Behold! The new generation of RPG fans! Part 2

Vault Dweller · Aug 5, 2003

Well, since Skorpios sucked all the fun out of the original thread I thought we can give making fun of morons another shot. Without futher ado:

Quote Starts
Actually its not the combat system in Diablo I care about anyway. It wasn't that bad, I certainly could have put up with it if the game had a story, some interesting characters and maybe a few puzzles. But Diablo was just a combat system with character progression in the end. why don't we compile a list of things that are important in an RPG.

1. Character Creation and Progression
Diablo had zero char creation, yet the progression was done quite well.
Lionheart uses Special System for creation and advancement. Nuff said.

2. Storyline and Characters
Diablo had dull, dull characters. And the storyline progressed (in D2) through cutscenes only and was very simplistic in both games. No interaction with the world at all.
Nobody doubts that Lionheart has a strong, well thought out storyline and the few characters I met in the demo far outstripped and I met in Diablo.

3. Combat
My opinions on this have already been stated, but let it just be said there are two schools of thought on this.

4. Graphics and Sound
Being the newer game Lionheart has better graphics. I don't judge a game on this anyway, but other people do.

5. Interactivity
Here is where Diablo fell to pieces and Lionheart should excel. What could you do in Diablo? Fight (include spell casting here), talk to people (or rather hear what people would say to you), trade items.
In Lionheart? Fight (include spell casting here), talk to people, steal from people, kill people (not just monsters), sneak past people and monsters, search for hidden treasure, pick locks, be evil, be good, be a little of both.

So Diablo beats Lionheart in one thing out of five? Wow there's a great reason not to buy Lionheart and go get Diablo instead. And people who are complaining that the combat isn't enough like Fallout, look at it like this. Fallout to Lionheart (using the above system) comes to a four to four tie. (I am assuming that you agree Lionheart has better graphics than Fallout , and Fallout has better combat than Lionheart).

So won't Lionheart be almost as good as Fallout?
Quote Ends

Insightful little fella, isn't he? Btw, if you want to see the entire discussion it's here
http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.p ... c&start=30

I like that he included Sound in the list of things that are important in a RPG. I also like how he arrived to the conclusion that Fallout = Lionheart.

Voss · Aug 5, 2003

I just want to know how he gets a 4 to 4 tie out of five points.
Or is he saying that they'll be exactly equal on creation, storyline and interactivity, and they each get either graphics or combat?
Thats a bold assumption to make without backing it up with reasons.

And what the point of comparing characters in a game that wasn't about characters in any way to one that just has a demo that doesn't deal with them much? Are we back to oranges and pears again? Or possibly apples and mangos, since its a different topic.

I'd like to see someone try to convince people to buy Lionheart on its own merits, rather than subjectively comparing it to a game from a few years back. (and almost making a case that it may be equal to it...)

And come on, you know skorpios will show up here sooner or later...

Psilon · Aug 5, 2003

I'll defer to you guys on bashing NuevoDorkle right now as I'm too busy laughing, but I'll point out that the Assassin could "pick locks" in Diablo 2.

Jed · Aug 5, 2003

My favorite part is in the "Lionheart=Fallout" statement, the premise that graphics and combat are equal. Thanks MTV!

Voss · Aug 6, 2003

And, he doesn't care about graphics... so they don't even balance out for him.

Rabby · Aug 6, 2003

Vault Dweller said:
I like that he included Sound in the list of things that are important in a RPG.

Were you sarcastic here? I've always found sound to be a crucial ingredient in computer-game-immersion-contribution. Take Avernum 3's walking, for example -- the fact that the sprites don't actually move really don't bother me since they have feasible footstep sounds.

The sound in the Lionheart demo really didn't impress me much. The yelling and screaming sounded a little generic. . . and, does anyone remember whether or not they had the where-you-look-is-where-you-hear thing? Um. . . to give anybody a fighting chance at understanding what I just said, I meant the area of the map that you're centered over provides the sound. It was present in the BG series, and also in Rise of Nations (I'm sure it's in MANY games. . . ), and I've always found that to be quite a blessing indeed. I suspect it's not in Lionheart, though, because I distinctly remember being extremely confused to hear the goblin/wererat/bandits fighting each other even when I'm not looking anywhere near them.

Voss · Aug 6, 2003

I found the random growling/snarling confusing. Particularly since at times I thought it might have been coming from my character.

But sound in generally...eh. I lump it in with custom portraits as things not to be cared about. Things that are interesting to look at/listen to for maybe five minutes, then ignore for the rest of the game. Particularly since sound tends to be very repitious in games. I can only stand to listen to generic battle cries #1, 2 and 3 so many time before I'm sick to death of them.

I always end up putting on music or the TV on in the background and turning the computer sound down anyway.

Sharpei_Diem · Aug 6, 2003

Agree with rabby...sound means alot to me.

PS:T did amazing things with its sound and voice acting and don't get me started on the guitar in diablo...

Bad sound and good sound can add or subtract alot from a game for me, though for really bad sound I'll usually do something about it(like turn the volume off if i can't disabled).

The funny thing is he mentions sound as a criteria, but then doesn't mention it specifically...

Vault Dweller · Aug 6, 2003

Rabby said:
Vault Dweller said:

I like that he included Sound in the list of things that are important in a RPG.

Click to expand...

Were you sarcastic here? I've always found sound to be a crucial ingredient in computer-game-immersion-contribution.

Of course it was a sarcastic remark. I have nothing against good sound, but it's not on my top 5 things I'd need in a RPG. Sound, overall graphics, background, characters, portraits, icons, particle effects are all important. They are nice to have, and I'd rather play a game with them then without, but there are way too many other things in a RPG that come before the sound.
The whole system is ridiculous, just look at interaction: steal from people, kill people, look for treasure. What else is important in a RPG? Realistic physics?

Psilon · Aug 6, 2003

What else is important? Barrels and crates. Preferably mobile ones filled with treasure. Then you can push them, stack them, and loot them! Crate Scott!

Seriously, sound is wayyyy down on my list of preferred features. I play NetHack, and used to be big on Castle of the Winds. Neither makes any sound other than the occasional beep. Daggerfall had good sound for the time, but I really don't care about positional audio and all that crap unless I'm playing an FPS. All I ask is that any provided soundtrack not play the same song more than once every twenty minutes, which kicks Morrowind right out. I'd rather have a MIDI-style endlessly repeating song a la Crusader, TIE Fighter, or Serious Sam than the same two or three tracks cycled as in Morrowind or Neverwinter. (Yes, I know Neverwinter has more tunes, but try getting through an area without hearing the 'peace' and 'combat' songs endlessly switching.)

Saint_Proverbius · Aug 6, 2003

The original Diablo had many, many quests, more than D2 did per act. I wouldn't be surprised if Diablo had as many quests as D2 if you count all four acts, frankly.

EEVIAC · Aug 6, 2003

Psilon said:
What else is important? Barrels and crates. Preferably mobile ones filled with treasure. Then you can push them, stack them, and loot them! Crate Scott!

Those last two words are the funniest thing I've read in months.

Jed · Aug 6, 2003

Psilon said:
What else is important? Barrels and crates. Preferably mobile ones filled with treasure. Then you can push them, stack them, and loot them! Crate Scott!

Does that make the car from FO2 the post-apocalyptic analog to a mobile crate?

Psilon · Aug 6, 2003

Yeah, pretty much. Doubly so if you're suffering from independent trunk syndrome.

Jed · Aug 6, 2003

Psilon said:
Yeah, pretty much. Doubly so if you're suffering from independent trunk syndrome.

Oh man, I forgot about that shit! :lol:

Vault Dweller · Aug 6, 2003

More stuff from the iply boards. I hope it's not contagious :lol:

Quote Starts:
So, I've read the FAQ, surfed through the boards, and I don't think this has been brought up.
Since playing Fallout and Fallout 2, and after the release of Everquest, my friends and I (I know a small group, yeah?), have been clamouring for MMO Fallout. I think the system, and setting are just begging to go MMO, even after the ehhhh response I had to Tactics. It was close but not what I wanted, which is selfish I know, but still.
So, my question is are there any plans for online play in Van Buren? and if not, are there any plans to take Fallout MMO in the future?
...
Look at Everquest, the quintesential MMO, and tell me it isn't a non-linear CRPG.
The point of having multiplayer would be the same as in any multiplayer game, getting together with a group of friends to go across the wastelands and do damage to things, do quests, and/or kill people.
Like a group of Bounty hunters in FO2, or a group of raiders, or pirates, whatever. It's fun to do things in groups.
....
Fallout can be about smashing stuff up and killing everything, but it's mostly about survival. Survival of a Vault in the first one, and of a town, well not after they were all smashed and murdered, in the second one.

Fallout is not really all the different from Everquest, it's got all the same things only in a different setting and without other people. I think adding the other people part would be interesting, especially if you still only given certain chat options, when talking to one another.
....
Why have Rez? One character, one life, and PKing EVERYWHERE. It would add many dimensions to the game, and make it more like the Fallout world. First, taking a page from EQ and SWG, make food and water important, except don't ahve it as widely available in towns, create Brahmin farms with people defending them, have people hunt geckos and radscorpions for food. Secondly, the drawback of not having food, and taking JE's fatigue idea, without food you loose fatigue until you passout and become a death waiting to happen.

People building armies, literal armies to go to war with other towns over goods or lack of food, like the NCR and Redding or New Reno.
Quote Ends

How do they come up with this crazy stuff? EQ is a non-linear CRPG? Pirates in Fallout? Although I have to admit, it does sound like fun "going across the wastelands and doing damage

to things and killing people". :roll:

The whole thing is here: http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=27872

Greenskin13 · Aug 6, 2003

Vault Dweller said:
Fallout is not really all the different from Everquest, it's got all the same things only in a different setting and without other people.

Uhhhh, isn't that like saying a Yugo is just like a Ferrari, except with differern't chasis, engine and everything else?

People building armies, literal armies to go to war with other towns over goods or lack of food, like the NCR and Redding or New Reno.

People who like army building should play army building games. People who like deep, involving RPGs should play deep, involving RPGs. Why is this is difficult?

Killzig · Aug 6, 2003

LoL I think that it's funny this kid wants pk-ing and permadeath. That's just opening yourself up to all kinds of griefplayers. Dark Tide was bad enough as is. How tough would it be for n00bs to get into the game then? How hard would he start crying when his lvl 52 NCR ranger got p0wn3d by a party of 4 lvl 50 BOS power armor dudes out for some fun PK'ing?

Voss · Aug 6, 2003

OK, started out really funny but got rather sad.

Food?
Fatigue? Wait. I missed this for FO3. Fatigue??
Neh. If this is going to be dealt with at all, abstract it into outdoorsmanship and keep it simple. Food.

Literal armies. Yes, well, good luck with literal things in games.

Pirates. Raiders.
Sea. Land.

What kind of things are being damaged, if killing people is seperate? Wandering around attacking crates? (Since that seems to be a major fetish over at the BIS boards for reasons I absolutely do NOT want to know)

Saint_Proverbius · Aug 7, 2003

Some IPLY tard said:
So, I've read the FAQ, surfed through the boards, and I don't think this has been brought up.

Only been beaten to death.. What kind of idiot thinks he's got an original idea with FOOL?

Since playing Fallout and Fallout 2, and after the release of Everquest, my friends and I (I know a small group, yeah?), have been clamouring for MMO Fallout.

This has resulted in us getting aggitated and throwing feces at one another. Afterwards, we calm down and go back to grooming one another's pelts.

I think the system, and setting are just begging to go MMO, even after the ehhhh response I had to Tactics. It was close but not what I wanted, which is selfish I know, but still.

FOT alone should have proved that SPECIAL and MMO don't mix. Even with Micro Forte's attempts at balancing it for character on character combat, it still resulted in similar tweaked characters pwnz0r1nk all the n00bz.

So, my question is are there any plans for online play in Van Buren? and if not, are there any plans to take Fallout MMO in the future?

Questions like these make me wish that people actually could swallow and choke on their own tongues.

Look at Everquest, the quintesential MMO, and tell me it isn't a non-linear CRPG.

Yeah, look at Everquest.. There's no overall point to it, either. About the only point you could say it has is to reach level 50 where you get to start over.

The point of having multiplayer would be the same as in any multiplayer game, getting together with a group of friends to go across the wastelands and do damage to things, do quests, and/or kill people.

I can name dozens of Fallout quests that wouldn't work in an MMORPG. Wonder if he can. Again, there's really no point to an MMORPG, other than running the level treadmill.

Like a group of Bounty hunters in FO2, or a group of raiders, or pirates, whatever. It's fun to do things in groups.

Like a circle jerk?

Fallout can be about smashing stuff up and killing everything, but it's mostly about survival. Survival of a Vault in the first one, and of a town, well not after they were all smashed and murdered, in the second one.

Wow. And here I thought Fallout was about being the Lone Wanderer placed in extra-ordinary circumstances and triumphing over a great, hidden evil.

Fallout is not really all the different from Everquest, it's got all the same things only in a different setting and without other people. I think adding the other people part would be interesting, especially if you still only given certain chat options, when talking to one another.

Now.. Tell me how the Speech Skill would work!

Why have Rez? One character, one life, and PKing EVERYWHERE. It would add many dimensions to the game, and make it more like the Fallout world. First, taking a page from EQ and SWG, make food and water important, except don't ahve it as widely available in towns, create Brahmin farms with people defending them, have people hunt geckos and radscorpions for food. Secondly, the drawback of not having food, and taking JE's fatigue idea, without food you loose fatigue until you passout and become a death waiting to happen.

Well, it couldn't have ressurrection and be anything like Fallout, which would piss off a lot of people, meaning they'd have to put it in anyway. That means it wouldn't be anything like Fallout, so why even bother using Fallout to begin with?

People building armies, literal armies to go to war with other towns over goods or lack of food, like the NCR and Redding or New Reno.

Notice the lack of mentioning any Fallout towns, they're all Fallout 2 towns. Idiots love Fallout 2 more, so that's a big indicator there.

Vault Dweller · Aug 7, 2003

Saint_Proverbius said:
Some IPLY tard said:

So, I've read the FAQ, surfed through the boards, and I don't think this has been brought up.

Click to expand...

Only been beaten to death.. What kind of idiot thinks he's got an original idea with FOOL?

That's one of the best parts, imo. He's not only stupid enough to think that FOOL is a good idea, he's so stupid that he thinks he came up with it first :lol:

Claim that EQ is a non-linear RPG is priceless too. I haven't heard this one yet, but then again I don't know many people who play EQ.

Saint_Proverbius · Aug 7, 2003

It's only non-linear in regards to the fact there's absolutely no story at all. I guess you could call it alinear.

Vault Dweller · Aug 9, 2003

More fun stuff. Here is a definition of a RPG and role-playing in general:

for me an rpg isnt defined by "roleplay" because every game would be an rpg then. Even pong. (you roleplay as a brick)

An rpg is for me isometric third-person game, where you get exp from quests and monsters and gain levels. For me true rpgs are Fallout 1-2, Arcanium, Bg 1-2, planscape torment and Icewind dale 1-2.

Good stuff. Please note that a role-playing game isn't defined by "roleplay" :lol:

Here is an attempt to prove that RT has a much strategy as TB from FPS fan's point of view:

mostly play FPS games, sometimes strategy, rarely RPG. Fallout and Morrowind have been my 2 windows into this genre of gaming. But please, don't disregard this thread thinking that I'm someone crazed on action games who doesn't know anything about true RPG.
Why would we disregard an opinion on RPGs coming from a person who rarely plays RPGs? -VD

I've been quite dissapointed by the number of people rooting for turn-based combat. It's strategic allright and, in FO, made pretty damn well. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed turn based combat in those early games, at THAT time. Now, with all the abounding technology, why not move to a higher level of strategy? My view is this:

GTA3/Max Payne type of view, but zoomed out, giving you much more area to view.
You have control of your character in 2 options, either FPS type of controls (AWSD for moving and mouse for shooting modes) or a more Syberia type (click on things).
Ever play Ghost Recon or and of the Rainbow Six series? If you have, you know how important strategy is in a real-time action game like that. If elements of that could be implemented into FO3: crouching, going prone to hide (like in FOT), shooting over tables, throwing grenades from behind cover, etc. it, in my opinion, would make the game much more realistic, fast, and fun to play. You could manage and give orders to your companions right before a battle and you can see how they carry them out (like in the game Legion - you gave orders before a battle and saw it happen before you). With FO3's already amazing NPC behaviours, etc. this would make the game a much more strategic affair. Or how about the idea of having cover fire when you want to move from place to place during combat? In Turn-based, you could always run across a hallway if you had enough AP with the guards noticing you but without being able to fire. How about making one of your assault-rifle buddies peek around the wall, spread some bullets around the guards area, making them hide behind tables and other environment while you run across the hallway tossing a grenade to keep them occupied for some more time?

Now that will give you some fine sense of accomplishment: escaping without losing a single HP, perhaps killing 1 or 2 guards and knowing you could've been killed crossing that place.

Or how about when you're tryign to evade several police or pursuers, you run into a house, close the door behind you, and wait right outside of it with an assault rifle ready to rip apart anyone who opens that door? What if then the door was flung open and you didn't see anyone outside, but instead 2 grenades were thrown in which explode right away sending you into obvilion? What would you think of yourself when you were outsmarted by some lines of code?

Also, I think environment should be very interactive, probably not making everything you see around you an item like in Morrowind, but at least to the extent where you could pick up rocks and right away throw them at your enemies. That would be a life-saver in the start of the game, and fun in the end when you go around with Power Armor on throwing rocks at defenseless civilians. haha.
Yeah...sure, it's fun to throw rocks at people - VD

I would like to see FO3 deliver something more than counting my Action POints the whole game. I would want to be challenged with different situations during combat, after which I would feel the same satisfaction as I would from getting my way during a Fallout dialogue (what was up with the BIS when they erased dialogue options from FOT?)

To me, and I'm sure to many others, such strategic, real time combat would be much better than running up to enemies and making sure you have enough "Action Points" to blast them in the face with a Bozar.

Well, that was interesting and very informative :roll:

- damn, my eyes hurt from all that rolling

- the rest is here http://forums.interplay.com/viewtopic.php?t=28217

Voss · Aug 9, 2003

for me an rpg isnt defined by "roleplay" because every game would be an rpg then. Even pong. (you roleplay as a brick)

An rpg is for me isometric third-person game, where you get exp from quests and monsters and gain levels. For me true rpgs are Fallout 1-2, Arcanium, Bg 1-2, planscape torment and Icewind dale 1-2.

My eyes just did that Roger Rabbit thing.
:shock:

Gain xp and levels. Ah yes. The core of the whole genre. If it weren't for that quest and monster comment, I'd think he's idea of a great RPG would consist of a little room,
typing something along the lines of ctrlaltdelete: giveXP(500000) <CR>
But maybe there could be a guy in the room that gives you 25000 XP for each rat you kill.
Huzzah! An RPG.

And while I think that most of the good RPGs have been isometric third-person, I do have a slightly better grasp of cause and effect.

Psilon · Aug 9, 2003

Remember that there isn't much crossover between Interplay/BioWare fanboys and Bethesda fanboys. Very few NWN lovers are big Morrowind fans, and vice versa.

Behold! The new generation of RPG fans! Part 2

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Erudite

Cipher

Erudite

Liturgist

Erudite

Liturgist

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Administrator

Erudite

Cipher

Erudite

Cipher

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Cipher

Erudite

Administrator

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Administrator

Commissar, Red Star Studio

Erudite

Erudite