Print

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

[Graknorke]

But making the game based on player skill doesn't solve that. If anything it just further reduces the idea of there being any character there outside of the player.
And a game can have game mechanics without telling the player exactly what they are and the numbers behind them.

[nenjin]

There's no choices, and your character has no influence over what happens. I do like it, but I wish there was something more than 'Get a quest, go to dungeon, empty linear dungeon, kill boss, loot chest, return, and repeat'.

Probably going to have to keep wishing. Bethesda has built an entire company out of that concept and will probably continue to do so.

There were echoes of what it is now even in Morrowind, with the distribution of dungeons...but the dungeons were a little more interesting. That said, Skyrim probably has the best dungeons since Morrowind (and I include the Fallout games in that.)

Unfortunately, Bethesda loves their patterns and so regardless of how cool a dungeon might be, you know the random loot container lists by heart after a certain point, you know to expect "a Draugir part", you know there's going to be a hidden exit that goes back to the start of the level.....The same thing that allows Bethesda to generate so much (very playable) content and fill out a whole world with it is also the same thing that starts to chip away at your interest. I know I've hit the point of no longer playing a TES game like mad when I start to despair of ever encountering something novel, because I eventually cannot see anything but the pattern of design behind the content. Every Bethesda game since Morrowind has felt like that to me.

Like the first time you found a Daedra Shrine in Oblivion....awesome. When you realized there were 8 of the things or w/e and you've done 2 of them and their attendant quests....not as awesome. The first time you did an Oblivion Gate...awesome. The 5th time? Meh.

[fqllve]

And are we seperating motor-control skill from strategic skill now? Because traditional RPGs do also require the skill of making good choices and risk assessment etc.

Yes, the primary difference between an ARPG and a turn-based RPG is that the former relies on player dexterity and reaction time. So I don't really see the problem with game design acknowledging this fact.

There were echoes of what it is now even in Morrowind, with the distribution of dungeons...but the dungeons were a little more interesting. That said, Skyrim probably has the best dungeons since Morrowind (and I include the Fallout games in that.)

Yeah the Fallout dungeons were marginally less linear, but they were more cut and paste. At least a lot of the dungeons in Skyrim have personality, even if I do lament not being able to actually wander around in them.

I think part of the problem is that they try to make every bit of content accessible and relevant for every character, but there are such vast amounts of content that isn't even necessary. It ends up feeling like you have to go through more of it just because it's available, and it's all remarkably similar because they don't allow room for any difference. They want to make it a 500+ hour game for everyone, but almost no one is going to actually play it that long.

[WillowLuman]

From my point of view, Skyrim is not a RPG, just an action game in a medieval fantasy world. There's no choices, and your character has no influence over what happens. I do like it, but I wish there was something more than 'Get a quest, go to dungeon, empty linear dungeon, kill boss, loot chest, return, and repeat'.

And somehow Skyrim has less choices than, say, a turn-based RPG with pregenerated characters and a railroad plot? In my opinion, it's not the mechanics, but the ability to immerse oneself in another world, to "play a role." In Skyrim, you can make characters love or hate you by how you interact with them, wipe out the Dark Brotherhood forever or help restore their old evil glory, and rearrange the jarls through the civil war (with noticeable effects within each hold.)

You might say a turn-based, party based, inventory management enabled game without customizable player characters is still an RPG because it puts you in the "role" of that particular character, but by that logic every game with a player character is an RPG.

TES games are RPG's because of the ability to create a character and affect the world in many ways (even if just changing the number of living named characters in it, whenever you want if in Morrowind). NWN is an RPG, despite the railroad plot structure, because you can still affect the world in minor ways, and you have great chance for roleplaying in the wealth of choices you have for interacting with the main characters, with dialogue choices for whatever personality you want to give your character at every opportunity.

[alexandertnt]

But making the game based on player skill doesn't solve that. If anything it just further reduces the idea of there being any character there outside of the player.
And a game can have game mechanics without telling the player exactly what they are and the numbers behind them.

In games like TES, the game's character is for the most part a blank slate. So you can construct a character that would do and act exactly the same that you would if you want, and you would be "role playing" your character. This is one of the positive points for TES for me because most of the time I am interested in constructing my own character rather than playing as someone elses.

Also, my argument is not for ARPG's per se (although they tend to be closer to the mark than traditional RPG's). Consider DF, its combat system is complex and based on descriptions rather than printing dice rolls onto the screen, yet it is not an ARPG and is still dependant on the character.

How could a character who is "skilled with a sword" (as opposed to a sword skill of 15) not have game mechanics behind them? My argument is against making the logic and internals of a game system obvious to the player (where this knowledge reduces the characters "believability"), it is not against simply having game mechanics.

[Graknorke]

My argument is against making the logic and internals of a game system obvious to the player (where this knowledge reduces the characters "believability"), it is not against simply having game mechanics.

That's not something I was disagreeing with.

[nenjin]

In Skyrim's case, the problem with believability is, IMO, how it's balanced. It's balanced for your typical RPG progression of steadily better swords, better armor, guys with more HP. To me, disguising those metrics is really a bandaid on the same design mentality TES has been using for years. It'd actually improve my Skyrim experience, I think, but only until I'd run across that weapon or armor that would blow believability out of the water.

That said, I've given up asking or wanting TES games to be mechanically more realistic and less gamey. I was actually fine with how gamey all TES games are...but as they've condensed and revised down over the years there's not even really interesting mechanical choices for me to ponder while I play.

[WillowLuman]

Honestly, if you max out your skill, even without perks, you can still kick ass with a measly iron sword at high levels.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Let me point out, that every character that has ever been played by someone, is in fact a collection of numbers. If anything, I took much more pride in those numbers than anything anything else, i find that RPGs now-a-days, especially ARPGs (which is basically a fancy way of saying 'sandbox game') hide these numbers pretty deep, which is disappointing, and try to get you to focus on 'skill trees' and other bullshit, not to mention the shitty action. Anyways, the numbers tell alot about the character, you just have to extrapolate a bit. Why should player skill be involved at all (in terms of hitting/missing) I mean we're supposed to be RPing someone else, honestly a (literally or proverbially) dice-roll is alot more exciting then repeatedly mashing a button to attack, especially when "player skill" is just rotating the right way.


Honestly, I dont even know if that made sense, all I know is that an RPG with MORE numbers makes me feel closer to my character.

[Devling]

Hey guys!
I got the perfect RPG for you guys.
It's called "Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode"!

[WillowLuman]

Let me point out, that every character that has ever been played by someone, is in fact a collection of numbers.

Except in forum RP threads

What we have here is a difference of opinions. Repeatedly clicking a button to smack someone in the face while moving to stay within face-smacking distance in real time can get boring, but so can sitting back and watching your character do the whole fight with the only input being "select target" and maybe "called shot: arm" or "drink healing potion." Having to actually shoot someone with a bow yourself is annoying when your mouse isn't very sensitive and your wrist is very tired, but sometimes you're going around with your 3rd person, top-down viewed character and thinking "Fuck, I really wish I could just aim and shoot that vase off that static background shelf, it's hideous."

[fqllve]

ARPGs (which is basically a fancy way of saying 'sandbox game')

Nooooooo, no this is not the case at all. I dunno that I can even think of any sandbox ARPGs outside of Elder Scrolls. ARPGs: Diablo, Gothic, Dark Souls, Torchlight, Kings Field, bunch of JRPGs that I won't name.

Why should player skill be involved at all (in terms of hitting/missing) I mean we're supposed to be RPing someone else, honestly a (literally or proverbially) dice-roll is alot more exciting then repeatedly mashing a button to attack, especially when "player skill" is just rotating the right way.

Because why play a game that requires player skill if you don't want it to actually affect things? You can say it's limited to just rotating the right way, but that certainly isn't the case on higher difficulties. If you don't like ARPGs that's fine, but that doesn't mean they're boring. A lot of people find turn-based RPGs boring, that doesn't mean they are.

[PanH]

And somehow Skyrim has less choices than, say, a turn-based RPG with pregenerated characters and a railroad plot? In my opinion, it's not the mechanics, but the ability to immerse oneself in another world, to "play a role." In Skyrim, you can make characters love or hate you by how you interact with them, wipe out the Dark Brotherhood forever or help restore their old evil glory, and rearrange the jarls through the civil war (with noticeable effects within each hold.)

There's nearly no choices in Skyrim.
Stormcloack or Imperials ? Hell, it'll be the same line of quest, and in the end, guards will have a different outfit, and there'll be some jarls with different skins. You can't refuse a quest (Thief's Guild, grrrr). You can be a warrior thief wizard assasin. You can get in every guild at once. Relations with people are simplistic as hell and have nearly no influence. He'll just have a different text to read next time you talk to him. Most quests have only 1 outcome. You can't fail a quest. You can't bargain. You can't invent new ways to make a quest, or to solve a conflict. You can't make detrimental choices.

So, yeah, compared to some RPGs, Skyrim has next to no choice.

Now, you can indeed play RP (like most games), but the game won't help you. So, no, to me, it's not a RPG.

[Vendayn]

A new screenshot of my Skyrim character, Laenaya. This one came out rather good I think, and shows her whole outfit.

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/Images/207520

[NobodyPro]

Grelod has a single health point, so it is possible to kill her with Telekinesis and an item.

Too subtle.