-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
RPG Design: Importing main characters to sequels
- Thread starter Surlent
- Start date
Sarvis
Erudite
EvoG said:
Actually I think that last one only took like 45 minutes...
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
A lot of concepts we use to define things around us are subjective. You tend to say things like "roleplaying is not required in an RPG", and we tend to say things like "roleplaying is required in an RPG". As long as we aren't trying to force our definitions down each other throats, who cares?Sarvis said:
Did we ban it? No. Do you care what some people call games you like to play? I hope not. As for elevating a "subclass of RPGs", this is what the Codex is all about. I thought that was understandable.
There is a difference. We can explain and support our position. The morons can't.
When I said "forget" I didn't mean literally erased out one's mind, I meant stop dealing with the issues of previous events. I'm pretty sure, that you don't carry a gun and a flashlight to your new job and don't try to ensure that the objects you used to secure remain secured.
And a second game should show these consequences as well, not to pretend that the first game's never happened. In many cases, a storyline, one out of several possible, is picked and the rest is discarded for reasons I mentioned before.
I didn't ask you to appease me. I asked you to provide an example that proves your point. As for the scenario being acceptable, I said that it's acceptable as as workaround, as one of those "ignoring actions in a previous game workarounds", not as a solution. I thought that was clear.
What air strikes? Is it an RTS? So, basically a Sith Lord would battle invaders face to face instead of doing that from the comfort of his Star Destroyer?
You take everything way too literally, without considering anything that's implied. Of course, tool making is not a biological trait. Brain size (brain weight to body weight ratio to be specific) and opposable thumbs that made it possible are.
And what is the general RPG category and who defined it?
No, I'm saying that there are maps that could be reused, like utility maps - sewers, caves, etc, and specific location maps that couldn't or shouldn't. If your actions affected a place, it should be shown or told. That's what was great about FO's endgame.
I disagree, but that's subjective. We can argue all day about that. I;d expect to see some changes there, more trade focused, growing town instead of a dark shady place with 2 taverns.
I doubt that. Bio doesn't want to have day/night effects because that requires different maps and that's just lightning effects.
You could do a lot of things in FO but you can't visibly destroy a village, so nothing in what you said defeats my extra map argument.
Once again, too literally. Playing in a manner fitting your character implies an ability to make decisions, not to be led by the nose.
I don't think that helped much. I've never said that things should share the same subclass, that makes even less sense.
Finally! Better late then nevar
They are not hidden, they are implied and follow logically from "being able to play in a manner fitting your character". So, if my character is a thief, and he sees a locked door, he should be able to unlock it instead of going and looking for a key, or fulfulling a requirement that will open that door (there is a locked door in KOTOR, no matter how high your "lockpick" skill is you can't open that door until someone tells you to go get the robot that can open the door for you). So, technically being able to play the game in a manner fitting your character means multiple paths, multiple solutions, and all the other crap we care so much about.
No, wrong. Linear would go before that. Fo was non-linear. MW was linear. Open but linear, sorta like Ch2 in BG2. Do whatever you want but follow the main quest (and Guild's quests) in order.
Also, what do you mean by complex interaction? Dialogues, consequences, choices, what? Overall though, defining by one trait at a time is pointless because the traits would be all over the place. Defining by gameplay that consists of specific combinations of traits is much easier and user-friendlier.
Classes often have limited char development (2E), but I was talking mostly about skill-based system. I'd say that by lvl10 your character is defined. I'd say the same's true for 3E as feats can create many different combinations, but by lvl10 the actual character development is done.
That's a bit different. In games terms that would be like a fighter becoming a carpenter in some town - a totally new profession. In games though, especially in Bio DnD games where everything is resolved through combat, all classes are combat related. By taking a new class you augment the existing one. That's why there are Bard skills in that WD build. That's like a programmer learning another language, by the end of the day, he's still a programmer.
Those planned characters like that Whirling Death or D2's Hammerdins don't strike me as RPG characters. Whirling Death has some bard skills not because it fits the character but because of the damage output. That says it all:
That last paragraph sounds like some battle-bot advertisement from the future, and that's what this character is.Bio site said:
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
Err... if we weren't trying to shove our definitions down each others throats, why would this thread be four pages long AND the second or third one in which we've discussed that particular issue?
I thought Codex was about discussing CRPGs, not discussing some small subset of them...
You can? Must have missed that somewhere...
Ok, how does this change anything? If your character has dealt with the challenges in the first game why would he keep dwelling on them? You seem to think that simply facing a new threat, challenge or interesting situation automatically means the character's past actions were invalidated.
So yes, I've stopped carrying a flashlight around. That doesn't mean I've forgotten about it, nor does having a new job invalidate my past experiences.
I never said the past game's plot never happened. Things move on, there are new challenges every day. Having our army over in Iraq right now is not disregarding Desert Storm, for example.
Err... no. You never said anything like that, you merely said it was acceptable with no qiualifications. I'm not Exitium, I don't read things that aren't there.
You'll have to explain how this was a workaround also, since it wasn't. It is simply a new challenge in the Star Wars galaxy, a plotline I stole from the New Jedi Order books in fact. Something that would have happened whether the Empire had been destroyed or not, whether the Sith had been dealt with or the Jedi had won.
You're grasping at straws here.
No, an RPG... like I said just a quick first thought. Fight face to face? Sure. Darth Maul fought face to face, Vader fought face to face. Even if only when there was a challenge worthy of them, or that the stormtroopers were too incompetent for.
You seem to mean a lot of things you don't say. It's kinda funny how you can keep going back and saying you meant something else when you start to lose on a point, rather than admitting you were wrong about something.
It's basically a general consensus, but one which you guys tend to dislike. I think the components that should go into it would be:
Stats (skills)
Decision making to determine overall success
Random factors to determine individual action success
Exploration (such as finding your way through a dungeon)
Or at least it would seem like those are the things games like Fallout, Final Fantasy, Morrowind and NWN have in common to me.
If you even end up in the same place, yes they should.
Err... they HAVE day/night effects in NWN, and it doesn't require different maps. Nor should it unless the "lighting" is all just pre-rendered.
They also have this thing called "placeables" in the NWN toolset, some of which are rubble. Rubble which can be spawned from a script. Since you're big on not being too literal I won't explain the rest...
I went back and figured it out. I was trying to say that putting two games in the same category does not mean they would have the same feel. For instance, ToEE and the original Pool of Radiance are almost exactly the same kind of game but they "feel" vastly different to play.
Hey, I DID say that a tree would be a terrible way to try and classify games didn't I? The point was just trying to show you that there was a common point they all shared. Linear or open or whatever first didn't matter, it was just a way to show you how things could differ after that initial point.
Bullshit. You may not LIKE the levels after 10, but there is just as much development after level 10 as before.
Reductio Ad Absurdum. While you think you're destroying my argument you are really destroying your own. ALL levels for ALL classes are just increases in combat power? Then there is no development before level 10 either.
You don't like high levels, that is apparent. But stating that there is no development after any specific level is completely ludicrous.
Yeah, that's exactly the point of those characters. What's that got to do with <i>anything</i>? You still end up with a completely different character if you don't take whirlwind or weapons master levels. THAT's the point.
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
First of all there are no stats or abilities which would determine a character's choices in a plot. Choosing to join the Red army or the Green army has nothing to do with any attribute or skill, except for D&D's alignment which isn't really a stat and has no corellary concept on most non-D&D based CRPGs anyway.
The multiple solutions implication of your definition relies on a very large assumption that there will be a large enough skill/stat set to cause any need for multiple solutions. In other words, in a game like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior where the hero has nothing but combat skills there is no need for non-combat options. Couple this with the fact that combat is often the easiest aspect of a game to make enjoyable and of course you will see many CRPGs without multiple solutions.
Games which have a more varied skill set, but do not have multiple solutions are simply poorly designed. It's rather pointless to include a gameplay mechanic if it's not going to be used, after all. Yet that does nothing to define whether the game is a cRPG or not... only to define if it is a <i>well designed</i> cRPG.
In short, the concepts which logically follow from your definition rest upon assumptions not stated within that definition. You don't define any requirements on skills, you don't say you need to be able to play different personalities or even alignments.
Finally I will note again that multiple paths, multiple solutions and all the other things you guys care about can be done _without_ skills or stats. Since if those weren't there you wouldn't consider the game a CRPG, and you can have the other aspects without them, that it is the stats and skills making the difference.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
We are discussing a few issues in a mostly civil manner.Sarvis said:Err... if we weren't trying to shove our definitions down each others throats, why would this thread be four pages long AND the second or third one in which we've discussed that particular issue?
That "putting the role back" line should have given you a clue. After all, weren't you the one who argued that RPGs don't require role-playing?
There is a difference between "explained" and "convinced". Btw, are you trying to switch to flaming again? 'Cause if you are, I have a good guess why you missed the explanation :wink:
If the new threat is neither related to the past actions nor require you to take actions related to your past choices, then, for all intents and purposes as lawyers say, it invalidates your past experience, other then the levels/skills gained, of course.
It is. There is no connection whatsoever. Events would have been exactly or about the same even if there was no DS before.
Ok, here is the exact quote:
"It's acceptable, just like KOTOR 2 explanation is "acceptable" I guess (didn't play the game yet). That's the workaround, not the solution to present the choices; but even in your example, there are some questionable areas, like if you are a Jedi hero you'd need to enlist help of the remaining Sith; or if you are the Sith Lord, you'd need to ally with the Jedi and that should be reflected throughout the game. Otherwise, what you've suggested doesn't really account for any of the events, in fact it makes it absolutely irrelevant who you are and were in the prev game."
Sounds a bit more than "acceptable with no qualifications" to me.
I did. Twice.
Books are not games. In books, there are no choices that you can make, as I'm sure you are aware of. There is nothing wrong with your storyline other than the fact that it disregards the prev choices. If a game doesn't care about that, like KOTOR 2, for example, than your storyline is as good as any which is what I said awhile ago.
Neither Maul nor Vader have fought single-handedly against alien invasions. That was Duke Nukem.
No, what's funny is your inability to connect dots. Toolmaking is directly connected to those bio traits. I gave you the end result, and elaborated it without refering to anything else like habitats, straight-walking, etc. It's the same point.
What's a general consensus? You and some people you know?
I have limited familiarity with NWN, but I doubt that this method could change maps radically and replace some objects with others (like replacing a well-to-do temple with a ruined and forgotten temple). Correct me if I'm wrong, 3D engines could do a lot more stuff than 2D ones. Still, a different map is not everything. There is a question of quests and storylines. I assume that a pirate town would have different needs and involvement in the story than a merchant town.
In what ways? Just curious.
I disagree. I explained my position many times in this thread. Arguing more is pointless.
First, I'm not trying to destroy your arguments, I'm explaining my point of view. Second, there is a huge difference between lvl1 and lvl10 DnD (for example, as we are all familiar with that) characters and not nearly as much difference between a lvl10 and lvl20 char.
In the context of the conversation, it has to do a lot with everything. I was talking about RPGs and RPG characters as I understand the terms.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
Part II
The reason that my definition is short is that I hate those 10-paragraph definitions, listing every little thing you should or should not be able to do. I narrowed it down a bit to those few points that, imo, define gameplay.
A choice doesn't require skills, no arguing here. Succeeding at whatever you chose does. You can chose to pick that lock or kill this guy or talk to that fella, but if your stats/skills are insufficient, your choice is worthless, is it not? Therefore, choices depend on skills.Sarvis said:
Why would I give a fuck about pure fighting games? That contradicts "being able to play in a manner fitting your character". If I play a thief, I expect not to be expected to charge into a room full of monsters or play that annoying "lure them one by one" game.
We agree on something again!
Well, you call it a well designed CRPG, I call it a CRPG. You call it a poorly designed CRPG, I call it something else. What's in a name?
I disagree. Let's say you play a thief. He may choose not to go where a knight would go as a thief won't be welcome in a palace. It's logical and makes sense. So, the multi-path thing is right here. Now, a thief, like I said, won't (or may not wish to) charge into a room full of monsters and he may choose to pick a few locks and pockets to proceed. There you go, multiple solutions. Different personalities/alignments are that "being able to play in a manner fitting your character" thing, what could be more simplier?
The reason that my definition is short is that I hate those 10-paragraph definitions, listing every little thing you should or should not be able to do. I narrowed it down a bit to those few points that, imo, define gameplay.
Sure. I've never said it's impossible. The Gothic games are doing that to a degree. What's your point? You can find many CRPG elements in non-CRPGs games, so?
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
I was making a joke, you don't need to argue against every single thing that is said you know.
Recently you stated that role-playing was so subjective that some people would even consider Quake as role-playing, therefore putting the "role" back in RPG could mean just about anything couldn't it
You're just being obstinate now. Ok, so what. If new experiences invalidate old ones, as you claim and which I'm not agreeing to beyond the sake of this argument, then doing so in video games only makes them more realistic. Past experiences SHOULD "invalidate" old ones to more closely mimic reality, since in reality facing down one challenge, such as graduating from college, only means you are ready for a new challenge.
It's that whole thing about having to spend 80 years on the planet, and having new things constantly happen.
Yeah, so? Are you saying that the lives of soldiers sacrificed in Desert Storm are meaningless? Way to go.
Ok, sorry.
(See, that's admitting to a mistake. You should take some lessons.)
I believe my point was that this invasion would have happened no matter what choices had been made. The Vong didn't decide to invade because the Jedi won, they were already on their way.
Neither Maul nor Vader have fought single-handedly against alien invasions. That was Duke Nukem.
Ok fine, if you took the Sith path in the first game you can just sit on your throne in the second and give a few orders here and there. How's that?
Yeah, probably would be boring. But that's what you get for nit-picking every possible example put forth rather than trying to think of better possibilities.
The problem is the "end result" is a result of us having specific traits. To illustrate I'll use another "bad example:"
Sharks eat fish.
Bears eat fish.
They must be the same type of animal because they both eat fish.
They aren't, however, becuase they have <i>different attributes</i> which allow them to catch and eat fish they are clearly different creatures.
Your system of classifying things would mean this:
http://venceremos.antifa.net/regional/m ... ibbler.JPG was a human.
In the same way, everything I claimed to define a CRPG is an actual attribute. The things you are using can be expressed easily using other attributes, but flow in your context FROM the attributes I named.
Game publishers, internet review sites, gaming magazins, internet communities, developers like MrSmileyFaceDude, sites which sell games... well, basically everyone but RPGCodex.
I see you ignored the specific definition. What? Couldn't find any arguments against it?
Like I said specifically, you can spawn rubble with scripting. That is about as far as you can go to make anything look ruined in NWN though, since there are no seperate tilesets for ruined villages or temples or anything. There is a ruins tileset, but that's for _ancient_ ruins.
Yes, there would need to be different quests. I said that a long time ago, along with different NPCS. But that's just a little writing.
ToEE moves a lot faster, and there are a lot more tactics involved... other things too I think, but those are the ones that are clearest.
The way you explained it means there is no development at any level.
You said increases in combat power do not count as development.
" In games though, especially in Bio DnD games where everything is resolved through combat, all classes are combat related. By taking a new class you augment the existing one."
Therefore in any game where everything is resolved through combat, be it Bio DnD or a dungeon crawl PnP campaign, there is no character development at any level, because all classes are combat related and simply augment your old class. (Of course your old class is invalidated by seeking out new experience in a new class!)
Actually, for warrior classes, the difference between level 1 and level 10 is 9BAB and 9d10hp.
The difference between level 10 and level 20 is also 9BAB and 9d10hp.
They also get the same number of feats and everything between those levels.
Point is that those characters develop, whether they are meant to be roleplayed or not. We are talking about them simply as a common reference point. It's not as if you _can't_ roleplay those characters if you wanted. It's just that they were meant to be cool powerful builds for epic levels.
And none of them even really look like the end result until level 20.
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
No, they don't. You can make the requirement for those choices dependent on player reflexes or puzzle solving. Games like Metal Gear Solid, for instance, have a HUGE sneaking element without having any concept of skills, while in the old Hillsfar game lockpicking was handled by the player solving a puzzle (at least in the NES version.)
You don't even read what I write do you?
I was specifically making points about games that did not HAVE a thief class. You cannot be playing a thief in Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior because no such class exists. Well, ok in the original FF there is a thief class... but the series in general doesn't have them.
Therefore how can you expect thief style solutions in those games? None of the characters would be able to take advantage of them!
Nor do you require, anywhere in your definition, a choice of characters or classes to play.
That goes for pretty much all games.
About 4 threads worth of arguing apparently.
Anyways I wasn't talking about JUST CRPGs. For instance in MGS3, which is overall a great game, there are a few gameplay mechanics you can do but which never really have a use. For instance you can hang from a ledge, and drop down to grab a lower ledge by pressing the button again at the right time (player skill rather than character skill!!!) but there is only one point in the entire game where this comes in handy. So what was the point for them to spend time developing it?
Anyways, having skills does not necessitate multiple paths. Having certain skills might naturally lead to alternate paths/solutions, but those paths/solutions are not required by your definition.
Who says there is a thief class? Your definition doesn't require it AT ALL.
For that matter, in Quake your character is a marine trained to shoot everything. Therefore that game provides everything you need to play in a manner fitting your character.
If there is a thief class, he should be able to do at least some of the things you mention. Of course, then you run into balancing issues... but that's a different argument.
However, and again, your definition doesn't require such things.
Oddly enough my definition is nearly as short, while being more specific and actually saying what I mean instead of "implying" most of it on the basis of other, unstated, assumptions.
Sarvis
Erudite
Edit: I don't want to start a new message, so I'll just edit this one using my vast and ubar admin powahz, to add a few things - VD
That's cheating!
You could probably just read the last two posts and get the gist of it, VD doesn't budge very far on his points. In fact he'll even argue for things that have been proven wrong for several posts...
His main points is that it's impossible to have a sequel where you can import the character from the previous game and not ignore/invalidate his past choices. Correct
He claims this is because:
1) Too expensive/time consuming to provide necessary additional maps.
2) Any new experience a character has completely invalidates his past experiences.
First point, it's not only the maps, but characters, quests, etc. Second point is wrong. SOME new experiences MAY invalidate past choices
I can edit too. And you are contradicting yourself. Every experience I have mentioned you have said invalidates past experiences. This is, of course, pure bullshit as there is no reason any new experience should invalidate a past experience.
We've also drifted to discussing the definition of a CRPG, which has been a running battle around here.
His definition is "Imo, an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities."
Which isn't bad as far as what is stated, however we are now arguing about the variety of unvoiced requirements of this definition, such as having multiple paths.
Also, we've really drifted into a discussion of biology and he is claiming that the ability to make tools and build cities is what defines humans. (Seriously, the fact that we are discussing this will make more sense if you read the last page of the thread probably...)
Not what defined humans, but what set them apart from other animals
Ok, so what's your point? You would still be creating a poor classification system based on looking at what is essentially behaviors, such as toolmaking or eating fish, rather than the attributes which gave rise to those behaviors.
My main point is that it is no harder to create a sequel which accounts for choices in the previous game than it is to make a single game with multiple paths.
Specifically:
1) Cost and time are the exact same reasons I used to argue that multiple paths in a single game were difficult.
2) There are new experiences for people every day, and this does not invalidate old experiences. If you think it does, you would almost have to imagine your character shooting himself in the head to avoid invalidating the quest he just finished. This could even apply to beating the first damn boss...
I claim the definition of CRPG should be something more along the lines of:
A game where decision making determines overall success, stats combined with skills determine success of individual actions and there is an element of exploration such as finding your way through dungeons.
Lastly, I am arguing that humans are defined by biological traits such as opposable thumbs, intelligence and walking upright which ALLOW them to build tools. Essentially this is an argument about how things are categorized, and it's kind of funny that scientists who classify things tended to go along with what I say rather than what VD says... but he'll keep arguing the point regardless...
That's cheating!
EvoG said:
You could probably just read the last two posts and get the gist of it, VD doesn't budge very far on his points. In fact he'll even argue for things that have been proven wrong for several posts...
His main points is that it's impossible to have a sequel where you can import the character from the previous game and not ignore/invalidate his past choices. Correct
He claims this is because:
1) Too expensive/time consuming to provide necessary additional maps.
2) Any new experience a character has completely invalidates his past experiences.
First point, it's not only the maps, but characters, quests, etc. Second point is wrong. SOME new experiences MAY invalidate past choices
I can edit too. And you are contradicting yourself. Every experience I have mentioned you have said invalidates past experiences. This is, of course, pure bullshit as there is no reason any new experience should invalidate a past experience.
We've also drifted to discussing the definition of a CRPG, which has been a running battle around here.
His definition is "Imo, an RPG is a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities."
Which isn't bad as far as what is stated, however we are now arguing about the variety of unvoiced requirements of this definition, such as having multiple paths.
Also, we've really drifted into a discussion of biology and he is claiming that the ability to make tools and build cities is what defines humans. (Seriously, the fact that we are discussing this will make more sense if you read the last page of the thread probably...)
Not what defined humans, but what set them apart from other animals
Ok, so what's your point? You would still be creating a poor classification system based on looking at what is essentially behaviors, such as toolmaking or eating fish, rather than the attributes which gave rise to those behaviors.
My main point is that it is no harder to create a sequel which accounts for choices in the previous game than it is to make a single game with multiple paths.
Specifically:
1) Cost and time are the exact same reasons I used to argue that multiple paths in a single game were difficult.
2) There are new experiences for people every day, and this does not invalidate old experiences. If you think it does, you would almost have to imagine your character shooting himself in the head to avoid invalidating the quest he just finished. This could even apply to beating the first damn boss...
I claim the definition of CRPG should be something more along the lines of:
A game where decision making determines overall success, stats combined with skills determine success of individual actions and there is an element of exploration such as finding your way through dungeons.
Lastly, I am arguing that humans are defined by biological traits such as opposable thumbs, intelligence and walking upright which ALLOW them to build tools. Essentially this is an argument about how things are categorized, and it's kind of funny that scientists who classify things tended to go along with what I say rather than what VD says... but he'll keep arguing the point regardless...
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
On the contrary, role means a very specific thing in this context. It separates all that pseudo-RPG garbage from games that actually have ROLE-playing.Sarvis said:
Wouldn't the choice of college and your performance there and extra activities directly affect your future job and life? Wouldn't your performance in school and extra activities before the college affect what college may accept you? So, from that point of view, everything that's happening to you is based on all the past choices and decisions?
Wow, nice way to twist an argument. We were talking about overall effects and relations between events, not about people who were killed in a military operation.
No, it's I who should be sorry for making you to feel sorry. Are we done being good neighbours now?
Ah, I see. I'm not familiar with the SW books and the lore. I will use this opportunity to say "sorry", and score a point :wink: Anyway, then I guess that wouldn't be a fitting plot for an RPG sequel for all the reasons I mentioned above. It's like that "they all died anyway" workaround.
Yeah, that would be boring, and that's why it's a bad plot (for a game that imports characters and tries to build on prev choices). As for nitpicking, I'm sorry (again! take that, mister I-always-say-sorry) but that's how it goes. I explained why I believe it's impossible, and that's exactly why I can't come up with scenarios that would make it possible - I don't believe in it and I don't see how. Since you are trying to prove me wrong, it's my job to find holes in your scenarios. I'm sorry (I'm on a roll today!) that I couldn't have been more helpful.Ok fine, if you took the Sith path in the first game you can just sit on your throne in the second and give a few orders here and there. How's that?
Yeah, probably would be boring. But that's what you get for nit-picking every possible example put forth rather than trying to think of better possibilities.
Cute. I have never ever ever ever said that humans are monkeys that can make tools. I said that tool-making is what sets humans (that are defined in many totally cool and totally biological ways) apart in a major way. Similarly, while proper CRPGs (my definition) have many common traits with other games and clearly belong to "videos gamus"category, they also have very specific "end results" elements - gameplay that sets them apart from the rest, whatever you call it.
oh, cool, we ARE special! Well, fuck the rest (with the exception of MrSmiley, of course. He's good people
).Was I supposed to find some arguments against it? I thought my whole point was that that's my fucking opinion, that's your fucking opinion, why can't we be happy for each other? I said many times that the definition is subjective and differs from one person to another. Why would I care that yours is different?
I took the liberty of underlining your post to make a point.
And once again you take things literally. The first 10 levels define your skills, you pick proficiencies and other feats that would be built on and improved later on. Deciding to specialize in 2h swords is more important, imo, then improving your criticals with it, etc. Deciding to become a spiked chain specialist and defining your character to fit the profile is more important than adding Greater Weapon Specialization later on. The first 10 levels define who your character will be. Even if you have plans for a specific builds, these plans are established in the first 10 levels when the prerequisites are taken.
Part II
And that's why I don't consider these games to be RPGs. Your character should be doing stuff, not you.Sarvis said:
And that's why I call them fighting games.
Logically follows from YOUR character.
You are right in a sense that you can play a thief who prefer to fight, and you are right that having skills alone doesn't mean that you should be able to use them as you please, but being able to play a character in a manner that fits him/her does.
You can't make your character and you can't use your character's skills and abilities. My definition strikes again!
Oddly enough, Deus Ex which you said is not an RPG fits your definition:
"Stats (skills)
Decision making to determine overall success
Random factors to determine individual action success
Exploration (such as finding your way through a dungeon)"
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
Claim what you want to about it's meaning, you specifically said the term was subjective. Arguing against this is arguing against yourself.
Considering I have a 4 year technical degree from a good college and am working in a job I did after high school, you'd be wrong. Furthermore, the effects college has on your future life is largely in how well educated you become. In other words, it increases your skills. If simply using skills improved by past experiences counts as validating past experiences then the only way to invalidate them would be setting your character back to level 1 in the sequel.
You are placing many strict and arbitrary restraints on the storyline here. There is nothing wrong with a character facing a new threat. Especially a sith or Jedi, who I doubt would be so sloppy as to leave a previous objective only half finished... thus limiting opportunities for a character to simply continue facing the same threat.
Why, exactly, should a character only face ONE adventure in his lifetime? That's the problem here. You think he finishes wahtever his quest is, and that's it. He goes off and dies right away or something instead of seeking out new experience?
Not to mention that simply having new adventures is perfectly fine and traditional. The modular nature of D&D almost demands it, as you play through a single campaign and then buy some new campaign. No reference whatsoever needs to be made to previous events, nor is there any real reason there should be. To demand such a thing seems to be merely putting artificial limits on design for the sake of winning this argument against me...
Here I'll put in that you chose a game that was never made with character importation in mind, which makes trying to find a <i>new</i> plot a bit more difficult. I found something you originally said was acceptable, and then suddenly it's not because of your whole absurd invalidation argument.
The fact is that there ARE game series where plots stretch over several games and the same characters appear in each, often with upgraded powers. Those games are still complete experiences on their own, despite your claim that such a thing would be impossible. Importation would be highly appropriate for such games.
All you've done so far is show that it is difficult, not impossible, to appropriately handle
character importation in a game not originally designed to do so.
I never said you said that. You are still classifying humans based on external behaviors rather than the traits which give rise to those behaviors. My point with Nibbler is that <i>entirely different attributes</i> can give rise to the same toolmaking behavior. (Actually I wanted to find a big tentacle-style alien holding a blaster or something but couldn't find any...
)oh, cool, we ARE special! Well, fuck the rest (with the exception of MrSmiley, of course. He's good people
You sure he's not a dumbfuck`?
Because you've spent several threads, all multiple pages, arguing with me about it?
Or possibly because you want to have discussions with other people about CRPGs?
I mean, that's the real point isn't it? How can people talk about something if they are all using the same words with different meanings? You might LIKE a game that allows you to play in a manner fitting your character using only your character's skills and abilities, and all that that "logically implies," but that doesn't mean everything else isn't a CRPG.
Yeah, and? You've still pretty much claimed everything is simply an increase in combat power.
Specializing in a sword only increases your ability with it, which yo uhave defined as not being development. Not to mention that you can take weapon specialization at much later levels if you want. Just like you can take whirlwind attack at like level 6, but if you take it at level 18 it's no longer development. Same deal for Weapon Spec? There's some magic cut-off point where it's no longer development for some non-literal reason of yours? Something that logically follows from something else you didn't say maybe?
By the way, the <a href="http://nwn.bioware.com/underdark/character_bewilderingarcher.html">Bewildering Archer</a> doesn't take weaon specialization until level 16. So I guess either it counts as development after level 10 since you just said that skill is development, or we're back to there never being any character development after choosing a character.
By the way, what happens if a level 20 fighter starts taking thief levels to get his sneak on. Wouldn't THAT be development, since he's now taking on a completely different, non-combative, skillset?
Please, do try not to trip over your own logic in your reply.
Not the point. The point, which you are ignoring, is that the end result, that of having different options, is a result of <i>different attributes</i> than stats and skills.
No, fighting games are Tekken and Virtua Fighter.
Honestly the worst thing about your redefinition of genres is the tendency to stick anything you don't quite like into some other random genre that means something completely different.
Final Fantasy games are not Adventure, Kings Quest is Adventure.
Combat heavy RPGs are not Fighters, Tekken is a Fighter.
"Your" implies ownership, not creation or design. Choice of character or class does not logically follow from ownership. Essentially, you chose the character when you bought the game. And the character is still yours.
No, because that is not what I meant. I meant that there is nothing that requires thieves to exist at all. Therefore you are not playing a thief who likes to fight, because there is no such thing as a thief.
Every time you fire your gun you are using the Quake Marine's skill with firearms. Your definition also doesn't require the ability to make your character.
Actually at the very least your ability to aim determines, modified constantly (I believe) by your skill, your success at individual actions, and you're the one who completely discounted the lockpick skill. I also doubt there's much decision making there.
Thanks Sarvis, and yea, I believe I agreed with VD initially. Both with regards to the excitment of starting out a brand new character (opinion) and the extra content and game balance that is needed from a design standpoint. A lot of people assume its easy to implement this and that without being in the development environment. A game that is to be played by both a level 1 party and potentially by a level 15 party is dramatically different, so you're either making two games or one muddy 'game-balancing' system.
Everyone talks about the difficulty balancing RPG's just for the vast options available in a quality game such as gender, alignment, skillset, class, what have you...imagine now you have to account for all that AND the characters level and starting weapons as well.
Games are much more difficult to design today than they were back in the GoldBox days, especially considering that the only point your level mattered was combat. All smaller arguments aside, you HAVE to consider the above...its not all just 'snap your fingers' and its in.
Cheers
Everyone talks about the difficulty balancing RPG's just for the vast options available in a quality game such as gender, alignment, skillset, class, what have you...imagine now you have to account for all that AND the characters level and starting weapons as well.
Games are much more difficult to design today than they were back in the GoldBox days, especially considering that the only point your level mattered was combat. All smaller arguments aside, you HAVE to consider the above...its not all just 'snap your fingers' and its in.
Cheers
Sarvis
Erudite
EvoG said:
Level discrepancy is WAY back in the argument dude. Usually you just advance new characters to the same level you'd expect people to end the previous game with.
Actually that may be where the character development argument started... heh.
You may find the first few levels more interesting, and that's fine. But to claim that there is no development after a certain (mobile) point as VD has is ludicrous.
Personally I prefer higher levels, with lots of options and possibilities. Low levels where you can get killed by a stray goblin arrow tend to be frustrating, since no matter how well I play I'm one bad dice roll from losing.
So in essence you're simply saying this is a Lvl 15 Game from the start, no options. New people start at level 15, old skoolers bring in their characters start at level 15, its just a level 15 game. Fine, no argument there. At that point its preference such as building a character from scratch that would distinguish.
Cheers
Cheers
Jinxed
Liturgist
Sarvis said:Personally I prefer higher levels, with lots of options and possibilities. Low levels where you can get killed by a stray goblin arrow tend to be frustrating, since no matter how well I play I'm one bad dice roll from losing.
That's why you tell the DM that first level hit point dice roll is... There is no dice roll. I remember trying to play a Eye of Beholder game in pnp, I rolled a super, totally super character, one of my best rolls ever. But the dice roll was... Lets just say this was the only time I ever got killed by a kobold. I told the dm I'll never play with 1st and 2nd level hit point dice rolling.
Anyway, the only infinity engine game I liked? Baldurs Gate 1. Why? Because it had a beginner party feel, great music... Reminded me of my pnp days.
Sarvis
Erudite
Jinxed said:Sarvis said:Personally I prefer higher levels, with lots of options and possibilities. Low levels where you can get killed by a stray goblin arrow tend to be frustrating, since no matter how well I play I'm one bad dice roll from losing.
That's why you tell the DM that first level hit point dice roll is... There is no dice roll. I remember trying to play a Eye of Beholder game in pnp, I rolled a super, totally super character, one of my best rolls ever. But the dice roll was... Lets just say this was the only time I ever got killed by a kobold. I told the dm I'll never play with 1st and 2nd level hit point dice rolling.
Anyway, the only infinity engine game I liked? Baldurs Gate 1. Why? Because it had a beginner party feel, great music... Reminded me of my pnp days.
Video games don't _have_ DMs... heh.
Sarvis said:
Well if you're not joking, you're being a tad literal. The computer is the DM of course and making this kind of check doesn't require a human. His point is valid and something I've thought of myself for my games; essentially a 'hand of god', where if the player (at lower levels) is having trouble, "rolls" may go his way albeit fudged rather than completely random. This helps ease the player in as constant death or struggle isn't fun...not because he's low level but maybe because he's just inexperienced. And you CERTAINLY never offer instant death such as in the arrow to the head bit...thats just mean.
Cheers
Sarvis
Erudite
EvoG said:
Granted that this is a possiblity, but I'm not aware of it having been done. Could be interesting...
I have seen games where you start off with max hitpoints, but even then a lucky enemy roll or two means you're toast.
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
Yeah, he's like that. :wink:EvoG said:
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
*snicker*
Vault Dweller
Commissar, Red Star Studio
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 28,035
I was merely pointing to the particular subjective definition we have here (focus on the "role").Sarvis said:
So, there is no difference between, say, Harvard and some other school, no matter how good, that nobody's heard of? That's an extreme example, but enough to make a point.
There is nothing wrong with your storyline other than a fact that it disregards previous choices. Similarly, there are people who believe that there is no place for a story in RPGs whatsover. Some people want a scenario, some people want a great story like that in PST or that KOTOR twist. RPG is a tricky genre.
As I said in my first post in this thread: "Third, what would be the point? If your ex-PC played an important role, it would be hard to reflect all the choices you've made in the sequel. If the role wasn't important and doesn't have any impact on the sequel's story (KOTOR 2 ) then why bother importing pointless characters just for flavor and recognition?" As you can see, that was my opinion before, and I'm not trying to change anything to "win the argument".
I said acceptable as a plot for an RPG, not as a solution to this particular issue.
And this games disregarded prev events and choices by picking one storyline the developers prefered. Examples: GF2 and BG2. Btw, there is no need to make stuff up like "despite your claim that such a thing would be impossible". I've never said anything like that.
Well, in that case, or in any other case involving tool-making lifeforms humans could be easily put in one class with them. It won't be a biological class, but something that handles intelligence and psychological profiling. I'm pretty sure that tool-making would lead to similar discoveries like using a stick with something heavy and maybe even sharp to whack someone on the head, etcMy point with Nibbler is that <i>entirely different attributes</i> can give rise to the same toolmaking behavior. (Actually I wanted to find a big tentacle-style alien holding a blaster or something but couldn't find any...
That's the problem with humans, they always do stupid stuff like that. I wonder if the race of Nibblers is any different?
To put it simply, I separate becoming a fighter and becoming a better fighter. At lvl1 you are nothing in any game. You gain skills, no matter which, that help you survive in combat and defeat your opponents. There is a point where you know that you've finally become a fighter (or a thief, or a mage, whatever). That's the point (whatever level it corresponds to) when char development stops and polishing and improving begin.
See above.
It doesn't have to be Weapon Spec,. it was just an example. Whatever makes you a fighter is character development. The rest is polishing and tweaking. If you become a fighter without taking a w/s feat, then it goes into the latter group. Simple as that. Once again, that's extremely subjective, so you don't have to like it.
I'll be careful, thanks. That would depend on a game, I guess. If he can stop being a fighter completely (like the good ol' dual-class), or he can play as a thief (the true non-combat way), then I think that would qualify as char development in my book.
Not the point. The point, which you are ignoring, is that I've never said that different options are possible only in RPGs. I said that in RPGs they should be tied to skills to reflect what your character can and can not do.
And that bothers you because...? It's not like I'm forcing you to play only games that get my approval.
Whatever you say. A linear story-driven game sounds a lot like an adventure game to me though.
Huh? I chose the character when I bought the game? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The game is mine, the character may not be. Listen to this, I'm working on a game, I refer to it as "my game" in conversations. Do I refer to the fact that I own it or that I'm designing it?
There is. Ability to make your own character (it doesn't have to be a thief, of course, but whatever fits the setting) is important. That's that whole YOUR character thing. Perhaps, I could have been more specific. Then again, I've never thought that someone would study my definition under a microscope.
No, he's the one who reloads the gun, but it's my accuracy that wins the game. He's nothing without me! NOTHING!!!
And what kinda decisions you've had in mind in your definition?
Sarvis
Erudite
Vault Dweller said:
No, you were pointing out what I should have "known" from the subtitle of this site. Since it is subjective, I'd have no way of knowing on entry what you guys actually meant by that. You _could_ be fruitcakes who consider the Quake Marine the pinnacle of roleplay.
Given the current job market, recession and whatnot... there probably isn't a difference in my field to be honest. RIT may not be Harvard, but I've had interviewers specifically comment on how good a school it is.
However all you've proven is that certain past events may have effects on your future, not that every event should lest it become invalid.
Not according to you. <i>I'm</i> the one claiming the genre is large and expansive with many variations. You are claiming it follows only a strict subset. Try to keep that straight, will ya?
Then we are back to it not being hard to reflect the character's choices. Or at least no harder than it would be in a single game.
And of course nothing would be, since you'd have to admit to being wrong. Especially since I haven't played KOTOR there's no real way I can come up with something to account for every single choice and then continue on. It seems rather obstinant for you to require that a sequel continues on the original's plot in order to somehow magically validate a characters presence in the quest.
I wasn't talking about CRPGs. I was specifically thinking about the Legacy of Kain games. You may not have said impossible, but you did say doing such a thing would create pointless incomplete games.
I was using those for examples of things CRPG makers could do if they wanted in order to make games where transporting a character between them made sense and accounted for choices in previous games.
Create a large plot, subdivide it into meaninful sublots and then identify the points where choices would matter.
Let's say you divide the plot into three games, you then have three budgets, three dev cycles and three times everything else you need to make a game. This should give you more time to make any extra maps/mobs needed to handle those multiple choices, thus making it easier than accounting for the same choices in a single game. Not to mention that many of the changes you mention which should be far reaching don't have any short term effect, and in a continuous plot like this you have nothing but short term to worry about.
Well, in that case, or in any other case involving tool-making lifeforms humans could be easily put in one class with them. It won't be a biological class, but something that handles intelligence and psychological profiling. I'm pretty sure that tool-making would lead to similar discoveries like using a stick with something heavy and maybe even sharp to whack someone on the head, etc
And yet everything in that group would be markedly different in all ways except tool usage.
Though the idea is similar to the one I proposed about having a prefix for games that incorporated the elements you people cared about but which could be in front of any game genre for a game which incorporated them. That way you have your seperate grouping and can identify games that are in no way CRPGs.
Not all of us. some of us actually know the definition of words, and try to use them... *gasp* literally!
You become a fighter or thief or whatever at level 1. You may be a crappy fighter or mage or thief, but you still are one. Everything after picking your class, other than picking a different class, is just polishing your class.
Besides, if your goal is to become Whirling Death, you don't actually become one until level 36. It's not just polishing up to that point because until then you are something quite different.
Just like no matter how high level a gunman is, he is not a sniper until he can kill people at long range with one shot.
By the way, here's what the 2E PHB has to say about first level characters:
"A character class is like a profession or career. It is what your character has worked and trained at during his younger years. if you wanted to become a doctor, you could not walk out the door and begin work immediately. First you would have to get some training. The same is true of character classes in the AD&D game. Your character is assumed to have some previous training and guidance before beginning his adventuring career."
That is hardly being nothing. That is being a trained fighter or mage or thief. Everything after that is just improving your skills.
Saw.
You are just magically defining away development to suit your own purposes. You find early levels more interesting, and that's fine. However development is occuring as long as there are options a character can take. All options, at ALL LEVELS make the character more powerful. Make him "more of a fighter" in your terms.
See, this is what I was talking about with you tripping over your own logic. You said before "Deciding to specialize in 2h swords is more important, imo, then improving your criticals with it, etc" You didn't say "Deciding to specialize in 2h swords before level 10" was more important. I guess I'm just being literal again... but maybe you should try saying what you actually mean, rather than saying something then constantly making up meanings for it? Just a thought.
Of course, specializing in a weapon is a pretty clear case of just polishing and improving your class.
He shouldn't have to lose access to his old skills, and of course being able to play as a thief is a design issue. The assumption here is that he can, since we are only talking about character development and leaving out other considerations for simplicity.
No, just discounting my opinions, labeling me a `dumbfuck and other things.
Actually I don't remember there being a very strong story in Kings Quest. It's pretty much all about puzzle solving, which is of course what the Adventure genre is all about. See how confusing you can make things when you just randomly make up labels?
If you told an Adventure game fan to get a Final Fantasy style game because it was a popular Adventure title he'd probably come back and kick your ass, since FF wouldn't be anything like he expected.
Both. Designing something pretty much gives you ownership over it, unless you signed the IP rights away to someone else. The reverse is not true: owning something does not mean you designed it. You own your TV right? Did you design and build it? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you didn't. It's still YOUR TV right?
Even if you do require the ability to make your own character, the concept of a thief is not required. You could have just a bunch of classes that have varied combat abilities. Hell, even if there are thieves nothing requires them to be able to sneak or hide. In Final Fantasy Tactics for example all the thief's skills are geared towards stealing items from enemies. When you have a thief you tend to run around stealing equipment from enemies, which is very much playing the character in a manner fitting his skills and abilities.
Nope, as DeusEx shows you are only pointing where you want the bullet to go. If the character were bad at aiming the bullet might go somewhere else that is close to where you meant.
I'm going to have to think about that...
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.