Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Goron]

WoW did it all later than Arcanum. It's just a mainstream MMO that added nothing to the industry.

just like arcanum did it later than fallout. (see next quote response)

Arcanum is wildly different from Fallout because it greatly expanded its gameplay, using story and setting. You can only branch out so much in Fallout, and neither branch has any great disadvantages compared to advantages.

yes, but that is the foundation that arcanum used. Arcanum just expanded on what fallout already did. You pretty much admit to that in your post.

I will say again, just because a game adds 20 more skills, 10 more maps, 50 more quests, and 3 more settings it does not make it fundamentally different from the game that already did all that just on a smaller, starter, scale.

Expanding on ideas is not the same as originating the ideas

it doesn't matter what 'skill system' a game uses, its the concept behind it. I do not credit Fallout because it uses SPECIAL, i really don't care about that, its the same fundamental concept of having a set of attributes that dictate skills. DnD did it long ago (I dun even know who started that). Fallout could have used the standard DnD attribute titles and it would have still been fundamentally the same.

[Goron]

It did not use the SPECIAL system.

Fallout's stats: Strength Perception Endurance Charisma Intelligence Agility Luck.

Arcanum's Stats: Strength Constitution Dexterity Beauty Intelligence Willpower Perception Charisma.

Skills level up in different styles, and aren't tied to percentages in Arcanum.

So, if I make a game and call it "Goronum: The Quest for Awesomess" that takes Arcanum, but puts it on a planet with a bunch of different aliens, where the conflict between technology and psychic enlightenment is strong, that uses the following attributes: Mightyness, Heart, Brainpower, Senses, Handsomeness, and Quickness, that all tie into a set of skills, but those skills are not %s or numbers, but rather 'counts'.
is that game fundamentally different than Arcanum?

According to you it is, because I used different names for my attributes...
But I say it isn't... I may have added new a few minor features, expande don the concept of Arcanum a lot and made a better story, but in the end, it is no different than Arcanum, which is little different from Fallout.

[E. Albright]

...back to the central topic rather than the meta-topic...

BotCF
EotB2

I'd second the prior calls for Nethack, though if we're trying to get an "essence of roguelike" I'd make it a multiple choice: NetHack & ADoM, or Crawl & Incursion. Playing either pair should give a decent snapshot of what traditional roguelikes can span given different design philosophies, though the former pair does cover a much narrower range than the latter.

[Sean Mirrsen]

@Goron: It isn't, because it does not add anything new. Okenido was just correcting me, I forgot some details of Arcanum's RP system already. And Arcanum is an improvement, however you put it. In your eyes, any game that didn't define a genre isn't worth playing? Then why play C&C when there was Dune? Why play any modern FPS when Doom, DN, Quake and Half-Life invented everything? Why play anything since Tetris?

Arcanum IS different from Fallout. It's not like NASCAR versus F1, where you just have different cars and different rules (though some may debate that as well). Arcanum was a unique game, and is unique still. Read my post again - Fallout had nothing SIMILAR to the two diametrically opposite branches of character development of Arcanum. It was character alignment elevated from roleplay to gameplay-level. If that's not a major game mechanic addition, I don't know what is. It's like C&C against AoE - will you call civilization-wide upgrades and first proper application of RPS in an RTS also, "just an expansion of the principle"?

On the topic of roguelikes, Rogue.

[Okenido]

@Goron: Oh really? I bloody say you're wrong. Setting and expanding content DOES make a different game.

For an example I'll use the visual novels.

Spoiler: Tsukihime (click to show/hide)

Made in 2000

Spoiler: When The Seagulls Cry (click to show/hide)

Made during 2008-2009, and is still in production via episodic content.

Both use the same engine, consist of almost the entirely same gameplay, (Clicking and reading text.) and are both great games, with the slight difference in gameplay being that Tsukihime allows the player to have an effect on the story by choosing what the main character does in a few certain situations, and When The Seagulls Cry has a profile screen for each character.

Despite gameplay being almost exactly the same I doubt you'd be able to call When The Seagulls Cry something just to continue experiencing Tsukihime.

[Goron]

And Arcanum is an improvement, however you put it.

I agree, but it is not fundamentally different.

In your eyes, any game that didn't define a genre isn't worth playing?

Check the topic, its not 'games worth playing' or 'a list of fun games you enjoyed,' its "Big Bad Thread of Games to Play Before You Die" which in my mind should consist of the core games that had important effects and/or were groundbreaking and/or were fundamental to a genre.

Then why play C&C when there was Dune?

Good point. Very good point. For starters, I never played Dune, so I can't comment much, second, most of the editorials I've read on this topic that I have read listed C&C, not dune, but I can't say why.

Why play any modern FPS when Doom, DN, Quake and Half-Life invented everything? Why play anything since Tetris?

Notice I didn;t list Doom, Quake, HL, etc... I listed Wolfenstein 3d. And again, the topic is not 'games worth playing'. I never said 'don't play these,' I simply indicated they are not deserving to be on a must play list since they didnt contribute enough.

Arcanum IS different from Fallout. It's not like NASCAR versus F1, where you just have different cars and different rules (though some may debate that as well). Arcanum was a unique game, and is unique still. Read my post again - Fallout had nothing SIMILAR to the two diametrically opposite branches of character development of Arcanum. It was character alignment elevated from roleplay to gameplay-level. If that's not a major game mechanic addition, I don't know what is. It's like C&C against AoE - will you call civilization-wide upgrades and first proper application of RPS in an RTS also, "just an expansion of the principle"?

but F1 and NASCAR are NOT fundamentally different!!!!! They are car races! Now, take yacht racing, that is[/s] fundamentally different.

[E. Albright]

On the topic of roguelikes, Rogue.

This actually cuts to the heart of what the above back-and-forth is contesting.

Is the game-bucket-list the most groundbreaking games? Then you only want innovative pioneers; hi, Rogue!

Is it the best examples of a given genre? Then you want the refined Xth generation descendants that perfectly encapsulate the style; bye, Rogue...

Is it the most immersive/moving games? Bye, Rogue (and roguelikes)...

Is it the most absorbing/addictive games? Hi, Rogue (and/or select roguelikes)!

IOW, why must you play these games before death? To have a full understanding of the evolution of modern gaming? To experience every genre of game in its most elemental form? To not miss out on any jolly good plays? List inclusion wholly hinges on how one answers this question, and I think the arguments we've seen basically come down to implicit disagreement on this point.

[E. Albright]

Then why play C&C when there was Dune?

Good point. Very good point. For starters, I never played Dune, so I can't comment much, second, most of the editorials I've read on this topic that I have read listed C&C, not dune, but I can't say why.

Oh, that's easy enough. Dune (more correctly, Dune II) was where Westwood developed the mechanics; C&C was where they managed to successfully mass-market them. C&C was not innovative; it was merely popular.

[Goron]

@Goron: Oh really? I bloody say you're wrong. Setting and expanding content DOES make a different game.

For an example I'll use the visual novels.

Spoiler: Tsukihime (click to show/hide)

Made in 2000

Spoiler: When The Seagulls Cry (click to show/hide)

Made during 2008-2009, and is still in production via episodic content.

Both use the same engine, consist of almost the entirely same gameplay, (Clicking and reading text.) and are both great games, with the slight difference in gameplay being that Tsukihime allows the player to have an effect on the story by choosing what the main character does in a few certain situations, and When The Seagulls Cry has a profile screen for each character.

Despite gameplay being almost exactly the same I doubt you'd be able to call When The Seagulls Cry something just to continue experiencing Tsukihime.

lol... wow... I'm sorry but no... from what I can tell, those are pretty much the same game. Sure the story is different and they play differently, but they are the same core concept- you are reading a book. Thats like claiming the mechanic between one book is different form another... its not they are both books.
(this is based on the little knowledge you've provided me about these games)

Perhaps you should read more critical lists such as:
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/index.html
http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p1.html


Then you may begin to understand how these are not lists of 'games i enjoyed to play' but games that are fundamental standouts in a big pool of contestants.

[E. Albright]

Perhaps you should read more critical lists such as:
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/index.html
http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p1.html


Then you may begin to understand how these are not lists of 'games i enjoyed to play' but games that are fundamental standouts in a big pool of contestants.

The problem with the lists you quote is that they may not be "games you enjoyed playing", but they're "games the list editor enjoyed playing, and thinks their readers might recognize". These lists are slapdash and arbitrary. The IGN top 100 is flat-out embarrassing. Skimming the list, I stumbled across "Freedom Force", a lackluster-sounding game I'd never heard of that the editors justify including literally because they thought it was "fun". The editors do not have a clearly defined criteria for compiling their list, and it shows; what does it mean for them to claim that SMB is "the greatest game of all time"... let alone that SM64 is also the 5th greatest? They're not looking for groundbreaking; they're looking for highly visible or popular.

Broad comparisons of dissimilar games will not be possible unless one very clearly defines how one places value on an individual title, and even then it will not be a definitive ranking. Someone else can come up with one of several (nay, many) other equally legitimate ranking schemes to qualify "best games"... or even "most influential games".

[Okenido]

I decided to choose what I consider the best of the best for my list.

If you want explanations on why I made those choices I'll gladly give them to you.

[Keiseth]

Though I could be biased, I'd say that in a stricter list, Dwarf Fortress is in the "must-play-before-death" bit. It's as much a simulation as a game these days, and it's vital to show what a game CAN be.

More then mindless fighting, more than blitzkrieg strategy matches... endless effort into a virtual world for a reward that is determined by the player. I find it interesting. There's no "YOU WIN!" or a simple way to crush all of your enemies. Games like this I appreciate heavily, though I can't recall any others off hand.

[Vahan]

Also, Black&White.

Heh.

[Goron]

Perhaps you should read more critical lists such as:
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/greatestgames/index.html
http://top100.ign.com/2005/index.html
http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p1.html


Then you may begin to understand how these are not lists of 'games i enjoyed to play' but games that are fundamental standouts in a big pool of contestants.

The problem with the lists you quote is that they may not be "games you enjoyed playing", but they're "games the list editor enjoyed playing, and thinks their readers might recognize". These lists are slapdash and arbitrary. The IGN top 100 is flat-out embarrassing. Skimming the list, I stumbled across "Freedom Force", a lackluster-sounding game I'd never heard of that the editors justify including literally because they thought it was "fun". The editors do not have a clearly defined criteria for compiling their list, and it shows; what does it mean for them to claim that SMB is "the greatest game of all time"... let alone that SM64 is also the 5th greatest? They're not looking for groundbreaking; they're looking for highly visible or popular.

Broad comparisons of dissimilar games will not be possible unless one very clearly defines how one places value on an individual title, and even then it will not be a definitive ranking. Someone else can come up with one of several (nay, many) other equally legitimate ranking schemes to qualify "best games"... or even "most influential games".

Meh you are right. I posted those links without actually looking at their lists. THat teaches me to give credit to IGN and gamespot like that. I expected some legit thought process behind their choices. Some are good, but many are not- and that fact that any console games are on the list at all just goes to show they are near invalid... I have pretty much zero respect for (modern) console games as positive steps forward in gaming.

A few years ago PC gamer had a top 100 games list that I felt was pretty spot on... there were a few arguable games (star craft- bleh), but otherwise it hit the actual good games pretty well. Some of the more recent lists are getting polluted by eye candy games.

[neudialect]

Deus Ex
Neverhood
Morrowind

... (and Little Big Adventure 1 and 2 as well)