22 réponses à ce sujet

[bluebullets]

I'm interested to hear opinions on this..

Your traditional rpg is quite gamey. You have your attribute points, your skill points, your crafting skills/points. I'm not sure how to articulate what I mean by a "traditional rpg", but I'm talking about how a traditoinal rpg is very much a "game" where you can min/max, get crazy things, crazy loot.. Hopefully you guys understand what I mean.

It seems these days, rpgs are gliding towards a more modern and "real" feel. Many developers try to implement real life in games (albeit with fantasy aspects like magic.) You see less focus on stat crunching and the traditional rpg qualities and more focus on making the game realistic as possible.

I can't think of good examples, but you can see this in DA as well with removed attribute points, no relationship stats, etc. We still see stats on items and all that, but I'm wondering what people think of it..

Do you like gamey games? Do you like traditional rpg nature, or do you prefer a more realistic architecture? (ie. no attribute points, perhaps no stats on weapons, just visual augmentations like fire or something like fable 3?)

Personally, for me, it depends on the game.. i liked it in fable 3, but i'd dislike it in dragon age because of the feel of the game. it isn't exactly a dungeon crawler, but it still feels like it's a distant cousin of the baulder's gate type of game.

I have to wonder what the insustry will have in store for rpgs in 20 years.

[Kantr]

Would this not be better off in off topic?

[Medhia_Nox]

I'm fine with any gaming system - the storytelling is what attracts me.

 

The gaming elements of DA:I have just moved to your Organization. 

[bluebullets]

Would this not be better off in off topic?

there is no off-topic forum that I can see. this is scuttlebutt.. close as it gets

the literal definiton of scuttlebutt is gossip.

[n7stormreaver]

I don't like "realistic" RPGs because combat there is unrealistic as hell, and it ruins the whole immersion.

 

I don't care if peasants take a dump in your game, if gameplay and combat fail to be believable, then your game has nothing to do with realism. 

 

So... just don't pretend to be what you are not and be honest with yourself and players. 

[Icy Magebane]

I enjoy both types of rpgs so long as the plots aren't contrived and the characters don't annoy me.  The other thing I care about is consistency.  I am willing to accept that supernatural abilities are common on whatever worlds these games take place on, but I have very low tolerance for games and franchises that violate their own rules and lore.  So when I'm told that magic is dangerous and the people of the world in question are afraid of the small segment of the population that can command mystical forces, I expect normal people to be appropriately mundane.  I definitely am not expecting them to be able to teleport, drain power from others, cause "spirit damage," disappear, etc...  Whether this is a byproduct of game mechanics or not, the setting makes less sense to me every time I see a normal person using supernatural abilities. 

 

On the other hand, Dragon Age has an interesting story, compelling characters, incredibly detailed lore, and most importantly, I have the option of not selecting the more outlandish abilities, so I'm willing to let that slide.

[Tevinter Soldier]

for me a traditional RPG was based around chance min/maxing wasn't a thing and no matter how great you made your avatar you could still be one shotted by a lvl 2 if the die were pissed off with you.

 

I abhorred the rise of minmaxing and am happy to see it tossed on the scrap heap.

minmaxing led to the death of many unique and interesting builds which defied all logic and yet could be successful even by a novice if they had enough luck.

[herkles]

for me a traditional RPG was based around chance min/maxing wasn't a thing and no matter how great you made your avatar you could still be one shotted by a lvl 2 if the die were pissed off with you.

 

I abhorred the rise of minmaxing and am happy to see it tossed on the scrap heap.

minmaxing led to the death of many unique and interesting builds which defied all logic and yet could be successful even by a novice if they had enough luck.

 

Agreed. IMO the point of a roleplaying game isn't about the numbers but about playing a character, getting into character and looking at seeing the world from their eyes. This isn't about the stats, but about how you act and see the world. 

 

My prefed table top rpg system is FATE, and it does not have stats what so ever, skills yes, but not stats. instead of stats it has aspects. This helps keep the focus on the story and not on stats and my +5 can beat up your +6. 

[hellbiter88]

You mean like the FF series where you roam about the countryside fighting monsters that couldn't possibly physiologically exist in any universe, EVER, and you channel magic spells through cactus dolls and carry ridiculously heavy swords and summon mythical monsters through powered stones whose special attacks literally destroy all the viewable terrain and in some cases swallow the entire planet into a black hole but then everything automatically returns to perfect condition after the animation sequence and how you can carry thousands of pounds worth of potions and armor and not get fatigued while swimming underwater endlessly with no apparent need for air???

 

Ah.. the memories.

[Darkly Tranquil]

[EmperorKarino]

I'm interested to hear opinions on this..

Your traditional rpg is quite gamey. You have your attribute points, your skill points, your crafting skills/points. I'm not sure how to articulate what I mean by a "traditional rpg", but I'm talking about how a traditoinal rpg is very much a "game" where you can min/max, get crazy things, crazy loot.. Hopefully you guys understand what I mean.

It seems these days, rpgs are gliding towards a more modern and "real" feel. Many developers try to implement real life in games (albeit with fantasy aspects like magic.) You see less focus on stat crunching and the traditional rpg qualities and more focus on making the game realistic as possible.

I can't think of good examples, but you can see this in DA as well with removed attribute points, no relationship stats, etc. We still see stats on items and all that, but I'm wondering what people think of it..

Do you like gamey games? Do you like traditional rpg nature, or do you prefer a more realistic architecture? (ie. no attribute points, perhaps no stats on weapons, just visual augmentations like fire or something like fable 3?)

Personally, for me, it depends on the game.. i liked it in fable 3, but i'd dislike it in dragon age because of the feel of the game. it isn't exactly a dungeon crawler, but it still feels like it's a distant cousin of the baulder's gate type of game.

I have to wonder what the insustry will have in store for rpgs in 20 years.

 

while i like fable 3, i do prefer rpg's to have stats, numbers, basic logic to them. i don't know why, for all types of games not just RPGs, there is this constant push to make gameplay realistic. what i want games to be is FUN, not realistic, if they can make it realistic and fun thats fine. but FUN should be #1 for a game, unless the game has better story than it does gameplay, which is the case for most of the games i get these days.

[DMaster2]

The i loved the most was Neverwinter Nights, so it's a no brainer.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Agreed. IMO the point of a roleplaying game isn't about the numbers but about playing a character, getting into character and looking at seeing the world from their eyes. This isn't about the stats, but about how you act and see the world. 

 

My prefed table top rpg system is FATE, and it does not have stats what so ever, skills yes, but not stats. instead of stats it has aspects. This helps keep the focus on the story and not on stats and my +5 can beat up your +6. 

 

that's based off of the fudge system yes?

probably the greatest RPG system ever produced.

 

often wondered how it would go if implemented into a warhammer system, but i've never had the patience for painting those tiny figurines. 

[Remmirath]

I disagree with the dichotomy you've set up. Most of the RPG systems that I would consider the most realistic, I would also consider to be heavily on the traditional and crunchy side. In fact, I consider a game less realistic if it doesn't have a good support system for simulating at least semi-realistic combat, and if it doesn't have an in-depth system for character creation and differentiation.

As far as computer games go, there are still going to be stats and mechanics under the hood, and I would much rather see them and be able to use them to build my character the way I want to. Not necessarily to make them the most powerful possible, but to make them best fit whatever concept I have for them. You can still have realistic mechanics that the player can't see, of course, but most of the time I feel that it tends not to be the case when they're hidden.

Basically, I consider what you call the gamey aspects of a system to be necessary for a realistic RPG, even more so than they otherwise would be. Whether or not you're focusing on stat crunching and min/maxing is always up to the player.

I would consider Dragon Age II to be less realistic than Dragon Age: Origins. Whether that will continue or reverse itself in Inquisition, I don't know. The reason I say that is that in DA II there are more things that appear to go against established precedent (mages blinking around, basically instant harvester, and so forth), as well as more things that stretch my suspension of disbelief (rogues instantaneously transporting from one spot to another, enemies from the sky, generally more magic-like abilities from non-magic classes). Visually as well, although both games had many problems with their combat animations, inhumanly fast is slightly more jarring to me than oddly slow -- people can move more slowly than they would, after all, but not faster than they can. I wouldn't say that in either game the flashy effects in combat are at all realistic.

I prefer realism, or at least enough realism to ground the game, to make everything feel more believable to me. That doesn't mean I don't want fantastical elements, but I prefer them to be either in contrast to the overall believability of a setting or to be integrated well enough that they're a part of that. I especially find combat in games more enjoyable when it's more realistic. However, as noted above, most of the systems that work the best for me are also generally considered on the crunchy side of things and are, I'd say, also pretty traditional (Rolemaster and Traveller come to mind).

there is no off-topic forum that I can see. this is scuttlebutt.. close as it gets

the literal definiton of scuttlebutt is gossip.

There is an off-topic, it's just not in the Dragon Age: Inquisition section. It's under the general BioWare heading, and is called 'The Lobby (Off Topic)'.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm generally more of a simulationist than a gamist, but I wouldn't agree that hiding mechanics from us is a good way to achieve that.

We should know how our world works.

[herkles]

that's based off of the fudge system yes?

probably the greatest RPG system ever produced.

 

often wondered how it would go if implemented into a warhammer system, but i've never had the patience for painting those tiny figurines. 

 

Yes, I believe it grew out of the fudge system. I love aspects as it helps focus stories around drama and the player characters. Aspects work off the fate points, which are points that you can use to make things benifical to you, often but not always by invoking aspects. As an example of how aspects work, here is one that would fit Navilia Trevelyan my human rogue.

 

Devoted Andrastian

Invoke: It is the eve of a battle involving darkspawn at lets say Redcliff. I decide to spend a fate point, and invoke this aspect and use it to add a bonus to my persuade roll, such as a +2 which in fate is pretty good in fate, by using my faith in the Chantry's teachings and Andraste as a way to bolster moral, hence the bonus to persuade. 

 

Compel: I am in negotiations with Qunari in Ostwick. I am doing what I can to go the diplomatic route and prevent fighting. However as negotiations go on, the qunari keep being dissmisive of the faith of andraste and the chantry. So my Storyteller/gm/keeper/whatever decides to compel this. I am offered a fate point to let these qunari know that I won't take their insults to my faith so easily. by accepting the fate point though, I could make the negotiations with the Qunari worse and this could lead to conflict. But I get to decide if I wish to go down that route.

 

Sometimes yes is more dramatic, sometimes no is more dramatic. but Aspects let the focus be on the characters. 

[Cyonan]

I'd prefer a mix of a little bit of both.

 

In a hypothetical scenario where I had to choose one or the other I would go with traditional. Anything shooting for high amounts of realism is going to get nitpicked to death by the players who know about those sorts of things(and even those who don't but still have access to Wikipedia =P).

 

It's also really hard to effectively hide the systems behind everything. Even if you don't show numbers we can still figure out certain patterns and formulas that bring it right back into the gaming the system feel.

 

Kind of like what we did for the hidden numbers they had in Mass Effect 3 for a lot of things such as weapons or enemy stats.

[Kantr]

there is no off-topic forum that I can see. this is scuttlebutt.. close as it gets

the literal definiton of scuttlebutt is gossip.

I mean out of the dragon age bit

[mybudgee]

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm generally more of a simulationist than a gamist, but I wouldn't agree that hiding mechanics from us is a good way to achieve that.

We should know how our world works.

Agreed. What the OP is calling "realism" I call action mechanics. Swinging a sword and seeing it hit an enemy pales in comparison, in my book, to having ten different ways to approach a problem with various skills, solutions and outcomes based on my character's abilities. Speech skills, specialized knowledge, foreign languages, stealth/rogue skills, utility magic skills, enchanting, crafting, forging, divining, horseback riding, feats of strength, critical failures, critical successes... these are all just numbers on a spreadsheet-like character sheet, sure. But they all represent different options, different ways to use your character in unique ways.

Have video games fully utilized this? No, nothing can fully match a Pen and Paper RPG in terms of choice and options. But more traditional games did make some fantastic attempts. And even recent new games made in the traditional mold, like Wasteland 2 or Project Eternity, also do this. And I find that kind of system/game to play much more enjoyable than a game that is more combat and action oriented that shows what's going on in lieu of a dice roll.

One thing to also clarify is that most of these action games are single character and not party based. I believe, personally, that games where the player is directly controlling multiple characters lends itself to these different characters having different attributes, skills and abilities that make playing them all feel different, instead of four clones that are all dependent on the player's same level of skill. Which is why many people a party game like DA might be a poor choice to include more action elements and less stat-based mechanics.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Define realism. 

 

All I see are a rise in twitch/action game mechanics.

 

Games like say, Jagged Alliance or Darklands are more realistic than Dragon Age, because the underlying systems are put in place to simulate actual combat within the scope of their chosen gameplay style. Even if they are not as visually appealing as modern games.

[Farangbaa]

Stat crunch RPGs for the win.

I've spent more time in NWN2 making characters in some quick leveling mod than I played the story. In fact, I'm fairly certain I never even finished the story, and almost solely made characters. That game had such a magical system of leveling, with multiple classes and specialization classes.

 

Hmm.. I wonder where I have the disk of this game...