I'm surprised @PlanHex hasn't posted any Codex-related stuff like this yet, but probably it's been awhile since his last reposting. And this has probably been discussed in the Discord, but here it goes:
Josh Sawyer, design director at Pillars of Eternity and Fallout: New Vegas developer Obsidian, would like to see the RPG genre evolve radically beyond its current state.
Stats and combat systems shouldn’t define the role-playing game, said Sawyer, although he admitted he has been complicit in creating games that stick to an accepted template.
“The hardcore RPG audience is very traditional,” said Sawyer at Reboot Develop this week, discussing the evolution of genres.
“Fans tend to skew towards the more hardcore cases and they tend to be fairly resistant to change. I don’t want to paint too broad of a stroke there but RPGs can be a lot more than we have done with them so far. There’s much more than we can do and its much more radical.
“I’m also contributing to the problem,” he added. “Pillars of Eternity 1 and 2 are very traditional role playing games. But the genre can go in a number of different directions it’s just a matter of framing the project size and things that meet up in the same place.”
Personally, I'm starting to get worried and worried about how Obsidian's gonna make their games in the future. I haven't played PoE, and I haven't played KotOR2 nor Alpha Protocol to have some reference of their past works. But first Tim Cain with his statement about character creation in Fallout, Arcanum, and other RPGs being too complex, and now Sawyer stating something like, "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." as if stats and skills being tweaked and adjusted according to player's own discretion and decision can't alter the storyline of the game.... I guess we all need to see how Tim Cain's super sekrit projekt and Deadfire came to be. Me, I'm starting to look forward to their games less nowadays knowing they have this kind of mindset.
What? Seriously? At least for Fallout (haven't played Arcanum), the character creation is actually pretty simple. Pick traits, perks and allocate stats, the end. Sure, for a first timer, you do not know how actually useful some skills will be but that's part of the learning experience.
This is the same mentality Bethesda used for Fallout 4. They thought the skill points system was too "complex" and just went and removed them.
A lot of people are resistance to certain changes in the RPG genre because some devs want to change stuff that already works and doesn't need changing. Stats tweaking are part of the RPG formula, because that's what dictates how fast characters dispatches enemies. And that's also part of the roleplaying experience.
Roleplaying isn't just defined with "altering the events of a story through your actions".
I am worried, I would love more rpgs like New Vegas, but I don't want anymore deep as puddle skyrim clones. The stats are important, without them you end up with shitout 3/4, where your skills are basically worthless.
I don't want more far cry only perk based progression. I am not getting good vibes out of his statement.
I don't quite understand what he means with "more radical" if he wants to cut down character stats and just condense RPGness to that of being an interactive visual novel in a CYOA form. What's radical about that? Action games with stories exist already and are being made as we speak.
Does he not think or consider that part of the big picture of making choices and expressing characteristics, and the fun of it, comes precisely through stat tweaking that allow the player to attempt those things and open those doors? Why does he think those elements have been seeping into other genres if they are not exactly the way to deliver the fun and intrigue of the game to the player in an engaging manner?
RPG's do these things more comprehensively - and (importantly) differently - than other genres that must abide to their genre staples that very often go counter to what RPG's want to achieve. Why is this a problem or something that needs to be fixed?
I've been out all weekend, only just now reading up on stuff I missed at the Codex.
I also missed that thread completely, probably because I was going through what I missed kinda quickly, so thanks for posting it.
This whole thing sounds kinda taken out of context though. I mean, it came from a talk specifically about how to evolve genres. And he's not exactly wrong, but saying that the hardcore fans of a genre that barely caters to them any more are resistant to having it change further falls squarely into the "water is wet" category of statements.
And I didn't really give a shit about his changes to the Baldur's Gate formula much. It kinda sounds like he's just burned out on PoE and want to make something like New Vegas again maybe. Or maybe something more like Disco Elysium? I dunno. Kinda sounds like it here at least:
“The way that I work on role-playing games, they tend to be more about playing a character that has a range of personalities and a way of going through a story that changes that story in a very significant way. The amount to which things like statistics or combat systems interact with that, really can be much more fluid.
At least I would extend him more credit than assume that when he says "Bethesda went in a different direction and that worked out" as in he wants do what they're doing instead of actually doing something completely different.
This whole thing sounds kinda taken out of context though. I mean, it came from a talk specifically about how to evolve genres. And he's not exactly wrong, but saying that the hardcore fans of a genre that barely caters to them any more are resistant to having it change further falls squarely into the "water is wet" category of statements.
And I didn't really give a shit about his changes to the Baldur's Gate formula much. It kinda sounds like he's just burned out on PoE and want to make something like New Vegas again maybe. Or maybe something more like Disco Elysium? I dunno. Kinda sounds like it here at least:
At least I would extend him more credit than assume that when he says "Bethesda went in a different direction and that worked out" as in he wants do what they're doing instead of actually doing something completely different.
Yeah, he really need to clarify and elaborate further on his statement in that discussion. You can't just say something like, "The amount to which things like statistics or combat systems interact with that, really can be much more fluid." without showing how statistics and combat systems can be much more fluid. That's why I'd say we need to wait and see how Deadfire turns out.
Also, that thing about RPGs not just about combat, I would say I'm kind of in his line of thinking that non-combat interaction can be actually evolved and not just turns out to be the "easy mode". Although, I'm also vaguely remembering his posts somewhere in the internet, probably his Tumblr, where he talked about how RPG developers tend to design combat mechanics poorly.
To be fair, he clarified twice that he meant introducing an alternative representation (not system - just replacing numbers with weird geometric shapes) for idiots, while retaining a numerical system for everyone else.
Arcanum is my favourite game. Arcanum is even the second best Fallout in many ways, but the character creation is ridiculously complex. It's the thing that keeps you coming back after all these years with everything being fresh and new, but it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense until you've finished the game once and figured out what everything does.
Sawyer was wrong to "streamline" everything in New Vegas. Tim is probably right to offer an entirely optional simpler interface to the underlying complexity...just as long as it's not a slippery slope.
To be fair, he clarified twice that he meant introducing an alternative representation (not system - just replacing numbers with weird geometric shapes) for idiots, while retaining a numerical system for everyone else.
Not really. It was actually something along the lines of making the whole experience enjoyable for everyone; even those who didn't like RPGs in the first place. Yes, he clarified in his later replies there that one of his designers wants to add 'under-the-hood' button to expose the numbers behind those geometric shapes, but that doesn't really mean anything considering he concluded that Fallout's and Arcanum's character creation are 'too complex'; when they're probably the simplest one he ever conceived. How do you think this alternative representation would appear as a final product if the mindset behind making it is that the previous form is 'too complex'?
Arcanum is my favourite game. Arcanum is even the second best Fallout in many ways, but the character creation is ridiculously complex. It's the thing that keeps you coming back after all these years with everything being fresh and new, but it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense until you've finished the game once and figured out what everything does.
I disagree. Nothing about Arcanum's character creation is 'ridiculously' complex. The only annoying thing about it is that you'll have to go to the next page of character creation when previously they made the all-in-one page of character creation for Fallout. All you need to do when making characters in Arcanum is read all the description, or if you're on your way to make 2nd/3rd/4th character an so on, just look at how the numbers changes as you choose different race, gender, and character background. Easy, right? It is.
It could be better, true. There are a lot of things that can be improved from Arcanum's character creation, like making the whole sequence happens all in one page like Fallout's, and also making it clear how stats allocation actually affects the skills related to each of them. But if the underlying mindset behind attempting to improve the character creation is 'too complex', then I'm gonna be extremely worried how it would turns out to be because, for me, there's nothing 'too complex' about it.
Also, care to elaborate what you meant with that bolded part? Because to me, it's obvious for games with multiple possibilities for character archetypes, game's reactivity and outcomes to have stuff that doesn't really make sense until you go through the games at least once.
Sawyer was wrong to "streamline" everything in New Vegas. Tim is probably right to offer an entirely optional simpler interface to the underlying complexity...just as long as it's not a slippery slope.
Nah man. The way Tim worded his explanation, the simpler interface WILL be the default form. It is the underlying complexity that will be entirely optional. And yes, it IS a slippery slope. Read Tim words carefully on how he wanted to "make the experience enjoyable for everyone", even making that analogue about people who enjoyed mountain climbing vs. people who don't. People then replied to him, explaining that in the case of cRPGs, even if he succeeded making simpler character creation that everyone can enjoy, people who don't like RPGs in the first place would find themselves unable to understand how, for example, combat actually works. You know, the usual "why did my 75% chance to hit missed 3/4/5 times in a row?????!!!". And then shit hit the fan, and these idiots who Tim tried to attract with simpler character creation would begin posting negative reviews of the games and.... you know the rest.
How do you think this alternative representation would appear as a final product if the mindset behind making it is that the previous form is 'too complex'?
You know what, if you're right, then I agree with you. But I heard/read Tim's talk/posts differently to you. My interpretation is just him trying to make a game commercially viable, without watering it down for everyone else. The default always has to be the idiot choice - folk who want more complicated stuff are much more willing to dig around the options looking for it.
So, it kinda depends exactly what he means. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. Maybe I'm giving him a pass because he was the man behind most of my favourite games...I hope not.
Prefab characters seems like a better system than Tim's proposal to me, but I'm not sure how you'd make that feel more 'personal' so that the kind of person who should really be using a prefab character actually chooses one rather than trying to make their own with a character sheet they can't be bothered thinking about.
I disagree. Nothing about Arcanum's character creation is 'ridiculously' complex.
Possibly poorly worded, but I didn't mean that in a bad way. You have eight main stats, sixteen skills, fifty six tech skills, eighty magic skills, seven races, two genders, and about twenty five backgrounds - and they're all interconnected. You only have so many points to choose at the start, but it all matters - the penalties deduct from your maximum stat too, so you have to consider it all right from character creation.
Being complex isn't bad, but it is ridiclously complex.
Also, care to elaborate what you meant with that bolded part? Because to me, it's obvious for games with multiple possibilities for character archetypes, game's reactivity and outcomes to have stuff that doesn't really make sense until you go through the games at once.
I mean exactly the question Tim posed in his talk - One a scale of 20 (for a human), what's the difference between 16 and 17 in Beauty? Between 12 and 13 in Intelligence?
I mean, I'm not even remotely convinced geometrical shapes are a better way to represent it than a simple number is, but I don't disagree that the numbers don't really mean much at the initial character creation either. Not until you've played through. I prefer the numbers to the examples he gave in his talk, but I'm not religiously opposed to finding something better.
I'm not blindingly supporting Tim, I just understand his point and, despite being let down by every single game in the RPG resurgence, still have enough faith in him to pull it off.
(Or maybe I am blindingly supporting him now that I've said that out loud).
Since I am having this discussion in a different place, I will simply post what I said there:
(...)I just disagree with a lot of the points in the article, which is iritating since I am a member of those groups of 'gamers' he refers too, the kind of gamers who like it when sequels follow the footsteps of previous games. And quite frankly Sawyer is not even consistent with his own logic in my opinion.
He 'moans' about the fact that there are still people out there which want to see RPGs that are NOT done like Bethesda is making them? And than he goes on to develop a game that is following the footsteps of Baldurs Gate? What does he expect? That people change their preference? Does it bother him so much, that they 'have' to release the sequel with a similar gameplay and style like the first game? Because this is what some gamers, so called 'traditionalists' want? What's the point? Is his vision for Pillars of Eternity 3 to be a carbon copy of Skyrim because it sells millions of copies? Then why has he ever decided to make PoE1 as a top down CRPG in the first place ...
That's so dumb that I have to question the sanity of Sawyer. He even acknowledges the fact, that Iso-RPGs don't offer the SAME experience like more action oriented games (and no, this isn't something that makes gamers angry):
"“The traditionalists probably get angry about this stuff, but Bethesda’s RPGs are very different from isometric RPGs."
“They’re much more action orientated, much more focused on the immersive experience. That shows there’s more room for RPGs to grow than just to be what they were 20 years ago. It’s really a matter of finding an audience that matches up with that,”
As a mather of Fact I can enjoy both, Skyrim and games like Pillars of Eternity a lot, but each for different reasons. But I do not expect the next Elder Scrolls to be like PoE and I do not expect PoE to be the next TESO. Diversty is a great thing we had this 20 years ago and I do not see why we can't have it today. Not every game has to play exactly like CoD, Sykrim or Dragonage, just because they sell millions of copies.
I wouldn't be surprised if it also frustrates him, that Obsidian has often to fight criticism and to survive as a studio, while stuff like Dogshit Fallout 4 continues to sell like hotcakes.
I am all in favor of evolving genres if they stay the same genre. One example of how this is not done is Fallout 4. Bethesda evolved their, mainly,"open-world, exploration RPG" into a, mainly, "open-world, exploration, shooter", but it still calls it "open-world, exploration RPG".
For me that is not an evolution of a RPG, but an evolution of a Shooter. Shooters can have more stuff than just shooting. They can have exploration, they can have level up, inventory, quests, etc. That is how evolving the Shooter genre can make good games (like the STALKER games, for example). They are not RPGs but are an "evolved" shooter. The underlying mechanics are still shooter mechanics, the game works like a shooter, looks like a shooter, feels like a shooter and plays like a shooter, but it is different from playing shooters from the 90's. The Shooter genre evolved and it now allows for games that offer more options and work a bit differently.
This shooter evolution is the "good" type of evolution in games I mean.
The evolution on RPGs, I am all in favor of evolving RPGs. But just like in the shooter example, just because devs now make shooters like STALKER or Fallout 4 , doesn't mean that the "old-style" shooter genre should just vanish forever. What was fun about the 90's shooters is still fun today. People will still enjoy some "old-school-like" shooter, if it is well made. Evolution of genres should allow for more variety, not for stop making the previous genres (unless the previous genres were something like experimental and it failed miserably, I guess).
Now, about RPGs. As long as the RPG continues to have the fundamental underlying feature/mechanic/structure as the same as in the previous RPGs (character abilities/skills/attributes/whatever are the things used to interact and deal with the world, problems, etc. in the game world/universe). Then I am all in favor of evolving the genre and provide more variety.
After all, RPG is the gaming genre that already evolved more from all the gaming genres. We have so many sub-genres of RPGs today, compared to other genres, that it is mind-boggling. cRPG, jRPG, P&P/TT RPG, Tactical/Strategy RPG, Action RPG, Turn RPG, RTwP RPG, etc.
All of these sub-genres prove that RPG evolution is possible and that it can be beneficial for the genre.
But I have seen quite a lot of times where people see evolution in other genres, by the other genre adding a few mechanics that are "usually" found in RPGs, and then they call that game a RPG. That is seriously diminishing the other genre. It is saying that if a shooter has an inventory and loot, it becomes a RPG, instead of it still being a shooter, but it is just a shooter genre evolution and not a RPG evolution.
I can think of a few ways I could make a videogame RPG that would be different from the ones we already have. A RPG that wouldn't have attributes or skills, a RPG without any levels or experience. But I would add a few mechanics that would make it still be a RPG.
"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."
That makes perfect sense, RPG's in modern days don't need stats and numbers, that is a system that was designed due to limitations, back in the day when you couldn't see your character's actions in battle and you had limited control you used numbers to visualize the character's strength or proficiency in a certain skill and you left the rest to your imagination.
Nowadays you don't need such things anymore since you are in direct control of the character, technology has progressed enough to where you don't need to see health bars over an enemy, you don't need to see floating numbers to visualize how much damage you have dealt, you don't need numbers to the side of a weapon to know if it's more powerful or not, you don't need to max numbers to be able to lockpick.
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.
Isometric RPG's can also be improved by this however they can also use the old number system since their perspective is limited and wouldn't benefit that much. It's games like Fallout or the Elder Scrolls that will benefit the most, once you give full control of a character in first or third person you are no longer imagining how a battle will go trough, you are actively participating and steering the outcome trough skills and having arbitrary numbers for things like accuracy makes no sense and only makes the games feel clinky.
Morrowind felt clunky, you constantly missed early on due to dice rolls even though you didn't need the dice roll since you were in first person controlling the character, Fallout 3 felt clunky because even though you had full control of the character your bullets still missed most of the time when shooting due to arbitrary numbers in a "small/big/energy guns" skill.
The ideal future RPG is one where you intuitively learn something the same way the character itself would have to learn it, trough practice, thought, strategy, skill whatever instead of just adding numbers in a menu.
Fallout 4 failed not because it allowed you to shoot decently right out of the box, it failed because it did almost nothing but shooting, the story and player choices are the things which were missing.
That being said, that kind of RPG would be difficult to create, it would mean much more work designing unique enemies, more work designing the world, the systems "minigames" whatever, more work on the combat and the dialogue since things would be driven by the player and not by the skillpoints, so you'll have to reason with a character using your own judgement instead of just passing a skill check.
I don't think a company like Bethesda would try to make such a game and I doubt they have the skills to do so, but I think Obsidian can and they have proven themselves before to put a lot of work in a small span of time and still managing to release an amazing product. However it is a big risk to take and I doubt the have the funds to take such risk, because as Sawyer said, players don't like the thought of change, to most people if something hasn't been done before or has been done poorly it means it can't be done properly period, and the status quo as how things should be because that's the only way it can be.
You know what, if you're right, then I agree with you. But I heard/read Tim's talk/posts differently to you. My interpretation is just him trying to make a game commercially viable, without watering it down for everyone else. The default always has to be the idiot choice - folk who want more complicated stuff are much more willing to dig around the options looking for it.
So, it kinda depends exactly what he means. We'll find out soon enough, I suppose. Maybe I'm giving him a pass because he was the man behind most of my favourite games...I hope not.
Prefab characters seems like a better system than Tim's proposal to me, but I'm not sure how you'd make that feel more 'personal' so that the kind of person who should really be using a prefab character actually chooses one rather than trying to make their own with a character sheet they can't be bothered thinking about.
But how would he exactly achieve that? How would he make the game commercially viable without watering it down for everyone else? Again, I've mentioned that someone pointed out the elephant in the room to Tim, which is, and I quote, that:
With all due respect Tim, but we have heard this so many times. So many developers told us that the games won't be dumbed down, it will just have an easy option to the more casual players. But the game will be just as complex for the hardcore crowd, we have been told. But I think the people who find the simple character creation of Fallout 1 difficult, will find the rest of the systems difficult, so you have to make every mechanics simpler. Those people who need a very simple character creation just want a simple RPG lite game like Fallout 4.
Let's assume you make a game where the character creation is very simple, but the mechanics are just as complex as the good old RPGs. Your casual RPG player will enjoy the character creation and will happily continue the game. Then they encounter their first combat, where they will fail hard because they won't understand the complex mechanics of the game. The other option is that you make all of the mechanics simpler to keep the player in the game. And thus, we gut a dumbed down game.
After that, no answer. I would like to think he's taking this and tried to think and is working on making a solution to this problem, but trying to read between the lines in context that aligned Feargus Urquhart's and Josh Sawyer's words, I can't help but doubt they would ever succeed. To be honest, I'm all for improving the presentation of the games, but it's that elephant in the room that Tim doesn't seem to notice that worries me.
Possibly poorly worded, but I didn't mean that in a bad way. You have eight main stats, sixteen skills, fifty six tech skills, eighty magic skills, seven races, two genders, and about twenty five backgrounds - and they're all interconnected. You only have so many points to choose at the start, but it all matters - the penalties deduct from your maximum stat too, so you have to consider it all right from character creation.
Being complex isn't bad, but it is ridiclously complex.
You still haven't pointed out what's so 'ridiculously' complex here. What, the fact that there are eight main stats, sixteen skills, fifty six tech skills, eighty magic skills, seven races, and about twenty five backgrounds - and that they're all interconnected? I don't see anything ridiculously complex about that. In fact, I would say if we could have more than that, then they should add to it.
Please note that Arcanum at the time of release came with a manual (and you can still get it if you buy from GOG, dunno about Steam version). Obviously anyone who bought it are mostly those who keep tabs on what games Tim is developing because they've been there since Fallout came out in 1997. Only people who would say the game is ridiculously complex are those who didn't read the manual; or retards; or you, because I don't know where you stand between the former and the latter; or me, because I didn't read the manual and I'm relatively newcomer to the genre but people like me either can either transform into someone who can embrace the whole system as it is or retards.
I mean exactly the question Tim posed in his talk - One a scale of 20 (for a human), what's the difference between 16 and 17 in Beauty? Between 12 and 13 in Intelligence?
Isn't it obvious? A human with 17 Beauty would definitely appears more beautiful than a human with 16 Beauty, while someone with 13 Intelligence are definitely smarter than someone with 12 Intelligence. Of course, in terms of gameplay more often than not it means being able to pass that checks you failed on previous playthrough(s) but the difference between such close numbers are often negligible in other aspects and this is probably the problem that you (and Tim) meant.
To be fair, it's actually a problem that has been discussed for awhile long before Tim brought it up in his talk. I vaguely remembering reading up in the Codex where people argued the difference between 17 and 18 DEX on a scale of 20, probably for one of the edition of D&D or even one of the Infinity Engine games. That's why I'd recommend looking up to how other RPGs solve this problems. Hell, why didn't Tim look back and observe how his first baby ever dealt with this problem? In Fallout the difference between, say, 4 and 5 STR obviously meant a whole lot, considering you need 5 STR to properly wield a Sniper Rifle and an Assault Rifle. Every point in AGI counts because that means an extra AP or two to allows you perform another burst with your SMG or another aimed shot with your Gauss Rifle; or to allows you to open your inventory and use stimpacks. Every point in INT counts because that means more skill points to help increase your proficiency in one or multiple skills.
We can also look to how Age of Decadence, a cRPG released in 2015, dealt with (what is perceived as) the problem. Each point in STR increases the damage your character can deal but if you redacted points from it you can actually have negative damage dealt; each point in DEX obviously counts because they give you AP; each point in PER counts, especially for ranged characters because it affects accuracy, and alongside with STR, affects the critical chance you can have when attempting aimed attacks; and then there's INT and CHA, of which every point can mean you can pass the checks or not. Of course, both Fallout and AoD uses 10/10 stat scaling, so let me bring you to Underrail. In Underrail, you can increase your stats every 4 level, and a stat can reach all the way to 20. However, maximum level you can achieve in Underrail is 25 (to be changed with the release of incoming expansion), so that means you can only increase your stats 6 time, so the maximum stat you can achieve at maximum level (putting all the points gained every 4 levels, into the stat that's already 10 from since the character creation) is 16... not including other modifiers. There's, however, ways to further increases your stats, mainly from consumables. There are foodstuffs in Underrail that can be consumed to increase a stat for 20 minutes; obviously there are also drugs that can you either buy or craft. And also (mostly) unique equipment that can increase your stats. So what's the point of increasing your stats in Underrail, even if only by 1 from, say, 10 to 11? A whole lot. Stats affect corresponding skills, so based how many points you allocated on a stat, a skill can gain huge bonus.... or lose what you put into them. In case of offensive stats like STR, DEX, and WIL, every point counts because that means you can deal more damage (for weapons and psi spells) and hit more often (weapons only) with the corresponding offensive skills. In case of non-offensive stats like INT, CON, and AGI, it means you can finally craft an equipment with a higher quality components or survive that last encounter that left your heart beating faster than usual. PER is definitely a more unique stat in Underrail because it's the corresponding stat for Guns skill, there are lots of PER checks throughout the game and detecting stealthed enemies and traps are HUGE part of the game. Sadly, non-combat interaction aren't exactly the top priority of Underrail's developer, especially since there are no 11 PER checks as far as I know, nor 11 INT checks.
Hope you get what I mean. Obviously, if developers are concerned with showing the difference between 8 and 9 STR in a scale of 20, then they should revert to a scale of 10 instead. In fact, I'm hearing that Tim was actually onto something with Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines's character creation and progression system. Some kind of node progression system or something. Why not go with that and improve it instead?
I mean, I'm not even remotely convinced geometrical shapes are a better way to represent it than a simple number is, but I don't disagree that the numbers don't really mean much at the initial character creation either. Not until you've played through. I prefer the numbers to the examples he gave in his talk, but I'm not religiously opposed to finding something better.
Oh, I would disagree. Again, I've mentioned that AoD directly showed you how much a stat's worth with every point put into and taken from it. So does Underrail, albeit it was more subtle in how it's shown. Again, there's nothing too/ridiculously complex about Fallout's and Arcanum's character creation. They just need to clean it up a bit, making it clear what stats and skills actually do, what the numbers really means, maybe hide more of it in the description box you see on the bottom of the screen as to not overwhelm the presentation with too much information. In fact, since I haven't mentioned it, I'll say that I'm all for Fallout's and Arcanum's character creation made better in every way it could be. But if the mindset behind the attempt to improve those are that 'it's too complex', then I will worry as I never worry before.
"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."
That makes perfect sense, RPG's in modern days don't need stats and numbers, that is a system that was designed due to limitations, back in the day when you couldn't see your character's actions in battle and you had limited control you used numbers to visualize the character's strength or proficiency in a certain skill and you left the rest to your imagination.
Nowadays you don't need such things anymore since you are in direct control of the character, technology has progressed enough to where you don't need to see health bars over an enemy, you don't need to see floating numbers to visualize how much damage you have dealt, you don't need numbers to the side of a weapon to know if it's more powerful or not, you don't need to max numbers to be able to lockpick.
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.
Isometric RPG's can also be improved by this however they can also use the old number system since their perspective is limited and wouldn't benefit that much. It's games like Fallout or the Elder Scrolls that will benefit the most, once you give full control of a character in first or third person you are no longer imagining how a battle will go trough, you are actively participating and steering the outcome trough skills and having arbitrary numbers for things like accuracy makes no sense and only makes the games feel clinky.
Morrowind felt clunky, you constantly missed early on due to dice rolls even though you didn't need the dice roll since you were in first person controlling the character, Fallout 3 felt clunky because even though you had full control of the character your bullets still missed most of the time when shooting due to arbitrary numbers in a "small/big/energy guns" skill.
The ideal future RPG is one where you intuitively learn something the same way the character itself would have to learn it, trough practice, thought, strategy, skill whatever instead of just adding numbers in a menu.
Fallout 4 failed not because it allowed you to shoot decently right out of the box, it failed because it did almost nothing but shooting, the story and player choices are the things which were missing.
That being said, that kind of RPG would be difficult to create, it would mean much more work designing unique enemies, more work designing the world, the systems "minigames" whatever, more work on the combat and the dialogue since things would be driven by the player and not by the skillpoints, so you'll have to reason with a character using your own judgement instead of just passing a skill check.
I don't think a company like Bethesda would try to make such a game and I doubt they have the skills to do so, but I think Obsidian can and they have proven themselves before to put a lot of work in a small span of time and still managing to release an amazing product. However it is a big risk to take and I doubt the have the funds to take such risk, because as Sawyer said, players don't like the thought of change, to most people if something hasn't been done before or has been done poorly it means it can't be done properly period, and the status quo as how things should be because that's the only way it can be.
I would like to explain why this entire post is such a pure, unadulterated bullshit, but I'm kinda tired after typing all that replies to Beardy Unixer, so stay tune.
I can, however, tells you what kind of games you're exactly looking for based on this entire post: it's action games. Not RPGs.
I would like to explain why this entire post is such a pure, unadulterated bullshit, but I'm kinda tired after typing all that replies to Beardy Unixer, so stay tune.
I can, however, tells you what kind of games you're exactly looking for based on this entire post: it's action games. Not RPGs.
RPG means "Role Playing Game" you can play a role without having to enter numbers in a menu, however since most people are close minded they see the name "RPG" and think of Stats and min/maxing numbers.
Perks and skills and numbers aren't needed anymore, however you would need to replace them with proper gameplay rather than just removing them without filling the void. What would be better, a game where each lock has a different quirk and you get better trough trial end error while you learn how each type of lock operates or a game in which all the locks are the same, super easy to lockpick but the game doesn't allow you to even try lockpicking some of them until you enter a couple of numbers in a menu?
Entering numbers in a menu is not complex gameplay, it's a relic from the past that can be replaced with something actually engaging. You can still PLAY the ROLE of a guy who can't lockpick his way out of a cardboard box and ignore the locks, just like you can do it with traditional RPG's but you don't have to do it trough entering numbers in a menu. And if you do decide to play a guy who can lockpick, instead of leveling trough menus you can actually progress the same way the character would, trough figuring out each lock via gameplay.
Also it's not just about combat, the way you interact with characters will be more complex, rather than just winning a conversation because you added a few numbers in a specific stat.
You can do that while still staying in character.
The problem isn't the idea, it's the fact that people can't visualize change, for such a thing to work Sawyer would be better off creating the game rather than just talking about it since no one will understand him. It would be better if he dropped the "RPG" name from his game as well, not because it's not a Role Playing Game but because people have their own twisted ideas on what an RPG is, the whole term is butchered.
It's like trying to explain an MMORPG game without leveling to an MMO player who lives in a world where everyone is copying WoW. It's not gonna happen.
You can. You can "play a role" even without a game if you want to; even an empty box of matches will do just fine if you're up to it. But the roleplaying'd happen in a far lesser depth in an RPG since you'd lack a lot of the progressive communication between you and the game, which is what the "numbers in the menu" do. They are the "G" in the "RPG" - or more precisely, the keys to the the "G". Houseruling in PnP notwithstanding.
