Quote:

Original post by Natrone19 When I think about Western and Japanese RPGs I think of Yin and Yang. Both of these are part of the same coin, but different faces (another anology for you people). You have Western on one side which consist of a more dircect storyline. I hate to say it, but we like to get to more of the gameplay instead of the storyline (this is ONLY retaining to most American RPG Devolpers in today's market). Japanese RPGs on the other hand are built to captivate, confuse, utterly disapoint, enrage, and make you cry (I never have cried from playing a RPG, but who knows it could happen :P). While the gameplay is nice (battles tend to revolve around the over usage of really flahsy magic) but not the major importance the storyline is what truley matters. Now that that is out of the way I can tell you what I think a RPG should be and typically will be. A good RPG is really both of these methods molded into one. That is what I BELIEVE (please don't qoute me). This will happen sooner or later (if not now) in America atleast due to the new generation of Game Designers (of which I am included). Upcoming generations have grown up playing both styles of RPGs and can generaly pick out the bad and good of both(hence the argument that started this topic) . When this is done RPGs will have its long over-due evolution (HORAY)! (sry if this is too long) (TWO THUMBS UP FOR PARENTHISESE)

I completely agree. If a game designer can develop a game where the game play and the story to it are equal then it is a good game. Of course doing that is the trick. I am sure it is harder then it looks to do something like that. It would take a lot of thinking to get it done BUT I bet it would be worth it.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Not all RPGs need to be either turn based or realtime. Each has their strengths and their weaknesses. I prefer the realtime games on computer as they as good at provieding that realtime feedback, but that is the only reason. I do enjoy some turn based CRPGs as well. You could also make an RPG without having to have a definite turnbased system or a definite real time system as applied to the whole of the game.

You could also have a some sort of hybrid system such as the one used in Neverwinter Nights. The NWN combat system is essentially turn-based, but the turns are played in real-time, which gives it a more action-packed feel.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq 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

I wasn't really saying you can't have any strategic gameplay in a real-time game. I was rather talking about emphasis — in real-time gameplay you need to be a lot quicker, and that tends to shift the emphasis from strategy to action.

I do enjoy real-time games, but from time to time I want just strategy and none of the hassle of typical real-time games. In a turn-based game I have all the time in the world in order to remember that Greater Slugde Monsters can be killed with nothing less than the Janitorial Mop of Cleansing, but in a real-time game I'll be half-dead by the time I recollect that fact and because my "keyboard agility" leaves much to be desired I probably accidentally press the wrong hotkey and quaff a potion of antidote instead of healing and die from the next blow by my foes. A stupid example, perhaps, but should exemplify that decisions in a real-time game can require good reflexes and a keen mind, and sometimes I just don't want to worry about those aspects. Making a real-time game that would only focus on strategy would be difficult, and probably not what you had in mind.

Quote:

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).

So you mean that the damage done is computed directly with a formula which has things such as the basic damage of the wielded weapon, character skill, a small modifier by the player's accuracy, and what have you, as parameters? This would essentially be much like the status quo of most random combat systems, but without the stochastic component, so I'll agree that it can still be as character-oriented as you want; it'd be much like a simplified version of the stochastic combat system, in a sense.

Still, I'm not sure the "problem" with the hit-and-miss aspect is solved. If you base the hit-and-miss aspect of combat on player skill alone, the character will be as good in combat as the player. This is not necessarily nice, because if you want to play a character whose skills in combat do not reflect your "keyboard agility", you will be somewhat out-of-character. Or have I missed something?

Quote:

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.

Again, I agree that real-time combat doesn't necessarily kill roleplaying, but rather the attack-on-sight-and-fight-to-the-death mentality of all adversaries. The kind of interactivity and detail you are describing is important — and at least for me, much more important than graphical quality or story.

Quote:

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

I'm sure some players will enjoy a more player-oriented experience, even though I'm partial to a more character-oriented approach. I'm really not against your ideas, and I'd really like to see some of them more often in games, such as the procedural, dynamic content, customizability, and increased focus on the background issues (e.g. history and cultures). I just wanted to give my opinions as to why I thought your claim of "turn-based gameplay and die rolling being merely a result of technological limitations" a bit unjustified.

I concur, with a few caveats:

- Depending on what you define "keyboard agility" as, I find it to be a good thing. If keyboard agility is being good at aiming in a game like Counter Strike, then I think that's what games should be after. If it's akin to being skilled in a game like Tekken or Street Fighter, then I think that's what games should be aiming for - at least RPG's with combat. IME, it's disingenuous to set up a realistic looking combat scenario in which players are actually participating in an elaborately disguised gambling match. If it's turn based, this I can understand. But in a game like World of Warcraft, why should you rely on things like auto attack and random chances for "crits?" The outcome of the fight is determined by random - player skill never makes an appearance and the class roles are more about knowledge than ability. In other words, the outcome of combat has nothing to do with what you do - it's about what you have. There was an article in gamasutra about the difference. People always seem to thing that I'm attacking RPG's like Final Fantasy or other turn based games when I say that things should be interactive - I'm not. Interactive things, however, should be interactive and skill based. I might have a Superior Crossbow of Smiting and 550 weapon skill, but if I don't know what the hell I'm doing with it, the skilled and less equipped will beat me. Isn't that the definition of a fair fight? A fight where opponents have no material advantages over one another? I find pen and paper RPG's fun in a completely different way than FPS's. I find that most realtime RPG's seem to currently take all the wrong parts out of both and combine them poorly. I find table top RPG's fun more in the way of watching a movie or playing Sim City. FPS's are, well, FPS's. They're action. You can't be passive and active at the same time, but you can have passive things in the world with active gameplay. This is the kind of balance I'm aiming for. Most games allow you to either shoot things or build/interact/metagame. The thing is, you can do both in the same game, it's just that no one has done it yet. Most developers tend to stretch it too thin, but I think this sort of game can be done right.

One of the difference I see agents games like final fantasy and most western rpg isn’t so much story itself but how immerse the story is in the game play, in final fantasy the story affects the world and your actions at every turn, whereas in most western rpg’s it feels more like its just something to read between dungeon crawls.

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq [on "keyboard agility"]

With "keyboard agility" I mean the player's skill at using the controllers — your examples describe precisely what I mean. I don't really mean it to necessarily have negative connotations. However, I have to disagree that all rpgs with combat should strive to focus on "keyboard agility" as opposed to, say, statistical models in combat. The important thing is the difference between player-oriented and character-oriented gameplay.

In player-oriented gameplay it is the player's skills that count. You could say that player-oriented gameplay enforces the rule "the player is the character" in a sense. When the player becomes better, the character becomes better. However, the character's skills are limited by the player's own limitations. However, in my opinion, rpgs should be about the freedom of choice — you should be able to do something that is beyond your (as in you the player, not you the character) abilities. Someone with bad "keyboard agility" despite years of practicing can never play roles that require a lot of skill.

Or say you had good "keyboard agility" and you wanted to play a pure-mage character. Someone who has devoted his life for study of magic is not likely to be skilled with a sword. However, in a desperate situation when momentarily deprived of his magic the mage could still try to fight with a sword as a last resort. If character skill is based on player's "keyboard agility" alone, and "keyboard agility" was assumed to be good, the mage suddendly masters the intricacies of sword fighting. The mage wasn't supposed to be able to do that; I'd say it's quite out-of-character. How do you prevent this? By imposing penalties to the damage? This is against the maxim "if I stab this zombie in the eye, HE DIES. Period". By creating artificial rules such as "a mage cannot use a sword"? Even worse, I'd say.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to attack the idea of player-oriented gameplay, but I simply do not see how you could overcome these problems. I might even go as far as to say that player-oriented gameplay makes roleplaying more difficult — in the sense that staying in-character will not be so simple. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

In character-oriented gameplay it is the character's skills that count — the statistical model, or the stats, as people like to say. Character-oriented gameplay enforces the rule "the player is not the character"; it separates the players and the pawns to different levels of abstraction. I know that if you take this to the limit, you will end up with Progress Quest, but that's usually not the case. With character-oriented gameplay the player's "keyboard agility" starts to have less meaning and the game becomes more like a game of strategy, tactics, and cunning. It is still a game requiring player skills, but those skills will be different. It will be a game about choices rather than "keyboard agility".

The randomness of the combat represents the character's skill — if you get less damage than average it means the character merely slashed a minor wound to the leg, for instance. A critical hit means he punctured a lung. The player skills come from knowing what equipment, tactics, special moves, or the like to use and when. And if you indeed do have a Superior Crossbow of Smiting and 550 weapon skill, you (as in you the character) would know what to do with the crossbow. After all, the skill does somehow represent the character's aptitude with weapons. Your exemplary situation does not really sit well with the character-oriented mentality.

Utlimately, it's really a matter of opinion. I like the character-oriented approach, you like the player-oriented approach. I think there is enough room for both of us in this universe... [smile]

Great post Grim!

I'm definitely a bigger fan of the Character-Oriented approach also and your explainations of the two really break it down well.

From the majority of the posts here I can clearly see i'm in the minority in my personal affinity but there are two points I would like to pick on from reading this thread so far..:

Firstly there seems to be alot oppinion placing most of today's RPGs in the extreme's of the Player vs Character-Oriented paradigm when in actuality I believe alot of games today do their best to try and fit somewhere in the middle.
If you observe FFVIII for example, the main character (Squall) had a gunblade which required the player to utilise his skill with regards to keyboard agility in order to cut + shot enemies simultaneously. This mean't that the critical attack of the character was entirely controlled by the player. Also there are more examples of this kind of direct control in alot of other Chacracter-oriented games which allow the game to maintain its focus on thought and strategy but also add elements of the player's skill into the mix to provide a balance which works very well I think.
Also many Player-oriented games have attributes of their counterparts such as Oblivion for example, which is heavily stat-based adding a level of depth to the combat which moves it away from the idea of hack-away-constantly-until-he's-dead and forces the player to consider the various factor's which heavily influence his effectiveness in combat and take the necessary steps to adjust his equipment, spells etc accordingly. An example of this would be the fact that a player could hack away at a ghost forever with a steel axe but the effects of his attacks are lost due to the nature of the player's archetype, his stat-levels, his weapon and the enemies weaknesses/strengths..

This brings me to my last point where the only type of games I've come across that typically depict such extremes with regards to the Player vs Character-oriented paradigm, are MMOs..

However I personally prefer to stay away from such games as there interest seems to be focused on forcing the player to become heavily enveloped in the economics of the game in order to squeeze a constant flow of cash out of his pocket..

Just my preference however..