Valky
Arcane
I don't play visual novels, so I can't answer your question OP. I stick to ToEE.
You can choose to invest in different skills or modify your stats with items, enchantments, etc.
Of course, because cRPGs are not action games. The player skill is measured by his understanding of the systems, not by reflexes, etc.
The problem here is that why play RPG for turn based combat experience, when there are strategy titles to play? How would RPG be any different from say Jagged Alliance if you take away various ways to approach the game world?
I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.
So I can't see this discussion going but back to what is an RPG.
wtf? what's the problem now?Can we get sully a dumbfuck tag already?
This wouldn't be an issue if progress in RPGs was about horizontal growth (getting more abilities to interact with the world) rather than vertical (higher DPS, more hitpoints). That would also solve the issue of trash mobs, because the player would never reach god-tier stats where almost everything can be stomped in seconds and HP sponges are the "toughest" kind of encounter because they require a skill check against the player's patience. But as has been discussed here several times before, limiting vertical growth conflicts with the zero-to-hero paradigm of mainstream RPGs. For a genre that doesn't even dare to explore settings outside the familiar mold of Fantasy and SF, that's too much to ask.In most RPGs there is a point where it won't help you, like making low agi character in Fallout. If you made a demanding endgame in FO1 that could rival the endgame of let's say JA2, push Agi 10 characters to the limit and really make players think about what he does next then all the subpar characters would just be unable to beat the game.
Which is stupid. JRPGs had it right. You start as a peasant and then you GROW in power organically. In fact this is the case in all RPGs with good combat.We are talking about comparing RPGs to strategy games, which also require understanding of the system, however usually provide much better gameplay. The problem is that in most strategy games the most complex decisions are made further in the game, while in RPGs the most complex and far-reaching decision (character making) is done before the game even starts.
On the contrary that's exactly what I'm talking about. The RPGs can't have really complex or demanding combat encounters like some turn based strategy games do because then some players would be simply unable to finish the game. Likewise, entering places cannot be too challenging because the game has to be possible to be finished with sub-optimal parties.
That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.
BG 2 is decent despite the awful RTwP system...
In most RPGs there is a point where it won't help you, like making low agi character in Fallout.
We are talking about comparing RPGs to strategy games, which also require understanding of the system, however usually provide much better gameplay. The problem is that in most strategy games the most complex decisions are made further in the game, while in RPGs the most complex and far-reaching decision (character making) is done before the game even starts.
That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.
And also because other ways of dealing with conflicts in RPGs sucks even more:
-sneaking never went beyond flat skill-check or a poorly made sneaking game
-diplomacy consists of getting your skill high enough and clicking a highlighted option
-hacking or lockpicking are the same as diplomacy, with addition of a annoying minigame
No, you're wrong, it's a combination of both. Dragon Wars and Wasteland (and Serpent in the Staglands) don't ask you to put a stupid amount of experience in a skill or spell to make it work but ask you to use the skills and spells by yourself instead of just clicking on a "yes" option. That's another important factor which makes the game fun.That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics. If you don’t like any mechanics governed by skills and stats you should forget about cRPGs and invest your time on the games you want. Complaining that a whole genre is not like you want is pointless.
If you want to talk about character "builds" Dota is right next door.That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics.
No, you're wrong, it's a combination of both. Dragon Wars and Wasteland (and Serpent in the Staglands) don't ask you to put a stupid amount of experience in a skill or spell to make it work but ask you to use the skills and spells by yourself instead of just clicking on a "yes" option. That's another important factor which makes the game fun.
Dunno about challenging, but the rest seems to fit.Age of Decadence is one the most deep, imaginative, sophisticated and challenging games ive ever played.
There is more variety of builds in a game like Divinity Original Sin, Underrail, or ToEE than the entirety of an ASSFAGGOT roster. If you think stats are a steaming pile of shit then why are you even here? Stats are design to work with the encounters the developers decided to make, If a dev makes a good game (which would have well design encounters) then how could the Stats be a steaming pile of shit?If you want to talk about character "builds" Dota is right next door.That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics.
The reality is that in most RPGs "stats" are a steaming pile of shit with no thought put into them.
They follow character development of PnP that cannot exist in a computer game since there is no GM arbiter that tailors the encounters to the abortions the players make.
The problem here, imo isn't necessarily bad mechanics, but filler combat or player decision favouring combat option.The problem here is that why play RPG for turn based combat experience, when there are strategy titles to play? How would RPG be any different from say Jagged Alliance if you take away various ways to approach the game world?
Because besides a few examples here and there most of the time spend in RPGs is spend on combat, usually against trashmobs using subpar combat system. Also Jagged Alliance has all the ways of approaching the world that RPGs do: you can bash the door, lockpick it, recruit NPCs, sneak itd. JA differs in approach to party and character creation.
These are player choices in character / party building and what kind of approach player decides to take. Without these I don't really know if game could be classified as RPG but action / adventure / dungeon crawler.I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.
Because as other people has mentioned combat is usually what you do the most in most RPGs and that one system that binds it all together. You try to make a good character, recruit NPCs, collect items all to succeed as inevitable combat. And also because other ways of dealing with conflicts in RPGs sucks even more:
-sneaking never went beyond flat skill-check or a poorly made sneaking gamee
-diplomacy consists of getting your skill high enough and clicking a highlighted option
-hacking or lockpicking are the same as diplomacy, with addition of a annoying minigame
So I can't see this discussion going but back to what is an RPG.
Action or strategy game + adventure game + character creation and development
The reality is that in most RPGs "stats" are a steaming pile of shit with no thought put into them.
They follow character development of PnP that cannot exist in a computer game since there is no GM arbiter that tailors the encounters to the abortions the players make.
Which is stupid. JRPGs had it right. You start as a peasant and then you GROW in power organically. In fact this is the case in all RPGs with good combat.
We already have classes to use as templates.
As a reminder Roguelikes have both character evolution and challenging encounters.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Complaining in a cRPG forum that cRPGs suck because they are not like strategy games is like going to a masquerade ball and complaining that they are not throwing a wedding party.
I’m not so sure that the most complex decisions are made further in the game. You will have to provide many detailed examples to sustain your point. The few strategy games I played don’t become more complex as the time goes on. Some of them provide you with more weapons, but that doesn’t make them more complex, while others provide more of the same. Besides, it’s obvious that strategy games should have better combat because the game is designed around it. They don’t need to balance player’s progression with exploration, one hundred fetch quests and distribution of XP. It is much easier. They don’t need to implement NPCs with their own personalities and dialogues, or branching paths with choices and gated content. Of course, that is not relevant to you because you are trying to reduce gameplay to combat, but other players will want these features in a cRPG because they want to play a cRPG, not a strategy game.
The problem is that cRPGs rightly punishes players for not having the proper skills and stats. Players get annoyed by this because in 99% of cRPGs skill checks are fluffy and stat skills are inexistent. But even this complaint is exaggerated and reveals like of understanding of the game. AoD provides most freedom and alternatives than any other cRPG. ZagorTeNej mentioned that in some cases you need Traps 8 to move forward, but I challenge him to name one location in which this is true. In every location with traps you have at least two alternative paths with different skills.
That sucks for you because you want a cRPG to play like an action game, i.e., something that is governed by your abilities instead of your understanding of the mechanics. If you don’t like any mechanics governed by skills and stats you should forget about cRPGs and invest your time on the games you want. Complaining that a whole genre is not like you want is pointless.
The problem here, imo isn't necessarily bad mechanics, but filler combat or player decision favouring combat option.
I think that large quantities of filler combat come in part with devs being unable to provide challenges catered to player abilities and therefore resorting to boring and generic encounters. The reason why combat is so good
These are player choices in character / party building and what kind of approach player decides to take. Without these I don't really know if game could be classified as RPG but action / adventure / dungeon crawler.
Nope, RPG's existed before any of those genres, though in P'n'P format.