Never been into RPG''s...

Searched for Fallout because I''ve seen the name often here at GameDev. Wanted to see what it was...

I looks really cool. Out of stock at Amazon.com....Typical...

(only $10 for Fallout 1+2)

Sorry...This was sort of offtopic !

My largest objection to current RPGs is the fact that they have a story - linear or otherwise. I *hate* being told what to do. If I want to experience something with a predetermined result, I''ll go watch a good movie - something where someone with some talent wrote the bloody thing.

If they would''ve pulled out the story element of Diablo, it would''ve improved the game 1000%. Having creatures of all levels in all areas and the freedom to choose which to "play" in would''ve brought the game closer to its roots (Rogue/Hack/etc).

And speaking of which, the only two RPGs I play any more are ZAngband (a Roguelike) and Tactics Ogre (which is an order of magnitude better than Final Fantasy Tactics) - and yes, I hate the story part of Tactics Ogre - but, at least it''s a often-branching storyline (which has some *severe* branches).

(and, btw, give me 1000 random battles to 1 predetermined one any day. "Boss" creatures are far more annoying - like a big bad monster is going to wait for you - at least in ZAngband the "quest monsters" are scattered and the Unique monsters could be anywhere at any time (nothing like turning a corner to find a room full of o''s and their captain guy just a face in the crowd.)

-scott

I think consoles have seen the best rpgs. I didn''t really enjoy fallout. I find that pc rpgs are usually too open. It is hard to find out what you should do even if you talk to everyone. I think that rpgs need to be given direction, otherwise you just end up wandering around hoping that something will happen soon so you can see something new.

I agree, though, that some console rpgs are a bit too linear (someone mentioned that they keep giving you new stories as to why you can''t just go on past to a new town, which is true in a lot of cases). But I think that games like Chrono Trigger and FF6 (3 in us) were the best rpgs ever released (aside from the fact that their graphics are now a bit dated). Chrono Trigger''s story was not linear at all, except for the very first section, which really was only there to get the player into the feel of the game and to establish the base story. FF6/3 was the same way. The game was devided into two sections, the first part was mostly linear, with the exceptions of the divided stories where the player got to pick which team of characters they would take next, but the second part was completely open. The player could do as little or as much as they wanted.

As for random battles, They can slow the game down a bit, but in well designed battle systems, the battles shouldn''t get overly agravating for the player anyway. (Chrono Trigger didn''t have random battles, by the way). But the problem with non-random battles is that if the player opts to sneak away from all the battles, they will not be strong enough to win boss battles. Also, people have been saying that the battles shouldn''t be determined by the character''s experience level, but by the player''s strategic skill. I agree with this to a point, since if the battles did not take into account the characters strength, speed, etc. at all, then you would not be playing an rpg, you would be playing an action game! One thing that I think should be changed with the battles in recent rpgs such as FF8 (which I will agree was not the best of the series by any means), is that magic effects, mainly the "summons" should not take over a minute to play out. It is great to watch the first dozen times or so, but it does get boring.

About the idea of alternatives to fighting, I think that that could be implemented well into rpgs, but I don''t think it should replace battles, but rather be a sometimes-used-alternative when dealing with human characters because I doubt very much that a wild, hungry creature would listen to a group of wandering adventurers tell him why he should not try to eat them.

One final thing about the "roleplaying" aspect of these games. I don''t understand exactly why people don''t feel like they are "playing a role" when the pick up an rpg like chrono trigger or ff, especially since in chrono trigger you are mainly left with a free decision what you want to do. You are given the chance to play the role of chrono, you decide what you would do if you were put in his fantasy world. Would you save the world right away or better prepare yourself for the final battle first? If you want more conversation or something, then try a game like furcadia.

A great CRPG was Thief: The Dark Project. I don''t know if any of you played it but it was great. In this game you played the role of a Thief! You had a sword, a small club and a bow armed with various arrows. Broadhead, rope, water, that kind of stuff. There were no stats and no battle screens. Just the player''s skill. That was true role experience. Imagine this: You are lurking in the shadows near a door. Suddenly you hear the footsteps and the whistles of a guard. Waiting, he passes in front of you, unaware of your presence. You take the blackjack into your hands and swing it down his head. Then you proceed to hide his unconcious body into the shadows and proceed to loot the mansion of it''s riches.
That game was almost flawless. Perfect sound(could hear the direction the guards were coming), perfect roleplaying(looting is the best). Perfect graphics. The only thing that made it lose were the places with the zombies. darn things never stood down no matter what.
I believe that this kind of game is the best. But just the zombies were taking away all the realistic look it had up to this point. So, things i hate in CRPG''s? Unreal things. Sure, dragons are great, giants too, but why get them in the wrong place? M&M 7 had dragons right next to thriving towns for god''s sake.
I think i made point.

Kostas "Dreamwalker" Honias
Dreams pure as glass and fragile as such...

First off, I think a true "Role Playing Game" would have to be something where you are free to express yourself and make more than rudimentary decisions. Therefore, any sort of linear combat game, narrow-channel story-based walk-through game, or chaotic multi-player shooter (i.e. Quake) should not be considered an RPG. You are not "playing" a role, you are doning new clothes/gear and either walking a pre-determined path with little chance for expression or wandering aimlessly killing things with little time for expression.

The only things that should be labeled RPGs are games where personal expression and decision making are used to slowly craft the persona of your character over time. Obvious multi-player examples of such are Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, etc. With these, you are given a world in which to immerse and draw from, near infinate decisions about how you want to act/live, the time and resources to express that idea of a character to fellow players, etc. Certainly there are people who "role play" far better than others and some to whom the concept seems entirely foreign (please don''t discuss last night''s NBA game by the blacksmith shop in the center of town). There are also those who are hopelessly lost without a linear storyline that continuously prods them on like sheep to finish this, go here, attempt that, kill him, pick up the treasure... all in the proper order. "What''s the plot?" they whine... Uh... there isn''t one. You have to make your own, Beavis! This, of course, is cause for THEM to gripe about the game in a reciprocal way than I have here.

For a game to claim to be an RPG and yet fail in the aforementioned tasks is very frustrating to me.

Dave Mark
Intrinsic Algorithm Development

Ok, here''s my rant...

1. There are very few pure role playing games anymore. Most games coming out now, in my opinion, are closer to being graphical adventures or action games. Just because a game is set in a fantasy world and you can pick up items and find new spells doesn''t make it an RPG. And I am sick and tired of every other game claiming to have RPG elements. It''s like they just say that to lure RPG fans into buying their RTS game.

2. CHARACTER CREATION - WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THIS?? Very few RPGs let you create your character(s) anymore. Usually they tell you what your name is, what your past is, etc. They even establish your personality through intro cut scenes. Call me old fashioned but part of the fun for me was figuring out the perfect combination of characters for my party and trying to roll the best characters I could.

3. Japanimation. Very few RPG''s released that don''t have Anime style graphics. Not that I have anything against them, but they are all starting to look the same. It''s like they use a formula. Childish face + crazy hair-do = our hero.

4. I agree there aren''t enough RPG''s set in other times/worlds. I would love to play a good sci-fi RPG. One with robots, laser guns, rocket ships, etc. One with skills like Computer Operations, Robotics, Pilot, etc. You get the idea.


Anyway, just a few of my opinions

Marcus

I''m not going to try to define RPG like most people here are Different people believe that different things are RPGs... I personally don''t feel that Diablo and Zelda are RPGs. I prefer the openness of PC RPGs to Console RPGs, but have had fun playing both. I don''t feel that it needs to have a fantasy theme to be an RPG (and likewise don''t think that all that have fantasy themes ARE RPGs, hence my Diablo and Zelda comments).
As for MMORPGs, I haven''t found one that I enjoy yet (I consider them chat rooms with skill progression. I didn''t like the fact that beating up enemies and reaching the next level is more important than being in the world itself).

Frankly, one of the best-handled RPGs to date (and one that the people who feel player skill should take a part) is Deus Ex.

Anyway, onto the original point of the original poster... things I hate in a genre I like:

- Random combat: I like the ability to dodge enemies -- I don''t like fighting the same battles 1000 times when I try to walk from point A to point B.

- Levelling: Though I think fun should win whenever there''s a conflict with reality, I''ve always had a problem with the levelling concept. I don''t think that out of the blue, your character would suddenly get better after fighting 50 enemies. I think skills should progress... as they''re used, they get better. I also think that skills levelling will detach the character from worrying about when their character will "level", and be more concerned about playing the game and advancing the story. Completing quests can be used to gain wealth, items, and knowledge (helping a wizard on a quest would have him teach you new spells, or increase your knowledge in a specific spell school -- helping a fighter would help you train in certain fighting skills, etc).

- Character Classes. I''m probably a small minority here, but I like the concept of being able to create your character any way you want to (a la GURPS), and not be limited to artificial rules (so, WHAT is the logic behind fighters not being able to learn magic, anyway, or mages not being able to fight?). There could be certain "disadvantages" to create these things such as "CAN''T LEARN MAGIC", which would give the character these same (self-imposed) limits, but their should be no hard limit on these things. Arcanum did a great job here, letting the character define their role, NOT the artificiality of character classes.

- The weapons of doom theory. Though I like the concept of magically-imbued weapons, there should be a limit. Heck, instead of doing a quest to gain the Sword of Wizbangery, why not do a quest for a Mage to imbue one of your weapons with the Wizbangery trait. Getting a better weapon doesn''t make a character a better fighter, they just have a better weapon.

- Tolkein. I like the D&D concepts (though not the system). I like fighting dragons and skeletons. However, they need to break from these things on occasion (and no, renaming a beast a Lizzaroo and making it effectively a dragon is not making a new character).

- A spell that loses its effectiveness for no reason. Why is it that when your enemy is at level 4, suddenly the sleep spell doesn''t work any more? You would think that these wizards in their infinite wizdom would simply develop a better sleep spell (or the ability to put more into the sleep spell to make it stronger). Wizardry 8 did a great job handling this.

- Spawning enemies. I know that there''s the possibility that some enemies may eventually come back (or out of hiding), but there can only be so many goblins in a cave.

- The charisma stat. I think a player''s actions should determine the reaction they receive, NOT some stat.

Games have done some stuff right, but there is stuff they can do so much better. Deus Ex did a great job with the role playing -- especially in the sense that you became the main character... if you want to see multiple ways to improve your character, this is the game (I personally loved the sniper skill in that game -- as your skill improved, the aiming retical wavered less and less). I love the Wizardry 8 spell system... though the game itself is pretty old-school, the spell system is great (a simple fireball spell can be cast more powerfully). Also, Wiz 8 allows your skills to improve through use (though they still do levelling). I love the Arcanum and Fallout character creation systems. Though I don''t consider the Baldur''s Gates as earth-shattering as everyone else, I do like their use of story.

-Chris

To sum up what I have read so far, the place where crpgs need to improve are:

1) The ability to impose one''s own personality or style into the game.

This shows up in creating one''s characters, providing a variety of combat tactics to learn/specialize in, and player choice about what to do next.

2) Meaningful character development no matter which direction the player chooses.

If 90% of the mundane activities aren''t fun, provide direction towards the fun activities. Better, improve the game so that all of the available choices provide fulfillment.


Heck this is nothing new. Chris Crawford was writing about this in 1982.

JSwing

I think games are over-simplified these days. In Diablo II, there is an exclamation point over who you have to talk to? I love the game, but it''s not for it''s "rich plot" Hell, I actually have NO IDEA what the plot of D2 is, and i''m level 25 or so.

When I was a kid, my life was ULTIMA. You had to really learn what was going on. You couldn''t just play in a line and eventually end the game. You had to remember all the facts, or take good notes, etc.

Anyone play Wasteland? That was a great game NOT set in medieval times,

I too loved GURPS when I was a kid. That was a great system.

The R and G of RPG is Role-Playing. If you''re playing a role, you''re being something you are not.

My ex and I used to role-play... umm.. but that was something different

-Gelf

Tell us about that