View Single Post

Default 

February 10th, 2013, 17:05
Originally Posted by Bedwyr View Post
To add to tolknaz, I think your dual objectives of immersive design detail and actual "Role-playing" are intractably at odds and that is confusing us. The distaste for tactical combat is a very unusual dislike for someone who proclaims such a long history with RPGs and we could have an entire argument over that PnP-wise, but that's for RPG.net on another day. I acknowledge your preference and recognize the PnP game style; I've seen it before.
It is quite usual for so called RPG players to dismiss the idea of progress.

I cant remember the name of the device. But here, there were those controllers you plug on the antenna, run on batteries, with a wheel button and that came with hardware games. One was tennis. The tennis game was two bars moving up and down vertically, the ball was square, white and black screen.

Compared to today's tennis games, most people wont characterise the old game as tennis. Yet it was tennis in the historical context. And there has been progress since then, leading to today's tennis games.

So called RPGers dismiss any idea of progress, they keep clinging to some features that appeared when designers and developpers were trying to port RPGaming to the PC world.

RPG is a delicate type of game to port to PC as anywhere else it exists, it is a social activity while PC gaming was a non social activity (with the player playing on the PC, the PC itself was not adapted to play social games)

Developpers made some choices. That was some 20 years or more ago. They thought that by now, that is 20 years later, technology would have improved enough to fill the gap and allow to add to the games what was missing.

Some went to try to emulate the other players by giving a party to the player's PC, with the terminal idea that AI would allow in the mid term to get all the party's members to role play. The trend was set to remove more and more control over the party's members from the player as they would act by themselves according to their role.

Twenty years later, the technology has not improved. And worse of it, developpers have given up the idea of providing autonomous party members that would act according to their role. Developpers give full control over the party members, surrendering any possibility of role play.

What you have here are simple wargames, on a skirmish scale.They must favour a bird's eye view, that is typical to wargaming, with players relating to one general on the field, their PC. There is no roleplaying in them.
At some stages in the history of porting the RPG genre to computers, if they show the ambition of pushing toward role playing, they could be called RPGs, even though they did lack some critical features. The very idea is that, with progress, the features would be added as they came. Today, it is no longer the case.

It is rather useless to call for a historical approach if you cant accept the idea of progress, that some games that could be called tennis game in their own times, considering the stage in the historical developpment of the genre, missed certain critical features to properly represent what tennis is.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#98

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,014