RPGs can become much more “radical” but hardcore players are “resistant to change”, says Obsidian

Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by Black Angel, Apr 23, 2018.

  1. Risewild

    Risewild Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    I am sure this is an alt account that mdfkndggrfll made just to try to mess with us again. :rofl:
    The way he focus on one thing, the way he doesn't quote, the way we say specific examples but get a reply that is totally generic, the way he doesn't understand what we are saying, no matter how many times or how many different ways we say it. And to put a nail in the coffin, how this account was created in the last day mfkndggfll accessed NMA.
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  2. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    I do adress your posts properly, I just don't see the point in continuing anymore since you'll just ignore what I say anyway and act in a snarky manner (what an irony).
    What's the point in explaining something to someone who hints at me having a low IQ for explaining a system without numbers, yet at the same time the very guy who acts like he's ubove me intelligence wise can't properly write in English (which makes me question if he even understands what he's reading), gets really defensive as soon as someone bites back at his behavior and talks about things like he's super experienced while at the same time saying things like you can't hide numbers in a video game because it's part of the code :D

    I bet you haven't opened a tool like the GECK or the Hammer editor before, you haven't decompiled game source code to change variables or to implement new things, I bet you haven't even been on sites that teach programing yet you suggest I have a low IQ, write in broken English, talk about game development and how programming works even if you have no knowledge and you block and threaten me because I don't see a point in arguing with you.

    What a joke.

    Edit: No need for me to continue replying since it's obvious we won't reach an agreement. However I won't block you just because you disagree with me, I'm not that easily offended. :)
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  3. Black Angel

    Black Angel Grand Inquisitor of the Ordo Hereticus

    Mar 21, 2016
    I actually have different person in mind. The way he put words into everyone else's mouth, like with Crni Vuk or when he's saying that I was implying Fallout 4 is a bad game because it has decent combat, or even outright saying that I hate Action RPGs. Previously, he's shitting on skills when for being something redundant because perks is enough, or something along those line. Yeah, you know the one. AccountNameM, if that's actually you, just let it die. I'm sure you have someone who loves you in real-life, so please don't waste everyone's time here.

    Anyway, back to Sawyer's talk. I'm still pondering over and over again about this particular sentence:

    "For Sawyer, role-playing games are defined by the player’s ability to alter the storyline of the game through his or her actions, rather than the amount of stat tweaking or hit points a player delivers in combat."

    I know I've said something about it, but placing it again within the context of the whole talk, and how Bethesda's take on RPGs are very different (and I would assume this is take radical for Josh Sawyer), wouldn't it make more sense to point out to Larian's take on the genre with Divinity: Original Sin 1&2? I haven't played any of those, considering my laptop is dying, but judging all the reviews and discussion surrounding Larian's two most recent projects, aren't they exactly a role-playing game where player can alter the storyline (or even an outcome of an encounter, not just combat encounter) through their actions? Sawyer probably didn't take Divinity games into his consideration because those games are still significantly influenced by stats allocation and skills adjustment (and maybe even perks), like any other proper RPG should.
  4. Risewild

    Risewild Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Both this account and mfkng account on Codex got online at around the same time. I rest my case. :smug:
    Thanks forum alerts for making me notice this. :roffle:
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  5. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    Yes, a person with a different opinion must definitely be an alt made to piss you off and not just a new member on the forum. How insecure are you? :D
    Gotta check out this "mfkng" guy, if you're so obsessed with him, he must be a pretty cool guy, but who knows maybe it's just "mfkng" giving himself compliments. :V

    Anyway back on topic, I agree with Sawyer, I hope he has the chance to bring something new and interesting. :clap:
  6. Kohno

    Kohno Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 30, 2009
    No, I don't think I am. What you seem to be advocating is replacing character stats with pure action and acting out the features. This is basically just an avatar simulation. A game like that might be good, but it'd not make a very good RPG.

    What is missed there is the depiction (and gameplay) of different levels of knowledge and aptitude the "role" posesses, because if it was solely based on how well you could control your avatar, it can only ever be as good or bad as you are. And once you've learend how to play (if you can, that is) you will never play with deficiencies anymore. The point of playing a role in a roleplaying game is to assume the role as a whole, with it's strengths and weaknesses, and take advantage of what can and can not be done at any point of the characters personal progression. It's not you out there in the game, it's the character (or if you make a "me" character, it's the games version of "you" as far as the rules allow). The whole point is to not be yourself, but that someone you are playing as. That's the game. You can't play master sniper if you can't master the controls in your simulation, but with the stats communicating to the game how able your character is at the task, you can be both better and worse than yourself.

    The role is a specific entity with its own attributes through which the gameplay happens for better or worse as per the current situation in the game.
    • [Like] [Like] x 6
  7. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    I disagree, I think it will make for a very good role playing experience, you'll actually be playing the role, not just using your imagination. Also the current system is still a simulation, you simulate a rogue or a hunter trough the stats, it's just not that engaging gameplay wise.

    You can't remove skill from a game, that's why it's a game, it's interactive. An "RPG" still requires player skill to some degree, you still need to decide where to invest your points, what to say and so on. The only thing that changes when you remove the skills is that you now have to replicate them with more complex player actions.

    However you can always add more on top of an idea, as I said the "mini" games would become more complex as you go, if you want you can implement a system where the more the character does that minigame the more "shortcuts" or whatever appear so that it becomes easier the more you do them.
    The character that doesn't do those mini games might find himself in a situation where the "puzzle" is pretty complex and very hard to do because he didn't win those bonuses from doing the games repeatedly. That way you convey the lack of skill the character has with actual gameplay.

    And since each playtrough the mini games would be different, even if you know how to play them, you'd still have trouble with "higher level" mini games if you didn't dedicate your character to them.

    You can also set at the beginning of the game which skills he/she is best at and maybe you can make it so for instance, medicine or lockpicking will not even be an option if you're not skilled in them unless you learn from an NPC or a book in game.

    So basically problem solved.

    And that's how the game will work, but without the arbitrary numbers. However you can also have a character that is entirely dependant on you. Again you assume the role of a character, and you stay in character but in order for instance to shoot 3 guys in a row or talk yourself out of a problem you'd have to do it trough player actions. That's why it's a game and not a movie.
  8. Kohno

    Kohno Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 30, 2009
    This is an opinion.

    Yes, you do. The key here a rogue, a hunter, a what ever. If the stats didn't simulate that to different degrees as per how you play, you would, just like you would in Thief or Half Life, and then the experience of that rogue or hunter would always be the same. There'd be no inept rogues or bad hunters (or good ones, if the game just too hard for you).

    The RPG - optimally - attempts to put you and that other guy on the same line regardless of your differences and faculties and give both of you the same possibility to succeed. Both having an awful hunter as a character means the same thing for you both, how either of you would proceed from there is where the statistical progression and choices therein comes into play, and at the end game you could have marksman level bowman while the other guy decided to spread out with his abilities and now has a ranger.

    Yes you can. That's why the stats are there. But you can't unlearn how to play a game without waiting until you've forgotten. That's why, once you've learned how to master it, you will always play as a master.

    Yes. That's how you play an RPG.

    But the point is that once you've learned it, you can't not know how to do them anymore. An on the other hand, if they're just too much for you to learn and master, you're always going to be fucked by them - that means you might never be able to play a master lockpicker because it's just out of your reach.

    Here, again, the range of stats calculates the characters aptitude regardless of your own skill or the lack thereof, and the results vary accordingly.

    So, you'd want there to be statistical progression afterall?

    Yeah, I would say so too. But I think you missed the context there.

    That's the avatar simulation I mentioned earlier. You play the given character like you would in Half Life, and you'd master the gameplay, and then the character'd never be a beginner again and the next game you start, you start as already having mastered a good chunk of it.

    The stats provide versatility and diversity to the gameplay that you can't master since you are not in full control. Ergo, even if you replayed the same character as in previous game, you could not cheese it with having mastered the controls.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  9. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    I think we haven't gone nearly radical or indepth enough with stats and player action.

    No idea why Sawyer is advocating this, maybe it's the influence of a certain modern political bubble that also tries to politicize difficulty in videoganes.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  10. Kohno

    Kohno Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 30, 2009
    Indeed. There's a world of possibilities there I've waited for some brave company to explore.
    Obsidian always seemed like the ideal candidate for that, but it would seem they're now wanting to strive away from them for some reason I can't really figure out.
  11. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    I never get the people who argue that RPGs should become like other genres or that the genre is obsolete just because they don't play them. An RPG fan doesn't want all games to be rpgs, they just want RPGs to be RPGs.
    • [Like] [Like] x 7
  12. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    Everything is an opinion, what's your point? If you don't like the game, you don't play it.

    No you wouldn't, again take the minigame concept and apply it to the whole game. The more you play with a fire arm the better you get, your character for instance reload faster, repair the weapon faster, enter ironsights mode faster, he can be more accurate at shooting while walking, less recoil the more experienced he is and if you want someone who can't shoot to save his life, you can choose someone who has never seen a fire arm in his life.
    However if it's a game with real time action it wouldn't make sense for you to shoot directly and see the bullets fly to the side, that doesn't make sense, it also doesn't make sense for the weapon to do more damage the more you progress. Again that comes from the style of game, if it has a limited perspective you can't have the same control, however in a game that is first or third person, how much damage you do to your enemy will depend on where you shoot them.
    Again it's a game, and that's like an unspoken rule, if it's a platformer you don't make it so the character has only 10% chance to jump properly unless they invest in skills. If it's an isometric RPG it won't feel good if your character only goes in the right direction 50% of the time because in game he doesn't know the way. If you're controlling him and he does the opposite it feels bad.

    Again you can't remove skill entirely and that doesn't mean RPG's that require some skill won't be RPG's. If you can't aim your gun properly or turn around the mouse to hit something in an RPG because you have bad reflexes, does that mean the RPG is bad? Maybe if everything was just an interactive movie it would be more fair.
    Also as I said, there will be progression, but without the skills. Actually I'm wording myself badly, the skills will still be there, you just won't be able to see the numbers and the game will convey things trough animations, sounds, AI, the interaction with the world and so on.

    THAT makes no sense, as I said the skill progression is still there. Also this applies to any game ever, even RPG's, once you have played them, you know how things work. It's as if you don't want a game at all.

    And that's how it will be, but you'll "invest" by doing the thing you want to progress at and you'll get better over time naturally, not just adding points in a UI.

    Ok, again once you learn a game you know how it works, once you learn to lockpick in NV you know how the mechanic works, however in games like NV the mechanic is very simple, has very little variation and stays the same. You won't get fucked by them always, RPG's already work like that, if you try to pick a strong lock or whatever it tells you to go fuck yourself. You can go back and try weaker locks.
    However once you remove the requirement, you can make it so you try to lockpick higher level stuff and succeed if you put in the effort, and you can also go back to weaker lockpicks or go training (which will probably just allow you to practice with weaker lockpicks) and the more you practice, the more advanced ways you learn to lockpick so higher level minigames become easier. There you got progression.

    I'm very confused what you want, you want to be able to create a character who can't lockpick very well but as soon as I give an example of such a character you say that higher level lockpicks will be hard for them. Isn't that how it already works? You want a character good with swords but bad with bows. That's how RPG's work, if you want to get good with a bow you need to train.

    So basically what I said. You're good at something, bad at something else. What's the problem? Also it's not regardless if your own skill, again, as long as it's a game, skill will be involved.

    YES, that's the point, but you progress by playing the game without having to add numbers in a skill tree or whatever. You don't need them, you can convey everything with the in game world.


    That counts for every game ever made. Also as I said, if you want to be a rogue in a new game, and you make it so right from the get go, the character has no actual history of sneaking around. You would have a harder time sneaking, the character for instance might be lousy on their feet, if they suck with a bow they might now be able to attach a rope somewhere because they can't shoot the arrow far enough. You won't be able to use specific items unless you prove yourself to other characters and so on. The progression is there but you just removed the unneeded numbers, because you as a player don't need to see them.

    But that doesn't make sense, as I said, you will be bad at something if you decide to start with a character who is bad at it. There will be player skill but a lot of it will also be on to the in game character itself, it's a video game, you play the game.
    You won't be able to get the special tools or special techniques in a character that isn't made around lockpicking even if you played a game with a character who was. You won't be able to sneak perfectly just because you leveled a character who did so before.

    It's still an RPG but without the numbers. It's a blend of skill and in world logic or whatever.
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  13. Kohno

    Kohno Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 30, 2009
    There are arguments that use concrete logic within the context of the subject matter and then there are arguments that use personal feeling. "it's just not very engaging gameplaywise" is the latter, and kinda seemed pointless where you put it.

    I wasn't arguing for "I like this, so should you", nor "I like this, ergo it's an RPG", that's pointless. I tried to explaing why stats work like they do in an RPG, why they are relevant, and why the absence of them is detrimental. That's of no concern to whether or not I like it, or whether or not I consider it to feel like this or that. I have strong dislike towards jRPG's but I was to explain how they workd and why they work like they do (if I had the knowledge), I'd make and argue the case reagrdless of my dislike.

    Hmm, I thought you were arguing for not having stats and numbers and the characters aptitudes being based on how well you can play. So is it the TES style learn by doing system you're after here where skills go up as you grind (vice manually implementing) them or what? No use debating if we're not on the same page on what the argument is. I've been talking about the existence of stats, not how they are applied to the character.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  14. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    So we're on the same page, I can also understand why stats work the way they do whether I like them or not, and I explained why changing the way things are can also work.

    No, TES games still make you pick where to place points from a menu. That would be removed entirely as you do not need it. A game like Skyrim doesn't use sounds and animations and complex mechanics to visualize and convey how hard you're hitting for instance, all Skyrim has is a set animation/sound, so in order to convey the character getting stronger in a game that has such basic visuals and mechanics, the game simply shows you the numbers and tells you that now after you upgraded you do a set amount of numbers more.

    A game can be done without the numbers, however that would take more effort. The character builds and skill progression would still be there but conveyed in a more meaningful manner that keeps you immersed in the world. In short the current way of doing things isn't bad, it can just be improved.
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    This! I am really astonished how often people can't grasp this simple concept and how it's often about preference and popularity. But it's not even the worst part in my opinion.

    What I don't get is, why people think Bethesdas approach in Fallout 4 or Skyrim, is the 'perfect' way of making Role Playing Games these days, or that it is the best way to modernize old franchises. Like why? I really don't think it is an improvement. It can be a great experience, a lot of people love Fallout 4, but that still doesn't make it an improvement just for it self. There are also people that enjoy X-Com and Wasteland 2. Is a game only good if it sells at least 1 million copies?
  16. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    Who's thinking that? Most people I talk to hardly consider FO4 an RPG and constantly talk about how dumbed down Skyrim was. Even people who like the games don't think that way.
  17. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    So... The STALKER franchise is an approximation of the perfect RPG? You have dialogue, story, and no pesky stats that get in the way of the shooting mechanics.
    Some stuff lacks, and there's still shit like health bars that get in the way of the roleplaying experience (I mean, what if I want to RP a guy who isn't hurt by bullets? Can't do that in STALKER!), but I guess the way you can only survive by your own skill, not stupid clunky numbers, is purest roleplaying.
  18. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    :smug: Ye of course, totally, that's EXACTLY what I meant, STALKER, FPS games, yep exactly, perfect RPG experience. ;-)
  19. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Well, you want to remove everything that makes the difference between a first person shooter and an RPG: The focus on character skill instead of player skill.
    Think about it. If STALKER had more peaceful ways to solve quests with more focus on dialogues and stuff, wouldn't it basically fit your idea of the future of RPGs? The developers themselves actually said that they see STALKER as a bit of an RPG without the stats, where you "level up" by getting better at the game and finding better gear.
    The point of a roleplaying system is to allow the player to, well, roleplay any character he or she wants. In order for that to work the mechanics must allow for lack of player skill. If the player doesn't have the quick reflexes to play a gunslinger but wants to play a gunslinger the mechanics will allow that because the player character has the reflexes. Or dexterity for sneaking and lockpicking.
    Sure, you could make the game a complete simulation of everything, but then the player has to be good at whatever the character is supposed to be good at. That's not always the case, and that's why stats-based systems exist. Without those you're always just roleplaying yourself in the end.
    Even in LARP people are not really expected to actually be the impeccable sword fighters and sorcerers they are playing they have to lay down some ground rules to reflect the characters rather than the players.
    So yeah. Roleplaying games will always involve stats and RNG and so on by necessity.
  20. Snark567

    Snark567 First time out of the vault

    Apr 11, 2018
    I already explained above that you can have it so the character skill is still the main focus but you can do it without the need to show the numbers. Look at my replies to Kohno, it's getting tiresome to write the same thing so many times.