Where are all the science fiction-based RPGs?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Xocyll bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...

>I note you aren't listing all those CRPGs that fit YOUR definition.
>Is that because there aren't any? Or because they are a tiny minority of
>what the gaming public, game companies and media call CRPGs?

I thought Fallout did a pretty good job of giving you choices, with the
unfortunate exception that you couldn't strap on your power armor, nuke the
Overseer and free your people from his opressive little fishbowl.

Problem with Fallout is, if you dilligently stick to the main storyline, you
finish in 6 hours. This angers those with tunnelvision who say it's too short.
Others call it replay value. Point is, Real Roleplaying (TM) requires
incredible content density.

If you give gamers Real Choices (TM) and Real Alternate Storylines (TM) you
wind up with 2 DVD's worth of content and a 12 hour game. You have to write a
ton of content that will never be seen due to alignment or class choices. Maybe
if we're lucky they'll release "Dark Side Kotor III" and "Light Side Kotor III"
as separate releases, but I'm not holding my breath. If we're luckier, maybe
they'll write it so you can dual install and have the two games interlock to
provide a richer experience for those who want it. Once again, I'll be
breathing. Too much effort. Too much potential for failure. They're running a
business.

Neverwinter Nights attempted this modular, interlocking approach, but (and this
is a thread in itself) it didn't seem to work, IMO.

That seems to be the bottom line. There's no way to present a unified game, at
today's content expectations, that offers true radical philosophy choices like
good and evil *and* present a heroic character who has a grand destiny in which
his/her choices alter the fabric of reality. Either you're a free schmuck
working for those who know better, or you're the BMOC and few choices about
where your going. J.M. Straczynski would appreciate the irony.

Personally, I like the hybrid games (BG II is a popular example), but many
players are either too clueless to realize that you have to stab out on your
own, or they're too used to the typical CRPG to realize that they have such
choices in the first place.

When friends told me Anachronox made no sense, I had to explain to them that
the NPCs say different things if you talk to them more than once and that you
have to WRITE DOWN the side quests because only the main storyline shows up in
your automated journal. I realized at that point that the industry has dumbed
us down as much as the mass market has dumbed down the industry. Our
expectations are stopping us from having role playing experiences as much as
the games are.

And Anachronox is a linear-as-all-hell console-style game!

IMO, most CRPG'ers want spoon fed. Spoon fed sells. Baldur's Gate I was always
criticized for making it unclear where your next quest was, can you imagine the
complaints if a game insisted you determine the flow of the storyline on your
own initiative?

So, if you want your game to sell, as a developer you have to choose: Storyline
or Sandbox. It's seemingly impossible to do both and have the game sell well.
Those who like the sandbox get upset that the storyline requires them to move
in a predetermined direction, those who want to play an interactive story go
crazy in a sandbox. Those who want both are in the firm minority.

I think the industry has decided that it's better to do one thing well than do
both at the same time and have a poor seller because it gets misunderstood.
Mass marketed entertainment is not a place for risks.

(I agree with you, BTW. System Shock II felt like an RPG, even though it was
technically an FPS with an almost completely linear story. Deus Ex even more
so.)


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...

>This is a discussion about WHAT A CRPG IS. So you can't say "all CRPGs
>have X therefor anything with X is a CRPG" or any similarly stupid
>statement. So if I say a CRPG is something with Y then I don't consider
>anything without Y to be a CRPG. I've been waiting for you to get this
>for quite a few posts now.

If you reference the parent, you'll see that this is a discussion about the
dearth of SciFi RPGs on the market.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

wolfing1@yahoo.com bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked,
white hot flames, and screamed...

>The problem basically is that, the term RPG doesn't relate at all to
>what a CRPG is, never really was.
>What is RPG... ROLEplaying game, basically, a game in which you assume
>the personality of an imaginary character, in the real world
>terminology. Basically, when you're a kid and play with your friends
>imagining you're spiderman, you are roleplaying.
>Now came the first RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons, in which you did
>roleplay, meaning, you imagined you were someone else with a
>personality of his/her own. The problem was, how could it be decided
>if you succeeded or not if you said 'I throw a boulder at the wolf'.
>Then they used stats to decide these things, but stats came AFTER the
>term RPGs, meaning, stats don't define an RPG.
>But then, computers came and the s**t hit the fan...
>Somehow computer games like Adventure were introduced. In the strict
>sense of words, it should be considered a RPG, as you imagined you were
>someone else. But of course, D&D was already out there, and people saw
>that and couldn't say it was an RPG because it didn't have stats (which
>was not a correct statement as discussed above), so two genres were
>born. If the computer game didn't have stats, it was an adventure
>game, if it did, it was an RPG. Back then the distinction was clear,
>when a computer game was made as an RPG it had lots and lots of
>stats/spells, and it was more about battles than about the story while
>adventure games were all about story and puzzle solving.
>But then time came, computers got better, action games popped
>everywhere. In the beginning, these games were all about action, so
>everything was good. But after a while everybody I guess got tired of
>the old distinctions, and then you started having typical RPGs with
>some action, typical action games with some stats, and all of them now
>have stories rivaling the ones in the old adventure games, and it seems
>the general public got dumber and didn't buy games that had puzzles, or
>maybe it was that it just wasn't cool anymore, whatever happened, it
>pretty much killed the old adventure game style.
>So what we have now is a total mess, nothing is really a RPG or action
>or adventure game anymore, what we have are games that can be called
>action or RPG as they have aspects of the 2 genres, and they put a
>lever here and there to open a door just so they can say the word
>'adventure' on the box too.
>That's what makes these discussions about a game being RPG or not so
>futile. The reality is, there is no such distinction anymore.

Actually, I think that's wrong and it would be fun to come up with a list of
things that "must" be part of a game for it to be called a CRPG.

I would start with:

1. Must have a rich statistics system (not just hitpoints like Doom 3 or
Half-Life) that have diverse affects on your ability to accomplish specific
tasks.

2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths and
weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical choices,
if not different storyline decisions.

3. Must present non-tactical game content. Puzzles. Conversations. Items and
characters and actions that have no tactical purpose.

I would exclude:

1. Must have a storyline.

As an example, the first three Ultimas had no storyline whatsoever, just a main
goal. In fact, most of the best CRPG's I've ever played are oriented on
achieving goals, not furthering a storyline.

In fact, now that I think about it, maybe the obsession with "storyline" is the
problem with current CRPGs. I never felt there was a "story" going on when I
played P&P D&D either. Just a larger framework that was the campaign. What made
it exciting was that my 9th level character could drop dead at any time. There
was always a higher level character up to something *much* more important. We'd
just roll up another character and let the bards handle the "stories."

Enjoy.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Leo]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Zaghadka wrote:

>
>
> Actually, I think that's wrong and it would be fun to come up with a list of
> things that "must" be part of a game for it to be called a CRPG.
>
> I would start with:
>
> 1. Must have a rich statistics system (not just hitpoints like Doom 3 or
> Half-Life) that have diverse affects on your ability to accomplish specific
> tasks.
>
> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths and
> weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical choices,
> if not different storyline decisions.
>
> 3. Must present non-tactical game content. Puzzles. Conversations. Items and
> characters and actions that have no tactical purpose.
>
> I would exclude:
>
> 1. Must have a storyline.
>
> As an example, the first three Ultimas had no storyline whatsoever, just a main
> goal. In fact, most of the best CRPG's I've ever played are oriented on
> achieving goals, not furthering a storyline.
>
> In fact, now that I think about it, maybe the obsession with "storyline" is the
> problem with current CRPGs. I never felt there was a "story" going on when I
> played P&P D&D either. Just a larger framework that was the campaign. What made
> it exciting was that my 9th level character could drop dead at any time. There
> was always a higher level character up to something *much* more important. We'd
> just roll up another character and let the bards handle the "stories."
>
> Enjoy.
>
>
> --
> Zag
>
> I thought I could organize freedom, how very
> Scandinavian of me. ...Björk


Now I know many would disagree w/me, but the following is
just meant to be a description of what I personally feel is
or is not a role playing game. G


I agree w/the notion that our current definition of what is
or is not an rpg - as imposed on us by publishers/designers
- is wrong. Wrong in the sense of the plain english meaning
of the words - role, playing, and game. In the sense that
collectively those 3 words can together be one word that can
have any meaning people happen to decide to put them,
however, then of course, any definition that enough people
agree to goes. But I go by the general plain english
meaning of the words myself.

I think many make the red dwarf logical fallacy when they
hear 'role playing game':


(first 3 from red dwarf)

1. cat's have 4 legs

2. my dog has 4 legs

3. therefore my dog is a cat.


(what game publishing companies do)

1. crpg's have 'levelling up' and 'stat's'

2. my computer game has 'levelling up' and 'stat's'

3. therefore my computer game is a crpg.


Yeah, I think storyline can be *inconsistent* w/the concept
of role-playing even. Not that its necessarily so, but that
it *can* be. When its an entirely scripted story it is.
When you watch a movie, or read a book, no matter how good,
you aren't role playing. You might be so immersed that you
imagine you are taking on the role of the main character of
a book, for instance, and I know I can get that immersed
when the book is good, but you still aren't role playing.
You're "role experiencing", but there's no 'play' involved
as you're not making any decisions. All the choices the
characters are pre-scripted, and you are just going to watch
them unfold w/out any influence on them. They will unfold
the same for someone else when they read the same book or
watch the same movie as they did for you. (don't get me
wrong, I love a good book or movie. Currently waiting for
the next George R. R. Martin book to come out. When will I
learn *not* to read a series until *after* it is done,
waiting years for each release is annoying).


If instead, in the same book you were reading, at the end
of every chapter you had to play a chess game against a
computer program that came w/the book on a pre-set board
w/difficulty that varies from chapter to chapter - wherein
winning means you 'won' the battle and can progress to the
next chapter - that still wouldn't be a role playing game.
Now there is 'interaction' where there was none before, but
chess by itself has interaction of the user upon which the
outcome of the game will depend - but its in no way an rpg.
Also, you still feel immersed, like you are experiencing
the role of the main protagonist. But the plot resides in
the book, and none of your decisions in the chess game
affect the plot in any way other than perhaps to mean you
'died' if you lost. Your protagonist is still a goody two
shoes who goes to the same places, in the same order and
fights the same battles, and wins the day in the same way.
Even if your chess pieces had 'stat's' and could earn
experience, 'level up', and had inventories, all such
decisions as to what items to equip and how to level up
would still have no effect on the story in the book, and
thus - no effect on the 'role' of the protagonist. There
are many games calling themselves crpg's like this though,
that have:

1) pre-scripted story (cut-scene) which leads to 2.

2) strategic combat. death = game over, win = go to 1.

No matter what happens in 2, which is where all the
'choices' are, what happens in 1 is always the same for
everyone who plays the game - regardless of any choice they
make. I say, if nothing you can do w/your character changes
what happens in 1), then its not a role playing game.
Everyone who plays such a game gets the same story, same
outcome. Some of my favourite games are like this - final
fantasy tactics, disgea, vandal hearts, etc... And some of
these hold themselves out as crpg's, or tactical crpg's as
if they are a *kind* of crpg, but I wouldn't call them such,
because at no point in them do you play a role in the story
as it unfolds. No matter how you play those games, your
characters play the same role in the same story. They mgiht
have different stats, might be a figher instead of a druid
affecting how the strategic battles are fought only, and
might use different weapons, as they make their way through
the story, but such choices affect only the chess games
between the chapters of the book, not the book itself.


Now again, same book, but now its one of those old 'choose
your own adventure' books (I read them as a kid). For those
that don't know - they look like normal books that you hold
in your hand, but chapter 1 ends and now you are presented
w/a choice, or perhaps several choices - do x, y, or Z. If
you do x, go to page 27. If you do y, go to page 25, if you
do z, go to page 99. All through the book, many such
choices. Some lead you to death, some to a different
positive ending, most to simply more choices, and each to a
different story. At no point did you choose your
character's stats, pick +3 to strength, or level your
character up (though there were spinoffs to these books
which *did* also have that, along w/dice rolling to decide
outcomes of battles or what 'dropped', etc...) I'd call
these role playing games, if limited ones, and not a game
w/as much choice as to the 'role' as normal pen and paper
rpg's, since the choices mihgt often only be binary, but
still, enough to count. I bet many wouldn't agree w/me here
though.


For me, the distinction would be not so much that there
must or must not be a plot, though having a plot is probably
inevitable, but that there must be *choice* for the path the
character takes in that plot. And although it may seem the
first few ultimas (as in your example above) had no plot,
they did, you sort of made it as you went along toward goal
X. Your character so and so, appealed to Lord British
today, and was rewarded for his efforts for the kingdom
w/training. The next week, he set out for town X, but was
ambushed in his sleep by a group of 8 zombies. They seemed
to have been waiting for him. The zombies killed poor
comanion Z before anyone could wake up. Finally, bereft of
supplies and minus one companion, he limped and stumbled in
to town X, and luckily found so and so, who joined his cause
- but not until he could convince so and so to join his
cause by helping him out in some way. Etc... Now is that
the same story someone else had when they played the same
game? No. There was a plot in the first 3 ultimas, but it
wasn't as pre-scripted, it was at least somewhat
player-created. The ending was the same, but the way to
that ending was different for each different player. You
didn't have the same battles I did when I played, nor did
you make the same choices, go to all the same areas, etc...
You made a different story than I did.


So in that sense, there wasn't a plot, not until the player
made his choices in which to create his own unique plot. If
the game's designer set the entire plot before hand, then
the player couldn't decide his character's role in the story
- the game creator did. What you have is an adventure game
then, w/,at best, a tactical strategy game thrown in between
portions of story progression. You may occasionally press
the plus sign next to one of 4 stats for some of your chess
pieces in that strategy game, or get random drop X which
happens to better than what your character is using so you
equip it, but that's not playing a role, that's just more of
the strategy game - deciding how to upgrade one of your
strategic units.


When I played game x, I went to this town, saved so and so,
got person X to join my party, and found the uber +27 sword
of hairspray. But when you played, you also went to that
town, decided instead to kill the so and so I had saved when
I played, looted her house, got person Y to join your party
(you never met person X because you only meet X if you save
the so and so you killed), and got the same sword I did, but
you handed the sword in to finish a quest to gain
reputation, whereas I sacrificed the reputation and hung on
to it because I really wanted a sword of hairspray, but I
had to face the repurcussions of having a worse reputation
since I didn't get your quest reward, while you had to
suffer the the repurcussions of having unkempt hair. Now
that's a role playing game, you and I both made ourselves
different plots because of the different roles we decided
our characters would play.


In fact, I'd put it that way. A role playing game isn't
one where you create or build a character (figher w/+x str,
and +y dex, equpping the +3 banana of immunity to end user
license agreements), but one where you create or build that
character's *role* (he does this action in the story as
opposed to that action (could have done either, but picked
the former)). It could have all the above mind you, and
having all the above would probably make it a lot more fun
too, I like having the stats and inventory, but that's not
part of what makes it an rpg in my mind. Lots of non role
playing games have characters. Any story has characters.
If you go a step further and allow one to change the
character around, but the story is the same, front to back,
no matter what changes one makes in the game, then its still
not an rpg. You are creating the character now, it is an
interactive game now, but the interaction has nothing to do
w/the character's role in the story, so you aren't
interacting w/the role he plays in that story. Still not
enough. Must be able to decide, at least somewhat, your
character's role, in the story, your decisions need to
affect how the story carries out, the story itself is
created, in part, by your decisions regarding this
character. Then its a role playing game.


But hey, perhaps that's just my weird and horribly
wrongheaded view.

Leo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Leo in <z2bce.19088$yc.10196@trnddc07>:

> In fact, I'd put it that way. A role playing game isn't
> one where you create or build a character (figher w/+x str,
> and +y dex, equpping the +3 banana of immunity to end user
> license agreements), but one where you create or build that
> character's *role* (he does this action in the story as
> opposed to that action (could have done either, but picked
> the former)).

I think you are overlooking two aspects.

First, different roles do not necessarily have to mean different plot.
Fighter and mage are different roles; one cuts a swath through enemies, the
other sends her companions into the melee to draw the heat so that she can
safely cast her spells from the rear. A rogue may simply sneak past the
hordes and assassinate the target. Same quest, different strategy and
tactics, different roles.

Even in tactical combat simulations like d20 and even playing the same
class you can still play different roles in a fashion, depending on your
choices for attributes, feats, powers and skills (especially with
multi-faceted classes like Paladin or Jedi Guardian). A b0rked character
whose ability consists mainly of holding the purse strings and telling the
party what to do, a primus inter pares who integrates well with the team, a
supreme fighter who is a one-man army and needs companions only for their
skills and amusement value, or a self-sufficient adventurer who does not
need anybody.

Second, one and the same action or scene can mean different things. For
example, in KotOR you do the Star Forge battle and the fight against Darth
Wuss in any case. But playing LS you do it in order to destroy the Star
Forge and defeat the Sith, playing DS you do it in order to reclaim the
Star Forge and the Sith throne for yourself. Unless you do it simply to get
Bastila back, of course. <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
zaghadka@hotmail.com says...

> Actually, I think that's wrong and it would be fun to come up with a list of
> things that "must" be part of a game for it to be called a CRPG.
>
> I would start with:
>
> 1. Must have a rich statistics system (not just hitpoints like Doom 3 or
> Half-Life) that have diverse affects on your ability to accomplish specific
> tasks.
>
> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths and
> weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical choices,
> if not different storyline decisions.
>
> 3. Must present non-tactical game content. Puzzles. Conversations. Items and
> characters and actions that have no tactical purpose.

That seems like a good, and perhaps complete, list to me.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed...
>
>>This is a discussion about WHAT A CRPG IS. So you can't say "all CRPGs
>>have X therefor anything with X is a CRPG" or any similarly stupid
>>statement. So if I say a CRPG is something with Y then I don't consider
>>anything without Y to be a CRPG. I've been waiting for you to get this
>>for quite a few posts now.
>
>If you reference the parent, you'll see that this is a discussion about the
>dearth of SciFi RPGs on the market.

It WAS. Then it changed. Are you new to usenet or something?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
zaghadka@hotmail.com says...
> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths
> and weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical
> choices, if not different storyline decisions.

Counterexample: Ultima IV.

Okay, you can pick your character class at the start. But you end the
game with one character of each class anyway, so I don't think that
counts.

- Damien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
flames, and screamed...

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>>flames, and screamed...
>>
>>>This is a discussion about WHAT A CRPG IS. So you can't say "all CRPGs
>>>have X therefor anything with X is a CRPG" or any similarly stupid
>>>statement. So if I say a CRPG is something with Y then I don't consider
>>>anything without Y to be a CRPG. I've been waiting for you to get this
>>>for quite a few posts now.
>>
>>If you reference the parent, you'll see that this is a discussion about the
>>dearth of SciFi RPGs on the market.
>
>It WAS. Then it changed. Are you new to usenet or something?

No. You should reparent the thread if you want to define the topic. N00b.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Damien Neil bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed...

>In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
>zaghadka@hotmail.com says...
>> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths
>> and weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical
>> choices, if not different storyline decisions.
>
>Counterexample: Ultima IV.
>
>Okay, you can pick your character class at the start. But you end the
>game with one character of each class anyway, so I don't think that
>counts.
>
> - Damien



I agree. U4 has particularly weak character differentiation. It's still there
though, just not very deep. A party of eight is not one character, it's still
eight. I always gave each one a personal style in combat that had to do with
what class they were (e.g.: Those with low magic would throw Magic Missiles
while the magic powerhouses might toss in Fireballs much more often. My tinker
(Julia) would almost exclusively cast healing magic). Ultima IV certainly does
not encourage this kind of depth though.

The differentiation between characters is so weak that it does often feel like
you're playing with 8 clones, and once you acquire all the characters there
really is very little strength/weakness management involved. I wonder if
Aracana will weigh in on this one.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <s1c5719u13l32i9gq13u0p89iv65g3t7sa@4ax.com>,
Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Damien Neil bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
> hot flames, and screamed...
>
> >In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
> >zaghadka@hotmail.com says...
> >> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths
> >> and weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical
> >> choices, if not different storyline decisions.
> >
> >Counterexample: Ultima IV.
....
>
> I agree. U4 has particularly weak character differentiation. It's still there
> though, just not very deep. A party of eight is not one character, it's still
> eight. I always gave each one a personal style in combat that had to do with
> what class they were (e.g.: Those with low magic would throw Magic Missiles
> while the magic powerhouses might toss in Fireballs much more often. My tinker
> (Julia) would almost exclusively cast healing magic). Ultima IV certainly does
> not encourage this kind of depth though.

It has differentiation, but no ability to specialize characters.

That is, you get eight characters who will all be somewhat different,
but there's no progression. They gain levels, but that's it--no choice
of abilities to take, no tradeoffs. You don't even get to decide which
characters to take, since you need them all.

Not that this is a complaint on my part; I just think it serves as a
counterexample to the requirement that CRPGs allow specialization of
character.

- Damien

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Damien Neil bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
hot flames, and screamed...

>In article <s1c5719u13l32i9gq13u0p89iv65g3t7sa@4ax.com>,
> Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Damien Neil bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
>> hot flames, and screamed...
>>
>> >In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
>> >zaghadka@hotmail.com says...
>> >> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths
>> >> and weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical
>> >> choices, if not different storyline decisions.
>> >
>> >Counterexample: Ultima IV.
>...
>>
>> I agree. U4 has particularly weak character differentiation. It's still there
>> though, just not very deep. A party of eight is not one character, it's still
>> eight. I always gave each one a personal style in combat that had to do with
>> what class they were (e.g.: Those with low magic would throw Magic Missiles
>> while the magic powerhouses might toss in Fireballs much more often. My tinker
>> (Julia) would almost exclusively cast healing magic). Ultima IV certainly does
>> not encourage this kind of depth though.
>
>It has differentiation, but no ability to specialize characters.
>
>That is, you get eight characters who will all be somewhat different,
>but there's no progression. They gain levels, but that's it--no choice
>of abilities to take, no tradeoffs. You don't even get to decide which
>characters to take, since you need them all.
>
>Not that this is a complaint on my part; I just think it serves as a
>counterexample to the requirement that CRPGs allow specialization of
>character.
>
> - Damien
It's a good one. The whole Ultima series is like that.


--
Zag

I thought I could organize freedom, how very
Scandinavian of me. ...Björk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 08:47:41 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Damien Neil bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white
>hot flames, and screamed...
>
>>
>>It has differentiation, but no ability to specialize characters.
>>
>>That is, you get eight characters who will all be somewhat different,
>>but there's no progression. They gain levels, but that's it--no choice
>>of abilities to take, no tradeoffs. You don't even get to decide which
>>characters to take, since you need them all.
>>
>>Not that this is a complaint on my part; I just think it serves as a
>>counterexample to the requirement that CRPGs allow specialization of
>>character.
>>
>It's a good one. The whole Ultima series is like that.

IIRC, Ultima III did forced specializations - Fighter, Cleric, Mage, Thief.
You could play the game using only one character class, but I'm not sure if
that would be effective.

In that game, character classes affected the abilities of the character -
for example, fighter's can't cast spells but are good with weaponry,
Clerics and Mages had different spell sets, and thieves could behave in
unlawful behaviour by opening up chests.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>flames, and screamed...
>
>>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Bateau bolted into comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, wreathed in wicked, white hot
>>>flames, and screamed...
>>>
>>>>This is a discussion about WHAT A CRPG IS. So you can't say "all CRPGs
>>>>have X therefor anything with X is a CRPG" or any similarly stupid
>>>>statement. So if I say a CRPG is something with Y then I don't consider
>>>>anything without Y to be a CRPG. I've been waiting for you to get this
>>>>for quite a few posts now.
>>>
>>>If you reference the parent, you'll see that this is a discussion about the
>>>dearth of SciFi RPGs on the market.
>>
>>It WAS. Then it changed. Are you new to usenet or something?
>
>No. You should reparent the thread if you want to define the topic. N00b.

I wasn't the one who changed the topic. So that would just split the
discussion in half, cluebie.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Great now we have 3 threads discussing the same thing. Happy now
faggots?

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <obh171ph9v91inovv6o6g8f7498333icrm@4ax.com>,
>zaghadka@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Actually, I think that's wrong and it would be fun to come up with a list of
>> things that "must" be part of a game for it to be called a CRPG.
>>
>> I would start with:
>>
>> 1. Must have a rich statistics system (not just hitpoints like Doom 3 or
>> Half-Life) that have diverse affects on your ability to accomplish specific
>> tasks.
>>
>> 2. Must allow specialization of character. Forces you to define strengths and
>> weaknesses that at the very least cause one to make different tactical choices,
>> if not different storyline decisions.
>>
>> 3. Must present non-tactical game content. Puzzles. Conversations. Items and
>> characters and actions that have no tactical purpose.
>
>That seems like a good, and perhaps complete, list to me.
>
>- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 17:25:22 -0600, Blabbus Blabbibicus wrote:

> On 17 Apr 2005 10:39:45 -0700, "Alex Mars" <alexmars@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>He forgot KOTOR 1 and 2.
>>
>>Judging by the games he listed, it looks like the original poster
>>hasn't been out shopping for games since the mid-90s.
>
> Ermm...I heard that. I suppose I did forget about KOTOR, but even
> upon being reminded, I don't consider KOTOR 'real' science fiction as
> I've said in another post.
>
> And even if I would consider KOTOR sci-fi that's still only 2 sci-fi
> RPGs to how many fantasy-based RPGs?

I must say that I agree with the comment that games that are Star
Wars/Star Trek/Babylon 5(if any appear) should really be considered as
separate sub genres. I would also dump the Fallouts and others into
sub-genres as well, or a near-future genre. (Which is where Lucifer's
Hammer nad others of their ilk would be dumped, and things like Deathlands
series would be dumped into a post-apocalytpic sub-genre...)

That being said the discussion regarding FTL travel(some how) is
pointless, as most SF game minus FTL would devolve into little more than
your typical fantasy RPG with jargon changes.

Personally, I'd consider the Megatravelers to be the most SF like of the
titles listed(once SW/ST/etc ad nauseum are subtracted out, and then the
adventure games(e.g. Deus Ex yes, I've played, and no I don't consider it
to be even slightly RPG, rather one of the ever so popular & mostly
mindless FPS games), subtract the explore/trade(Universe/Elite/etc.),
arcade game(Wing Commanders), pseudo fantasy/SF (the FF series,
although I really consider them to be more purely fantasy), etc. Now we
are left with a very tiny list containing nothing published relatively
recently.

All of this being with the current RPH publishing horizon it looks like
there isn't going to be much out fairly soon anyways, or anything worth
bothering with. (Diablo: pseudo RPG, click fest definitely. Comparisons
with Moria/Angband/ADOM/et. al. are misplaced. Diablo lacks any real form
of complexity and would be better cited as a graphiced up/real times(WAY
over rated and usually not fun click fests) version of the venerable rogue.

(Oblivion is the only game on the horizon that looks even relatively
RPGish in the, hopefully, near future...)

Posters: yes, I have also noticed that they are being mainly willfully
obtuse or dense, or perhaps they are just roleplaying trolls with the lack
of real/finished/fun RPGs in recent history. (Also don't forget to add in
the guy overdoing the STEAM thing, and the bible thumper that I,
fortunately, missed out on, along with various other offtopics posts
inundating this group recntly.)

On the upside Bateau abandoned the incredibly huge ascii art sig which was
often larger than his commentary... on some times more on topic...