|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2003
|
On the topic - Oblivion/NWN/Baldur's Gate load in the interior of houses as different levels. Gothic doesn't. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages - which do you prefer ? Lar
To save performance, I would say the Baldur's Gate method is the better one. As you said, Oblivion does the same. So you can design very highpoly house environments without having the whole world loading in the background. Gothic's houses look imho very low detailed and don't have so many things to manipulate. And all things are "stuck", not much options to move/interact with them.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
The basic thing is, are we talking about a role playing game or a fighting game? The best thought in this thread yet ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> Article on RPGWatch : Where is the R in role playing ? (With 41 comments this far.) Ah, by the way, I would have nothing against castles to be implemented as levels on their own - in contrast to houses, which I'd like to have as parts of the in-game world.
Last edited by AlrikFassbauer; 11/12/06 11:11 AM.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it. --Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2005
|
Hello,long time no see!Returned,though been watching forums all along,now that next title up for discussion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wave.gif" alt="" />
At this stage I just want to agree with Raze and others of the same mind on the subject of combat.
IMHO combat skills should come from the careful building and nurturing of your character as it should be he/she who knows how to fight as opposed to the keyboard skills/speed of reaction of the player.
There are many hack and slash games on the market where players can use their own physical skills in the game's combat,but I am of the opinion that fans of <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/div.gif" alt="" /> are looking forward to what might be seen as a "Real" RPG with the accent on the "R"!
Also,as the sort of game I'm hoping Larian is producing,is likely to appeal to many players of all ages.Some of them may not have the co-ordination and/or speed of reflexes required by combat ruled by keyboard/mouse skills.So there should be a way for them to be effctive in combat without lighning reflexes.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
[color:"orange"] Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack. [/color]
I want a more active role in the game, mark the usage of the word role <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I want to defeat my enemies not the AI, as I want to solve puzzles, and I want to explore. To play the role of warrior, I have to do the fighting. Does that make sense?
[color:"orange"] What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination? [/color]
who says there needs to be an agility stat? Skills are just the same in real life, they need to be tought they need extra effort to execute.
[color:"orange"] I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time. [/color]
It does not have to be that complex, this isn't mortal combat I'm talking about you only need few actions: * attack * defend * jump * crouch * run
run + attack would result in a powerfull blow, nothing hard about that, or am I wrong?
[color:"orange"] The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'. Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game. [/color]
Combat should add to the atmosphere, why not? why can't and story, music, dialog ... and combat add to the atmosphere, or should combat only be there to up your stats and solve quests?
It's one of these days...
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
I want a more active role in the game, mark the usage of the word role <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I want to defeat my enemies not the AI, as I want to solve puzzles, and I want to explore. To play the role of warrior, I have to do the fighting. Does that make sense?
[...]
who says there needs to be an agility stat? Skills are just the same in real life, they need to be tought they need extra effort to execute. To answer your first question: No, it doesn't make sense... at least not for an RPG in my opinion. Unless the magic system is as challenging as the fighting system... or the dialogue system... or the sensual system... or the trading system... or or or. The "Role" in RPG implies and explies that you are playing a role... I have played many roles so far in my RPGs in my life, yet I don't have most of the abilities I used. That's why there are attributes and skills, as I tried to mention before. You don't have to really run in an RPG... it is done by the game based on your attributes and skills. If that wasn't the case, you would have to press left and right quickly like in the old summer games and decathlon games. You don't have to know much about ancient lore in an RPG... your character does know it and you just use the knowledge... and finally cast magic for example. You don't have to be the most beautiful woman in the world... your character might be so in the game and use it in conversations. You don't have to be a good trader in an RPG... the game does that for you based on your skills. That's why you are playing the role... your task is to apply to that role and have fun with that. Generally, it is not your job to do all the things your character is doing. Thus, I don't see any valid reason why only one aspect of the game - in this case fighting - should get much more attention than the others. If you want a rather complicated fighting system (in the opinion of those who don't want that), I do want a more complex magic or trading or dialogue system. I think I can talk better than fight... so, I want to use that in the game to have more success and eventually more fun. But as I tried to explain, that would not be the point in an RPG... because people who are not that agile - and, yes, there are such people - might want to play as a fighter, too. Or people who are as witty as an ant might want to play an intelligent character as well. And they have to be able to do that regardless of their abilities in real life - that's what ROLE means for me in RPG. That's the reason why I am not a fan of tweaking up the fighting system. It's not because I couldn't handle it but rather a matter of principle.
Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
[color:"orange"] Your character should be the one who knows when to attack, and should be able to execute the strategy indicated when instructed to attack. [/color] I also want a more active role in the game. If my character knows how to do everything they could call the game: "spectator" and let us see a complete walkthrough movie. [color:"orange"] What is the point of your character having an agility stat if your button pushing timing is what counts? Why have combat skills in the game if the fighting system is based on your own hand-eye coordination? [/color] for example: you can swing alittle bit faster or the recovery time between attacks is smaller. your second sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Thats like saying to people who play FPS games that they don't need different guns with different power and speed. [color:"orange"] I would much, much rather do that by developing my character and choosing the best skills and weapons, than by hitting keys in the right combination at the right time. [/color] It does not have to be that complex, this isn't mortal combat I'm talking about you only need few actions: * attack * defend * jump * crouch * run run + attack would result in a powerfull blow, nothing hard about that, or am I wrong?
this has been my point all along. It shouldn't become that hard, just hard enough to be able to keep the fights challenging. [color:"orange"] The problem here is the differing definitions of 'good'. Also, I don't want the combat system to add atmosphere to an RPG; that is what the story, dialog, music, books, graphics etc are for. The combat system should fit the setting and not get in the way, or become the focus of the game. [/color] Again something that doesn't make any sense to me. Are you describing a movie ? Offcourse the fighting shouldn't become the focus of the game. noone in this thread ever claimed it should... Exactly why can't the fighting be positive ? So should it either be neutral or bad ?
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
Thus, I don't see any valid reason why only one aspect of the game - in this case fighting - should get much more attention than the others. If you want a rather complicated fighting system (in the opinion of those who don't want that), I do want a more complex magic or trading or dialogue system. I think I can talk better than fight... so, I want to use that in the game to have more success and eventually more fun.
I would want the magic, trading and dialogue system to be more complex as well. But when thinking about the last RPGs I played, I have to come to the same conclusion as before. If the developpers think fighting is that important, they should work it out further. In the last RPGs I played it really bothered me. (much more as the simple dialogue or trading systems bothered me)
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
|
Ahh, another thing pops my mind! Mounts!!!! Horses, Dragons, and for the dwarves: imps (they are about the same size arent they?), Lizards (How fast would Goemoe run?), really alot of different mounts, ofcours this would only be usefull in big worlds. I would also like to see Pets (and if possible: the ability to give them names) and stables to store your mounts and pets.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
lepel wrote:
I would want the magic, trading and dialogue system to be more complex as well. But when thinking about the last RPGs I played, I have to come to the same conclusion as before. If the developpers think fighting is that important, they should work it out further. In the last RPGs I played it really bothered me. (much more as the simple dialogue or trading systems bothered me) Well, you have quoted me... but the quote goes on actually. With this: But as I tried to explain, that would not be the point in an RPG... because people who are not that agile - and, yes, there are such people - might want to play as a fighter, too. Or people who are as witty as an ant might want to play an intelligent character as well. And they have to be able to do that regardless of their abilities in real life - that's what ROLE means for me in RPG.So, you want a nice fighting system, Alrik wants a nice system for writing poems, Ragon wants a nice magic system with too long spells, I want a great talking system... but at the end, it has to be playable by all players. Therefore, all parts must be usable by anyone. And an RPG is actually and ultimatively exactly that - no need to be agile, you let your character do that for you.
Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Exactly why can't the fighting be positive ? Fight ? Positive ? Sounds like someone who has grown up an a society where fighting and violence is generally accepted as a means to solve problems. In other cultures it is not. These cultures would rather regard fighting as something awful, just because you destroy, kill, injure, frighten, etc. . For those who don't care or believe in the "law of the strongest", fighting will *always* be something positive. That's why we have in real life a type of gun with the actual name "peacemaker" ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/exclamation.gif" alt="" /> This "Peracemaker" is imho the ultimate symbol for the difference of cultural perception of fight : To some, peace is then when one of both is dead. For others, peace is achieved when both are happy (if possible). This is a deep cultural difference I suspect.
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it. --Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Jun 2003
|
I don't think a complicated system with the gamer fighting instead of the character would work. I'm afraid it will be as in a Fifa game. You suck the first few days, get the hang of it after a week and after a month the highest difficulty setting won't even be a challenge. You can dream about a perfect fighting system, but never will something like that be complicated enough after a while. And personally I get sick after repeating something like that over and over again (as playing matches in fifa when you are doing something like a season or career or whatever, or fighting every battle in (Rome) Total war). 'Get on with it, get back to the game'.
With magic it is easier, than you really can make a strategy (if there enough different spells available). To resemble something like that in the fighting system, you would need different moves that have different effects. But, to be honest, I can't picture something like that in my mind very well.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
Elgi, I personnaly do not get why some of us here connect a more challenging combat system with real life agility? There is no more agility required for such a combat than for pressing the right button for a spell or a potion like it's done in so many RPG's.
I've always tought of myself I wasn't the best gamer, I was really bad at FPS and Action games. I tought it was because I hadn't sufficient coordination or agility, but nothing was less true, I just didn't think. The handling of a game is something you grow customed to quite easy, mastering that is a question of mind. Offcourse games like Quake take more than just thinking, it takes reflexes, real hand eye coordination but those are competive fps games, this is a singleplayer RPG we are talking about.
It's one of these days...
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
This is a deep cultural difference I suspect. I rather think you are over-analyzing there a bit... Interpret it like this: If there is fighting in the game - and there will be - why not make it nice part of the game? The fact that you don't like fighting doesn't mean that it has to be a very boring part of the game because then those who don't have a problem with fighting in a game would be treated worse than you. I do think that if there is fighting it should be done nice... so that you actually don't detest using that means. However, the problem is more like "How does it have to be?" rather than "Should fighting be nice or not?"
Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
I've always tought of myself I wasn't the best gamer, I was really bad at FPS and Action games. I tought it was because I hadn't sufficient coordination or agility, but nothing was less true, I just didn't think. The handling of a game is something you grow customed to quite easy, mastering that is a question of mind. Offcourse games like Quake take more than just thinking, it takes reflexes, real hand eye coordination but those are competive fps games, this is a singleplayer RPG we are talking about. Actually I think that I am good FPS and Action player... so, I wouldn't have a problem with a Quake RPG. But unfortunately, there ARE people who think that pressing more than one or two buttons at a time in a hectic real time fight - and probably in FPS view - is challenging. There are also people who think that combining runes or drawing symbols into the air for using magic is challenging. What we have to think about is: What is the game supposed to be? If it's a rather action based RPG-like game like Dark Messiah of M&M, fine... use a nice combat system. But if it's going to be a "real" RPG, you have to apply to the RPG basics... that is playing a role without having to really do the things you do with your character. Generally, this aspect is not paid attention to in most so called RPGs... which is a pity in my opinion.
Nigel Powers: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch!"
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
I don't think a complicated system with the gamer fighting instead of the character would work. I'm afraid it will be as in a Fifa game. You suck the first few days, get the hang of it after a week and after a month the highest difficulty setting won't even be a challenge. You can dream about a perfect fighting system, but never will something like that be complicated enough after a while. And personally I get sick after repeating something like that over and over again (as playing matches in fifa when you are doing something like a season or career or whatever, or fighting every battle in (Rome) Total war). 'Get on with it, get back to the game'.
With magic it is easier, than you really can make a strategy (if there enough different spells available). To resemble something like that in the fighting system, you would need different moves that have different effects. But, to be honest, I can't picture something like that in my mind very well. Thats why I suggested a combination of Gothic 3 and Guild Wars. In Guild Wars there are skills to be used in the same way you would use a spell. Thus thinking about wich skills/spells to use would become a very strategic decision. And as the combat system would become more complex so would the magic system. If you wouldn't like complex fights it could be easily solved with a more complex difficulty setting. So putting the fights on "easy" just would mean they would become less complex or require less hand eye coordination or reflexes. but there would be more settings to put on easy or hard as you please. for example I don't want a compass that points to where I should go. If it pointed to the North I would be happy. This might not be the case for other people so they would put this on easy. This is just an example offcourse
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
Fight ? Positive ? Sounds like someone who has grown up an a society where fighting and violence is generally accepted as a means to solve problems. In other cultures it is not. These cultures would rather regard fighting as something awful, just because you destroy, kill, injure, frighten, etc. . For those who don't care or believe in the "law of the strongest", fighting will *always* be something positive. That's why we have in real life a type of gun with the actual name "peacemaker" ! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/exclamation.gif" alt="" /> This "Peracemaker" is imho the ultimate symbol for the difference of cultural perception of fight : To some, peace is then when one of both is dead. For others, peace is achieved when both are happy (if possible). This is a deep cultural difference I suspect.
You ripped it completely out of its context. So people that play games that contain violence and like the game, are violent people in your eyes ? Elgi already explained it properly so no need to do it again. (Thanks Elgi <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)
Last edited by lepel; 11/12/06 03:16 PM.
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
Well, you have quoted me... but the quote goes on actually. With this:
I didn't quote the entire post because it wasn't relevant in the point I was making. I just wanted you (and others) to understand why I'm talking about the fighting and not about the other subjects. About the "Role" in RPGs: With a more complex fighting system it doesn't have to mean it would take the R out of RPG, and let me tell you why. With a fighting system that contains more variations and more special moves (skills/spells) I would be able to pull of moves I would never be able to in real life.(and this by just pressing a few buttons) So basicly I'm not fighting myself I'm just telling my character what to do in the fight. Would this make the game a Role Playing Fighting Game ? Perhaps But does a more complex fighting system have to mean the other parts of the game (dialogue, trading, property, etc.) have to be lesser options ? I certainly hope not and I expect games to be able to become more complex in all their aspects.
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
|
You ripped it completely out of its context. So people that play games that contain violence and like the game, are violent people in your eyes ?
Elgi already explained it properly so no need to do it again. (Thanks Elgi <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) I'm like that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I think differently. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> I am a different drum. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> And now for something ... not entirely different. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> At RPGWatch, there is cuurrently a discussion going on with the title "Why I love Gothic 3 and hate Oblivion"This thread is insofar interesting as if it highlights and relatively seriously discusses the best and worst things of both games. There is one point, however, I'd like to quote in here, because I felt it was interesting : 2) The balancing problem...if you "poverlevel" only attributes which won't help you kill enemies (acrobatics, alchemy, smithing) the game will be hard, because enemies are stronger and stronger, but you still can't fight - on the other side...if you only level attributes for fighting the game is "too easy". This is about Oblivion. And this is imho how it shouldn't be, because in the last consequence (and I often think of "last consequences", no matter how weird they might appear to you), this results in a game that favours combat - because it is seemingly the more developed and polished part of it. Like one arm is stronger than the other one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it. --Dilbert cartoon
"Interplay.some zombiefied unlife thing going on there" - skavenhorde at RPGWatch
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: May 2004
|
CREATURES SHOULD NOT LEVEL WITH YOU, THAT IS LAME
heh, very important wish from me, that was so, SO lame in ablivion :S
another thing:
HITTING CREATURES WITH A BOW SHOULD DO MORE OR LESS DAMAGE DEPENDING WHERE YOU HIT HIM.
thank you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
anyway i really agree with the title of that threat, i dont exactly hate oblivion but love Gothic 3 much more <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
|
|
|
|
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2006
|
There is one point, however, I'd like to quote in here, because I felt it was interesting : 2) The balancing problem...if you "poverlevel" only attributes which won't help you kill enemies (acrobatics, alchemy, smithing) the game will be hard, because enemies are stronger and stronger, but you still can't fight - on the other side...if you only level attributes for fighting the game is "too easy". This is about Oblivion. And this is imho how it shouldn't be, because in the last consequence (and I often think of "last consequences", no matter how weird they might appear to you), this reults in a game that favopurs combat - because it is seemingly the more developed and polished part of it. Like one arm is stronger than the other one. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Well there is an "easy" solution for that problem: Make the fighting attributes and the other attributes different. So when you lvl you can add a certain amount of points to fighting attributes and some to the other attributes. But not all on fighting or all on non fighting attributes. This way the focus should be kept in balance since the points in the other attributes should really make a difference. And a certain amount of points in any of the attributes should be something to look forward to because it could mean richer gameplay. (but fighting would become inevitable) But a solution that might be better is to be able to spend the points exactly how you want. And if you don't want to spend points in fighting and live the RPG live peacefully, you should be able to. If all parts of the game were really complex and worked out well, it would become more of a RPG since you could be able to choose for a fighter but you might as well choose for something completely different. (Maybe a trader that wants to make money to start his own town or build his own castle) And if it would be really versatile, missing out on one of these things (for example fighting) wouldn't even be such a big problem. And for example as a trader you would be able to bribe some enemys to start attacking different enemys, win-win situation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. Or as some sort of politician you would be able to convince people to do this, while as a fighter you would choose something as: 'Do this or I'll kill you'.(Or just fight both enemys yourself) And if you would build a town and it would become too big (for your ability in politics) there should be some sort of rebellion and people (from your town) would want to get a different and better leader. Or if your skill would be very high, it would be nice to be able to convince other citys to join your side and start your own kingdom. (And complete quests for those citys to make sure they like you and will join you) (something like united states or a union, help eachother in wars and lower taxes on the trades between the citys). I don't know exactly how this could all be implemented into a RPG but imo it would be very nice and greatly boost the replayability of the game. (that is if you don't hate the other professions. I'm someone that wants to try them all, see what suits me best and finish the game with that profession) (Just examples of what could happen) Also, you shoud only be able to receive some quests if your ability in something was high enough, while other quests would just be solved differently depending on your own choice. (also to increase the replayability) And maybe people that don't want to fight should also get some skills/spells but entirely different ones as fighers/magic users. For example traders should be able to take some sort of trading skills with them like a permanent extra % when buying/selling items or convincing some people that they should buy an item while they really dont need it.
There is no spoon !
|
|
|
|
|