I have to disagree... a game that has character customization but no number crunching is Saints Row.... That's not an RPG.

COD has no character building, but a smart player "crunches the numbers" to maximize the perks... But it's not an RPG.

You are right on how lockpicking looked, however how it felt is another thing. As it was, it was a cakewalk on almost everybody.

I mean, when I get the lockpick skill to the max (or even over the level of the lock I'm trying to pick) I'd suppose I should be good at what I do at that point, yes? I should complete it at a fair time instead of being presented a dull minigame that I have to tackle through. Well, what if I'm not so agile on my hands? Does the game jusrt congartulate me on being able enough, but still not being able?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the skill should be fair for everyone, not just to those who do not, and who do too well, in comprehending the minigame.

I wouldnt mind seeing a wasteland game-show you can partake in.


Its not so much numbers crunching, its just that skills dictate the outcomes of game-play and not just player skill/twitch reflexes.

how is not that a rpg...it′s a game where you play a role.

It depends. For the hacking and the lockpicking? I agree with dan and undecaf, get rid of 'em. Stat rolls akin to FO3's speech checks would be great, though with slightly less iffy borders.

However for gambling I think there should be minigames, since gambling is inherently luck dependent (and luck is here decided by a stat we input) having the minigame doesn't detract from the RPG element, a luckier fella will win more.

I like minigames so long as they test skill, I like having my skills tested, I like puzzles. I don't like FO3's ideas. Nor do I like having to do the same thing over and over, RDR did it blindingly well with gambling, giving enough choice to satisfy but keeping it small enough to do each game well. FO3's lockpicking/hacking (especially the hacking) was just too simple and easy. Once you knew what was going on it was a cinch and instead of being a testing minigame (FOR YOUR CHARACTER) became a chore you need to do every now and again.
No element of a game should be a chore. It's a game, intended for fun.

Because, as I already stated, simply playing a "role" does not make it a roleplaying game. That would define ALL games as a roleplaying game, and we know that is simply not the fact. The addition of stat managment or "number crunching" makes it a RPG, as in genre specific.

Because stats dont dictate skills. GTA SA was more of an RPG in that sense, since you could actually level up skills. Although i wont argue that the customization in SR is probably some of the deepest outside of the RPG realm. Also an inventory system. It would be a far stretch to consider what was in SR an inventory system.

when you can show that′s carved in stone I believe ya, but until then I′m gonna call you boring and go back enjoying Oblivion thank you.

No.

Either the minigame created should be so well-developed that it's no longer a minigame and more of a gameplay mechanic (ie: combat in Fallout) or there should be no minigame and just use a character skill to determine success or degree of success (ie: Doctor or First Aid skills in Fallout). I feel like minigames either over complicate tasks that should not be a focus of the gameplay or over simplify tasks that are complex enough to be the focus.

Then again, I like games that pick a scope and excel within it rather than try to do everything with varying degrees of success.

Yep. The "what skills to improve at levelup" minigame should be the only one that governs any skill checks. As in making your skills high enough to pass the skill checks.

Who carves rules in stone anymore?
But, believe whatever you want. I'm gonna go play my new roleplaying game: Hawx 2

Personally, I was fine with the minigames they used in FO3.
I guess from my standpoint, it kinda felt like I was really unlocking the door or hacking a computer.
But I don't think its that big of a deal.

I couldn't agree more!

If you play a role, the role should have something to specify it in the gameworld. Something that separates the players role from it (players role as in the players role in Doom for one example). There is no role if the role has no specifications.

Okay, let me put it this way, with a little sprucing up. Fallout 3 would have had it down packed. You had to have 25,50,75, and 100 to do the higher Lockpicking and Science minigames. But with each grade, it got much more difficult. While the old RPGs used random number generations and dice rolls and probabilities to decide your chance of success, I feel there was very little interaction involved beyond 'LOL MAKIN THE CHANCE OF WINNING THE DICE ROLL HIGHER'. While this doesnt make it a flaw in the games design, I dont see that as true roleplaying. A true RPG should be based around your own skill, because by extension you ARE your character, whether you choose to agree with me on that or not.

I like the lockpicking and hacking idea because it adds to the roleplay (I want to feel like I'm actually hacking it, not just "rolling a dice" and getting lucky). However, they need to be refined. I found those two minigames implamented kinda of poorly in Fallout 3. The way I thought hacking should work went something like this:

You can hack any terminal (easy, average, hard, etc) you want, but it will be easier the higher your skill. Each terminal has a minimum and maximum threshold based on its level (easy, average, etc). An easy terminal may only have a max of 20 passwords, and a minimum of 5. A very hard terminal might have a max of 100 passwords, and a min of 20. As your science skill gets higher the amount of passwords on the terminals lower until they reach the minimum threshold(which would only be at the max of that skill level). This way any player could attempt to hack a very hard terminal, but 4 chances with 100 different passwords isn't going to be easy even if you back out before your last try.

As for lockingpicking I'm not sure how else it could be done, but I would rather it be in third person (or first person as an option) and show the lock picking mini game in the bottom left/right hand corner. Then you not only get to pick the lock, but you also see your character moving, and the people interacting around you.

meh I just think it′s better to help the player become more adaptable and learn different roles, sharpen your mind a bit. Then take the lazy route and let the game do all the roles for ya.

Are you seriously saying Saints Row is an RPG? Seriously?

I don't understand.
The beginning of the thread talked about minigames
and now I'm reading about a definition of RPG debate......again.
Could we agree to disagree?

technically any game that puts you into the role of a character is an RPG :laugh:

@Parago- Because Fallout is divided my flexible people and RPG elitists :bonk:

Wait, I thought this thread was about minigames, not roles in RPGs. And I thought the role in RPG was talking about the character's role like fighter, mage, ranger, and what have you.

That's bogus to me. If you are playing a roke, you should be playing a role - not yourself. The character you picked can or can't do this or that.



Virtual LARPing is a different thing.



But hey guys, try to keep this about minigames and their specifics, not about what is roleplaying (even tough it is interesting to debate about what is and isn't roleplaying)...

Okay, so....you're not doing things you would do with that character if you were them? You're just throwing dice on a table saying 'Hmmm, if it lands on a 4, he'll go through this door'?

Edit:

>Virtual

>LARPing

WAT

so why can′t yourself be that role? I don′t know about you but I want to play the game, not watch the game play itself.

Not IMO, I'm not the character, the character is the character.
If the character knows how to pick the lock then why should I have to pick it for him?

UnDeCafIndeed ok.

Ahhhh... Originally all role playing meant was; To create an alternate Avatar, a dual persona if you will, then pick his proficiencies and even weaknesses. Then roll to see how good you are at said skills. The key here is that you create everything. With the rise of the JRPG, roles were given to you and were more story driven, like an interactive movie. While most WRPGs focused on the D&D style "Creating your own unique character/build/class". Still today the most authentic and definitive RPGs are pen and paper affairs.

So if a game just "puts" you into a role of someone/something, then no, its not the original definition of an RPG. :wink_smile: