Why do so many people here think First Person excludes RPG?

[Shattering Fast]

Their significance should be set in stone and not rely on the roleplayer.
This is why low stats in Fallout 1 or 2 had a definite negative impact that would affect nearly any type of character, it made sense, anyone with 1 Strength is always going to be a enormous pussy who couldn't steady a pistol, bad effects meant bad effects, no matter what kind of character you had, a low Strength diplomat was eventually going to suffer at some point because of his stats, and typically those instances were major, not being able to defend yourself when cornered for example.

So 1 Strength in Fallout 3 is somehow more significant to a Big Guns player because he won't be able to carry more Big Guns? Yes, it's common sense, but it's also infantile, that's something a baby thinks is clever. A Small Guns player should suffer as well, who fires a Magnum or a Sniper Rifle when they've got only 1 Strength? 1 Strength is equivalent to being imbued with the power of a frail geriatric senior citizen, there is no common sense in that at all.

I fail to see your argument, creating a unique role doesn't depend on what the player thinks a stat should do, the rules that are set in RPGs force a player to mold a character around those rules, otherwise they have no meaning whatsoever and that role ceases to be unique because there is no significance.

The stricter the rules and the more of an effect a stat's quantity imparts, the more possibilities there are available, it's the difference between ten big steps and ten little tippy toe shuffles.

In other words, the stat scale in Fallout 3 is absolutely tiny compared to Fallout 1 or 2's, more or less points in Fallout 1 or 2 had stronger effects, more or less points in Fallout 3 had much less noticeable effects.

Some people happen to enjoy a little freedom in their roleplaying - myself included. Like I said, it's all about your priorities. Genre norms change, for better or for worse. Saying yesterday's form of roleplaying is somehow more legitimate than today's is like saying "rock n' roll" from the 1950's is somehow more legitimate than the rock of, say, Radiohead or The Smashing Pumpkins.

I'm sorry, but calling my post infantile isn't going to help change my mind...or even endear you to your fellow posters, even if they share your opinion. Or maybe it will. I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. Seriously, though, if you think the strength stat had anything to do with your ability to fire a gun in fallout 1/2, then you're just as delusional as you're claiming me to be. Skill/stat derivitives were spelled out pretty plain in those games, and STR was not part of the Small Guns equation.

My point is, any character with 1 STR is going to suffer in some form or another for that choice, no matter which game you're playing. Said Diplomat will be able to defend himself perfectly fine with enough points in agility and perception. It seems to me as though you're just inventing consequences to make your point come across as the more logical one when, in reality, it relies upon nothing more than what you think should happen in the Fallout games, not what does.

That's all I have to say to you, I think.

 

[Per]

Seriously, though, if you think the strength stat had anything to do with your ability to fire a gun in fallout 1/2, then you're just as delusional as you're claiming me to be.

Are you trying to retain any sort of credibility here?

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Seriously, though, if you think the strength stat had anything to do with your ability to fire a gun in fallout 1/2, then you're just as delusional as you're claiming me to be.

Are you trying to retain any sort of credibility here?

Translation: You're blatantly wrong. From The Vault:

Also, if you meet the minimum strength requirements of your weapon you do not suffer accuracy penalties with that weapon.

 

[nemetoad]

Any sort of external perspective of the charater preserves this distinction, be it Fallout's isometric views, or Gothic's third-person views. This is crucial because, in addition to not being a role-playing game, a simulation that tries to convince the player he is actually present within the game world is doomed to failure. For starters, real people have peripheral vision, necks that aren't fixed, depth perception, and lots of other physical characteristics that aren't represented in a fake 3D environment projected to a flat rectagular screen.

More importantly, a third-person or isometric CRPG preserves the most important trait of P&P RPGs: the player is able to use his imagination to envision the character within game world. While playing Fallout, at no point do I believe I actually am the character. The game doesn't vainly try to convince me of that. Instead, I'm free to imagine the reality of the world and it's characters. The graphics are merely a medium to assist the imagination, rather than an attempt to supplant the imagination.

Third Person or Isometric CRPG have nothing to do with how much detail can be seen. The older the game is, the less detail you see. You could more or less have a fully detailed isometric game where you can see everything that a character could see, even the sky if rotational cameras are in it. The "lack of details" is just simply a technique to cut down on size. Take... Well, Van Buren for example. It had more detail then Fallout 1/2 and led less to imagine.

And let's go with the limitations and unnatural abilities of characters in Isometric games since you're going with the flaws of First Person only. In Isometric and distant third-person cameraing, your character has 360 degree view no matter what direction he's facing, is not subject to a lot of forces that you would be normally, and suffers from other simplifications that are done in First Person as well, such as illogical storage, stiff movement whether by the inability to turn your head or inability to run straight on a grid system, and so forth. Fallout 1 had the same illogical and unrealistic parts as Fallout 3.

With FPP vs ISO/3PP it's similar. You CAN have a Hard RPG in FPP (in fact, turn based FPP RPGs aren't entirely unheard of, they just weren't very successful), but if you make one, you'll violate a lot of expectations regarding its gameplay mechanics and thus alienate a lot of players. Action RPGs can swing both ways because there are less expectations involved in ISO/3PP.

Having a real-time FPP Hard RPG is pretty much the worst case scenario, though. Nobody would want to play that mess. The only way to make it playable would be cutting down on the mechanics and then it would cease to be a Hard RPG.

I can see your point here. However, I don't think simplifications would be needed...moreso, I think more complexity would be needed to make a decent Hard Realtime RPG. If anything, you probably should suffer more penalties from stats in a First Person RPG instead of less. Your play style would have to be different though.... in an isometric RPG like in Fallout 1/2 you didn't even need to really explore an area to see where enemies ahead were so you could plan much easier prior to...say, taking on a Deathclaw Nest. You had time to pause and plan before doing anything, and then more time after a few turns with a few enemies. In a realtime setup, you'd need to plan more in the dark prior to do anything, or learn more from trial and error. Either setup has its advantages and drawbacks...it's setting it up properly that was the problem with Fallout 3.

Personally, I kind of consider RPGs such as Fallout 1/2 and Neverwinter Nights to be part of the RTS end of RPGs. In both styles of gaming, you're more like an immortal reaching down and changing the world through a select individual or army. The separation between Player and Character present in Fallout 1/2 causes that feeling to me.

 

[Holocausto]

I fail to see your argument, creating a unique role doesn't depend on what the player thinks a stat should do, the rules that are set in RPGs force a player to mold a character around those rules, otherwise they have no meaning whatsoever and that role ceases to be unique because there is no significance.

I think you just hit Bingo. That's my overarching feel about F3 is that the stats are largely just 'window dressing' to appease the hardcore RPG guys 'oh look see it has stats/ see it's a REAL RPG etc'. Something I finally put my finger on today (I'm a a little slow on the RPG uptake since I'm not highly familiar with them). I went through GECK comparing perks with your SPECIAL & skills and I simulated a nix on all the ones which I felt were problematic.

I will list them:

adamantium skeleton
daddys boy/girl
educated
fortune finder
grim reaper spirit
here and now
life giver
light step
master trader
MS04 perception perk
MS04 strength perk
nerd rage
pyromaniac
scoundrel
silent running
size matters
solar powered
strong back
tag
thief
toughness
well rested perk


All the "perks" listed are either subtle (or maybe not so subtle) exploits of the game system (grim reaper, pyromaniac, silent running, light step, well rested) embuing properties and abilities out of the realm of the "game rules" IMO (I'll call them 'dirty' perks)....OR (the rest mentioned) they are largely circumventions of SPECIAL and or SKILLS. So really SPECIAL & SKILLS are nullified to a large extent because there are so many perks/books to fill in where you are weak or buff core stats that you originally set low when making your character. This 'redundant' system is most likely so players will not face the possibility of realizing they made the wrong choices in the beginning of the game with no recourse to fix (or mitigate) their original choices later.

Whatever beth, whatever....

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Some people happen to enjoy a little freedom in their roleplaying - myself included. Like I said, it's all about your priorities. Genre norms change, for better or for worse. Saying yesterday's form of roleplaying is somehow more legitimate than today's is like saying "rock n' roll" from the 1950's is somehow more legitimate than the rock of, say, Radiohead or The Smashing Pumpkins.

There is a difference between freedom and lack of rules/poorly written rules. Using your example, it's not like comparing Elvis and Smashing Pumpkins, but more like comparing Ozzy and Britney. There is no new system like you seem to claim, it's the bastardized old one. The fun part of the game should be the challange, the challenge is provided by the rule restrictions, and if the restrictions are too weak the challenge goes down making the game boring, and if there's too many, it gets too hard/confusing and makes the game "impossible" and thus bad as well. IMO, this is a general rule for all genres, one needs to find that middle ground that is just right, and FO3 fails at that for the purpose it needs to serve. It feels like they were designing a family game, kids and girlfriend-friendly, not a sequel to an M rated niche title for hardcore players.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...
Some people happen to enjoy a little freedom in their roleplaying - myself included. Like I said, it's all about your priorities. Genre norms change, for better or for worse. Saying yesterday's form of roleplaying is somehow more legitimate than today's is like saying "rock n' roll" from the 1950's is somehow more legitimate than the rock of, say, Radiohead or The Smashing Pumpkins.
...

Then its pretty ironic. You dont have as much freedom in Fallout 3 as one might think. Not with the habits of how Bethesda is designing games. Simplest example. Invisible walls. A very cramped world.

The outcome of most if not even almost all quests is the same. You have a freedom in using skills, but it is granted that in almost every situation you have a "alternative" that makes sure to get the same outcome. Thats why most of the time when you can use lock pick there is a computer next to the safe/door so you can hack it anway to get acces to the loot.

The conversations with NPCs will also be always very similar with every character since you can build a mix character between Socrates and Arnold Schwarzenegger in Fallout 3. At one point you always end in the Enclave, the Purifier, with the same choices.

Fallout 3 has a lot of fake choices cause you can use different skills to solve a situation. But the outcome is most of the time the same one (separate from a very few exceptions but even then the effect can be nullified cause karma is easily exploitable with Water/stealing).

Fallout 3 like Oblilvion offers tools as a "LARP"-Simulator. What looks like a big option of freedom can be actualy extremly limiting in the end. Its better then Oblivion, cause you have dialogues. But most of the time they have no meaning cause you can get the same result even without the Captain Obvious answers that is called intelligence. And talking someone in a higher payment isnt what I would call the epitome of dialogues with meaning.

 

[Buxbaum666]

In Isometric and distant third-person cameraing, your character has 360 degree view no matter what direction he's facing,

Not necessarily. Ever played Jagged Alliance 2? While you do have an overview of the map, you won't see enemies or items unless they enter your mercs' line of sight. The 1.3 mod takes it to an extreme level. Aiming with a scope will narrow the line of sight but you'll be able to see enemies who are very far away.

is not subject to a lot of forces that you would be normally,

I don't know what that's supposed to be.

illogical storage,

Not necessarily. And this has nothing to do with the point of view.

stiff movement whether by the inability to turn your head or inability to run straight on a grid system,

Again, not necessarily. It is totally possible to let the character move freely in ISO/3rd person view.

 

[nemetoad]

I apologize, I didn't clarify myself enough. The things I mentioned were things I noticed in Fallout 1 and 2. I'm mainly pointing them out to prove a point: It isn't the view that causes the problems, it's the game mechanics themselves.

I never heard of that game though, I'll have to check it out. sounds interesting. Most Isometric games I've seen allow a lot of area on a game map to be seen. In this regard I'd adopt a fog of war similar to Starcraft's and whatnot. Able to see what you can remember being in the area, but not any recent developments or enemies outside a set perception area. Fallout 3's version of this is the compass pointing out locations of enemies based off your perception. It lets you know less and you see less because of the first person view, but frankly that makes your character more human and less all-knowing.

I included saying you're not subject to many real life forces because it's a universal flaw and not that of first person or isometric. It's a simplification to make gameplay easier. For example, you're not weighted down by your inventory until you pass a certain amount in both games. You are also not subject to turning momentum when you suddenly turn around and fire at an enemy behind you in Fallout 1/2. Considering turns in Fallout 1/2 are supposed to take the place of seconds, quickly turning and firing at an enemy behind you would throw off your aim if you aren't an excellent user of the weapon. If anything, turning around and firing at an enemy behind you in Fallout 1/2 or someone that would be outside a normal human's vision would require more AP to fire at or react to in general. Fallout 3's flaw in this is you don't suffer from the momentum either, but you do need to take the time to aim properly. So either way, there's issues due to simplifications of mechanics, not the iso-to-first person setup.

Illogical storage isn't a problem of view either, but is just further proof that both Interplay and Bethesda were cutting corners to simplify things for players. You don't need backpacks to carry things in Fallout 1/2 or Fallout 3, instead you're able to carry whatever you want without problem. It's something that makes me think of Guybrush Threepwood dropping a long rod to load cannons with into his pantleg and it fitting in Curse of Monkey Island. It's just another flaw in the series that isn't caused by view type, but by game mechanics.

And rigid movement was mentioned just to show the tradeoff with using Isometric instead of First Person. Fallout 1/2 locked into a grid that everything moved by. It also gave you no ability to move your head or aim in directions other then right in front of you. If anything, Fallout 1/2 suffered the same rigidness, if not MORE, then Fallout 3 and that's because of the game mechanics paired up wiith it in the game. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but most companies choose to do it that way anyways.

My point overall is... It isn't the view's fault, it's the developer's fault. Fallout 1/2 suffer from a -lot- that Fallout 3 did in setup, moreso then most people seem to be admitting. It's because Interplay designed the mechanics that way, or Bethesda designed theirs their own way. The greatest separation is between computer calculation and your own calculation, sort of like one extreme and the other. All people see with player aim is in first person shooters, so people pair up that style of gameplay with that. Since RTSs and Isometric RPGs more or less depend on the computer more then the player to carry out actions, that style of gameplay is paired up with isometric view. Just because Fallout 1/2 had one extreme (Computer dependence) and Fallout 3 had the other (Player dependence) doesn't mean a hybrid can't work. It just means no one has tried it differently then the ways people have locked their definitions of gameplay. Really, it's narrowminded and tunnelvisioned.

 

[Danilh]

nemetoad, thing is black isle was trying to simulate pen and paper rpgs, not trying to be realistic. In your statement, fallout 1/2 suffer, but that is only true if their aim was being realistic. I am not complaining that fallout 3 does not abide to the rules of the real world, only that id doesn't abide to the fallout ruleset.

 

[nemetoad]

My beef isn't really with the realism, it's with the fact that "True RPGs have to be isometric" and so forth. My mentionings with problems of Fallout 1/2 was simply to point out things it had issues with that were similar to what someone pointed out in Fallout 3 and that they do not govern the success of isometric over first person. Both systems can work, the mechanics for first person haven't been done correctly though.

And as I said in my post, believing there has to be a ruleset is narrow-minded in my opinion. it's like saying Warcraft has to be a RTS and WoW is Blizzard's greatest failure because it doesn't fit the system. Or Halo Wars is the worst game in the Halo series because its RTS, not First Person Shooter. Given, Fallout 3 deviates the mold and still claims to be the next installment of the series, but so did Van Buren in many regards.

But really, all of this arguing and so forth doesn't do jack in regards to the original post - can an RPG be first person? I think so, and I do believe it can work in a style of "you are your character" rather than "You are the puppet master, now go make the puppet dance!" Fallout 3 is -not- a good representation of this because it removed too manyh penalities and gave little options in gameplay. It's a step in a different direction for RPGs, but it needs work. Going back to a style like Van Buren was going to have could work too, but frankly I think isometric games have been overdone.

 

[Ashmo]

Mate, it's not about whether there could be an RPG in first person, it's about gameplay.

Perspective affects gameplay and the choice of RT/TB does.

Yes, an FP RPG can exist. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or that the end result will feel anything like a Hard RPG.

FPP RPGs aren't new. They just ceased being successful, probably because the players that were looking for a first person experience found what they were looking for in FPP shooters while those looking for Hard RPGs stuck with the ISO/3PP games.

"It's been overdone" is not an argument. Just because a lot of games do something doesn't mean it's bad. They do it because it's been successful and it may be succesful because it's the best tool for the trade.

It's not a fashion trend, it's a design decision. And there's really only two options: third person or first person (unless you count text adventures which address the player directly as second person).

You wouldn't throw a book out the window just because it's written in third person like most of them always have been.

It's not about FPP vs 3PP, it's about RT vs TB. And the reason there's precious few TB RPGs in FPP isn't cosmetics, it's that the gameplay feels awkward.

And if you're so concerned with "overdoing" things: RT RPGs have been overdone more than anything else, 3PP or FPP.

 

[nemetoad]

Ashmo - I agree, a First Person Turn-based game would be awkward, which is why I'm glad Fallout 3 isn't that. However, I would like to try one if you know any on-hand. I'm curious on how it plays at least.

And I realize they're not new - they just don't feel like the Iso Hard RPGs though. When you want to play those, you have a slew of choices. First Person RPGs that offer a lot of freedom of choice... it's yet to be done well in my opinion. The closest I played was Morrowind. If you know of a better example, please let me know.

And I know "It's been overdone" isn't a good arguement - It's a personal feeling though. If you want to play a good Hard RPG, there's tons to play. If you want to play a good First Person RPG...well, that's yet to truly be mastered. It's a challenge really, one I could see working very well if more Hard RPG principles were added in. Really, I haven't seen anything new added to the Isometric RPG style in forever. It just feels static to me anymore, much like Bethesda's games are becoming.

And... well, If the reasons why a First Person RPG isn't successful is because of comparing it to other games styles, then it's going to fail. If you play a game like Oblivion and expect it to play like Icewind Dale or so, then it's bound to fail in your eyes.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Ashmo - I agree, a First Person Turn-based game would be awkward, which is why I'm glad Fallout 3 isn't that. However, I would like to try one if you know any on-hand. I'm curious on how it plays at least.

The Wizardry games (Wizardy 8 would be my reccomendation), the Might and Magic games, some of the Gold Box games, the Eye of the Beholder trillogy, and many more games made by SSI and others. They were quite popular for a while.

And I realize they're not new - they just don't feel like the Iso Hard RPGs though. When you want to play those, you have a slew of choices. First Person RPGs that offer a lot of freedom of choice... it's yet to be done well in my opinion. The closest I played was Morrowind. If you know of a better example, please let me know.

Daggerfall is better from what I hear. I'm sure that there are better examples than that but I can't say that I'm an expert on them so I'll leave it to someone else.

And I know "It's been overdone" isn't a good arguement - It's a personal feeling though. If you want to play a good Hard RPG, there's tons to play. If you want to play a good First Person RPG...well, that's yet to truly be mastered. It's a challenge really, one I could see working very well if more Hard RPG principles were added in. Really, I haven't seen anything new added to the Isometric RPG style in forever. It just feels static to me anymore, much like Bethesda's games are becoming.

There are plenty of good FPP RPGs, they aren't new but then again, neither are most of the good ISO RPGs.

And... well, If the reasons why a First Person RPG isn't successful is because of comparing it to other games styles, then it's going to fail. If you play a game like Oblivion and expect it to play like Icewind Dale or so, then it's bound to fail in your eyes.

Oblivion is an inferior RPG, more specifically ARPG, when compared to Icewind Dale, regardless of how much you enjoy either. Honestly I don't know of any genre that Oblivion fits in that it's anything above mediocre other than Wandering Simulator, it's a broken mess of bad design.

 

[nemetoad]

And I'll have to look into those. I hadn't heard of them before... though I can see why. A lot of those seem to have been made before I was even in elementary school, let alone born when it comes to the Wizardry games. *shrug* I'll see if I can find them though.

Well Oblivion's failure is in overall design and not the design focusing on First Person rather then being a third person turn-based game. The decisions made that made it fail overall as an RPG was lack of choice and consequence, relationships between towns and the main capitol, and so forth.

Overall it seems that the reason why FPP RPGs seem to fail in comparison to other ones is the design decision to focus more on combat than plot and world design. If that's the case, isn't that a flaw that more or less occurs in RPGs in general today anyways?

 

[Danilh]

[q]And as I said in my post, believing there has to be a ruleset is narrow-minded in my opinion. it's like saying Warcraft has to be a RTS and WoW is Blizzard's greatest failure because it doesn't fit the system. Or Halo Wars is the worst game in the Halo series because its RTS, not First Person Shooter.[/q]

There is a difference between franchise and "universe"(game universe). If they released WoW as Warcraft 4 that would be ridiculous, but WoW is a MMORPG situated in the Warcraft Universe, as Halo Wars is a RTS in the halo-verse. About rulesets, imagine: Bungie releases halo 4 , but in new halo the mellee attack is worthless and you don't have a force shield. That would enrage some fans, of course.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...
Oblivion is an inferior RPG, more specifically ARPG, when compared to Icewind Dale, regardless of how much you enjoy either. Honestly I don't know of any genre that Oblivion fits in that it's anything above mediocre other than Wandering Simulator, it's a broken mess of bad design.

I think Oblivion best fitts in the describtion of a "adventure" game. But thats just me.

 

[TheRatKing]

I'd hate to call Oblivion an adventure game. Although it is an adventure, adventure games tend to be about solving puzzles and actually thinking. Oblivion was generally a hack and slash with some very simple quests. I would call it an ARPG lite.

Edit:
I would probably call The Witcher an ARPG, and Fallout an RPG.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well I never said Oblivion would be a "good" adventure game.

 

[Yazman]

Final Fantasy? Chrono Trigger? Yes.
Ultima? No.

Try getting a 4 Intelligence avatar to successfully cast a single average level spell in UIV-VI and see him fail, see him fail pathetically. Or watch as a low strength avatar does little to no damage to whatever he strikes, much to say of a low dexterity avatar who cannot strike a single creature with a ranged weapon.
The Ultima series, as it has held itself for two decades, does not cater to players who would wish themselves proficient at all abilities from the onset of an adventure. The avatar must work for his power.

He must apply himself.

Only through difficult combat, much death of fellow adventurers, resurrection, trials, dungeons, battling as a lowly figure, defeating only the most pathetic enemies, until he finds himself fit in experience to meditate at the shrines and bolster his abilities, will he prove powerful, even then, he faces difficulty.

What of Fallout 3? As soon as it begins, there is no challenge, the stats hold no meaning! Such slight difference in damage between low Small Guns and high Small Guns does not lend itself strongly to the idea of an increasingly talented individual in whichever field he has implied himself.

As the avatar struggles to grow and at last become powerful, the Fallout 3 player realizes that he is supreme as soon as he takes his first steps within the Vault. These trained security guards are nothing to a mere pup with little to no experience whatsoever!

Actually, in many of the Ultima games its easy as hell to blow people away with low stats. In Ultima VII all you need to do is get yourself a suit of magic armour and the Shade Blade and you're all set. You can get those just after you leave Trinsic (the VERY BEGINNING of the game) and not only are they EASY AS HELL to get, you also end up gearing up your entire party to a similar level. It takes about 20 minutes to do this and you can do similar things in the other games. I understand you did say IV-VI but its not all that different if you get the right stuff, and your stats end up being rather pointless.

About rulesets, imagine: Bungie releases halo 4 , but in new halo the mellee attack is worthless and you don't have a force shield. That would enrage some fans, of course.

They would probably be pissed off but at the end of the day they would not say its "not worthy of the Halo name", there have been significant changes in the Halo series before that pissed off a lot of people and they did not react the way we do.