn't about persuasion as a skill, even for the player.  This is about consistent and credible consequences for in-character behaviour.

I agree entirely, and I thought you felt that way.  It's why I said that you already make in-character decisions when it comes to combat, so the fact the system does not fail as terribly for your playstyle. 

That tells us nothing about the quality of the game.

It wasn't meant to. Rather, I was drawing attention to the tastes of the poster.

There's nothing wrong with that.  I happen to think that the pinnacle of popular music in Europe and North America was reached in 1974.  While there have been some impressive high points here and there (particularly in the 1980s), it's been a predominantly downhill slide from 1975 onward.

There isn't at all. 

Are you casting aspersions on these opinions simply because they favour older designs?  That seems to be what you're doing, but you're not addressing the designs themselves.  Just their age.

No. I'm only pointing out that RPG codex is consistent with a particular kind of view on RPGs, i.e. that they have not been good this millenium. In terms of staking out a position, not even the most ferverent on this forum would arguet that BG II was a bad RPG.

Il Divo asked about what kind of forum RPG codex is. Pointing out that their tastes are very different from the mainstream is the best way to convey that. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I like this idea, but until they quantify that entire system they need to use none of it so as to avoid restricting our ability to play our characters as we designed them.

Just as DAO prevented you from playing a character who was socially dominant, DA2 prevented me from playing a character who was socially inept.

A decent RPG game should offer both.

I agree. Although I think DA2 actually gives you the opportunity to play a character who defers to others better than DA:O, in the sense that Hawke needn't ever be a leader at all. 

A great scene (and one that shows how this approach can work) is with finding the missing qunari in Act II. If you have Aveline and Varric with you in the party, the following happens at the Hanged Man:

Varric: Joking comment that starts the conversation:
Hawke: Points out Aveline is there
Aveline: Takes charge of the stuation and finds out the neeeded information.

Hawke is essentially superflous. 

I would object to the options being locked off from the player.  I would instead rather their chance of success be vastly lower.

It's no different than not having a combat skill. It is a reflection of what the player can understand. To be able to say a thing that is diplomatic in a way that is received diplomatically, there is a need for some skill for diplomacy. I think we need coherence between combat skills and non-combat skills. Most RPGs have then function in different ways at their core, and I think that takes away from the experience. 

On point 1, you can still have useful items while having lots of them, but the game becomes more difficult to balance.  With scaled content, that's a problem.  With a linear game, that's a problem.  But those needn't always be true.

You can have useful items... but they have to be designed to be useful. I don't really think games need balance (in fact, I think certain settings have lore reasons why some classes or abilities are overpowered and those should be respected). 

I think there is a practical consideration here: good items take time and energy to design. There are limited resources, and so while the ideal would be many good items... the reality is that we have to trade off number and quantity.

On point 2, you can have a reactive player while having a customisable character, as long as the reaction is to characters that are not customised.  A good example of this would be something like NWN or KotOR, where the background of your character is entirely up to you, and he can have whatever motives based on that background you would like, but that background is largely irrelevant to the game's narrative.  That's cusomisation without sacrificing reactivity.

Reactivity is more than just a reaction - it has to at the very least be logical. If you and I - for different motives, reasons and behaviours, have the game react to us in an identical manner, then it is not reactive at all. Rather, it asks us to invent reasons for the reaction.