The Best Part of a cRPG is...

I read some (many?) people find every single video game combat simple, and then argue that strategy games are a lot more interesting.

Very simple is deadly boring, for me at least, not for you? really?

So where lead such arguing? Combats are boring so require a reward.

But what I see, is you don't know choose game genre matching your tastes. Most RPG is filled with combats, and they bore you, and you choose play this genre, it's weird.

I was wondering why RPG combats tend have a low tactical design value, quite lower than pure tactical games. But now I realize that it could be a deliberate design to suit players bases. Probably not, and it's more dev team not having any people really skilled in tactical design. But I wonder.

A strategy game is a strategy game, it's strategy because it has rules complex enough to make impossible to compute tactics but some short and not often. Ok I think everybody agree on that.

But compare one combat to a full play of a strategy game is a total non sense.

There's a large base of fans of strategy games, but it's very very far from players bases. And it's not clear if there's a significant public for tactical games outside Japan.

But again and again, I see this opposition strategy compared to tactical combats, and even more stupid, tactical games judged on the strategy aspect despite 99% of play time is in combats, despite all have a basic strategy aspect that is some management and some vague strategy elements.

The reason is a large majority of players don't like much strategy games.

This absurd trend on strategy will only lead to combats becoming crappier and crappier. Teams need improve their skills on tactical design, not on strategy design, to improve combats quality.

It's such an evidence but strategy players are leading it in the wrong way, it's such an absurdity.

I think it would help a great deal if you realised that I've never said that combat is boring.

So, once you understand that - please "reset" your perception and try again.

I mean, it's not that I don't enjoy exchanging about differing preferences - but we really need to start from a position of listening and understanding.

I love combat when it's done well - and especially when it underpins the progression, which is really my favorite aspect of an interesting combat system.
 
Cool story SJ! ;)

Thank you for your contribution in this thread - it's been amazing and well thought out! Not to mention very productive.

Once you've finished pouting and pounding the bed after being sent to your room, you can enter the discussion again. I'll let you out when you're ready ;)

You should be banned for a few days for such pointless post. It's not because your sarcasms are looking polite that they aren't insanely violent and contemptuous.

At work, at least in some countries, you would receive a blame for such behavior you repeat again and again.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
What's wrong with you today, dart? I don't think I've seen you this angry in months.

Have you eaten?
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,976
Location
Australia
I think …
Stop that, I don't argue with someone that don't understand my posts because of my crap English.

My arguing wasn't targeting at you, it's a very common, non sense trend, I see again and again, you are just one more with such non sense arguing.

No, combats won't be improved through strategy design/strategy layout depth, but through higher skills in tactical design, and it's currently very low skills for most RPG dev
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Stop that, I don't argue with someone that don't understand my posts because of my crap English.

I'm not arguing :)

However, if your intention is to actually argue - then I agree we should stop.
 
Ok we have an agreement, don't quote me or mention me anymore, I'm used to be ignored so I don't care. :)
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
If only you would stop talking to or about me, it would be much easier not exchanging with you.

However, I will do my best to remember that you're not interested.

So, from this point forward - I will try not to interact with you. It goes without saying that you need to return the gesture if we're to succeed here.

All the best in your future endeavors :)
 
My respect for you has fallen today, dart.

You remind me of one of those internet trolls who feels safe to talk shit because he's behind his computer where he won't get beaten up but in person you'd be put in your place and remember who the alpha is.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,976
Location
Australia
It doesn't have to be the game giving your character a role. *You* can give your character a role.

Sure. Another evidence people have too much idle time when they wish to do the job of others.

You do not have to get your house built by the people you paid for that. *You* can build it yourself.

This kind of way of thinking is usually suspended when it turns to these cases. Suddenly, expectations that people do their job are.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
@Dasale;, I don't think we are disagreeing about Chess, I think we are simply not using the same language. When I say Chess is not complex, I was indeed talking about the rules, which you confirmed were simple. So I struggle to see where you are actually disagreeing with me.

You used Kings Bounty as an example of a good game with nice depth, and I agree, I've played and liked all of them. The entertainment for me in Kings Bounty is choosing what units to bring to battle, and how they complement each other and how to build my character to maximise their strengths. No single battle is very complex in itself, there are a limited amount of units and abilities. But the possible different battles and unit compositions are almost endless, and this (to me) is fun.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
Ok, it seems our tastes are aligned in that way.

While I think Geralt is well written, I don't particularly enjoy being forced into a certain personality - and I especially don't enjoy having such a pre-determined playstyle in terms of the arsenal.

I also agree that Shepherd is better in that way, because so much is left to your own devices.

Ultimately, however, I prefer to create my own thing from scratch - and I prefer as many options as possible in terms of the arsenal and available playstyles.

Even if I always prefer stealth and, shall we say, more elaborate playstyles - I still prefer having alternatives in the game, so I can mix and match - and potentially replay them later on with a new playstyle.

Lastly, I think it's appropriate to note that certain games that revolve around a more structured and linear narrative are potentially better suited for pre-established characters.

Games like Last of Us or Bioshock Infinite would probably not be able to deliver stories that are equally effective, if the players were able to create their own characters.

So, it's never an exact science, I suppose.

In general then ,do you prefer setting out a character prior to game commencement or do you prefer building them out as the game progresses though ?
What I mean with this is do you prefer to build up your character like in many D&D games, where you select skills and alignment prior to starting the game or do you prefer games where most of it is ingame like in PB games ?

To your last point, I think that you can have a pre-defined character without them being fully structured from the start. For example, in Detroit: Become Human (which I haven't played but I was mesmerised by its workings), you can play as androids and although their names and position in the gameworld is pre-defined, your actions aren't...
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
In general then ,do you prefer setting out a character prior to game commencement or do you prefer building them out as the game progresses though ?
What I mean with this is do you prefer to build up your character like in many D&D games, where you select skills and alignment prior to starting the game or do you prefer games where most of it is ingame like in PB games ?

I don't think I really have a preference here. It depends on the game, I would say.

The most important thing, for me, is that I can create a character that suits my playstyle - and where progression stays interesting from start to finish.

Of course, I don't expect progression at the very end of the game to be as interesting as in the beginning - but that would be the ideal.

Meaningful choices supporting a variety of distinct and satisfying playstyles - matching a number of power fantasies would be my preference.

I don't have to define anything from the start of the game, and I'd say it might be better or worse depending on the kind of game we're talking about.

For instance, I think games focusing on immersion and "putting you into the world" - like, say, Fallout 4 or System Shock 2 are better served by letting you create your character within the game world - through choices you make after the game has started.

Games like Pillars of Eternity which are more about relatively rigid class structures with the "class strategy" playing a bigger part in a tactical playscape - are, perhaps, better suited for the traditional character creation at start approach.

But, in the end, it will always depend on the individual game.

If I absolutely had to pick a preference, I think I would probably lean towards creating my character through choices post-start - shaping it via in-game actions and decisions.

By starting with a completely blank slate, there's a liberating sense of freedom and purity that I like a lot.

To your last point, I think that you can have a pre-defined character without them being fully structured from the start. For example, in Detroit: Become Human (which I haven't played but I was mesmerised by its workings), you can play as androids and although their names and position in the gameworld is pre-defined, your actions aren't…

Certainly, you can do that.

That said, Detroit: Become Human is much more like an adventure game where each scenario is put together by a relatively rigid "choice structure".

Meaning, you can choose as you see fit, but your choices are quite limited and it's much more in line with, say, an elaborate "choose your own adventure" book than something like Skyrim - where choices are made through your choices within the gameplay - and not by picking between predetermined paths.
 
Yes, I think I feel like the choose your own adventure design works quite well for me in many cases. as long as there are enough options to shape the narrative and consequences to the choices, then I quite enjoy those types of setups.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Back on topic.

I think in terms of RPGs, I tend to enjoy an interesting story, but the most important element for me is quite often the combat to be honest. Combat is such a large element of RPGs that any RPG with combat that isn't 'fun' to me just doesn't work.

I'm like that too.

I've come to the conclusion a few years ago that I was a gamer first (I judge and like games based on gameplay first, which is dominated by combat usually) and a story player second (I still need some sort story/plot/lore/goal to advance in the game, but as Subnautica shown me, I don't need much of it).

But numerous discussions and game reviews on the internet have given me the impression that when it comes to RPGs, the mass judge them for their story content (including amount of it) and the combat is often seen as an inconvenience that gets in the way of the story.

I can't say if the "combat is inconvenient" is the result of poor gameplay (which is start to be quite common) or if RPGs simply ended up attracting players who aren't interested in it because of other features (dialogue choices probably topping the list).
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
I'm still following this thread... my Monday night got moved to Tuesday night... so last night you all gave me some good reading here. I've got a lot of comments to add, will be getting to it as soon as I can.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,897
Location
Oregon
Sure. Another evidence people have too much idle time when they wish to do the job of others.

You do not have to get your house built by the people you paid for that. *You* can build it yourself.

This kind of way of thinking is usually suspended when it turns to these cases. Suddenly, expectations that people do their job are.

Whatever, Chien :rolleyes:

My time is too precious to waste it on you, so believe what you want :)
 
Back
Top Bottom