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

It's the natural evolution, in Fallout 1 you kill things, go kill cop, I dun like him, you kill cop, or you kill other guy. Or you kill a doctor or you might not kill, that's plenty of choice. Later on a guy wants you to kill sum people but you can kill him back. The game teaches you what the meat of the game is. Talking is just means to an end, and the end is to kill.
Years later Fallout 4 has improved killing so much, it trully made the previous games look very basic RPG wise.
 
I'm just agreeing with you, you want more games like fallout 1/2 where you kill things, that's what an rpg is. You can ignore dog meat and kill on your own, kill the dog itself, feed the dog and he'll help you kill things, so much choice. If you're not killing directly, someone will kill for you, which is better because it doesn't rely on player skill.
 
That's the spirit! And it will help connect the combat too, so you won't have to do the filler content in between.
 
Snark567 said:
Can you explain yourself properly? You're being too general.
Click to expand...
(...)
Snark567 said:
It's the natural evolution, in Fallout 1 you kill things, go kill cop, I dun like him, you kill cop, or you kill other guy. Or you kill a doctor or you might not kill, that's plenty of choice. Later on a guy wants you to kill sum people but you can kill him back. The game teaches you what the meat of the game is. Talking is just means to an end, and the end is to kill.
Years later Fallout 4 has improved killing so much, it trully made the previous games look very basic RPG wise.
Click to expand...
 
Snark567 said:
An ideal RPG of the future will be a game where you know a weapon is stronger but you don't know exactly how strong until you try it out, you visually see the enemy get tired and bloody rather than just a health bar going down. Things like lockpicking or speech will depend entirely on how good the player is rather than arbitrary numbers, the combat will be dictated more on player skill, responce and adaptation rather than Higher numbers beat smaller numbers, AI will make things difficult, not gigantic health pools. Leveling wouldn't be a thing because
AI, special attacks, weak spots and cleverly designed encounters would be the thing you would have to overcome, not just an enemy with bigger stats than you running towards you blindly.
Click to expand...
At first i was going to argue with you, but then i just read this. Too obvious, man. Too obvious.
 
Alright silly imitations of you guys aside, I agree with Sawyer that fans like you are too conservative and only value rpg's with classic mechanics. My point stands that you don't need to show player stats, the number of damage a weapon does, you also don't need perks or skill checks.
Unless you can give a logical reason besides "that's how it's always been done and I don't know better". Nostalgia is strong here.
 
Snark567 said:
Alright silly imitations of you guys aside, I agree with Sawyer that fans like you are too conservative and only value rpg's with classic mechanics. My point stands that you don't need to show player stats, the number of damage a weapon does, you also don't need perks or skill checks.
Unless you can give a logical reason besides "that's how it's always been done and I don't know better". Nostalgia is strong here.
Click to expand...
Yes, you don't necessarily need to show the stats, but it's kinda important for the transparency of the game. It'd be kinda frustrating if the player never quite knows what's going on with your character, why he doesn't hit for shit or why he doesn't do any damage.
Also, depending on the playstyle, seeing your stats and chosing your focus yourself instead of using the purest TES approach of "Only improve what you use" is part of ame strategy.
The thing about classical mechanics (kind of a broad term, there) is that they're still the best way to focus on character instead of player. Especially a turn-based or RTwP system takes away factors like reaction time and hand-eye-coordination to enable everyone to play every character.
An action game with extreme focus on visuals and physics engine and so on with all the stats hidden could work, I guess, but I think it would feel frustrating to most players since it doesn't give good feedback on your progress.
I would like to see more innovation when it comes to RPG mechanics, though. Age of Decadence had a really nice system in my opinion, with combat/civil/general skill points and getting skill points via actions. The way your skills and perks influence the dialogue was great. The combat system was also quite in-depth, albeit fucking hard.
And the reactivity of the world was fantastic as well.
 
CT Phipps said:
I have no idea what is actually being suggested to be honest.

My reading comprehension has failed.
Click to expand...
That's because what is suggested morphed over time, because for some reason the suggester changes his arguments on the spot all the time.

First it was "remove all the skills, attributes and perks (all the numbers) from RPGs and make them all player skill based", then it changed to "use player skill to improve the character (without numbers)", now it is something like "you improve the character by repetition, not assigning numbers (it's ok if it has numbers, as long as they are not shown to the player, or something)".

So at first it went like "RPGs should be like action games without numbers", then it changed to "should be like Borderlands without numbers" and now it's something like "it should be like Skyrim without showing numbers". But the twist is that "there is no other game like what I am suggesting yet, so I can't give examples".

:shrug:
 
Technology COULD become immersive enough the manipulation of a mouse, a smooth scroll or intricate maneuvering can replace a lot of skills or their minigames...but I wouldn't put stock in it. A lot of combat is clicking. A lot of interaction is mashing keys or clicking. There are few to no games that do differently. Joysticks, wheels, and gloves could also work, but failed in the past and will continue to fail because of their specialized nature and separate cost.

I wouldn't mind change if our technology was capable enough for it. But for now, skill checks, perks, feats, traits, skills themselves, and internal stats are still as good as a translation of really doing those things in real life. I wouldn't mind more pervasive changes in the field like weapons ALWAYS do a set amount of damage because weapons ALWAYS hurt unless it's an outright miss, or more intricate damage dolls, more varied skill minigames, stuff like that.
 
For me, what he says looks like "I'm tired of making copies of baldur's gate for fanboys of baldur's gate"
After playing BG 1, I wonder makes this game great.

really, there's nothing to learn and it is too old. not because it uses D&D system, nor simply it is old game.
there is nothing new or nothing to learn from it. Directly say, BG is just a JRPG.
Half real-time system is dumb and rule of D&D system applied poorly.
how about RP? you are a son of some kind of hermit and you have to avenge it.
what kind of RP? I'm already a son of somebody and there is no other option than avenge. being bad guy or good guy doesn't change whole plot.


And for Fallout, there's a lot of things to learn even in these days.
but for SPECIAL, it is flawed. I like Fallout 2 but choosing stat is a huge flaw of the game.
because the stat I choose in character making determines too much things.
there aren't much chance to change it. so following Fallout's stat system is wrong choice for future games.

and for RP... CRPG wasn't named RPG because CRPGs were about RP.
CRPG was named to be CRPG just because ancestors of CRPGs used RPG's rule.
was there any RP element in Wizardry? how about Ultima?
in Wizardry, you are not a character. you are player of the game and you use each characters to beat the dungeon.
in Ultima, you are an avatar of yourself. you don't have to roleplay other character. you are yourself.

Fallout and Deus Ex tried RP but I don't think they are successful.
both are great games. but that doesn't mean they are masterpieces because of RP.

CRPG doesn't have to be RP game.
you are yourself, not any other character. so CRPGs should be more about connecting the world and player not about forcing player to role play other character.
 
I've finally updating myself on this indie cRPG in-development by one of the monocled members of the Codex, and man oh man:

A dialogue system that is not a tree-based one when passing stats and skills checks? Where you can interject with leverage, change the goal of your conversation, select pushy responses or backpedal and you can influence the dialogue in other ways? You can finally cover the flanks in a battle of words instead of always taking it head on with a couple of options? Sign me the fuck up! This is how you evolve the genre, Sawyer!

woo1108 said:
And for Fallout, there's a lot of things to learn even in these days.
but for SPECIAL, it is flawed. I like Fallout 2 but choosing stat is a huge flaw of the game.
because the stat I choose in character making determines too much things.
there aren't much chance to change it. so following Fallout's stat system is wrong choice for future games.
Click to expand...
So, in short, you want RPGs to play exactly like Skyrim, where the skills doesn't determine anything because, in the end, you can just master all the skills and you're not restricted to your build?

woo1108 said:
Fallout and Deus Ex tried RP but I don't think they are successful.
both are great games. but that doesn't mean they are masterpieces because of RP.
Click to expand...
Nah, I haven't played Deus Ex but Fallout were successful because it offers vast arrays of opportunity to roleplay a character of player's own choosing. Many of the gameplay elements might have been lacking because the devs didn't provide enough content to use them but that doesn't mean future devs shouldn't pursue this direction. See: Fallout 1.5 Resurrection TC mod for Fallout 2, and Fallout of Nevada.

woo1108 said:
CRPG doesn't have to be RP game.
you are yourself, not any other character. so CRPGs should be more about connecting the world and player not about forcing player to role play other character.
Click to expand...
What does this even supposed to mean? cRPGs shouldn't be cRPGs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top