What you are advocating is making RPGs is just an action game with more stats/equipment/levels. Which qualifies FIFA to be an RPG, by that logic.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
What you are advocating is making RPGs is just an action game with more stats/equipment/levels.
I'm not advocating that, I am just comparing and contrasting two different systems. One gives the ability for expansions the other is tightly constraint. All I did was compare two combat systems, one that has grown and one that hasn't. The underlying issue is that RPG systems are usually archaic. I am not asking for anyone to include action based elements, all I am asking for is innovation in these systems. I mean what new thing could be added to the turn based system to improve it? For the most part it is usually just another variable like "shield damage 24%" which to me doesn't expand on the whole infrastructure of the system. No new paradigms are being created. It is bland.
If you want the correct model then you need to at the Lord of Rings / Hobbit movies in those the warriors get like 99% of the kills and the mages only drop a few monsters while doing their job of providing stat buffs and being tour guides.
If you want the correct model then you need to at the Lord of Rings / Hobbit movies in those the warriors get like 99% of the kills and the mages only drop a few monsters while doing their job of providing stat buffs and being tour guides.
False: Legolas an Archer, got more kills than Strider and Gimli.
Fact: The Mumakil (Oliphaunt) only counted as one.
Also they're aren't any warriors in The Hobbit trilogy, just bumbling neckbeards that only "fight" because of their Rube Goldburg combat "techniques". But that's neither here nor there, I'm not butthurt or anything.
False: Legolas an Archer, got more kills than Strider and Gimli.
Fact: The Mumakil (Oliphaunt) only counted as one.
Also they're aren't any warriors in The Hobbit trilogy, just bumbling neckbeards that only "fight" because of their Rube Goldburg combat "techniques". But that's neither here nor there, I'm not butthurt or anything.
Accumulate all the warriors (Dwarfs, Hobbits, Humans) kills in one group vs. that over worshiped blonde knife ears in another and then the warriors do win out.
Also I've been playing Neverwinter and everywhere you turn some elf lover named their character "Legolas" and the funny part is half are misspelled.
Accumulate all the warriors (Dwarfs, Hobbits, Humans) kills in one group vs. that over worshiped blonde knife ears in another and then the warriors do win out.
Also I've been playing Neverwinter and everywhere you turn some elf lover named their character "Legolas" and the funny part is half are misspelled.
Nah, it'd be sweet beautiful Orlando all day errday.
Nah, it'd be sweet beautiful Orlando all day errday.
Nope that guy is trapped as the Captain of the Flying Dutchman.
Nope that guy is trapped as the Captain of the Flying Dutchman.
Which is why I have started getting way more into PnP games in the past few months over video games. Video games feel cheap and artificial by comparison. I can open up combat with a rope in my hand to trip and tie up an enemy or hide from enemies whisk scouting ahead, laying traps or take a spell and use its application in a way that goes far outside what the game creators even ever thought of, let alone would be able to program.D&D, you can play a finesse based warrior( high dex ) or a spell sword, war mage, battle mage all have the option to wear armor. But yeah, for the most part I agree with you.
I'm not advocating that, I am just comparing and contrasting two different systems. One gives the ability for expansions the other is tightly constraint. All I did was compare two combat systems, one that has grown and one that hasn't. The underlying issue is that RPG systems are usually archaic. I am not asking for anyone to include action based elements, all I am asking for is innovation in these systems. I mean what new thing could be added to the turn based system to improve it? For the most part it is usually just another variable like "shield damage 24%" which to me doesn't expand on the whole infrastructure of the system. No new paradigms are being created. It is bland.
But systems that allow movement in squares or hexes, such that you can have ranged weapons/abilities versus close combat ones, which have different armor properties (much more than Shield 24%, but ones that work based on armor that is resistant to piercing weapons, or vulnerable to bludgeoning ones), systems that require casting times that leave your magicnusers vulnerable (but allow them to unleash complete destruciton on your enemies in a way that is fitting for the magic being used, not for the "spam every 70 seconds" spells), where character speed allows for more Attacks, or more turns, or more movement? Where using the environment can mean gaining the upper hand by being at a higher elevation or be given cover if hiding behind rocks?
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 had a wonderful concept for the "in and out of combat". It just needed to be shaped a bit, and I can just imagine what could we have today if an optimal AI would have been applied to that.
This Jimmy - Turing debate is hella interesting. I feel smart about games just reading it.
This Jimmy - Turing debate is hella interesting. I feel smart about games just reading it.
Wait, I'm talking with MOV/Samedi/LindsayLohan? Dangit, people need to give a guy some warning! Lol
Si
Deep Blue used the same rules that every professional Chess player is limited to. It has an amazing computing power, that's why it won the second time. The machine, given the right inputs, can outsmart man.
That's oversimplifying it too much. Deep Blue operated by calculating all possible sets of moves at every turn and using a particular algorithm to select the most optimal move. That's not how - from a computational POV - we play chess. I'm going to avoid a lengthy diatribe on cognitive science but the short of it is that it's functionally the difference of giving enemies different abilities.
It wouldn't get anywhere close to passing the Turing test though.
That's oversimplifying it too much. Deep Blue operated by calculating all possible sets of moves at every turn and using a particular algorithm to select the most optimal move. That's not how - from a computational POV - we play chess. I'm going to avoid a lengthy diatribe on cognitive science but the short of it is that it's functionally the difference of giving enemies different abilities.
Retour en haut