sgc_meltdown said:I want a heavy emphasis on narrative, extensive conversations, detailed characterisation, etc.
Read a book.
sgc_meltdown said:I want a heavy emphasis on narrative, extensive conversations, detailed characterisation, etc.
jancobblepot said:Yes, I want to play a non-combat centric RPG. No, I don't want an adventure game
Grunker said:Wyrmlord said:They never enjoyed the genre for what it was. They merely saw it as a working model for their dream game that never existed
So aspiration is a bad thing now?
Norfleet said:hostile takeovers of all the guards and thieves guilds
If out of all the bloody things you can do in 1400 those two covert options that give you a text message outcome and a special building offensive ability is focusing the game on combat then age of empires is heavily based around diplomacy and trading since you can barter resources. And Dragon Age 2 is a game focused on roleplaying. And your post is focused on objectivity.beating and kidnapping my enemies, and cannoning the town...not combat, you say?
Aspiration? My point is about the criteria they use to judge games.Grunker said:Wyrmlord said:Frankly, the old Codex crowd had an absurd and unrealistic view of RPGs.Trash said:You're basically asking for what would amount to the old codexian's defenition of a perfect rpg. Too bad there never was any made. The rpg's that are lauded the most on this site are perhaps the ones that come closest and indeed, they pale in the light of such demands.
Vault Dweller, Saint Proverbius, Section8, Rosh, and Volourn have idealized a particular kind of RPG that never existed.
They never enjoyed the genre for what it was. They merely saw it as a working model for their dream game that never existed
So aspiration is a bad thing now?
Wyrmlord said:and never will exist.
Oh, the power of prophecy!
I merely say, "No game has actually had the qualities you demand from it, so why are you using your fake, made-up, arbitrary criteria, instead of just looking at the features that RPGs actually have? Do you even like this genre?"
Blackadder said:I say expand the combat system to a Jagged Alliance/Silent storm system; They want more talky with more options included.
sgc_meltdown said:Blackadder said:I say expand the combat system to a Jagged Alliance/Silent storm system; They want more talky with more options included.
given how warmly received toee's combat system was I don't think there's any resistance to better combat in rpgs, why would there be? This isn't a dichotomous schism in approach so much as which side is being neglected more and needs attending to first, and I really don't think you want to be arguing that combat in rpgs is as much of an artifice with no-consequence choices and on-rail events like narratives are.
Go fight a medieval war.octavius said:sgc_meltdown said:I want a heavy emphasis on narrative, extensive conversations, detailed characterisation, etc.
Read a book.
One of the reasons why the old Codex never got the game they wanted.Castanova said:What would be the point?
If you want to solve non-combat problems that are actually challenging, they need to be puzzles designed for YOU to solve, not your character. If you only need a WIS > 10 to solve a given puzzle then that's not challenging... you're just playing a CYA book.
Blade Runner, more C&C than any RPG I've ever seen.Johannes said:So suggest some properly non-linear adventure games then (preferably with a player created PC)?
racofer said:Alright, the choices in KotOR: Should I paint my wall in White or Black?
THAT TOTALLY CHANGES TEH OUTCOME!
Dark Matter said:Compared to the choices in Fallout:
Should I help Killian or Gizmo? OMG THAT TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING. ONE OF THE ENDING SLIDES IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!
Should I fight the Master or talk him out of it? THAT TOTALLY CHANGES...well actually that doesn't change anything at all.
Admiral Rimjob POOBUM said:Ssh, they genuinely believe the fabled choice and consequences actually existed to a great degree in the past. Don't spoil it for them.
Wyrmlord said:Lord Chambers, here is an interesting result of the Old Codex's marginalisation of those who ever said otherwise.
Relatively new gamers who never played any RPG before 2002 got the idea that old games were full of the theoretical features that Old Codex idealized. Anyone who thought otherwise was obviously wrong, because he was ridiculed.
This led them to bashing even games they previously liked, while getting the idea that old games were different. The result? See this thread:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=31859
racofer said:Alright, the choices in KotOR: Should I paint my wall in White or Black?
THAT TOTALLY CHANGES TEH OUTCOME!
Dark Matter said:Compared to the choices in Fallout:
Should I help Killian or Gizmo? OMG THAT TOTALLY CHANGES EVERYTHING. ONE OF THE ENDING SLIDES IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!
Should I fight the Master or talk him out of it? THAT TOTALLY CHANGES...well actually that doesn't change anything at all.
Admiral Rimjob POOBUM said:Ssh, they genuinely believe the fabled choice and consequences actually existed to a great degree in the past. Don't spoil it for them.
Can you believe the hypocrisy of *some* people on RPG Codex? Racofer, who was a KotOR fan before he came to RPG Codex during his AVault days, got the idea from the Saint Proverbius crowd that it was his fundamental duty to dislike KotOR. Why? Because it lacked features that never existed in old games. He had not even played Fallout, Torment,.etc at the time, but he believed the mythology related to them.
It's halfway new, halway old posters such as Dark Matter and Admiral Jimbob who have been the voice of sanity and reason here, while pre-2006 and post-2007 periods have been times of trendy hipsters.