51 replies to this topic

[Tom]

I've always like the rule that you only get xp for using a skill if failure would have negative consequences and there's actually a valid reason to use the skill.  Someone running around climbing every wall they see wouldn't get xp, and neither would someone sneaking around their own house.

As you might guess, I had some issues with the Daggerfall skill system.

I dont see anything wrong with this, people practise in real life. Its not like you get worse at something by failing either. And of course if you feel its cheating you dont have to do it now, do you?

[Avenger_teambg]

Aging could be good, but there needs only one flag: old.
I doubt the game could be played with a child character/old character.
It will be the standard issue level 1 character.
The aging effect, and other effects could affect the avatar like in might and magic.
It looks much better than those tiny lame portrait effect icons.
If my character is poisoned, i want to see a green face, if it is diseased, i want to see boils.

Food - there should be food items in the game, and they might have effects, but forcing eating (and resting) seems a bit overdone.

Armor - more detailed items, and items that look different (though the same stat) would be nice. Not just armor, but potions. It would be fun to have 5 different healing potions which do the same. (and we didn't mention extra healing, etc.). It would give lore/identify a new meaning.

XP - dunno, if the game isn't story based (no quests) then it is ok to have other xp sources. But i think the story balances advancement anyway. Non combat xp comes from quests. All other activities should have a different reward. Like crafting creates a useful item, hunting creates a food object (which you don't really need). Ok, maybe food/rest could be an option But no xp reward for hunting.

Edited by Avenger_teambg, 23 January 2005 - 02:05 AM.

[Tom]

It looks much better than those tiny lame portrait effect icons.
If my character is poisoned, i want to see a green face, if it is diseased, i want to see boils.

There are some problems with that, namely the many, many effects that would be too hard to represent like that. How would you do level drain, for example? What about protections/positive effects? Even poisoning would be difficult, because I dont know if you've noticed, but people's faecs dont ACTUALLY go green when theyre poisoned

[Schatten]

yeah, those faces were really good indicators in mm. its a good idea to include. and there sure are ways to display more subtle effects.
fear effect:  
some positive combat effect like increase to hit:  
and so on.

[Alandrea]

I don?t particularly want age in such an RPG. I do think that seeing something actually change like Avenger_teambg suggested would be great though - boils for illness and all. I wouldn?t want to have to eat or ? other sanitary aspects that may be brought up but I wouldn?t object to the idea that some food could heal a character a bit. XP is Experience Points and whenever you utilize a skill you have ?say drawing for example- you get experience from it and get better at it. I approve of XP for lock-picking and all that.

[igi]

I'm not sure I approve of XP at all really.
I dont mind skills getting better by use, but why have a global XP pool, whats it measure? General experience.. what's the use of that?

I'm also against visual indications of afflictions and conditions - if I sit and stare at the screen for hours (taking a 5 minute break every hour, and sitting well back from the screen, and sitting in a non-RIS inducing position, and making sure I dont suffer from epilepsy), I dont really want to see ugly boils over a picture. Happy smiles, perhaps, but boils...? Urgh.

As for skill specific XP and aging, it depends on the scope of the game. If the plot consists of "do there, kill bloke, have party", it's not worth having aging or skill XP. If the plot is "live in the world" then yeah.. as there's no set ending, it would make sense to have age, and progressive skills.

[khay]

I`d like to see ragdoll physics and the whole Havok physics engine used in all of the upcoming RPG games, be it Dragon Age, NWN2 or Elder Scrolls 4. Half-Life 2 just started setting the new standard.

[Tom]

Yes, a real physics engine would definately add a new dimension to a game. Make it more an Adventure RPG. I was rather dissapointed to see that VtW: Bloodlines didnt really make use of the physics ni the game.

Edited by Tom, 04 February 2005 - 01:11 AM.

[PolarBear]

??? Realistic physics in RPGs? Yea, that'd be great, but it is not something I'd buy an RPG for. I mean you can make a good RPG without any Havok or other physics engine. Really there is no need for that. If I had to choose, I'd go for something else, even a food-feature instead of physics. That's *my* opinion tho.

[khay]

Of course I don`t see that as a main selling point either, but it surely adds a lot to the game. I don`t think I`d like food, since the time passes so much faster in an RPG and you`ll end up spending 70% of your playtime feeding your characters. Much like The Sims.

Maybe if eating would be necessary once per day, but I`m not sure even then...

[Tom]

Of course I don`t see that as a main selling point either, but it surely adds a lot to the game. I don`t think I`d like food, since the time passes so much faster in an RPG and you`ll end up spending 70% of your playtime feeding your characters. Much like The Sims.

Maybe if eating would be necessary once per day, but I`m not sure even then...

Unless you had a real-time game, which could work quite well actually. It would make a lot of things possible, such as realistic NPC schedules (rather then the NPC going to the local pub taking all day)

[discharger12]

Wasn't Fable focused on the whole realism thing and they screwed up? Or they just didn't have enough time or something.

Anyway, (possibly to sum up what someone else has said) realism is something that too many games focus on, therefore screwing it up. Look at B.C. (funnily made by the same guy who made Fable)

[Radwen]

First you've got to define this for yourself. Do you want a ROLEPLAYING game, or an fantastic adventure game ? Because without a minimum of reality, you cannot be playing a RPG*.

*Note, RPG is misused continuously for a game where your character interacts with others and has a choice of dialog. We should use IG instead, but we don't for two reasons. One people never really tried using that term, second that terms also means In-Game .. which would be confusing .

Second, you've got to ask yourself : What do I want ?
#1 A adventure RPG ?
#2 A traditionnal* RPG ?

*By traditionnal I mean, the bioware style

This question is important since I don't think many people would like/need a good physics engine for baldur's gate. But if one plays gothic, he wants/needs a good physic engine.

I personnaly much rather adventure RPG's, since they usually are the games that are closer to real roleplaying. You actually get in your characters skin and you control him as you wish him to do (I works if you've got imagination, a roleplaying mind, and maybe a touch of crazyness ). Games where you control multiple characters are NOT rpg's. Well they can be, but to a very small extent.
It's basicly like playing AD&D (or D&D ..) with one character that you role play, and 5 in back of him who are deph, mute (but can still spellcast ), who follow you around and help you bash creatures. I dunno if you've ever had a priest like that follwing you in a d&d game, but it sucks bad (Not that I did it !! , well ok but I was 10 ).

Some where in the end, things have to make sense. With to much lack of logic, the fantastic world drops out.

As Tom said multiple times, it all has to do with balance.

Food ? I can easily forget about it while I'm playing. So I don't think i'll be upset if my char doesn't have to eat etheir .

Weapon Damage ? Well, we obviously don't want to die when or char is level 20 and that mr. hobgobelin shot an arrow and it pierced our helm and it our brain . But than again, I don't want to go pee while my char is standing surrounded by goblins, since they can't touch me and/or there damage is too low.

Aging ? Could be cool if there are age related things in the quest. But I can pass easily, since I don't see myself aging in real life while I play . BUT, something should be done about sleeping .. which kills alot of the logic. (I know you could not do it, but it's to tempting.)

Armor ? Makes sense, if you've gotta one char it's a great idea. But when you've got 6 chars to deal with, its a pain more than anything else.

Crafting ? Again, a pain if you've got 6 chars. It could be cool if well added to the storyline. A very good example of this is Gothic 1&2 (which where some of my favorite games, since everything is logical, and well balanced).

NPC ? For sure a lot of npc is cool. But you need a limit, else we'll all have ou throw away our 2.4ghz for 3.4 , which is not what most people can afford !

Cities ? A lot of places to venture is fun. But this is usually useless for the storyline. Mostly for power gaming. Take KotOR, basicly no where to go except storyline oriented places, and it's still a great game!

Finaly XP. Well .. it all depends on what system you use. Explain my own system would take to long (and this post is already to long ). I can live with White Wolf and D&D evolution. But my favorite was by far (and still is) ultima online.

[Tom]

Second, you've got to ask yourself : What do I want ?
#1 A adventure RPG ?
#2 A traditionnal* RPG ?

Yeah I'd like an adventure RPG, something similar to the Zelda games, except RPG-based

Cities ? A lot of places to venture is fun. But this is usually useless for the storyline. Mostly for power gaming. Take KotOR, basicly no where to go except storyline oriented places, and it's still a great game!

Yes you dont need lots of places to adventure to make a game great, but for replay value and general length of the game (this is more affected) lots of places to explore are good. Replay value can be increased simply by adding lots of options (ala KotOR)

[khay]

Remember NWN?

Your character does not need food or water to survive. Monsters do, however. They eat adventurers.

[Radwen]

I never played through NWN . I hated the graphics too much .

[PolarBear]

I prefer party based RPGs, since it adds some strategy to the game. The fights are so much more interesting this way (and party dialgues are so great ). About NWN: I still think it's a "one step forward, two steps back" game compared to BG2. Kotor: Too linear for my taste, no challange on fights, but still it's good (probably it is the most you can get out of this SW+DnD concept). The Bioware storylines are always superb, that's why all their games worth playing. But even then IMO the best game they've made so far is BG2.

Of course I don`t see that as a main selling point either, but it surely adds a lot to the game. I don`t think I`d like food, since the time passes so much faster in an RPG and you`ll end up spending 70% of your playtime feeding your characters. Much like The Sims.

I don't think it (physics) adds that much, but I don't like this food thing much myself eighter.

[Radwen]

You can get as much strategy in a well made adventure rpg. I always had problems with roleplaying in IE engine games, since combats are unrealistic. How can you change your actions so quickly and so logicly and strategicly .. it takes the realism and the roleplaying out. Though the game is fun, it is not a good roleplaying experience. BG2 whas my 3rd favorite game I would say .. but it was mainly because of the storyline + quest adventuring in a fantastic world which was fun. But Roleplaying wise .. , even though the npc's are great, the protagonist and the main setting are negative points too the rp experience.

I dunno if you've heard about Gothic 1&2 .. it's worth it. Everything is pretty much logical, and it's a great game experience.

I won't talk about it too much though since this is a dragon age forum .

[PolarBear]

This maybe unrealistic, since u are one person and you have to control up to 6 (plus summons). But I think a party of six could cooperate even this much, well of course even if it takes time to get used to eachoters tactics. Have you ever tried multiplayer btw? It is about the same. And I don't see why is party concept so much against roleplaying. You play a character, just like in Gothic. Except that now other (n)pc follow you. I think it is a lot more realistic than facing monster armies and dragons alone. I've played Gothic 2, but got bored of it very shortly, so I stopped playing it. (Tho I'm willing to play it again someday when I have the time)

And one more thing: Gothic is a 1st person game, and this helps the player to imagine himself as the character. But I don't have problems with imagining mayself as doll running across the screen eighter Yes, this is IE.

PS: note that I don't have enough experience with Gothic to compare its roleplaying value though... but I don't think that one cannot make a good party based "RPG - RPG"