209 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Since we're wishing for anything we want in this thread...

You know what I want?

I want an RPG that's set in the universe created by R. Scott Bakker. And I want it to be the best RPG ever made.

The Prince of Nothing series?

[Dantriges]

Most sad part? I'm oldschool gamer (since ´80s last century), yet last time I've tried EoB style dungeon crawler without automapping and quest markers, I gave up inside first hour.

Some stuff was awesome only, with nostalgia goggles on.

[Cyonan]

RTSs have this problem, that they're next to impossible to effectively control with your average console controller, so most developers/publishers just ignore them, because PC exclusive AAA games just don't exist outside of Blizzard.

For the same reason we get RPGs like ME or Fallout 4 instead of "true" RPG games. Also times change and people today aren't interested in too complicated games, so Fallout had traits, skills, perks, level cap and power armor far, far into the game and Fallout 4 has perks, no level cap and first power armor 2 minutes and 36 seconds after exiting tutorial area.

Most sad part? I'm oldschool gamer (since ´80s last century), yet last time I've tried EoB style dungeon crawler without automapping and quest markers, I gave up inside first hour.

 

A lot of those RPGs making a comeback use fairly complex systems. The thing is that, unlike many older RPGs, they aren't clunky and they actually explain the ruleset of the game inside the game itself. One would think that RTS would be able to make more of a comeback using Kickstarter, but it doesn't seem to be doing that.

 

I would love to see a proper spiritual successor to Command and Conquer, and it's the kind of thing you could do on a kickstarter budget.

 

I think we're seeing that complexity does have a place in games, even if some developers like Bethesda appear to be absolutely terrified of it.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Generally takes a bit more time to make a triple A RPG I think.

 

That said Jade Empire 2 please.

[FKA_Servo]

A lot of those RPGs making a comeback use fairly complex systems. The thing is that, unlike many older RPGs, they aren't clunky and they actually explain the ruleset of the game inside the game itself. One would think that RTS would be able to make more of a comeback using Kickstarter, but it doesn't seem to be doing that.

 

I would love to see a proper spiritual successor to Command and Conquer, and it's the kind of thing you could do on a kickstarter budget.

 

I think we're seeing that complexity does have a place in games, even if some developers like Bethesda appear to be absolutely terrified of it.

It has its place, but I think certain games, including the sort of games Bethesda generally makes, can benefit from less overall complexity. The leveling systems in past Elder Scrolls entries are dense and awful, and require stat babysitting lest you end up as a level 100 acrobat. Skyrim, for what it's worth, lets you focus on exploring the world and effortlessly building the character you want to play (and if the argument is "well, you shouldn't be able to specialize in everything" my retort is "well, don't shoot fireballs and summon demons on your sneaky thief character. Exercise some restraint."). And there are some intensely transformative mods available for players who would like to add complexity back in.

 

Signed for a decent C&C game, though. Red Alert (the first one) is one of my most played games of all time.

[Cyonan]

It has its place, but I think certain games, including the sort of games Bethesda generally makes, can benefit from less overall complexity. The leveling systems in past Elder Scrolls entries are dense and awful, and require stat babysitting lest you end up as a level 100 acrobat. Skyrim, for what it's worth, lets you focus on exploring the world and effortlessly building the character you want to play (and if the argument is "well, you shouldn't be able to specialize in everything" my retort is "well, don't shoot fireballs and summon demons on your sneaky thief character. Exercise some restraint."). And there are some intensely transformative mods available for players who would like to add complexity back in.

 

Signed for a decent C&C game, though. Red Alert (the first one) is one of my most played games of all time.

 

Well the problem with Elder Scrolls wasn't complexity but rather that the whole system was just poorly designed due to the need to babysit your stats. It needed an overhaul rather than a simplification.

 

In general I don't like being able to specialize in everything in a game, but it hardly feels like it matters in a Bethesda game since your character stats have very little non combat relevance. There's no skill checks that open up new paths in quests for the most part, and even charisma in Fallout 4 seems to largely be used to get more money out of people.

 

Though Bethesda's stuff doesn't really bother me, they just make for a good example. I've largely stopped trying to play the character I want to play because the ability to RP in their games is so severely limited.

[FKA_Servo]

Though Bethesda's stuff doesn't really bother me, they just make for a good example. I've largely stopped trying to play the character I want to play because the ability to RP in their games is so severely limited.

 

I still like it. It works better than most games, for me. It's true that the characters exist almost exclusively in my head, but I've built up a rather intensely realized pantheon in spite of (because of?) that. I like it so much that the voiced protagonist (something I'm typically indifferent leaning toward in favor) in FO4 is almost a dealbreaker. Could just be the way I play those particular games, though.

 

I dig comprehensive rulesets too. I'm just finding in the last few years, I prefer that stuff in actual tabletop roleplaying as opposed to games.

[Cyonan]

I still like it. It works better than most games, for me. It's true that the characters exist almost exclusively in my head, but I've built up a rather intensely realized pantheon in spite of (because of?) that. I like it so much that the voiced protagonist (something I'm typically indifferent leaning toward in favor) in FO4 is almost a dealbreaker. Could just be the way I play those particular games, though.

 

I dig comprehensive rulesets too. I'm just finding in the last few years, I prefer that stuff in actual tabletop roleplaying as opposed to games.

 

I still have fun with their games, I've just given up on being able to RP anything in them.

 

I prefer RPG in tabletop format because there is very little restriction to what I can make my character say and do, and I accept that we lack the level of technology for computers to be able to do that but I still think a better job could be done in a lot of cases. Even in Mass Effect, there is really only 2 Shepards you can play as from a personality standpoint.

[Commander Rpg]

ME3 is not an rpg though

You have a reasonable point.

[AlanC9]

Most sad part? I'm oldschool gamer (since ´80s last century), yet last time I've tried EoB style dungeon crawler without automapping and quest markers, I gave up inside first hour.

How'd you do with DAI? Sometime the automap is so poor at showing me how I can get where I want to go that I find myself looking around for graph paper. Although this is usually in outdoor areas so I guess graph paper wouldn't help.

[AlanC9]

You have a reasonable point.

Assuming that trying to define "RPG" is reasonable. We've been trying that on this board for years, and got precisely nowhere.

[AlanC9]

Well the problem with Elder Scrolls wasn't complexity but rather that the whole system was just poorly designed due to the need to babysit your stats. It needed an overhaul rather than a simplification.

Ever try playing Morrowind with GCD? I liked it in theory. In practice I found that the game played better without it, but that's because I can't stand Morrowind combat, so making a beeline for the exploits works better for me.

OTOH, this does mean that I'm stuck with breaking out the spear and killing mudcrabs at the start of the game.

[FKA_Servo]

Assuming that trying define "RPG" is reasonable. We've been trying that on this board for years, and got precisely nowhere.

 

"Game I Like=RPG, Game I Don't Like=/=RPG" seems to be generally applicable, from what I gather.

[Cyonan]

Ever try playing Morrowind with GCD? I liked it in theory. In practice I found that the game played better without it, but that's because I can't stand Morrowind combat, so making a beeline for the exploits works better for me.

OTOH, this does mean that I'm stuck with breaking out the spear and killing mudcrabs at the start of the game.

 

I've not tried GCD, though if it doesn't remove the part where skills affect my chance to hit then I would still hate the combat which at the start of the game is basically summed up perfectly by this:

 

[o Ventus]

I kinda doubt Bioware would be as successful on kickstarter if they weren't making a smaller budget niche game akin to their older style, considering the kind of games they now makes requires a budget akin to what Star Citizen has attained through crowd-funding since leaving the platform, and that, is highly unlikely.

 

What was being proposed there was essentially an AAA game in a actually long dead genre even though there obviously were a lot of fans starved for new games, and it didn't outpace Obsidian by much until after it had continued the funding on its own website.

 

As successful as they are now or as successful as Obsidian? Because if it's the latter, I would contest this.

[o Ventus]

Have I killed your cat? Ate you cookie? I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong, but I am certainly not intentionally lying.

 

In any case, you are missing the point entirely.

 

There is more than one reason for the difference in sales numbers between an AAA game and something like PoE or Shadowrun Returns.

 

And true, these games are niche games. However, they still prove that there is a great interest in RPG's, even those that are decidedly not shiny

and use somewhat archaic gameplay elements. I posit that the sales numbers on these games are impressive, considering how niche and unassuming they are.

 

When you add this to the data we have on the relative success of DA:I, and the even more successful "The Witcher 3", what you are left with

seems to indicate that a large part of the market is very interested in games with RPG elements (and to a lesser degree, even the more archaic interpretation of RPG's), and that interest is probably enough to sustain more AAA games of this style.

 

I never said that you were literally lying, I was exaggerating to make my point. Welcome to every single one of my posts.

 

My issue is that you're looking at one element of something and using it as a blanket to determine the entirety of that something. Ergo, you say "well, cRPGs aren't shiny so people won't buy them" like it's a set-in-stone fact when it very clearly is not. And here in this post you do it again with assuming that people are "very interested". You have no knowledge of these people or their reasons for buying or not buying something, but you want to presume.

[AtreiyaN7]

Fetchquester is absolutely worthless (no wonder) and Fallout, as I've mentioned, has far too much a potential to kick my arachnophobia up, becoming one of the games I never play. So, I'm pretty much dry since Inquisition.

 

You actually don't have to worry about spiders at all in FO4 (not even small ones), since they do not appear to be present (unless the devs managed to sneak in some spider lair that I haven't come across anyway). On the other hand, you may end up phobic about radscorpions and/or radroaches after playing. Also bloatflies and those giant mosquito things. But hey, NO spiders whatsoever!

[Laughing_Man]

I never said that you were literally lying, I was exaggerating to make my point. Welcome to every single one of my posts.

 

My issue is that you're looking at one element of something and using it as a blanket to determine the entirety of that something. Ergo, you say "well, cRPGs aren't shiny so people won't buy them" like it's a set-in-stone fact when it very clearly is not. And here in this post you do it again with assuming that people are "very interested". You have no knowledge of these people or their reasons for buying or not buying something, but you want to presume.

 

Yeah... I think I explained myself reasonably well in my last post, but from your response I don't think that there is a point in trying to have a coherent discussion with you. I don't think you even tried to consider the issue or indeed gave it any thought beyond what was required to satisfy a petty contrarian urge. So whatever.

[AlanC9]

I didn't see an actual argument in that post either. How does a niche success prove anything about the AAA space for a nominally similar game?

[Zekka]

Assuming that trying to define "RPG" is reasonable. We've been trying that on this board for years, and got precisely nowhere.

That's just BSN being BSN.

 

Most sad part? I'm oldschool gamer (since ´80s last century), yet last time I've tried EoB style dungeon crawler without automapping and quest markers, I gave up inside first hour.

What game?

[Cyonan]

That's just BSN being BSN.

 

I've seen plenty other forums struggle to define just what "RPG" means.

 

It's because it's extremely easy to come up with a definition that's either too general and starts including other games which are obviously not RPGs, or it's too specific and things like Baldur's Gate might even not be considered a RPG by it.

 

It's something that most of us probably have a good idea as to what we think is a RPG when we see it, but can be really difficult to actually put into a proper definition.

[Dalakaar]

The Prince of Nothing series?

The first three books are still my favourite trilogy in existence. He's still working on the next trilogy but it misses that mark that the first one hit perfectly. It's a very particular type of read though. Brutal, dark, philosophical. Based on a rough crusades era world with one of the best magic systems I've ever seen. The characters are vivid, real, and terribly, terribly, sad. It is a world for weeping. And learning.

 

Never read anything even remotely like it, probably never will. Kinda don't want to. It's a series that lends itself to a perspective that looks beyond the obvious to what lurks beneath, and more importantly why it's beneath the surface. It's even in the title of the first book. The Darkness That Comes Before. It makes you ponder how evil your hero can be if he saves the world, and what being human means. (For good or ill)

 

It's a fully fleshed world with a rich history, numerous languages, and intelligent thought provoking magic systems and religions. The magic, and the consequences of using magic, are so fantastically brutal it blew my mind away the first time I read it.

 

The books aren't for everyone, one of my friends ate it up as much as I did, whereas the other found it too chewy a meal. It's not the tripe of Goodkind, nor the pop'n'chips of Robert Jordan, nor yet the seven course meal of Sanderson's Stormlight Archive. They are thick rare bloody steaks.

[Zekka]

I've seen plenty other forums struggle to define just what "RPG" means.

 

It's because it's extremely easy to come up with a definition that's either too general and starts including other games which are obviously not RPGs, or it's too specific and things like Baldur's Gate might even not be considered a RPG by it.

 

It's something that most of us probably have a good idea as to what we think is a RPG when we see it, but can be really difficult to actually put into a proper definition.

Truthfully I feel like I can tell an rpg when I play one. It's yet to fail me.

[AlanC9]

Truthfully I feel like I can tell an rpg when I play one. It's yet to fail me.

Um... how could it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The first three books are still my favourite trilogy in existence. He's still working on the next trilogy but it misses that mark that the first one hit perfectly. It's a very particular type of read though. Brutal, dark, philosophical. Based on a rough crusades era world with one of the best magic systems I've ever seen. The characters are vivid, real, and terribly, terribly, sad. It is a world for weeping. And learning.

 

Never read anything even remotely like it, probably never will. Kinda don't want to. It's a series that lends itself to a perspective that looks beyond the obvious to what lurks beneath, and more importantly why it's beneath the surface. It's even in the title of the first book. The Darkness That Comes Before. It makes you ponder how evil your hero can be if he saves the world, and what being human means. (For good or ill)

 

It's a fully fleshed world with a rich history, numerous languages, and intelligent thought provoking magic systems and religions. The magic, and the consequences of using magic, are so fantastically brutal it blew my mind away the first time I read it.

 

The books aren't for everyone, one of my friends ate it up as much as I did, whereas the other found it too chewy a meal. It's not the tripe of Goodkind, nor the pop'n'chips of Robert Jordan, nor yet the seven course meal of Sanderson's Stormlight Archive. They are thick rare bloody steaks.

I should read it.  I was given The Darkness That Comes Before many years ago, but it has languished on my shelf ever since (too many other books to read).

 

Your distaste for Goodkind makes your recommendation more credible.  And while I liked Jordan's world-building, it didn't turn into much of a story (and ended too abruptly once Sanderson took over).