256 réponses à ce sujet

[MadDemiurg]

Generally speaking there are 2 ways you can go with CRPGs. The first is if you acknowledge the early forms of computer RPGs as one of the key roots in the genre's development. If you do so you're generally a fan of combat sim games. So the game must have a combat system which rewards your characters skills and not the player's twitch abilities. There should also be some level of exploration and ideally narrative , but early forms of CRPG were based off tabletop wargames and thus that's the key component for a lot of people: Combat system + stats which have a depth and are meaningfully applied, yes? This is why so many old-school CRPG fans love Divinity: Original Sin and Blackguards, both games feature excellent combat systems. People who share this definition should be aware that they're basically playing a sim game, you could call it a subgenre of the sim genre if you wish. I should note that Skyrim fails here - action combat. It's more a life-sim than an RPG, because the sim aspects of the game don't focus on the combat system but other parts of the world.

 

The second definition is for those who are aware that the first CRPGs on the computer were only emulating those elements of an RPG that computers could replicate at that time. In other words, CRPGs focused on the combat system because that's all computers could replicate. People who define RPGs with this in mind emphasise that an RPG is about a group of people roleplaying characters together to create their own story, so for these people it's the ability to affect narratives which are important. In D&D tabletop games for example, the players come together to create their own story. Josh Sawyer from Obsidian emphasises this viewpoint when he says

 

"If the central narrative is meaningly interactive, I would classify it as an RPG. That is, I consider interactive storytelling to be the primary defining characteristic of RPGs... More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not... text adventure games don't allow you to define and express your character's personality in a way which meaningfully changes the development of the story. ( http://fallout.wikia...and_defines_RPG )

 

So those are the two methods people generally use to define CRPGs. Skyrim fails on both counts, it has a combat system which relies heavily on a player's twitch abilities, and it doesn't have an interactive narrative. To be fair though, interactive narratives are rare so people tend to focus on the first definition.

Well, we're pretty close in terms of RPG definitions then. However I'd say Skyrim isn't that much worse as your average RPG in terms of "expressing your characters personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story". Well, except for the part where it says "significantly". I mean you get dialogue options (that usually don't affect anything, but that's about how it is in DA:I) and get some choices like whether you support Stormcloacks or Empire (mages vs templars). So if you say that this is not "RPG enough", you can discount a huge number of other games that have the same level of roleplaying and no "cRPG" mechanics.

 

From the recent games I played only TW2 and The Banner Saga did the interactive narrative part at least a little better than average.

[keyip]

Skyrim's combat is based on the character's skill with the weapon, the perks he has taken to boost his weapon skill, what modifications he has done to the weapon via crafting (his crafting skill is a factor) or\and enchanting (enchanting skill is a factor).

 

Skyrim's combat is PARTIALLY dependent upon the character's skill with the weapon just like Castlevania's combat is PARTIALLY dependent upon the character's skill. Whether you hit or miss is SOLELY dependent upon a player's twitch abilities, so no. It's not a CRPG.

 

Are you saying that Ultima Underworld

 

Was the player responsible for whether the character hit or missed, or was the player just responsible for when the character swung.

 

1. Nope. Roleplaying is also about headcanon. First person view. Fallout 3 + New Vegas + Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, has the same thing. Even Morrowind. Those aren't rpgs are they?

 

2. Are you saying a roleplaying game should force the player in a certain direction? That is railroading. Big no no in rpgs. If you want to explore in Skyrim you can do so til your eyes bleed, if you wish. Or not do it if you don't want to.

 

3. Yes. I clearly do since I brought up the notion that there is a difference between them.

 

1 - "Also about" does not equal "primarily about"

 

2 - No, I'm saying that the overall purpose of the game is about exploration, and that while you CAN choose to not participate that doesn't change the fact that Skyrim is designed to be a hiking sim.

 

3 - There isn't, actually.

[MadDemiurg]

Yes; but you do understand why the "days before agro" are "the days before agro" and not the present state of things, right? Turned out enough people didn't like having to stay as far back from the fight as they could, and having no influence over enemies beyond just standing in place somewhere logical and wondering what's the purpose of wearing all this armour if their characters are never the ones that actually get hit.

Turning this discussion around a bit, why not make a game where combat mechanics are designed in a way that make sense? I mean, IRL both heavily and lightly armored troops were used. It's not that heavily armored soldiers used elaborate insults to draw attention and make enemies attack them to protect the lightly armored ones.

[keyip]

you can discount a huge number of other games that have the same level of roleplaying and no "cRPG" mechanics.

 

Gooooood. Because every game and its dog is considered to be an "RPG" these days.

[MadDemiurg]

Gooooood. Because every game and its dog is considered to be an "RPG" these days.

But DA:I doesn't do the interactive narrative part that much better, and its combat mechanics also rely on you aiming in the right direction (or you'll miss) and timing some abilities like shield wall or parry, so maybe it's not an RPG as well then?

[Rawgrim]

Skyrim's combat is PARTIALLY dependent upon the character's skill with the weapon just like Castlevania's combat is PARTIALLY dependent upon the character's skill. Whether you hit or miss is SOLELY dependent upon a player's twitch abilities, so no. It's not a CRPG.

 

 

Was the player responsible for whether the character hit or missed, or was the player just responsible for when the character swung.

 

 

1 - "Also about" does not equal "primarily about"

 

2 - No, I'm saying that the overall purpose of the game is about exploration, and that while you CAN choose to not participate that doesn't change the fact that Skyrim is designed to be a hiking sim.

 

3 - There isn't, actually.

 

1. If all or most other criteria for an rpg are filled, one small combat "issue" isn't a huge thing. Pen and Paper rpgs rely on the player tossing a dice. That means that if the player's "reflexes" is a factor.

 

2. Both. The result was a combination of several factors. Both are hailed as some of the finest rpgs ever made, by the way.

 

1.2. Nitpicking, and nothing else.

2.2. If the overal point of the game was exploration, why add so many quests\questlines\storylines\the option to build a home + + ?Did you even play it?

3.2 You honestly can't tell the difference between Skyrim and the Sims? Are you saying that you feel The Sims is an exploration game? You just said that was all Skyrim was about.

[wolfhowwl]

This thread is funny because we're actually getting indie CRPGs as well as projects from established developers like Larian and Obsidian.

 

Yeah you're not going to get a CRPG with AAA production values but the genre is still seeing decent output (much better than recent years in fact!).

[keyip]

1. If all or most other criteria for an rpg are filled, one small combat "issue" isn't a huge thing. Pen and Paper rpgs rely on the player tossing a dice. That means that if the player's "reflexes" is a factor.

 

 

Reflexes have nothing to do with dice rolling. The idea you can manipulate the dice through "reflexes" is slightly ridiculous.

 

2. Both. The result was a combination of several factors. Both are hailed as some of the finest rpgs ever made, by the way.

 

 

Inquisitions is also hailed as a fine RPG, you can't listen to popular sentiment only when it's convenient. The fact remains if the combat is twitch-based, it's not a crpg. Consistency is the key.

 

1.2. Nitpicking, and nothing else.

 

 

No actually, it's not. You've been trying to redefine what "roleplaying" is for the last 2 pages, it's getting slightly ridiculous.

 

2.2. If the overal point of the game was exploration, why add so many quests\questlines\storylines\the option to build a home + + ?Did you even play it?

 

 

How many quests require exploration compared to the number of quests required to "build a home?" They built a massive open-world because they wanted you to explore it, you CAN build a home but they wanted you to explore first and foremost.

 

3.2 You honestly can't tell the difference between Skyrim and the Sims? Are you saying that you feel The Sims is an exploration game? You just said that was all Skyrim was about.

 

Skyrim's a sim which has a twitch-based combat system. The Sims is a sim without a combat system. 

[keyip]

But DA:I doesn't do the interactive narrative part that much better, and its combat mechanics also rely on you aiming in the right direction (or you'll miss) and timing some abilities like shield wall or parry, so maybe it's not an RPG as well then?

 

I never said it was a CRPG...

[MadDemiurg]

I never said it was a CRPG...

Well, its lets say its an RPG to about the same extent as Skyrim. Objectively somewhat more so, but not much.

[keyip]

Well, its lets say its an RPG to about the same extent as Skyrim. Objectively somewhat more so, but not much.

 

Foine

 

I should clarify my position here. I'm just slightly ticked off at the number of people saying "Bioware's not making CRPGs anymore. I'm going home to play the Witcher 2 or Skyrim instead." 

 

I mean, REALLY! There are NO AAA studios anymore making CRPGs, if you want a CRPG you'll have to go Indie.

 

That being said I DID enjoy Skyrim as a game, very much so. I enjoyed my time with it more than I enjoyed my time with Inquisitions (which I stopped playing ages ago.) I just think the criticisms of Bioware go a bit far at times, like I don't see why they should be the only RPG studio criticised for not making a CRPG ...

[MadDemiurg]

Foine

 

I should clarify my position here. I'm just slightly ticked off at the number of people saying "Bioware's not making CRPGs anymore. I'm going home to play the Witcher 2 or Skyrim instead." 

 

I mean, REALLY! There are NO AAA studios anymore making CRPGs, if you want a CRPG you'll have to go Indie.

 

That being said I DID enjoy Skyrim as a game, very much so. I enjoyed my time with it more than I enjoyed my time with Inquisitions (which I stopped playing ages ago.) I just think the criticisms of Bioware go a bit far at times, like I don't see why they should be the only RPG studio criticised for not making a CRPG ...

I see your point then.

 

Maybe BW gets criticised more because they actually used to make games based on D&D or similar in mechanics and now move away from it. Not there's much sense in it, but that's how it is. TW started out as action RPG for instance, so there's less controversy.

[Rawgrim]

Reflexes have nothing to do with dice rolling. The idea you can manipulate the dice through "reflexes" is slightly ridiculous.

 

 

Inquisitions is also hailed as a fine RPG, you can't listen to popular sentiment only when it's convenient. The fact remains if the combat is twitch-based, it's not a crpg. Consistency is the key.

 

 

No actually, it's not. You've been trying to redefine what "roleplaying" is for the last 2 pages, it's getting slightly ridiculous.

 

 

How many quests require exploration compared to the number of quests required to "build a home?" They built a massive open-world because they wanted you to explore it, you CAN build a home but they wanted you to explore first and foremost.

 

 

Skyrim's a sim which has a twitch-based combat system. The Sims is a sim without a combat system. 

 

1. You can cheat. The game also requires the player to make calculations about attack bonuses, skills, and damage.

 

2. Inquisition is an rpg, although a bare minimum one. It is hailed because EA paid people to hail it. DA2 got the same amount of hailing when it came out. ME3 as well, actually.

 

3. Nope I am not redefining anything. I know very well what roleplaying is. I have played rpgs for 25 years, and I work in the D&D industry as a designer\lore writer\author. I have picked up a thing or two about what roleplaying is. What about you?

 

4. Are you saying that rpgs shouldn't have any kind of exploration? The game should just teleport you to the relevant location as soon as you get a quest? Makes the survival skills and tracking skills rather useless in most pen and paper games then, doesn't it?

 

5. You said Skyrim was all about exploration. And then you said The Sims is exactly the same as Skyrim. Care to elaborate? You seem to be dodging the issue.

[tmp7704]

Turning this discussion around a bit, why not make a game where combat mechanics are designed in a way that make sense? I mean, IRL both heavily and lightly armored troops were used. It's not that heavily armored soldiers used elaborate insults to draw attention and make enemies attack them to protect the lightly armored ones.

I may be well off here, but in my understanding lightly armoured troops were pretty much poor schmucks who couldn't afford the heavy stuff and so could only hope for the best (and would generally die pretty fast). The heavy armoured dudes weren't taunting anyone if they had a choice because from self-preservation point it was infinitely more useful if someone else was getting hit and killed instead of them. Even if that person happened to be on the same side.

This sort of "realism" doesn't sit well with game players though who expect things to be "fair" to their character(s) no matter what they play, and so the games have to come up with ways to provide that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes; but you do understand why the "days before agro" are "the days before agro" and not the present state of things, right? Turned out enough people didn't like having to stay as far back from the fight as they could, and having no influence over enemies beyond just standing in place somewhere logical and wondering what's the purpose of wearing all this armour if their characters are never the ones that actually get hit.

Which is why there were attacks of opportunity for trying to walk right past someone with a giant sword who wanted to stop you from getting past.

Turn based games solved all of these issues decades ago. Video games just moved away from group coordination and want to make every character a stand alone god as opposed to try to convert complex systems into real time (and teach an entire generation of players who grew up button mashing that such limitations should even exist).

[MadDemiurg]

I may be well off here, but in my understanding lightly armoured troops were pretty much poor schmucks who couldn't afford the heavy stuff and so could only hope for the best (and would generally die pretty fast). The heavy armoured dudes weren't taunting anyone if they had a choice because from self-preservation point it was infinitely more useful if someone else was getting hit and killed instead of them. Even if that person happened to be on the same side.

This sort of "realism" doesn't sit well with game players though who expect things to be "fair" to their character(s) no matter what they play, and so the games have to come up with ways to provide that.

Not exactly, as light armor offers much more mobility. Heavily armored foot soldier is a sitting duck against lightly armored archer. It is possible to balance it out making both lightly and heavily armored character choices viable. I'm not exactly sure about making it "fair" no matter how players decide to play, as optimizing party composition and builds is one of the things makes tactical combat fun and not all combinations should be viable for obvious reasons. but it's definitely possible to balance out light and heavy armor so that there are viable tactics using both in combination. Aggro is just the laziest way of doing that.

[metatheurgist]

Yes; but you do understand why the "days before agro" are "the days before agro" and not the present state of things, right? Turned out enough people didn't like having to stay as far back from the fight as they could, and having no influence over enemies beyond just standing in place somewhere logical and wondering what's the purpose of wearing all this armour if their characters are never the ones that actually get hit.

Currently playing a 3.5 D&D game. The warlock always stays back and blasts things, that's his job. His built his character around the principle. The problem is, monsters keep getting around the frontline (because our party doesn't have much of a frontline) and attacking him. He'd love it he could stay unmolested, because he is squishy.

It's up to the rest players to come up with ways to intercept the enemy and keep him safe. We do this using spells, positioning, being a bigger threat, forcing our opponents to go on the defensive, etc. What we don't do is artificially introduce a mechanism that suddenly makes warriors Jedi masters with mind powers to force opponents to turn away and only attack them. Unless of course, you built a fighter/mage/psion with mind-affecting powers that specifically do that.

Introducing artificial mechanics like that is a sure sign that your game design is broke.

[tmp7704]

Which is why there were attacks of opportunity for trying to walk right past someone with a giant sword who wanted to stop you from getting past.

Turn based games solved all of these issues decades ago.

I'm getting a deja vu, but the stuff like attacks of opportunity only works in situations where someone actually wants/has to walk past your dude with a giant sword. Which you know, the ranged fighters never really do. So you end up chasing them around just so these rules can come into play.

Additionally, how is this effectively different from the agro? It may use a slightly different incentive/stick, but it boils down to the same silly "you must hit the melee guy in your face (or else)" mechanics that tries to influence opponent's behavior when the most sensible course of action for them would be to do something else. It's like having auto-taunt for anything that's in your range, without even having to press a button.

[tmp7704]

It's up to the rest players to come up with ways to intercept the enemy and keep him safe. We do this using spells, positioning, being a bigger threat, forcing our opponents to go on the defensive, etc.

But if you followed this thread, it'd make you believe that this has been solved decades ago and all it takes is a warrior with attacks of opportunity standing between your warlock and the mobs running past. Was that not solved then and mobs still don't give many fucks about the dude clad in heavy armour that wants them to hit him instead of the squishies?

I feel lied to

[MadDemiurg]

I'm getting a deja vu, but the stuff like attacks of opportunity only works in situations where someone actually wants/has to walk past your dude with a giant sword. Which you know, the ranged fighters never really do. So you end up chasing them around just so these rules can come into play.

Additionally, how is this effectively different from the agro? It may use a slightly different incentive/stick, but it boils down to the same silly "you must hit the melee guy in your face (or else)" mechanics that tries to influence opponent's behavior when the most sensible course of action for them would be to do something else. It's like having auto-taunt for anything that's in your range, without even having to press a button.

This is drastically different from aggro in a sense that you need to force the opponent to engage on your terms using positioning and proper abilities. This is usually called tactics. If you get a bad engage you can lose. It also leaves opponents with a choice of what they do rather then predefined dumb behavior.

 

Whereas in aggro based system you just push the magic taunt button nullifying any need for proper positioning or actually thinking how you want to play this encounter out. Furthermore, aggro systems inherently have a built in aggro based target prioritization. So for instance, I want to make an AI that uses a CC spell and then drops a lasting AoE on top because he's just that nasty. But after CCing character 1 he gets hit by character 2 and switches target because aggro mechanics inherently make him retarded.

 

 

But if you followed this thread, it'd make you believe that this has been solved decades ago and all it takes is a warrior with attacks of opportunity standing between your warlock and the mobs running past. Was that not solved then and mobs still don't give many fucks about the dude clad in heavy armour that wants them to hit him instead of the squishies?

I feel lied to 

 

But it IS solved for turn based games ages ago, there could be no debate here IMO.Including using methods that OP listed. Or are you arguing that in CIV games ZoC doesn't make melee viable meatshields for your ranged units? What about all these competitive turn based MP tactical games that feature heavily armored and lightly armored characters that are both perfectly viable on the same team? There can be some debate for realtime, but for turn based... please

[tmp7704]

Not exactly, as light armor offers much more mobility. Heavily armored foot soldier is a sitting duck against lightly armored archer.

Yes, but that's mainly a result of the weapon range, not the armour. That lightly armoured archer is just as much a sitting duck against opponent equipped with a bow instead of a sword; it's not like lightly armoured troops can boast much better survival rates against rains of arrows that the heavily armoured ones.

There may be some borderline cases where the armour becomes a disadvantage (like Agincourt where it'd make you effectively CCed) but that's well, borderline. When the heavy armoured force is free to move you get Patay instead, where the bows and light armour shown to be no match and all that extra mobility didn't help any.

[MadDemiurg]

Yes, but that's mainly a result of the weapon range, not the armour. That lightly armoured archer is just as much a sitting duck against opponent equipped with a bow instead of a sword; it's not like lightly armoured troops can boast much better survival rates against rains of arrows that the heavily armoured ones.

There may be some borderline cases where the armour becomes a disadvantage (like Agincourt where it'd make you effectively CCed) but that's well, borderline. When the heavy armoured force is free to move you get Patay instead, where the bows and light armour shown to be no match and all that extra mobility didn't help any.

Shooting a bow in heavy armor is quite difficult though. And lighter melee troops (like viking troops for instance) could reach enemy lines faster, thus negating much of the range advantage. it also depends on the tech level as later on when heavy armor became much less impenetrable there were much more instances of mixing it up (and even later on heavy armor becoming obsolete). Anyway, as far as game mechanics go, heavily armored chars can be easily modeled as suited for holding chokepoints or openly charging enemy positions, while lightly armored ones as ranged skirmishers, chasers and flankers.

[Reymoose]

I think comparing Skyrim and DA:I is somewhat misleading. They're two different experiences but neither of which are a cRPG such as BG/Placescape, etc. (DA:O is closest). Not to mention we're excising Morrowind from the comparison.

 

From a gameplay strict RP standpoint, I'd say Skyrim is better because you could for instance do just about anything (mods included) because you can totally ignore the story (any of the quests really) and have a lot of content at your disposal to be say, a dual-wielding dark elf naked berserker to...just building/collecting 'stuff' in your home. Whereas DA:I is limited by it's nature.

 

So Skyrim lends itself well to a 'make-your-own-adventure' type of RP where a cRPG-ish experience *can* be found, but you can't really do that in DA:I without *heavily* ignoring what is being presented to you, or just being delusional.

 

Foine

 

I should clarify my position here. I'm just slightly ticked off at the number of people saying "Bioware's not making CRPGs anymore. I'm going home to play the Witcher 2 or Skyrim instead." 

 

I mean, REALLY! There are NO AAA studios anymore making CRPGs, if you want a CRPG you'll have to go Indie.

 

That being said I DID enjoy Skyrim as a game, very much so. I enjoyed my time with it more than I enjoyed my time with Inquisitions (which I stopped playing ages ago.) I just think the criticisms of Bioware go a bit far at times, like I don't see why they should be the only RPG studio criticised for not making a CRPG ...

 

The reason AAA studios don't make them is because they don't have enough confidence it will sell as well as an action game, because decision-makers are often out of touch with what makes a game actually succeed, which is being a good game.

 

It may not sell 1 million copies out the gate, but a *good* game builds a fan base, it creates communities, it makes fan-fiction (I believe a dev once said you can judge the fandom size of a brand by it's fanfics)

 

Note I said, succeed, and not sell. AAA at the moment is in the business of selling, rather than succeeding, and little by little, the market will move from what they believe sells, which is 'cast as wide a net possible for maximum sales', to what makes a product great, which is catering to a niche, a small market, something that you can offer that no one else does.

 

That's one of the reasons I personally criticize, because adopting the trend of trying to please as many gamers as you can inevitably destroys the market that was interested in your product in the first place. When we think of Bethesda, we *know* open-world 'game', of some type. Same with Ubisoft (though not in a positive way).

 

When I look at DA:I, with a critical eye, past the bells and whistles, it's extremely hard to justify how this mostly empty open world, the war table, the fetch quests actually benefited the franchise in any sense.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm getting a deja vu, but the stuff like attacks of opportunity only works in situations where someone actually wants/has to walk past your dude with a giant sword. Which you know, the ranged fighters never really do. So you end up chasing them around just so these rules can come into play.

Additionally, how is this effectively different from the agro? It may use a slightly different incentive/stick, but it boils down to the same silly "you must hit the melee guy in your face (or else)" mechanics that tries to influence opponent's behavior when the most sensible course of action for them would be to do something else. It's like having auto-taunt for anything that's in your range, without even having to press a button.

Because aggro is idiotic? "Hey, this wizard is blasting you in the face with fire... but I'm going to stick my tongue out and taunt you and make you forget and attack me, encased like an iron tank!" As opposed to "hey, this guy won't just let me walk past him."

The same mechanics should be able to be used against opponents with a brain as the computer, instead of having the cornerstone of your encounter design function on a tactic that makes zero sense.

[MadDemiurg]

I think comparing Skyrim and DA:I is somewhat misleading. They're two different experiences but neither of which are a cRPG such as BG/Placescape, etc. (DA:O is closest). Not to mention we're excising Morrowind from the comparison.

 

From a gameplay strict RP standpoint, I'd say Skyrim is better because you could for instance do just about anything (mods included) because you can totally ignore the story (any of the quests really) and have a lot of content at your disposal to be say, a dual-wielding dark elf naked berserker to...just building/collecting 'stuff' in your home. Whereas DA:I is limited by it's nature.

 

So Skyrim lends itself well to a 'make-your-own-adventure' type of RP where a cRPG-ish experience *can* be found, but you can't really do that in DA:I without *heavily* ignoring what is being presented to you, or just being delusional.

 

 

The reason AAA studios don't make them is because they don't have enough confidence it will sell as well as an action game, because decision-makers are often out of touch with what makes a game actually succeed, which is being a good game.

 

It may not sell 1 million copies out the gate, but a *good* game builds a fan base, it creates communities, it makes fan-fiction (I believe a dev once said you can judge the fandom size of a brand by it's fanfics)

 

Note I said, succeed, and not sell. AAA at the moment is in the business of selling, rather than succeeding, and little by little, the market will move from what they believe sells, which is 'cast as wide a net possible for maximum sales', to what makes a product great, which is catering to a niche, a small market, something that you can offer that no one else does.

 

That's one of the reasons I personally criticize, because adopting the trend of trying to please as many gamers as you can inevitably destroys the market that was interested in your product in the first place. When we think of Bethesda, we *know* open-world 'game', of some type. Same with Ubisoft (though not in a positive way).

 

When I look at DA:I, with a critical eye, past the bells and whistles, it's extremely hard to justify how this mostly empty open world, the war table, the fetch quests actually benefited the franchise in any sense.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are in terms of market tendencies.

 

A lot of my frustration comes from the fact that  i see this as a vicious cycle that happens not only in the gaming industry, but also in the movie industry, literature and pretty much any creative sphere. Because products that are being released shape the audience just as much as the audience's needs shape the market. So a lot of people go and watch crap blockbuster movies because they don't know any better. And it's the fault of the industry for making them like this.