Interview RockPaperShotgun Wasteland 2 Interview with Chris Avellone

Click here and disable ads!

I agree, turn based combat is good when done nice.

Okay, I stand corrected. I have Adblock on (not for the Codex of course) and I just get a black background.

sea, I'm pretty sure that's a joke.

Please be a joke?

EDIT: OH GOD WHAT THE FUCK

I generally like RPS, because they have good writers and as far as mainstream gaming journalism goes they're one of the more PC-centric ones.

The whole flash ads thing got me to quit the site. What utter retarded shit.

Clearly you haven't heard of gamebanshee.

Proof that some people must remain in Ignore, oh well.

so, there is a chance Black Isle will come back?

damn, Codex should kickstarter a Might and Magic project, maybe New World Computing will come back too.

Ubi owns license, EA owns Van Caneghem. Not likely.

Just to give you an answer that you might actually understand:
combatfag = Person who sees cRPGs as games and sets his priorities on good gameplay. Since combat often takes up a large amount of gameplay - especially in games that do combat well - they're called combatfags by storyfags. For an estimated 90% to 99% the description "gameplayfag" would be more appropiate.
Combat-/gameplayfags are usually one side of the coin and storyfags are the other side. Since the opinions of gameplayfags and storyfags often clash (priority on gameplay vs. priority on story), storyfags like to shorten "gameplayfag" to "combatfag" in an attempt to ridicule the gameplayfag's position.
In turn a gameplayfag might define a storyfag as:
storyfag = Disabled LARPer (Live Action Role PLayer) who'd rather read a mediocre chose your own adventure than actually play a game.

Some friendly advice: If you aren't part of either camp (most sane people are probably between camps) either stay out of these discussions, troll both camps or state your opinion once without trying to defend it against both sides.

I am a balancedfag.

Both combat and interaction with the world and characters are elements of gameplay. A storyfag isn't someone who "doesn't like gameplay", rather someone who prefers it when the action is framed within a compelling narrative and is accompanied by an interesting story. Why is that wrong?

I've always seen combatfag as the guy who gets bored whenever he can't attack anything in the vicinity, and the storyfag as the guy who wishes there was a way to speed up all those annoying battles so he can find out more about McEvilman's plans.

When it comes to fantasy I'm a lorefag (which I don't think fits either description). I.e. The Silmarillion > LotR

Go ahead. Re-read the arguments of the person who defined a storyfag as somebody who "doesn't like gameplay". After that, you can re-read the arguments for/against either camp being "wrong" (or "right", for that matter).
Once you've done that, you'll be in a position to judge for yourself without requiring anybody else to answer your question.

Why cannot one be both? When I play games I like to have a narrative for the combat. If I just wanted pure gaming mechanics I'd play chess of some multiplayer deathmatch. Shit, even the 'find the scepter of fuckness at the bottom of this dungeon to get rid of the asshole of evil' is enough. I just need a reason why I'm fucking shit up.

I think people forget that combat is part of the narrative.

I've read both, I don't agree with either one. Your classification in particular is completely wrong, as it is indicative of someone who would prefer to dimsiss/make fun of the "opposite" side rather than try and understand its point.

Well wasn't that biased.

A combatfag isn't someone who likes gameplay, they're someone who sees cRPGs as pure dungeon crawling and combat. A storyfag is your typical biodrone that simply sees the combat as filler between banging Tali.

Both of them are closeminded in terms of RPGs.

We already know how storyfags pollute the genre. Combatfags seem to think dialogue is inherently toxic and boring. Look at Wizardry's anguish when he finds out that dialogue will involve full dialogue options. When people press him on it, he says that it should all be done in that terrible Oblivion style where you choose one word paraphrases but with a Narrator who passively describes the dialogue in vague and simple terms. He thinks that's genuinely interesting and entertaining to read. Your typical combatfag thinks that in dialogue he should just say "elves" and get a quick bulletpoint run down of what elves are so he can skim through it.

Can you imagine what a game like Fallout would be with this style. Can anyone genuinely see this:

as a more interesting and more entertaining way to talk down The Master compared to what actually did go down? Active dialogue options make the dialogue actually interesting to read, it makes scenes like talking down the Master really satisfying.

The rest of us understand that combat and dialogue as well as options like stealth are all viable and equally valid gameplay options in solving a quest and the best RPGs, like Fallout, are those that give the player different ways to solve quests based on their build. Dialogue isn't filler or romance, it's an actual way of diplomacy in finding out a way to solve a quest without the need to kill everyone involved.

Are there immersionfags or explorationfags?

^Yes, usually Bethesda fans.

I am a holisticfag.

"Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts."

The "whole" being the ability of the game to depict satisfying customization or development of player character(s) through the use of stat systems, progression systems and context (quest/level/narrative design). Everything else is secondary.

I'm not a fag.

Wizardry (and other combatfags) basically wants strategy games, not RPG's, as someone already pointed out.

If you belong to either of the two camps, you're an idiot. "Balance in all things.", Dak'kon used to say.