 |
|
Moral Hazard
|
 |
of jack
Jul 1999
time: 01:17
|
|
Um how have you tried NWN? It's not out yet. Can you play as a Cyclops?
Ok. A quick list of what I consider great RPGs; have you tried any of these.
Ultima 6, 7, and the first part of 7.5
Fallout 1 & 2.
Baldurs Gate 2.
Planescape: Torment.
Wasteland.
Auto Duel.
The last two are really old so I wouldn't Recommend them.
edited out: slight flame.
Last edited by Moral Hazard on 25-02-2002 at 04:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
I think Snapcase has quite a few excellent points. Let's get down on them.
1)Combat Systems: Computer RPG's typically feature "real time" combat whereas Console RPG's typically feature "turn based" combat. Turn based tends to be more faithful to its D&D roots. And, as anybody on Apolyton knows, turn based is actually more strategic than Real-time. Turn based combat also has a tighter feel ,has a great many more interesting options and tends to actually look better.
2)Roleplaying a Character: The problem with Computer RPG's in this department is that although freedom is given to a character, the game world often feels like a shell within which a character must exist. This creates a feeling of "generic" areas. The characters you portray in Computer RPGs cannot develop specific and advanced interpersonal relationships, because if it goes too far it'll destroy the capacity of the game to control it. For example, in Baldur's Gate II their was a possibilty for 4 Romances. However, all the Romances amounted to absolutly nothing except a little bit of dialogue. In Console RPGs, it is more true to the P&P experince in that the characters tend to have complex backgrounds and the relationships the character has really effects their lives.
3)Story: Don't even pretend that computer RPGs can begin to hold a candle to Console RPG's.
Personally, I like both (but I _HATE HATE HATE HATE_ fallout). To me though, Computer RPGs represent the promise of a "virtual world" to explore. However, the world is hardly ever very interesting or alive. Neither is the story that accompanies the world. It is the exploration of this vast world which will spring the interest. Computer RPG's *NEED* to be big and have a tremendous number of diversions built in to be sucessful, which Console RPGs simply don't need.
In any event, I have plenty of background in both genre's, my first comptuer RPG was Bard's Tale and my first Console RPG was Dragon Warrior. Based on my years of experince this is what I generally find to be the difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
I like fleshed out characters, and I don't feel that in CRPGs, they really flesh out many of these characters. Planescape Torment, from what I've played is a definite exception, and I really like how combat is deemphasized. I'm really getting tired of Console RPGs and their need for random battles. I hate having to fight a pointless battle every two steps, which was handled pretty well in Earthbound I thought. If you were enough levels above the creature that you were randomly battle, you would automatically win the battle and all the experience.
BTW, how do you guys feel about an RPG without a definite main character? I kind of like it, as long as all the characters are fleshed out and have reasons. I think it's one of the reasons why I like FF6. |
I hate it when a game gives you a character. I want to create my character from scratch, decide it's traits, flaws, quirks, personality and write a biography to create a unique history and background. If a game forces you to play a certain character, and especailly over a certain path - how can you call it a role playing game? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
I think Snapcase has quite a few excellent points. Let's get down on them.
1)Combat Systems: Computer RPG's typically feature "real time" combat whereas Console RPG's typically feature "turn based" combat. Turn based tends to be more faithful to its D&D roots. And, as anybody on Apolyton knows, turn based is actually more strategic than Real-time. Turn based combat also has a tighter feel ,has a great many more interesting options and tends to actually look better. |
uhm.. fallout, turn-based, maybe it's not D&D style, but who says an RPG or combat in RPG's has to be D&D style?, or that D&D is better, that is a matter of taste.
quote:
2)Roleplaying a Character: The problem with Computer RPG's in this department is that although freedom is given to a character, the game world often feels like a shell within which a character must exist. This creates a feeling of "generic" areas. The characters you portray in Computer RPGs cannot develop specific and advanced interpersonal relationships, because if it goes too far it'll destroy the capacity of the game to control it. For example, in Baldur's Gate II their was a possibilty for 4 Romances. However, all the Romances amounted to absolutly nothing except a little bit of dialogue. In Console RPGs, it is more true to the P&P experince in that the characters tend to have complex backgrounds and the relationships the character has really effects their lives. |
in fallout 2 you got married, how more can a relation ship affect your live, your spouse followed you everywhere you went.
quote:
3)Story: Don't even pretend that computer RPGs can begin to hold a candle to Console RPG's. |
never played a console RPG, but i suppose it's just a matter of opinion.
quote:
Personally, I like both (but I _HATE HATE HATE HATE_ fallout). To me though, Computer RPGs represent the promise of a "virtual world" to explore. However, the world is hardly ever very interesting or alive. Neither is the story that accompanies the world. It is the exploration of this vast world which will spring the interest. Computer RPG's *NEED* to be big and have a tremendous number of diversions built in to be sucessful, which Console RPGs simply don't need. |
but don't the diversions add to the roleplaying aspect? if you only have one mission, one thing to do, it might as wel be a FPS
quote:
In any event, I have plenty of background in both genre's, my first comptuer RPG was Bard's Tale and my first Console RPG was Dragon Warrior. Based on my years of experince this is what I generally find to be the difference. |
i must admit, you have more experience than me then...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Please, the AI in civilization can't even figure out not to build stone age units in the modern era, much less assume the role of a full dungeon maser. That day isn't coming any time soon.
I have thought a lot about what you're saying about Final Fantasy being the extension of the "interactive movie" games that were popular for a little while. While I'm tempted to agree with that to a large extent, I'd say that the games actually end up being somewhat deeper than movies (though not as deep as a good book). The games do feature at least an interesting mini-game in the form of the combat engine (well.. hopefully). In any event, I still believe firmly that the console combat engines tend to require more strategy and thought than their computer counterparts. Even Wizardry 8's difficult battles eventually just become a matter of routine, whereas in Final Fantasy X many battles are unique and challanging.
Sorry, I can't really comment much on Fallout2... I played/won Fallout 1 but I can't really get into it. Something about the whole thing feels sloppy to me, and I'm not into the art at all. It also feels tremendously generic. PST certainly broke a lot of the rules about character development in a computer RPG, and it delievered a story well beyond that of any other computer RPG I ever played. However, it did sacrifice a non-linear nature, and forced your character to be one thing with one past. If you read some of the literature on that game, you'll find that they were actually influenced by Final Fantasy VII when they created PST.
Well, I think that diversions create "Hack N' Slash"... there's another post on another message board which I got a bookmark for because I thought it so well described the differences between the two genres. Let me just get it:
http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthre...sb=5&o=0&fpart=
Scroll down a bit in that thread and Xylix makes what I feel to be a nearly perfect comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Please, the AI in civilization can't even figure out not to build stone age units in the modern era, much less assume the role of a full dungeon maser. That day isn't coming any time soon.
I have thought a lot about what you're saying about Final Fantasy being the extension of the "interactive movie" games that were popular for a little while. While I'm tempted to agree with that to a large extent, I'd say that the games actually end up being somewhat deeper than movies (though not as deep as a good book). The games do feature at least an interesting mini-game in the form of the combat engine (well.. hopefully). In any event, I still believe firmly that the console combat engines tend to require more strategy and thought than their computer counterparts. Even Wizardry 8's difficult battles eventually just become a matter of routine, whereas in Final Fantasy X many battles are unique and challanging.
Sorry, I can't really comment much on Fallout2... I played/won Fallout 1 but I can't really get into it. Something about the whole thing feels sloppy to me, and I'm not into the art at all. It also feels tremendously generic. PST certainly broke a lot of the rules about character development in a computer RPG, and it delievered a story well beyond that of any other computer RPG I ever played. However, it did sacrifice a non-linear nature, and forced your character to be one thing with one past. If you read some of the literature on that game, you'll find that they were actually influenced by Final Fantasy VII when they created PST.
Well, I think that diversions create "Hack N' Slash"... there's another post on another message board which I got a bookmark for because I thought it so well described the differences between the two genres. Let me just get it:
http://www.elderscrolls.com/ubbthre...sb=5&o=0&fpart=
Scroll down a bit in that thread and Xylix makes what I feel to be a nearly perfect comparison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Sorry about the double post... uh... *runs away*
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
True AI is a long way away but if you can take the Fallout 2 approach of including 10 ways to overcome a certain type of room/NPC/situation and multiply that by hundreds of different set-peices then you can get an illusion of better AI than is really happening.
FF7 I enjoyed playing to completion, including some of the sideshows like breeding your golden chocobo. FF8 I found utterly tedious despite the better graphics simply because every battle came down to summon guardian, watch 90 second cutscene, rinse repeat. No way to shortcut them, no variety, no skill. Maybe the console version was different but the PC version was horrible. Its primarily what turned me off ever trying one of these linear games ever again.
Xylix makes some interesting points but he loses me completely when he lumps Diablo I and II in with Fallout 2, Arcanum and Baldurs Gate. In Diablo the sole purpose is to kill, nothing else matters. In Baldurs Gate you have plot checkpoints you must pass through but many side quests you need not complete or can complete in different ways. In Fallout 2 and Arcanum there are fixed start and end points but the ending will depend on how you handle the final encounters and there are many events along the way that you can ignore, avoid or complete in very different ways. Indeed it is possible (if in places extremely difficult) to play non-combat characters in them and get a quite different playing experience. I like the way I can play them in whatever way suits my mood at the time without having to buy separate games. Morrowind is striving to be the the next generation of that kind of game, where the world lives around you and you become a living part of it, rather than every screen being loaded for your benefit and remaining timelessly static in your absence or until you trigger plot point 'X'.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
I dunno... go back and play Ultima VII. It clearly is a lot more flexible than Fallout or Arcanum. If you read some interviews with the Morrowind team, they even say that Morrowind aspires to the level of living/breathing world that Ultima VII already embodies (and from what I've read they will not be able to grab the crown from them). AH.. Ultima VII. IMHO, the RPG has yet to be beaten.
In any event, while Arcanum has a core "plot", it's really weak. There's not much depth, and some very sub-par gameplay. Most of the time you play is spent on diversion quests to either get this or go into dungeon X. If you play a thief you do things in one way, if you are a fighter you do it another etc. But it's not like within those classes there's a great diversity, as all the quests and ways of handling situations are almost identical. There's no way you can compare the story of Xenogears to that of Arcanum, and that's because Xenogears chooses to become a story RPG and Arcanum chooses to become Hack N' Slash. Naturally they both have elements of each other, but in the end I think it's rather clear that Arcanum emphasizes doing small tasks while Xenogears emphasises a story.
Arcanum doesn't really have a deep story. The most interesting character ends up being "Virgil", whom let's face it really doesn't have such an interesting past...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
1)Combat Systems: Computer RPG's typically feature "real time" combat whereas Console RPG's typically feature "turn based" combat. Turn based tends to be more faithful to its D&D roots. And, as anybody on Apolyton knows, turn based is actually more strategic than Real-time. |
That seems to be a recent (read: in the past few years) development. I have never played any real time combat resolution other than in The Summoning. [I am not counting the really early ones such as Questron or Ultima I.]
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
Turn based combat also has a tighter feel ,has a great many more interesting options and tends to actually look better. |
There is a potential, yes. It all depends on the design.
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
2)Roleplaying a Character: The problem with Computer RPG's in this department is that although freedom is given to a character, the game world often feels like a shell within which a character must exist. |
There are practical limitations to computers, be the application a game or a sophisticated model of the ecosystem. It is the same as a paper-and-pencil RPG campaign in the sense that there really isn't umlimited freedom of what your characters can go.
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
This creates a feeling of "generic" areas. The characters you portray in Computer RPGs cannot develop specific and advanced interpersonal relationships, because if it goes too far it'll destroy the capacity of the game to control it. For example, in Baldur's Gate II their was a possibilty for 4 Romances. However, all the Romances amounted to absolutly nothing except a little bit of dialogue. In Console RPGs, it is more true to the P&P experince in that the characters tend to have complex backgrounds and the relationships the character has really effects their lives. |
Again, much of this has to do with practical limitations. The more open a computer-based game is, the less likely it will have the same amount of details as a scripted game. There are often trade-offs here. Sure, console games let you have more interesting interpersonal relationships but you are more severely limited in other ways, such as possible actions you can make,
Even in P&P campaigns the characters are most often there to complete a goal, so when they bum around too much the GM will start herding them in certain directions.
quote:
Originally posted by CygnusZ
Personally, I like both (but I _HATE HATE HATE HATE_ fallout). To me though, Computer RPGs represent the promise of a "virtual world" to explore. However, the world is hardly ever very interesting or alive. Neither is the story that accompanies the world. It is the exploration of this vast world which will spring the interest. Computer RPG's *NEED* to be big and have a tremendous number of diversions built in to be sucessful, which Console RPGs simply don't need. |
Again, the limitations come in. There is a finite amount of resources available to any team, so when the world is big the details will necessarily be lower. For example, if the team can fully detail 20 NPCs, packing them all in one single building will make that building very interesting. The flip side of the coin is of course that whole game is limited to moving around in that one building.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
I think we basically agree Urban. This real time combat thing has got to stop, but it's really that recent (Ultima VII...). I am going to underdogs to find those games you talked about too, they sound fun (although right now I'm trying to get through Quest for Glory 4 1/2).
The main thing is that there is a tradeoff that occurs between the concept of "freedom" and "story". With greater freedom, there is less story and less story can mean greater freedom.Of course a game could be made poorly and just really screw up :P
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2002 17:02
) what i'm saying is, how can you roleplay, if the game is linear and there really is only one role to play.
).
. I consider Fallout 1/2, Arcanum to be story based. MUCH closer to Planescape than Diablo by a long shot. I consider Fallout to be the immediate ancestor to Planescape.
|