how did the Codex's obsession with C&C originate? was it Fallout 1?

[Vault Dweller]

A character system is a vital part of the combat system as you can't have one without the other. Same goes for resource management and anything used in combat or improve your combat abilities.

Minor nitpick: there's plenty of combat-heavy strategy/tactics games that don't have a real character system...

But they aren't really RPGs as you've just stated.

A fully functioning RPG combat system requires:

- character system
- item system (properties and such)
- magic system if any
- crafting system if any
- creatures system if any (different abilities and such)
- resource system if any
- the combat system itself with all the above mentioned systems integrated

... and isn't AoD at least partially an experiment in building a character system that's also viable for pacifist playthroughs?

It is yet the combat system can't be separated from the character/item/crafting/alchemy systems.

Imho a major part of the appeal of LoG right now is also that there hasn't been a story- and dialogue-free RPG for such a long time. Almost every modern RPG, including Kickstarter projects, insists on tons of exposition, dialogue, dramatic story twists, companion interactions, (fake) C&C, giant towns with nothing but stores and pez-style quest dispensers, and it's all just such a mind-numbing drag. SR:HK was at its best when it was just a series of missions you choose from in some random subway station to get money and loot, and it was at its worst when you had to click through pages and pages of inane companion dialog or make a decision like whether the people on some floating trash island should start a revolt. It really hurts the pacing, and in the end SR:HK and these other games would have been better off if all of that stuff had just been cut out.

In general, I agree. IF the poorly done "exposition, dialogue, dramatic story twists, companion interactions, (fake) C&C, giant towns with nothing but stores and pez-style quest dispensers" can't be improved, it's better to remove them for good and focus on the atmosphere and combat. However, if they can be improved, I'd rather have that than nothing but combat.

 

[ghostdog]

C&C should apply to everything:

Character Build -> Offering different options to tackle quests/combat
Quests/problem solving -> Multiple ways to achieve goal.
Combat -> Variety of options that offer both advantages and disadvantages
Narrative structure -> the game world reacts to choices you've made -> Individual reactions / Factions
Resources

It's not just "decide if you'll help this guy or steal his purse".

 

[Siobhan]

What he said is that a combat system inevitably requires a character system. You have after all different actors in conflict. Each of these actors have character traits which define how combat plays out. The Bishop moves diagonally and the Tower moves in straight lines, etc. In RPGs the focus tends to shift to that character system in order to create a game out of character creation and development. Without either of those you do not have much more roleplaying than in any other game genre. After all you play the role of a soldier in Medal of Honor, do you not? Hence why C&C is king, wether you are a blobber or a fallout style game.

I can't tell what exactly you have in mind when you say "roleplaying", which makes it a little tricky to give a succinct reply. So here's some general points and hopefully something will be pertinent to the discussion.

1) Your definition of character system seems to be so general it even includes Castlevania and Megaman, in which case it fails to address my initial point that a complex RPG character system by itself can be rewarding and is something that can be assessed independently of combat. If you want a concrete example, Wiz8's character system is a piece of beauty that just makes it tons of fun to plan out and build your characters, even if at the end of the day the combat is fairly shallow (compared to, say, JA2 or any proper wargame). That isn't incompatible with VD's point (thanks for the clarification in the follow-up post) --- combat and character system are necessarily intertwined --- but they are still distinct parts of the game and you can have a game with mediocre combat that's salvaged by a great character system (rather than writing and C&C).

2) The focus may in general shift towards character systems, but as I pointed out above, there's plenty of games like Albion that are considered RPGs although their character systems barely go beyond Castlevania 3 in complexity (one could actually make an argument for Castlevania 3 having the more complex system).

3) You're conflating at least three distinct kinds of C&C here: story-based C&C (I picked choice A, so now the story goes as follows), reactive C&C (I did XYZ and the game acknowledges that, be it through dialog, locking off certain areas, or whatever), and gameplay C&C (the way you build your character/party affects the set of viable gameplay strategies). OP's beef is clearly with the first two being considered mandatory, and VD's combat VS writing/C&C dichotomy was also about the first two. Your claim that C&C is king, on the other hand, covers all three.

For the record, I don't think that an RPG needs any one of those three types of C&C in order to be good. The prime example is LoG1, which has none of the first two and the little of type 3 it has once again doesn't exceed what you find in certain action platformers from the NES area. There's very few builds, differences barely matter, and dealing with enemies always involves the same combat mambo that most codexers despise. Resources barely matter because you hardly ever need potions and there's always plenty of food around. Basically, if you've played it once and found all secrets, you've played it to completion, the only thing left is possibly a solo run (which is still pretty much the same with a more uneven difficulty curve). It's still a good game imho, and most codexers would consider it an RPG.

One could make an argument that LoG1 would've been better with more C&C, but since LoG2 did just that and some people here liked it less, that claim wouldn't rest on a solid empirical base, either.

 

[Quigs]

how did story C&C become the only RPG element the codex recognizes instead of actual gameplay C&C?

it seems like the codex does not care for RPGs at all but rather adventure game hybrids. Granted, adventure game hybrids are the norm now and real RPGs are no longer produced so one can't fault a community for liking what is being made en masse (i.e. Final Fantasy, Pillars of Eternity, etc).

Most of us came from, or at least met each other on, the old Black Isle forums. So Baldurs Gate, Fallout, IWD and Planescape were what had our interest. Then Fallout Tactics, FOBOS, and the shitstorm that was Fallout Fantasy (later Lionheart) became a quick and heavy barrage of the community being told what was actually fun. Dozens of little protests sparked up here and there, each with their own reason why those later games weren't what we wanted. The most pervasive and complete argument was one of choice and consequence. Interplay shuts down. Some users go to NMA-Fallout. Others go to an Arcanum fan forum. Others still start up the Codex. Basically founded on our perception of what game devs had succeeded in before, but were doing wrong now.

Probably the biggest names back then in pushing for C&C were Saint Proverbius, Vault Dweller, and Killzig. Saint was old back then, so these days he's probably off growing pot in some hippie commune. VD's story is much more well known.

 

[aweigh]

A perfect example of a pure RPG would be something like the first Wizardry title.

I would argue that the first Ultima's as well back when they still featured actual dungeons to explore.

I would not consider a game like Fallout 1 or Baldur's Gate 1 to be "pure RPGs" but more adventure game genre derivatives, albeit due to the turn-based nature of Fallout 1 and it's more robust gameplay mechanics it hews the closest to the principles of a "pure RPG" than any of the other isometric/top-down derivatives that followed it.

 

[Lurker King]

So a pure role-playing game would be a pure action game, while games with role-playing opportunities are mere adventure games. mkay

 

[aweigh]

the fact that you can bake bread in later ultima games is sometimes touted as an example of "reactivity" when in reality this is something much closer to what the Codex labels as "virtual LARP".

I assume Lurker King that this would be a prime example of what you consider "role playing opportunities"? Perhaps if the game allowed you to open a bakery and sell the bread, would this then also be more "role playing"?

None of that is part of what makes an RPG an RPG. in fact by the point in the Ultima games in which this feature can be found the exploration aspects have been corrupted almost completely into Adventure Game Hybrid territory and feature very, very little mechanics-driven exploration, or "pure RPG" exploration.

i would also offer for consideration the following concerning "exploration" utilizing once again early Ultima dungeons with later overworlds:

- navigation of a maze is probably the purest distillation of mechanics-driven RPG exploration. navigation of an old-school maze will usually require proper knowledge and use of all of the party's abilities as well as the player's abilities. note that this is not limited to perspective as the same can replicated in a top-down view.

- it would seem then that the crux of mechanics-driven exploration lies completely in the area design. There is a lot of mechanics-driven exploration done in a game like Fallout 1, which is why I said earlier that it hews closer to what a "true RPG" plays like than other games lumped into its generation, and yet Fallout 1 does not feature actual "Mazes".

food for thought.

 

[DeepOcean]

This site was started mainly because we liked the reactivity and choices that were present in the Fallout games, and wanted to see more games like that made.

That and the very fact that on a supposed game, you should be able to interact with stuff and the story is a pretty fun place to interact with, an RPG doesn't need to have C&C to be playable but those that do are a league above just by the fact of offering more interaction than those that don't.

 

[aweigh]

deepocean, but the problem lies in that almost no other games approach the levels of good design found in Fallout 1. (in terms of adventure-game-hybrids).

in fact, the MAJORITY of modern rpg's actually replace solid gameplay with shallow Story State A/B/C choices and we run into the problem of this being touted as "a defining RPG feature"; i.e. a feature which is taking the place of actual gameplay.

in a game like Fallout 1 gameplay and C&C co-exist together, and to a lesser extent the same can be said of Age of Decadence, but then we have games like Pillars of Eternity which feature unbelievably shallow gameplay mechanics and lots of shallow "C&C".

the reason that planescape: torment is, in my opinion, the only rpg to successfully re-create traditional RPG mechanics in its adventure game aping by integrating the consequences of the mechanics-driven gameplay right into the narrative, right into the story state choices.

every conversational choice in Torment carries the same gameplay-weight that a life-and-death encounter in Wizardry carries and equivalent consequences for the player. sadly this is not the norm and it is in fact the exception.

so having C&C does not automatically make an RPG better; like with _all other games ever made_ it is the quality of the gameplay that makes an RPG better than another.

 

[Eirikur]

while the game mechanics, i.e. the combat, which is the primary interaction of the player with the game world is relegated to a diminutive role that does not dictate the "RPG'ness" of the game.

Another Sawyerist in our midsts.

 

[aweigh]

considering i disagree with almost every single design choice Sawyer went with in Pillars of Eternity I would disagree. Sawyer believes in the wrong kind of balancing which is one in which the game is designed to restrict player freedom in how to approach situations so as to, in Sawyer's view, prevent "degenerate gameplay".

for starters i do not believe there is any such thing as degenerate gameplay.

Is spinning around in Wizardry so as to attract random encounters and level up without ever having to venture further into the Maze "degenerate gameplay"? Sawyer would most certainly think so.

I do not. It's completely up to the player to play the game however the fuck he wants.

I also want to give a shout out to Siobhan's excellent post and would like to direct more attention towards it. It is very well put together, better than I could have put it together and it covers superficially the main things I am concerned about.

I tend to go much more specific when talking about this as I firmly consider games like Wizardry, Bard's Tale, early Ultima's and others like it to be the epitome of RPG design because they feature "gameplay C&C", which, in my opinion of course, is the only C&C that lends itself to things like:

- infinite replayability
- actual depth or maturity in the game's mechanical systems
- an emphasis on player knowledge of the game's mechanics
- an emphasis on rewarding the player for being skilled with the game's mechanics

and although i haven't brought this up I would like Siobhan to weigh in on this:

- skinner-box elements

Early RPGs, or what I would call "pure RPGs", rely heavily on skinner box elements and this is yet another thing in which these RPGs hew closer to tabletop than the Adventure Game Hybrids do.

The trapped Wizardry chest with its random loot and its integrated gameplay mechanic (trap I.D. / consequences of disarming) is something straight from tabletop war-gaming / D&D and, historically, part of casino gaming and general game theory.

however, and this can be seen in many posts in this thread, a lot of people here consider adventure game hybrids to be much closer to tabletop than a Wizardry-type RPG because these adventure game hybrids offer Story State A/B/C choices, and/or virtual larping.

These points to a very big misunderstanding in just exactly what "...from tabletop gaming" actually means to different people. These people which I'm referring to probably do not fully understand tabletop gaming's roots in war-gaming.

 

[Ebonsword]

that's what I call flavor C&C and it's cool, but the stuff where either decision cuts of whole areas and you either replay it to see the rest or not, that's annoying

I disagree. Having areas cutoff is the whole "consequences" part of "choices and consequences".

 

[Doktor Best]

When it was a new thing for me i was pretty excited about it because it simply was a new layer of complexity, as the narrative became gameplay and i could model how the game played out. Nowadays i am fine with rpgs that do not have narrative choice and consequence, as long as it has some interesting form of interaction.

 

[Delterius]

3) You're conflating at least three distinct kinds of C&C here: story-based C&C (I picked choice A, so now the story goes as follows), reactive C&C (I did XYZ and the game acknowledges that, be it through dialog, locking off certain areas, or whatever), and gameplay C&C (the way you build your character/party affects the set of viable gameplay strategies). OP's beef is clearly with the first two being considered mandatory, and VD's combat VS writing/C&C dichotomy was also about the first two. Your claim that C&C is king, on the other hand, covers all three.

Well, that's the crux of the argument.

You say I am conflating three distinct things, but are they really?

One of your categories is called "Reactive" C&C which, be definition, should always be the case. Otherwise there's only choice and no consequence. Another is "Story-based" C&C. Well, when is C&C not part of the Story? When its confined to more prevalent gameplay sequences, such as Combat? At first glance this might even make some sense, after all people always confront the 'real game' parts to dialogue sequences. Such as how combat sucks in PS:T versus its vast dialogue trees. But if that's the case, how can you say that Dialogue isn't part of the gameplay? Is the dialogue system not based on your character's attributes and does that not lead to a set of viable character development strategies as per the requirement of your "Gameplay C&C"? The inverse is also questionable. In a game about a group of adventurers exploring an ancient tomb filled with monsters, how can one call Combat and its many systems a form of C&C distinct from the Story?

In the end, it is pretty obvious that these are not different concepts but rather different forms of conveying the same ideal. To create a game out of roleplaying, to put oneself in another's shoes or or to live in another universe. To create, develop and act as fictional characters. Nothing unique to RPGs per-se, but then again Exploration isn't unique to Adventure and neither is Resource Management to Strategy. What RPGs do is focus on character within the framework of what story it wishes to tell.

A game about heroes killing monsters and saving the world is likely to convey most of that through some sort of combat system and should be considered an RPG when, within the framework of combat, you have the tools to create and develop varied characters and strategies. Likewise, when a game branches off into other kinds of journeys it might adopt systems once more commonly found in other genres. Maybe its not just killing monsters but surviving a war of attrition inside a perilous and vast environment. So you get Resource Management which, ideally, should also reference the same drive to create and develop different characters. Maybe spellcasters face different challenges to fighters. Maybe giant races need to eat a lot of food but are overall more powerful than others. The same applies to Dialogue Trees and so on. This might not be a widespread opinion but I don't think any list of mechanics is what makes RPGs a qualitatively distinct experience versus other videogames. I'm not the Storyfag who thinks Blobbers aren't real RPGs due to lack of personality quizzes and so on. The history of the Codex lead me to a different sort of view.

Because let's face it, the classic reasoning behind all genre classifications in videogames is "I really liked X, I want more of X to be made and therefore X is what true <videogame genre>s are". That's what this thread is, that is what every 'What is an RPG' thread devolves to and it also was the general state of the RPGCodex all the way up to when Steam, GOG, Indie development and the 2011/2012 Kickstarters promoted a genre revival like you had with Grimrock and Wasteland 2 (disappointments not withstanding). Over the years we've had new waves of refugees from catastrophes such as Oblivion, Troika's demise and Dragon Age 2, bringing in new themes and pet peeves to our discussions. Ultimately though one thing remained constant and that's C&C. But not just the kind of C&C that a bunch of disgruntled Fallout fans envisioned years ago, but a more general ideal enabling freedom of roleplaying.

And that is why I claim that C&C is King. Not because I feel that a particular form of C&C is mandatory or that it necessarily improves a game, but because the concept is greater than the particular way Fallout-likes did it. This all to show the silliness of these 'no true scotsman' threads.

 

[janior]

RPGs where your choice doesn't have any visible impact on the game world tend to suck.

Spoiler

with exception of blobers ofc

 

[aweigh]

In order to have real consequences they must result in the equivalent of a fail-state when driven to their ultimate expression.

In Wizardry when you win certain encounters you are presented with a chest that is sometimes trapped. You can discern whether the chest is trapped or not and whether it can be disarmed or not only if you have an appropriate amount of skill related to this exercise at your party's disposal.

The player can choose to open the chest without having these skills if they wish and accept the possible consequences, or they can choose to apply the related skills and properly examine and open the chest.

Or the player can leave the chest alone and miss out on either: a) possibly valuable items and weapons, or b) nothing of consequence. There is no real way for the player to know, especially if they are new to the type of RPG that is Wizardry and its ilk.

A common scenario during early character levels that almost every Wizardry player has experienced is exploring 1 or 2 floors further down the Maze than they have before up to that point because they want to explore. (Note: key word here being explore.)

This usually results in the player encountering enemies that when defeated leave behind chests that require Thievery skills that are currently beyond the party's abilities and thus present the player with the choice of whether to attempt examining and disarming the chest in the hopes of getting great items or in leaving the chest behind and thus making sure the party is able to make their way back to safety.

This time the player chooses to try their luck and examines the chest incorrectly due to insufficient skills and the trap springs and everybody in the party is poisoned. The player opens their inventory and sees that they are only carrying 4 scrolls of Latumofis, i.e. poison-removal, so this means that they have 3 floors they need to trek back through in order to reach the stairs back to safety but they only have enough scrolls to cure 4 members of the 6 member party.

This player also realizes that he chose not to create or bring along any party members with magical spells that could cure the poison either. Once again, player choices and player consequences.

The player does this and thus ensures the death of 2 party members because in pure RPGs gameplay mechanics have actual consequences: status afflictions require actual knowledge and manipulation of the gameplay systems and if the player is not good enough in this, mostly foresight, preparation and resource management, then player deaths are a guarantee.

The failure state is a guarantee. This creates something called "immersion" nowadays except it's true definition is "Suspension of Disbelief".

The player cures 4 party members, and just before reaching that floor's ladder up to the floor above runs into an encounter where, having now only 4 party members instead of 6 (the two poisoned characters died after 12 steps), they then lose 2 more characters before managing to win.

When a game features actual fail-state consequences then each successive fail-state raises the probability of the next fail-state. In this scenario breakdown I am referring to character deaths as individual fail-states.

Now the player has only 2 characters left alive and 2 more floors to make it through before reaching the possibility of resurrection at the town Temple. If the player makes it they will have experienced a thrilling "escape" from mortal danger and perhaps they will have learned to be more cautious from now on when opening chests, and thus weigh the pros and cons in a more strategical manner.

This is the kind of "gameplay C&C" that is the only kind that matters and it is the kind of C&C that truly sticks with the player and entices the player to continue exploring and to continue learning and mastering the game. This is also sometimes referred to as: Gameplay.

This type of "game scenario" can be replicated without combat or without a skinner-box element present and I mentioned previously how a game like Planescape: Torment replicates this partially through its dialog.

The problems begin to surface when we run into the fact that the Wizardry poisoned-chest scenario is not only infinitely replayable but it is also infinitely able to be replicated by the game itself whereas Story State A/B/C scenarios are finite, and not only are the finite but in _most adventure game hybrids_ they also do not dovetail into the gameplay mechanics either further rendering them apart from the RPG elements.

 

[Lacrymas]

Genre classification has never been arbitrary in any medium. It's a collection of traits exhibited by certain pieces that are found throughout a span of time, i.e. it's retrospective, not prescriptive. At least at first. It's also very clear in their distinction, you aren't going to confuse an Armi Christi painting with a Crucifixio one, no matter their somewhat similar subject matter. Video games are no different, you aren't going to confuse a third-person shooter with a first-person shooter even if they have similar premises. Only RPGs seem to have this unnecessary baggage and confusion over them and that's because people tend to PRESCRIBE the genre, rather than retrospect it, which is getting the logic backwards.

Moving on... I don't think anyone mentioned a very important detail concerning C&C - that it should be logical. A game should give us as many logical options as possible and have logical consequences. You go into a dark alley you get ambushed. Stuff like that. It can get very elaborate, but it must be within the confines of a logical progression in the context of the situation, i.e. no random "consequences" like companions dying because you didn't do their "loyalty mission".

 

[Siobhan]

snip

Our disagreement seems to be mostly about terminology. I think your use of C&C is too general to be useful. A definition should allow you to make distinctions, otherwise it serves no purpose. With your definition virtually every game has C&C (and story!), even Mine Sweeper and Solitaire. Yes, that means you're right in claiming C&C is king, but you also fail to engage with aweigh's argument because that's clearly not the C&C he has in mind.

Now you might say that his position is a non-starter because his notion of C&C is ill-defined, but I would disagree. If you draw a Venn diagram with the three types I outlined, you can easily fill in cases for each relevant subgroup. Or at least I can in a manner I consider reasonable:


Story C&C (from purely story towards more reactive): save the council in Mass Effect or let them die; save Paul in DX

Reactive C&C (from purely reactive towards more gameplay): get reprimanded for entering the wrong bathroom in DX; get scolded by Paul in DX for killing people; butter up certain people in Alpha Protocol and get additional backup for a mission or escape your captors without a fight; Lacrymas' example of venturing into an alley and getting stabbed; opt for more a violent approach in Dishonored and get more guards in subsequent missions

Story & Gameplay C&C: picking your starting characters in Secret of Mana 3 affects both the starting levels, your fighting style and abilities, as well as how the story develops

Pure gameplay C&C: playing with Eric Lecarde instead of John Morris in Castlevania Bloodlines; picking a particular party setup in Wiz 8; pretty much any game where you have a non-trivial choice that affects gameplay for the rest of the entire game, and nothing else


Note that in this setup there's also games without gameplay C&C, e.g. Sokobond, Ninja Gaiden, Mario Brothers, and possibly even Albion. Snarky codexers might also include Mass Effect. The reason for not including them is that there are no decisions with long-term consequences on gameplay. That's a deliberate requirement I stipulate because otherwise all gameplay falls under gameplay C&C, rendering the concept useless.

[Albion is a borderline case because good equipment makes some encounters easier and pretty late in the game you have some control over party composition. But that is the only thing that really influences your experience in the game. You will not see a thread about Albion builds or gameplay strategies any time soon, and your overall gameplay will not be any different on the second playthrough.]

 

[Telengard]

while the game mechanics, i.e. the combat, which is the primary interaction of the player with the game world is relegated to a diminutive role that does not dictate the "RPG'ness" of the game.

Another Sawyerist in our midsts.

Sawyer is the one who said if someone were to make Wizardry: Proving Grounds today, he wouldn't consider it an rpg. That it is only an rpg in the contexts of its time. And there are many who agree with him.

Which begs the question: if such games are not rpgs today, what are they?

 

[aweigh]

I consider Wizardry to be the #1 representation of a true RPG and a game like Pillars of Eternity merely an hybridization of the Adventure Game genre.

I've found, mostly through anecdotal evidence, that the people who don't consider Wizardry an RPG to have never actually played it.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

Which begs the question: if such games are not rpgs today, what are they?

AFAIK, they are categorised as Dungeon Crawlers.

 

[Mustawd]

while the game mechanics, i.e. the combat, which is the primary interaction of the player with the game world is relegated to a diminutive role that does not dictate the "RPG'ness" of the game.

Another Sawyerist in our midsts.

Sawyer is the one who said if someone were to make Wizardry: Proving Grounds today, he wouldn't consider it an rpg. That it is only an rpg in the contexts of its time. And there are many who agree with him.

Which begs the question: if such games are not rpgs today, what are they?

It's a weird world where you can do a retcon and not call them rpgs just because the genre has evolved over time. But to answer your question, I think technically blobbers could be considered nothing more than party-based rogue-likes.

EDIT" Or rather an evolution from rogue-likes to include a party and hand-made dungeons and the ability to go back into a town. But a lot of similarities still remain.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

I consider Wizardry to be the #1 representation of a true RPG and a game like Pillars of Eternity merely an hybridization of the Adventure Game genre.

What about the argument that the reason early cRPGs didn't have much in the way of dialogue/story C&C is merely a situational barrier of weaker technology? As in, older computers were good number crunchers but lacked the resources for imaginative C&C. To which modern computers have a greater capacity for that kind of variety but lack a history of interesting examples from which to build upon, what with the genre being defined by what came first rather than what people hoped computers would one day be capable of providing but were unable to programme effectively.

 

[Roqua]

Nah you had a pretty vocal fraction (including staff members) who would argue that C&C are essential for "true" RPGs. Blobbers and dungeon crawlers were regarded as a earlier form that - while it had it appeals - didn't evolve into the true RPG Form yet. It's pretty weird, but that's how it was.

I dunno. Some blobbers/semi blobbers got plenty of love. Just one example about ROA from 2006: link

I guess that’s how you separate the men from the boys. RoA’s combat system was fantastic. Fighter’s shined, you just had to know what you were doing. Fighter’s were hands down the best choice in combat, a good example would be the boots sticking out of the wall battle in Riva. Only one could fight, and only a competent warrior could win. And Startrail had perfect direction if you are smarter than Corky. It tells you exactly what to do and exactly where to go. You just have to, you know, pay attention and ah, not be retarded.

It's a great series with well done tactical TB battles. Star Trail is definitely a must-play game.

I enjoyed the series... though I think I liked "Blade of Destiny" (the first one) slightly more than "Shadows Over Riva" (the third one), primarily because you do far more traveling in the first game and the traveling system is so excellent

Also, it's glad to see some thing haven't changed...

It is very discomforting to know I am somehow part of a community that is retarded and does not like the games in the genre they are supposed to be fans of, but like instead games that belong in different genres and they still keep claiming they like a genre they don't.

Yet, some incline posters are no longer active and unable to spread the turn-based agenda...

It's been explained here a million and one times already, but here goes (in short): TB relies on your characters' stats, therefore validating a stat-based game; RT relies on your own reflexes, therefore throwing the whole purpose of a stat-based game out the window.

EDIT: ROA is definitely reactive to your choices, but it's not your narrative C&C that everyone thinks about.

That thread is good, thanks for reminding me how consistent and awesome I have always been. I forgot how much of a fucking idiot Gaider is. How can someone not build an effective fighter in RoA? What fat fucking piece of showboating shit that monkey is. This fucking moron thinks he makes rpgs and isn't even smart enough to play the good ones. Beamdog is going to go down the toilet with this monkey at the helm. He is 100% console and PC fans with some refinement and taste don't want his monkey shit that provides no challenge and is just a medium to grandstand his self aggrandizing cult politics.

 

[Mustawd]

I consider Wizardry to be the #1 representation of a true RPG and a game like Pillars of Eternity merely an hybridization of the Adventure Game genre.

What about the argument that the reason early cRPGs didn't have much in the way of dialogue/story C&C is merely a situational barrier of weaker technology? As in, older computers were good number crunchers but lacked the resources for imaginative C&C. To which modern computers have a greater capacity for that kind of variety but lack a history of interesting examples from which to build upon, what with the genre being defined by what came first rather than what people hoped computers would one day be capable of providing but were unable to programme effectively.

Because, again, it goes back to the fact that early rpgs were nothing more than party-sized wargames taking place in a fantasy setting. i.e. a dungeon crawl. Is first edition D&D now considered a wargame instead of an rpg?