Roguey vs the Grognards Thread

[tuluse]

Derp. The only C&C that's a must for an RPG (and this doesn't fall in the category of what many consider C&C) is character creation; how you create your character should be the determining mechanic for all in-game consequences - not player choice.

Why even play the game? Just make a character and be told what happens to him or her.

Jesus - that's a lazy counter.

Read what he said the ONLY c&c that's a must for an RPG is char gen. The ONLY.

Meanwhile Sid Meier says: A game is a series of interesting choices.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Point stands - you knew what he meant but you interpreted in a way so narrow so as to give you a quick ZING point. It's intellectually lazy.

 

[tuluse]

Point stands - you knew what he meant but you interpreted in a way so narrow so as to give you a quick ZING point. It's intellectually lazy.

No I didn't. That's exactly what he wrote.

If there are no consequences to a choice, it's a false choice. A false choice is not interesting. So if there are no c&cs, the game isn't interesting. I use a broad view of c&cs though, they don't have to be narrative.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Point stands - you knew what he meant but you interpreted in a way so narrow so as to give you a quick ZING point. It's intellectually lazy.

No I didn't. That's exactly what he wrote.

If there are no consequences to a choice, it's a false choice. A false choice is not interesting. So if there are no c&cs, the game isn't interesting. I use a broad view of c&cs though, they don't have to be narrative.

You're really going to die on this hill? You really think he's advocating for a starting character sheet followed by a railroad that ends with a determination that the character sheet was WINNAR or not? Come on - there's enough legit criticisms to make that you don't have to do that.

 

[tuluse]

You're really going to die on this hill? You really think he's advocating for a starting character sheet followed by a railroad that ends with a determination that the character sheet was WINNAR or not? Come on - there's enough legit criticisms to make that you don't have to do that.

I'm not worrying about what he's "trying" to say. I can read what he actually wrote just fine. If he didn't mean what he wrote, he can clarify (it happens to the best of us).

 

[NotAGolfer]

You're really going to die on this hill? You really think he's advocating for a starting character sheet followed by a railroad that ends with a determination that the character sheet was WINNAR or not? Come on - there's enough legit criticisms to make that you don't have to do that.

I'm not worry about what he's "trying" to say. I can read what he actually wrote just fine. If he didn't mean what he wrote, he can clarify (it happens to the best of us).

I don't think that's what he meant. Guess he didn't word it carefully enough to win in Grognard court. ^^
What he meant, and I don't agree with that, is the design philosophy behind Age of Decadence, your created char AND how you develop him decides about how you have to approach the challenges in the game. Only then it's an RPG. I don't agree because that's too narrow for me. I want leeway in how to do things, and in most of the better CRPGs I played got it without turning the whole thing into popamole.

In party based games the interdependencies between the classes in your party often allows for a couple of different combat tactics and general ways to play the game anyway.

The old Fallouts were forgiving enough so you could explore at your leisure and often survive even if you screwed up some quest or storyline. That made it bearable that they were single char and not party based. TB single char games have to be like that imo, since combat, the main thing you do in nearly every RPG, can't really shine with only one piece on the board.

And ARPGs are more about twitch skills than RPG mechanics, even the better ones like the first Gothics and Dark Souls, so your build decides about the basic way you have to kill things (mage vs melee vs ranged)
and everything else is up to you (even if those games are quite linear, except for maybe choosing a faction / light vs dark side / unlock content by playing along and learing those hunting skills or whatever and clicking the sensible answer in dialogues).

Sure it would be great if every other decision you make in the game on top of how to level your char(s) would interact with your char's skill levels but designers didn't really do that in most of those 100 hour games for quite obvious reasons. Wished they did though. But even then I expect them to not lead to fail states every time I try something my char/party can't do, there are other ways to handle this (branching narratives instead of "mission failed, u suck"). And I want different options even for the same build.
...
And world peace, I want world peace.

 

[HiddenX]

Interview Vince & Josh at Irontower Studios
Designing Character Systems

These days, I tend to err on the side of simpler, more abstracted systems.

The preferred number of attributes is the number that accomplishes what you need in terms of setting and mechanics, that’s it. To that end, I think fewer are generally better, since games that set out to accomplish less typically have a higher level of overall polish. However, there is one more thing that I’d like to say about attributes: I believe it’s easier to balance individual attributes against each other when they are divorced from skills. That is, I think the relationship that many RPG systems establish between skills and attributes can make it very difficult to achieve balance between attributes – especially when the attributes can affect other aspects of the game.

The character systems that have most influenced me are the ones in Darklands, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Oblivion. There are things that I utterly despised about the character systems in all of those games, but they were moving toward an ideal that I believe in very strongly: a shallow learning curve that expands into thought-provoking depth.

Oblivion allows you more choice early in the character creation process, and it gives you templates as well as a custom character class option. It’s a fully skill-driven game, which is something I also love about Fallout and Darklands. It also features a “not completely terrible” learn-by-doing system

and so on, make your own judgment...

 

[Orma]

FSM is the biggest retard here tbh, not roguey.

I swear I think I'm talking to crazy people when they praise anything relating to F:NV.

 

[Roguey]

Everything Josh said there was on the money. Too bad inXile apparently have decided to backpedal and appease grognards by linking attributes with skills in Wasteland 2. I'm sure they'll fail.

You can if you have enough resources to throw at a game; see GTAV.

I'll get back to you after I play it, but the 3-series-through-4 didn't have what I'd consider great core gameplay. Kitchen sink of mediocrity with some really bad parts (usually optional) is how I'd describe my GTA experience so far.

It removes a lot of the shitty feeling gameplay, but unfortunately it doesn't replace it with interesting gameplay. Like Gerstmann said, combat is either frustrating, or dull.

In Fallout 3, sure.

Blocking in VATS doesn't make sense because VATS is god mode - removing frustration isn't an excuse for dull gameplay.

It's not god-mode in New Vegas.

Rarely even useful, let alone necessary. An ability that's only situationally decent a handful of times in a game is a badly designed ability.

I disagree, and so would a million grognards.

There are plenty of other ways to give clear feedback, like Halo's shield flare and Borderlands number floats. The point is they should have found some way to do it.

The feedback is blood splatter and the health bar going down.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Just make a character and be told what happens to him or her.

You mean like in PoE?

Certainly character creation and development means you decide what happens with the character? Or not?

Read what he said the ONLY c&c that's a must for an RPG is char gen. The ONLY.

But you agree with Sawyer's assessment that the only thing an RPG needs to be RPG is player choice in the narrative?
Sure, I know there are those who think that The Witcher is BEST RPG because you can choose between Trish and Tali or between elves and reapers, but seriously.

 

[AN4RCHID]

In Fallout 3, sure.

NV doesn't add any melee combat options except the aforementioned non-useful special attacks.

It's not god-mode in New Vegas.

False.

The feedback is blood splatter and the health bar going down.

Yes, but not good feedback compared to those other examples, or the animations and sound effects used in Skyrim.

 

[CyberP]

Interview Vince & Josh at Irontower Studios
Designing Character Systems

These days, I tend to err on the side of simpler, more abstracted systems.

The preferred number of attributes is the number that accomplishes what you need in terms of setting and mechanics, that’s it. To that end, I think fewer are generally better, since games that set out to accomplish less typically have a higher level of overall polish. However, there is one more thing that I’d like to say about attributes: I believe it’s easier to balance individual attributes against each other when they are divorced from skills. That is, I think the relationship that many RPG systems establish between skills and attributes can make it very difficult to achieve balance between attributes – especially when the attributes can affect other aspects of the game.

The character systems that have most influenced me are the ones in Darklands, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Oblivion. There are things that I utterly despised about the character systems in all of those games, but they were moving toward an ideal that I believe in very strongly: a shallow learning curve that expands into thought-provoking depth.

Oblivion allows you more choice early in the character creation process, and it gives you templates as well as a custom character class option. It’s a fully skill-driven game, which is something I also love about Fallout and Darklands. It also features a “not completely terrible” learn-by-doing system

and so on, make your own judgment...

Is this shit for real...C'mon Sawyer.

The only thing I agree with here is:

To that end, I think fewer are generally better, since games that set out to accomplish less typically have a higher level of overall polish. However, there is one more thing that I’d like to say about attributes: I believe it’s easier to balance individual attributes against each other when they are divorced from skills.

Fewer systems are indeed easier to balance...but that's a cop-out bro. I guess he does want a piece of the popamole pie.

 

[CyberP]

 

[CyberP]

Nothing wrong with having skills and attributes mutually exclusive though. He's right there, it doesn't particularly add anything worthwhile having attributes govern skills, nothing is lost if you decide to make them entirely separate. Hell if they were separate in NV we wouldn't be able to max all skills in one playthrough, which is good.

 

[Immortal]

The character systems that have most influenced me are the ones in Darklands, Fallout, Mass Effect, and Oblivion. There are things that I utterly despised about the character systems in all of those games, but they were moving toward an ideal that I believe in very strongly: a shallow learning curve that expands into thought-provoking depth.

Oblivion

thought-provoking depth.

 

[CyberP]

A CRPG where they were separate systems? System Shock 2, and it was a good result.

And yes, Oblivion and Mass Effect are trash.

 

[CyberP]

A CRPG where they were separate systems? System Shock 2, and it was a good result.
.

Though there is the problem of them all requiring the same currency (Cyber modules), so therefore still very difficult to balance.

 

[Siobhan]

WTF? In what universe is C&C the primary mechanic of RPGs?

Well what do you think it is? Character creation/building? If you remove that from a game you'll be left with the witcher, which most would say is an RPG, remove c&c/reactivity and you'd have Borderlands, which only the truly popamole would really consider anything more than an ARPG.

Assuming that we are talking about C&C that affects narrative, faction alignment or the availability of quests --- i.e. not C&C in terms of how basic gameplay rewards and punishes character/party build (thief VS fighter, picking suitable equipment, etc) --- the list of proper RPGs with minimal or non-existent C&C is long. A small selection (based on games I remember well enough to defend listing them here):

• Thalion's RPG series (Amberstar, Ambermoon, Albion)
• Realms of Arkania series
  
• Wizardry 8 (the only restriction is that you can do only one of the two "destroy the other faction" quests)
• Might and Magic 6 and 7 (you are forced to choose between Light and Dark magic, but that is mostly a choice of character build)
• Gothic 1 and 2 (joining a specific faction doesn't affect quest selection, story or dialogue in any meaningful way)
• Daggerfall
• Lands of Lore

Most of these games feature excellent gameplay C&C. Just take Star Trail: you decide to go hiking in the mountains without a rope and no blankets? Too bad, your healer slips and falls to his death while your fighter gets sick and loses 5--9 HP every night until he finally croaks after you run out of HP potions. But that's not really C&C, that's just a game where being retarded is an actual obstacle to making it through alive.

 

[HiddenX]

Siobhan - Cool list of CRPGs ->

It's really easy:
C&C are not essential for a CRPG but still very important. Ideally most of the selection of choice-options (in dialog, story, exploration,combat,...) you can select are in some way based on the stats and/or skills of your character(s).

Sometimes your current equipment (winter shoes, keys, quest items...) can influence your current selection of choice options, too.

PS:
Of course these stat & skill checks can be made in the background by the game engine, too.
Example: Your party can't enter the Wasteland, because your survival skill is still to low.
Choose to train your survival skill and you have the option to visit the wasteland.

 

[Lilura]

Oblivion's "shallow learning curve..."

Translation:

Choose a race, birthsign and specialization you think will compliment the "role" you wish to play and type of "fun" you wish to have.
Perform repeated mindless manual actions on major/minor skills until you get a total of 10 skill-ups for 3 different governing attributes advantageous to your character that will result in x5 multiplier for those 3 attributes at level-up.
Make sure you collect all the level-scaled loot in the chests at level1, that 1 septim, broom handle and dirty rag in the boss chest at the end of a copy-pasta dungeon is all it takes to pay for a trainer to minimize grind.
Do this for one dozen levels and marvel at the relative power your character has to the enemy.


"...that expands into thought-provoking depth":

Translation:

Over the next 20 levels, with your 3 primary attributes maxed and skills almost maxed with the concomitant passive perks, decked in Daedric and wielding Daedric enchanted with Sigil Stones, increasingly wonder why the enemies are beginning to withstand your many clicks on them.
Realize that leveling is broken, and that it's best to level no more than 30 because from about that point on your character is only getting weaker relative to the enemy, for several reasons, four simple examples of which are: the enemy has no such restrictions on attributes and HPs, enemy spawn number multiplies (but you're always just one unit), the enemy now wields weapons and spells that pierce DR and resists, and loot and quest rewards for you have stopped scaling, most of them a few levels ago.

 

[Dreaad]

My thought is highly provoked right now

 

[Roguey]

Rimming the sky update: Sneak attacks are much better now that I have +40% and +15% damage and a x3 multiplier. Killing those four witches and a hagraven to steal a dagger was actually fun. But now I'm level 10 and got attacked by a vampire so I have to drop everything and complete Dawnguard to stop that from being a regular occurrence.

NV doesn't add any melee combat options except the aforementioned non-useful special attacks.

Non-useful is wrong because I found them useful. They're not mandatory, nor should they be, because it's the death of tactics to require you to use certain abilities for certain situations. Moreover, the overhaul of the weapon and armor systems made them better, as does the hardcore mode change of making stimpaks heal over time instead of instantly. As Josh said, you can pick up a baseball bat and circle-strafe a super mutant to death straight out of the vault in Fallout 3, but not in New Vegas.

False.

What you're saying? Yeah. It's easy to die in VATS when you're overwhelmed.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Rimming the sky update: Sneak attacks are much better now that I have +40% and +15% damage and a x3 multiplier. Killing those four witches and a hagraven to steal a dagger was actually fun. But now I'm level 10 and got attacked by a vampire so I have to drop everything and complete Dawnguard to stop that from being a regular occurrence.

Use this instead.

 

[Roguey]

I'm fine with getting it all out of the way now, since it looks like Bethesda really wants you to do this when you're level 10.

I may end up using the mod that reduces random dragon attacks, assuming it still works. The discussion page has conflicting reports. Seems like an odd decision for Bethesda to stick to their guns about regardless.

 

[AN4RCHID]

It's easy to die in VATS when you're overwhelmed.