RPGWatch Forums

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   RPGWatch - New Poll and Site Update (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2591)

Dhruin August 30th, 2007 20:54

RPGWatch - New Poll and Site Update
 
It seems a large chunk of our readership has an interest in Bioshock with some 40% of respondents to our poll saying they would be playing the PC version asap. Add the slower adopters and Xbox 360 numbers and around 65% - 70% intend to play the game at some point.
21% had no interest, including a small but significant 13% who don't think we should coverthe title at all. Also interesting is that despite the growth of the "next gen" console market, we can probably infer our readership remains decidely PC-centric with only 3.11% playing Bioshock on Xbox 360 immediately (and around 5% including late adopters).
Our next poll is on Fallout 3. You've seen it presented at E3 and GC…what is your opinion so far based on the information revealed to date? Head to the right to vote and comment.
———-
In other RPGWatch news, we want to improve our screenshot collection so we're calling for submissions from the community - head to this thread for more info and thanks in advance for any help.
More information.

Morbus August 30th, 2007 20:54

Just as for Bioshock, I don't think you should cover Fallout 3 either. I mean, it's RPGWatch, not FPSWatch.

(take this post with a grain of slat, please)

Asbjoern August 30th, 2007 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morbus (Post 42893)
Just as for Bioshock, I don't think you should cover Fallout 3 either. I mean, it's RPGWatch, not FPSWatch.

(take this post with a grain of slat, please)

So you are saying that RPGs can't be in first person view?
Or are you implying that Bethesda has turned Fallout 3 into a pure FPS game?
Or should I just take it with a grain of slat?

(Or are you just being satirical?)

kalniel August 30th, 2007 22:45

Quote:

It seems a large chunk of our readership has an interest in Bioshock with some 40% of respondents to our poll saying they would be playing the PC version asap
Don't necessarily mistake us saying we'll be playing a game for us saying we want to read about it at RPGWatch :p I'm interested in Brahms but that doesn't mean I want to read about him on this website ;)

Dhruin August 31st, 2007 01:51

No, I'm not making that mistake. But I also think the majority are either happy (or at worst, not opposed) to read about it here.

That (RPG) line is often difficult to find and, as I've said before, our policy was always to be more inclusive than exclusive. I'm pretty comfortable with covering SS2 as either an action/RPG or an FPS with significant RPG elements and Bioshock was lauded as a "spiritual successor". I still haven't decided whether they satisfactorily fulfilled that or not. ;)

Arhu August 31st, 2007 04:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhruin (Post 42940)
I'm pretty comfortable with covering SS2 as either an action/RPG or an FPS with significant RPG elements and Bioshock was lauded as a "spiritual successor". I still haven't decided whether they satisfactorily fulfilled that or not. ;)

Yeah, I agree in regard to System Shock 2, that's definitely RPGish enough to be covered. And I'd always give "spiritual successors" the benefit of the doubt. From what I've heard, Heroes of Might and Magic wasn't really much of an RPG either, was it? But Arkane gave us Arx Fatalis, and that definitely was, plus the classic Might & Magic are as much "RPG" as it can get. So, everything is fine. It's nice to have titles covered that are, say, spin-offs from certain well-known RPGs.

As for BioShock, does it provide different paths, possibly even non-violent ones? That's what I liked best about SS2, which had Marine (guns), Psionic (psi) and Hacker or somesuch, if I recall correctly. Or how does BioShock compare to DeusEx? That one was also nicely RPGish in my opinion.

(Haven't played BioShock myself yet, need a system upgrade.)

Dhruin August 31st, 2007 07:27

I'm not far enough in to come to a conclusion. So far, it's very much like SS2 in some ways (plasmids offer different abilities, tonics add passive boosts, turrets and machines to hack, machines that dispense stuff) except you don't develop any core stats/skills (so, your gun aim isn't governed by an improvable skill), there is no inventory and the pace is faster. These items definitely shift it toward a shooter but you can, for example, decide to attack an enemy head-on, hack a turret to help you, use a fancy plasmid (set fire to an oil spill, throw things with telekinesis) so it still feel deeper than a standard shooter.

Arhu August 31st, 2007 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhruin (Post 42971)
you don't develop any core stats/skills (so, your gun aim isn't governed by an improvable skill), there is no inventory and the pace is faster.

Awww, I wish they had kept that! It's what I liked so much about SS2 and DeusEx. You didn't change the suspense all that much by allocating points, just some minor gameplay paths were different, but it was noticable and it allowed you to specialize. It couldn't have been so difficult to include stuff like that in BioShock too, now could it?

Still, I'm looking forward to playing it eventually.

Bateman August 31st, 2007 15:05

Quote:

These items definitely shift it toward a shooter but you can, for example, decide to attack an enemy head-on, hack a turret to help you, use a fancy plasmid (set fire to an oil spill, throw things with telekinesis) so it still feel deeper than a standard shooter.
hmm …

So in the average WW2-Shooter you can get rid of your enemies by either a. shoot them with your Rifle b. get the hidden sniper rifle c. use your bazooka to make the building collapse d. mount the stationary machinegun …

In all seriousness, an rpg is a bit more to me than that.

txa1265 August 31st, 2007 15:35

I think I see a bit of a trend - *true* SS 1 & 2 fanboys are rather disappointed with Bioshock, expecting a *SEQUEL*, when it is nothing like that - and never was.

Remember that Bioshock was *never* supposed to be anything but a FPS. You see stuff and kill it and move on to the next bunch of stuff to kill. It doesn't matter whether you shoot it, fireball it, or telekinesis back a grenade at it, you just have to kill things.

kalniel August 31st, 2007 20:59

I've just started Bioshock, and I have to say it's pure shooter so far. Shooter with options, but a shooter none the less. No judgement on that, just what it is.

doctor_kaz August 31st, 2007 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 43035)
Remember that Bioshock was *never* supposed to be anything but a FPS. You see stuff and kill it and move on to the next bunch of stuff to kill. It doesn't matter whether you shoot it, fireball it, or telekinesis back a grenade at it, you just have to kill things.

I'm pretty sure that Ken Levine did say that this game is the spiritual successor to System Shock 2. And it is my understanding that it may have actually been marketed to EA as System Shock 3. So I don't agree that it was never supposed to be more than an FPS. I think that has been the sales pitch ever since it was announced for the XBox 360, but not back when it was first announced.

But if that is the case, then it should be compared with other FPS's, like F.E.A.R., Call of Duty 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Half-Life 2, Gears of War, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Painkiller, or Far Cry. And in terms of being an FPS, its gameplay isn't as good as any of those. In fact, I would say that it's not even on the radar screen. The weapons are weak, the environments are tiny and cramped, there is no aiming down the sights, there is no challenge to the game, AI doesn't use cover, no alt-fire on the weapons, etc etc. I made this same argument with Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. If you place the game into the FPS space, then the standards for combat are much much higher. Combat is, by far, the most important feature in an FPS, and if you ask me, Bioshock's is good, but definitely not great. I think that its strength lies in the huge variety of fun ways that you can experiment with to kill people (in a way that goes far beyond the normal variety that you find in any FPS). But I still find combat to be a nuisance a lot of the time. Granted, System Shock 2's combat was a nuisance a lot of the time, perhaps even more, but that game was more robust in a lot of ways. Especially with its role-playing system.

Dhruin September 1st, 2007 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bateman (Post 43028)
hmm …

So in the average WW2-Shooter you can get rid of your enemies by either a. shoot them with your Rifle b. get the hidden sniper rifle c. use your bazooka to make the building collapse d. mount the stationary machinegun …

In all seriousness, an rpg is a bit more to me than that.

Sure. Although many "RPGs" are exactly the same, just in a (typically) fantasy setting. Do you kill the orc with a sword, Magic Missile or Call Lightning? Anyway, as I said, I'm not very far in but I'm not trying to suggest Bioshock is an RPG by any reasonable measure. Just that if you take SS2 as somewhere along the line of FPS<———>RPG, then Bioshock is definitely (a lot?) more to the shooter side.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:11.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch