Quote:Original post by Grim
Quote:Original post by Nytehauq
The genre is dominated by old archetypes like turn based gameplay, [...] it's like developers have forgotten that most of these "features" were really technological limitations at the time.
I realize you are describing your vision of the ultimate rpg, but I still wish to comment on this one. Even though the quoted text does not necessarily imply that turn-based gameplay is merely a technological limitation, I for one would certainly disagree with such a claim — and certainly turn-based gameplay is not inferior (nor superior for that matter) to real-time gameplay, which was sort of implied in the general tone of the post. With real-time gameplay the game becomes a game of reflexes and player agility as you need to respond to game situations in real time. Turn-based gameplay has more emphasis on tactics and strategy as you don't (necessarily) have to make your decisions in a haste. Real-time is more player-oriented, turn-based more character-oriented.
Thank you for a well thought out and non-combative reply ;)
And, as you said, I didn't mean to imply that all turn based games were created out of technological limitation, I was reffering to (at least in my mind) the games that have subsequently been created as turn based without the genuine intention of favoring strategy and tactics over twitch gameplay but rather to avoid the complications of a real time scenario. I agree, by the way, turn based games do allow for more strategy than your average twitch game. I just detest the turn based games that are created for "simplicity" rather than taking advantage of their strategic advantage.
However, this isn't to say that a realtime game cannot have strategy and tactics. In my opinion, the oppurtunity to mesh real time gameplay with strategy and tactics has been ignored by most real time titles. Most RTS game derivate into endless tank rushes, but this isn't a symptom of the fact that the titles are real time. War, after all, occurs in real time regardless of our simulations. The intricacies of strategy are oft ignored and overlooked by games. I mean, until recently, it was a defacto standard in RTS games that your units couldn't fire off of cliffs. The limitations in place in the actual titles seem to contribute more to the lack of strategy in real time games compared to their turn based counterparts. Really, if you had a real time game with the strategic quality of many turn based titles, it would be akin to playing a turn based game where each player can play simultaneously, but with more detail than the average boardgame style turn based strategy or pen and paper RPG. I'm all for recreating this strategy aspect
with twitch gameplay. I think we can have our cake and eat it too ;P
Quote:
Quote:- Speaking of combat, it's real time and deterministic. If I stab this zombie in the eye, HE DIES. Period. I don't have to roll a die to find out that I ruptured his brain and he can't function. Combat is not random. [...] It's foolish to continue to abstract such portions of combat when the tech required to do so is present and your gameplay would benefit from causal combat. It's also counterintuitive to the player to exist in a beautifully detailed world but have their sword swings automated or dealing random amounts of damage. It's another case of "invisible wall" syndrome.
This is yet another example of the differences between player-oriented and character-oriented games. The real-time, deterministic combat you describe clearly makes the whole combat system player-oriented — that is, the combat skill is based entirely on the skills of the player. If you wanted to play the role of, say, a nimble thief, you'd have to be quite agile yourself, or at least have enough reflexes and skill to master the intricacies of keyboard and mouse controls. Not all of us are keyboard gods. On the other hand, if you wanted to play the role of a clumsy character, you'd need to restrain yourself in combat, just to stay in-character. The only way to keep the game character-oriented is to model the character somehow. While the statistical models used in games can be ludicrous at worst, using a statistical model is practical for such a purpose.
Actually, I was reffering to a simulation in which the damage of attacks and abilities as well as chances to hit and miss were not randomly calculated - deterministic. In my ideal system, to play a rogue, you wouldn't require any more physical dexterity than the next player (though it might help), your abilities would simply not rely on randomization. While you might have to aim better to get critical hits, the proccess of "aiming" wouldn't be of the sort that rewarded players extraneously for their skills, although it would be skill based. However, concurently, even if you have to aim your attacks, your damage and abilities would still be enhanced by obtaining superior armor, for instance. There can still be a statistical model, but I'd prefer to take the roulette factor out of games and leave hit/miss to the player. It'd be like playing a console fighting game online (sans-lag).
Quote:
Clearly you prefer a more player-oriented approach, and there is nothing wrong with that per se, but it does set some restrictions on what you really can role-play. Not because of the technicalities, but because you the player will not necessarily be able to do everything you wanted to or what was in-character. While turn-based gameplay and a statistical model for a character may diminish the hecticness of the action (personally I can get my adrenaline flowing even from playing good ol' zangband with its ascii representation) and the hands-on feel, it does allow more tactical thinking and the ability to perform beyond your real, mortal abilities.
Hmmm...take for instance the console game Devil May Cry. It features a robust combat system, modeling the interactions you will normally take with enemies. E.g., stab, uppercut, throw lightning bolts etc. However, if the designers so chose, you could have a similar non-violent interaction schema - most just settle for menus. In my opinion, having real time combat doesn't have to kill roleplay. The problem I see is that games only half model the simulation: in a text based game you can imagine everything that's going on because it isn't presented to you. In a vivid 3D game, you don't get to imagine, but in most games you also don't get to
interact. Developers seem to have forgotten that when taking away the player's freedom of imagination and adding in a more robust reality you must also upgrade the player's
interface to that reality - while they develop decent ways for you to hack and slash in your environment, they don't give you any ways to talk, bargain, haggle, and interact with NPC's who, when simulated, lack AI of any sort in many cases and at best make poor attempts to be as vivid as the "NPC's" of your imagination. This isn't a limitation as much as an explored corridor in development.
Quote:
Again, I'm not trying to criticize your dream game — hopefully you will find (or make) such a game some day. I am merely saying that all that turn-basedness and die rolling (*) is there for a good reason and not just because designers didn't "know better" or because computers aren't powerful enough. Obviously, you will end up with something between a purely player-oriented system (which would probably be closer to some form of LARP) and a purely character-oriented system (say, Progress Quest [grin]), but games near both extremes are valuable.
(*) On a side note, even though you don't need the concept of dice when dealing with randomness in a computer game, I'd suppose it is an easier concept for casual players to understand than, say, to have everything based on the noncentral chi-squared distribution.
All that said, I would be interested to at least try out an rpg with a combat system like in Die by the Sword... [grin]
I agree. However, I think that players will actually like the deterministic system better. As is, I know alot of people that are fed up with the dice rolling in online games and not having any interactive impact on things like "chance to crit" and "chance to miss." IMHO, getting closer to the real world version of things will only alleviate these problems for the people that have them. As per usual, however, this doesn't mean that current MMO's are obsolete - creativity and "fun" are subjective, I just hope to bring a generally more fun and enjoyable prototype to the table - though I hope more people with enjoy it, I won't claim that people will "enjoy it more." ;P