RPG Codex - The Lists to Dwarf Them All

No, but at least Ultima, bards tale and wizardry sure have…

Maybe not your list because you are most likely 10 with that last line.

Wow, good one. First of all, it was a joke Mr. Poopypantsmcgee. But you are on here protecting Richard Garriott like he's your lover. I happen to be on the edge of 30. And that still means I would have been too young for the vast majority of the Ultima series. My first experience with it happened to be Ultima VIII in fact.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
791
Fallout combat is magnificent and satisfying. In fact, in terms of mechanics - The game is up there with the best of them. The SPECIAL system makes almost all your choices important and relevant. Very few RPGs can match that - though they'd like to try.

My problem with all the Fallouts is the setting - as I'm not a fan of post-apoc, and I'm especially not a fan of post-apoc with almost no variety in the environments. Sure, the world has turned to shit - but there's no reason you can't have great and varied underground environments and stuff.

But it's all dull grey/brown crap with recycled content - and that's not for me.

Overall, I'm not sure the game makes my top 10 RPGs - and if it does, it's just barely.

The Codex have some informed gamers among them - but I can't take them seriously when taken together. Their "agenda" is laughably one-sided and reality is clearly not very important to them. They're also stuck in the ancient past with no appreciation for what developers have been doing whilst being subject to the AAA demands on artistic compromise and the grim facts of being big business first and vision delivery distantly second.
 
Fallout combat is magnificent and satisfying. In fact, in terms of mechanics - The game is up there with the best of them. The SPECIAL system makes almost all your choices important and relevant. Very few RPGs can match that - though they'd like to try.

It's extremely easy in both F1 and 2 to build characters that are either stupidly overpowered or useless. And if it wasn't for called shots, the entire combat could be handled by a trained monkey.

The Fallouts have their strengths but combat and mechanics aren't part of that. But then these don't seem to have been the deciding factors in this poll with Fallout being #1 and Planescape #2.
 
It's extremely easy in both F1 and 2 to build characters that are either stupidly overpowered or useless. And if it wasn't for called shots, the entire combat could be handled by a trained monkey.

The Fallouts have their strengths but combat and mechanics aren't part of that. But then these don't seem to have been the deciding factors in this poll with Fallout being #1 and Planescape #2.

All games with sufficiently intricate mechanics will have powerful and weak builds. I consider that a strength of the design.

This concept of having all choices result in equal power is a sickness of modern development. If all choices result in "roughly" equal power - then the choices have no power, making them meaningless. That's one reason why the Diablo 3 design is weak.

So, I disagree severely. Mechanics in Fallout are great and they make for some really interesting choices that matter a lot. All your attributes are important for one reason or another - and all the skills can be of use. No, they're not of equal use - but they're of use.

I love the traits and how they can support certain builds.

The perks are the heart of the system, however, and you can come up with several very efficient and very different builds.

The combat system is wonderful because it's both reasonably fast and reasonably intricate. Your choices matter - and the way you could target different parts of the body was brilliant for its time.

I also loved how the weapons were more important than your skills - because that's how it should be. If you had a big gun - you didn't need much skill to blow people away. That's a problem in Fallout 3 - where your skill matters too much, and the awful scaling system makes much of the combat boring and predictable.

Obviously, if you don't enjoy mechanics that allow for overpowered or underpowered characters - you will feel differently.

It's the reason why I love D&D 3.5 edition - and it's probably my favorite RPG system. There's SO much diversity and SO many options. It can never be balanced - but it's great fun - and it's a constant challenge to come up with the most efficient combination of feats and classes. Also, no matter how overpowered your character is, you tend to have a few weaknesses - and some encounters will challenge you almost no matter what. I think that's great.
 
Although I can see your point (that toying with unbalanced elements can be fun), calling it a hallmark of "good design" seems a bit far-fetched, amirite? ;)
 
As I said before, my main complaint with combat is the uncontrollable AI of a companion. Otherwise it's OK. Not nearly as good as the Gold Box games, any of The 3.5 DnD implementations, nor ToEE, nor the Infinity games. Hardly magnificent.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
My possibly flawed memory of fallout 1 combat was that it was all just about firing your gun on full auto and watching your enemies instantly die. Later in the game there were enemies who could fire their gun on full auto and instantly kill you too. I guess it's not unrealistic, but I never found it very deep or satisfying.

Fallout 2 was very different though. They seemed to solve that problem by giving everything a ton of hp. This allowed you to use more strategy and abilities in combat because it wasn't just about instant kills. But it could also be rather tedious. You'd do a called shot, they'd attack you a bunch of times, repeat for 20+ rounds until one side was dead.

But it was never the combat system that made Fallout good, in any interattion from Fallout 1 to Fallout NV. It was the options and the way the world reacted to you.
 
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
2,163
Take out BG2 of the list and you get an excellent top 5 (similar to mine), which is proof that these Codex people have indeed excellent taste ;).
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
613
Location
Madrid, Spain
DArtagnan said:
All games with sufficiently intricate mechanics will have powerful and weak builds. I consider that a strength of the design.

This concept of having all choices result in equal power is a sickness of modern development. If all choices result in "roughly" equal power - then the choices have no power, making them meaningless. That's one reason why the Diablo 3 design is weak.

Definitely agree. A big part of the fun I had with BG2 was the contrast between destroying everything in your path as a Kensage, Fighter-Thief or Sorceror, then playing a much more challenging class like a Beastmaster, Druid or Transmuter. These kind of choices aid replayability because its a good "in-game" way of ramping up difficulty without touching the slider or installing mods.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
542
Location
Englandland
As I said before, my main complaint with combat is the uncontrollable AI of a companion. Otherwise it's OK. Not nearly as good as the Gold Box games, any of The 3.5 DnD implementations, nor ToEE, nor the Infinity games. Hardly magnificent.

Why are you repeating this?

I know you don't think it's magnificent - and that's ok with me.
 
Although I can see your point (that toying with unbalanced elements can be fun), calling it a hallmark of "good design" seems a bit far-fetched, amirite? ;)

Could you point out where I'm saying a lack of balance is a hallmark of good design?

I don't mind supporting my arguments - but I do have a problem with people creating fantasy scenarios and asking me to defend them.

What I said, specifically, is that being able to create both strong and weak characters is a strength of the Fallout design. I don't think an RPG system can be interesting and perfectly balanced at the same time. That doesn't mean that a lack of balance in and of itself is a universally good thing.

But I do think you should strive for balance just as long as it's not getting in the way of having a good time - and you should be aware of who you're trying to please. For instance, in a competitive multiplayer game - you have to pay extra attention to balance and the "fun" of overpowered builds will be significantly challenged by the "unfun" of having no fair fights.
 
Heh, never fails. You go to any PC gamer board and tell them about the preferences of another PC gamer board, you get: those 'tards don't know turds from turnips.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,521
Location
Seattle
Could you point out where I'm saying a lack of balance is a hallmark of good design?

All games with sufficiently intricate mechanics will have powerful and weak builds. I consider that a strength of the design.

Which I think is hyperbole, or at least missing the mark. "Intricate mechanics", elaborate? Any system that gives you a certain number of options? Why should that practically enforce imbalance between builds?

I don't think an RPG system can be interesting and perfectly balanced at the same time.

Luckily, with practically all games, we don't have to worry about "perfect" balance. It's a matter of degrees. And in Fallout's case, it misses balance by a large degree. There are an almost infinite number of ways to build completely crappy characters.

But I do think you should strive for balance just as long as it's not getting in the way of having a good time - and you should be aware of who you're trying to please. For instance, in a competitive multiplayer game - you have to pay extra attention to balance and the "fun" of overpowered builds will be significantly challenged by the "unfun" of having no fair fights.

Since I don't play MMO's, I'm not commenting in depth on this. But it seems to me that with MMO's, the common modus operandi (= addiction based design) is to ensure that there is, or rather taking no steps to prevent, imbalance between builds, so players can spend their time a-spreadsheetin' to figure out DAT DPS BUILD that pwns their next PVP victim (most likely a newb). Quality times.

But it seems we agree that balance is tied to fun, and meaningful differences between builds is as important as ensuring viability in different builds. In Fallout's case, I don't see this achieved, while you do. *shrug*
 
Which I think is hyperbole, or at least missing the mark. "Intricate mechanics", elaborate? Any system that gives you a certain number of options? Why should that practically enforce imbalance between builds?

Because the more choice you provide, the harder it becomes to take everything into account when balancing your game.

I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

If you want perfect balance - you pretty much have to mirror everything. That's extremely boring - at least to me.

Luckily, with practically all games, we don't have to worry about "perfect" balance. It's a matter of degrees. And in Fallout's case, it misses balance by a large degree. There are an almost infinite number of ways to build completely crappy characters.

Almost infinite number of ways to build completely crappy characters? I'm the one using hyperbole?

Ok, so if you choose bad perks - then you can have a LOT of characters with minor adjustments using those perks - so that would end up being a lot of ways to build the same crappy character.

All I can say is that I've never had trouble making strong characters in Fallout - and it doesn't take much time with the system to realise what's good and what's bad.

Again, overpowered and underpowered characters exist in a LOT of RPGs with a sufficient amount of development aspects and options. Especially older games - where casual gamers weren't a big concern. Some people get upset when they make characters that suck - and some people enjoy the challenge of figuring out the ins and outs of the system. I'm very much part of the latter group.

You can make an almost infinite number of crappy characters in any Gold Box or Infinity engine game as well - so I suppose you think they're bad?

Why don't you give me just a single example of a great RPG system with what you consider acceptable balance between character builds?

Since I don't play MMO's, I'm not commenting in depth on this. But it seems to me that with MMO's, the common modus operandi (= addiction based design) is to ensure that there is, or rather taking no steps to prevent, imbalance between builds, so players can spend their time a-spreadsheetin' to figure out DAT DPS BUILD that pwns their next PVP victim (most likely a newb). Quality times.

You should probably have chosen not to comment at all - as your bias is pretty clear. Bias combined with ignorance is not very useful when it comes to informed opinions.

But it seems we agree that balance is tied to fun, and meaningful differences between builds is as important as ensuring viability in different builds. In Fallout's case, I don't see this achieved, while you do. *shrug*

I think balance is a part of pretty much every single game in existence - and so it can't separate itself from the concept of fun. Games are meant to be fun after all.

Yes, I most definitely think Fallout has plenty of variety and viability when it comes to builds.
 
This is a wonderful thread, truly enjoyable throughout; you chaps are such a lively bunch.

But there's just one part that I feel compelled to respond to:

The Codex have some informed gamers among them - but I can't take them seriously when taken together. Their "agenda" is laughably one-sided and reality is clearly not very important to them. They're also stuck in the ancient past with no appreciation for what developers have been doing whilst being subject to the AAA demands on artistic compromise and the grim facts of being big business first and vision delivery distantly second.

While I will admit that the overall impression one might get from us is that we do have an agenda, I don't think it's fair to say that we're stuck in the ancient past. True, many games of olde are venerated there. We like our TB RPG's and our blobbers and our rickety old games of the 80's and 90's — who as a fan of CRPG's through the years wouldn't without being judged incomplete in his values and uninformed? But let me tell you a little about Codex lately.

Did you happen to notice a sharp spike of activity in the Refugee thread recently? Take a look at it. Our server actually crashed for a short while due to literally being overloaded. With the announcement and all the news surrounding an amazing new number of what we consider to be highly-inclined games recently, such as Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and yes even Might and Magic X Legacy, there is a new buzz at Codex. We're all giddy like teenage girls before the prom. Even the most ancient of foes there are coming together to discuss this potential New Golden Age of RPG's and it's very exciting.

We'll forgive you guys for getting the scoop on Larian's fantastic-looking Divinity: Original Sin. We don't mind you calling us a cesspool (we're over that). Hell, you can even call our resident trannies ugly if you want to.

Just don't accuse us of not opening our black gates to allow some of this wonderful fresh air that's coming to blow the place out a little bit. In fact it's done more than that. It's actually converted some of us angry cunts into enthusiastic, albeit somewhat cautious still, gamers again. Amazing, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
323
Just don't accuse us of not opening our black gates to allow some of this wonderful fresh air that's coming to blow the place out a little bit. In fact it's done more than that. It's actually converted some of us angry cunts into enthusiastic, albeit somewhat cautious still, gamers again. Amazing, isn't it?

I admit, I haven't visited your site in quite a while - except for quick peeks when I was really bored at work.

I'm happy that you're starting to get optimistic again - and I'll go check out the Codex at some point to test your claim.

But I'm not talking about the Kickstarter initiative - as I'm sure most of us are really excited at the potential.

I'm talking about appreciating SOME aspects of what is happening in the commercial space - and how SOME AAA games can actually match or even outclass some of our precious golden oldies.

Considering the reality of what it must be like to be a developer with some vision working in that corrupt and commercial world - I find it endlessly impressive that we can get games like Deus Ex: HR, Bioshock Infinite, and Skyrim. Now, I'm not calling those games flawless - and especially the latter two have been made accessible to the casual audience to the detriment of the game designs - but they've still managed to bring something really powerful to the gaming scene.

Then again, that's just what I think.

Sometimes, I think some of us grumpy enthusiasts forget the weaknesses of the old classics - and how there are many ways to expand upon established paradigms. Core gamplay may have stagnated for the most part - but in terms of "experience delivery" - there are some amazing games out there, even for the grumpy sorts - if only they'd lighten up a bit.
 
Believe me, if I claimed to have been immune to the charms of these modern AAA games like Skyrim, my compatriots would string me up by my USB cables. I've partaken of many of their sinful, gluttonous graphical orgies.

But I can honestly claim that it's only been out of desperation. During a drought a man will drink from the irradiated toilet if he has to.

Now, however, we've got reason to hope for cleansing again. It seems as if somehow, miraculously, the industry has suddenly woken up, or turned away maybe, from the long bad dream that has featured nothing but empty gameplay, mass appeal and subsequently rotting RPG teeth. We're (potentially) back to eating carrots and beets again, with some protein thrown in and plenty of water. RPG Codex is working out. We are preparing for what may be five or even ten YEARS of significant, passionate roleplaying on our computers again, and even though our fat bodies with our funky headbands may look ridiculous now, we know it's for our own good.

I'll even hazard a guess that without all this RPG goodness headed our way, RPG Codex simply may not have lasted much longer. We were out of food and we were eating ourselves from the inside out.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
323
Back
Top Bottom