Real Time Combat and CRPGs

Saying that Dues Ex and system shock are not RPG's because they need your skill as a player is flawed.

Any RPG needs your skill as a player be it real time turn based.

My character might be a fighter who are described as tacticians but if I am completly clueless when it comes to tactics and do really dumb things then I'm never going to beat the game even if my PC's are are powergamed to the hilt.

The only way to do away with it is to have everything AI controlled and allow the player to make suggestions that the AI may or may not ignore. Now I am huge fan of AI doing the boring stuff for me but with that level of interaction I may as well read a book.

One type requires brain power the other requires reactions but both rely more on player skill than on characters.

"They're hardly RPGs because you're the guy doing the aiming, you're the guy reacting to everything, etc".

In FO you were the guy doing the aiming and reacting to everything.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PaladinLord on 2001-05-17 12:27 ]</font>

 

Well, yes. There is a level of skill in playing any game. But RPGs should rely more on cogintive skills and not as much on reactive skills.

Here in lies the crux of the issue. What you consider "boring stuff the AI should do" is not the same thing as what I think is "boring stuff the AI should do." The ideal game should allow the player to pick the level of AI verus player imput. For instance. Fighting a horde of rats for the 100th time is boring. I have already figured out how to get though them, so I want the AI to just execute the tatics and strategy I used the previous 99 times. Fighting Bug-Men for the first time would require me to take more action as I have to figure out the stragey (unless some NPC has told me how to fight them)

But that is a matter of personal taste.

One reason why I got fustrated with BG2 was that for the various Big Bad Monsters (Dragons, liches and what not) you had to figrue out a new staragey by trial and error. There were rarely any clues on how to fight them. Then in some cases, the stragey had to be repeated, but you could not realy "save" that method for your party to execute. So I got tiered of it.

-gustavef

 

"One reason why I got fustrated with BG2 was that for the various Big Bad Monsters (Dragons, liches and what not) you had to figrue out a new staragey by trial and error. There were rarely any clues on how to fight them. Then in some cases, the stragey had to be repeated, but you could not realy "save" that method for your party to execute. So I got tiered of it".


That is where a mispent youth of playing AD&D comes in very handy :grin:
Its also one of the problems with the AD&D system in general.
TORN is going to have a journal where you store anything you find out about monsters and this will then effect things like critical hits and damage.Hopefully that will add some extra depth to without adding any extra tasks.
TORN is supposed to end up with more dialogue than FO as well but less than PST.
The screen shots are done on lithetech 2.5 but the full game will use the lithetech 3 engine.

 

I think what frustrates me is when I KNOW my character could do something but because of my limitations it is impossible. This DOES NOT HAPPEN in pencil/paper RPGs. The idea is that your character is your avatar. I want to control his/her actions but NOT their results. Real time movement is fine as long as I don't have to perfectly execute a series of jumps over a yawning chasm (a la Ultima 8_. Real time combat as an option is fine if combat is a walk over (sewer rats). But I need the option of turn based combat to fully utilize my character's skills. Why? The interface. If my character could read my thoughts and respond to them then real time combat would be a blast. But (s)he can't so I need TB combat to turn my thoughts into my character's actions.

 

The hell it's flawed.

Deus Ex and System Shock are nothing more than first person shooters with experience points. How the hell are they RPGs when they're relying on the player's reflexes rather than that of the character you're supposedly roleplaying?

After all, the point of role playing in the first place is to be something other than what you are. You can get some 14 year old ritalin candidate that's been playing Team Fortress all his life and put him in the same room with Steve Jackson(The guy who invented the GURPS role playing system) on two different computers. I'd be willing to bet the 14 year old kid beats both System Shock and Deus Ex before good old Steve Jackson makes it half way through one.

This would be the case even if they used the exact same characters and built them the exact same way. Why? Because you're not really playing a true role playing game. You're playing a shooter. The player's reflexes have more to do with how successful the character does than the character's own stats have to do with it.

In Fallout, you tell your character WHAT to aim at and where, but you don't aim for him. He aims the gun to the best of his ability, which is determined by his attributes, skill, and other modifiers, and then fires.

PaladinLord is certainly either case #2 or #3 in Aldin's system. Probably a mix of both, given his statements in this thread.


_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saint_Proverbius on 2001-05-17 15:01 ]</font>

 

BTW SP what's Ian Livingstone doin nowadays?
(we know steve is playin FPS.)
:lol:

 

The only difference is one requires brains and the other requires reflexes.

If player A is a brainless dolt then they are not going to get far in fallout are they even with a character of 10 intelligence.
Ever play Call of Cthulu ? They has a "know" role smart characters could be be played by less smart players and vice versa.

All RPGs are dependant on the player more than the character you just can't argue against that one :smile:

If Dues Ex and System Shock are nothing more than first person shooters with experience points then Fallout is nothing more than a turn based strategy game with experience points.

your example is as flawed as your logic.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PaladinLord on 2001-05-17 15:54 ]</font>

 

In response to someone who said he didn't think game designers should create games for single players, I sure as heck disagree. I've done the online thing, and although it's got its pluses, it's not my thing. I prefer single-player games. It would be pitiful if all games were made strictly for the MP market, leaving those of us who grab a couple of hours of game time when we can and who enjoy the solo experience without having to deal with a bunch of pre-pubescents hollering obscenities that they can't even spell.

Right now nearly every game being made has a MP module, and a ton of talent and money is being tossed into the MMORPH arena where only online gamers may participate. You MPers have more than enough variety to keep you occupied. I'd sure hate to think that the little that's left for single players would eventually be taken away as well.

~Di

 

Oh come on!
Deus Ex and System Shock are no more RPGs than Microsoft Golf. There are elements of "role playing" in most games. After all, you DO want to engage your players. However, there are RECOGNIZED, SEPERATE genres:
Sports
Strategy
Action
Shooter
Adventure
Puzzle
Simulation
RPG
There may be some blending of elements, but most games can be pegged pretty handily in one category. What makes RPGs different? It is a blend of Character creation and development, Storyline, and Options. The best RPGs seamlessly reflect these qualities. Fallout and Planescape:Torment are two of the best recent examples. Fallout isn't a strategy game, FO Tactics is. The difference should be obvious. If the difference is not obvious, you are not a hardcore RPGer. Period. I'm not trying to offend, I'm simply recognizing that what you want out of your games is different from what I want out of mine. The logic wasn't flawed, the reading of the logic was flawed.

 

Tweet...Fowl.

Now you are getting into the hair debate of What is an RPG. Lets try to stick on topic. The topic being, the merits, or not, of Real-Time Combat in CRPGs. And what would be a "good" simulation.

-gustavef

 

That was just such a good quote that i just had to see it again :lol:
Thx for that Di i think i may even reuse that at some point if ya dont mind
:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

*Aldin slaps his hand*
"Bad Aldin, bad Aldin"

Turn based is all that works for me because I can't use all of my characters skills in real time. Scripting might work I suppose, but it would have to be a robust, dynamic scripting system.

 

Dues Ex. Well appart from being voted RPG of the year in PCGamer UK and being in the RPG catorgory of every magazine.

Its non linear. There are many ways of doing things even more than in Fallout probably.
It has a story line that drives the game rather than being just background. It has choices which effect the outcome of things.
Ok it has a pre generated character but then so does PST.
NPCs react to changes in the world. If your being chased and you go near guards they will help you out. Save certain guards and they will give you valuable infomation.
You gain skills that shape the path you are likely to take but you are never limited by them.

SS2 was perhaps less of a roleplaying game but it was also older.

Just because Dues Ex is 1st person dosnt disqualify it for any mystical reason.

I know plenty about RPGs thank you.But I dont seem to have developed the attitude that sometimes goes along with it :grin:

FO requires as much brain power on the players part as Dues Ex requires reflexes.

If you deny Dues Ex is an RPG then you must also deny every other RPG in existence :smile:

On topic
Real time is good in RPG's TB is good in Strategy games.
SP games are definately suffering in quality as a result of MP games (Thank you America)
FO3 will most certainly be Real Time and 3d.

 

I'd love to find someone too stupid to work Fallout's Turn Based combat system. Conversely, there are LOTS of people who have trouble aiming in a First Person Shooter, which is all Deus Ex is.

PC Gamer, US or otherwise, named it "RPG Of The Year".. What's your point? PC Gamer is one of the worst pieces of tabloid trash on the market. You want a good review? Buy advertisements in their magazine. It's as simple as that. You want "Game of the Year", that's how you get that also.

The fact of the matter is, in Deus Ex, your character relies a hell of a lot more than you have to rely on your character. That's not an RPG, that's a FPS with RPG elements. Diablo is more of an RPG than Deus Ex.

And to Gus, this is an argument on the subject. You even brought up First Person point of view. :wink:

 

Id love to find someone to stupid to work out how to play Dues Ex too.

You going to volunteer?

It's not about being too stupid to learn how to play the game. It's about lacking the skills to play the game.

In FO lack of any sort of tactical skills will get you killed in short order. It dosnt matter how good your character is.

In Dues Ex the reaction time of a slug will get you killed in short order. Dosnt matter how good your character is.

Different skills same results.

Basically all TB combat comes down to is playing the odds and watching the grid.
I can quite easily go through the whole of FO and FO2 and not die once (unless I have exceptionally bad luck).

You only have to look at any game board and you see that x amount of players found the game too easy x ammount found it too hard. Usually the ones who were happy with it don't post :grin:

So saying that TB games dont rely on player skill is both misleading and incorrect.

On a sad note Dreamland got cancelled :sad:

 

Well, I would offer that First Person view does not imply it be to a First Person Shooter.

Both Wizards&Warriors as well as Might&Magic were first person, but required very little "clicking" skill on part of the player. What makes Deus Ex and System Shock more like FPS is because their use of real-time combat required a level of reflex on part of the player. This does not disqaulify them as RPGs. But this does not make the ideal CRPGs since there is a greater requirement on Player reflexive skill vs. Character reflexive skill.

Now, I use a very liberal definiation of RPGs and apply it both to table top and computer based. That is:

1) The game system must focus on the character (usual one but more as long as each character is unique)

2) The game system must allow for growth of that charcter itslef that can be directed by the player.

Games like Doom fit object 1, but fail on object 2. Your character never changes though out the game. It may get better equipement or "power-ups" but the character itself does not change.

Elements of Story, Settting, World, Choices, do not make a game an RPG. They may add value to a games entertainment, but do not make a game an RPG.

-gustavef

 

"Both Wizards&Warriors as well as Might&Magic were first person, but required very little "clicking" skill on part of the player. What makes Deus Ex and System Shock more like FPS is because their use of real-time combat required a level of reflex on part of the player. This does not disqaulify them as RPGs. But this does not make the ideal CRPGs since there is a greater requirement on Player reflexive skill vs. Character reflexive skill".

But regular CRPG's have the same requirements on the players tactical savy, and knowledge.

Any AD&D type game is a breeze for someone with prior knowledge of the system. My character dosnt equip a mace to hit a skeleton because they know thats the best thing to do they do it because I have told them to do so.
If I didnt know blunt weapons were good against skeletons the encounter would go up in difficulty.
I wouldnt waste my time using a fireball against a fire salamander but someone who has never played AD&D might. I would not use magic missile against a mage with a shield up but someone who didnt know shield cancels the spell might( a little trick that makes imbued wights easy btw).

Going back to turnbased.Once I calculate how far something can move then I can kill it with little effort just by moving enough that it dosnt have enough AP's to attack.Thats not character knowledge my PC could have an int of 1 but he still fights with the skill of a veteren because I am telling him what to do.

I am not arguing that Dues Ex dosnt take player skill. The point is that all RPGs do so saying Dues Ex isnt an RPG because it uses reflexes rather than knowledge is not correct.

By your definitions both SS2 and Deus Ex are RPG's (which they are). I'm not sure what you mean by "Ideal CRPGs" Ideal for who ?





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PaladinLord on 2001-05-17 19:09 ]</font>

 

Which is why I am trying to seperate the difference between the "Reflexive Skill" of the player versus the "Cognitive Skill" of the player.

RPGs have always been games that exercise and challagne the Cognitive Skills of a player. So a Computer implementation of this should not change. RGPs are thinking person games.

RPGs were not games of Reflexive skill. Except that you had to make sure your dice stayed on the table and did not knock anything else down. 8*). So Computer implementations should not rely on Reflexive skill of the player.

That is not to say that some computer RPG did require some reflexive skill of varying degree. But in the ideal translation of a computer implemenation, the player should have enought reflexive skill to use a mouse to point and click, eventualy.

Any game requires some skill by the player. Else it is not a game and is purely entertainment.

-gustavef

 

True enough. But just because roleplaying didnt take reflexive skill (I'm an ex sealed knot and various other organisation btw) dosnt mean that they cannot evolve to do so.
One isn't more correct than the the other anymore than AD&D is more correct than any other game.

I was once told by someone that Call of Cthulu wasnt a roleplaying game because you didnt spend enough time in dungeons.

Are a lot of CRPG players getting defensive because the boundries are breaking down ?

 

Well I am just going back to the basics. RPG have always facinated me because of they are game of imagination. And the ones that I personaly enjoyed were ones where my characters became something in terms of that world. Other play RPGs for different reasons. Some for problem solving, some for monster bashing, and some for story.

There is no correct way to play a RPG. To that extent, games like Deus Ex and Diablo are RPGs since they meet what I consider the only requirements of a RPG. They are particular ways of playing RPGs.

The limits of a RPG should only be the limits of your own imagination. Your imagination should not be limited by your pysical skill or coordination. As such Computer versions should strive to allow a player to use thier own imagination and not have to worry about click fast enough in the right place.

However, do not confuse an Ideal computer RPG with the issue of the game being good. I deam any computer game good by the amount of enterainment I recieved from the game. As much as I am not realy a fan of FPS, I did enjoy Deus Ex and System Schock, and I would consider them RPGs. However, I did get more time of enjoyment out of Fallout and even with the beta and demo I can see that there will be even more enjoyement for me in Arcanum.

But Enjoyment is purely a matter of personal preference. A Game may even be the Ideal Computer RPG, but I could still not enjoy it. Much the same way that I both love and despise DnD (in all its incarantions) It has provided me with many hours of enjoyement with some people, and may hours of grief with others.

-gustavef